Faithlife Sermons

NT Survey 111 Seminar 12 Philippians

Sermon  •  Submitted
0 ratings
Sermon Tone Analysis
View more →

Andrew Hodge                                                                                                     20th June 2007

New Testament Survey NTES 111

Seminar 12

The Epistle to the Philippians


 Irving L. Jensen Jensen’s Survey of the New Testament 1981, Moody Press, Chicago Ch 15 Libronix DLS

Guthrie, Donald  New Testament Introduction  Apollos, Leicester, England 4th Ed  1990 Ch 14

Evaluate the Philippian Church:

            Philippi was a city of substance in Macedonia ie Europe, not Asia. It is located about 10 miles inland of the coastal town of Neapolis on the Aegean Sea, and lies on the Egnatian Way, a Roman ‘highway’ connecting with Rome (across the Adriatic Sea and through Italy along the Appian Way). Epaphroditus’ journey was therefore relatively straightforward when he bore the letter to the Philippians from Paul in Rome, taking about three weeks.[1]

            The city was named Philippi after Philip II, King of Macedon, the father of Alexander the Great, in 350 BC. It became a Roman colony in 42 BC, modelled after Rome (eg in exemption from taxes) and was a “chief city” (Acts 16:12) although Amphipolis on the coast to the south east was the capital of the district (Jensen footnote 2 p 326). The significant wars and politics enacted around Philippi in 42-27 BC ensured that the citizens were very proRome (Acts 16:20-21).1a

            In the first half of the first century AD (Paul’s second and third journeys passed through Philippi 49-56 AD) it is estimated to have had between 200,000 and 500,000 inhabitants. Most, given its origins, were Greeks, but there were some Jews and some Romans. Under Philip, who recognised the military importance of Philippi near the border of Macedonia with Thracia, the city was walled and contained large civic buildings such as an Acropolis and a Greek theatre said to have seated 50,000, used in Paul’s day.2a

Paul’s first evangelistic meeting there was with women on a riverbank just outside the city (Acts 16:13), which may suggest that there was no synagogue in the city - otherwise Paul’s favourite first preaching place. On the other hand he may have been keen to get on with the job and early on the first Sabbath, was prompted by the Holy Spirit to go to a popular prayer meeting place and took the offered opportunity.

1a The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia  G.W.Bromiley General Editor, Fully Revised 1988, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company  Grand Rapids, Michigan III, 834-5


The only named woman at the riverside is Lydia, a business woman of the Asian city of Thyatira. Lydia is also the name of the south western district of Asia where Thyatira is situated; hence this lady could be called ‘the Lydian woman’.

She is female and a Gentile - an unusual combination for the Holy Spirit to pick for the beginning of a Church - but clearly right in hindsight. She “worshipped God” and was therefore attracted to Judaism. It is not known how far she immersed herself in Jewish practices; she is therefore at least a ‘God fearer’ but probably not a fully-fledged proselyte.3a

She is relatively wealthy, having a commodious Philippian house (Acts 16:15) as well as a presumed business base in Thyatira, for the purple dyeing of cloth. She may also display leadership and evangelistic qualities in that the group of women at the riverside may have been assembled by her. It is logical to assume that the first meeting place of the church was in her house (Acts 16:15, 40).

Acts 16:13 does not mention that there were men at the riverside and this is further circumstantial evidence that there was no synagogue, and pari passu that there were less than ten devout Jewish men in the city - the minimum number required to form a congregation. It can probably be accepted that Jewish religious influence in the city was minimal.

            It cannot be assumed that although Lydia was the first European convert that she was the first European Church leader in Philippi. Or that the Philippian jailer was. Or any member of their respective, newly-saved households. (We are not told whether the lass delivered of the spirit of divination was saved). Paul would not have permitted any of these neonates this responsibility, but it must be remembered that Paul was escorted out of the city after a short stay (Acts 16:40). Someone had to take care of them.

Other named Church members at the writing of the letter are Epaphroditus, Euodia, Syntyche and Clement - all Gentile names, plus ‘saints, bishops and deacons’.

Given the ‘dropping out’ of Luke from the narrative in Acts 16 as Paul and his party leave Philippi, and Luke’s resumption in the narrative at Acts 20:5 when the party leaves Philippi for the second time about five years later, it has been assumed that Luke himself takes the oversight as the Church is establishing itself, which includes a period of substantial persecution (2 Corinthians 8:1ff; Philippians 1:29-30).

            Paul wrote his letter to the Philippians about ten years after the first conversion. In that time it had acquired bishops (pastors) and deacons (Philippians 1:1). Note the plurals, suggesting that even in the early stages of church development, correct organisational structure was in place, and that rapid increases in membership necessitated the appropriate numbers of workers.

            Paul probably visited Philippi on more than two occasions. Although not stated he may well have passed through on his way to Greece during the third journey, and was forced to return via Philippi on the return journey through Syria (Jensen Map P p 225). After this he wanted to see the Philippians again (Philippians 2:24; 1 Timothy 1:3) but there is no clear record of this (NB 2 Timothy 4:13 Paul left his cloak at Troas - a journey undertaken between imprisonments?).4a

The communication between Paul and the Philippians was not limited to visits. The Philippians sent gifts of money to him at least twice (Philippians 2:25, 4:16; 2 Corinthians 11:9) and it is unlikely that Paul limited his correspondence with them to one letter (~61 AD) over the 17 years (~50 to 67 AD) that he knew them.

3a The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia  G.W.Bromiley General Editor, Fully Revised 1988, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company  Grand Rapids, Michigan III,190

4aibid 836

            The city of Philippi and therefore its Christian community is little mentioned after the narratives in Acts, some inferences from the rest of the NT and known history. After Paul’s death, Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna, addressed an encouraging letter to them after Ignatius stopped there on his way to martyrdom in Rome; the ruins of five ancient churches have been identified, and two basilicas uncovered dating from 5th and 6th centuries. No account is available of the destruction of Philippi and the site is now uninhabited.5a

Consider the reasons for Paul writing the epistle:

            Jensen cites two reasons (pp 327-8):

  • Circumstantial.
  1. Philippians 2:19-24: Paul strongly desires to know the exact circumstances of the Church. Although he cannot come immediately himself, which he would have preferred, he sends Timothy instead, his spiritual son and effective evangelist/pastor.
  2. He also sends Epaphroditus back to Philippi - 2:25-30 - with this Letter (as in the postscript) a staunch supporter of Paul in his ministry, because the Philippians may then rejoice to see him well after having much concern over his previous “sickness unto death”. This would encourage all concerned, as the Philippians had originally sent Epaphroditus to minister to Paul the prisoner in Rome (see below).
  3. Paul is concerned about a dispute/lack of Christian fellowship (threatening to form cliques?) in the Church body on account of two women who cannot agree over an issue (unspecified) and Clement who may have been doing something similar (4:2-3). He entrusts Timothy with the task of reconciliation (4:3).
  4. Paul wants to thank them for their generous support of him in the past and the present, knowing that on account of this attitude ‘all their need shall be supplied according to God’s riches in glory by Christ Jesus’ (4:10-19).

  • Instructional.
  1. Encouragement to put Christ first in everyday living. Philippians 1:20-21; 3:7-14.
  2. an appeal to be ware of and correct spiritual problems (4:2-3).
  3. instruction in Christian doctrines (2:6-11)



Analyse the authenticity, date and place of writing of the epistle:

            See above for Jensen’s views.

            Guthrie does not dispute the fact that Paul was the writer of this letter although he mentions in passing that some do, on dubious grounds.

            The date of writing is dependent on one’s view of the place of writing. Guthrie mentions three possibilities - Caesarea, Rome, Ephesus - and comes down in favour of Rome, but only just, taking ten pages to do so.

            Paul is clearly a prisoner at the time of writing (1:7. 13, 16) and the supposed problem is to identify which imprisonment.


5aThe International Standard Bible Encyclopedia  G.W.Bromiley General Editor, Fully Revised 1988, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company  Grand Rapids, Michigan III, 836

Guthrie largely disposes of the Caesarean option (where Paul was imprisoned at the pleasure of Felix after his arrest in Rome Acts 23:33ff) on the grounds that “the Philippian letter is pervaded with a sense of approaching martyrdom, which does not fit in with the relatively easy detention in Caesarea”[2] and

that “The Philippian epistle makes it clear that Paul’s imprisonment had caused many to become courageous in preaching the gospel (1:14), but this presupposes a place possessing a church of some size. Yet Caesarea does not easily fit this requirement.”[3] He presents the suppositions that the polemic against Jewish teachers in Ch 3 belongs to Paul’s early writings (similar to Galatians ie early enough to have been during the imprisonment in Caesarea), and that the KJV translation of ‘praetorium’ in 1:13 should be ‘ personal bodyguard’ rather than ‘palace’ ie Herod’s palace of Acts 23:35. I agree with Guthrie (!) that these arguments have little substance.

            With regard to Ephesus Guthrie puts the following points: the problem of the gifts, Paul’s proposed visits, the frequency of communication between Paul and Philippi, literary associations, the Jewish controversy, the trial, the praetorium and Caesar’s household, and the position of Luke. He concludes with: “The cumulative effect of this evidence is undoubtedly strong but it falls short of proof. If the Roman hypothesis were proved untenable the Ephesian would probably be unchallenged as an alternative theory.”[4]

            In my view the traditional Roman origin makes more sense because (summarising Guthrie):

  1. Praetorium” (1:13) and “Caesar’s household” (4:13) makes literal sense if the imprisonment were in Rome
  2. The letter gives the impression that the verdict in Paul’s trial is imminent and he faces either the prospect of life, or death (1:19-24). This did not apply in Caesarea where he appealed to Caesar instead.
  3. The courage of ‘many’ to preach the gospel on account of Paul’s witness requires a substantial body of local believers to be aware of his plight. There was a big church in Rome (and Ephesus) by the imprisonment of Acts 28:30, virtually none in Caesarea.
  4. Paul’s freedom to write and to have folk visit fits better with the house arrest scenario in Rome of Acts 28:16, 30-31 rather than anywhere else.
  5. Paul has the hope of being released from imprisonment (1:25) so that he could visit the Philippians. His only hope in Caesarea was to appeal to Caesar and be taken to Rome
  6. Tradition appends a Marcionite Prologue to Philippians which states that it was sent from Rome, and the equivalent prologue to Colossians that it was sent from Ephesus. On the surface such external heretical ‘evidence’ is not helpful, raising more problems than solutions, particularly with regard to date.

Guthrie concludes: “…the fact that the Acts’ silence about an Ephesian imprisonment must be a certain embarrassment to the Ephesian theory, it seems better to give the preference to Rome as the place of dispatch. In that case it would probably have to be dated towards the end of the two-year imprisonment mentioned in Acts 28:30.”[5]



Critique the unity of the epistle:

            Jensen’s approach to this is refreshingly simple (p 328): “Because Paul’s purpose in writing was more practical than doctrinal, no detailed outline is apparent in the structure of this personal letter”. This might lead a critic to think that the letter is disjointed and without any obvious intention, but Jensen adds: “Philippians has been called Paul’s love letter to the saints at Philippi because its informal, personal style reveals so much of the apostle’s affectionate character. The epistle contains less censure and more praise than does any other epistle”.

            It might therefore be said that the genre of the letter is evidence of its unity. Jensen notes that Paul does not quote from the OT, and the vocabulary contains 65 words not found in any of Paul’s other epistles ie this epistle is, just like Paul’s other letters, a unique one-off inspired by the Holy Spirit for His purposes. One cannot get more unified than that.

            Jensen also quotes H.C.G.Moule: “….we find Philippians more peaceful than Galatians, more personal and affectionate than Ephesians, less anxiously controversial than Colossians, more deliberate and symmetrical than Thessalonians, and of course larger in its applications than the personal messages to Timothy, Titus and Philemon”. 6a Moule here makes no comparison with Paul’s other writings, but with the exception of Thessalonians, all the other books are later works - prison or pastoral epistles - and suggests that as Paul grew older he mellowed and became more interested in the individual rather than in doctrine.

            In spite of the admitted difficulties of outlining Philippians, Jensen does so usefully in Chart 86, p 331. Commentators approach the book differently and produce their own divisional structures, hence comparison of outlines is not straightforward.

            Guthrie’s approach is similar to his previous attempts to find a reason why the ‘textual irregularities’ in the letter reflect the work of other writers or redactors. In my view these are similar straw-man arguments produced by his refusal to commit to Holy Spirit-inspired inerrancy. He goes as far as to say that “advocates of such theories have not disputed the Pauline authorship of the material but have questioned the relevance of its present position”, [6] in other words, an argument from an extremely narrow, hair-splitting basis of whether a particular (all-Pauline) passage should be in a particular place in the letter.

            With the exception of the ‘hymn’ (2:6-11) and to his credit, Guthrie concludes his section on ‘Unity’ with: “The unity of the epistle has found many supporters,7a and it may fairly be said that there are insufficient grounds for concluding that this epistle is a collection. It is possible to interpret the evidence satisfactorily on the assumption that the whole epistle was sent at the same time to the same people.”[7]

The ‘hymn’ has to do with the kenosis and eschaton of Christ (see below). Because this passage seems out of place, the proposed theories are: “(1) Those which regard Paul as the author,1b (2) those which consider that Paul is citing an existing Christian hymn; and (3) those which regard the hymn as non-Pauline and therefore as a later interpolation.”[8] In my view all of these approaches should be dismissed on the grounds that the Holy Spirit is the author and Paul is the writer.

Reading between the lines, Guthrie appears to agree with this but compromises: “If the first solution is correct there are no difficulties and the only question which arises is whether Paul composed it at the same time as the epistle or prior to it. Since the section fits so perfectly into the context of the epistle there seems no reason why the former explanation cannot be correct, although the latter is more generally held.”2c, [9]

Discuss the epistle’s introduction 1:1-11:

            !:1-2  See above, first question. Timothy is not unreasonably linked with Paul in his greeting because he wishes to send him to Philippi as his ambassador. As in most of his introductions, Paul is careful to include all of the saints in a locality, even though the body of the letter might later criticise the actions or attitudes of some.

            In concert with the rest of the book, Paul sets the themes of grace and peace, and the equality of Christ with the Father.

            1:3-8  “Paul rejoices in their partnership with him in the work of the gospel and shows by his gratitude his deep affection towards them.”[10] Paul also introduces a phrase indicating the finiteness of time or of the current dispensation - “until the day of Jesus Christ”.

            1:9-11  Paul records his prayer for the Philippians that they may abound in love, knowledge, spiritual discernment and the fruit of the Spirit so that their testimony will be obviously sincere and without offence.

            O’Brien notes: “He adapts his description of himself and his credentials to the circumstances of each letter, employs various phrases to describe his Christian readers, and pours theological content into his greetings”.[11] This aptly summarises the pattern and the variability of Paul’s NT introductions.


Review Paul’s teaching on steadfastness 1:27-30:

            Paul encourages the Philippians to do exactly what they have seen and heard (v 30) that he does - stick to the gospel remaining united (v 27), being in no need to be fazed by the opposition even though they think you (the Philippians) are lost, whereas in fact you are saved (v 28), and that one of the privileges of believing in Christ is to suffer for His testimony’s sake (v 29).

            This kind of encouragement one could perhaps do without, and the fullness of its meaning is not further amplified in this passage. However, Paul’s previous letters (I do not know if the Philippians had access to these but they did have access to Paul for a time and he surely would have enlightened them) describe in detail the trials that would be the lot of a Christian effectively witnessing and how the Lord Himself would take them through every adversity.

            The bottom line is in v 27: “Only let your conversation be as it becometh the gospel of Christ: that whether I come and see you, or else be absent, I may hear of your affairs, that ye stand fast in one spirit, with one mind striving together for the faith of the gospel;”[12] and this standard sets the scene for the rest of Paul’s exhortations.



Discuss unity teachings 2:1-2:

            Paul’s treatment of unity in Philippians is far less than that of Ephesians (see Seminar 11). Although the bases of unity are similar in both, in Philippians Paul goes directly to the evidence of unity - (implied) obedience in action ie fruit as a consequence of a united focus on Christ, that he may hear talked about and so fulfil his joy. Hearing such things from third or disinterested parties increases the amount of blessing derived from such good reports.



Examine Christ’s humility 2:3-11:

            I take the “this mind” of verse 5 to have been described in vv 2-4, the servant attitude that Paul encourages us to have, “which was also in Christ Jesus” v5. Although exegetical emphasis is usually placed on the ‘emptying’ ekenosen of vv 5-8, this is an example to us to follow, causing us to “work out our own salvation with fear and trembling” (v 12).

            Perhaps better left to a full examination in Christology (also see Seminar 18, Dogmatology T201 “God the Son - The Kenosis and the Hypostatic Union”), a few observations may be made. This ‘kenosis’ passage describes Christ’s emptying of Himself when He entered time as a human being, the question being: exactly what did He ‘leave behind’?

            The Lord Jesus Christ on earth is fully God and fully man, seen in His Godly supernatural acts and in His (Godly) servant ministry. In v 6 Jesus has the nature of God and in v 7 the nature of a servant (both translated “form” from the Greek morphe), but also clothes Himself with the appearance (schema v 8 “fashion”) of a man. This is not to say that Jesus fakes His humanity as a cover for Deity, for this particular quality of Servanthood requires full humanity.

            Lewis Sperry Chafer notes: “With reverence it is said that the Deity which Christ is could not, unaccompanied, save the lost, nor could the humanity which Christ is, acting solitarily, redeem.”[13] And  “So delicate is the adjustment of these two natures in Christ that to emphasize one at the expense of the other is to sacrifice the efficacy of all.” [14]

            There is no doubt that the Christ was fully obedient to the will of His Father while on earth (multiple scriptures especially in the Gospel of John) but it must be remembered that this had been agreed to in eternity past.

            So the answer to the question “What did Christ leave behind?” is nothing. In fact He gained something within time as a consequence of His role as Saviour, which He did not have in eternity past - a resurrection body which He has taken with Him into eternity present and eternity future(!). It might be observed that at the very least Christ had to leave His omnipresence behind. Not so. The creator Who is able to be in all places at once can also easily be in the one place at the one time (Is this a reasonable concept? Discuss).

            The humility which Jesus expressed on earth, even though He remained omni*3, is an expression of Godliness within the context of humanity ie even though humanity is now fallen (but originally created in the image of God), Godly attributes can still be expressed, just as Christ did, even though He did not have a sin nature as we do now. This theology is expressed by Christ Himself when He washes the disciples’ feet: “So after he had washed their feet, and had taken his garments, and was set down again, he said unto them, Know ye what I have done to you?
13 Ye call me Master and Lord: and ye say well; for so I am.
14 If I then, your Lord and Master, have washed your feet; ye also ought to wash one another’s feet.
15 For I have given you an example, that ye should do as I have done to you.
16 Verily, verily, I say unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord; neither he that is sent greater than he that sent him.” (John 13:12-16)[15]

Amplify on obedience and purity 2:12-18:

            Paul opens this section by calling the Philippians “my beloved” (agapetos). This might well have been translated ‘dearly beloved’ in the sacrificial agape sense, conveying Paul’s deep and, he believes, reciprocated love relationship.

Paul then couches his exhortation in the context of him wanting to share joy in their Godly performance “in the day of Christ”, that his efforts with them will not have been wasted, that they will have “worked out their own salvation with fear and trembling” having obediently allowed God to do this work in them according to His good pleasure.

O’Brien notes that the verbs in this passage are largely in the imperative ie Paul is being forceful in his encouragement.[16] He is also comparing himself with a sacrificial drink-offering (v 17) [17], to be added to the sacrifices made by the Philippians on account of the success of his ministry there.

Clearly he wishes to identify closely with the actions of the congregation, as their obedience to God (vv 12-13) will result in blamelessness and purity (v 15), as lights in a world of evil and perversity (v 15).


Compare Timothy and Epaphroditus 2:19-30:

See above for Paul’s intended purposes for these two.

If the Philippians had developed the wrong impression concerning Paul’s opinion of Epaphroditus, his words in Philippians 2:25–30 would certainly rectify that.[18] He wishes them to honour him as much as he himself does on account of his sacrifices for the ministry in spite of the threat of losing his life.

Paul’s relationship with each man is different. Paul treats Timothy as a son - possibly in every respect although the basis of this is entirely spiritual. Paul treats Epaphroditus as a valued and dedicated co-labourer giving his “reasonable service”, without having a particularly strong spiritual bond with him.



Systematise Paul’s warnings against false teachers 3:1-4:1:

            Jensen positively labels this passage “Christ our goal” (p 330). “The mountain peak of Philippians, challenging and inspiring readers with the highest of goals (eg 3:14)”.

            In contrast, Guthrie uses this passage negatively to suggest that it might not belong to the Letter at all (see above).

            Paul warns against Judaisers, calling them ‘mutilators’ (Guthrie p 563) not on account of the physical rite of circumcision, but on account of their confidence in obedience to ceremonial Law ie the deeds of the flesh, perverting the Gospel of faith. As an example, Paul puts himself up as having more reason than most to trust in the flesh because of his Jewish heritage, upbringing, education and zeal to persecute Christians. Now, in complete contrast, his ultimate goal of walking by faith was “That I may know Him, and the power of His resurrection, and the fellowship of His sufferings, being made conformable to His death” (3:10).

Verse 11 seems wrong ie that Paul can achieve resurrection from the dead by his own effort. As it cannot mean this, what does it mean? Discuss    


Delve into Paul’s exhortation towards peace 4:2-9:

            See above regarding Euodia, Syntyche and Clement.

            Guthrie enthuses: “Since the mind plays so important a part in human actions, there must be a pursuit of the noblest thoughts if this peace is to be fully enjoyed.”[19] Which is all very well to say.

Paul gives instruction how such a state may be achieved: all of the disputers’ names are written in the Book of Life (v 3), rejoice always (v 4), be moderate (the Lord is immediately available to help with this - v 5), anxiety has no place - God will accept every prayer and supplication made with thanksgiving (v 6), the peace of God - against all common sense - will then stand guard over both heart and mind (v 7).

Paul then gives a list of the profitable things to think about (v 8 - which should be in the mind of every modern Christian when in contact with the media especially TV) and again puts himself up as an example (v 9).

In a sense, Paul is describing the difference between joy and happiness - joy remains above the circumstances of life because the mind is focused on Christ, not on the world; happiness is a temporary state of mind entirely dependent on the surrounding circumstances, which we may well be “under”.


Elucidate Paul’s gifts and salutations 4:10-23:

            The gifts referred to here are those that the Philippian Church have made and are making toward the support of Paul’s ministries (see above). Without in any way putting them down Paul tells them of his state of dependence on the Lord for his support (4:11-13), showing them that the Lord gives both the giver and receiver joy when support is provided in this way (4:17-19). He commends the Philippians for their particular support when no other Church was inclined to do so (4:10, 15-16), especially when he was in Thessalonica, a short distance away to the west on the Egnatian Way, where the Philippians gave more than once (4:16).

            Paul says that since Epaphroditus came from Philippi and he learnt how the Church there was progressing, his joy was full (4:18) because of their testimony in the Lord, assuring them that that the God he knew would supply all their need (4:19).

            He sends greetings from the Christians that were with him in Rome and especially those of Caesar’s household who also knew of the testimony of the Philippians on account of Paul’s sharing with them (4:21-22). He finally blesses them with “the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ” (4:23).







[1]Gerald F. Hawthorne, Ralph P. Martin and Daniel G. Reid, Dictionary of Paul and His Letters, 662 (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1993).

[2]Donald Guthrie, New Testament Introduction, Series taken from jacket., 4th rev. ed., The master reference collection, 546 (Downers Grove, Ill.: Inter-Varsity Press, 1996, c1990).


[4]ibid 555


6a Moule, H.C.G.  Philippian Studies p5 quoted in Irving L. Jensen Jensen’s Survey of the New Testament 1981, Moody Press, Chicago footnote 5 p 328

[6]Donald Guthrie, New Testament Introduction, Series taken from jacket., 4th rev. ed., The master reference collection, 555 (Downers Grove, Ill.: Inter-Varsity Press, 1996, c1990).

7a Cf. B. S. Mackay, NTS 7 (1960), pp. 161–169; G. Delling, RGG III (1961), pp. 333–336; A. F. J. Klijn, Nov. Test. 7 (1965), pp. 278–284. The latter considers that Paul is comparing his own position with Jewish missionaries whose concept differed from him. H. Köster, NTS 8 (1962), pp. 317–332, suggests that the opponents held to a perfectionist doctrine.

[7]Donald Guthrie, New Testament Introduction, Series taken from jacket., 4th rev. ed., The master reference collection, 559 (Downers Grove, Ill.: Inter-Varsity Press, 1996, c1990).

1b Cf. the Tyndale monograph by R. P. Martin, An Early Christian Confession: Philippians ii. 5–11 in Recent Interpretation (1960). Cf. also J. M. Furness, ET 70 (May 1959), pp. 240–243. L. Cerfaux, Le Christ dans la Théologie de S. Paul (1954), pp. 283–284, regards the hymn as not only Pauline but as forming an answer to the specific needs of the Philippians dealt with in the same context.

[8]Donald Guthrie, New Testament Introduction, Series taken from jacket., 4th rev. ed., The master reference collection, 560 (Downers Grove, Ill.: Inter-Varsity Press, 1996, c1990).

2c For a concise account of various view on this passage, cf. V. Taylor, The Person of Christ (1958), pp. 62 ff.

[9]Donald Guthrie, New Testament Introduction, Series taken from jacket., 4th rev. ed., The master reference collection, 560 (Downers Grove, Ill.: Inter-Varsity Press, 1996, c1990).

[10]ibid 561

[11]Peter Thomas O'Brien, The Epistle to the Philippians : A Commentary on the Greek Text, 44 (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1991).

[12]  The Holy Bible : King James Version. electronic ed. of the 1769 edition of the 1611 Authorized Version. Bellingham WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1995.

[13]Lewis Sperry Chafer, Systematic Theology, Originally published: Dallas, Tex. : Dallas Seminary Press, 1947-1948., 1:385 (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 1993).


[15]  The Holy Bible : King James Version. electronic ed. of the 1769 edition of the 1611 Authorized Version. Bellingham WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1995.

[16]Peter Thomas O'Brien, The Epistle to the Philippians : A Commentary on the Greek Text, 273 (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1991).

[17]ibid 312

[18]Donald Guthrie, New Testament Introduction, Series taken from jacket., 4th rev. ed., The master reference collection, 544 (Downers Grove, Ill.: Inter-Varsity Press, 1996, c1990).

[19]Donald Guthrie, New Testament Introduction, Series taken from jacket., 4th rev. ed., The master reference collection, 563 (Downers Grove, Ill.: Inter-Varsity Press, 1996, c1990).

Related Media
Related Sermons