PHILIPPIANS 2:1-11: SELFLESS PEOPLE OF THE SELFLESS GOD
Student ID: 00050581
Presented to Dr. Walt Davis
In partial fulfillment of the requirements of
Greek Language Tools
Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary
August 19, 2012
TABLE OF CONTENTS
APPENDIX: BLOCK DIAGRAM…………………………………………………………………………..20
Many men and women throughout church history have seen the magnificence of Philippians 2:1-11; the church father and philosopher Marius Victorinus writes in reference to verse five, “Being of the same mind suggests a knowledge that is not yet established, yet its capacity of knowing may be seen to be the same…Being of the same mind seems to be a still continuing process. It is the way to life. But having the same love is the way of life to which that knowing leads.” One cannot attain the same mind without having the same love; what is the mindset and to what or whom does this required love demand reception? The answer given by the Apostle Paul was the example of the person and work of the Lord Jesus Christ; the church would have the mind of Christ by embracing the example of selfless love Christ gives.
This is incredibly poignant in a day where many voices are encouraging evangelical Christians to guard their minds, but are not teaching them how to set free the love in their hearts. It is easy to want to strive for cold, merciless uniformity, forced behind the iron hands of tradition, the clergy, or God-forbid, the Scriptures themselves. It is much more difficult to seek to have the mind of Christ while also being willing to show the same shameful, brutal, and ultimately castigating love that is displayed by Christ in his humiliation and condescension for the salvation and redemption of sinners. This short exegetical treatise will examine the context and content of Philippians 2:1-11 in order to demonstrate that a selfless people is possible only through a selfless God.
Philippians 2:1-11 was not written in a vacuum; if one does not evaluate the larger context both historically and literarily, then one could end up with false impressions, incomplete information, and miss tools that could assist in one’s exegesis. The historical context will be considered first, followed by an explanation of the literary context.
The Epistle to the Philippians was likely written somewhere between the mid-50s to early 60s C.E.; this date is merely an estimate considering that scholars cannot agree whether Paul wrote it in Rome, Caesarea, or Ephesus. F.F. Bruce gives the following reasons for a Roman provenance: 1) the mentioning of Caesar’s household, 2) access to the praetorian guard, 3) the ability to freely preach the gospel, and 4) the uncertainty concerning the time of imprisonment, which alludes to being under house arrest. Whereas D.A. Carson and Douglas Moo give an equally convincing case for Ephesus citing that: 1) Paul was at one point in serious trouble there, 2) journeys to and from Philippi were more probable, 3) inscriptions showing a detachment of the praetorian guard was stationed at Ephesus, 4) representatives of the emperor could be the household of Caesar mentioned, and 5) that Paul had not returned to Philippi since founding the church which was not so if he had written from Rome. The two views are so evenly matched , but there is preference given to the Roman provenance because of church tradition though with loose humility.
What is clear is that Paul was imprisoned and was able to use his imprisonment to advance the gospel of Christ. J.B. Lightfoot has shown convincingly that Philippians was likely the earliest of Paul’s prison epistles by drawing links of comparison between the epistle and the Epistle to the Romans. He argues, “Altogether in style and tone, as well as in its prominent ideas, it [Philippians] bears a much greater resemblance to the earlier letters [1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Romans] than Colossians and Ephesians. Thus it forms the link which connects Colossians and Ephesians with the letters of the apostle Paul’s third journey.” Thus, Philippians is a letter that fits a gap between two periods of Paul’s life: one fighting Judaizers and the other fighting proto-Gnostics.
The main consideration for literary context will deal with Philippians 2:6-11 and what form of composition these verses take. As Stephen Fowl observes, “Few other passages in the NT have generated more scholarly literature. Much of that scholarly literature has focused on the form of this passage and whether the passage had some sort of prior life in the worship of the first Christians,” he continues, “Scholars have also shown an intense interest in the conceptual and religious background of the phrases and images used here to describe Jesus.” What will be discussed is what form these verses take and of what they are composed; however, it is beyond the scope of this work to truly delve into the intricacies of the arguments. Once the two issues are discussed, the position that will be taken in the exegesis of this paper will be acknowledged and followed.
First, the form of the verses has been suggested to be some sort of early Christian hymn. The consensus viewpoint of scholarship (until more recently) has been that the composition is a pre-Pauline hymn. Gerald Hawthorne writes, “Nevertheless, there is at least one thing that calls forth almost universal agreement. It is that vv 6-11 constitute a beautiful example of a very early hymn of the Christian church.” Ralph Martin and Peter O’Brien take this view, though O’Brien is quick to point out the difficulties and assigns the passage hymn status in a very broad sense. Martin follows Ernest Kasemann’s kergymatic/salvation interpretation and thus makes it necessary for the composition to be a pre-Pauline hymn. O’Brien sees it as a hymn but follows the more natural division of it by Hooker into two distinct sections talking about Christ’s humility and exaltation. However, there are those who do not consider verses six through eleven to be a hymn. Gordon Fee believes that it makes more sense as an extension of Paul’s argument and that it has a narrative along with a poetic structure. Markus Bockmuehl points out that the context of the verses do not point to it being extra-Pauline and that the sheer number of proposed stanzas and rhythm divisions makes a non-hymn thesis just as plausible. Stephen Fowl completely refutes the idea that the verses can be a hymn in either the Hebrew or Hellenistic sense, because there is no praise invocation that is often found in such hymns. It is the position of the writer that the origin of these verses is irrelevant to the exegesis since what matters is what the Apostle Paul meant to relay to the Philippians in their context. However, it is conjectured that while poetic, that these verses could easily have been written by Paul as an extension of his argument as they could have been an early Christian hymn.
Second, what if anything is Paul alluding to in these verses? The question is a deep one; it is important to understand some potential parallels in the coming exegesis. There are three primary interpretations: imitative, paradigmatic, and kergymatic. One other proposal is Hawthorne’s idea that the verses parallel closely with the Gospel of John 13:3-17, though he admits that it is at best an informed conjecture. Martin is especially an advocate of the kergymatic interpretation (as are most followers of Kasemann) citing, “The technical formula ‘in Christ’…unquestionably points to the salvation-event; it has soteriological character, just as ,according to Paul, one comes to be ‘in Christ’ only through the sacrament.” Fee advocates the more paradigmatic view, “The context makes it clear that vv. 6-8 function primarily as paradigm. The two clauses stand in bold relief to ‘selfish ambition’ and ’empty glory’ of v.3, the second clause exemplifying the humility that is likewise called for in that passage.” Frank Thielman is an advocate for the traditional imitative view, “Paul composed the passage himself, with great care in order to portray Jesus as an example for the Philippians to follow as they reshape their thinking in their mutual relationships.” It is the writers view that the verses were expected to be imitated as a total paradigm shift from the culture around them to the mind of Christ.
The reader is assured that the discussion above has a direct bearing on the exegesis of the text; these issues are the lens by which one sees the text and thus interprets its meaning. Thus, it has been necessary to demonstrate the arguments, though briefly, and to lay down the presuppositions that will guide the coming exegesis and help to avoid the horrible problem of eisegesis.
The passage is naturally divided into two sections: verses one through four composing the first division and verses five through eleven composing the second. Verse five is a transition hinge and the source of considerable exegetical debate in its own right.. Verses one through four’s exegesis pales significantly to the amount of scholarly work that has been put into understanding verse five and how it relates to the supposed hymn of verses six through eleven. The bulk of the exegetical controversy, as will be demonstrated, lies inside of verses six through eleven and how one approaches the literary context affects how one sees those verses.
The New Living Translation (NLT) breaks down the verse into a series of four questions which seem to make the text more abrupt. However, the New International Version (NIV) and the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) tend to keep the structure of the text in a reasonably similar fashion composed of four united but distinct clauses. There are differences in the terms; the NLT morphs the beginning of the verse into a question, the NIV uses the typical “therefore,” and NRSV modifies it slightly to “if then.” The NLT connotes an address to the audience while the other two make it more of a conditional statement connecting it to the previous passage. This is important because, “the meaning…is that what he is about to say is grounded…on what he has just said. The point is that, ‘Because we have the divine injunction to be of one mind and spirit (1:27), we must therefore…”
So then, the people of the same mind and spirit share four things in this verse: encouragement in Christ, consolation in (his) love, participation in/of the Spirit, and compassion as well as sympathy. Encouragement is a combination of the meanings of paraklesis, both exhortation and comfort. Consolation in love could probably be better rendered, “consolation in his love,” since the noun agapes is in the subjective genitive and likely means the love of Christ, though this is not certain. Participation in the Spirit is likely in view, rendering the noun pneumatos as an objective genitive, though some scholars prefer the subjective genitive. Compassion and sympathy should be seen not as of human origin but finding its source in God; the Greek word for sympathy, oiktirmoi, is exclusively used elsewhere in the New Testament as belonging to God.
The phrase “same mind” or, auto phronete, has the connotation not just of thought but rather the entirety of one’s emotional and volitional disposition.The phrase ten auten agapen echontes, or “having the same love,” is referring back to the subject in verse one; thus, it is likely referring to the love of Christ that is to be shared and literally held on to amongst themselves.The last clause, sympsychoi to en phronountes, means “harmonious in the soul,” which harkens once again to Paul’s emphasis on unity and oneness, ending the verse how he began it. It is impossible for people that have the selfless mind of Christ to be in disunity and disharmony with one another.
The terms meden and mede give the force of an English double negative “absolutely not,” or “or absolutely no way;” the lack of a verb also gives this phrase an extra force in its meaning. Thus the two things Paul is about to mention in this clause ought never to be done. The first noun given is eritheian, which means “selfish ambition” and is used earlier in 1:17 for the people who are preaching Christ from impure motives. The second noun, kenodoxian, means “conceit or misplaced vanity” and is used for people who have an inflated ego concerning themselves which is not backed by evidence. In contrast (alla) to this, Paul exhorts the Philippians to tapeinophrosyne, which is the word translated “humiliy;” it is also a word that was not referred to favorably in Hellenistic society and was used only to describe menial, debased, and unimportant things. This humility would allow the Philippians to regard others in their fellowship as more hyperechontas or significant (NRSV, “better”) than themselves. This gives the idea of someone standing out above the others; the Philippians are to treat others as if they truly are exceptional regardless of who they are.
This is followed up by an admonition for the believers to look out for one another as much as they would look out for themselves; some translators even go as far as to omit the kai and take the NRSV rendering that makes it only about the interest of others. Still, with the kai it reminds one of the admonition from Leviticus to love one’s neighbor as one’s self. There is a necessary tension in Paul between the individual (hekastos) and the community (heteron); both are needed in order to fully apply the implications of what Paul is saying. One cannot be humble by oneself; one must have a community in which to demonstrate selflessness. Yet, one must also make the individual choice to be selfless; the community cannot truly force this.
The touto (this) is referring back to the previous four verses and also points forward to the coming phroneite (mind) that is found also in Christ; in a real sense verse five is the hinge of the entire passage. The form used is also in the imperative, which lends support to the previously stated idea that this is the embracing of a new paradigm found in Christ in both the first four verses and the last six verses. While many translations translate en Christo Iesou using the rendering “which was in Christ Jesus,” Bochmuehl suggests that the rendering could be more refined to have a both past and present emphasis: “which is in Christ Jesus.”
Christ, who is in the form (morphe) of God, refused to use that form as a means to his own gain. When one considers the weight of this statement, one can see the direction that Paul is taking his audience. The morphe of God is best thought of in the sense that the pre-existent Christ is clothed in the majesty of God’s glory, but also that he was essentially God in all of his qualities and essence. Despite this, he did not use such a position as a means to selfish gain; the word harpagmon denotes a grasping and snatching; basically taking advantage of something. The use of ouch makes it clear that Christ, though he was and is God, did not use that divine status to serve himself and exploit others; exactly what Paul previously admonished the Philippians to also do.
It is important to note that all three of the following clauses: taking on the form of a slave, being born in the likeness of human beings, and being truly human in appearance (v.8), are all things Christ chose voluntarily. In a real sense, Christ demonstrated what it was to be God. The verb ekenosen, which means “to empty,” is best understood in the context of Christ pouring himself out rather than him emptying himself of something intrinsic to his nature. Morphen is once again used to describe the slave form (dolou) that Christ takes; he does not just look like a slave, he becomes the very nature of a slave. But this does not mean that he exchanges his God-nature for a slave nature; it means that he shows his God-nature in his slave-nature as in John 13. Christ’s “likeness” (homoiomati) is not to be construed as mere appearances but rather that in all things he was definitely a man to the fullest expression. Thus, the example of Christ that Paul is trying to get his audience to embrace is both divine but also uniquely and amazingly human; God took on the form of a slave rather than demanding his rights and he became a human being in the fullest sense.
The NRSV and NLT both place the first part of verse eight with verse seven, while the NIV keeps the first clause in verse eight. The reason for the shift is that it is believed that the threefold nature of Christ’s kenosis is the taking on the essence of a slave, being born in complete humanity, and appearing to be in all respects human to those around him. Fee disagrees. and makes appearing as a human being the mode of his kenosis in humility Either way, Christ is said to be in the appearance (schemati) of a human being; roughly meaning that he was found (by experience) to be human. In his humanity he gave the example of what it means to embrace the gospel; he humbled himself (etapeinosen), which once again means taking on baseness and worthlessness, even to the point of giving himself to die on the cross. This act was both in service to God and in the service of men; “Christ’s acceptance of death, therefore, was his ultimate yes to God and man, his ultimate act of obedience to God in his self-giving service to people.” This kind of humility and service is exactly what Paul wants the Philippians to emulate; they are called to be a selfless people because they follow and identify with a selfless God. Jesus made it clear that those who were to follow him were to take up their crosses and drink his cup; Paul is reminding his audience that greatness is found in humility and not in any human achievement.
Why is it that God the Father exalts (hypersosen) Jesus? Some have suggested it is because of the Pauline emphasis elsewhere that it is Jesus’ death, and others have suggested that it is some sort of universal principle of humiliation and exaltation. However, it is likely that Jesus is exalted because of the complete process of his humiliation from incarnation to crucifixion; it is because of Jesus’ willingness to be in the morphe of a slave, even with the full rights as God, that causes the Father to exalt him. This exaltation is not one of position but rather of degree, and to highest possible degree. The reward of such exaltation is being bestowed upon (echarisato) the name which is above every name (to onoma to hyper pan onoma). The meaning of the name is important while what the name is unimportant; this name causes the heavens and the earth and hell to bow down.
It is at the mention of the name of Jesus that every knee will bow. This is not to be confused with the human name of Jesus (Iesou) but rather the name God the Father has recently bestowed upon Jesus, which arguably is Lord (kyrios). It should also be acknowledged that the bowing of the knee (pan gony kampse) is not just the medium of which one gives adoration to God, but is actually giving adoration to God manifested now in the Son. It is important that all the homage and adoration go to the Son for the purposes of Paul’s later application. This universal rule and worship will extend to the three-tiers of first century cosmology: heaven (epouranion), earth (epigeion), and the underworld (katachthonion). While this could include the non-rational parts of the creation, the clear bowing of knees indicates that rational beings (angels, demons, the living, the dead) will be primarily the ones paying homage to Christ. As will be demonstrated in the application section, it is Christ’s exaltation that will vindicate the selfless paradigm Paul wants his audience to embrace.
Not only will every knee bow in worship, but also every tongue will confess in acknowledgement (pasa glossa exomologesetai) that Jesus Christ is Lord (Iesous Christos kyrios). What type of confession is this? There are some scholars that believe that it will be a joyful acknowledgement of Christ’s lordship, since the use of exomologestai in the LXX is mostly translated “proclaim with thanksgiving.” However, it is more likely that this is a confession that is both voluntary or reluctant considering the parallel passage in Isaiah 45:23, where in the LXX it says, “all who separate themselves shall be ashamed.” It can be argued that the latter is to be preferred if simply on the grounds that Paul is demonstrating to the Philippians that this kind of mindset does not come by default but must be found in their oneness with Christ’s person, work, and mission. By declaring Christ to be Lord, Paul is doing two things here: 1) he is denying the lordship and divine rights of Caesar and 2) by substituting Christ for “my name” in Isaiah 45:23, he is identifying him as the same as the God of Israel. All of this is in keeping with Jewish monotheism; Jesus is not a substitute for God, he is the glory of God the Father (doxan theou patros) and is given all lordship by his act of exaltation.
The reader by now can appreciate the depth of exegesis that can be performed on the passage in question; the exegesis has been by no means exhausted. However, the writer hopes that it has been demonstrated that there is a definite connection between the Philippians becoming a selfless people and Christ, their paradigm, being a selfless God. As many commentators have noted, it is very odd to see a doxological hymn in the middle of a practical exhortation; what does the life, death, and ultimate exaltation of Christ have to do with the Philippian audience then, and the contemporary audience of the twenty-first century?
First, it should be noted that Christ is the central figure throughout everything that Paul has just presented; the entire matter hangs on the person, work, and mission of Christ. As James Montgomery Boice writes, “It is this great preeminence that gives all value to the citation of Christ’s life as the ultimate pattern of humility and self-sacrifice.” Thielman weighs in on the significance of Christ’s humility, “The incarnation of Christ Jesus represents the anthesis of [the] human drive to dominate. Although he had access to all the privilege and power to which his identity with God entitled him…Jesus considered his deity an opportunity for service and obedience.” It is because of who Jesus was, is , and will be, that a selfless life is possible.
Second, believers are never more attuned to Christ when they are found to be following his lead. J.A. Motyer observes, “To be made like Christ, to enter into intimate union with him, to know him, necessarily involves the same experiences, becoming like him… Christlikeness must lead to Calvary. We must be ready for…the downward path of the Crucified.” Fowl links Philippians 3:10 with 2:6-11, “In this light, we should take Paul’s comments about knowing the power of Christ’s resurrection and the fellowship of his sufferings as drawing their force from 2:6-11.” He sees in this model given earlier to the Philippians the key to understanding what it means to be conformed to Christ’s death. Any intimate knowledge of Christ would only come through the selfless emptying that Christ exemplified and empowered in 2:6-11; this would involve humiliation, suffering, and ultimately glory.
Third, the reason that one is to embrace the paradigm of Christ at all is that his death is tied with the believer’s death and his resurrection is also. Paul writes about this elsewhere in Romans 6:3-4, ” 3 Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4 Therefore we have been buried with him by baptism into death, so that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life.”(NRSV) There is a definitive connection between the Christ’s death, resurrection, and exaltation and that of the believers; Paul writes of this without shame in Ephesians 1:1-14, detailing the wonderful benefits and glory that is to be found in being in Christ. Later in Philippians Paul also connects the accepting of Christ’s paradigm as means to attain his own resurrection (3:11).
Fourth, it is comforting to see that Paul does not demand from his audience what Christ has not already supplied; but this is more than an example, this is the power and will to live it through. The believers are told in 2:12-13 to ” 12 work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; 13 for it is God who is at work in you, enabling you both to will and to work for his good pleasure.”(NRSV) There is a simultaneous striving that believers are to do (vv. 1-4) and the work of God in Christ that is imputed to believers through Christ’s own person and work (vv.6-11) While one is to discipline oneself to be a disciple of Christ; the power and grace to do so comes from Christ and not from one’s self.
Finally, the imitation of Christ is not optional since God provides to everyone who will humble himself before him. The Philippian fellowship was struggling with various issues because everyone was trying to lord it over the other; there is no place for that sort of behavior in the paradigm provided by Jesus Christ. Jesus himself said in Luke 14:11, “For all who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.” and the Apostle Peter echoes this thought in I Peter 5:6, ” Humble yourselves therefore under the mighty hand of God, so that he may exalt you in due time.” True exaltation comes from God by his grace, not because of some human quality, achievement, or merit. Paul was exhorting the Philippians to choose the path of being humiliatingly poured out and to let God worry about exalting them in his own time.
The Philippians, like many modern believers, were not selfless; internal strife was lying and fermenting like a volcano ready to explode. Paul’s answer to their discontent and jockeying was not to just tell them what to do, but rather to show them how to do it. Paul could have provided his own apostolic example; his sufferings in II Corinthians 12 enough would do it. Instead, Paul points them to the example he looked to, and far more important his own power source. Chrysostom writes in response to verse thirteen, “If you have the will, then he works the willing. Do not be afraid or weary. He gives us both zeal and performance. For when we will, he will henceforth augment our willing.” The power and the glory of any selflessness on the believer’s part goes completely to Christ just as all the glory of Christ’s humiliation and obedience goes to God the Father.
It is the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, the selfless God, that gives his followers the opportunity to standout from the world and be selfless. Christians can imitate his example only as they acknowledge that Iesous Christos kyrios and bow the knee willingly to the Son of God. It is in this Christ that the believer finds not just their humiliation but also their exaltation. Truly, Paul was right when he wrote in 1:21, “to live is Christ and to die is gain,” for long ago he had been crucified with Christ and found life in his name. Paul, like his Lord, does not want to keep this to himself, but to share him with everyone who will forever read his words.
Bockmuehl, Markus. The Epistle to the Philippians. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 1998.
Boice, James Montgomery. Philippians (expositional Commentary). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2006.
Bruce, F.F. Paul, Apostle of the Heart Set Free. Pbk. ed. Carlisle, Cumbria, UK.: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2000.
–Philippians. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 1989.
Carson, D.A., and Douglas J. Moo. An Introduction to the New Testament. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 2005.
Edwards, Mark J., ed. Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1999.
Fowl, Stephen E. Philippians. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2005.
Fee, Gordon D. Paul’s Letter to the Philippians. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1995.
Hawthorne, Gerald F. Word Biblical Commentary Vol. 43, Philippians. Atlanta, Ga.: Thomas Nelson, 1983.
Lightfoot, J.B. Philippians. Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 1994.
MacArthur, John, Jr. Philippians. Chicago: Moody Publishers, 2001.
Martin, Ralph P. New Century Bible Commentary Philippians. New edition ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, Wm B Pub Co, 1983.
Motyer, J.A. The Message of Philippians. Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP Academic, 1984.
O’Brien, Peter T. The Epistle to the Philippians: a Commentary On the Greek Text. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1991.
Silva, Moises in Commentary On the New Testament Use of the Old Testament. G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson, eds. Nottingham, England: Baker Academic, 2007.
Thielman, Frank. Philippians. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1995.
 Mark J. Edwards, ed., Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1999), 235.
 D.A. Carson and Douglas J. Moo, An Introduction to the New Testament, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 2005), 507.
 F.F. Bruce, Paul, Apostle of the Heart Set Free, Pbk. ed. (Carlisle, Cumbria, UK.: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2000), 390-391.
 Carson and Moo, 505-506.
 Ibid., 506.
 J.B. Lightfoot, Philippians (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 1994), 55-56.
 Stephen E. Fowl, Philippians (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2005), 89.
 Gerald F. Hawthorne, Word Biblical Commentary Vol. 43, Philippians (Atlanta, Ga.: Thomas Nelson, 1983), 76.
 Peter T. O’Brien, The Epistle to the Philippians: a Commentary On the Greek Text (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1991), 188-193.
 Ralph P Martin, New Century Bible Commentary Philippians, New edition ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, Wm B Pub Co, 1983), 90-93.
 O’Brien, 191-192.
 Gordon D. Fee, Paul’s Letter to the Philippians (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1995), 192-196.
 Markus Bockmuehl, The Epistle to the Philippians (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 1998), 117-119.
 Fowl, 108-113.
 Hawthorne, 78.
 Martin, 92.
 Fee, 196.
 Frank Thielman, Philippians (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1995), 115.
 John MacArthur Jr, Philippians (Chicago: Moody Publishers, 2001), 103.
 Bockmuehl, 106.
 Fee, 180.
 O’Brien, 174.
 Hawthorne, 66.
 Fee, 182.
 Hawthorne, 67.
 O’Brien, 178.
 Fee, 185.
 O’Brien, 179.
 Fee, 186.
 Bockmuel, 110.
 Hawthorne, 69.
 O’Brien, 183.
 Bockmuehl, 113.
 Fee, 190.
 O’Brien, 205.
 Fee, 199-200
 Bockmuehl, 124.
 O’Brien, 212.
 Hawthorne, 84.
 Fee, 206.
 O’Brien, 216.
 Hawthorne, 85-86.
 O’Brien, 218.
 F.F. Bruce, Philippians (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 1989), 70.
 Bockmuehl, 136.
 Fee, 214.
 Bockmuehl, 138.
 Hawthorne, 89.
 O’Brien, 233.
 Hawthorne, 90.
 O’Brien, 234.
 Fee, 221.
 Fowl. 102.
 Lightfoot, 127.
 Bockmuehl, 145-146.
 Lightfoot, 128.
 Bockmuehl, 147.
 Bruce, Philippians, 75.
 Fee, 225.
 Bockmuehl, 148.
 James Montgomery Boice, Philippians (expositional Commentary) (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2006), 110.
 Thielman, 129.
 J.A. Motyer, The Message of Philippians (Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP Academic, 1984), 169.
 Fowl, 155-156.
 Edwards, 258.