Translation Philippians 3:7-11 3:7Buta1 whatever I gained2 this I now count as loss for the sake of Christ.

:8but what is more(let me be more clearer)c3 I consider all these things loss compared to the surpassing greatness of knowing Christd4 Jesus my Lord, through which all things I count as garbage5 that I may gain Christ. :9 and be found in Him, not having a righteous that comes from the law but through faith in Christ, the righteousness that comes from God that is through faith. :10 that I may know the power and the resurrection of Him and thef 6 fellowship if His f suffering formed together in His death. :11 and so somehow to attain to the resurrection of/fromg7 the dead. Literary Context Our pericope follows suit of the things Paul previously took pride in, namely those advantages he had over the kuvnaV, kakou;V ergavtaV, and the katatomhvn (3:2). He was circumcised on the 8th day,
3:7 [Ajllav] this word is omitted from P46.61vid this may have been added later to contrast what proceeded earlier. It does not affect anything either way. There is another variant reading of Alef2 Majority Greek Mss include it.1 But this does not seem to be plausible due to the weakness of the witnesses. Hawthorne states that it seems to be the lectio facilior, and therefore secondary.1 This word introduces a strong contrast with the preceding, contrasting Pauls situation with the Judaizers position.1 The ajllav is missing from the better early evidence, P46 P61vid Alef* A [F] G 33 81 1241s 1739* pc b d Lucifer Ambrosiaster. It is how ever found in B D Y Maj a f vg sy co. The fact that it is in brackets makes it harder to decide since it was changed in other GNT versions. External evidence favors this reading; it is the more difficult reading, since the context cries out for such a contrastive particle. ajllav and ajllav mevounge kaiv does not occur anywhere else in Paul which could have lead to the omission, or more likely the scribes sensed the need of what Barth calls the great But!1 The verse seems to cry out for a transitional particle, but this very fact may have led scribes to add the conjunction.1 The corrector of Sinaiticus who added the conjunction belonged to the original scriptorium, and it may be possible that he corrected the M S. on the basis of the mastercopy. A firm decision seems impossible to Moises and the UBSGNT editors are wise for including the conjunction within brackets.1 2b :7 the words h\n moi are transposed in the B 614 pc lat. The order may have been changed to flow better. 3c :8 the word kai is omitted by P46ivd Alef* 6. 33. 1739. 1881 pc lat, it may be original since it is the harder reading. It may have been omitted because it makes the sentence harder to flow. Hawthorne believes it is omitted because of the superfluity of conjunctions at the beginning of this verse.3 OBrien believes it is omitted because of the unusual combination of introductory particles.3 Fee holds that it is undoubtedly original, and agrees with OBrien.3 4d :8 tou is inserted in P46.61 B, it does not make a big difference whether the article is placed there or not. Not sure why they would go through the trouble to add it in P46.61 and B. 5e :8 einai is inserted by P61vid Alef2 and the Majority Text, possibly to bring it into line with v. 8a, hJgoumai pavnta zhmai einai.5 this addition of the infinitive in indirect discourse is quite unnecessary. 5 6f :10 the word thn is omitted and in the 25th edition of the NA this was changed making this a difficult decision to know for sure. P46 Alef*AS1231 etc. agree to this change. There is also a variant reading. The omission of twn also a change from the 25 edition. P46 Alef* B omit the articles before koinwnivan and paqhmavtwn, although the corrector of Sinaiticus and the Majority Text included the articles. The shorter reading which is widespread and early is more difficult on grounds of symmetry and parallelism.6 The GNT brackets the article which indicates a considerable degree of doubt about including it. The absence of the article unites ajnastavsewV and koinwnivan as one unit, while the inclusion of the article makes them two distinct entities. 6 Hawthorne believes that scribes understanding koinwnivan as a totally separate entity exactly parallel with duvnamin and added the article to make this distinction clear. The th;n should be considered secondary.6 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).6 7g :11 th;n ek is replaced by twn by 075. 1739* and the Majority text. Variant in FG twn ek. etc. The Majority Text reads twn nekrwn instead of thn ek nekrwn (P16 P46 Alef* A B D P 33 1739, together with a few other MSS, i.e., the majority of Alexandrian and Western witnesses). It has been suggested that twn nekrwn, which is the more common phrase, is less likely than the unusual exanavstasiV ejk.7 It must be considered secondary.7
1a

from the tribe of Benjamin, a Pharisee, and according to keeping the law like a good Jew, he was considered blameless. (3:5-6). Here after his boasting in things that were of great credit in a pious society, he now considers the highest calling amidst his Jewish peers to be garbage or filth. William Hendrinksen maps the beginning of chapter 3:1-8 into three points of gain; the first of what Pauls parents gave him namely circumcision and noble birth of the tribe of Benjamin, and second what he gained on his own efforts, the recognition of a Pharisee, zeal even to persecute the church, and legal rectitude to have become blameless.8 Paul had more reason for confidence in the flesh then the Judaizers he speaks of as dogs in verse 2. In verses 8b-11 Paul now relies on a different righteousness, in Christ, not by man but on faith that comes from God. Setting Paul wrote the letter to the Philippians while in prison in Rome. Philippi was a unique colony of Rome. It was brought under Macedonian dominion in 356 BC by Philip II, the father of Alexander the Great and was named after him. It was later brought under Roman control in 168 BC.9 While many have suggested that this letter was not one but three letters and later joined them by an unknown editor seems irrational. As David Aune and many others suggest the departure from the tone can be explained as epistolary digressions in Philippians 3:2. The travelogue in 2:19-30 would normally be placed at the conclusion of the main part of the letter, we see it can also be placed elsewhere as in 1 Cor. 4:14-21; Gal. 4:12-20 and 1 Thess. 2:17-3:13.10 The letter seems to have several endings where Paul uses the phrase finally loipovn would usually signal the conclusion found in 3:1 and 4:8 but Paul continues instead. 11

William Hendriksen, New Testament Commentary; Exposition of Philippians. (Grand Rapids, Michigan; Baker Book House, 1962), 154.
9

Raymond E. Brown. An Introduction to The New Testament (New York; Doubleday, 1996), 483.

David E. Aune. The New Testament in Its Literary Environment. (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; The Westminster Press, 1987), 210. 11 Luke Johnson. The Writings of the New Testament: An Interpretation. (Philadelphia; Fortress Press,1986), 338.

10

Aune continues this thought that when editing letters the ancient practice was to remove the prescripts and subscripts, the editor has also removed the Pauline thanksgiving periods as well, which is very unlikely. 12 Exegesis of Scripture

(v. 7) Our section 3:7-11 is linked to the previous unit (3:1-6) by the cognate noun pepoivqhsin in verse 3 and 4, here Paul explains to his friends why he spoke so harshly against the Jews. He begins by using himself as an example in verse 4, an authentic Jew. 13 The rare word kJerdoV is found both in 1:21 and 3:714 whether or not the conjunction ajllav (but) belongs to the original text, (see notes), there is, nevertheless, a marked transition at this point. 15 We have the perfect mid. (deponent= act,) ind. of hJgeomai, the perfect tense means that he drew this conclusion in the past (at his conversion [My, WC]) and is still of that opinion.16 The verb
indicates arriving at a sure judgment based on careful weighing of facts. There is a striking similarity of 3:7 and 2:6. Christ did not count His existence that was equal to God as something to cling to, but emptied Himself. This counting and emptying is reflected in Paul by having counted things that were gain to be loss for Christ.17 Dr McDonough describes how Paul thinks out loud for the sake of those in Philippi so that they may see how he makes decisions, of putting others first and thinking of himself last. 18 We have it again in the form of Paul exemplifying how Jesus was our model and he is following suit.

12

Aune, 210-211.

Gerald F. Hawthorne. Word Biblical Commentary: Philippians. (Waco, Texas; Word Books, Publisher, 1983), 129.
14

13

Ibid., 131. Ibid. J. Harold Greenlee. An Exegetical Summary of Philippians. (Dallas, Texas; SIL International, 2001), 171.

15

16

William Hendriksen. New Testament Commentary: Exposition of Philippians. (Grand Rapids, Michigan; Baker Book House, 1962), 161. 18 Dec 4 2012, Lecture by Dr. McDonough in the course Exegesis of Philippians at Gordon Conwell Theological Seminary.

17

Greenlee believes that the reason zhmiva is singular because it implies overall loss in contrast of the preceding plural gains. zhmiva loss means that those things did not bring him to Christ, or actually kept him from Christ.19 Paul bundles up these many gains (kervdh) and treats them as a single loss (zhmiva). We may have expected Paul to say that he left behind his previous advantages because he found something better but the decision was not from good to better, nor was it a surrender of a valued possession. Paul abandoned zhmia a loss things that were working to keep him from real righteousness that God required that he himself could in no way achieve on his own efforts.20 Fee explains zhmivan utter loss of Paul was not to renounce what was given to him at birth (circumcision, being a member of Israels race, etc.) he does renounce them as grounds for boasting along with achievements for zeal in the Law. Romans 9:1-5, 11:1-2 makes this clear. 21 The good things Paul enjoined from his parents and his own efforts that made him proud and self-reliant are now considered liabilities.22 In a moment Paul saw himself as
he really was, a deluded, self-righteous, damnable sinner.23 Not because the Law is bad in itself but because he would never achieve righteousness with God by keeping it. Hawthorne notes that Paul uses

business terms that were familiar motifs of profit (kevrdoV) and loss (zhmiva). They were also used by Rabbis (Str-B 3, 622) and even by Jesus (Matt. 16:26).24
Ralph Martin notes that kevrdh is plural suggesting that Paul is gathering all the privileges and claims of the preceding section and puts them into one package and dismisses as loss. He does not simply

19

Greenlee, 171. Hawthorne, 136.

20

Gordon D. Fee. NICNT: Pauls Letter to the Philippians. (Grand Rapids, Michigan; William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1995), 316.
22

21

Hawthorne, 131. Hendriksen, 161. Ibid., 161.

23 24

take a neutral or negative attitude toward them, but rejects them with disgust (Barth).25 Pauls language of gain and loss invokes images of financial audit. Bockmuehl nicely displays this in his paraphrase: In relation to Gods audit in Jesus Christ, these things appear to be liabilities. 26 In Fowls commentary he notes Koperskis idea of the whole context of Philippians is a basic question of correct perception. 27

diva to;n Cristovn on account of Christ is a general reference whose more specific meaning is given in the following verses, because of the encounter with Christ. 28 Pauls outlook was radically changed when he met Christ on the road to Damascus, he understood this was the Messiah he longed for and worked for. He gladly gave up those once conceived gains, for this person of supreme worth.29 Moisevs uses Plato as an example in using dia to indicate Pauls goal of his
actions. When Paul says for the sake of Christ it does not mean to benefit Christ, just as in Republic 524c for the sake of clarity there is no reference to benefiting the object of the preposition. 30

(V. 8) Verse eight actually runs straight through to verse eleven, the end of our periscope. 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.31 While Christ did not consider God-likeness to accrue to His own advantage, but made

Himself nothing, so Paul now considers his former gain kevrdh as loss zhmivan for the

Ralph P. Martin. The New Century Bible Commentary: Philippians. (Grand Rapids; Wm. B. Eerdmans Publ. Co., 1976), 129. Stephen E. Fowl. Philippians, (Grand Rapids, Michigan; William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2005), 152.
27 26

25

Ibid., 152. Greenlee, 172. Hawthorne, 136. Moises Silva. Philippians. (Grand Rapids, Michigan; Baker Book House, 1992), 182. Fee, 313.

28

29

30

31

surpassing worth of knowing Christ. As Christ was found in human likeness, Paul is now found in Christ32
Because v. 8 begins with a very emphatic combination of five particles (alla, men, oun, ge, kai, though kai is omitted by some MMS), it is clear that Paul intends to reiterate his point in the most forceful terms possible.33 ajllav menou:nge but indeed, more than that, not only those things,

let me be clearer is contrasting Pauls previous action of considering things as loss with his present continuation of that decision. 34 menou:nge is amplifying the previous statement, emphasizing that Paul continues to consider what he just said. Greenlee notes the shift of hJgeomai here from the perfect to the present tense again, showing Paul maintains that frame of thought. While others believe it does not contrast but expands the idea of the perfect tense. 35
Again here we see the progression in the shift from the perfect tense to the present tense of hghmai I have considered in verse 7 to hyoumai twice in v. 8 I consider. Dont think I regret my decisioneven now I continue to regard every one of those virtues as nothing. 36

The pres. act. participle of uJperevcw in uJperevcw th:V gnwvsewV can be translated the surpassing knowledge is not to show the excellent knowledge but the excellence of the knowledge, which is supreme value for which Paul abandoned those other values. 37 Hawthorne believes th:V gnwvsewV is a genitive of apposition showing that tov uJperevcon and th:V gnwvsewV

32

Ibid., 314-315 Moises Silva. Philippians. (Grand Rapids, Michigan; Baker Book House, 1992), 179. Greenlee, 172. Ibid., 172. Silva, 179. Greenlee, 173.

33

34

35

36

37

are the same thing, that is ultimate value is knowledge. 38 Fee goes on to add that th:V gnwvsewV here does not denote a quantifiable body of data about someone or something, but the act of knowing itself, the genitive is therefore objective. It is not knowledge about Jesus but to know Him personally, Paul took up the Old Testament theme of knowing God and applied it to Christ. To know Him as a child knows their parents or a wife their husband.39 This is seen further where Paul makes personal his relationship with Christ by calling Him my Lord tou: kurivou mou. This shows his own experience with Christ. 40 The purpose of God in exalting Jesusthat every person should openly and gladly acknowledge Him as Lord (2:11)is answered by Pauls confession, Christ Jesus my Lord (3:8).41 Hawthorne quotes Houlden that the themes of humility and obedience are common to both parts of this epistle, in 2:1-11 and 3:8 we see the parallel between Christs self-abasement and Pauls personal surrender of what was dearest to him on the worldly plane. 42 According to these passages Christ Jesus is much more than
Pauls Example and Friend. He is his Life, Lover, Strength, Boast, Rock, Rewarder, and especially as here, his Anointed Savior and Sovereign. 43

Paul not only considered all things as loss because of Christ, he actually experienced loss of all things. By placing the definite article tav before pavnta (all things) and both words before the verb Paul gives emphasis to the fact that he lost everything. which may point to a particular time when this loss occurred, and hint at the possibility that he was stripped of all

38

Hawthorne, 137. Fee, 317-318. Greenlee, 174. Hawthorne, 131. Ibid., 131

39

40

41

42
43

Hendriksen, 163.

his advantages by the Jewish authorities. 44 It may be more likely that he himself voluntarily renounced those advantages. It was not a lament for this loss but rather a welcomed relief. 45 Paul has given up all other forms of gain kevrdh in order that he might get the true gain kerdhvsw which is Christ, that is, Christ Himself, not merely the favor of Christ.46 Ta; pavnta in
the summarizing sense, as in II Cor. 4:15; Col. 3:8; hence, all these things. 47 Paul seems to have the

stand point of simple logic, he cannot gain the whole world if it means losing Christ; Mark 8:36, Matt 16:26, and Luke 9:25 as noted in verse 7.48
Hendriksen states that some use the word skuvbalon to mean what is thrown to the dogs, and M.M. gives preference to the meaning dung here in Phil. 3:8, in connection to skwvr. Hendriksen believes that Ecclesiasticus 27:4 from Josephus, Jewish War V. 571, and Philo The Sacrifice of Abel and Cain attest to this.49 Greenlee makes note that skuvbalon is an amplification of the preceding word

zhmiva loss but nothing further. He shows that some believe it to be rubbish and others think dung but does not chose either way. Fee holds that skuvbala more likely means refuse that which was thrown out for the dogs, taking shot at the same dogs in verse 2. It may be translated as filth to capture the ambiguity and vulgarity, but either way those gains are disadvantages, total loss that are seen as foul-smelling street garabage fit only for dogs.50
Schenk accepts the reference to excrement yet thinks that Pauls point has nothing to do with revulsion

44

Hawthorne, 138. Ibid.,139. Ibid. Hendriksen,164. Hawthorne, 139. Hendriksen, 164. Fee, 319 .

45

46

47

48

49

50

but rather worthlessness. Because Paul earlier refers to the Judaizers as dogs it is more probable that Paul the word skuvbalon is things thrown to the dogs.51 Paul does not think that his Jewish heritage is revolting but that obscuring ones need for full dependence on Gods grace. 52

i{na Cristo;n kerdhvsw indicates Pauls purpose in considering those things as loss and garbage, the purpose was gaining Christ. It points to his past decision and expands the sense of dia; to;n Cristo;n zhmivan loss on account of Christ in 3:7.53 Paul is insisting that he now regards
his previous assets kevrde not merely as without worth but as positively damaging, as spiritual liabilities. The things that Paul thought were benefiting him were actually working to destroy him, because they were blinding him from his need for the real righteousness that God required. 54

(V. 9) The simplest and most natural construction here would seem to be that which makes
kedhvsw kai eureqw dependent on the nearest preceding verb, the second hgoumai of verse 8, present middle indicative. The state of purpose or motive being that I may gain Christ and be found in Him. 55

We have the aorist pass. subj. of euJrivskw which is parallel to gaining Christ in 3:8, which means to be found in Christ, at Pauls death, final judgment, now and always, especially when Christ comes again. 56 This introduces the second part of the purpose clause introduced by i{na in order that I might gain Christ and be found in Him. Gaining Christ is being found in Him as the result of gaining Him. 57 Hawthorone believes that I may be found in Him echoes from 2:8 being found in human form58 as do many others.

51

Silva, 180-181. Ibid., 180. Greenlee, 176. Silva, 180. Hendriksen, 164. Greenlee, 176.

52

53

54

55

56

Ralph Martin paraphrases Zieslers argument of Pauls autobiographical section as saying three things. The gift of righteousness is in diametrical contrast to righteousness of Pauls own. Meaning that a right standing and relationship with God cannot be achieved by human effort on the basis of the law, it comes to the trusting person as Gods gift. Second it is righteousness from God ejk teou: is a genitive of author or origin, in strict parallel with ejk novmou, based on the law. The law cannot give righteousness, only God who made it, can. Lastly the medium from which the divine righteousness or Gods saving power in liberating His people and setting them in good relations with Himself reaches men in faith.59

Hawthorne speaks of dikaiosunhn being a legal term, in which the judge in a court of law justifies one between two parties. This is to declare him in the right, though this decision did not necessarily depend on the moral character of the person involved. In a religious context, the Jews believed they had to keep the Law of Moses so that God would declare them in the right and gain His favor. Paul in light of his experience on the Damascus road sees that God does not merely desire good works but faith. This should not lead us to more self-rightousness, of how great our faith is but to know we cannot earn Gods approval, we can only accept His free offer of forgiveness.60 Hawthorne shows how Paul is describing the doctrine of justification by faith, all humans are alienated from God, and no one can reestablish this relationship with God on his own merits, being righteousness that comes from the law. This may echo Ralph Martins argument above. It is God who must take the initiative to restore this relationship since He is the source of true righteousness, (th;n ek; qeou: dikaiosuvnhn), and has indeed taken the initiative through Jesus Christ in whom our faith is in. 61 Fee also emphasizes that righteousness in the Old

57

Ibid., 177. Hawthorne ,131. Martin, 132-133. Hawthorne, 141. Ibid., 142.

58

59 60

61

10

Testament was to be of God and not on mans righteousness. In Isaiah 64:6 human righteousness is filthy rags.62 This is always what through faith means in Paul; it is never something believers do in exchange for Gods acceptance; rather it reflects their utter trust in Gods gracious love and acceptance. 63 dia; pistewV Cristou: shows that (ejk) the source of new covenant righteousness is God, and has been mediated dia; through Christ. Therefore it is not through Pauls faith but through Christ whom Paul puts his trust in. 64 We have ajllav again with the strong contrast, not my own but on the contrary through faith. ejk qeou: dikaiosunhn not on Pauls own righteousness but instead the one which is from God. This word expresses the origin. And this is ejpi; th:/ pivstei on the basis of faith. Which is through faith in Christ th;n dia; pivstewV Cristou:.65 Greenlee believes pivstewV Cristou simply means faith in Christ, since Jesus is the author or source of the faith, the faith which Christ produces in me. 66 (V. 10) The aorist act. inf. of ginwvskw can mean come to know or come to understand in reference to coming to full knowledge experienced by union with Christ. 67 The aorist indicates completion of an action, not continuation, and therefore does not refer to a gradual increase of knowledge, but to the final attainment at the resurrection of the dead. 68 The infinitive gives purpose of the righteousness based on faith, that I may know Christ. The goal of

62

Fee, 324. Ibid. Ibid. Greenlee, 178. Ibid. Ibid., 179-180. Ibid., 179.

63

64

65

66

67

68

11

Pauls whole life is to come to know Christ and the power of His resurrection and the fellowship of His sufferings.69 Knowing Christ is personal, intimate knowledge gained by personal experience, gained by union with Him. Only those who are righteous by faith possess this knowledge.70 The power of His resurrection th;n duvnamin th:V ajnastasewV aujtou: is the power that resurrected Christ and now manifests in the new life of the believer to overcome temptation and to lead holy lives. 71 Christs power destroys sin in ones life, the resurrection also confirms Pauls faith in Christ and his hope of salvation. It assures Paul of our final justification, in short Jesus resurrection is a powerful guarantee of our justification and salvation. 72 Hawthorne notes the chiastic structure in verse 10. Th:V a;nastajsewV aujtou is connected to ejxanavstaasin resurrection- resurrection, while paqhmavtwn aujtou: is connected to tw/: qanavtw aujtou: sufferings- death. 73 We have the present pass. participle of summorfivzw implies a deep and inward resemblance.74 Greenlee believes to know the fellowship of his sufferings is to be dead to the former life. It also means becoming dead to sin, and alive in Christ, to thrive continually to put ones death to sin in Christs death a daily reality. Paul here is describing his threatened martyrdom, where Christs death was a sacrifice and Paul contemplates his own death in the same light.75 Fee speaks strongly against this view, Pauls language is nearly a repeat of 2 Cor.

69

Ibid.,180. Ibid. Ibid., 181. Ibid., 181. Hawthorne, 145. Greenlee, 183. Ibid., 183.

70

71

72

73

74

75

12

1:7, where being participants in the sufferings cannot possibly refer to something spiritual.76 In verses 10-11 we see that the narrative anticipates later themes and repeats present ones
as it moves along. The theme of knowing Christ is placed into the larger context coupled with suffering and future resurrection in the form of a (A B B A) chiasm. 77

Philippians 2:1-4:3 is an extended demonstration of how Christian fellowship should shape the communities identity.78 Philippians 2:1-4 is preceded by examples that illustrate it Jesus 2:6-11, Paul 2:17, Timothy 2:19-24, Epaphroditus 2:25-30 and again Paul in contrast to those who seek their benefits 3:2-16, then a call to imitation of these examples in 3:17-21.79 When 3:2-16 is read according to the pattern of the Christ hymn of 2:6-11, the parallelism is patent, and Pauls parenetic use of the counterexample becomes clear. 80 The term being like Him summofizovmenoV tw:/ qanavtw/ is stronger in the Greek, it is formed together into His death. It refers back to the language of form morfhv from 2:6-8. Paul has therefore allowed the form of Christs self emptying to be the form of his own life. 81 Paul is talking about becoming dead
to sin, implying dead to selfishness and eagerness to bless others as Christ was in His death. Union with Christ implies that all of Christs redemptive experiences are duplicated unredemptively in the believer. This does not mean that all of the believers should die to death on the cross. 82 Fowl make a strong argument for the exact meaning and application for us who like Paul did not literally conform to Christs death by crucifixion by the Romans. We note from the story of Jesus death and the hymn in 2:6-11 three

76

Fee, 328. Ibid., 313. Johnson, 343. Luke Johnson, 343. Ibid., 346. Ibid., 347. Hendriksen, 168-169.

77

78

79

80

81

82

13

characteristics emerge. Jesus sought the benefit of others by not using His equality with God for His own advantage, He willing emptied Himself, and lastly it was the result of obedience to God. This is not to say that all suffering and all death is sharing in Christs suffering or Christs death, but that suffering and death comes from seeking the benefit of others and willed self emptying and obedience to God. 83 The debate turns on the precise category of the genitive phrase. It is generally agreed that the genitive of His sufferings must be objective, i.e. Paul longs to share His Lords sufferings, rather than that he wants to enter into felloship created by Christs suffering. 84 Fowl notes the common way of speaking about resurrection was ajnavstasiV but here we have ejxanavstasiV, the only time it occurs in the NT. It may be that Paul is not referring to the general idea of resurrection of the just and the unjust.85 Paul speaks of renewing his own mind as he is captivated by Christ. Pauls attention and affections are redirected so that he comes to understand God and Gods ways with the world in profoundly different ways.86

(V. 11) pwV This word implies Pauls humility, not doubt, and modest hope or selfconfidence, opening the way for what he says in the following verse. Any implied doubt is distrust of himself, not of God, emphasizing the need of constant vigilance.87 Some see ejxanavstasiV to be literal resurrection of the dead referring to the resurrection of the righteous when Christ returns. While others think it is Pauls desire to be raised above sin in this life. 88 Fee states that this emphasizes that the resurrection of the believers is intimately tied to their first being conformed to His death. Without death of this kind, there is no resurrection. 89 This is a

83

Fowl, 156-157. Martin, 134. Fowl, 157. Ibid., 158. Greenlee, 183. Ibid., 184. Fee, 335-336.

84

85

86

87

88

89

14

way of Paul saying as he and Barnabas said in Acts 14:22 have courage, we must go through many hardships to enter the Kingdom of God.90 Second this is his way of moving toward the concern they have stand firm in the present (4:1; 1:27), and above all, not lose their clear focus on, and keen anticipation of, their certain future in Christ.91 Conclusion As believers at one time or another we have or should be faced with the comforting reality that our good works, deeds, or heritage is simply not enough to be right with God. The comforting part is to know that God is indeed faithful, and is worth more than these pleasures could ever possibly be. Knowing Him th:V gnwvsewV is uJperevcw supremely more valuable than the comforts of our day, and should be considered garbage if they are use to give us security, assurance, or grounds for boasting. This is not a call to sit back and relax since we no longer are pressured to work our way into heaven. It is instead a call to follow Paul as he follows Christ, namely in the way of making decisions, that benefit others and the Kingdom. Being in fellowship with Christ, and with other believers is more than after service meals but to be involved in their sufferings, rejoicing, and praying and standing with them is the progression Paul is calling the church at Philippi to. This is what it means to be like Christ, to know the fellowship of His sufferings and to form together in His death.

90

Ibid., 336. Ibid.

91

15