2. The Future Lies with the Present — Knowing Christ (3:7-11)

2. The Future Lies with the Present — Knowing Christ (3:7-11)

2. The Future Lies with the Present — Knowing Christ (3:7-11)

7But¹ whatever was to my profit I now consider loss for the sake of Christ. 8What is more, I consider everything a loss compared to the surpassing greatness of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things. I consider them rubbish, that I may gain Christ 9 and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ — the righteousness that comes from God and is by faith, 10I want to know Christ and the power of his resurrection and the² fellowship of sharing in his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, 11wand so, somehow, to attain to the resurrection from the dead.

With engaging rhetoric,³ Paul now revises the balance sheet, reversing "gain" and "loss" in light of his experience of Christ. He begins with a simple sentence of renunciation, echoing earlier language in the letter⁴ and setting up the word plays that follow. "What things were gains to me," he affirms, "these things I have come to consider loss because of Christ Jesus my Lord." The rest of the paragraph is a single sentence, which begins by spelling out the "gain/loss" metaphor in light of "Christ," and concludes by explaining what it means for him to "gain Christ." The best way to see what is going on is by means of a structural display, again "translating" the Greek very literally (and picking up with the end of v. 6):⁵

The renunciation in v. 7 sets forth the leading themes of the whole — the "gain-loss" metaphor and its reason, "because of Christ." The elaborating sentence that follows is basically in four parts:

(1) The opening clause (8a) serves as the "theme sentence" for the rest of the sentence-turned-paragraph; it basically repeats v. 7b, with "because of Christ" now taking the form of "knowing Christ Jesus my Lord."

(2) This is repeated again in v. 8b in the form of relative clause, which now begins with "because of whom" and then repeats for the final time the motif of "the loss of all [former] things," punctuating with an earthy exclamation point, "refuse." That much goes easily enough, as far as grammar is concerned; but not so with the final two clauses, toward which these opening affirmations are pointed.

(3) The first goal of the "loss because of Christ" theme is expressed in a twin purpose clause, "in order that I might gain Christ (8c), that is, be found in him" (9), which is then elaborated by taking up the theme of "righteousness" and "Law" from v. 6b and setting it in contrast to the righteousness that God has provided through Christ; the "when" of this clause is less certain, but most likely looks to the future, while presupposing the present. With that the themes of "righteousness" and "Law" disappear altogether.

(4) The final purpose clause (vv. 10-11), whose grammar is also uncertain, is best understood as modifying vv. 8c-9; it thus concludes the sentence by returning to the theme of "knowing Christ" in v. 8b, putting that into the larger context of the letter by stressing the themes of suffering and future resurrection, set forth in a chiasmus (Α Β Β' A')·

In getting to the ultimate goal expressed in vv. 10-11, the narrative moves in a kind of circular fashion, anticipating later themes while echoing and repeating present themes. Thus, the themes of "righteousness" and "Law" (a), which on the basis of vv. 2-3 and 4-6 would seem to be the main point, appear only in v. 9, as a kind of "framing" motif around the newly expressed theme of "loss" and "gain" (b) found in vv. 7-8, which is repeated in several forms before Paul lets go of it. Meanwhile, the theme of "knowing Christ" (d) is mentioned in the middle of the "loss/gain" word play (v. 8a), to be picked up again as the main point in the final clause (vv. 10-11). But knowing Christ is a two-sided reality, including both suffering and resurrection. Hence Paul expresses present suffering as "being conformed (summorphizomenos) to his death," which word he then picks up at the end (v. 21) to describe what happens to "the bodies of our present humiliation" when they are raised; they will "be conformed (summorphon) to the body of his present glory."

But in all of this the central theme is Christ (c), who is the heart of everything from beginning to end: former advantages are now considered "loss" because of "gaining" Christ; indeed, they are "street refuse" in comparison with the "surpassing worth of knowing Christ," through whom true righteousness, righteousness from God, has now been made available; and this so that Paul might "know" Christ by participating in Christ's suffering in the present through the power of his resurrection, which includes "being conformed to Christ's death" while awaiting "being conformed to his glorified body" at the resurrection (v. 21).

Two further observations. First, this analysis suggests that v. 9, which emphasizes what it means "to be found in him" positionally, serves primarily as the ground for vv. 10-11: the aim of everything is "to know Christ" relationally, both the (present) power of his resurrection (A) and the fellowship of his sufferings (B), "being conformed to his death" (B') so as to realize the future dimension of the former ("attaining the resurrection from the dead" A')· Since "pressing on to attain" the latter is the theme picked up in the rest of the narrative (vv. 12-14) as well as in the application that follows (vv. 15-21), and since the theme of "righteousness" appears early on only to disappear as the narrative unfolds, it seems highly likely that the latter theme ("righteousness") exists primarily for the sake of theme of "knowing Christ." This is not to downplay either the warning of v. 2 or the contrasts and theological affirmations of vv. 4-6 and 7-9; but it is to suggest that the emphasis in vv. l-4a is precisely where we suggested them to be — on the Philippians' "continually rejoicing in the Lord" because their common experience (with Paul) of Christ and the Spirit has removed them forever from Torah observance. Indeed, the righteousness they have already received in Christ serves as the theological ground for their "knowing Christ" in the way they are now experiencing, even if it involves suffering.

Second, even though the content differs considerably, both the linguistic echoes and the general "form" of the narrative seem intentionally designed to recall the Christ narrative in 2:6-11.⁶ While Christ did not consider God-likeness to accrue to his own advantage, but "made himself nothing," so Paul now considers his former "gain" as "loss" for the surpassing worth of knowing Christ. As Christ was "found" in "human likeness," Paul is now "found in Christ," knowing whom means to be "conformed" (echoing the morphē of a slave, 2:7) to his death (2:8). Finally, as Christ's humiliation was followed by God's "glorious" vindication of him, so present "suffering" for Christ's sake will be followed by "glory" in the form of resurrection. As he has appealed to the Philippians to do, Paul thus exemplifies Christ's "mindset," embracing suffering and death. This is what it means "to know Christ," to be "found in him" by means of his gift of righteousness; and as he was raised and exalted to the highest place, so Paul and the Philippian believers, because they are now "conformed to Christ" in his death, will also be "conformed" to his glory.

This is one of the truly "surpassing" moments in the Pauline corpus; it would be a tragedy if its splendor were lost in analysis. Finally, therefore, one should go back and read it again and again, until what one learns in the analysis is absorbed in praise and worship over the "surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus our Lord." The future does not lie in the past, but in the future, and it is guaranteed precisely because it has already come present through Christ's death, to which we are presently being conformed, and his resurrection, whose power we know now and will realize fully at our resurrection.

7   With striking asyndeton,⁷ but no less bold contrast, Paul renounces his former advantages, those "gifts" and "achievements" which qualify him above others to have "confidence in the flesh." "Because of⁸ Christ," Paul declares, "whatever things⁹ were gains for me, these very things I have come to consider loss." But this is said with flair. "Whatever things" and its accompanying demonstrative, "these things," occupy the emphatic first position in their respective clauses, while the contrasting "gain" and "loss" occupy the emphatic final position. Thus:

Whatever things           were for me                                 gains,

These very things          I consider    because of Christ      loss

What is being renounced in particular, as v. 9 makes clear, is his "blameless-ness as to the righteousness in the law." Still in view is the warning against succumbing to Jewish identity symbols, which now are shown by way of personal example to be quite unrelated to righteousness.

The renunciation is expressed in the language of the marketplace, "gains" ("profit," NIV) and "loss." As v. 8c indicates, the word "gains"¹⁰ harks back to 1:21, where "to die is gain" refers to "gaining Christ" through death.¹¹ The present usage is a clear play on the metaphor. Paul's former "profits" are now collectively a "loss"¹² because of his ultimate "gain," Christ himself. While he cannot renounce — nor does he wish to¹³ — what was given to him by birth (circumcision, being a member of Israel's race, of the tribe of Benjamin, born of true Hebrew stock), he does renounce them as grounds for boasting, along with his achievements that expressed his zeal for the Law. Hence the significance of his use of the verb, "I have come to consider¹⁴ them as loss," rather than a simple affirmation, "what things were gain are now loss," which would have been both imprecise and misleading.

8a-b    With an emphatic, "not only so, but what is more,"¹⁵ Paul sets out to explain the "how so" of the renunciation of v. 7. He begins with a "thesis sentence," which reiterates v. 7b in grand and expansive language: "I consider¹⁶ all things to be loss" — not just the advantages enumerated in vv. 5-6 — but all things, "because of the surpassing greatness of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord." This is a reprise on the theme struck in 1:21, "for to me to live is Christ." What "all things" entails is not immediately apparent; it includes the former "gains" of vv. 5-6, but it implies more (see n. 9). Everything that others might consider to have value in the present age — religious advantages, status, material benefits, honor, comforts¹⁷ — these appear to him as nothing at all, as total "loss," in comparison with Christ.

But in this case, it is not simply "because of Christ" that he considers all things as loss, but "because of¹⁸ the surpassing greatness¹⁹ of knowing²⁰ Christ Jesus my Lord." This piling up of genitives has as its ultimate goal "knowing Christ Jesus my Lord," which so far surpasses all other things in value that their net worth is zero; they are a total loss. As v. 10 will clarify, "knowing Christ" does not mean to have head knowledge about him, but to "know him" personally (BAGD) and relationally. Paul has thus taken up the Old Testament theme of "knowing God"²¹ and applied it to Christ. It means to know him as children and parent know each other, or wives and husbands — knowledge that has to do with personal experience and intimate relationship. It is such knowledge that makes Christ "trust-worthy." The intimacy will be expressed in v. 10 in terms of "participation in his sufferings." In the light of such expansive language, therefore, the object of his "knowing" is not simply "Christ," nor even "Christ Jesus," but "Christ Jesus my Lord."

Here is the evidence of intimacy and devotion. Paul regularly refers to Christ with the full title and name, "our Lord, Jesus Christ"; only here does he reverse the order and substitute the first person singular pronoun. The "Christ Jesus," because of whom he gladly considers all else to be loss, is none other than "my Lord." The reason for such devotion and longing is not expressed here, but it rings forth clearly in Gal 2:20, "who loved me and gave himself for me." This is not simply coming to know the deity — it is that, of course — but even more so, it is to know the one whose love for Paul, expressed in the cross and in his arrest on the Damascus road, has transformed the former persecutor of the church into Christ's "love slave," whose lifelong ambition is to "know him" in return, and to love him by loving his people. There is something unfortunate about a cerebral Christianity that "knows" but does not "know" in this way.

One more time, like a composer giving his theme yet another variation, Paul repeats: "because of whom²² I have lost all things and consider them rubbish." The first element in these two clauses is straight repetition, with the verb "suffer loss" now replacing the noun. But the second element catches us by surprise, expressing as it does the depth of feeling Paul had for those who would "advantage" his Gentile converts with what is so utterly worthless. The word translated "rubbish"²³ is well attested as a vulgarity, referring to excrement (hence "dung" in the KJV); on the other hand, it is also well attested to denote "refuse," especially of the kind that was thrown out for the dogs to forage through.²⁴ Although it could possibly mean "dung" here²⁵ more likely Paul is taking a parting shot at the "dogs" in v. 2,²⁶ especially since he uses language very much like this in 1 Cor 4:13 to refer to all that is off-scouring and refuse.²⁷ A translation like "filth" (NJB) perhaps captures both the ambiguity and vulgarity. In either case, it is hard to imagine a more pejorative epithet than this one now hurled at what the Judaizers would promote as advantages. Paul sees them strictly as disadvantages, as total loss, indeed as "foul-smelling street garbage" fit only for "dogs."

8c-9 Paul expresses the goal of his "revising the balance sheet" with two verbs: "in order that I may gain Christ, that is,²⁸ be found in him." The first verb completes the metaphor — by turning v. 7 on its head: What was gain is now considered loss because of true gain, Christ himself. Paul now implies that the gaining of Christ requires the loss of all former things, because to be rich in Christ means to be rich in him alone, not in him plus in other gains. For Paul it is a theological truism that grace and self-confidence are in radical antithesis; grace plus anything cancels out grace. On the other hand, despite Paul's way of putting it, which has been determined by the context, neither is there any sense of calculation, as though he were setting about in a crass way to "gain" eternal life and eventually settled on Christ as the means to that goal. In Paul's case, the "gain" came first, and came in such a way that the rest fell away as utter "refuse" in comparison.²⁹

The second verb ("be found"), along with its participial modifier ("not having a righteousness of my own"), elaborates what it means to "gain Christ," contrasting his new experience of "righteousness" with that noted in v. 6, which is now "loss" and "street filth." But how we are to understand this little "meteorite from Romans" is not as easy as describing it.

First, when does Paul expect this "gaining" and "being found" to take place? The answer lies with Paul's "already but not yet" eschatological perspective (cf. vv. 10-11 that follow), which determines his existence in Christ and serves as the basic framework for all of this theological thinking.³⁰ On the one hand, the first point of reference is almost certainly future, looking to the "day of Christ" mentioned in 1:6, 10 and 2:16. Such an understanding fits the future orientation both of the immediate context (vv. 11-14) and of the letter as a whole (see on 1:6).³¹ On the other hand, the modifying participial clause ("having righteousness") is oriented toward the present, as is the final purpose clause (vv. 10-11), which is grammatically dependent on the present clause.

Thus, in keeping with the urgency of this passage, with its concluding emphasis on the "not yet realized" future toward which he — and hopefully they with him — are striving, Paul uses his own story as the paradigm for looking to the future on the basis of the "presence of the future" found in the righteousness that Christ has provided. He expects to "gain Christ and be found³² in him" on the day of Christ, precisely because this is already his experience of Christ.

Second, where Paul is now "found" — and expects to be at the end — is "in Christ."³³ He now lives in fellowship with Christ, who is both the source of this new life and the sphere in which it is lived. Having put his trust "in Christ Jesus" (v. 3), Paul is thus "found in Christ," who has given him a righteousness that turns blameless Torah observance into "street garbage."

The participial construction which elaborates this point is a piece of art. It is first expressed in a typical "not/but" contrast, the "not" referring back to Paul's faultless "Torah observant righteousness" in v. 6, the "but" offering the new expression of righteousness, "through faith in Christ Jesus." Together they form a three-part phrase:

I. a not having my own righteousness b that comes from the law, c but that which is through faith in Christ

which is then repeated in an appositional phrase with the same three parts, the first two "lines" now reflecting the counterpoints to the former phrase:³⁴ That much is easy; some of the parts are less so: especially (a) the nuance of "righteousness";³⁵ (b) the contrasts "from law/from God"; and (c) the phrase "through faith in Christ."

II. a      the righteousness

        b       that comes from God,

          c       which is based on faith.

About "righteousness" Paul makes four affirmations: to gain Christ means (1) to be done with "my own righteousness" which (2) is ek nomou (from/predicated on law); this new righteousness (3) is "the from God (ek theou) righteousness," which (4) is Paul's "through faith in Christ." The difficulty stems from the first phrase, "not having my own righteousness based on law," which picks up on v. 6, where "righteousness" denotes "upright behavior"; yet in the rest of the present sentence "righteousness" seems to refer to one's relationship with God.³⁶

The key lies in the context, especially in vv. 3-4, where in contrast to those who insist on Gentile circumcision Paul asserts that those of the true circumcision "boast in Christ Jesus and put no confidence in the flesh." Thus, despite the way the clause begins, Paul's stress is not primarily on "right living" — that will come next — but on the predicate of such living.³⁷ At issue, one must remember, is the circumcision of Gentile believers. But in this argument Paul has theologically transmuted circumcision from an ethnic-religious identity symbol, whereby in obedience to Torah Gentiles become full members of the covenantal people of God, into a means to and an expression of "righteousness."³⁸ However, it is a thoroughly useless expression of righteousness — indeed, "foul-smelling street garbage" — and therefore no means to righteousness at all, because it not only makes an end run around Christ Jesus but puts confidence in the symbol, mere flesh, rather than in the reality. Circumcision — and all other forms of Torah observance — means to "boast" in human achievement; and its "blamelessness" is expressed in ways that count for nothing at all. One is thus neither righteous in the sense of being rightly related to God nor righteous in the sense of living rightly as an expression of that relationship.

Thus Paul's concern for the Philippians. He warns them once more against the Judaizers who would forever try to make them "religious." There is no future in it, he tells them. But his greater concern is with their current behavior, in two directions: (1) that their love for one another will increase (1:9), as they learn in humility to consider the needs of others to be more important than their own (2:3-4) — just as Christ demonstrated by his death on the cross (2:5-8); and (2) that they learn to "rejoice in the Lord" even in the midst of their present suffering (2:17-18; cf. 3:1, 10-11), so that "conformed to Christ in his death" (v. 10b) they might also be "conformed to him" in his resurrection (v. 21).

To make these points he continues his personal story with this description of what it means to be "found in Christ"; it means to have a "righteousness" absolutely antithetical to that promoted by those who belong to the past, who think of relationship with God in terms of Torah observance.³⁹ Such "righteousness" is nothing more than "a righteousness of my own⁴⁰ that is eknomou (lit., 'from law')." Even though this phrase stands informal contrast to ek theou ("from God"), here it probably expresses not the "source" of the righteousness emphatically described as "of my own," in the sense of its "proceeding from the law," but Torah observance as the basis for it — as in vv. 3-6. Hence the NAB, "based on observance of the law."⁴¹

In contrast to that, Paul has now experienced righteousness of a radically different kind, a new relationship with God that has come ek theou — "from God." This, of course, is what the Judaizers also believe about their righteousness. But Paul sees through such covenantal identity symbols: the Judaizers have trivialized righteousness by making one's relationship with God rest ultimately on observance, on the performance of religious trivia; the latter have nothing at all to do with a "right" relationship with the "righteous" God, as that is further demonstrated in "right living" of a kind that reflects his character.

Paul's primary concern in this sentence, however, is with "righteousness" as reflecting one's (right) relationship with God. Such a relationship is "through⁴² faith in Christ," a phrase that is shorthand for "by grace through faith,"⁴³ where Christ's death is the way God has graciously expressed his love in our behalf, which is realized by those who fully trust him to have so loved and accepted them — warts and all. Or at least that seems most likely Paul's point, despite a growing number of interpreters who think this phrase means "through Christ's [own] faith[fulness]," thus referring to what Christ has done for us on the cross in faithful obedience to God.⁴⁴

While there is a certain theological attractiveness to this option — particularly since it would then refer back to the narrative in 2:6-8 — it seems unlikely that Paul intended such here, for a number of contextual reasons, quite beyond those of usage already noted (n. 44): (a) It is altogether unlikely that in the second occurrence of "faith" in this sentence,⁴⁵ Paul intends "based

on Christ's faithfulness."⁴⁶ As noted, this second clause basically repeats the first, in slightly different language, so as to reinforce its point; and there is simply no analogy for "based on faith" to refer to Christ's activity, rather than ours, (b) In the present sentence Paul's emphasis is between "my own righteousness" and that which is "through faith," which makes more sense as referring to Paul's faith rather than to Christ's faithful obedience, (c) In the letter to this point, Paul has expressed concern about the Philippians' "faith" in the context of suffering. They have "not only believed in Christ, but have been graced with suffering" (1:29), and their suffering, expressed in the sacrificial metaphor of sacrifice, is the result of their "faith" (2:17). Since the present passage reflects a similar context (vv. 10-11), it seems likely that the "faith" that leads to righteousness also leads to "the participation in Christ's sufferings" in the next clause.

Thus, as usual in Paul, the contrast is between "works" and "faith," not so much referring to forensic "justification"⁴⁷ — there is no hint here (including vv. 3-6) of a juridical setting, and therefore of God's "justification" of those who have "broken the law" — but referring to the means to and expression of one's relationship with God. Such righteousness comes "from God," he insists, in contrast to being "my own" predicated on the law. And it has been made available through Christ, in whom Paul is now "found" and in whom he "boasts," hence it is "through faith in Christ."

10-11 Returning to the theme of "knowing Christ Jesus my Lord," Paul concludes this long sentence (from v. 8) with a final purpose clause, now offering the primary reason for the rehearsal of his story. In keeping with Paul's OT roots, "knowing Christ" is the ultimate goal of being in right relationship with God; and "knowing Christ" is both "already" and "not yet."⁴⁸ Because of the righteousness Christ has effected for his people, we know him now, both the power of his resurrection and participation in his sufferings; but the ultimate "prize," to have present knowledge of him fully realized, awaits resurrection. This, then, is the decisive word over against those who would bring the Philippians under the old covenant. Obedience under that covenant could issue in blameless Torah observance, but it lacked the necessary power — the gift of the eschatological Spirit (v. 3) who alone brings life (2 Cor 3:6) — to enable God's people truly to know him and thus bear his likeness (being "conformed to Christ's death," that is, living a cruciform existence — which is true "righteousness" in the "right living" sense).

Before looking at the parts, some grammatical and structural matters need resolution. First, the precise relationship of this clause to vv. 8-9 is not certain. It is possibly coordinate with the preceding clause ("that I may gain Christ and be found in him"),⁴⁹ in which case Paul is offering a twofold reason for "suffering the loss of all things and considering them street garbage": first, that he might gain Christ and be found in him, having the new righteousness provided by Christ; second, that he might know him, including the power of his resurrection and participation in his sufferings. Far more likely, however, in light of the grammar, the first clause presents the penultimate purpose and thus the ground for the ultimate purpose of "knowing Christ."⁵⁰ The latter, of course, cannot exist without the former; but in terms of the goal of life in Christ, everything points toward our present and future knowing of Christ. Thus:

in order that

I might gain Christ

and

be found in him

having the righteousness that is from God based on faith in Christ

so that

I may know him etc.

Second, one cannot be certain how "the power of his resurrection and participation in his sufferings" are related to the verb "know" and its object "him." It is possible, as the NIV, to see a threefold object — him, the power of his resurrection, participation in his sufferings — the latter two coordinated with the first by the double kai ("and").⁵¹ But more likely Paul intends the first kai to be epexegetic, so that the phrases explain, or give content to, what "knowing Christ" means.⁵² Thus:

either:    so that I may know him,

both the      power of his resurrection

and             participation in his sufferings

or:      so that I may know him,

that is, the power of his resurrection

and

participation in his sufferings⁵³

This option is preferable since it coordinates the elements that are truly coordinate and makes better sense of how these two items from elsewhere in the letter function in the present narrative. Indeed, these are the surprising matters in this final clause, since we are so poorly prepared for them here; but in light of the whole letter, they are scarcely surprising, since concern for the Philippians' remaining steadfast (with a keen eye to the future) in the midst of present suffering is a primary reason for the letter.⁵⁴ Moreover, the emphasis on the future is what gets the larger billing in what follows.

Third, as pointed out in the structural analysis (p. 313), the four modifiers of the verb are expressed in perfect chiasm, emphasizing in turn Christ's resurrection and sufferings and how Paul participates in both of them. Thus:

so that I may know him

A            both the power of his resurrection

Β             and participation in his sufferings

B'             being conformed to his death

A'             if somehow I might attain the resurrection from the dead

The forcefulness of this structure lies in lines A-A', as they surround the Β lines. In turn they point (1) to Christ's resurrection (line A) — as the means whereby Paul is enabled to endure suffering (line B); and (2) to Paul's resurrection as the eschatological issue of such suffering (A') — as the latter is a portrayal of the Crucified One (B').

On the meaning and significance of "knowing Christ" see on v. 8. We repeat here only that it implies intimate relationship. However, "knowing intimately" is not a form of mysticism, as the concrete appositional phrases that follow make clear.⁵⁵ The "intimacy" comes in the Β lines, where Paul sees present suffering as a participation in Christ's suffering, as Paul's way of being conformed into Christ's likeness, whose "obedience unto death, even death on a cross" (2:8) is the ultimate paradigm of all Christian life.

As to the four lines:

(A) To know Christ now means first of all to know "the power of his resurrection," that is, the power that comes to believers on the basis of Christ's resurrection. Along with the gift of the eschatological Spirit, it was the resurrection of Christ that radically altered Paul's (and the early church's) understanding of present existence — as both "already" and "not yet." In Jewish eschatological expectations these two events, above all, would mark the beginning of God's final wrapup. Very early on the church recognized that the Resurrection (Christ's) had already set the future in motion. Paul in particular saw the implications of this reality, which are spelled out in some detail in 1 Corinthians 15. The resurrection of Jesus, he argues there, makes our future resurrection both necessary and inevitable: necessary, because even though death has been de-fanged as it were, it still remains as God's and our final enemy, but it will cease to be with our resurrection; and inevitable, because Christ's resurrection set something in motion as "first-fruits" that guarantees the final harvest. Precisely because of the latter (Christ's resurrection as guaranteeing ours), Paul understands the life of the future to be already at work in the present.

The reason for starting his explanation of "knowing Christ" with this word is twofold, and related to the ultimate concerns of the rest of the present appeal. First, the primary focus in what follows lies on the future, hence the connection between the two A lines: the power inherent in Christ's resurrection guarantees our own resurrection.⁵⁶ Second, and more apropos to Paul's immediate concern, present suffering, and especially Paul's urging the Philippians to "rejoice in the Lord" in the context of suffering (2:17-18), makes sense only in light of the resurrection of Christ.⁵⁷ Without the power inherent in Christ's resurrection, present suffering (even for Christ's sake) is meaningless.

That alone explains the unusual language of this phrase, "the power of his resurrection." Nowhere else does Paul speak of Christ's resurrection in quite this way, of its inherent power, which by implication is made available to those who are his.⁵⁸ Indeed, when speaking elsewhere of the "power" available to believers in the present age, he associates power with either God or the Spirit.⁵⁹ But here "knowing Christ" first of all means knowing "the power of his resurrection" because the present subject matter is "knowing Christ," and the empowering dimension of knowing him is reflected in his resurrection. Thus Paul has come to know, and continues to desire to know, the power of Christ's resurrection at work in his present mortal body. As he puts it in the similar passage in 2 Cor 4:7-17, in these present "jars of clay" we "are always being given over to death for Jesus' sake so that his life might be revealed in our mortal body" (2 Cor 4:11).

On the other hand, we know enough about Pauline theology from what he says elsewhere to add that his experience of the Spirit is the way the power of the resurrection is available to him — and them. After all, this personal narrative begins with the assertion that must be understood to be presupposi-tional throughout: that in contrast to the backward-looking Judaizers, Paul and the Philippians presently live the life of the future by the power of the (eschatological) Spirit of God (v. 3).

A final theological word is needed regarding the inherent tension created by this line in light of the second one, and the frequent ambivalence one finds in the church toward these two clauses, so that it often becomes a matter of either/or rather than of Paul's both/and. The power of Christ's resurrection is neither the only way of knowing Christ in the present nor a way of knowing him independently from participation in his sufferings. In Paul's sentence the two go together hand-in-glove. Thus, there is not a moment of triumphalism in this first phrase; but neither does Paul emphasize suffering in such a way as to diminish the power of Christ's resurrection as genuinely present for us. Paul knows nothing of the rather gloomy stoicism that is so often exhibited in historic Christianity, where the lot of the believer is basically that of "slugging it out in the trenches," with little or no sense of Christ's presence and power. On the contrary, the power of Christ's resurrection was the greater reality for him. So certain was Paul that it had happened — after all, he had been accosted and claimed by the Risen Lord on the Damascus Road — and that Christ's resurrection guaranteed his own, that he could throw himself into the present with a kind of holy abandon, full of rejoicing and thanksgiving; and that not because he enjoyed suffering, but because Christ's resurrection had given him a unique perspective on present suffering (spelled out in the next two lines) as well as an empowering presence whereby the suffering was transformed into intimate fellowship with Christ himself.

(B) With the phrase, "and participation in his sufferings,"⁶⁰ Paul gives perspective both to the present warning (v. 2) and to his, and therefore especially to the Philippians', present circumstances. What began as yet another warning against the Judaizers (v. 2) evolved into his own personal story in which he has made clear to them that there is no future in going backward. He has been that route and has gladly suffered the loss of it all — and everything else — for the surpassing worth of knowing Christ, because, as he has said repeatedly and will say again, this alone has future to it. But the way forward lies with the "road less traveled," through the present with its suffering for the sake of Christ, not through the past with its safe, religious conformity. Although more speculative, all of this makes a great deal of sense if the possible attraction to Torah observance for the Philippians might lie in its being a way of avoiding suffering, while maintaining faith in Christ.⁶¹ But Paul will have none of that, precisely because from his perspective any genuine knowing of Christ means participation in his sufferings, since only in such sufferings does one truly know Christ — as 2:6-8 has made plain.

Here, then, we come to the heart of Paul's understanding both of his relationship with Christ and of the nature of existence in the "already/not yet." He frequently refers to suffering on behalf of Christ as the ordinary lot of believers.⁶² With the present phrase we get some theological insight into such an understanding. First, as was made plain in the Christ narrative (2:6-11), Christ's resurrection and present exaltation is the direct result of his having suffered for us to the point of death on a cross; by analogy, therefore, the only way for his followers to experience resurrection is through the same path of suffering. Second, and more importantly, the language "participation in his sufferings" gives the theological clue to everything. While believers' sufferings do not have the expiatory significance of Christ's, they are nonetheless seen as intimately related to his. Through our suffering the significance of Christ's suffering is manifested to the world,⁶³ which is why in 1:29-30 Paul describes such suffering as "on behalf of Christ."⁶⁴ This also further explains the reason for the sacrificial metaphor in 2:17-18 that follows hard on the heels of their "holding firm the message of life in the world," including "the world" that stands in opposition to them: Paul's suffering is the drink offering poured out in conjunction with their "sacrifice" and service resulting from their faith. As noted above on v. 8, it is difficult to imagine that Paul is not here reflecting the teaching of his Lord, that those who follow Christ will likewise have to "bear the cross" on behalf of others.

Hence, "knowing Christ" for Paul involves "participation in his sufferings" -— and is a cause for constant joy, not because suffering is enjoyable, but because it is certain evidence of his intimate relationship with his Lord. Now at last the opening imperative, "rejoice in the Lord," which reiterates the same imperative in 2:18 in the context of suffering, begins to fall into place. The grounds for joy in the Lord come from "knowing him," as one participates in his sufferings, while awaiting our glorious future.

(B') With this participial phrase ("becoming like him in his death") and its companion clause that follows (v. 11), Paul now responds to the twofold way he desires to know Christ. Although grammatically dependent on the verb "to know," the participle first of all amplifies "participation in his sufferings," indicating the character of that participation,⁶⁵ while at the same time it probably reaches beyond that to the whole of present life in Christ, which is to be marked by the death of Christ above all else. Several matters of significance converge here:

First, the combination "being conformed" (summorphizomenos) and "death" recall the Christ narrative in 2:6-11, offering the strongest kind of linguistic ties between Paul's story and the story of Christ. In pouring himself out by taking on human likeness, Christ, who is in the "form" (morphē) of God, also took on the morphē of a slave; and "being found" in human likeness, he humbled himself to death on a cross. Now Paul — and by implication the Philippians should as well — sees his and their sufferings in Christ's behalf as God's way of "conforming" them into the likeness of Christ, which was quite the point of the prior narrative in the first place. Thus Christ's sufferings do not refer to "sufferings in general," but to those sufferings that culminated in his death, all of which was for the sake of others. Likewise, it is not just any kind of present suffering to which Paul refers in the preceding phrase, but to those which in particular express participation in Christ's sufferings; and the aim, as well as the character, of such suffering is to "become like him in his death," which almost certainly means suffering that is in some way on behalf of the gospel, thus for the sake of others, since no other suffering is in conformity to his.⁶⁶

Second, and at the same time, this expression, which focuses simultaneously on Christ's death and Paul's being "conformed" to it, probably includes more than the suffering in line B. That is, since "participation in his sufferings" (B) is not an end in itself, but embraces Paul's life as lived in behalf of the gospel, so also "being conformed to his death" (B') very likely includes the whole of his life, including suffering, as that which marks, or characterizes, life in Christ. Thus it reaches back at least to 2:5-11, where "obedience unto death" is what ultimately marks the life of him who thereby manifests what "being equal with God" was all about. Since that passage was primarily paradigmatic, so here "being conformed to his death" means for those who "know" Christ to live in such a way that their lives bear that same likeness. Thus they are continually in process of "being conformed to his death."⁶⁷

Third, since "resurrection" and "sufferings" are not naturally antithetical, this phrase thus serves as the transition between Paul's knowing the power of Christ's resurrection (A) in the context of participating in his sufferings (B) and his own future resurrection (A') noted in v. 11. Resurrection applies only to those who have first experienced "death." Christian life is cruciform in charac-ter; God's people, even as they live presently through the power made available through Christ's resurrection, are as their Lord forever marked by the cross. The heavenly Lion, one must never forget, is a slain Lamb (Rev 5:5-6).

Fourth, this participle is picked up again in its adjectival form in v. 21, indicating once more the closest possible ties between death and resurrection and especially the close relationship between our present suffering (by which we are being "conformed" into the likeness of his death) and our future resurrection (in which our present bodies "of humiliation" will be "conformed" into the likeness of his present resurrected, and therefore "glorified," body).

Together these phenomena demonstrate not only that chapter 3 is an integral part of this letter in its present form, but also that with this clause (vv. 10-11) Paul has now brought the narrative to the point it has been heading all along. The rest of our chapter 3 is a spelling out and application of what is said here.

(A') Finally, Paul moves from "knowing Christ" in the present to its full realization in the future. The point of this final clause is easy enough: Conformity to Christ's death in the present, which is possible for Paul because he also "knows the power of Christ's resurrection" in the present, will be followed by his own "resurrection from among the dead"⁶⁸ at the end. But how he says it is especially puzzling, particularly since the next paragraph (vv. 12-14), which concludes his story, and which has some equally puzzling moments, is an elaboration of this clause. The puzzles are two, but belong together: why he should begin the sentence with "if somehow," which might seem to imply doubt;⁶⁹ and why he should refer to his own resurrection as "attaining unto"⁷⁰ the "resurrection from among the dead."

The answer seems to be twofold and interrelated. First, this hesitation is not to be understood as lack of confidence about his own — or their — future; rather, it emphasizes that the resurrection of believers is intimately tied to their first "being conformed to his death."⁷¹ Without "death" of this kind, there is no resurrection.⁷² Thus, in keeping with the soaring certainties of Rom 8:l-17a, where Paul qualifies our being heirs to future glory with the proviso "that we also suffer with him," so here, Paul's certain future resurrection (when viewed "from above") has the similar proviso (when viewed "from below"), expressed in this case by the "if somehow." As Luke has reported Paul and Barnabas to have "encouraged" (!) the believers in Asia Minor, here is Paul's way of saying, "we must go through many hardships to enter the kingdom of God" (Acts 14:22). But his future itself is not in doubt —- everything in Paul, including vv. 12-21 that follow, refutes such a notion; what is uncertain for him is whether his certain future is to be realized by resurrection or by transformation (as implied in vv. 20-21). This matter is in God's hands, to which Paul gladly submits by his use of this language.⁷³

Second, this is his way of moving toward the concern that they "stand firm" in the present (4:1 ; cf. 1:27), and, above all, not lose their clear focus on, and keen anticipation of, their certain future in Christ. Hence this last clause exists primarily as the direct lead-in to the final section of the narrative (vv. 12-14) and its final application (3:15—4:1). In whatever way the future is realized — through resurrection or transformation at the Parousia (as in vv. 20-21) — the present involves knowing the power of his resurrection as key to participating in Christ's sufferings. But the final, complete knowing of Christ is "not yet"; neither he nor they have attained to it. Nonetheless, such a future prize is the one certain reality of present existence and is thus worth bending every effort in order to realize. Thus, the "perhaps" is partly for their sakes, to encourage them to join with him in pursuing the prize that has not yet been attained.

As suggested earlier, this text in particular — because it is so popular and thus so easy to read apart from its context — needs careful detailed analysis; but when the analysis is over, one should return to the text and read it again and again. Here is quintessential Paul, and a quintessential expression of the NT view of Christian life. Such life means to be finished with one's religious past as having value before God or as a means of right relationship with God; it means to trust wholly in Christ as God's means to righteousness. But such "righteousness" has as its ultimate aim "the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus our Lord"; and "knowing Christ" means to experience the power of his resurrection now through the Spirit, as God's empowering presence for present "participation in his sufferings," as those sufferings are in "conformity with his death." The final two clauses put it all in perspective: to "know Christ" in the present means to be "conformed to his death," so that all of Christian life is stamped with the divine imprint of the cross as we live out the gospel in the present age, while we await the hope of resurrection.

As with 1:21 and 2:5-11, this selective personal history once again demonstrates how totally Christ-focused Paul is. For him Christian life is not simply a matter of "salvation" and "ethics"; it is ultimately a matter of knowing Christ. So too with resurrection; Paul's focus is not on "everlasting life" or anything else such. The goal of the resurrection, the "prize" for which Paul strains every effort in the present, is Christ himself.

If suffering and the temptation to become religious were causing the dimming of such vision for some in Philippi, in contemporary Western (and much of the rest of the world) culture the dimming is for different reasons, more often connected with values related to material gain. Paul's "vision" seems to have the better of it in every imaginable way; and a common return to "the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus our Lord" could go a long way toward renewing the church for its task in the post-modern world. Our lives must be cruciform if they are to count for anything at all; but that word is preceded by the equally important one — the power of his resurrection, which both enables us to live as those marked by the cross and guarantees our final glory.

¹. This άλλά is missing in much of the better early evidence (P46 P6 1 v i d N* A [F] G 33 81 1241s 1739* pc b d Lucifer Ambrosiaster); it is found in Β D Ψ Maj a f vg sy co. This is a tough call, evidenced by the brackets in NA26. Either addition or omission could be accounted for because of homoeoteleuton (both άλλά and the άτινα that follows begin and end with alpha). On the whole, the text without άλλά is more likely original (so Michaelis, Hawthorne; O'Brien is open): (a) the external evidence strongly favors this reading (B has here abandoned its Egyptian companions); (b) it is easily the more difficult reading, since the context cries out for such a contrastive particle, which was frequently supplied in the transmissional process; (c) the combination of άλλά and άλλά μενοϋνγε xαί that could have led to its omission, more likely was created by scribes who sensed the need of what Barth (96) calls "the great 'But'!" Even so, the scribes have correctly read the context, which implies such a contrast.

². The την found in the majority of witnesses is missing in Ρ4 6 N* A B 1241s 2464 pc (as is the των that precedes "sufferings" in Ρ4 6 N* B). The text without the article is almost certainly original, since it is difficult to conceive of the circumstances in which a scribe would have omitted it (them). This suggests that Paul understands the closest kind of relationship to exist between "the power of his resurrection" and "participation in his sufferings," since both are controlled by a single definite article.

³. Found in this case in a variety of literary devices, which are striking in effect, especially for a document written to be heard. It includes the asyndeton with which it begins; the studied parallelism of v. 7; chiasm (vv. 10-11); and repetitions of various kinds (ατινα-ταũτα-πάντα-τά πάντα; xέρδη-κερδήσω; ζημίαν-ζημίαν-έζημιώθην; ήγημαι-ήγοũμαι-ήγοũμαι; διά-διά-δΐ' δv; γνώσεως-γνώναι; δικαιοσύνην-διxαιοσύνην; πίστεως- πίστει; as well as the clauses in v. 9). Typically, Lohmeyer sees the passage as poetic, dividing it into six strophes; but he has found no followers.

⁴. The words κέρδη ("gain"), ήγοũμαχ ("consider"), and "Christ Jesus my Lord" echo earlier moments in the letter. For "gain" see on 1:21; for "consider" see n. 76 on 2:3.

⁵. The letters (a), (b), (c), and (d) isolate the several interwoven motifs, which have also been highlighted by capitalization, bold, italics, and capitalized italics. The (e) item ("being conformed") recurs in v. 21. The A B B' A' highlights the chiasm in vv. 10-11.

⁶. This has been frequently noted (e.g., Jones, Bonnard, Silva; Käsemann, "Analysis," 64; Pollard, "Integrity," 62-64; Hooker, "Interchange," 356; Wright, "άρπαγμός," 347), with varying degrees of emphasis as to its purposefulness in the letter.

⁷. On the textual question see n. 1. The effective nature of the asyndeton in this case lies in the expectation of a contrastive particle (supplied by the later scribes). Instead Paul gathers up all the preceding advantages in the relative ατινα (= "whatever things") and expresses the contrast with the commercial metaphor of (former) "gains" = (present) "loss."

⁸. Gk. διά, the first of three consecutive uses of this preposition, which with the accusative basically "indicates the reason why some[thing] happens, results, exists" (BAGD). Whereas in some cases a more prospective (final) sense seems probable (see Zerwick, Biblical Greek, 36; M. J. Harris, NIDNTT, 3.1183-84), there seems to be no compelling reason to think so here (= "for the sake of," NIV, GNB, NASB, RSV, Silva, O'Brien; "because of," NRSV. REB, JB, Hawthorne). Granted the purpose clause in v. 8c ("that [ίνα] I might gain Christ"), but that comes later in the sentence and does not seem to be Paul's point here. It is not "for the sake of gaining Christ" that he has "revised the balance sheet," but precisely because of Christ, who he is and what he has done, that such radical reorientation has taken place. See also nn. 18 and 22 below.

⁹. Gk. ατινα, the indefinite relative pronoun, which here minimally refers specifically to the catalogue in vv. 5-6; the indefinite is used, however, probably to enlarge the purview. Thus, it includes the "what things" of vv. 5-6, but it also includes "whatever [other] things" may be of the same kind.

¹⁰. Gk. κέρδη. The plural is probably intentional, suggesting that each of the items just enumerated belonged on the "credit" side of the ledger. The verb, which in 1 Cor 9:22 is a "missionary term" (= to "gain" converts; Schlier, TDNT, 3.673), occurs in v. 8c as a further expression of the commercial metaphor, which in turn attests that the phrase "to die is gain" in 1:21 almost certainly means "to gain Christ" through death, just as "to live means Christ" in every possible way.

¹¹. It seems also to echo the saying of Jesus recorded in Matt 16:24-26 (// Mark 8:34-36; Luke 9:23-25; so inter alia, Kennedy, Michael, Hendriksen, Collange, Silva), where "following Christ" means to "take up one's cross," and thus to "lose" one's life in order to "find" (εύρέσει) it; for what do people profit who "gain" (κερδήση) the whole world but "lose" (ζημιωθή) their souls.

¹². Gk. ζημίαν, only here in Paul; but the verb, which occurs in v. 8, and still carries on the commercial metaphor, appears with the more general sense of "utter loss" in 1 Cor 3:15. For a more thorough discussion see Stumpff, TDNT, 2.888-92; for illustrations of the commercial use of these two words, see M-M, 273.

¹³. As Rom 9:1-5 and 11:1-2 make clear.

¹⁴. Gk. ήγημαι (see above on 2:3, 6, 25), here purposefully expressed in the perfect tense (what he came to consider loss when he met Christ still holds true); see also n. 16.

¹⁵. Gk. άλλα μενοϋνγε xαί; a combination that occurs nowhere else in Greek literature. Cf. 1:18, where the ascensive άλλά xαί occurs. Thrall (Greek Particles, 11-16) argues that the present combination is an άλλά xαί, made more emphatic by the addition of μενοϋνγε. Hence, "not only so, but all the more I consider all things as loss." The xαί, which is omitted by Ρ⁴⁶™¹ N* 6 33 1739 1881 pc lat, is undoubtedly original; it was omitted precisely because of the strangeness of the combination.

¹⁶. Gk. ήγοũμαι (see n. 14), now in the present tense, expressing that what happened for him at conversion is how he still views things.

¹⁷. This listing is based on Paul's own words, both here and in passages like 1 Cor

4:8-13.

¹⁸. This is the second διά (see n. 8). for which Lightfoot (148) suggests, "by reason of," which Plummer takes to be equivalent to "in comparison with." But that meaning, adopted as early as Moffatt (cf. Goodspeed, NIV; affirmed as "undoubtedly right" by Michael, 145; cf. Caird), seems to be an invention, pure and simple, since examples are never forthcoming and the grammars and lexicons know nothing of it whatever. But whether, as in v. 7, it is prospective ("for the sake of") or retrospective ("because of") cannot be determined. I think the latter, since the passage seems to be retrospective up to the purpose clause (coming to know Christ serves as the basis, the reason, for his glad loss of all things), which he finally puts into a telic mode (indicating the purpose for which he has done so).

¹⁹. Gk. τò ύπερέχον; cf. 4:9 below (also 2:3, in the slightly different sense "to be better"). The verb means "to surpass, excel"; for this substantival use of the neuter participle the NIV follows the suggestion of BAGD ("the surpassing greatness"); but in context it is probably to be understood in light of the prevailing commercial metaphor, hence "surpassing worth" (RSV), "surpassing value" (NRSV; NASB); "overwhelming gain" (Phillips); contra "surpassing knowledge" EDNT, 3.398 (cf. NAB), on which see the next note.

²⁰. Gk. της γνώσεως, lit., "of the surpassing worth of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord." "Knowledge" here does not denote a quantifiable body of data about someone or something, but the act of "knowing" itself, as v. 10 makes clear. The genitive, therefore, is not appositional (as NAB. Beare, Loh-Nida, Hawthorne, O'Brien) but "objective," or in the language of Beekman and Callow (Translating, 257, 260) expressing the "content" of "surpassing worth." Thus, what has "value exceeding all other values by far" finds expression in "knowing" Christ.

²¹. Where "knowing God" has first of all to do with revelation; one knows God by observing the "ways of God" and thus his character that lies behind all his ways. God's concern for Israel over and again is that "you may know that I am YHWH" (Exod 10:2 et passim). But inherent in such "knowledge of God" was obedience, i.e., loyalty to him through behavior that conformed to his covenant love and faithfulness (righteousness). Hence the promise of the new covenant (Jer 31:34) was that with the law written on their hearts God's people would "know the Lord," since this is what he required more than sacrifices (Hos 6:6) and the failure of which led to judgment (Hos 4:1; where "knowledge of God" is in parallel with "faithfulness and love"). See the helpful overview by E. D. Schmitz, NIDNTT, 2.395-96, 399-401.

Since the OT so clearly influences Paul at every turn, and especially since this phrase occurs in the context of "righteousness" based on Torah observance, which he has gladly given up for the surpassing worth of "knowing Christ Jesus my Lord," it is remarkable that some scholars have looked to hellenistic (esp. "Gnostic") sources for the "background" to Paul's usage here (as, e.g., Beare, Bultmann, Schmithals, Koester). Even more tenuous is to mirror read this language as reflecting the position of "opponents" (Schmithals, Koester, Martin, Lincoln; see nn. 38 and 60 on vv. 2-3). Besides being a considerable anachronism in the use of this language, the protest must be registered once again (cf. Fee, First Corinthians, 11) that even in Corinth — and especially in this letter, where such terminology is misleading at best — what is essential to Gnosticism (their cosmological mythology; salvation by gnosis) is altogether missing. The apparent dualism in the various forms of "opposition" to Paul (in 1 and 2 Corinthians; Colossians; 1 Timothy) can be explained on other grounds.

²². This is the third διά (see nn. 8 and 18), and the one that could most easily yield the telic sense of the NIV, "for whose sake" (as most interpreters). The difficulty with that translation in this case is that it is seldom understood as prospective (i.e., "for the purpose of gaining Christ"), but in the sense of doing it with Christ's benefit in view — which meaning the preposition cannot sustain.

²³. Gk. σκύβαλα, only here in the NT; in the LXX only in Sir 27:4. Although Lang (TDNT, 7.445) dismisses it as popular etymology, its origins are very likely from a combination of "dogs" (xύσι = to dogs) and "cast" (βαλεΐν); cf. M-M, 579. Anyone who has seen — and smelled — this phenomenon in places lacking modern sanitation facilities can well understand the likelihood of such etymology. The alternative etymology is σκώρ, σκάτος ("dung, excrement"; so Lightfoot, et al.), but it is very difficult to account for the -βαλ in this view.

²⁴. Cf. Syb. Or. 7.58, where the combination occurs in an "oracle" against Thessaly ("you will be the mournful refuse of war, Ο one who falls to dogs," OTP)

²⁵. As M-M (579-80) would have it; cf. Kennedy, Hawthorne, Silva, O'Brien; Lang, TDNT, 7.445-47; Hays, Echoes, 122 ("crap"). For this usage see Jos. BJ 5.571 (lit. of cow dung) and the examples from the papyri in M-M.

²⁶. Cf. Michael, 147; Polhill, "Twin Obstacles," 364.

²⁷. On the meaning of these words, see Fee, First Corinthians, 180.

²⁸. Gk. xαί, which is most likely a form of hendiadys, where the second member spells out in greater detail what is meant by the first; cf. on 2:9 (n. 15) and on v. 10 below. So also Hawthorne; cf. Silva, O'Brien.

²⁹. Cf. Houlden (99): "It is not as if consideration of the defects of the Law has prompted Paul to cast about for alternatives." The analogy is with our oldest son the day (when he was six) a neighbor let him ride his bicycle; from that day on the toy trucks were "considered loss" for the "surpassing worth" of knowing how to ride a bicycle. Nothing was calculated; the greater simply replaced the lesser by the sheer force of its "greatness."

³⁰. For this perspective see above on 1:6 and 10-11; cf. Fee, Presence, 803-8; cf. Lightfoot, Martin, Bruce, Hawthorne, O'Brien. Others see it as referring to either one or the other: the present only (Vincent, Beare); the future only (Plummer, Michael, Collange, Gnilka, Gundry Volf [Perseverance, 258]; cf. Moffatt's "translation": "and be found at death in him" [!], defended by Michael).

³¹. Not to mention (a) that the ordinary sense of a purpose clause is prospective (i.e., one does one thing "in order that" a second thing might result), and (b) that the metaphor "gain" in 1:21, which this clause echoes, clearly points to the future. Indeed, detached from their qualifiers and v. 10 that follows, both of which are very "present" sounding, these two verbs would automatically be understood as eschatological in their orientation.

³². Gk. ευρεθώ (aorist passive subjunctive, which for some inexplicable reason Collange calls "the future tense of the verb"). On this verb see n. 4 on 2:8. In characteristic fashion Paul with this passive shifts the emphasis from himself to God; i.e., "gaining Christ" is not something Paul hopes to "achieve" by losing everything else; rather, the metaphor of loss and gain, referring to his "before and after" in Judaism and now in Christ, is about to be explained as "from God," the gift of God's gracious love extended to him through Christ. Calvin (274) tries to make the verb active in sense, thus implying that in Christ Paul has "found all things." But the verb simply will not sustain that meaning.

³³. On the diverse use of this phrase in Philippians, see above on 1:13, 14; 2:1, 19, 24; 3:1, 3; cf. 3:14; 4:1, 7, 19, and 21 below

³⁴. Schenk (250-51), followed by Silva (185) and O'Brien (394), sets this out as a piece of chiasm, which it obviously is not (although as Plummer, followed by Loh-Nida, pointed out, there is a kind of internal chiasm between the two mentions of "righteousness" ; but what value that observation has, which destroys Paul's clause in this way by eliminating the last, ringing, "on the basis of faith," one can only wonder). The rhetoric in this case lies in the repetition (see n. 3 above), not in chiasm. It is of some interest that Silva and O'Brien would approve Schenk's non-existent "chiasm" here, but for theological reasons reject the obvious chiasm of vv. 10-11

³⁵. Over the past four decades the literature on this term has grown to monumental proportions. The issues, which cannot be resolved here, are several, some interrelated: (a) the relationship of the noun (δικαιοσύνη) to its corresponding adjective (δίκαιος) and verb (δικαιόω), and therefore (b) whether it ever means "justification"; (c) how it is related to the term "righteousness of God," the main theme of Romans, which occurs elsewhere in Paul only in 2 Cor 5:21; and (d) whether it is therefore primarily "relational" or "ethical" (i.e., referring to one's relationship with God or to one's ethical life as a result of that relationship). My own view in sum (and without argumentation): The background of the term lies in the OT, where it has primarily to do with God and his people in their relationship to one another in terms of the covenant; thus "the righteousness of God" refers to his loving faithfulness to his people in terms of the covenant, and their righteousness refers to their reciprocation by keeping the stipulations of the covenant (the law). When Paul uses the noun, therefore, he has in mind God's covenant loyalty to his people, and thus

his and their relationship based on the new covenant. Thus it is primarily a term having to do with our relationship with God; but the noun itself does not mean "justification," as though it were primarily a forensic term. It simply refers to our new right relationship with God predicated on the saving work of Christ. Furthermore, in Paul it is unthinkable that that relationship does not also involve right living. Hence the flexibility — and difficulty — in deciding on its precise nuance at several points in Paul's letters. For a discussion of this term in Paul see K. Kertelge, EDNT, 1.325-30; cf. Ziesler, Meaning (for the Jewish background and its use in the NT), and S. K. Williams, "Righteousness," for a discussion of the debate on "the righteousness of God" in Romans.

³⁶. The earliest commentary in English that seems to recognize this difficulty is Bruce, 120.

³⁷. Contra Ziesler, Meaning, 148-51, who, on the basis of the connection with v. 6, understands "ethical righteousness" to be its only meaning here.

³⁸. Although not put in quite these terms, cf. R. H. Gundry, "Grace"; contra E. P.Sanders, in order to make it fit his prior assumption, that Paul never thought of "law-keeping" as a means to grace. That may well have been true of Paul before meeting Christ, but the strong language of vv. 2-8 in this passage indicates that as one who had been "apprehended by Christ" (v. 12) he looked back on his former life in Judaism from a radically different theological perspective. After all, there is no escaping the grammar that puts "blameless Torah righteousness" in v. 6 among the ατινα of v. 7, which in turn becomes part of the σκύβαλα in v. 8.

³⁹. Cf. Rom 10:3: άγνοοϋντες γαρ τήν τοũ θεοũ δικαιοσύνην xαι τήν Ιδίαν ζητοũντες στήσαι, τη δικαιοσύνη τοũ θεοũ ούχ ύπετάγησαν ("since they did not knowthe righteousness that comes from God and sought to establish their own, they did not submit to God's righteousness"); these emphases can be seen already in the OT (Ps 71:16, emphasizing God's righteousness alone; Isa 64:6 [LXX 64:5], indicating human "righteousness" as "filthy rags").

⁴⁰. Gk. έμήν, not τήν έμήν, which as Lightfoot rightly pointed out would imply that such a righteousness actually existed.

⁴¹. So also Müller; cf. RSV and REB ("based on the law"; but changed in the NRSV to "that comes from the law"); GNB ("gained by obeying the law"). For this kind of twofold sense to he same preposition in a single sentence, see M. J. Harris, NIDNTT, 3.1177-78. Most scholars are more impressed with the repetition of έκ and thus argue for "source" in both cases.

⁴². Gk. διά, which carries the nuance of secondary agency. Thus, the "source" (έκ) of new covenant righteousness is God; it has been mediated through (διά) Christ (cf. 1 Cor 8:6 for the same use of these prepositions). In the present case, of course, it is not mediated through Paul's faith, but through Christ in whom Paul has put his trust.

⁴³. See, e.g., Eph 2:8-10 ("for by grace you have been saved through faith"); cf. Rom 4:16 ("the promise comes by faith, so that it might be by grace"). This is always what "through faith" means in Paul; it is never something believers do in exchange for God's acceptance; rather it reflects their utter trust in God's gracious love and acceptance.

⁴⁴. The phrase διά (or έκ) πίστεως Χρίστου occurs first in the Pauline corpus in Gal 2:16 (2x, cf. 2:20) and again in 3:22 and Rom 3:22, 26. At issue is whether the genitive is "objective" (Christ as the object of faith) or "subjective" (Christ as the one who lives "faithfully"). For a bibliography to 1980 of those who take it as subjective, see Longenecker, Galatians, 87; for a more recent — and influential — advocacy, see R. B. Hays, Faith; cf. M. D. Hooker, "ΠΙΣΤΙΣ ΧΡΙΣΤΟΥ," and esp. the debate between Hays and Dunn in SBL 1991 Seminar Papers, 714-44 (see Hultgren, "Pistis Christou," and Koperski, "Meaning," for advocacy of an objective genitive); for commentaries that take it as subjective see Martin and O'Brien. Although there are places where it could well refer to "the faithfulness of Christ" (e.g., Rom 3:22, on the pattern of "God's faithfulness" in 3:3, and Abraham's in 4:12, 16 — although it is clear that πίστις carries a considerably different nuance in these two passages, pace Hays and O'Brien), it is unlikely to do so here. Most damaging to the subjective genitive view is its first occurrence (Gal 2:16), where it is immediately explained in terms of "even we believed in Christ Jesus" (the common appeal to tautology does not wash here, since the power of Paul's rhetoric lies in the threefold repetition of "works of law" and "belief in Christ"). Not only so, but the analogies of Rom 3:3 and 4:16 are not precise; in all six instances of πίστεως Χρίστου both words occur without the definite article, thus implying "through faith in Christ" (as in 2 Thess 2:13 [the real analogy in Paul to Phil 3:9, overlooked by O'Brien]; cf. Mark 11:22; the usage in Rom 4:16 may seem to be "an exact parallel" [O'Brien], but in fact it is dependent on 4:12, where the article makes Paul's sense clear, which is then picked up in v. 16), whereas in Rom 3:3 the definite article points to "the faithfulness of the [one and only] God." Most likely the phrase was coined in its first instance (Gal 2:16) in antithesis to έξ έργων νόμου, where "works" can only refer to what we do. By analogy, and in total antithesis, έκ πίστεως Χρίστοũ is also what we "do"; we put our trust in Christ. Although Silva's objection needs some modification, it is noteworthy that Paul regularly refers to believers as putting their trust in Christ, both with the verb "to believe" and with this noun where its usage is unambiguous; whereas Christ is never the subject of a verb that carries the connotation of "faithfulness" found in this noun when so interpreted. What needs to be emphasized is that nowhere does Paul unambiguously refer to our salvation as "through Christ's faithfulness," whereas he repeatedly and unambiguously so speaks of our faith. To make this genitive subjective, therefore, would seem to require stronger evidence than has been thus far presented.

⁴⁵. Gk. έπί τη πίστει; the article is anaphoric, referring back to Paul's faith in the preceding clause, contra Martin and O'Brien, who would have it refer now to our human response to Christ's faith[fulness] in the preceding phrase. One wonders how the Philippians could possibly have caught on to such a radical shift of subject and object in a clause that seems so clearly designed to repeat the first for emphasis.

⁴⁶. That is, Paul can speak of "faith" without a qualifier when he prefers (cf. Rom 3:30-31); but it seems highly unlikely that he would use this word to speak of Christ's activity without the genitive qualifier.

⁴⁷. Contra most interpreters; but it is doubtful in the extreme whether this noun can ever be extended to mean "justification." Paul uses δικαίωσις for this idea; it would require solid proof to demonstrate that δικαιοσύνη and δικαίωσις are indiscriminate synonyms in Paul.

⁴⁸. Contra Beare, who on the basis of the aorist γνώναι suggests that this also points to Paul's future resurrection. The context, including v. 11, speaks strongly against such a view. Indeed, this suggestion serves as an excellent (negative) illustration of the wrong use of the "punctiliar" view of the aorist.

⁴⁹. So Barth, Gnilka, Hawthorne, Silva, O'Brien; but Pauline usage does not seem favorable (see next n.). Some (e.g.. Calvin, Bengel, Hendriksen, Collange, Martin) take it to qualify "faith," but that puts the emphasis in a different place from Paul's, who is now picking up the motif of "knowing Christ" from earlier in the sentence.

⁵⁰. So Meyer, Vincent, Loh-Nida. Two things make one think so: (1) Elsewhere where Paul intends coordinate purpose clauses (e.g., 1 Cor 7:5; Gal 3:14; 4:5) both clauses are introduced by ϊνα; whereas he alters the conjunctions when the second clause is dependent on, or elaborates, the first (e.g., ϊνα . . . όπως, 2 Thess 1:11-12; 1 Cor 1:28-29; 2 Cor 8:14; είς τό . . . ϊνα, Rom 7:4; 15:16); this seems clearly to be the pattern here; (2) there is no analogy to this use of an articular infinitive of purpose (του γνώναι), which rarely (if ever) functions as a purpose clause, rather than as a simple complementary infinitive of purpose modifying what has immediately preceded (e.g., 1 Cor 10:13; 16:4). Contra Hawthorne, whose analysis of these clauses is suspect.

⁵¹. So KJV, NRSV, REB; Hendriksen, Caird; Forestell, "Perfection," 124.

⁵². So most interpreters; cf. the translations by Williams ("that is, the power of His resurrection") and Moffatt ("I would know him in the power of his resurrection").

⁵³. On the basis of the absence of the article with κοινωνία (see n. 2 above), this is the more likely of the two options. Paul intends the closest kind of link between the two phrases; thus "the power of his resurrection and participation in his sufferings" form a single, two-sided reality in his thinking.

⁵⁴. Missing this point has caused many interpreters to "spiritualize" this passage, so that "the power of his resurrection" has to do with living "above sin," etc., and "participation in his sufferings" is understood in light of Rom 6:1-6 and thus refers to "sanctification." So, inter alia and in a variety of forms, Calvin, Meyer, Kennedy, Jones, Müller, Hendriksen, Caird, Loh-Nida, Hawthorne, Silva. But only by the most strained interpretation can "participation in his sufferings" yield something like "our spiritual transformation into the image of Christ" (Silva). That might work for the next clause ("being conformed to his death"), but not very well for this one. Paul's language is nearly

a repeat of 2 Cor 1:7, where "being participants in the sufferings" cannot possibly refer to something "spiritual." One would seem to need the strongest kind of linguistic and contextual evidence to overthrow the clear context of this letter, which has his and their sufferings regularly in view.

Even more difficult to find here is the emphasis on Paul's apostolic authority, as Pfitzner maintains (his being conformed to Christ's death is "the enactment of his apostolic commission," Agon, 145; cf. nn. 1 and 18 on vv. 4-6).

⁵⁵. This, of course, assumes the correctness to the view that the xαί is epexegetic, i.e., that these clauses give "concreteness" to "knowing Christ"; cf. Forestell ("Perfection," 124): "the [participation in his sufferings] is necessarily the object of some experience, as is made clear from what follows: Symmorphizomenos tō thanatō autou."

⁵⁶. On the apparent hesitation Paul expresses in the final clause ("if somehow"), see the discussion of line A'.

⁵⁷. Cf. Barth (103): "To know Easter means, for the person knowing it, as stringently as may be: to be implicated in the events of Good Friday"; see esp. the discussion in O'Brien, 405-6. Martin, based on his view of the "polemical" nature of this passage, has all of this in reverse by suggesting, "that intimacy of union with the living Lord in the power of his resurrection is only possible as the apostle first comes to share his sufferings."

⁵⁸. The closest analogies are 1 Cor 6:14 (God raised Christ and will raise us by his power) and Eph 1:19-20 (God's present power toward us is that by which he raised Christ); cf. Rom 8:10-11, which speaks of the "body" as presently "dead" because of sin but alive to God by the Spirit, whose presence in our lives guarantees that the God who raised Christ from the dead will give life to our mortal bodies as well (see Fee, Presence, 542-54).

⁵⁹. But see v. 21 below, where a similar transfer occurs in terms of Christ as the one who transforms our present bodies into the likeness of his present glory "in keeping with the power that enables him to bring everything into subjection to himself."

⁶⁰. Gk. κοινωνία παθημάτων; cf. κοινωνοί έστε των παθημάτων in 2 Cor 1:7 ("you are participants in the sufferings"). This latter usage seems to render impossible the suggestion by Lohmeyer that "sufferings" is a subjective genitive here. For the meaning of κοινωνία in Paul see on 1:5. For the absence of the article with both κοινωνία and παθημάτων, see nn. 2 and 53 above. Both the usage in 2 Cor 1:7 and Paul's use of παθήματα would seem to render nearly impossible the "spiritualized" view of this line noted in n. 54 above. Despite the appeals to Rom 6:1-11 on the part of many, there is scarcely a linguistic tie to that passage, while there are both linguistic and conceptual ties with several passages in Paul where "present suffering" preceding final glory are juxtaposed (including Rom 8:17-30).

⁶¹. Martin, following P. Siber (Mit Christus) and Collange, sees the context as polemical, against a kind of "over-realized eschatology" (on the basis of "perfect" in v. 12); but this founders on the way Martin treats the two phrases, as though the second were the condition of the first (see n. 57).

⁶². See, e.g., 1 Thess 1:6; 3:2-3; 2 Cor 1:5; 4:7-18; Rom 8:17; Col 1:24; and Phil 1:29 (!).

⁶³. Cf. 1:13 above, where Paul's imprisonment is "manifested to be 'in Christ'." Both the language (κοινωνία = participation in) and the context render nearly impossible the "spiritualized" understanding of this line noted above (nn. 54 and 60), as though "participation in" = "a mystical sharing in all Christ's experiences" (Jones, 54) or the "spiritual process which is carried on in him who is united to Christ," which through baptism marks their "definitive breach with sin" (Silva, 191).

⁶⁴. It is doubtful, therefore, whether Paul has any kind of "mystical union" with Christ in view (as, e.g., Vincent, Kennedy, Jones, Michael, Silva), including the kind of "Christ-mysticism" advocated by Deissmann and Schweitzer, or that which is read into this passage from Rom 6:1-6 (as Michael, Silva, et al.) or from the concept of the "body of Christ" (Proudfoot, "Imitation"). The participation" inherent in κοινωνία, as in 1:5 above, means that Paul participates in the same reality as exemplified in Christ's sufferings; the "connection" between the two is that Paul's sufferings reflect Christ's inasmuch as they have the same goal. Christ's sufferings, which culminated in his death, were "for our sakes"; Paul's — and by implication the Philippians' as well — are for "the sake of the gospel," both in the sense of "because o f " and "in behalf of."

⁶⁵. Very likely, therefore, the participle is "modal," modifying the verb by way of the preceding clause. Thus: "that I may know him, including participation in his sufferings, by being conformed to his death." O'Brien, who argues against the "spiritualizing" of the preceding line, also argues against chiasm here, so that he can "spiritualize" this participle, thus making it refer to both "the power of his resurrection and participation in his sufferings," so as to be "incorporated into Christ" on the basis of his death. This view seems to have been taken against those who see "being conformed to his death" as referring to martyrdom (Meyer, Lohmeyer). But martyrdom is not a necessary inference — indeed, it is altogether unlikely. Being "conformed to his death" means the same as in 2 Cor 4:10-12, where Paul views present suffering as "carrying about in his body the death of Christ," not meaning that he will suffer martyrdom, but that his sufferings are to be

understood in light of Christ's death.

⁶⁶. The idea that Paul is referring to his actual anticipated death is to read into this phrase what is simply not there (as, e.g., Meyer, Lohmeyer; G. Braumann, NIDNTT, 1.707). Paul is not talking about dying, but about suffering — of a kind that is in keeping with Christ's death.

⁶⁷. It is common to see in this language an allusion to baptism, which is found in the text through the circuitous route of reading v. 10 in light of Rom 6:1-11. But that is to find what one is looking for, not what Paul himself hints at. The present tense of the participle seems to spell death to such an idea. One's death with Christ may well have been enacted at baptism, but "being continually conformed to that death," as this text has it, is far removed from the imagery of baptism. Paul's concern is first of all with his and the Philippians' ongoing sufferings as God's way of bringing them into conformity to Christ in his death, and thus with the whole of life as reflecting a cruciform existence. Baptism lay at the beginning of that process; the ongoing "conformation" in Paul's understanding is the work of the Spirit (cf. Rom 12:1-2).

⁶⁸. Gk. τήν έξανάστασιν τήν έκ νεκρών. This unusual expression (έξανάστασιν is a NT hapax legomenon; the doubling of the article, thus intensifying "from among the dead"; the repeated έκ) is probably best explained as putting emphasis in two directions at once: first, it is a way of making clear that in contrast to the preceding mention of Christ's resurrection, whose power is now available to believers, this clause unmistakably refers to the future resurrection of believers; second, in its own way it emphasizes that resurrection follows "death" — in this case for those whose lives in the present are marked by "conformation to his death." This language, while it does not deny a general resurrection, emphasizes singularly the resurrection of believers from among the dead.

⁶⁹. Gk. ε'ί πως; cf. Rom 1:10; 11:14. But see esp. J. Gundry Volf (Perseverance, 257-58), who argues on the basis of the uses in Romans that "doubt" is not implied at all.

⁷⁰. Gk. καταντήσω εις; the combination literally means "to arrive" at a given place, hence the NAB ("I hope that I may arrive at resurrection from the dead"). The GNB has probably captured Paul's sense: "in the hope that I myself will be raised from death to life."

⁷¹. Cf. Barth, 105; Collange, 132. All kinds of other suggestions have been made: an expression of humility (Meyer, Vincent, Hendriksen, Hawthorne); distrust in himself (Kennedy); as referring to the manner rather than the whether (Lenski, Martin, Motyer, O'Brien).

⁷². In light of his reconstruction (see n. 60 on v. 3) Koester argues that it emphasizes death as a presupposition to resurrection vis-à-vis the "over-spiritualized eschatology" of the alleged "opponents," who consider "resurrection as already achieved" ("Purpose," 323; cf. Schmithals). But that assumes the presence of "opponents," who in fact are not mentioned throughout this narrative.

⁷³. Cf. Gundry Volf (n. 69).

↑ Back to top