1. Their Gift and Paul's "Need" (4:10-13)
B. ACKNOWLEDGING THEIR GIFT: FRIENDSHIP AND THE GOSPEL (4:10-20)
With his major concerns about "their circumstances" now addressed, and the "concluding exhortations" given, Paul turns at last to the first reason for the letter — to acknowledge their recent gift and thus to rejoice over this evidence of friendship. To this point he has not thanked them directly, although his gratitude is clearly implied in 1:3-7 and 2:25, 30 (perhaps 2:17). Some, to be sure, see this delay in saying "thank you" as evidence that Paul could not have written our Philippians in its present form: How could he wait to the very end, it is argued, before finally offering thanks for the gift?1 And others look on its content as evidence of a strained relationship between him and (some of) them: How could a genuine "thank you" be expressed so reluctantly, and why does he twice tell them he really did not need their help (vv. 11-13, 17) before he actually thanks them for it (v. 18)?2 These objections, however, overlook the primarily oral (and thus aural) culture within which this letter would be read and ignore the sociological framework of "friendship" in which it was written.3
As to the matter of placement: The first reason for the letter (acknowl-edgment of their gift), it turns out, is almost certainly not its primary reason for having been written, which is to speak directly into their present circumstances before either Timothy or he comes on the scene (2:19-24). The latter, at least, is what gets the major attention; so much so, that even Paul's first report about "his affairs" (1:12-26) already has their situation in view. But having now dealt with his and their circumstances, and knowing full well what he was about, he concludes the letter on the same note with which it began (1:3-7) — their mutual partnership/participation in the gospel4 — thus placing this matter in the emphatic, climactic position at the end. When read aloud in the gathered community, these will be the final words that are left ringing in their ears: that their gift to him has been a sweet-smelling sacrifice, pleasing to God; that God in turn, in keeping with his rich supply in Christ Jesus, will "fill them to the full" regarding all their needs; and that all of this redounds to God's eternal glory. At the same time, they will scarcely be able to overlook the exhortations and appeals that have preceded, given the predominance of these concerns in the large middle section of the letter. This is rhetoric at its best;5 and the theory (predicated on our own sociology) that sees a later, rather mindless redactor "pasting" things together in this way turns out in the end to make him more clever than Paul.
As to the matter of "friendship": Although dealing primarily with "his affairs," in reality this section links his and their affairs together at the most significant point of "friendship," that of mutual giving and receiving (v. 15).6 Indeed, much that puzzles us in this section is related to this phenomenon. Three matters intertwine: First is his genuine gratitude for their recent gift, expressed three times in three variations (vv. 10a, 14, 18). This is set, secondly, within the framework of Greco-Roman "friendship," based on mutuality and reciprocity, evidenced by "giving and receiving" — a theme that gets "strained" in this case because of (a) his being on the receiving end of that for which he has nothing to give in return and (b) their "mutuality" also carries some of the baggage of a "patron/ client" relationship,7 due to his role as apostle of Jesus Christ.8 Third, and most significantly (and typically!), this sociological reality is rather totally subsumed under the greater reality of the gospel; thus the whole climaxes in doxology.9
All of this is fashioned with consummate artistry, some might say "tactful diplomacy," so that their "giving," his "receiving," and their long-term friendship ("partnership" in the gospel), which their gift reaffirms, climax in vv. 18-20 with gratitude (from Paul), accolade and promise (from God to them), and doxology (from both to God). To get there Paul repeats a pattern in vv. 10-13 and 14-17, in which: (a) he begins by acknowledging their recent gift (vv. 10a, 14); (b) he then qualifies what he says about them (10b, 15-16); and (c), with two clauses that begin "not that," he (more sharply) qualifies his "receiving" in relationship to his "need" (vv. 11-13, 17). The climax in vv. 18-20, it should be noted, begins with this same pattern (acknowledgment of their gift [v. 18] and the "qualifier" that God will thus meet their needs [v. 19]), but in place of the third element (Paul's "not that") he bursts into praise (v. 20). At the same time there is an interweaving of words and ideas, by repetition and wordplays, plus the "christianizing" of matters that are common stock in the culture, which makes the whole a marvelous tapestry.10 All of which says "thank you" — to them for their long-term friendship and to God to whom all glory is due. Thus:
(a) 10a Acknowledgment of their "renewed concern" for Paul in his need; (b) 10b The qualifier: the intermediate hiatus in their "giving" was due to lack of opportunity, not lack of concern
(c) 11-13 Pauline qualifier: "Not that" he speaks according to "need"; thus he "christianizes" the Stoic doctrine of "contentment": Neither want nor weal determined his life; in Christ he can handle either.
(a)14 Second acknowledgement, now as "partnership in his affliction"; (b) 15-16 The qualifier: reminder of their laudable history in this matter (c) 17 Pauline qualifier: "Not that" he desires the gift per se, but what the gift represents (an "ever-increasing balance in your account")
(a) 18 Third acknowledgment: Paul "abounds"; he has been "filled up";at the same time, their "fragrant, sacrificial offering" pleases God
(b) 19 The qualifier: Paul's reciprocity will come from God, who will "fill them up," supplying their "needs" in keeping with his own rich supply in Christ
(c) 20 Doxology: To our God and Father be glory through endless ages.
The disturbing element for many are the two "not that" qualifiers, which in contemporary sociology would effect the opposite of what Paul intends. We instinctively have questions about one who begins an expression of gratitude as though the Philippians had finally gotten around to "showing concern for him again," then in effect tells them that he really did not need their gift in any case, and finally expresses his personal gratitude in terms of their making a sacrificial offering to God. What gives with such a fellow? But the key to the passage lies with these very elements that disturb us, which in fact make this a Christian expression of a first-century convention. Besides denying that their friendship is based on "usefulness" (the lowest form of "friendship"), Paul's point is that his joy lies not in the gifts per se — these he really could do with or without — but in the greater reality that the gifts represent:11 the tangible evidence, now renewed, of his and their long-term friendship, which for Paul has the still greater significance of renewing their long-term "partnership/participation" with him in the gospel. This is why the climax is expressed in terms of their gift being a "fragrant and pleasing offering to God, " who in turn promises to pick up Paul's end of the reciprocity, all of which outbursts in praise of God's glory, the very glory that God has already abundantly lavished upon them both in Christ Jesus.12
A passage like this, one needs finally to note, should be read in light of Paul's unsolicited, lavish praise of this church in 2 Cor 8:1-5, with its thoroughly Christian equation of "affliction + poverty = abounding in generosity." It is unlikely that the Philippians have changed radically in the intervening few years. To the contrary, it is precisely this quality of their Christian life, expressed in his case within the cultural context of friendship, that causes Paul to give thanks in this way — as "rejoicing in the Lord" and as an outburst of praise to God's glory. Here is a community where the gospel had done its certain work.
1. Their Gift and Paul's "Need" (4:10-13)
10I rejoice greatly in the Lord that at last you have renewed your concern for me. Indeed, you have been concerned, but you had no opportunity to show it. 111 am not saying this because I am in need, for I have learned to be content whatever the circumstances. 121 know what it is to be in need, and I know what it is to have plenty. I have learned the secret of being content in any and every situation, whether well fed or hungry, whether living in plenty or in want. 13I can do everything through him13 who gives me strength.
Despite the long history of the English translations' making this a separate paragraph, in reality it is simply the first step in acknowledging their gift. As noted, Paul's greater joy is in what the gift represents — tangible evidence of the rejuvenation of "friendship," and that as a demonstration of their "partnership" with him in the gospel. Thus two matters are taken up in these opening sentences. First (v. 10a), Paul rejoices over their renewing the first feature of friendship, "giving and receiving." But having expressed that in tenns of "now at last," he is quick to demur that they must not hear him wrongly (v. 10b). He knows, as they do, that the long hiatus in this tangible evidence of friendship (= partnership in the gospel) was due to their lack of opportunity.
Second (vv. 11-13), because his first concern is to express joy over friendship renewed, Paul feels compelled also to make sure that they do not understand what he has just said in terms of "need." This demurrer probably arises out of "friendship" as well. Very likely this is his way of reminding the Philippians that theirs is not based on "usefulness," but belonged to the highest level of friendship.14 Thus Paul digresses momentarily to reject any notion that their friendship is based on "need," and thus has utilitarian origins. But in so doing, he has left us with one of his more remarkable moments, in which he uses the language — and outwardly assumes the stance — of Stoic "self-sufficiency," but radically transforms it into Christ-sufficiency. The net result is that Paul and Seneca, while appearing to be close, are a thousand leagues apart. The Stoic's (and Cynic's) "sufficiency/contentment" comes from within oneself; Paul's comes from without, from his being "a man in Christ," on whom he is totally "dependent" and thus not "independent" at all in the Stoic sense. Because Paul and the Philippians are both "in Christ," neither is dependent on the other for life in the world; but also because they are both "in Christ," Paul received their gift with joy, because this is how Christ helped him to "abound" in this case.
Finally, coming directly after v. 9 as it does, the language and the length of the passage suggest that it also serves as a final moment of imitatio in this letter. He has just urged them not to be anxious about anything, but to leave their situation in God's care, who as "the God of peace" will keep their hearts and minds in Christ. Paul now models what that means, that in Christ one can truly know "contentment" in any and all circumstances.15
10 The (correctly) untranslated de with which this sentence begins marks the transition to something new, but hardly an afterthought.16 Paul is as good as his word, in this case his word of exhortation. Using the precise language of v. 4, but now in the past tense,17 and with the addition of the adverb "greatly,"18 he tells them that he burst into joy19 at the arrival of Epaphroditus. They, his eschatological "joy" and "crown" (v. 1), are also cause for much past and present joy. Whatever else, they are his friends — his partners — in Christ.
His imprisonment had already resulted in rejoicing, since it became a catalyst for the advance of the gospel in Rome (1:18); now he tells them that their tangible reviving of friendship has likewise caused him to rejoice yet again while in detainment. As he twice exhorted them (3:1; 4:4), his rejoicing was "in the Lord," another subtle indication of the three-way bond (between him, them, and Christ) that holds the letter together. Paul rejoiced "in the Lord," the author of their common salvation, over the tangible evidence that they together belong to the Lord and thus to one another.20
But his stated reason for joy catches us by surprise: "that21 at last you have renewed your concern for me." Paul's own qualifier that follows makes it clear that even though not intending these words pejoratively, he recognized that they could be taken so.22 Three things lie behind the sentence: that "giving and receiving" is the first mark of friendship in the Greco-Roman world; that they had had a long history of "giving" to him (as vv. 15-16 make clear); that, as the various elements of this sentence indicate, some (probably considerable) time has elapsed since they had last ministered to his needs in this way.23 How much time is impossible to say, but very likely several years. It is this lapse of time that accounts for how the sentence is expressed.
The verb "you have renewed" is a botanical metaphor, meaning to "blossom again"24 — like perennials or the Spring shoots of deciduous trees and bushes. After a period of some dormancy in the matter of "giving and receiving," they have thus "revived" this dimension of their friendship with Paul. The adverb "at last"25 likewise implies a hiatus in their giving. However, it probably does not mean "finally, at last," as though he had been expecting something in the meantime — which the qualifier that follows denies — but points rather to the conclusion of the hiatus. Thus, "now, finally, you were able to do what for a long time you could not."
What they were finally able to do again is expressed in language special to this letter: "to 'think' about me." Here begins the first in a series of word repetitions and word plays that dominate this final section of the letter. The verb "to think"26 appeared first in the thanksgiving (1:7) to refer to Paul's "feeling this way" about them. Elsewhere in the letter it means "have a (certain) mindset." Some of the earlier uses occur in relational contexts, and therefore may lean toward "have the same mindset toward one another" (2:2; 4:2), in the sense of "show mutual care for each other."27 That is certainly the sense here; hence the English translations have either "care for" or "be concerned about." In any case, this usage is hardly accidental. What has brought him joy is the renewal of their "thinking about/caring for" him in this way.
That this is Paul's intent is made certain by the qualifier, "indeed, you have been concerned, but you had no opportunity to show it." Two points of grammar in this clause indicate he is trying to deflect possible misunderstanding of the first clause. He begins, first, "with reference to which28 indeed," a combination that picks up the infinitive "to be concerned" and intensifies it (= "with reference to which you were indeed29 continually concerned"). Second, both verbs in this clause are imperfects, implying a continual concern for Paul with a likewise ongoing lack of opportunity30 to do anything about it. Thus he is quick to acknowledge that he well understands the hiatus had nothing to do with their lack of concern but of opportunity.
11 Having qualified his opening expression of joy against possible misunderstanding, Paul proceeds to qualify the event itself still further. But this time he is not so much qualifying something specifically said as he is putting the whole matter into perspective. His "not that"31 is thus intended to guard against anyone's drawing wrong inferences from what he has just said. The wrong inference would be that his joy is over their gift as such, as though joy had to do with finally being able to eat again.32 On the contrary, he says, I have not said any of this because "I speak according to need."33 His joy is over their friendship; and their friendship, he is quick to point out, is not utilitarian, related to what he can secure from it.34
Here is also the second in the series of word repetitions and wordplays in this passage. He had told them in 2:30 that he did have "lack" — of their presence! — which was made up in part by Epaphroditus's coming. Now he says that his joy is not over their filling his ' 'lack" in the material sense (although he gladly acknowledges in v. 18 that he was "filled to the full" by their gift). But that also calls for further explanation; so rather than take up the matter of what his joy is all about (which comes next in vv. 14-17), he instead goes on to elaborate why their ministering to his "need" was not the reason for his joy.
On the surface, his explanation35 looks like a meteor fallen from the Stoic sky into his epistle: "For I have learned to be content whatever the circumstances."36 The word translated "content"37 expresses the ultimate in goal of Stoicism: to live above need and abundance in such a way as to be "self-sufficient," not meaning that one is oblivious to circumstances, but that the truly autarkes person is not determined by such. One is "independent" of others and of circumstances in the sense of being free from their either causing distress or effecting serenity. Serenity comes from being sufficient unto oneself. Although one cannot be sure that Paul is deliberately echoing Stoic language, it is difficult to imagine the Philippians' not having recognized it as such. The potency of what Paul does — which they undoubtedly would have picked up on — is to use language similar to that of Stoicism to describe an attitude toward life that outwardly looks like theirs, but whose source, and therefore significance, is radically different. But before that (v. 13), Paul elaborates in terms of material needs (v. 12) what he has here avowed.
12 The explanatory sentences in this verse are typically balanced, and somewhat rhythmical.38 He begins with the broader vocabulary of want and plenty, "I know both how to be humbled;39 I know also how to abound."40 Although these will lead to the more specific matters of material needs, there is every good reason to think that by starting with these verbs, he intended, "to be humbled and to abound in every which way," including in the specific ways he will pick up next, but not limited to these.41 After all, to be "humbled" is not the ordinary verb for "being in want"; moreover, it is a thoroughly non-Stoic word. Some Stoics may have reveled in "want"; none of them could tolerate "humiliation," which often headed their lists of attitudes to be avoided. Whether deliberately chosen over against them or not, and that is moot, for Paul this verb not only indicates "poverty," but embraces a way of life similar to that of his Lord (2:8; cf. Matt 11:28), a way of life that finds expression elsewhere in his various "hardship lists."42
Thus, "in every and in all circumstances,"43 and now in reverse order, Paul specifies: "I have learned the secret"44 of what it means "both to be well fed or go hungry,45 both to abound and to be in need." Although the verb "learn the secret" is primarily a technical term for initiation into the mysteries, Paul is obviously using it metaphorically. While others have been "initiated into the mysteries," he says, "I have been initiated into both having a full stomach and going hungry." This passage joins others to make clear that, although Paul often ate well, he also knew very little of the cultural equivalent of our "three square meals a day." But the addition "to abound and to suffer need" probably point — on the "down" side, as do his hardship lists — to other material deprivations or supply, such as clothing (being in "rags"), shelter (homelessness), and less material ones such as toil and lack of rest.46
What is striking, of course, is his insistence that he knows the secret of both plenty and want.47 His various "hardship lists" make it clear that he has experienced "plenty" of "want." But in contrast to some of the Cynics, he did not choose "want" as a way of life, so as to demonstrate himself autarkes; rather he had learned to accept whatever came his way, knowing that his life was not conditioned by either, and that his relationship to Christ made one or the other essentially irrelevant in any case. Where we otherwise lack direct evidence from him are situations in which he "abounded" in "plenty" — at least on the material side of things, although in this letter he may very well be alluding to the generous patronage of the Philippians, both when he and his co-workers lived in Lydia's household and when they repeatedly supplied his material needs in Thessalonica and Corinth, and perhaps elsewhere.
13 With the well-known words of this verse, Paul brings closure to this brief digression (vv. 11-13), in which he explains that his joy in receiving their gift was not predicated on their meeting his need. How has he learned to live in either want or plenty? His response: "I can do everything through48 him who gives me strength." With that he transforms the very Stoic-sounding sentences that have preceded from appearing to promote any sense of sufficiency within himself to a sufficiency quite beyond himself, to Christ,49 the basis and source of everything for Paul. Thus he turns "self-sufficiency" into "contentment" because of his "Christ-sufficiency." In effect this sentence spells out at the practical level the slogan of his life, expressed in 1:21: "for me to live is Christ."
"Everything" in this case, of course, refers first of all to his living in "want or plenty."50 Paul finds Christ sufficient in times of bounty as well as in times of need. Although he appears to have had less of the former than the latter, here is his way of handling the warning to Israel given in Deuteronomy 8 that they not forget the Lord once they have experienced plenty. Thus, this passage is not an expression of Stoicism, not even a christianized version of the Stoic ideal; rather, it is but another of scores of such passages that indicate the absolute Christ-centeredness of Paul's whole life. He is a "man in Christ." As such he takes what Christ brings. If it means "plenty," he is a man in Christ, and that alone; if it means "want," he is still a man in Christ, and he accepts deprivation as part of his understanding of discipleship.
Therefore, although this passage belongs in part to the conventions of "friendship," as with all such cultural conventions, in Paul's hand they are transformed into gospel. Moreover, given the context, one should recognize this brief autobiographical moment also to serve in a paradigmatic way. He has just urged them to "practice" what he both taught and modeled (v. 9). In the midst of their own present difficulties, here is what they too should learn of life in Christ, that being "in him who enables" means to be "content" whatever their circumstances.
And all of this (vv. 11-13), one must remember, has been said in order to inform the Philippians that his joy is not simply over their gift — although he will finally express his deep gratitude for that as well. Thus, with the issue of "need" spoken to, he returns in v. 14 to the acknowledgment of their gift and their friendship.
This marvelous passage has also had its own unfortunate history of interpretation, in the hands both of its friends and of Paul's detractors. His detractors look on the text as unbearable ingratitude, that he should begin the thanksgiving for their gift by brushing it aside in an apparently peremptory fashion. Better not to give such people gifts who treat the gift so unfeelingly, so "stoically" as it were! But such detractors understand neither the nature of first-century friendship nor the apostle's own aim, which is to focus on their friendship and partnership in the gospel, which their gift represents and which is greater by far than the "mere gift" itself. Only in a culture like ours, where "things" tend to be more significant than people, would one remonstrate at what the apostle has done here.
On the other hand, Paul's friends have sometimes mangled the text by quoting it apart from its present context. The worst expression of this abuse occurs with v. 13, which is sometimes made to say that "I can do all things (especially extraordinary things) through Christ who strengthens me." Very often the application takes a form exactly the opposite of Paul's — with a bit of v. 19 thrown into the mix, "when in want I shall receive plenty" because of my relationship with Christ. Paul's point is that he has learned to live in either want or plenty through the enabling of Christ. Being in Christ, not being self-sufficient, has rendered both want and weal of little or no significance. Experience in the church should teach one what the Stoics themselves recognized, that either "want" or "wealth" can have deleterious affect on one's life, those in "want" because their "want" consumes them, those in "wealth" because their "wealth" does the same. The net result is a tragically small person. On the other hand, the Pauline perspective — life as cruciform, being "conformed to his death so as to attain the resurrection" —raises God's people above the dictates of either. Those in "want" learn patience and trust in suffering; those in "wealth" learn humility and dependence in prospering, not to mention the joy of giving without strings attached!
————————————
1. See e.g., Beare (150), who finds it "inconceivable that Paul should wait all that time to express his thanks for the gifts." Cf. Michael (209), "Had the present letter been the first to go to Philippi with his thanks, he would surely not have deferred his reference to their gift until he had said everything else that he had to say." For a critique see n. 3.
2. What some have pejoratively called "thankless thanks," a phrase noted by Vincent (146) and thus traceable to the nineteenth c., regaining currency through Dibelius, Lohmeyer, and Gnilka (cf. Capper, "Dispute," 207-8). See also Michael (209-11), followed by Caird, who thinks he finds evidence here that Paul had written an earlier note of thanks, to which the Philippians had taken some exception, "complaining of what appeared to them to be a lack of adequate appreciation for their kindness" (209). Michael thus finds "the presence of. . . rebuke . . . unmistakable" in vv. 15 and 18, which also accounts for Paul's "extraordinary emphasis on his independence."
3. Indeed, much that has been written on this passage (e.g., about the alleged "long delay," Paul's not using the verb εύχαριστεϊν, his placing this passage at the end of the letter, its form and content) reflects modem (basically Western) conventions, which tends to render them speculative and irrelevant (cf. Peterman, "Giving," 19-24). See, e.g., ( 1 ) Dodd's psychologizing of the apostle and his "bourgeois" attitude toward money (n. 18 on v. 15); (2) Collange's (149) mirror reading v. 17 as evidence of Paul's having actually solicited material help from them, because the situation in (Rome) had deteriorated (per 1:15-18); (3) Buchanan's view ("Epaphroditus' Sickness," 162, followed by Hawthorne) that what Paul is really about is a "delicate" combination of "gratitude" with a stern reminder that he does not want such gifts since it goes against his avowed policy (e.g., 2 Thess 3:7-10; 1 Cor 9:15-18); (4) Capper's view ("Dispute") that the lack of overflowing gratitude is due to a prior rift between Paul and the Philippians that has just been barely healed (see n. 4 on vv. 14-17).
4. For the difficulty in gaining precision on this important language, see on 1:5.
5. Contra Lightfoot (163), and many who have followed him, that "it is as if the Apostle said: Ί must not forget to thank you for your gift'."
6. On this matter see the Introduction, pp. 4-7, which in many ways is essential reading for the discussion that follows (and esp. for vv. 14-17). The most significant primary source dealing with this matter is Seneca's De Beneficiis; cf. the somewhat condensed version in his Ep. Mor. 9. For helpful overviews see Sailer, Personal Patronage, 1-39, and P. Marshall, Enmity, 1-33; cf. the more thorough discussion in Peterman, "Giving," 31-104.
7. See the Introduction, pp. 5-6; see also on 3:15.
8. Indeed, much of the discussion on this passage has been carried on as though Paul had never spoken to this issue previously (or by a misreading of the earlier evidence). But he had, in 1 Cor 9:1-18, where he defends his "right" (έξουσία) as an apostle to material support from his churches (vv. 3-12a, 13-14), in a context where he "explains" (in the form of a defense) why he has given it up in their case (vv. 12b, 15-18). The principle on which both "reciprocity" and "rights" are predicated is articulated in v. 11 ("If we have sown 'spiritual' seed among you, is it too much if we reap 'material' harvest from you?"). See further n. 5 on 4:14-17.
9. Some of those who have seen the sociological dimension of this passage have also tended to interpret it almost altogether along sociological lines (e.g., L. W. White, "Morality,"; Stowers, "Friends"; Capper, "Dispute"). The problem with doing so is that it slights the essential Paul, for whom everything, including the rhetorical and literary conventions to which he is a cultural heir, have been "transmuted" into the "shape" of the gospel. Thus, although one misses too much in this passage if one is not aware of the sociological realities that give it a cultural frame, one also misses too much if the "frame" gives meaning to the content, rather than the other way about. In Paul's hands the gospel gives new meaning even to the sociological reality of "friendship."
10. The linguistic ties between this passage and much that has preceded are so significant that any dismembering of this letter destroys the very "magic" that makes it work so marvelously as a letter of friendship. These include: the opening "I rejoiced in the Lord" (cf. 3:1; 4:4); the (now word play) on the verb φρονεϊν in v. 10 (cf. 1:7: 2:2-5; 3:15, 19; 4:2); the "christianizing" of Stoic terminology in v. 11 (cf. 4:8-9); the use of the ύστερέω word group ("be lacking") in vv. 11-12 to refer to his "needs" (cf. 2:30); similarly, the use of "my needs" to refer to the same reality in v. 16 and 2:25; the use of the verb συγκοινωνέω in v. 14 (cf. 1:7) to refer to their "partnership with" Paul "in his affliction"; the language έν άρχή τοϋ ευαγγελίου (lit., "in the beginning of the gospel") in v. 15, which echoes the identical idea in 1:5; and the use of the sacrificial metaphor in v. 18 to refer to their "ministering" to his need (cf. 2:25 and 30). One must dance with unlimited sidesteps to remove this passage from the rest of the letter. Cf. Dalton ("Integrity," 99-101).
11. So, e.g., Hawthorne and O'Brien, without however noting the significance of the convention of friendship.
12. For convenience, the ensuing analysis will proceed according to the three "parts" noted above (cf. Bruce), recognizing that the "parts" are of our making, not Paul's — as are the two traditional paragraphings (10-13, 14-20 [NA26, NIV, GNB, NAB, Jones, Müller, Hendriksen]; and 10-14, 15-20 [UBS4, NRSV, REB, Lohmeyer, Kent]), both of which wrongly break up what is in fact a single piece in Paul's letter (so correctly, NASB, NJB).
13. According to the earliest and best evidence (Ν* A B D* I 33 629 1739 pc lat co, Clement), Paul's sentence ends, έν τω ένδυναμοϋντί με ("in the one who strengthens me"). Given the preponderance of the "in Christ" language in this letter, and that he certainly intends "Christ" in this clause, the later scribes (F G Ψ Maj syr, Jerome) made explicit what Paul left implicit, by adding Χριστώ at the end. And so it was transmitted to generations of English-speaking Christians, so that this well-known text will probably be "cited" in the same explicit way for some generations to come.
14. Note the three kinds of friendship isolated by Aristotle (Eth. Nie. 8.3.1), and followed by others (Plutarch, De Util.; Seneca, Ben. 1.11.1; Ep. Mor. 9.8-9; cf. Cicero, Inv. 2.50), the "good," the "pleasant," and the "useful." Two things emerge in the discussions: that (1) "the good" is the best of friendships, and somewhat idealistic, while "useful" is the commonest form, and can be entered into even by evil people for their mutual advantage; and (2) that the kind of "giving and receiving" that marked the latter also marked the former, so that pains are taken to distinguish the "good" from the merely "useful." Furthermore, Epicurus and his followers believed that even though friendship should be sought for its own sake, "it has its origins in the need for help" (Gn 5.23), a view that is rebuked by Cicero (Fin. 2.26.82-85). See the discussion in Marshall, Enmity, 25-30, although he does not connect these distinctions with what Paul is doing here.
15. Cf. Silva (234), who also notes this connection.
16. As Lightfoot suggests (see n. 5); he is followed by Hawthorne (196), who makes altogether too much of this particle, which functions here as it did in 1:12 and 2:19 (cf. O'Brien, 516). Although δε, the most common of the Greek particles, almost always carries a contrastive sense, the contrast is not always adversative. It is used by writers in all periods to mark the transition to a new section, and is thus contrastive in that sense.
17. Gk. έχάρην. Interpreters are divided as to whether this is a genuine aorist (Michael [but for some wrong reasons], Bruce, Silva, O'Brien; cf. Moffatt, Goodspeed, NEB) or an epistolary aorist (most interpreters and translations), which in the latter case may be translated as an English present (as the NIV, "I rejoice greatly"). But since Paul's first point of reference is to something in his own past, not just in the past from the perspective of their reading the letter, there seems to be no good reason to make it epistolary here (all the more so, since his "rejoicing" in 1:18 is expressed in the present tense). This is further supported by the addition of "greatly," which makes sense as referring to his joy at seeing Epaphroditus, but little sense as an epistolary aorist. In this regard, cf. Apion (Antonius Maximus) to Sabina (2nd c. CE): "When I learned that you were well, I rejoiced exceedingly (λίαν έχάρην)" (J. L. White, Light, 160). This does not exclude Paul's joy "running over" into the present as he writes. But his rejoicing in this case began with the arrival of Epaphroditus.
18. Gk. μεγάλως, one of the several NT hapax legomena in this passage.
19. On the phrase "rejoice in the Lord," its OT background and verbalizing implications, see the discussion on 3:1. It is of some interest that Paul's language here (4:10) is very close to what he says in 1 Cor 16:17 in response to the coming of Stephanas, Fortunatas, and Achaicus, although in that case it had nothing to do with a gift.
20. Batth (127), following Bengel, notes how "un-Stoic" these opening words are. A Stoic would have received the gift, but would scarcely have taken pleasure in it! Paul lives in a different world.
21. Gk. δτι, which in this instance is ambiguous. It introduces either a noun clause, giving the content of Paul's rejoicing, or an adverb clause, indicating its cause or basis. While either comes out at pretty much the same point, given the past tense of the verb (n. 17), this ότι most likely expresses cause, "I rejoiced greatly because . . . " (cf. Loh-Nida, Hawthorne, O'Brien).
22. As some do; see, e.g., Capper ("Dispute," 207): "Paul's tone is virtually condescending, where his gratitude should overflow," because the Philippians have "reneged" on their "contract" (see n. 3 above and n. 4 on 4:14-17).
23. On this matter see further vv. 15-16.
24. Gk. άνεθάλετε, which in this case may be either transitive (= "you caused to grow") or intransitive (= "you bloomed again"), meaning either that they "revived their care for him" or that "they blossomed again, as far as their care for him is concerned." Cf. the metaphorical use in Sir 1:18 ("The fear of the Lord is a crown of wisdom, causing peace and health to bloom again") and 11:22 ("The blessing of the Lord is the reward of the godly, and the Lord shall cause his blessing to bloom again quickly"). Meyer (211-12) takes the improbable view that what has "blossomed again" is their prosperity, which now made it possible for them to give again. But 2 Cor 8:1-5 makes clear that "affliction and poverty" have long been their lot and had scarcely hindered their generosity!
25. Gk. ήδη ποτέ; the combination occurs elsewhere in the NT only in Rom 1:10, where it is anticipatory and means something like "finally at last." It can scarcely mean that here, since in Romans it refers to something that had not yet happened, while here it refers to a renewal of something that has (apparently) lain dormant. Cf. 2 Clem 13:1 ("let us now at last repent"; which Lightfoot [AF2] translates, "let us repent immediately").
26. Gk. φρονεΐν; see on 1:7; 2:2, 5; 3:15-16, 19; 4:2.
27. On this matter see Stowers, "Friends," 111-12, although he tends to see the "one another" in terms of his and theirs together, rather than within the community itself, which seems to be a misreading of the text. A very similar thing happens in the occurrences in Romans, where the verb most often means to "have a certain disposition toward something or someone," but in 12:16 means "show mutual concern for one another."
28. Gk. έφ' φ, a combination that is extraordinarily difficult in Paul; see on 3:12 above (cf. Rom 5:12, which is one of the classical exegetical cruxes in the Pauline corpus). As Fitzmyer notes ("Consecutive," 331), "the causal sense . . . does not impose itself." Rather, it either means (most likely) something like, "to which end," referring to the "concern about him" just mentioned, or (less likely) the φ refers to Paul (as Calvin, Kennedy, Fitzmyer). For a complete discussion of the options and defense of the meaning suggested here, see Meyer, 212-14; see Fitzmyer for a thorough airing of the idiom in Greek antiquity.
29. Gk. έφ' φ xαί έφρονεΐτε. which Vincent (142) and others (e.g., O'Brien; Thrall, Greek Particles, 90) would translate "also," meaning that besides their recent gift they had also been thinking about him right along. That correctly recognizes the sense of "addition" inherent to the xαί, but does not seem adequately to represent in English its intensive force.
30. Gk. ήκαιρείσθε, lit. "have no time," here meaning "without time" in the sense of "lacking opportunity"; another NT hapax.
31. Gk. ούχ ότι, cf. v. 17; for this usage in Paul see esp. on 3:12, where we suggested it represents our idiom, "this is not to say that."
32. On the fact that prisoners in the Roman world had to be provided for by friends, see on 2:25; cf. Rapske, Acts, 209-16.
33. Gk. καθ' ύστέρησιν. The noun, which means "want, need, lack, poverty," occurs only here in Paul (and elsewhere in the NT only in Mark 12:44, of the widow casting in her "mite" out of "penury"). But see ύστερήμα in 2:30 (cf. 1 Thes 3:10; 1 Cor 16:17; 2 Cor 8:14; 9:12; 11:9). These usages illustrate the differences between -ησις and -ημα nouns, the former emphasizing the verbal idea, the latter denoting a concrete expression of the idea. Thus Paul is not here referring to a specific expression of need, but to "being in need." The preposition in this case may be an instance of κατά = cause, reason (so Hawthorne, O'Brien); but it makes just as good sense to keep its basic sense of "the standard by which something is measured." Thus, "in speaking this way, it is not my personal 'need' which sets the standard for what I say."
34. On this matter see n. 14 above.
35. Thus we meet one of the relatively few explanatory yap's in this letter; see above on 1:19, 21; 2:13, 20, 21, 27; 3:3, 18, 20. Which indicates how little this letter is "argumentation."
36. Gk. έν οίς είμι, meaning "in the situations in which I find myself." Curiously, many object to translating this "whatever the circumstances," since Paul uses a form of ος rather than οσος. They prefer to translate "in the state in which I am" (Vincent), meaning in his present circumstances (cf. Kent, Hawthorne). But both the plural and the elaborating phrase "in every and in all circumstances" in the next verse suggest that Paul is referring not simply to his present imprisonment, but to all the circumstances of his life.
37. Gk. αυτάρκης; the adj. occurs only here in the NT, the noun (αύταρκεία) only in 2 Cor 9:8 and 1 Tim 6:6. The usage in 2 Cor 9:8 is certain evidence that the word is part of Paul's regular vocabulary and that it can come close to "sufficiency," without the sense of "self-sufficiency." Too much can be made of its usage by Stoic and Cynic moral philosophers, since by the first Christian century it had become common parlance for "contentment," in very much the sense that word carries in English. Thus Polybius speaks of Lycurgus, who, while having made the private lives of Spartan citizen "contented" (αύτάρκεις), did not "make the spirit of the city as a whole likewise contented (αΰταρκες) and moderate" (LCL, p. 379); cf. the many occurrences in Josephus and Philo as well. What makes the word "Stoic-sounding" here is its usage in context. This sentence sounds exactly like something Seneca or Epictetus could have written. Cf., e.g., Seneca (Vit. Beat. 6.2): "The happy man is content with his present lot, no matter what it is, and is reconciled to his circumstances" (LCL, p. 115); thus he can say, "The wise man is sufficient unto himself for a happy existence" (Ep. Mor. 9.13; LCL, p. 51), although he qualifies the latter so as not to exclude "friendship" for the one who is at the same time "self-sufficient." Cf. Epictetus 4.7.14, "Wherever I go it will be well with me, for here where I am it was well with me, not because of my location, but because of my judgments [δόγματα = reasoned principles], and these I shall carry with me; . . . and with possession of them I am content [άρκεϊ], wherever I be and whatever I do" (LCL, p. 365). See also Sevenster, Paul and Seneca, 113-14.
38. Cf. Lohmeyer, Gnilka, and Martin, who, however, make far too much of this, as though something "poetic" were involved. One may as well argue for "poetry" in 1 Cor 7, where over and again this kind of balanced, rhythmic sentence occurs (cf. also 1 Cor 6:12-14, 16-17). This is simply the way Paul speaks and writes about every kind of matter.
39. Gk. ταπεινοϋσθαι, used of Jesus in 2:8; elsewhere in Paul only in 2 Cor 11:7, referring to his "humbling himself" by working with his own hands, and 12:21, referring to God's humbling him again before the Corinthians.
40. Gk. περισσεύειν; used again at the end of the sentence, and in 4:18 to refer to their gift. Most often in Paul it is used for "abounding" in spiritual qualities.
41. Contra O'Brien (523), who because of the context would limit it to "economic deprivation." The word seems too rich in content for such specific limitation.
42. See, e.g., 1 Cor 4:11-13; 2 Cor 6:4-5; 11:23-29; cf. 2 Cor 4:8-9.
43. Gk. έν παντι και έν πασιν, lit. "in everything and in all things"; cf. 2 Cor 11:6.
44. Gk. μεμύημαι, only here in the NT. The word is a technical term for initiation into the Mystery cults. Some (e.g., Lightfoot, Beare, Hawthorne) probably make too much of its origins, especially since it is so clearly metaphorical here.
45. Gk. και χορτάζεσθαι και πεινάν; the same combination occurs in Matt 5:6.
46. Not to mention "a day and night in the deep" (2 Cor 11:25), which has always struck me as too casually read by most of us. As one who has lived most of his life by the sea, I can only imagine the nightmare that must have been. That may not have been as "humiliating" in one way as the five times he received the thirty-nine stripes; but the desperation and loneliness of such "humbling" must have been intense — and this before the shipwreck at Malta.
47. With insight Calvin (292) notes that learning how to "abound" is "an excellent and rare virtue, and much greater than the endurance of poverty."
48. Gk. έν τω ένδυναμοΰντι (cf. η. 13), which, given the frequency of the "in Christ" kind of phrase in Philippians, almost certainly does not primarily express agency here — although such an idea does not lag very far behind. Paul is referring to his being "in him, that is, in the one who enables." The problem with translating it "through him" is that it often leads to a kind of triumphalism that "when . . . empowered by Christ, nothing was beyond [Paul's] capabilities" (O'Brien, 526). O'Brien rightly contends against such a reading of the text (but see further n. 50).
49. That Paul intends Christ can scarcely be doubted; see on n. 13. For a similar use of the verb, but in the aorist, see 1 Tim 1:12.
50. This is made certain by the emphatic position of the πάντα, which in this case picks up the έν παντι και πάσιν in v. 12. Missing this grammatical and contextual point has allowed some to quote this sentence out of context as a kind of eternal "gnomic" promise of Christ's help for any and everything, sometimes in a triumphalistic way that stands in total contradiction to its intent. On the other hand, to limit it merely to "want" or "plenty" (as, e.g., O'Brien, 526) is too constricting, since for Paul it does in fact express the reality of his entire life. Just as with "being humbled" in v. 12, so "everything" in this sentence should be understood more broadly as well, as long as it is understood within Paul's theological frame of reference. That is, his singular focus on Christ (1:21), whom he longs to know and to whose death he wants his entire life to be conformed, already dictates what "all things" means for him. To take this sentence out of that singular Christ-focused context of his life is to doom it to serve for lesser, more often selfish, things.