PHILIPPIANS 4:2-9 (Part 1)

Paul’s Final Exhortations—Phil. 4:2-9

Now Paul turns to giving his final exhortations to the church at Philippi. It should be observed that all exhortations do not have the same purpose. In these final exhortations we see two different purposes—correction or encouragement.

Exhortation to Harmony—4:2-3

This exhortation is given for correction. This is clearly indicated by its very language. It is has two parts: First, it is directed to two people: “I urge Euodia and I urge Syntyche to live in harmony in the Lord” (Phil. 4:2a). The earnestness of the appeal is seen in the double usage of the word urge (parakaleo). It has the meaning of call upon, admonish, persuade, to beg, beseech, or implore. Paul begs each one to a corrective action, but he does not assert blame or take sides. It is a rebuke, but one that is not offensive. He is making an appeal to both parties to an action that evidently does not exist between them at the present time. They were in disagreement. These problems are not doctrinal, but are differences between personalities or opinions that was causing disharmony between them. Sad to say that most problems within a local body have to do with personalities, not doctrinal issues. Baker observes: “There are a hundred and one such little flies that get into the ointment and spoil it: things not sinful in themselves, but wedges, nevertheless, which can separate the brethren.”[1] What this disagreement and disharmony was about we are not told. It would have been common knowledge in the church. The corrective action is to be in harmony. The Greek reads: to auto phronein (lit. to think the same thing). It could be translated to be likeminded, to be in harmony, or to be united. It is clear that this was an attitude problem. Wrong thinking leads to wrong attitudes. The phrase “embraces not only the idea of possessing ‘a common mind’ but also having identical feeling and attitudes toward each other, a total harmony of life.”[2] They were not exercising the mind of Christ, which Paul instructed in Phil. 2:1-5.   

It should be pointed out that this lack of unity between them was not always true. Two things are clear about them from verse 3:

• They were active in the church for some time. Indeed, Acts indicates that women had important roles in the churches of Macedonia (Acts 16:14, 40; 17:4, 12). These women were a part of that legacy.
• They were Paul’s fellow-workers in ministry, and had a harmonious relationship in the past.

This presents more of a reason for Paul to single them out for this corrective purpose of reestablishing harmony. An interesting factor in all of this is that one finds an absence of blame, judgmental attitudes, or condemnation. (More churches need to keep this in mind when dealing with these kinds of problems). Paul is not interested in assigning such elements; he is interested in the help that can be provided to these two ladies to become harmonious in their relationship to each other, and to the church.  

Second, this exhortation includes the church body or someone in the body. Paul turns from the recipients of help to the helpers. “Indeed, true companion, I ask you also to help these women…” (Phil 4:3a). The text seems to indicate Paul is addressing one person. There seems to be three views as to whom Paul is speaking.

• First, is the personal name view. It holds that the Greek translation should be “Indeed, Syrygus, I ask you to help these women…” (Phil 4:3a). Hendriksen says “It is safe to infer that Syrygus, about whom we have no further information, was one of Paul’s comrades or associates in the work of the Gospel.”[3] However, the Greek word syrygus does not appear in any Greek literature as a proper name.[4]
• Second, is the unknown person view, but referred to simply as “loyal yokefellow.”[5] This view holds that Paul is instructing a person unknown to us to help these ladies. This person would not be unknown to the church and Paul. Many suggestions have been made as to whom it may be—Lydia (not likely since the tense is masculine), Timothy, Clement, and Epaphroditus. However in reality this person is a mystery to us.
• The third view holds that the church as a whole is referred to as a single individual. It is a personification of church as one person or body. Paul sees the entire church as one unit. “Together, then, the Philippians are to help these women reconcile their differences.”[6]

Of the three views, the first seems the most unlikely. The other two views have merit, and either is possible. It comes down to preference and which fits the context better. On that basis, I favor the third view because the context is dealing with unity, and the emphasis is on the common struggle, and the function of the whole church. This is indicated in the phrase: “together with Clement also and the rest of my fellow workers, whose names are in the book of life” (Phil. 2:3c). Clement is unknown to us. Also this is the only place the book of life is mentioned outside the book of Revelation. It is a note of security. All believers are secure in Christ. All have their names written in the Lamb’s book of life.

Whomever this verse may refer to, the phrase indicates a group within the church (if not the body of the church) whose function is to “help them” (Phil 2:3a). The Greek word is syllambano and its root means to seize or catch; however, here in the middle voice it means to take hold together, assist or help.[7] This is the dramatic high point on corporate responsibility[8] of the church as the Body of Christ. They are to aid in the correction. They are to help restore harmony between these two ladies.  

Exhortations to Live by—4:4-7

Now Paul is giving exhortations of encouragement. Paul often turns from a negative situation to more positive exhortations. Baker calls these exhortations a “Recipe for Peace.”[9] Paul identifies elements that lead to the peace of God in the lives of the believers (4:8). Each exhortation is an imperative and while each stands alone, yet they are loosely connected. Silva comments that the loose connection of the exhortations in verses 5-7 “may be viewed as reinforcing Paul’s call for believers to rejoice.”[10] He also notes that “Joy, a forbearing spirit, and inward peace are qualities that very much belong together.”[11] O’Brien identifies these injunctions as the use of asyndeton.[12] Asyndeton is the omission of conjunctions in which they would normally be used.  (This is also found in Romans 12:9-21). By using the asyndeton, each injunction independent of the other, and is emphatic, taking on the voice of commands. They are addressed to the whole congregation.

Live Rejoicing—4:4

“Rejoice in the Lord always; again I will say rejoice!” (Phil. 4:4). This is not simply an admonition, but a command. In fact, a double imperative is used to show the necessity and importance of the command. It is given for emphasis. Calvin says it is a call to steadfastness in joy.[13] Thus, rejoicing is an act of obedience. We are to choose joy. Joy and rejoicing are to be keynotes in the believers’ life (cf. 1:4, 18; 2:17, 18, 3:1). Lightfoot notes that this injunction has an element of almost being a departing benediction.[14] Surely with this injunction, Paul is beginning his last words and conclusions to the Philippians.

In giving this injunction he notes two things:

• Rejoicing is “in the Lord.” This is a prepositional phrase and indicates the sphere in which the rejoicing is done. This indicates that this is not natural joy which is dependent on circumstances. It is a mark of our dependence on the Lord and obedience to His will.
• Rejoicing is to be continual—“always.” In 1 Thessalonians 5:16 we are told to “Rejoice evermore!” Paul also reminds us that we believers can be “sorrowful, yet always rejoicing” (2 Cor. 6:10). It is the result of relationship, not circumstances. Paul was in prison and his life was in the balance, yet he rejoiced in the Lord. Even in their own city he exemplified what this meant: shackled in their jail, sgining joyfully in the night (Acts 16).  This is a display of having the mind of Christ.

Live in the Spirit of Gentleness—4:5

“Let your gentle [spirit] be known to all men” (Phil 4:5a). The word spirit is not in the Greek text, and was added by the translators. The Greek word for gentle is the adjective, epieikes, meaning mildness, gentleness, or forbearance. The KJV has it translated as moderation, which means to be less extreme or intensive. The Greek indicates it is an act of fairness and graciousness. It is the opposite of contention and self-seeking.[15] It is an element of God’s wisdom from above (James 3:17). It is to be a characteristic of the churches’ leadership (1 Tim. 3:3).  Again this reflects our Lord’s attitude and manner of action (cf. 2 Cor. 10:1). O’Brien points out that it “signifies a humble, patient steadfastness” which enables one to act “without hatred or malice”[16] in spite of injustice. This is an exhortation to practice restraint and self-control. The practice of this injunction entails:

• Be prepared to be gracious toward others, even if it means taking less than your due.
• Be willing to absorb emotional hurt and injustice without hostility, hatred, or malice.
• Be willing to actively and patiently consider the other person before yourself.
• Be willing to be gentle with others, even when they do not deserve it.

It is just what our Lord did in His passion. This gentleness is a part of having the attitude of Christ, as well as the fruit of the Spirit. It is an injunction to be like our Lord. Notice this injunction to be practiced toward “all men,” not just believers. This is reinforced by Paul in Titus 3:2, “be peaceable, gentle, showing every consideration for all men.”

At the end of this injunction Paul makes a statement: “The Lord is near” (Phil. 4:5b). This statement is a surprise and sudden, given without warning, and “without any conjunctions to join it either with what precedes or with what follows.”[17] Ambiguity is a feature of the statement. The word near is the Greek word engys and can mean nearness of place or time. There is no clear indication which way it should be understood. Many take it in the sense of time, indicating it refers to the nearness of the Lord’s coming.[18] This indicates imminence. Paul certainly has just communicated the hope of the believer (3:20-21). Others take it as nearness of place or location, and speak of the omnipresence of Jesus in the church.[19] He speaks of his availability to enable the believer. It speaks of His awareness of and nearness in our circumstances (cf. Psalms 34:18; 119:151). This view fits the context of admonitions. The statement speaks of His presence, promise, and assurance. Both views are theologically acceptable; some say a choice is not necessary, both meanings are true.[20] Of the two possible interpretations, I favor His presence as the most likely meaning. It gets to the heart of these injunctions, as well as the motive to follow these injunctions. The Lord is there; present with them (and with us). He is in their midst. We must never think of the Lord who is out there. He is with us, always near, and always present.

To be Continued...

---

[1]  Baker, UNDERSTANIDING THE BODY OF CHRIST, 104-105.

[2]  Hawthorne, WBC: PHILIPPIANS, 178.

[3]  Hendriksen, NTC: PHILIPPIANS, 191.

[4]  O’Brien, NIGNT: PHILIPPIANS, 480-481.

[5]  Gromacki, STAND UNITED, 175.

[6]  Hawthorne, WBC: PHILIPPIANS, 180.

[7]   O’Brien, NIGNT: PHILIPPIANS, 481.

[8]   Silva, WEC: PHILIPPIANS, 222.

[9]   Baker, UNDERSTAINDING THE BODY OF CHRIST, 105.

[10]  Silva, WEC: PHILIPPIANS, 224.

[11]  Ibid, 223.

[12]  O’Brien, NIGNT: PHILIPPIANS, 484. Also see Wallace, BEYOND THE BASICS, 659.

[13]  Calvin, CALVIN’S NEW TETAMENT COMMENTARIES, 11:288.

[14]  Lightfoot, PHILIPPIANS, 160.

[15]  Lightfoot, PHILIPPIANS, 160.

[16]  O’Brien, NIGNT: PHILIPPIANS, 487.

[17]  Hawthorne, WBC: PHILIPPIANS, 182.

[18]  Silva, WEC: PHILIPPIANS, 225; Wuest, PHILIPPIANS, 109.

[19]  D.A. Carson, BASICS FOR BELIEVERS, (Baker, Grand Rapids, 1996), 110.

[20]  O’Brien, NIGTC: PHILIPPIANS, 489. 

STUDY OF PHILIPPIANS 3:1-4

The Command to Rejoice—Phil. 3:1a

This chapter opens with a command—“Finally, my brethren, rejoice in the Lord.” There are two things one should consider before moving on. First, how should we take the word finally? Second, how is it connected to what follows, or does it?

The word finally is assumed to be a conclusion statement. However the Greek word loipos has a wide variety of meanings,[1] including henceforth, besides, the rest, furthermore, in addition, as well as finally. The word is used here in the present tense, which indicates continuance. It seems best to me to understand it the continuing sense, not the concluding sense. It certainly is not the start of the conclusion of the epistle, for 40% of the epistles remains from this point. Besides, the word is found again in 4:8 which is much closer to the end of the epistle.

 To me a more difficult question is how this is connected to what follows. It seems  there is disconnection between the command and what follows. While not calling it a disconnection, O’Brien points out it is an “abrupt transition.”[2] Certainly there is a change of tone in what follows. It changes from a tone of rejoicing to a tone of servere warning. Or, as Baker says: “His meek, submissive, humble tone changes to one of anger, as he warns about people he calls dogs and evil workers.”[3] Certainly there is no easy answer to the abrupt change. Some have suggested part of an earlier letter to them has been inserted into the letter. Schmithal says “Verses 3:1 and 4:4 fit together so exactly that upon sober reflection one must come to the conclusion that a later hand has pulled the two verses apart.”[4] This proposal has been rejected, as it should be. There is no evidence that such an insert was made in any of the manuscripts. Others suggest that Paul had intended to bring the letter to an end at this point and as he continued decided against it.[5]

My suggestion is that this verse goes with what went before, not what follows. I agree with Calvin who wrote it is, “The conclusion of what goes before; for as Satan never ceased to dishearten them with daily rumors.”[6] Therefore, this half of verse one is connected with the exhortation of 2:17-18, and wraps up the statement of Paul to receive Epaphroditus with all joy (2:29). It is a summary statement with all that Paul had written up to this point. It is a more natural connection than to try to connect it with what follows. It also sets up a reminder for what follows, but does not lead to what comes next.

Paul’s Warning Against Errors—Phil. 3:1b-4:1

In my opinion, chapter three should start at this point: “To write the same things [again] is no trouble to me, and it is a safeguard for you” (3:1b). It is the natural beginning. Here Paul begins to treat the false teaching and teachers of doctrine. Also he helps them in detecting and guarding themselves doctrinally.

Warning against Legalism—Phil. 3:lb-11

He opens the warning with an introductory statement. This statement implies two things: (1) Repetition. He is not troubled to write the same things. He realizes as any good teacher that repetition is a key to learning. The same things may refer back to what Paul has written in the first two chapters, particularly the exhortation of 1:25; 2:18, 28, 29, that of rejoicing. If so, then Paul seems to see the calls to rejoice as a positive attitude that will save them from the ills and false doctrine that is making its way in the local body.[7] However, joy is not the cure for disunity, but humility is (2:3-4).[8] This phrase may imply this is not the first letter he has written to them. If so, the first letter has been lost in the halls of history. There is no evidence of such a letter. Or it could refer to the same things which he spoke to them when he was with them. This is in line with the phrase “of whom I often told you” in 3:18 and is the best option in understanding the phrase: to write the same things. (2) He writes it for their protection. He wants to safeguard them. The word translated safeguard is the Greek word asphallo, meaning to make firm; secure from falling; or sure and steady. Repeated teaching of the Word is the best option to safeguard and secure the believer.

In this section we see:

1. The nature of the warning—Phil. 3:2

Three times Paul uses the present active imperative—Beware (Greek: blepete). The present active has the idea of continual, and the imperative puts it in the voice of a command. The words give a sense of urgency. We are continually to keep on watch, or be persistent in looking out with the purpose of avoiding danger. What is this danger? That has been debated by Bible students. Some see three dangers: Gentiles, greedy teachers, and Jews. This is based on the three descriptions that follow the three bewares—“Beware of the dogs, beware of the evil workers, beware of the false circumcision” (Phil 3:2). Dogs being Gentiles, evil teachers being greedy teachers, and the false circumcision being Jews.  However, it seems better to see the descriptions as the three-fold characteristics of the same people. But who? Hawthorne sees this group as unbelieving Jews.[9]  The majority see them as Judaizers. Judaizers have been defined as “Jewish Christians who wanted Gentile Christians to become Jews in practice.”[10] They were legalists and champions of circumcising Gentiles (Acts 15:1 cf. Gal. 1:11-21). They were a continual presence and disrupters of the gospel of grace. Notice the same type of language used here is found in regard to them by Paul on other occasions (2 Cor. 11:13-15; Gal. 1:8-9; 5:12; 6:12-13). 

Paul describes these men as:

• Dogs. While the term was used as a synonym for Gentiles (Matt. 15:26); Isaiah clearly used it to describe Israel’s false prophets (Isaiah 56:10-11). Here Paul likewise uses it as a metaphor for Judaizers who tried to impose the Law and legalism upon the Gentiles. There is a reversal here in that now these Judaizers had became the dogs. Paul uses a stronger word than did Jesus in Matthew 15:26. Wuest notes:

The dogs here were the mangy, flea-bitten, vicious starved scavengers of the oriental streets which the dogs our Lord referred to where the well-cared for little house pets of an oriental household.[11]

• Evil workers. This speaks of their character. They were deceitful (2 Cor. 11:13). Motivated by the flesh and pride; and legalistic in their teaching. They centered on the works of the flesh (cf. Gal. 2:4; Phil. 3:18).
• False Circumcision (cf. Gal. 6:12-13).  This speaks of their perversion. The word used here is katatomen, meaning literal “to cut up from,”[12] thus mutilation or concision. Gromacki tells us:

The descriptive title must be seen in contrast to genuine circumcision (peritome) which is based upon the same verb stem. The Judaizers were literally cutting down (kata) whereas circumcision involved a cutting around (peri). Physical mutilation, practiced in pagan idolatry, were prohibited by God through Moses (Lev. 21:5; 1 Kings 18:28).[13]

In reality they did not belong to the circumcision but to the mutilators. “When Jewish rituals are practiced in a spirit that contradicts the message of the gospel, these rituals lose their true significance and become no better than pagan practices” observes Silva.[14] Baker says, “Circumcision (peritome) as practiced by the Judizers had degenerated into concision (katatome) flesh-cutting or butchering.”[15]

2. Basis for the warning—Phil. 3:3

“For we are the [true] circumcision, who worship in the Spirit of God, and glory in Christ Jesus, and put no confidence in the flesh” (Phil. 3:3). The word for (gar) denotes the reason for the warnings. They (verse 2) are not the true circumcision. This word also sets up a contrast. In contrast—“we are the circumcision” (the word true is not in the Greek text). Some try to limit the word we here to believing Jews, and not to the Gentiles. I see two problems with this view: First, Paul writes directly to the Church, the Body of Christ: “in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands” (Col. 2:11). True circumcision involved the heart and the spirit (cf. Rom. 2:28-29). Second, the basis would be meaningless to the majority of the Philippians, since they were Gentiles. The reference is to spiritual circumcision and includes the believing Gentiles as well as the believing Jews.

It should be noted that Hawthorne concludes from this that the Church is the New Israel.[16] This is a wrong conclusion. There is no evidence that the two equates here in this passage, nor that a replacement has taken place. While circumcision of the heart applied to Israel and that it applies now to the church does not make them the same, or that one replaced or the two are made into one entity.  In addition, Paul uses the term Israel (3:5) in the national sense, and there is no indication in the context that old Israel has now become the New Israel of the church. “Nowhere in discussions of ‘spiritual circumcision’ does Scripture explicitly specify Gentiles as Jews or the church as a new Israel.”[17] Besides this goes against Paul’s argument for a Renewed Israel after the times of the Gentiles has ended (Rom. 11:25-27).

Likewise the context centers upon the act of circumcision. It is clearly a rebuke to those who see physical circumcision as a necessity to have a relationship with God. He is rebuking them by building on the basis of the Old Testament as to spiritual circumcision (cf. Lev. 26:41; Deut. 10:16; Jer. 9:25-26; Ezek. 44:7). Paul makes clear that Gentiles “have been made partakers of their spiritual things” (Rom. 15:27, KJV), he still makes a distinction between the church and Israel by the words Gentiles and their (Israel). One of these spiritual things is spiritual circumcision, but the sharing in this does not make the two the same.

That this is in regard to true believers is reinforced by the three descriptive terms used in reference to spiritual circumcision by Paul.[18]

• “Who worship in the Spirit of God.” While some deny that this reference refers to the Holy Spirit, and refers to the human spirit, I see this as doubtful. I agree with Muller who says the translation should be “worship by the Spirit of God.”[19] It is “an instrumental dative, indicating that the worship is under the impulse and direction of the Holy Spirit.”[20] Lloyd-Jones gives three important aspects of true worship in the Spirit. He points out:

To worship God by the Spirit means that we do not have to force ourselves to worship him, but are conscious of being moved and being led, to worship.[21]

To worship by the Spirit of God is not something cold and formal, it is always warm and loving and free. …It is the warmth of the Spirit, not a cold formality.[22]

True worship of God in the Spirit can be tested in this way: the man who worships God in the Spirit does not think of God as some distant abstraction, almost a philosophical concept, away in the distance. The man who worships in the spirit realizes the presence of God; he knows that God is there at his side.[23]

• “Glory in Christ Jesus,” The Greek word behind the word glory is kauchaomai and clearly means glory or boasting. It is used both in the negative and positive sense in Scripture, determined by the context. The same Greek word is found in 1 Corinthians 1:29: “no man may boast [or glory] before God.” The Judaizers made their boast in the law (cf. Rom. 2:23). We are to make our boast—in Christ Jesus. It is a preposition of sphere or location. We boast or glory in Christ, who has made us acceptable to God (cf. 2 Cor. 10:7; 1 Cor. 1:31). Thus we boast in the person and work of Christ. As Eadie says:

“in Christ Jesus, and in Him alone-not in Him and Moses-not in Son and servant alike; gloried in Him; in His great condescension; His birth and its wonders; His life and its blessings; His death and its benefits; His ascension and its pledges; His return, and its stupendous and permanent results.”[24]

• “Put no confidence in the flesh.” This third participial phrase signifies the grounds in which we cannot boast (cf. 1 Cor. 1:29). This is in sharp contrast to the Judaizers who are putting confidence in the fleshly act of circumcision. It is in contrast to glorying in Christ. Confidence in the flesh is to trust in human attainment and works. In light of the context, Paul is rejecting ritualism as a ground for confidence before God.

This verse also should be seen as a transition verse. Paul takes the concept of boasting and confidence and carries it over to his experience. Three key phrases account for the summary of Paul’s experience.

PAUL’S EXPEREINCES

Phil 3:8	Phil 3:12	Phil 3:20
I count loss	I press on	Look for
Past	Present	Future

---

[1]  Perschbacher, NEW ANALYTICAL GREEK LEXICON, 260

[2]  O’Brien, NIGTC: PHILIPPIANS, 347.

[3]  Baker, UNDERSTANDING THE BODY OF CHRIST, 92.

[4]  Quoted by Silva, PHILIPPIANS, 165.

[5]  Ibid, 167.

[6]  Calvin, CALVIN’S NEW TESTAMENT COMMENTARIES: PHILIPPIANS, 267.

[7]  Hawthorne, WBC:PHILIPPIANS, 124.

[8]  O’Brien, NIGTC:PHILIPPIANS, 351.

[9]   Hawthorne, WBC:PHILIPPIANS, 125.

[10]  Siliva, PHILIPPIANS 169.

[11]  Wuest, PHILIPPIANS, 87.

[12]  Perschbacher, LEXICON, 228.

[13]  Gromacki, STAND UNITED IN JOY, 135.

[14]  Silva, PHILIPPIANS, 170.

[15]  Baker, UNDERSTANDING THE BODY OF CHRIST, 93.

[16]  Hawthorne, WBC: PHILIPPIANS, 126.

[17]  Robert L. Saucy, A CASE FOR PROGRESSIVE DISPENSATIONALISM, 205.

[18]  These are in contrast with the three descriptive terms used of the Judaizers in verse 2.

[19]  Muller, NICNT:PHILIPPIANS, 107 fn 4.

[20]  Loh and Nida, TRANSLATORS HANDBOOK: PHILIPPIANS, 92.

[21]  D. Martin Lloyd-Jones, THE LIFE OF PEACE, 28.

[22]  Ibid, 29.

[23]  Ibid, 30.

[24]  Eadie, PHILIPPIANS [3:3].