And now, dear brothers and sisters, one final thing. Fix your thoughts on what is true, and honourable, and right, and pure, and lovely, and admirable. Think about things that are excellent and worthy of praise. Keep putting into practice all you learned and received from me—everything you heard from me and saw me doing. Then the God of peace will be with you. How I praise the Lord that you are concerned about me again. I know you have always been concerned for me, but you didn’t have the chance to help me. Not that I was ever in need, for I have learned how to be content with whatever I have. I know how to live on almost nothing or with everything. I have learned the secret of living in every situation, whether it is with a full stomach or empty, with plenty or little. For I can do everything through Christ, who gives me strength.
Phil 4:8-13
In the previous Gem I explored a little the suggestion that Paul was dabbling in Stoicism. That is the view of some but I totally reject it. Yes Paul uses the words [aretē] “virtue” and [autarkēs] “contentment” but there is no way he was using these words in the same way the Stoics did. We need to look at this section in the way I believe Paul meant it. There are two main points I would like to make in order to draw a conclusion to what Paul is saying and both rely on setting the context.
The Immediate Context of Philippians 4:13
The first point related to setting the final verse of this setting in its right context.
For I can do everything through Christ, who gives me strength.
Phil 4:13
So often we read this verse or hear it preached as a stand alone. I can do all things in Christ! I have Christ’s resurrection power working within me. I have Christ’s strength, therefore I can go the extra mile, I can leap tall buildings in a single bound, I can run through a troop and leap over a wall. The power of the resurrection fills me, therefore what can prevent me? I am invincible in Him. Well, that is true to a degree. But that ultimate state of the level of perfection is not what is in focus here. The statement in verse 13 is in the context of what Paul is talking to the Philippians about – the period of time when their support did not come to him.
- When he was lacking their financial support.
- When he was living on almost nothing.
- When he was going without.
- When he was going without food.
- When he was living on very little, money or food.
The words Paul uses in this passage are all interesting to say the least:
Word Used | Meaning | Contrasted with | Meaning |
---|---|---|---|
tapēinoō | to be abased, made low, go without | perisseuō | to have an over abundance, to overflow in provision, be rich with resources |
peinaō | to experience hunger, go hungry, be without food | chortazo | to be satisfied, eat one’s fill, be replete, overfilled |
hustereō | to lack, be lacking, go without | perisseuein | to abound, to be resource rich, to have more than you need |
All of the above six words are used and contrasted with each other. The sense one gets in reading verses 11 and 12 is a deliberate contrast between lacking and having an abundance. A contrast if you like between austerity and plenty, stoicism and abundance. It is like Paul is deliberately contrasting these two states. But then there is more. Paul develops a further contrast between:
- emathon “I learned”
- oida “I know”
- memuēma “be privy to a secret” from mueō
Memuēma is a technical term used by the mystery religions for the divulging of secrets after being initiated into one of those mystery religions. By using that word, it is like Paul was playing with the ideas found in the mystery religions to contrast them to what he has in Christ.
- ischuō “to have power”, “be able”, “be competent, “have the ability”
- endunamaō “to be empowered”, “to be infused”, “to be given power”
Note the word endunamaō which is a compound made up of the prefix en and the root dunamos. [En] meaning in, within and [dunamos] I am sure you have heard about before, which is the word dynamite comes from. That kind of power. All of the above comes together in Paul’s final statement:
πάντα ἰσχύω ἐν τῷ ἐνδυναμοῦντί με Χριστῷ.
{all things} {I am able} {in ~ by} {the One} {infusing with power} me Christ
I am able to do all things through the One who infuses me with power. Not by my own efforts or the power of my mind to control my wants and desires, but by the One who lives within me. Let me tell you about Him, Christ! What is fascinating here is that some translations have Christ specified and some don’t.
The One who empowers me from within [ASV, BBE, Bishops, CJB, ESV, GNT WH, ISV, Modern Language, MSG, Murdock, NASB, NIV, Rheims,RSV, RV]
Christ [AMP, CEV, ERV, Geneva, GNB, GNT, GNT TR, GW, JUB, KJV, MKJV, LITV, TLB, TLV, TS2009 (footnoted), Tyndale, Pickering]
At issue here is a textual variation. Some manuscripts and therefore translations have both The One who empowers me from within, Christ; while the others have The One who empowers me from within, but don’t add Christ. Did Paul spell it out or did he leave it without the added, Christ? Either way, whether Christ was added or not it was clear that Paul was making the point that his power came through the in-dwelling Christ. That is what he was always on about; he would have made it clear to everyone that his power came from the Holy Spirit within in contrast to the self sufficiency and self-help of the Stoics. I am convinced that is why Paul spelled out the contrast in this passage as he did. It is not as some commentators think that Paul was dabbling in Stoic philosophy but rather if anything we have a polemic against Stoic philosophy.
The Wider Context in the Letter
As I have highlighted before, Paul has a continuing theme of having the mind of Christ in this letter. However, it is also clear that there is a progression of thought, understanding, learning if you like to call it that, seen in the words used above. Learn . . . know . . .know intimately . . . experience. We have a string of Greek words here over the thrust of the letter as a whole which outline a process we go through.
emathon –> oida –> gnōnai / gnōsis –> katalabō
The progression is Learning -> Knowing intellectually -> Knowing Intimately -> Obtaining or Appropriating for yourself. The last of these terms I dealt with in Gem 1981 in detail. I am sure it has dawned on you that we can know and learn something but unless it becomes part of us it is not really ours. it if stays at the intellectual level it is not all that good for us. That is what Reg Ackland told me years ago, see Gem 1626 but I have also mentioned Reg twice in this series on Philippians already in Gem 1982 and 1985. How did Paul come to know the power of Christ living within? He asked for it!
I want to know Christ and experience the mighty power that raised him from the dead. I want to suffer with him, sharing in his death, so that one way or another I will experience the resurrection from the dead!
Phil 3:10-11
How did it become so real and life changing for Paul? Simple, he met Christ and came to trust Him with his life and so got to know His ways and intimacy and in doing so came to appropriate not only the power of His resurrection but also to obtain that same resurrection for himself. That’s what it’s all about, stemming from having the mind of Christ in you. Are you understanding it clearer now? I hope so. It is the same process Moses went through. Oh that I might see Your face, see Your glory and know Your ways. (Ex 33:13-20). Each one of us have to move from Learning to Knowing intellectually to Knowing Intimately to Appropriating for ourselves. That process ultimately brought Paul to what he desired: attaining to the resurrection from the dead and experiencing the Life of the Age to Come.
Now the ball’s in your court.
Your behaviour is what you believe; all the rest is just talk.
Ian Vail
Getting to know God is not the end of life but the BEGINNING of it. My purpose is to live life in all its fullness.
Rick Warren
It’s not what you know that shapes your life, but what you worship.
Ian Vail
Which zone do you live in?
The challenge zone: ‘I attempt to do what I haven’t done before.’
The comfort zone: ‘I only do what I already know I can do.’
The coasting zone: ‘I don’t even do what I’ve done before.’
Bob Gass
In what way, if any, is it different for epicureans’ to use the words ‘virtue’ and ‘contentment’ as opposed to the stoics?
If you looked at the summary of Epicureanism and Stoicism in Gem 1717 you would see the Stoics were into austerity and deprivation in order to curb human desires. The Epicureans were all for egotistical hedonism – allowing free reign to the human desires in the quest for pleasure. The Stoics figured there was virtue in depriving oneself and living in austerity. I am not sure virtue was even a notion to be considered for the Epicureans. However, the difference in the concept of contentment between the two philosophies were at opposite ends of the spectrum as you can only imagine.