Partners in the Gospel (III)
July 29, 2008
The following is my sermon outline for this coming Sunday. I will “fill in the gaps” (i.e., make some comments on key aspects of the passage) on Thursday.
Comal Country Church
Dr. Boyd Luter
August 3, 2008
Partnership in the Gospel (II):
“A Thankful and Prayerful Partnership”
Philippians 1:1-11
Introduction-
Main Idea- Gospel partnership is based in heartfelt mutual caring, which expresses itself in ministry cooperation, thankfulness and prayer.
(1:1-2) If you are a leader, you are to elevate the roles and significance of your gospel partners.
(1:3-6) You’re always to be thankful for your gospel partners, assured the Lord will complete the partnership’s “business.”
(1:7-8) You should care deeply for your gospel partners, since you share grace and ministry’s mountaintops and valleys.
(1:9-11) You are to pray for your gospel partners to grow in discerning love, purity and spiritual fruitfulness.
Applicational Questions:
Do you see leadership as being “over” other people or as servant-leadership (1:1-2)?
Are you consistently joyfully thankful for the gospel partners God has placed in your life (1:3-6)?
Have you allowed a deep affection for your gospel partners to invade your heart (1:7-8)?
Do you pray for your gospel partners’ spiritual growth as much as their physical needs (1:9-11)?
Coming Thursday: “Looking Deeper at Philippians 1:1-11″
Partners in the Gospel (II)
July 24, 2008
This is my sermon outline for Sunday, as I begin my new series on Philippians:
Comal Country Church
Dr. Boyd Luter
July 27, 2008
“Partnership in the Gospel (Introduction)”
Philippians 1:1-2
Introduction-
Main Idea- A leader is honored to relate to the people in the church as “partners in the gospel.”
Every letter is written by someone at a particular place and time, in certain circumstances.
- Who (Paul [1:1], given the personal information [1:12-26; 3:5-6] that stacks up with what we know of him ealsewhere)
- Where (most likely from Rome [see Acts 28:17ff.], esp. given the reference to “Caesar’s household” [Phil. 4:23])
- When (about AD 61-62, near the end of Paul’s probable two years in house arrest in Rome)
- What was going on (rivalry about spreading the gospel in Rome [1:12-26], which amounts to a denial of “partnership in the gospel”)
Every letter is written to an audience with their circumstances and for very specific reasons.
- To Whom (the Philippian church, which has been very supportive of Paul over the years [see 4;10ff.], but which is presently experiencing growing disunity, because of two prominent women [4:2-3] and is in danger from both legalism and license [3:2-4:1])
Every letter has a “shape” and “flow” to it, whether that happened consciously or subconsciously.
- The rhetorical outline (which I discussed several weeks ago): It unpacks the theme of “partnership in the gospel” progressively
- The inverted parallel outline (which I just discussed): It shows parallel aspects of the theme, centering on the two exemplary gospel partners soon coming to Philippi from Paul–Timothy and Epaphroditus [2:19-30])
Every church grows the same way: one choice of saving faith at a time (see Acts 16:11-34, especially vv. 30-31a).
The account of the planting of the Philippian church climaxes with the conversion of the Philippian jailer and his family. I will use this passage for the invitation.
Partners in the Gospel (I)
July 22, 2008
(Before I begin today, I must say that I just went over to SBC Outpost and read the latest post. I have only been sampling the fare in the blogosphere maybe once per week for the last month or so and have not missed it. However, in reading Ben Cole’s “Exit Strategy,” I found myself reliving quite an up-and-down succession of emotions from the last two plus years, much of which I was involved in in ways similar to Ben.
Generally, I agree with Ben’s sentiments about the current state of affairs in the Southern Baptist Convention, although my motivations for getting involved were not exactly the same as Ben’s. Bottom line: I too have followed an “Exit Strategy” of a sort in recent times, though I wish only the best to all who stayed and continued the reform efforts. I also wish the best to Ben, in whatever direction his life will take in the time ahead. While I certainly did not always agree with the way he did things, I did find Ben Cole to be one of the most intelligent and gifted young men I have encountered in many years.)
Well, I’m finally getting back to Philippians. After this week, I will be dealing with the content of the book itelf. Today, I am taking on the lingering subject of how Philippians can be viewed as having a mirroring structure. On Thursday, I will post the outline of my introductory message for the sermon series I’m starting on Philippians, called “Partnership in the Gospel.”
Just prior to stepping aside to talk about issues I am pursuing in my own personal spiritual life for several posts, I laid out the structure of Philippians which follows the rhetorical conventions of the day. I cannot make a case that such a structuring was not in play, because I’m convinced that it was–given the way oral communication flowed in that culture. However, I think it is also very possible that an additional structure of Philippians is also in play, a very elegant structure at that.
For my own background in working with this material, let me list several items of research back in the 1990s (all of which will be included in the bibliography of the commentary). In my 1993 book, Looking Back, Moving On, I first came to grips with the presence of any kind of chiastic (i.e., inverted parallel) structuring in Philippians–in 3:10-11. Then, in 1995, in my highest-profile journal article, in New Testament Studies, I published “Philippians as Chiasmus.” Playing off that research, I wrote another article on Philippians for the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society in 1996 and chapters on Philippians for my books, Disciplined Living: What the New Testament Teaches about Recovery and Discipleship (1996) and Women as Christ’s Disciples (1997).
In the decade since all that concentrated research and writing, my ideas have freshened somewhat. So, if any of you were to track down any of those publications, you might notice some differences in what I am about to lay out from where I was in the mid-90s. But, the main thrust is the same.
Here’s what I want you to see as an overview of what I believe is the mirroring structure of Philippians intended by the Apostle Paul. (If you are not familiar with this style of communication, it is very common in the Old Testament [which has been recognized for several decades], but which has begun to be found more and more frequently by scholars in the New Testament in the past 20 years or so.) Remember that the As, Bs, Cs, etc., go together. In each of the layers (A, B, C…), the second member (i.e., in the second half of the letter) either completes, compares or contrasts with the first member (i.e., in the first half).
(1:1-2) Writers, recepients and initial “grace”
A (1:3-11) Opening prayer for the Philippians, focusing on partnership in the gospel
B (1:12-26) Paul’s circumstances in jail, being guarded, and his desire for release
C (1:27-2:4) Gospel partnership by standing firm in unity and living selflessly
D (2:5-18) The selfless examples of Christ and Paul
E (2:19-24) A selfless example of a gospel partner who may come to Philippi soon (I): Timothy
E’ (2:25-30) A selfless example of a gospel partner coming to Philippi soon (II): Epaphroditus
D’ (3:1-4:1) The selfless example of Paul’s conversion vs. the self-centered examples of the legalists and libertines in Philippi
C’ (4:2-3) Two gospel partners who are in disunity and with selfish outlooks
B’ (4:4-9) Rejoicing and prayer guarding the hearts and minds through prayer
A’ (4:10-20) Thank you note to the Philippians, for their financial partnership in the gospel
(4:21-23) Closing greetings and final “grace”
So, what do do you think? Do you see the parallels? If not, I will be commenting on the details that led me to conclude that this structure exists in the weeks ahead.
Coming Thursday: “An Introduction to the Background of Philippians”
Gang, I’ve got to get back on track with Philippians next week. I’m finishing my lengthy series (29 messages) on 1 Corinthians, called “The Church Warts and All,” this Sunday and will begin preaching Philippians with an introductory message the next Sunday.
What I will probably try to do, after concluding what I’m going to say about the introductory questions next week, each week is to give you my sermon outline in the Tuesday installment. Then, I will follow up on Thursday with comments that fill in the “skeleton” of the outline.
So, here goes on trying to further work through my two areas of searching at the moment: 1) listening the voice of God in prayer; and 2) now that I’m a convinced Continuationist, exploring whether I have “missed out” on anything else significant in my walk with the Lord.
To aid in this process, the last time I was at the Austin Presbyterian Theological Seminary library, I checked out two significant books. (I tried to check out Jack Deere’s Surprised by the Voice of God, but, at that point, somebody else had beaten me to it.) They were published almost a generation–nearly 30 years–apart and are very helpful indicators of where things were on the front of the gifts and working of the Holy Spirit at their points of origin.
The first is now considered a classic: Frederick Dale Bruner’s A Theology of the Holy Spirit (Eerdmans), which was released in 1970, just as the white-hot heat of the Charismatic wing of the Jesus Movement was mounting. The second book is by Dr. Max Turner of London Bible College and was published originally in 1996, though revised as recently as 2005 in the Hendrickson edition I am reading. It is called The Holy Spirit and Spiritual Gifts.
It appears that neither author is a full-blown Charismatic, though both do seem to be quite sympathetic to at least what they see as the strengths of the movement. As such, they are not completely objective observers–if such a thing is even remotely possible!–but they are “objective” enough to not feel like they have to argue for every apect of what they are describing.
Frankly, I like–even admire–that. I tend to get somewhat uncomfortable when I am reading an account and all there is forthcoming is praise. No man–except Jesus, of course!–and especially no movement has ever occurred in history without its significant flaws, blind spots and failures.
I’m going to give you a quick update on where I am on both fronts. Then, I’m going to briefly explain one thing I have taken from each book to help me in my quest.
In regard to listening to the voice of God in prayer, I am improving on making prayer more than a monologue. While I still largely am only hearing silence when I stop vocalizing. However, I have realized afresh that’s not a bad thing. After all, “Be still and know that I am God” is a crucial awareness we should all have constantly before the Lord. Plus, silence would seem to be a key component of waiting on the Lord–which, frankly, remains for me the most difficult part of the Christian life (maybe my ADD-based impatience has at least a little to do with that!).
In regard to seeking whether there is more available in the Christian life than I have previously experienced, I have fortunate recently to have some people come alongside me recently as human “paraketes,” if you will. They have each carefully and patiently explained to me their own deeper experiences with the Lord, none of which were “taught” to them, just embraced when they happened. And, each has been very helpful to me as a “recovering” Stoic and Cessationist. Since I’m still trying to come to grips with the full range of my emotions, and since I am also still trying to figure out how much of my spiritual “deafness” might have to do with my horrible realtionship with my Dad–which makes it very difficult and scary to trust a “father figure,” it is likely that it will be some time yet before I get where I’m headed on this front. But, I am seeking, which leads me to believe that, in God’s perfect timing, I will find what He wants me to discover (Matt. 7:7-8).
What did I learn from Bruner’s book that is helping me in this process? The history of the Pentecostal and neo-Pentecostal (i.e., Charismatic) movements focuses on the pursuit of the immediate experience of the Holy Spirit. While there should be concern about whether the Pentecostal is seeking to glorify the Spirit in place of Christ, the desire for spiritual intimacy with God must be considered a positive thing. Yes, it can be taken to extreme. But, is that not a calculated risk that is better than just going through the motions in a spiritually dead church?
What did I learn from Turner’s book? Even though there are some notable differences in the ways that Charismatics understand certain practices from what the New Testament actually says, it is overreacting to “throw the baby out with the bathwater.” Turner thinks that the “baby” (in this analogy) may be a significant moving of the Lord in our times, which merely has some questionable practices around it as window-dressing, if you will. If that is true, and since the moving of the Spirit in the churches in Corinth definitely had its excesses, should we not be very cautious in regard to both what we acccept and what we reject? After all, as John 3:8 says, there is mystery in the working of the Spirit: “The wind blows where it wishes,a nd you hear the sound of it, but cannot tell where it comes from or where it goes. So is everyone who is born of the Spirit.”
Coming Tuesday: “Nailing Down the Mirroring Structure and Themes of Philippians”
A Theological Aside… for a Good Cause
July 15, 2008
I received a tough question by email the end of last week (see below) . I concluded that it is the kind of question that is worth sharing with you, as well as my attempt to answer it. See what you think (but please ignore the paragraph spacing–it simply refuses to cooperate!).
I will get back to my spiritual “quest” in Thursday’s post. For now, let me just say that enough progress and insight have been forthcoming to where I definitely do not think that this is an “impossible dream,” like Don Quixote’s quest.
Genesis 6–with respect to the destruction of mankind by flood, with the exception of Noah and his family. The question is, if God repented that He had made man, why didn’t he just destroy it all and either leave it or make something, someone, different? Why allow the same sinful man to begin to populate the earth again when God obviously had to know what the outcome would be? A way is needed to teach Noah’s generation to youth but this question has to be understood clearly in order to do it.
For those of you who have been bored to tears as I have been taking you the issues I need to think through as I prepare to write my commentary on Philippians, rejoice! Your prayers have been answered. Momentary relief has arrived! On this day, July 10, my birthday, I could not make myself get through the explanation of an inverted parallel structure of Philippians.
Instead, I have been engrossed with two issues which are, so to speak, related at the hip. One is hearing the voice of God and the other is whether, as a Cautious Continuationist, I am missing out on the fulness of God’s blessing, especially in worship.
A word about my background for those who don’t know me well. Like now well-known Charismatic leaders Jack Deere and Sam Storms, I went to Dallas Theological Seminary, the bastion of Cessationism, for both my master’s and doctoral degrees. Like my fellows Jackie and Sam, I have changed my views. Unlike Drs. Deere and Storms, I have not found my way to the full Charismatic position at this time… though I remain prayerfully open.
Why am I struggling with this now? I think the Lord has sensitized me to certain things recently through trying to sort through my difficult relationship with my Dad because I have been deeply involved on working on my challenging–but definitely improving–relationship with my supremely strong-willed ADHD son. And, all this finally points back to my relationship with my heavenly Father. But, in the midst of all this, the sense that I need the power of the Paraklete to make the needed changes has been growing stronger and stronger.
Perhaps you could say that my yearning for the Lord and His insight reached “critical mass” today. I know that it is a major calculated risk to write a posting of this type. Who knows who will read it and what they will think? But, I have prayerfully placed that in the Lord’s hands. And, it’s not like I haven’t been severely criticized before for things I have penned on this blog. My skin is thicker and my heart is desiring answers. So, here goes… .
In regard to the voice of God, by background I was taught that God only speaks through the Scriptures today. And, of course, he certainly does do that, if nothing else. However, if we limit God to only what He has revealed in the Bible, there are many, many, many issues about which we would never be able to have Divine insight, simply because the issues did not exist in biblical times.
Now, it seems to me that there is a very important way in which the Scriptures function as a doctrinal safeguard, even if the voice of God–and, no, I have not read Deere’s second book, which is on this exact subject, yet–can be heard “audibly” beyond the pages of Holy Writ. Every idea or utterance claiming to be from God must be measured as to whether or not it contradicts Scripture. If it does, it must be rejected as not originating with God.
Does this approach hold water? Well, chew on this analogy. Where would we be if we said that we could only do in worship what is in the Bible–and, more specifically, in the New Testament, since we live under the New Covenant? As you probably know, at the same ridiculously inconsisent point that the Church of Christ finds itself: having no instrumental music, like what they see in the NT, but having electric lights and air conditioning in play during their services, which no one can find in Scripture. That “boat” leaks like a sieve!
My point: Since almost all other Christian groups come down on this issue by taking the view that, unless it is expressly prohibited in the NT, it is permissible, shouldn’t we see the wisdom in taking a parallel view in regard to the voice of God? It does not have to be found in Scripture to be valid, but if it contradicts Scripture in any way, it is clearly invalid.
The other part of this question for me is listening to God in prayer. Prior to very recently, I have only had those strong impressions or convictions that I was sure came from the Holy Spirit. But, recently, I have been challenged afresh to listen to His voice as I pray and meditate. I tried recently to do so flat on my face before the Lord, but fell asleep.
Yes, I am ashamed of that–even though I was very tired when I tried it! However, I am not going to quit. Prayer is part of my relationship with the Father and, unless you are a complete fool or have no close friends or relationships, you are well aware that relationships take time and effort to develop. I’m just starting to get beyond the talking, but not listening, stage… and I know He realizes my desire to make this full two-way communication and, so to speak, will graciously “cut me some slack.”
One other aspect of this subject that is challenging to me: Recently, my counselor led me through an exercise in which he asked me to listen for God’s voice. Well, being what I still think is reasonably concerned about hearing the “voice” of the flesh or the Devil, like a little kid, I just blurted out my biggest fear: “How am I going to know if it’s God’s voice?”
Well, he didn’t really answer my question and certainly did not give me a biblical basis for what happened next–which, for the old Ph.D. in theology that I am–was something of a “caution light” for me. However, as he sorted out the thoughts I was having after we prayed to hear the Lord’s voice in regard to my relationship to my son, it does seem to me quite possible that I did. And, as I noted above, there was nothing anywhere close to contrary to Scripture that emerged from that time.
Quickly moving on to introduce the other subject–I’m not going to be able to play it out fully today, because I have too much else that I must get done: Have I been missing out on the fullness of the Spirit, particularly in regard to worship?
As I was praying about what to write at this point, I was reminded (by the Spirit, I trust) of Sam Storms’ recent book, Convergence: The Spiritual Journey of a Calvinistic Charismatic. In that excellent work, Sam talks about the blessings of his two spiritual backgrounds (Cessationism and Continuationism) and how he had concluded that, for there to be a healthy spiritual balance, there needed to be a both/and emphasis in worship and the Christian life, not either/or.
What did Dr. Storms mean? Without any intent to equally offend both my non-Charismatic and Charismatic friends, Sam’s very wise and beautifully balanced point is that it should not be either an in-depth “head-knowledge’ approach to worship and Christian living, as with Cessationists, or just in-depth “heart-knowledge” of the Spirit, as with Charismatics. According to John 4:23-24: “…True worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth. Yes, the Father wants such people to worship Him. God is spirit, and those who worship Himm must worship in spirit and truth.”
Bottom line: In at least most cases, Cessationist churches have generally got a better in-depth hold on the “truth,” which the Gospel of John later defines as Christ, the Living Word (John 14:6) and the Scriptures, the Written Word (17:17). However, it is probably also true to observe that at least some of the more balanced Charismatic churches have got a better grip on the “Spirit.”
What is my mid-stream working conclusion on this subject (at least until I open “Pandora’s box” again on Tuesday)? Cessationists desperately need Charismatics’ joy and emotional receptiveness to the Lord to balance out what often is a spiritually sterile experience with the Lord. However, Charismatics need their Cessationist brethren’s disciplined, in-depth understanding of Scripture just as much, to keep them from going to extra-biblical extremes or looking like they are stark raving mad to any unbelievers in attendance (e.g., 1 Cor. 14:23).
“Spirit” and “truth” yoked together: What a concept! But, how sadly lacking this exquisite balance is in the lives of so many believers (myself included!)–and Christ-honoring churches!
Lord, give us this wonderful balance as we seek to come to know both the Scriptures and the Spirit in more depth! In Jesus’ magnificent Name, Amen.
Coming Tuesday: More “Looking Over My Shoulder” at me seeking God’s fulness
Looking over My Shoulder (VII)
July 8, 2008
A you may or may not know, I am preparing to write a commentary on Philippians this Fall for an evangelical publisher in Great Britain. When I was so rudely interrupted by real life last week, I was just about to explain to you how Paul’s letter to the Philippians is a classic reflection of the Greek rhetorical approach of that day. The best treatment of that approach that I am aware of is that of Ben Witherington, in his volume Friendship and Finances in Philippi (Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press Intl., 1994), which follows:
Epistolary Prescript (1:1-2)
Exordium and Thanksgiving Prayer (1:3-11)
The Narratio (1:12-26)
The Propositio (1:27-30)
The Probatio (2:1-4:3)
- Appeal 1 (2:1-18)
- Appeal 2 (2:19-30)
- Appeal 3 (3:1-4:1)
- Appeal 4 (4:2-3)
The Peroratio (4:4-20)
- Division I (4:4-9)
- Division II (4:10-20)
Epistolary Closing/Subscription (4:21-23)
Allow me to briefly explain the Latin terms for your edification:
The “epistolary prescript” is simply the standard elements that were found at the beginning of a letter in that day. It was very much parallel to the date and inside address information in a standard business letter in our culture today.
Similarly, at the other end of the letter, the “epistolary closing” is nothing more than closing personal comments and final greetings. It would be like the closing paragraph of a business letter, included to keep it from ending too abruptly, then the signature (and in some of Paul’s letters there actually is a signature–e.g., 1 Cor. 16:21; 2 Thess. 3:17).
According to Witherington, the Exordium is always the beginning part, “aimed at making the audience open and well-disposed toward what follows.” Paul weaves this formal beginning in with his standard initial prayer for his readers.
The Narratio follows, explaining to the audience “the nature of the matters on which the discourse will dwell.” In the case of Phlippians, Paul picks up the theme of the book from the Exordium–”partnership in the gospel” (see 1:5) and develops it in terms of his own personal situation in jail–probably house arrest in Rome, in my studied opinion.
The Propositio is “where the essential propositions of the speaker… are laid out.” In this case, the main point is that the Philippian believers needed to stand firm and stand united in regard to the gospel.
The Probatio “brings in arguments to support the speaker’s case” and sometimes, as in Philippians, is where “the opponent’s arguments are disproved… .”
Essentially, the Peroratio recaps “the main points of the Probatio, attempting to arouse the emotions for the speaker’s viewpoint by amplifying what has been said before.”
You may be asking, “Why are you boring us with all this ancient structure stuff?” Very simply, because this is the format in which educated authors expressed themselves in that culture. And, to best understand Philippians, we have to put ourselves in their shoes as much as possible. Legitimate biblical interpretation is not finding what we want to hear in our day in the text, but figuring out what the author was saying to the original audience, then–and only then–carefully applying it to our day.
But–and here is a key point–it was not the only format in which they communicated. In fact, although it has been widely misunderstood by many “scholars” of past generations, the Hebrews were not the only ones in the Ancient Near East who used inverted balancing structures in their speaking and writing. More and more examples of that kind of elegant format continue to be found.
Allow me to show you what seems to me to be an indisputable micro- (or mini-) inverted parallel structure in the Book of Philippians. This will make it clear that Paul was familiar with such a chiastic (i.e., from the Greek letter Chi, which, as a capital letter, crosses in the middle like an X) structuring. And, if even one clear example is found in the book, how can the possibility of the whole being an intended inverted parallel structure be ruled out without very careful consideration?
Check out the parallel ideas in the first and second half of this structure for yourself:
A (3:10a) “My goal is to know Him and the power of His resurrection“
B (3:10b) “the fellowship of His sufferings“
B’ (3:10c) “being conformed to His death”
A’ (3:11) “Assuming that I will somehow reach the resurrection from the dead”
So, what does this kind of structuring in which the second half is a mirrored parallel to the first half mean from a practical standpoint? The main point is spotlighted in the middle. In this case, the practical point of the structure is that there is no other way to get to resurrection power than through suffering and death. That was obviously true for Christ. It is equally true for the Christian life, where suffering and death to self precede the outworking of resurrection power in the believer’s experience.
Selah and Amen!
Coming Thursday: I will lay out and explain my own symmetrical (chiastic) structuring of Philippians
Substitute Post: “Freedom in Christ”
July 3, 2008
(Note: I’m going to wait to do my next post on Philippians early next week. There will be no post this Saturday. As I said last Saturday, the Canyon Lake Times-Guardian is now defunct and I’m taking the Fourth of July weekend off as far as writing is concerned. The following is my sermon outline for Sunday–a broadly Independence Day themed message. “Happy Fourth!” … and see what you think!)
Comal Country Church
Dr. Boyd Luter
July 6, 2008
Independence Day, 2008:
“Freedom in Christ—What It Is and Isn’t”
Galatians 5:13-23
Introduction-
Main Idea- When you insist on liberty, the Christian life is slavery, but emphasizing Spirit-led service brings about freedom.
(5:13-15) Freedom in Christ is not an opportunity for you to do fleshly thing, but for loving service.
(5:16-18) Freedom in Christ is living each moment in the power of the Holy Spirit, not the flesh.
(5:19-21) The works of the flesh are attitudes that become actions which obviously are not worthy of Christians.
(5:22-23) The fruit of the Holy Spirit working in and through your life is edifying, not selfishly destructive.
Applicational Questions:
Diagnosis: Honestly, is there more evidence of the flesh or the Spirit in your attitudes and behavior?
Treatment: Are you willing, by faith (see 5:5-6), to choose to walk and be led by the Holy Spirit?
“For you were called to freedom, brothers; only don’t use this freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but serve one another through love” (Gal. 5:13, HCSB).
Looking Over My Shoulder (VI)
July 1, 2008
It is my personal conviction that the strongest argument for the unity of Philippians as being originally one letter, versus two or three stitched together at a later point, is an overall structure that could not have reasonably just “happened” when the multiple mini-letters got pasted together. Sadly, though, for a long time, it was the widespread disagreement on the structure of Philippians that opened the door for the plausibility of the multiple source views.
What do I mean by that? If you are not aware, for a long time, Philippians and James were the New Testament books that virtually defied outlining. Fortunately, that has changed in the last generation for both books (though I will not be discussing James here), but it is odd that both were so difficult to outline for so long.
As a result of the scholarly inability to figure out the overall flow of thought in Philippians, it was not uncommon on through the 1960s for commentaries to treat the epistle almost like it was the latter part of the Book of Proverbs–just one short “nugget” of thought after another. The idea expressed for why Philippians was put together this way was usually that it was such an intensely personal and practical book that it did not need to be carefully structured, like most–if not all–of Paul’s other letters.
With all due respect to the older scholars who perpetrated this garbage, Balderdash! At least one beautifully structured, and culturally sensitive, outline was there all along in Philippians and they simply did not grasp it. It was like a hand in front of their face, but they could not see it.
In the Greek world of the first century AD, rhetoric–the polished presentation of the spoken word–was “king.” In a culture that had no TV or movies, moving, persuasive oratory was the best entertainment around and critically important in motivating the hearers to certain attitudes or behavior (which hasn’t changed that much in 2,000 years, other than than there are so many other entertainment options available today).
When I wrote my commentary segment on “Philippians” for the Evangelical Commentary on the Bible (Baker, 1989), I employed a slightly simplified rhetorical outline, adapted from my friend Bob Swift’s article, “The Theme and Structure of Philippians,” published in the journal Bibliotheca Sacra. However, since that time, I have run across a better thought-through version, done by Ben Witherington III in his volume, Friendship and Finances in Philippi: The Letter of Paul to the Philippians, in ‘The New Testament in Context’ series (Trinity Press International, 1994). The following is how Witherington breaks down Philippians, according to the rhetorical approach of that day:
Epistolary Prescript (1:1-2)
Exordium and Thanksgiving Prayer (1:3-11)
The Narratio (1:12-26)
The Propositio (1:27-30)
The Probatio (2:1-4:3)
- Appeal 1 (2:1-18)
- Appeal 2 (2:19-30)
- Appeal 3 (3:1-4:1)
- Appeal 4 (4:2-3)
The Peroratio (4:4-20)
- Division I (4:4-9)
- Division II (4:10-20)
Epistolary Closing/Subscription (4:21-23)
I will pick up here and explain what each of those formal Latin terms means in the next post. I simply do not have time to do so today.
But, this is not the only elaborate structuring of Philippians that is very likely to have been in the Apostle Paul’s mind. An even more elegant understanding of its contours will be the primary focus of my next post.
Coming Thursday: “Another–and, in My View, Better–Structuring of Philippians”
