GERALD HAWTHORNE: Philippians

Captivated by a staggering idea

In his introduction Hawthorne lists the reasons Paul wrote to the Philippians.

He had a deep affection for them and wanted to write.
He wanted to bring them up to date on the news about himself.
He wanted to inform them of the erroneous but seductive tenets of the Jewish religion.
He wanted to encourage them to stand firm and to inspire in them complete dedication to the will of Christ in spite of any suffering they might find themselves in.
He wanted to tell them Epaphroditus had recovered.
He wanted to correct divisions in their ranks. The fellowship was fractured, not by doctrinal but by personal differences—differences arising out of rivalry, vanity, selfishness, and animosity.
He wanted them to rejoice irrespective of circumstances.
He wanted to express his thanks for their gift.

We can agree that the first item is a foundational basis for writing, but not the cause of this particular letter. Numbers 2 through 8 seems to be arranged in the order of their appearance in Paul’s letter, although number 3 seems a little misplaced; it should more correctly come after number 5.

It is a surprise to discover that Hawthorne dismisses number 4 as the primary reason and selects number 6 (divisions) as the overriding reason for Paul’s letter. Hawthorne makes one of the most astonishing remarks I have ever read in support of this thesis when, in commenting on 3.10 (I want to know Christ and the fellowship of sharing in his sufferings) he says that Paul is not claiming that he is looking to suffer physically or die, but rather is “captivated by the staggering idea that he and all believers are caught up into Christ and are indissolubly linked together with him to share with him in all events of his life.”

Remarkable. Paul is in prison, faced with the possibility of being executed, and Hawthorne claims he is “captivated by a staggering idea”. When Paul was in Philippi he was attacked by a mob, stripped and flogged, imprisoned, and put into stocks. Is it possible Paul remembers this treatment? Is it possible the people reading his letter remember this? Is it possible they themselves are facing hostility from these same people? Yet Hawthorne claims Paul is “captivated by a staggering idea”!

Howthorne uses the word “staggering” because unless he tells us it’s staggering no one would think it is staggering. There is nothing staggering about the idea that all believers are caught up into Christ and are indissolubly linked together with him. Hawthorne uses the word to put a costly face on cheap grace. It’s a feint. A deception. He knows the concept is weak so he livens it up with forceful words to make us believe there’s something substantial to it.

Hawthorne should grant Bonhoeffer much more credibility. He mentions that Bonhoeffer agreed that the overriding purpose for Paul’s writing was suffering and martyrdom, yet warns that this “is a thesis that cannot be wholly maintained without straining the exegesis of the text”. Doubly remarkable. Bonhoeffer, in the midst of a desperately serious situation, one that ultimately meant his imprisonment and death (can we see no similarity to Paul’s situation?), says that Philippians is a tractate on martyrdom written by a martyr to a community of martyrs, and Hawthorne, who knows nothing of suffering or martyrdom dismisses it as a “straining of the text”.

Astonishing. Hawthorne says we can agree with Bonhoeffer, a man in similar straights to Paul, only if we strain the text. It’s unfortunate Hawthorne exegetes the text without straining anything. It’s unfortunate Hawthorne lives without straining anything. He finds Paul’s imprisonment not too remarkable because we now know that ultimately Paul was released. He finds Paul’s leaving behind everything not too impressive of a thing because his Jewishness needed to be discarded anyway. He interprets Paul’s desire to share in the sufferings of Christ as a “mystical union”. He says that knowing Christ in the power of his resurrection is an inward experience. He says that knowing Christ in the fellowship of his suffering is an inward experience. He says that because Christ has suffered, Paul has as well: in Christ. Mystically. He says that Christ’s resurrection means Paul has died with Christ and has been resurrected to a new a superlative kind of life. Mystically.

Gerald: Have you been in prison? Have you left everything? Anything? Have you suffered anything for Christ that would give you any hint of what Paul’s—or Christ’s—sufferings were like? Have you faced the possibility of death?

Obviously you haven’t. We all know that. You so easily dismiss those who have that you couldn’t possibly have done it yourself.

What possible basis do you have for claiming that Bonhoeffer, a man who went through the very thing Paul is talking about, is deficient in his understanding? If Bonhoeffer makes a connection with Philippians and says, “Yes, that’s it!” because he’s in the same circumstances, how can you, never having gone through anything similar to what Bonhoeffer, Paul, or the church at Philippi experienced, say it’s not possible?

Maybe Bonhoeffer is going too far to say it’s a tractate on martyrdom. We have no evidence that the people at Philippi were facing death, but Paul was facing death and says that they were having the same struggle, so it’s not a far-fetched proposition. Regardless, they were going through some sort of difficult situation that was in some way comparable to Paul’s. The letter says clearly that they were suffering for Christ, struggling, being intimidated, having to make their way in a crooked and perverse world, sacrificing. To regard their suffering as a contributing, but not primary, factor in Paul’s reason for writing is absurd. And to say that Paul’s suffering is a mystical experience is simply bizarre. Such a statement can come from nothing but an attempt to present yourself as someone who knows what Paul is talking about, and rather than place yourself below Paul you bring him down.

Focusing on the symptom instead of the problem

Hawthorne is wrong to focus on strife in the church at Philippi without addressing the obvious question: Why are there conflicts in the church? The weight of Paul’s letter is on suffering, not rivalry. Hawthorne, without considering that there might be a reason for the strife, simply tells us that the church is being torn apart from the inside. Paul never says anything like that, so it is impossible to agree with Hawthorne that the church is being torn apart. Paul does tell them to stand firm, be of one mind, and to not murmur or argue. But for what reason? The reason is something that Hawthorne does not understand, so he demeans it to get it out of the way and then embellishes the other thing to prove his point. And so he concludes that, for no apparent reason, the people were tearing apart their church through rivalry, vanity, selfishness, and animosity.

Nonsense. Their suffering was making things impossibly difficult, so Paul describes his suffering in order to show that suffering is a normal and expected part of the Christian experience, and then touches on other issues because, even though there are things that understandably happen when people are put under such pressures, they need to be controlled so as to not let the enemy gain the advantage.

If a person with terminal cancer writes a friend who is going through the same thing, it might be a completely normal part of the letter to lovingly and carefully remind the person that how we cope with pain and death is a serious matter, and that we need to be careful to not estrange the ones we need most. Family problems are an understandable consequence of suffering with cancer, but it only makes the situation worse—for everyone.

Hawthorne looks at this situation and, denying that cancer is a reason for such behavior, concludes that this person’s friend is stirring up problems in the family.

Example two: Soldiers in a Vietnamese prisoner of war camp are being fed only enough to be kept alive and are being hammered daily with propaganda about people in the United States protesting against the war. They are being demoralized with gloatings about how America has forgotten them. The men are beginning to turn on one another. They are being torn apart by suspicions and doubts. Finally, a senior officer gathers them together to warn them that this cannot go on. If they turn on one another all will be lost, because this is exactly what the enemy is wanting to happen.

Hawthorne, having no appreciation for what happens to people under such intense stress, explains that the senior officer is concerned about the morale of his men. Yes he is, but not in the way Hawthorne thinks. And focusing on the accusations and grievances is not the solution. The solution is to get a correct perspective on the torture so that the soldiers aren’t destroyed by it.

Example three: The astronauts on Apollo 13 have no way to get back home. They are desperately tired and cold. Freezing. They have no idea what has happened to their spacecraft and no idea whether they can make it back home. An argument breaks out. They’re at the end of their ability to cope.

Hawthorne looks at this and tells us that personal differences between the crew members are tearing apart the team. Absurd. They are already torn apart. The pressure of their situation is so massive inside them that it is forced to the surface and sweats out as frustration and anger. The problem is not the arguing; the problem is that they’re about to die and things like this happen when people are facing death.

Paul, unlike Hawthorne, knows what it’s like to endure persecution. He knows what it’s like to suffer. Not just once or for a little while, but for a long time and in many different situations. He knows what it’s like to face death. And because he knows all these things from personal experience, and knows what the believers at Philippi are facing, he writes them to equip them for the difficult days ahead. Part of it is encouragement, part of it is warning, part of it is empathy, but all of it is exactly what they need: powerful medicine from a person who has been through this, knows the way, and can lead them through it with confidence.

It’s a good thing Hawthorne wasn’t alive back then to write a letter to the church at Philippi. Drawing upon his vast academic experience he would warn them to stop complaining and arguing. He would explain that being a Christian means we have a mystical union with Christ and so his suffering is ours. Wouldn’t that have been a big help! And what confusion he would have caused by telling the people to “imitate me”. Exactly how would their problem be solved by following his example?

And Bonhoeffer, who should have been a red flag to Hawthorne that there is something more to this than he is seeing, is discarded with the offensive remark that we can agree with Bonhoeffer only by “straining the text.”

Hawthorne commits the unforgivable sin of looking at an actual flesh-and-blood situation of one person in pain writing to other people in pain, investigating it from a sterile perspective of someone who knows nothing of the pressures these people are living through, and then, because he has no understanding or even human compassion, sterilizes their situation by doing a forensic study in a lab. This is a man who can dig up bones and not care that they used to be someone’s father and mother, brother and sister, son and daughter: “They’re 2000 years old. This is an archeological study. We’re studying the site to see how these people lived.” No interest in the people, no empathy, no concern for their humanity and their problems, no grief at their death, never considering that it’s a grave site, not a dig. Just cold, distant, dry study.

And even when he has Bonhoeffer, a real-life parallel to the situation, a person who went through it and told Hawthorne what it means, he still says, “This man doesn’t understand archeology. Unfortunately he knows nothing of the intricacies of the science.”

Gerald, here’s a foundational rule you need to apply to all your commentary on Scripture: Whoever is doing it trumps the one who’s not doing it. The problem is not that there’s a lot he doesn’t understand; the problem is that there’s a lot you don’t understand. Not one writer of Scripture ever expected his letter to be examined by you. The letters were written by real people to real people in real situations to deal with real problems. And whether the author expected it or not, certainly God did: that thousands of years later, people in similar circumstances would be able to read the letter and know how to deal with their problems.

Exactly what problem are you going through that Philippians answers? Do you think Paul expected—or wanted—to be examined by you?!

There’s only one correct response to the word of God: to do it. When you have a man who is going through what Paul is talking about, and he tells you what it means, you had better pay very, very close attention. He may not be exactly right, but at least he’s pointed in the right direction, so the only way you can get closer to the truth is by listening.

I say it again: the only correct response to the word of God is to do it. The person doing it is always in the best one to explain it and the person not doing it is always the worst one to explain it. Explaining Scripture from a position of not doing it will inevitably take you the wrong direction because God always expects his word to equip people to do his work. Never has God given his word so that ivory-tower academicians have something to speculate over.

Hawthorne, confronted with the awesome responsibility of writing a commentary for a respected series, is up against some stiff competition and has to produce. He’s not in the same league as Fee or Martin, so he decides to be novel: find something no one else has said. It’s a standard thing writers do. When they can’t be profound, they decide to be different.

Hawthorne has no proof for the things he says. But unfortunately that’s normal. Commentators don’t need proof unless it deals with something provable. The situation in Philippi is unprovable and Paul’s reason for writing is unprovable, so it’s up for speculation. That’s actually what the bulk of any commentary is: speculation. There’s no embarrassment in this; it’s the way it’s done. The best commentators are the ones who speculate most carefully and thoroughly. They cover all the material, build a highly defensible argument, and leave no weakness for someone to criticize. The lesser commentators speculate carelessly, building provocative arguments that are proposed, not because they are defensible, but because they are novel.

But in the end, it doesn’t matter. Good, mediocre, or bad, they’re all speculators. Not one of them actually has any experience. They imagine what it’s like to be in Paul’s shoes but they have no intention of putting them on. It never crosses their minds that actually experiencing what Paul experienced might give them a whole new perspective on what Paul means.

If Paul refused to let John Mark accompany him because he deserted the mission, what would he say about these experts who shy away from even the smallest demand? They know nothing of Paul’s hardships yet they presume to sit in the seat of authority and explain to us Paul’s most intimate thoughts.

The opportunity exists for any of them to be truly novel: do it. You’ll find all sorts of things to say: good things, profound things, things no one else has said before. Because no one else has done it. Here’s your opportunity to be truly provocative: do it!

Or at least listen to those who have.

Not totally ruled out

Of course the problem is not that Hawthorne has so easily discarded Bonhoeffer. The problem is that he has so easily discarded Paul! Hawthorne brushes aside the obvious—and we might say inescapable—understanding of Paul’s words and substitutes them with his own poorly contrived explanation. He gives no reason for this interpretation. He simply dismisses the other as “strained” and then holds his own up, strengthened with extravagant words that are added for no purpose other than to bolster a completely unsupportable explanation.

If someone says the sky is blue and you say he’s really imagining how beautiful a perfectly blue sky must be, you need strong evidence for your revision of his words. A person who agrees he’s saying the sky is blue needs no evidence; the obvious explanation is its own proof. It’s the person who says he’s not really saying what he says who needs to provide the proof.

When Paul says “I want to know Christ and the fellowship of sharing in his sufferings” Hawthorne needs a very good reason to say that this statement has nothing to do with suffering. When Paul has started the letter talking about his sufferings and his body, where is Hawthorne’s evidence that Paul is no longer talking about his sufferings and his body, but about a mystical union and an inward experience? If Paul wanted to say this, couldn’t he have? Was there some limitation in the Greek that prevented him from using the words “mystical union” and “inward experience” if he wanted to say that? What possible reason would Paul have for hiding these truths from his readers, burying the treasure to be uncovered 2000 years later by some professor? Why even write the letter at all? If the readers can’t understand it without a PhD, why bother?

More to the point, if the problem in the church at Philippi is experiencing internal strife, why write about a mystical union of suffering with Christ? How does this solve their internal strife? How does this help anything? Or was their strife just “internal” as well?

If there was something in the text that required an alternate explanation we could allow Hawthorne to look for something that better suits the argument, but this is not the case. The text is not difficult to understand; the most obvious interpretation causes no problems with the unity or purpose of Paul’s letter. Even if we grant that an alternative interpretation is possible, Hawthorne’s does nothing to make Paul’s argument more understandable.

Hawthorne’s prefers his interpretation, not because it makes Paul easier to understand, but because he doesn’t understand Paul. Hawthorne needs to have a Christian life that can satisfy all of God’s expectations without actually acting anything like Christ. To think that a person could know Christ better through suffering is an impossibility for him.

Hawthorne has to come up with an alternate explanation because the simple explanation doesn’t fit his view of the Christian life. It has nothing to do with what Paul wrote; it has everything to do with what Hawthorne needs to read. For him, knowing Christ is a wholly internal experience, so he makes Paul’s knowledge of Christ wholly internal as well.

To parry off a criticism such as, “Are you saying Paul’s suffering was of no value in knowing Christ” Hawthorne says on page 145 that “This interpretation does not totally rule out the thought of physical suffering or death playing out their transforming role in the Christian’s life.” Astonishing. Hawthorne does not totally rule out the possibility that physical suffering or death could play a role. What Paul says is the way to know Christ, Hawthorne doesn’t totally rule out.

Another statement that shows how distant Hawthorne is from understanding Paul is on pages 145-146:

The hazards that Paul faced in his apostolic work, the batterings he was subjected to as a Christian had the potential for being “the concrete external means” by which he could be conformed to Christ’s death (Beare). Thus the expression “conforming oneself to his death” can be enlarged to include “costly discipleship”.

Potential: Hawthorne says that physical suffering can—but not necessarily—provide an alternate way of being conformed to Christ, but it is not the primary or usual way.

Enlarged: Hawthorne’s thinks the inward experience is the expected and sufficient way to be conformed to Christ, but those who want to enlarge upon it by actually experiencing suffering are free to do so.

Costly discipleship: Hawthorne thinks that discipleship can be costly, but isn’t unless you put the modifier in front. Is there any such phrase in Scripture? Is there any Scripturally-based discipleship what isn’t costly?

Torn apart

Hawthorne says that “the church was being torn apart because Christians were motivated by party spirit, selfishness, conceit, pride, arrogance, etc.” Where does Paul say this? If the church was really being torn apart, shouldn’t Paul have introduced such an important topic with words a bit more stern than “Therefore, my beloved, just as you have always obeyed, not only in my presence, but much more now in my absence...”? Was Paul ever less than completely candid in labeling people’s actions sinful when they were? When he mocks the Corinthians, scolds and embarrasses them, asks them to test whether they are even in the faith, could he have let so serious a matter at Philippi go with the simple statement, “Do all things without murmuring and arguing, so that you may be blameless and innocent”? Where is Paul’s alarm? This sounds nothing like his letter to the Corinthians. And where is Hawthorne’s evidence that the church was being torn apart by selfishness and pride?

If the church at Philippi is being torn apart by envy, rivalry, and selfish ambition, why does Paul say in 1.18 that it doesn’t matter when he discusses this very thing happening among other believers? Paul doesn’t attack them, he doesn’t get alarmed, he doesn’t even say it has to stop. He lets it go. He says it doesn’t matter.

Now if Paul is witnessing the very thing that Hawthorne says is tearing apart the church at Philippi, why would he write a letter to tell them they need to stop it but also tell them it doesn’t matter? How will something that doesn’t matter destroy their church?

It doesn’t matter

There are two reasons Hawthorne targets the wrong thing in Paul’s letter. First is that if he admits Paul’s true reason then he has to admit he has a problem. But if he finds some problem that he doesn’t have, then he is allowed to continue living as he likes. Second is more serious: he doesn’t see it. His Christianity is so distant from Paul’s that he truly does not see Paul’s point.

The one phrase in Paul’s letter that matters above all else is “it doesn’t matter.”

Paul’s remark in 1.14 (speak the word with greater boldness and without fear) may have an ironic element. His imprisonment gives people with genuine motives confidence to speak because they see Paul’s courage and are either embarrassed to keep quiet or are moved from their hiding places to speak openly. But there are also those who are emboldened because Paul is out of the way. They are now free to speak without worrying about Paul’s counterbalance and correction. People like the followers of James are likely candidates. They are true believers but are sharply critical of Paul (Acts 21.20-21).

Interestingly, James warns against this same “envy and selfish ambition” (James 3.14-15). James was certainly were well aware of each Paul’s teachings. Is it possible that James uses Paul’s own words against him? In James 2.14-26 James takes on Paul in a full-frontal attack: “What good is it if you say you have faith but do not have works? Can faith save you?” Then he talks about teachers who set forests ablaze with a small fire and says that they will be judged harshly. He goes on to warn against those who are motivated by selfish ambition, saying they stir up disorder. He says that “such wisdom does not come down from heaven but is earthly, unspiritual, of the devil.”

In Acts 21.20-25 is the account of James complaining to Paul that he has set the Jewish forest ablaze with his careless teaching. James tells Paul he must do something to settle things down:

You see, brother, how many thousands of believers there are among the Jews, and they are all zealous for the law. They have been told about you that you teach all the Jews living among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, and that you tell them not to circumcise their children or observe the customs. What then is to be done? They will certainly hear that you have come.

So do what we tell you. We have four men who are under a vow. Join these men, go through the rite of purification with them, and pay for the shaving of their heads. Thus all will know that there is nothing in what they have been told about you, but that you yourself observe and guard the law.

But as for the Gentiles who have become believers, we have sent a letter with our judgment that they should abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from fornication.

Notice James’ language: “many thousands of believers”. James’ focus is completely off target. Who cares about how many thousands of believers are upset? Is Christ upset? If he isn’t who cares what they are saying? He says “they are all zealous for the law.” Again, what about Christ? Why aren’t they zealous for Christ? He says Paul is telling Jews to forsake Moses. What a remarkable twisting of Paul’s message! Paul is telling them to accept Christ, not forsake Moses. James complains Paul is telling people to not observe the customs. Nonsense! Paul is telling them to follow Christ!

Where is there anything remotely Christian in James’ complaint? He says the “believers” must be placated, but never once does he say anything that would make us think they are believers. They want to follow Moses, not Christ. They are zealous for the law, not Christ. How much farther away from Christ could they be when Christ doesn’t even enter their thoughts!

When Paul says “what does it matter?” in 1.18 he establishes an important principle. He will not allow his ministry to create a Christianity where the followers of Paul are on one side and the followers of James are on the other. Paul knows he is right and James is wrong. Paul knows that James has disregarded the command to get out of Jerusalem and that his continuation of Jewish religious tradition is wrong—the primary one being the continuation of Temple worship. Paul knows that James is guilty of “crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace” (Heb 6.6). What a chilling thought: James, the brother of Jesus, the leader of the church in Jerusalem, leading people so far from Christ that God intends to destroy them.

Regarding the Gentiles, James is still stuck on the decision of the Jerusalem Council issued 8 years earlier. To James they are still second-class citizens. The Gentiles are allowed to accept Christ but the Jews are in charge and make the rules for how they are to conduct themselves. James would never consider the Gentiles equal to Jews, and certainly would not accept Paul’s teachings that the Jews must give up their Jewishness in order to continue as the people of God. Paul calls them saints, fellow heirs, brothers and sisters, the true circumcision. Such words would choke James.

Obviously James doesn’t consider Paul his equal either. The offensive remark, “do what we tell you” proclaims loudly that James considers himself the chief elder of the church. Can you imagine James’ response if Paul had said to him, “do what I tell you”? He would have been outraged.

All of this Paul knows, yet he’s unwilling to do or say anything against these people other than to make oblique remarks about certain people who are happy he is out of the way. He is in prison and knows that this is no accident: it is God’s doing. If it’s God’s doing that he is in chains then it is also God’s doing that these people are free to speak. Like David, he will wait. He will not raise his hand against the Lord’s anointed, because they are true believers. They are wrong, but they belong to God, and it is God who must solve this problem.

So Paul looks for the positive in the negative, or rather at the only thing that matters: Christ is proclaimed. Motives are unimportant, only results. Paul wrote to the Corinthians that factions are silly. Those who plant and water are only servants; it is God who causes the growth and so no one belongs to Paul or Peter or anyone else: all belong to Christ. People concerned with selfish ambition collect followers because they need to have as many people on their side as possible. A large following proves they are right and bolsters their weak egos. But Paul’s ego is Christ, and he is completely unconcerned whether people come to Christ through him or someone else, even if that “someone else” despises Paul. For Paul to get involved in this contest would be a denial of everything he is working for. For him, to live is Christ. He doesn’t live for the spotlight or the acclaim or the size of his following. Everything, absolutely everything, is given over to Christ, including his pride, his inclination to defend himself, and his inclination to defend his work.

Paul will plant and allow other people to take his field from him. He will water other people’s fields to make them produce a harvest that they will take credit for. He will go where no one else goes and make his life more difficult so their life is made easier. He says in 2 Cor 10.12-18:

We do not dare to classify or compare ourselves with some who commend themselves. When they measure themselves by themselves and compare themselves with themselves, they are not wise. We, however, will not boast beyond proper limits, but will confine our boasting to the field God has assigned to us, a field that reaches even to you. We are not going too far in our boasting, as would be the case if we had not come to you, for we did get as far as you with the gospel of Christ. Neither do we go beyond our limits by boasting of work done by others. Our hope is that, as your faith continues to grow, our area of activity among you will greatly expand, so that we can preach the gospel in the regions beyond you. For we do not want to boast about work already done in another man’s territory. But, “Let him who boasts boast in the Lord.” For it is not the one who commends himself who is approved, but the one whom the Lord commends.

When Paul says “We are not going too far in our boasting, as would be the case if we had not come to you” he is saying there are those who take credit for fields they have never even visited. When Paul says “Neither do we go beyond our limits by boasting of work done by others” he is saying that there are those who take credit for fields other people have planted. Paul mentions these people because he wants everyone to know he is aware of what’s going on, but he also wants people to know it doesn’t matter. He has no problem being Christ’s fool, but he certainly isn’t going to be theirs. They are “not wise” (foolish) to compare themselves against one another. They can notch their pistol with his accomplishments. It doesn’t matter. His only measurement is how perfectly he follows Christ. If Christ commends him, then that is true approval. But human approval—and disapproval—means nothing.

Thus we see the danger in not leaving everything. Paul saw the danger in carrying weight that had nothing to do with his work. It wasn’t just giving up the requirement of his Jewish religion, or his prestige as a Pharisee, or his home and possessions. It was also giving up all claims on having his work count for something. He was satisfied only that he had something to pour out for Christ. Nothing anyone said about him mattered, nothing anyone did to him mattered. For Paul, to live was Christ. Nothing else in life concerned him.

An impossibly difficult example to match. Paul was truly remarkable.

Paul could live with the competition and accusations and profiteering. Whatever these other people thought did not affect him. Even if they preached from wrong motives Paul knew that they were nothing but farmers. It is God who causes the growth. If people take credit for the growth it is nothing to Paul, because he isn’t the one who causes growth even in his own field. It is all God’s. Nothing is his—or theirs—so why get upset by their empty claims?

Back to the Philippians: If Paul mentioned problems of disunity in the church but never explained the dangers, what does this tell us? In his letter to the Corinthians he explained in painful detail why what they were doing was unacceptable and dangerous, plus he told them they were immature, worldly, and proud. He told them that some of them had even died because of their abuses. But not the Philippians. He tells them to live in a manner worthy of the gospel, to stand firm in one spirit, to be of the same mind, to do nothing from selfish ambition... reminders of things that every church should remain conscious of. But never does he warn them of any dangers and never does he accuse them of being immature or worldly? Why?

There are three possible explanations. One is that he wasn’t telling them there was anything wrong at their church, but since he knows they are seeing a lot of bad stuff going on, he tells them make sure it doesn’t happen within their body. Paul was facing all the things he mentions: selfish ambition, lack of humility, factions... It’s possible he was telling them to not get involved in what they knew was going on. This would explain the subject matter and his concern, but also his lack of accusation against them.

The second possibility is that this is a general letter of encouragement and news. Paul is not making any accusations because there are none to make. Whatever he is writing is not to target a problem but to safeguard them from things he knows can creep in (3.1).

The third is a repeating of his analysis of what was going on around him: “It doesn’t matter”. Obviously Paul was concerned that people worked against him, plowing up his fields after he had planted. But he also knew they weren’t his fields, he couldn’t cause the growth, and his only responsibility was to do what he was told. He was doing that, so whatever else was going on was God’s problem, not his. Paul was able to say “it doesn’t matter” because he knew there was a much larger issue at stake: the spread of the gospel. So long as that was happening he was satisfied. Happy.

So if Paul spots something going on in the church at Philippi, mentions it, but doesn’t warn of any consequence or accuse anyone of immaturity or sin, the most likely reason is that it doesn’t matter. The primary thing he wanted to do was make sure they stayed the course in the face of hardship. His comment in 1.30 that “you are having the same struggle that you saw I had and now hear that I still have” proves that they certainly were facing some kind of stressful situation. If the pressure caused bad things to sweat to the surface, then that was completely understandable. If they were arguing it wasn’t because they were immature but because they were in a desperately difficult situation—and so far were standing against it. Paul, knowing all too well what happens to people in fearful situations would never dream of accusing them of doing anything wrong, because they not doing anything wrong: they just responding to impossible-to-bear pressures in the same way anyone would. For Paul to attack the surface issues as if the people had no excuse for venting their fears and griefs would have been criminal. So he mentions the surface issues. As a reminder.

Regardless of which of the three is closer to the truth, Hawthorne is completely off target to claim a lack of unity as Paul’s overriding reason for writing. Nothing in Paul’s letter would make us—or them!—think that he is afraid that their church was being torn apart by selfishness, conceit, pride, and arrogance.

Possibly Hawthorne is simply reading himself into the text.

The hinge-point

The hymn is in many ways the focal point of the letter. How we interpret it determines how we read much of what comes before and follows.

Let the same mind be in you that was in Christ Jesus,

who, though he was in the form of God,

did not regard equality with God

as something to be exploited,

but emptied himself,

taking the form of a slave,

being born in human likeness.

And being found in human form,

he humbled himself

and became obedient to the point of death—

even death on a cross.

Therefore God also highly exalted him

and gave him the name

that is above every name,

so that at the name of Jesus

every knee should bend,

in heaven and on earth and under the earth,

and every tongue should confess

that Jesus Christ is Lord,

to the glory of God the Father.

Hawthorne says on pages 95-96 that the point Paul wishes to drive home is that as night follows day, so also exaltation follows self-sacrifice. The point is that the Philippians need to understand that their self-promotion is in the reverse of God’s divine economy. It is in giving that a person receives, it is in serving that he is served, it is in humility that he is exalted.

If there was a problem of self-exaltation at the church this might be a valid interpretation of the hymn. But what if the problem is not selfishness, but suffering?

The problem with suffering is that our natural response is to think we have done something to offend God. Job did. It can happen to even the most mature believers.

But Paul understands that suffering is not something foreign to the Christian life; it is tightly woven into the very fabric of Christian existence. He also understands that a person’s natural response to suffering is to avoid it or escape from it, that when some people suffer and others don’t it raises suspicions, that when people ask for help and don’t receive it causes resentment, and that some people look at the ones suffering as somehow deserving it. Again, Job’s example is relevant. His wife demoralized him by telling him to curse God and die. His friends came to offer help but made things only worse by their useless speculation (Hawthorne, are you paying attention?). The silence from heaven was the worst. Job didn’t think he had done anything wrong but his inability to get an answer from God led him to make accusations against the goodness and justice of God.

Christ coming into the world and leaving his example of abject humility, embraced poverty, perfect obedience, and silent suffering made Job’s response to suffering forever an abomination. Before Christ one might have a reason to question God’s goodness in the midst of suffering, but after Christ there is no excuse. Christ suffered, not because God was indifferent but because God loved. Christ laid down the example and told us to follow it. From Christ onward, suffering is understood to be the path to God:

Matt 5.11-12

Blessed are you when people revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven.

Matt 5.44-45

Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be children of your Father in heaven.

Luke 12.4

Do not fear those who kill the body, and after that can do nothing more. Fear him who has authority to cast into hell.

John 15.20

Servants are not greater than their master. If they persecuted me, they will persecute you.

Rom 8.16-17

We are children of God and joint heirs with Christ—if, in fact, we suffer with him so that we may also be glorified with him.

Phil 1.29

He has graciously granted you the privilege not only of believing in Christ, but of suffering for him as well.

1 Thess 3.2-4

We sent Timothy to strengthen and encourage you, so that no one would be shaken by these persecutions. Indeed, you yourselves know that this is what we are destined for. In fact, when we were with you, we told you beforehand that we were to suffer persecution; so it turned out, as you know.

2 Tim 1.11

For this gospel I was appointed a herald and an apostle and a teacher, and for this reason I suffer as I do.

Hebrews 12.2-3

Let us run with perseverance the race that is set before us, looking to Jesus the pioneer and perfecter of our faith. Consider him who endured such hostility against himself from sinners, so that you may not grow weary or lose heart.

1 Peter 2.21

To this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, so that you should follow in his steps.

1 Peter 4.1-2

Since Christ suffered in the flesh, arm yourselves also with the same intention, so as to live for the rest of your earthly life no longer by human desires but by the will of God.

1 Peter 4.12-13

Beloved, do not be surprised at the fiery ordeal that is taking place among you to test you, as though something strange were happening to you. But rejoice insofar as you are sharing Christ’s sufferings, so that you may also be glad and shout for joy when his glory is revealed.

1 Peter 4.14

If you are reviled for the name of Christ, you are blessed, because the spirit of glory, which is the Spirit of God, is resting on you.

1 Peter 4.16

If any of you suffers as a Christian, do not consider it a disgrace, but glorify God because you bear this name.

1 Peter 4.19

Let those suffering in accordance with God’s will entrust themselves to a faithful Creator, while continuing to do good.

Rev 2.10-11

Do not fear what you are about to suffer. The devil is about to throw some of you into prison so that you may be tested, and for ten days you will have affliction. Be faithful until death, and I will give you the crown of life. Whoever conquers will not be harmed by the second death.

Conversely, not suffering is evidence of a defective Christian walk. Hebrews 12.1-13:

My child, do not regard lightly the discipline of the Lord,

or lose heart when you are punished by him;

for the Lord disciplines those whom he loves,

and chastises every child whom he accepts.

Endure trials for the sake of discipline. God is treating you as children. If you do not have that discipline in which all children share, then you are illegitimate and not his children. He disciplines us for our good, in order that we may share his holiness. Discipline always seems painful rather than pleasant at the time, but later it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness to those who have been trained by it.

Hawthorne agrees that there are two sections to the hymn in Philippians 2, and he agrees that humility comes before exaltation, but he leaves out the most important part of the hymn. Hawthorne wants us to believe that humiliation leads to exaltation, but that’s not what Paul says. Paul says that Christ humbled himself and became obedient to the point of death— even death on a cross.

If the people at Philippi were guilty of selfish ambition, why would Paul use this hymn to counter that? How does Christ’s death on a cross and subsequent exaltation address rivalry and animosity? The hymn doesn’t say that God exalts those who humble themselves; it says God exalts those who become obedient to the point of death. And that is exactly Paul’s point. The believers at Philippi need to stay in their suffering. If they avoid it or escape from it they interrupt the very thing God wants for them. Paul tells them plainly, “He has graciously granted you the privilege not only of believing in Christ, but of suffering for him as well.” It is God who has put them on this path and it is God who has put this obstacle in their way. They see it as a hardship; God sees it as a step up. And if they take that step, then he’ll give them another one. Larger. Because he wants us to continually be made better, stronger, more courageous, more trusting.

Certainly it’s difficult, but if they abandon the course then they also abandon the reward that God has in store for them. It’s not humility they need to pursue, it’s obedience. Total obedience. Regardless of the hardship and pain. Even if it means their lives.

Paul never says (as Hawthorne does) that Christ’s suffering makes ours unnecessary. Paul tells the Philippians exactly the opposite:

Therefore, my beloved, just as you have always obeyed, not only in my presence, but much more now in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; for it is God who is at work in you, enabling you both to will and to work for his good pleasure.

Notice Paul’s emphasis on obedience, work, and fear. He is saying exactly what the believers at Philippi need to get through this difficulty. The path is one of obedience. Stay on it. It’s the path of salvation. It’s a path that is desperately difficult, but you are not adrift or alone. This is God’s doing. He has put you here for this very purpose, he is giving you the ability to make it through, and at the end he will say of you, just as he did of his Son: “These are my beloved, in whom I am well pleased.”

And so we see what happens when someone like Hawthorne, who refuses to see anything in Scripture that disagrees with his understanding of God’s expectations for us, encounters a text that is outside his experience: He explains it in a way that agrees with his experience. Of course the problem is that his experience is not Paul’s (or Christ’s), so he steers people off the path. Suffering is something foreign to his Christian life so he mysticizes it. But Paul says if you really want to be exalted you really must suffer. Like Christ. That’s the example. That’s the expectation. That’s the norm.

Nowhere does Paul say that Christ could have been exalted simply by humbling himself, and nowhere does Paul say that Christ’s obedience makes ours unnecessary. Christ obeyed and so he was exalted. Christ’s example is the pattern for how we are to live (If they persecuted me, they will persecute you). And Paul says in Romans 8.17 that we are “joint heirs with Christ if, in fact, we suffer with him so that we may also be glorified with him.”

There are no shortcuts, there are no inherited benefits. We are glorified like Christ if we suffer like Christ. The best Hawthorne can apparently hope for is a mystical exaltation. Maybe that’s good enough for him. But it’s not good enough for Paul. He says that he is pressing on toward the goal for the prize of the heavenly call of God in Christ Jesus. And it’s not good enough for his friends at Philippi either. So he gives them real information: meaty stuff that will keep them on course.

On page 96 Hawthorne says that the outcome is that Jesus Christ is confessed openly as Lord and the Father is glorified. How? For Hawthorn there is no physical suffering, no obedience to the point of death. How does Hawthorne’s version of the Christian life lead anyone to confess Jesus as Lord? Paul says in 1.20 that Christ is exalted in his body, whether by life or by death. How would the imperial guard be impressed by Hawthorne’s mystical faith? How could other believers be moved to boldness by Hawthorne’s inward experience? How does Hawthorne’s “staggering idea that he and all believers are caught up into Christ” move anyone to glorify God?

Hawthorne, like most other commentators, cannot allow Paul’s simple truths to stand. They must modify them or empty them, even to the extent of telling people who are right that they are wrong: Bonhoeffer being the obvious example. Their inertia is so strong, their vision so restricted, that they cannot see—or even allow—a contrary view. Even if it’s Paul’s.

Or Christ’s.

But Christ and Paul are clear in their description of obedience and suffering:

— The normal Christian life involves suffering.

— Obedience may lead to suffering and possibly even death.

— Obeying like Christ means we will be exalted like Christ.

And they are clear on the corollary as well:

— A Christian life that involves no suffering is defective. God puts it in our path as a gift,

so if we didn’t encounter it we walked around it.

— A Christian who avoids suffering is not obedient. Christ was obedient and it led to

suffering and death.

— A Christian who refuses Christ’s example will not be exalted with Christ.

The hinge-point of Paul’s letter is the hymn and the hinge-point of the hymn is verse 8: “He became obedient to the point of death.” This means that the reason Paul wrote his letter was to have them see that total obedience, straight through any amount of suffering, is the example set by Christ and is our only hope of being exalted like Christ. Christ could not have been exalted without perfect obedience, and we can’t either.

And so the believers at Philippi need to continue to obey. They need to step into the difficulty, bear up under the pressure, press on toward the goal, stay the course to the very end, no matter how painful. And they need to do that together: as one body. Help one another, strengthen those who are weak, know that this (just like Paul’s imprisonment) is from God and for God, encourage one another, use your joy to raise the spirits of those who are hurting, love one another, look out for one another.

Their struggle

Paul’s letter plainly says that the believers at Philippi were going through some sort of difficulty, and it was a difficulty serious enough for him to tell them that they needed to be careful how they handled it:

— Live your life in a manner worthy of the gospel of Christ, so that I will know that you are

standing firm in one spirit, striving side by side with one mind for the faith of the gospel,

and are in no way intimidated by your opponents.

— This is God’s doing. He has graciously granted you the privilege not only of believing in

Christ, but of suffering for him as well.

— You are having the same struggle that you saw I had and now hear that I still have.

— I am being poured out as a libation over the sacrifice and the offering of your faith.

The problem with suffering is that it doesn’t happen like we romanticize it. We imagine that Christians in Romania under communism were united, strong, and courageous. We imagine that missionaries go through many hardships but are somehow sustained by the knowledge that they have been called by God. Our understanding of these things hasn’t changed from Sunday School. We are stuck in a comic book imagining of what hardship is like.

What would happen if your church came up against some serious hardship? Wouldn’t there be those who face it, others who duck under it, and others who leave in order to escape it? Wouldn’t there be those who suffer silently and those who suffer loudly? Wouldn’t there be suspicion, accusation, gossip? And what would this prove? That your church is being torn apart by rivalry, partisanship, and selfish ambition? Nonsense. It would prove your church is normal.

What really happens is this: Those who have nothing look at those who still have a nice house and plenty to eat and wonder how they can they call themselves Christians. Exposure to hardship exposes our hurts, and so we become suspicious and make accusations.

It creates problems between neighbors. The family in need wonders how the other family can be so uncaring. The family who has enough isn’t willing to get involved because they know if they give once it will never end.

It creates problems between families. A boy and girl fall in love but the parents get angry when they find out about it: “You’re not going to get involved with them. They’re no good.” Or, “You’re not going to get involved with them. They just want our money.”

It creates problems within the church. The church is supposed to care for its own but if they start giving people will come just for the handout.

The people in need are invited to a church picnic and are embarrassed when their children pile their plates high and shovel down the food like they’re starving. They’re too ashamed to come back.

The people in need are invited to someone else’s home and are shocked. Do you believe this? Their furniture is brand new! And that kitchen: it had to have cost thousands!

The people in need have nothing in common with the people who have plenty. They’re going to restaurants, taking vacations, buying bigger and newer things. It’s just too awkward... and painful. So they stay away.

Shameless people exploit the situation by begging for help until someone gives in. When it is found out that they are shysters it offends both the rich and the poor, and the gap widens.

Some people do give, but they see how their money is being spent and disapprove, so they stop.

The well-to-do protect themselves with heartless appeasements: God will provide, we’re all praying for you.

Paul looks at the situation in Philippi and knows that there’s nothing romantic about it at all. People are hurting, and they’re hurting even more because they’re not getting help from the ones who should care most. He’s not going to attack the symptoms because it won’t solve anything. So instead he tells them the truth: