Philippians 2

Philippians 2:5-11

XXV THE DEITY OF CHRISTPhp_2:5-11. Attention was called, at the close of the preceding chapter, to that highest of all motives to unity, humility and self renunciation – the example of our Lord Jesus Christ in his voluntarily divesting himself of the glory and prerogatives of his heavenly estate, and his assumption of a human nature in order to secure our salvation and the highest glory of the Father. We may here, if anywhere, pause to reflect on Paul’s uniform method of preaching doctrine, never as a mere theory, but always with a practical end in view. His exhortations to obedience and morality and unselfish love are all based on a solid foundation and doctrine. The senseless modern cry, “Let us have more humanity, more morality, and less dogma,” was to him as unthinkable as a house without foundation, or a stream without a source. On the other hand, mere abstract dogma, or theoretic theology, without reforming power on the life, was but as sounding brass or tinkling cymbal. Between his dogmatic theology and a holy life was an essential and indissoluable relation.

The doctrines involved in Philippians 2:5-11. This is by far the greatest and most instructive passage in the letter, and the second most important in the whole Bible, especially if it be considered, as it must be, with the parallel passages (John 1:1-5; John 1:9; John 1:14; Colossians 1:15-20; Hebrews 1:2-13) because it expresses the love of the Son for sinful man, and his honor toward the Father. Only one other outranks it (John 3:16) which expresses the Father’s love toward sinful man, and only one other comes next to it (Romans 15:30) “The love of the spirit” expressed in the deeds of John 14-16. The three embody the love of the trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Strangely enough, Aryans and Socinians rely on this passage to make good their denial of our Lord’s essential deity, saying, “He counted not equality with God a thing to be grasped, and his exaltation was an achievement and not inherent,” and one party of the Gnostics cite it in denial of his real humanity, saying, “He had only the form, or likeness, of a man,” and the destructive critics quote it to support their undervaluation of our Lord’s testimony to the integrity and inspiration of the Old Testament, saying, “He emptied himself, and hence his views of the Old Testament have no more authority than the views of any other pious Jew of his time.”

There are some real difficulties in the passage, but none that affect its incalculable value as revealing our Lord’s Father, his real humanity, his great work of redemption on the cross, his consequent exaltation to universal sovereignty, and his restoration to original glory. It is my purpose here to state briefly the main points of the teaching of the passage, referring somewhat to the differences of interpretation. While I bear in mind that this is a study in New Testament English and so must not encroach on the domain of New Testament Greek, yet, without pedantry, I must refer to certain Greek words which underlie all the various English renderings. So essential deity and humanity, and his great work of human redemption. The definements and subtilities of scholarly critics in handling this passage, and their infinitesimal details of divergence, constituting a vast and tedious literature, accentuate the proverb: “The more I know of expert scholarship the more I like common sense.” And yet (I state it for the reader’s satisfaction), the best of them and the bulk of them of all ages, nations, and denominations, coincide in their conclusion that the passage does teach what the average mind gathers in a moment, the existence of our Lord prior to his incarnation, his equality in nature with the touching this phase lightly, I name the crucial Greek words of the text, which are as follows:

1. Morphe, translated “form,” e.g., “existing m the form of God, taking the form of a man” (Philippians 2:6-7).

2. Huparchon, rendered “existing,” “subsisting,” or better still, “originally subsisting” (Philippians 2:6).

3. Harpagmon, rendered “robbery” in common version; “prize” in the Canterbury Revision; “a thing to be grasped” in the American Standard Revision; “something to be clung to,” in the Twentieth Century (Philippians 2:6).

4. Ekenosen, rendered “emptied” himself.

5. Homoiomati, rendered “likeness of men” (Philippians 2:7).

6. Schemati, rendered “fashion of men.”

The Twentieth Century translation thus renders the whole passage: “Let the Spirit of Jesus be yours also. Though from the beginning he had the divine nature, yet he did not look upon equality with God as something to be clung to, but impoverished himself by taking the nature of a servant, and becoming like other men. Then he appeared among us as a man, and still further humbled himself by submitting himself even to death, yes, death on the cross! And this is why God raised him to the very highest place and gave him the name which ranks above all others, so that in honor of the name of Jesus every knee should bend, in heaven, on earth, and under the earth, and that every tongue should acknowledge Jesus Christ as Lord, to the glory of God the Father.”

Observe three merits of this Twentieth Century rendering:

1. It alone brings out the true meaning of huparchon, namely, “From the beginning.” The word certainly means “originally existing, or subsisting,” like John’s “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God.”

2. Its “impoverished himself” instead of “emptied himself” brings the passage in line with a previous statement of the same general fact by Paul: “For ye know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that, though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, that ye through his poverty, might become rich” (2 Corinthians 8:9).

3. The rendering is in smooth running, everyday English. Observe also that the only difference between the common version and the revised version on the one hand, and the American Standard, Bible Union (edited), and the Twentieth Century on the other hand in rendering the noun harpagmon, does not affect the deity of our Lord, for all teach that, but only the time when the “emptying” commences, for if the American Standard be right, then the emptying commenced in the thought of the Son when he counted not equality with God a thing to be grasped, the emptying merely resulting from the thought.

The author believes that the common version more closely follows the grammatical construction, for harpagmon has the active sense, while the rendering, “a thing to be grasped,” being passive, would call for another form of the noun, harpagma.

In other words, the American Standard derives its rendering, not from the form of the noun, but from what it regards as a contextual demand. The only other use of the word in Greek literature, sacred or profane, is its employment by Plutarch “On the education of boys” where it has the active sense. Hence the earlier scholars and versions, and the most conservative modern scholars, sustain the common version. But all these renderings agree in attributing essential deity to our Lord) if not by positive affirmation, at least by the strongest implication. The idea of the expression “form of God” may be gathered from a comparison with other Pauline expressions, “The express image of his person,” “the effulgence of his glory,” and with the Logos of John.

From the author’s sermon before the Southern Baptist Convention, 1908, this passage is cited:

HIS TO THE FATHER “These relations are expressed in the words image, effulgence, form, Logos, Son. When our text says, ‘Who is the image of the invisible God,’ and another passage says, ‘The very image of his substance,’ it cannot mean less than that he is the visible of the invisible God.

“To illustrate: Philip said, ‘Lord, show us the Father and it sufficeth us.’ He replied, ‘When thou hast seen me thou hast seen the Father.’ And when it is said, ‘Who being the effulgence of God’s glory,’ is not that, at least, the saying forth, the outshining of the divine glory which must be another way of saying, ‘He is the visible of the invisible’?

“Of kindred meaning is the expression, ‘Existing in the form of God.’ Form is the apparent, the phenomenal. So Logos, or the Word, is the revelation of the Father’s mind, heart, and will, the unveiling of the hidden. Of like purport is the declaration: In him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.’

“But we must hark continually back to his nature – the Word was God,’ – lest by the weakness of the terms image, effulgence, form, and Logos, we account him only a manifestation.”

We may rest assured that Paul’s teaching here concerning our Lord must be construed in harmony with his teachings in Colossians and Ephesians written such a short time later. It is needful to give a word of caution against interpreting too much or too little into the Kenosis, “He emptied himself” (A.V.), “Made himself of no reputation.” There is no room for dogmatism in a matter necessarily so mysterious, but –

1. It is certain that he did not divest himself of his deity, for then he would not be the God-man, nor could it be said, “In him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.”

2. We know that he laid aside his heavenly glory, for he prays: “And now, Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was” (John 17:5).

3. We know that he laid aside the riches of that heavenly estate, as Paul says, “For ye know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that, though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, that ye through his poverty might be made rich” (2 Corinthians 8:9).

4. We know that he laid aside his equality with the Father, completely subordinating his own will to the will of the Father: “Not my will but thine be done,” “I came to do the will of him that sent me,” and became a bond servant.

5. We know that he did not resort to his inherent omnipotence to work miracles in his own behalf, or to avert disaster from himself, or to relieve himself from the perplexities and burdens of a real humanity. Indeed, all his miracles were wrought by the power of the Holy Spirit.

6. In the same way he relied on the Holy Spirit, whom he received without measure at his baptism, for his superhuman knowledge. The inspiration of all the prophets was less than his. “He knew what was in man,” and spoke by infallible authority of all the Old Testament books. So that the radical critics but advertise their own folly and infidelity in undervaluation of his testimony concerning Old Testament books and their meaning. No matter how far he emptied himself of his own inherent omniscience, that in no way affects the testimony of one who received the Spirit without measure. All the resources of Deity were at his command, through the Spirit, so far as they bore upon his mission.

The key passage, in interpreting his original status, and the emptying himself, is the preceding verse: “Not looking each of you to his own things, but each of you also to the things of others. Have this mind in you which was also in. Christ Jesus.” Christ did not look to his own things, i.e., his equality with the Father, and the riches and glory of his heavenly state, but “emptied himself, etc.” Here again we must be cautious of putting too much stress on the word, “emptied,” for it is Paul himself who only a little later affirms: “In him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.” The “emptying” is not absolute, but only a temporary and voluntary suspension of exercise, a holding in abeyance for the time being. It was doubtless this consideration that influenced the conservative translators of the common version thus to render the passage. “Made himself of no reputation.” His humiliation consisted:

1. In his incarnation, i.e., taking “the form of a bondservant,” and rendering absolute obedience to the will of the Father.

2. An obedience even unto death.

3. Yea, the death of the cross. In this obedience he not only magnified the law in its precepts, demonstrating that it was holy, just, and good, but also magnified its penal sanctions by “bearing in his own body the sin of the world.”

His exaltation consisted:

1. In his resurrection, thereby demonstrating all his high claims asserted in his lifetime, and demanding that angels who had worshiped him in his original glory and in his incarnation should now worship his glorified humanity (Hebrews 1:6).

2. His ascension and reception into heaven.

3. His enthronement there as King of kings and Lord of lords, and his anointing with the oil of gladness above his fellows.

4. His session there until all his enemies are made his footstool (Psalms 110:1) and until he comes as final judge at the last and great and general judgment.

5. At which time every knee bends to him, and every tongue confesses that he is Lord.

Two things in this exaltation call for further explanation:

1. The name that is above every name, what is it? Is it the name, Jesus, or the name of Jesus, a new name bestowed on Jesus? Two reasons oppose the former, namely:

(1) His name “Jesus” was given at his incarnation, but this is a name at his exaltation, and expressive of it.

(2) If the writer meant the name “Jesus,” then it would seem that this word should have been in the dative, but “Jesus” is in the genitive and the expression is “in the name of Jesus.” The author thinks that the name given to Jesus is, as expressed in Revelation 19:16, “King of kings and Lord of lords,” which is expressive of his exaltation.

2. What is meant by “every knee” and “every tongue”? When does this take place? The expression in its context, calls for the highest degree of universality, and can mean no less than every human being, good and bad, and every angel, good and fallen) without exception in either case. It means that all of them will recognize and confess his universal sovereignty. All this will occur at his final advent when he shall sit on the white throne of the general judgment and shall fix the final status of all moral intelligences. This is indeed an achievement, not by the Son as originally subsisting, but by the Son veiled in humanity and obedient unto death.

3. What is Paul’s method of presenting doctrine?

4. How would he have regarded the modern cry, “Give us more humanity and morality and less dogma,” and the custom of some to present theology as an abstract system?

5. What can you say of the rank of the passage, Philippians 2:5-11, and what two others may be classed with it, and why?

6. What are three heresies are strangely drawn from this passage?

7. What is the crucial Greek words of the passage, and how rendered in American Standard Revision?

8. What are three excellencies in the “Twentieth Century” rendering?

9. What are two examples of usage only in Greek literature of harpagmon, and what its form in both active and passive, what the renderings in the English versions cited, which the most grammatical, and

10. What is the only practical difference between these renderings, and their effect on the teachings of the passage as to Christ’s original deity?

11. What is the idea of the various terms “form,” “image,” “effulgence” and Logos?

12. What caution given in interpreting “He emptied himself”?

13. Was this emptying absolute, and if not, what?

14. Cite six particulars as expressive of the “emptying,” negative and positive.

15. What is the key passage in interpreting this paragraph?

16. In what did his humiliation consist?

17. In what did his exaltation consist?

18. What is the name above every name, and why?

19. What is the meaning of “every knee” and “every tongue”?

20. When is this “bending of every knee” and “confession of every tongue”?

Philippians 2:12-3

XXVI PAUL’S AND THE ‘S GROWTH IN GRACEPhilippians 2:12-3:14. Salvation in us (Philippians 2:12-18). This paragraph, like the foregoing one, is a part of the exhortation commencing: “Live your citizen life” (Philippians 1:27). Take it all in all, it is the highest model of exhortation in all literature. An aged Baptist cannot read it without a sigh of regret over our pulpit decadance in the power of exhortation – a power like an electric storm bringing into rapid play all the elemental forces of land and sky, a spiritual storm that buried doctrines as thunderbolts on the head while seismic upheavals shook the foundations under the feet. When we recall the rugged and doctrinal forcefulness of our less cultivated fathers, our own tame, mild, and polite exhortations are as the cooing of a fledgling dove compared with the roaring of a Numidian lion. Alas!

The exhorter has left us! This mighty special gift of the Spirit (Romans 12:8) is no more coveted and honored among us.

It would pay us to swap off a lot of our weak preachers for a few old-time exhorting deacons. Teaching appeals to the head; exhortation to the heart. Teaching instructs; exhortation applies. Teaching illumines; exhortation awakens and stirs; it rings alarm bells, kindles beacon flames on the mountains, fires signal guns, blows trumpets, unfurls warflags and beats the bass drum. But exhortation is only harmless thunder without the lightning bolt of doctrine. We must not mistake “hollerin,” for exhortation, nor perspiration for inspiration.

O that this generation could have heard J. W. D. Creath, Micajah Cole, Deacon Pruitt, and Judge A. S. Broadus exhort in great revival meetings, while strong men wept, enemies became reconciled, and love illumined and beautified rugged, homely faces!

Then as Christian fire attained a white heat, the lost soul, pierced through and through by fiery arrows of conviction, cried out’ “God be merciful to me the sinner,” or, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” And Heaven came down our souls to greet, And glory crowned the Mercy Seat.

It must be understood that this exhortation from first to last is addressed to Christians – to citizens of the heavenly Jerusalem. It is not an exhortation to sinners to flee from the wrath to come – not an appeal to the lost to accept by simple faith, without works, the salvation done for us in expiation and justification, but to Christians to work out the salvation of sanctification, God’s prevenient grace working in us, both to will and to work, for his good pleasure.

This letter, more than any other, sharply distinguishes between the external and the internal salvation. The external salvation is complete expiation of sin by the Son alone, eternal and irreversible justification by the Father alone, and the internal salvation is regeneration, sanctification, and glorification by the Holy Spirit alone. The Spirit gives life to the soul in regeneration; that life is developed and perfected in sanctification. Our working out salvation is in co-operating with the Spirit in developing and perfecting the life commenced in regeneration. As a means or merit towards justification our works are an offense toward God and a blasphemous attempt to usurp the office of our Lord Jesus Christ. See Romans 2:27-28.

Furthermore, as a means or merit toward regeneration, works on our part are an offense toward God, as Paul testifies later (Ephesians 2:4-10; Titus 3:4-5). Regeneration is a creation unto good works. The salvation that we are exhorted to work out is sanctification, and even in sanctification the prevenient grace of God works in us, both to will the work and to do it. All the exhortations in this letter are towards sanctification, a cultivating and developing of the Christian life.

There are several special points in the exhortation (Philippians 2:12-18):

1. “Don’t depend on Paul – he is absent – you, yourselves, work out your own salvation. It is your salvation, not his.”

2. “Depend on God – he is always present to enable you both to will and to perform.”

3. The manner of the obedience is “without murmurings and questionings,” an evident allusion to Israel’s misconduct in the wilderness, more elaborately treated in 1 Corinthians 10.

4. The end of the working out: (1) As to themselves was blameless – harmless – without blemish. See Ephesians 5:27; 1 Thessalonians 5:23. (2) As to the world was that they might be seen as lights, holding forth the Word of Life. (3) As to Paul was that he might have whereof to glory in the day of Christ, proving that he had not run in vain nor labored in vain. (4) As to both Paul and themselves, in case he suffered martyrdom at that time was that he would be a libation poured out on the sacrifice and service of their faith, to their mutual joy.

On this reference to the drink offering, which was the liquid part, i.e., the wine, of the meal offering, observe:

1. It was not itself a bloody or an atoning sacrifice, but an act of worship following propitiation, expressive of dependence on the divine favor for all the blessings of temporal prosperity and of appreciation thereof.

2. A part of the offering was burned with incense, the incense representing their prayers to or worship of God, the burning representing God’s acceptance of their sacrifice, but the wine was poured on or around the altar. (See first recorded instance of the drink offering poured on the altar, Genesis 35:14.)

3. The Philippian contribution to God, in the person of his apostle, is the New Testament fulfilment of the old typical meal-offering – a spiritual sacrifice of the new regime. See the thought elaborated at the close of the letter: “I am filled, having received from Epaphroditus the things that came from you, an odor of a sweet smell, a sacrifice acceptable, wellpleasing to God” (Philippians 4:18-19) and a similar reference in 2 Corinthians 9:10-15.

All this leads to the explanation of the apostle’s meaning when he says, “Yea, and if I am poured out upon the sacrifice and service of your faith,” which means that in case of his martyrdom at that time his blood would represent the outpoured wine, or drink-offering, completing their spiritual meal-offering. The sacrifice would then be a joint one, their part representing the meal, oil, and incense, and his part the libation of wine; hence the consequent mutual joy. I have been thus particular in this explanation to save you from adopting two errors of many commentators, to wit:

1. That Paul follows the idea of the heathen sacrifice rather than the idea of the ritual of Old Testament law.

2. That the thought of the passage is that Paul is acting as the priest in presenting the Philippian sacrifice, and while so acting is slain, pouring out his blood on their sacrifices, as Pilate mingled the blood of the Galileans with their sacrifices. Both of these are grave errors and utterly untenable. The New Testament spiritual sacrifices never fulfil heathen types, and particularly in the New Testament economy the kingdom officers are never the priests of the people. Every citizen of Christ’s kingdom is a priest unto God, and without a human “go-between” directly offers to God his own spiritual sacrifices through Jesus Christ himself, the only mediator between God and man.

It is one of the deadliest errors of the Papacy that Christians require a human priest to mediate their offerings. Neither apostle, pastor, evangelist, nor any of the saints, nor the Virgin Mary exercise such functions. It is blasphemy against Christ and subversive of the priesthood of each individual saint. The New Testament knocks out the middleman. We want not the shadow of a human priest to fall on our cradle, our absolution, our Bible, our marriages, our Christian offerings, our observance of the Lord’s Supper, our death, the sepulture of our bones, our disembodied souls.

There can be no more beautiful thought than Paul’s conception; his pouring out the wine of life was his libation. What he speaks of here as only a possibility, he later, at the end of his second imprisonment, speaks of as a certainty, yea, already taking place: " I am already being poured out, and the time of my exodus is come” ( 2 Timothy 4:6). Ah! what a libation!

Here we recall the words of Tom Moore in Paradise and Peri: Oh I if there be one boon, one offering, That Heaven holds dear, ‘Tis the last libation that Liberty draws From the heart that bleeds and breaks in her cause.

But the drop of patriot blood did not open the gates of paradise to the exiled Peri. The libation of Christian martyrdom far outranks the libation of a dying patriot, but paradise must already be opened by holier and atoning blood before either can be acceptable to God as a Christian sacrifice.

Epaphroditus – Timothy – Paul. “I have sent Epaphroditus,” “I send Timothy forthwith,” “I trust in the Lord that I, myself, shall come shortly.” How deep his concern for these Philippians, and how tenderly sympathetic his heart toward them in all their anxieties, their sufferings and spiritual needs! How appreciative of the merits of his co-laborers, and how complete his testimony to their fidelity! No wonder the brightest and most gifted young preachers delighted to serve under his leadership!

We may count it a settled thing that no man can be a great leader of men who has no power to draw a following. And no man can long hold the following he draws whose selfishness does not allow him to recognize and appreciate the merits of his followers. He must testify to the value of their service, not in the insincere compliments of a politician, but in the spontaneous expressions of truth and love. It is Paul’s testimony that paints in fadeless word colors the portraits of Timothy and Epaphroditus, and confers immortality on them by hanging their portraits in the gallery of Christian heroes, ever seen as if living, and held in everlasting remembrance. So as stars in the constellation of Paul, they shine forever.

The third chapter of Philippians 3, rightly commencing with Philippians 3:2, is in every way remarkable. Its solemn, urgent caution is not called out by any condition already existing at Philippi, but an anticipated condition. There were few Jews at Philippi and few Jewish Christians. The apostle knew well, however, the persistence, both of Jewish hostility to the doctrine of the cross, and also the persistence of that element of Jewish converts that with tireless propagandism sought to make Christianity a mere sect of Judaism. He writes as if some disturbing incident at Rome or new message brought from abroad had interrupted his letter, indicating an imminent danger to the faith of the Philippians, and hence the abruptness of his change of topic: “Beware of the dogs, beware of the evil workers, beware of the concision.”

It is quite probable that the fires were already kindled under the Jewish pot – A.D. 62 – that would make it boil over in revolution against Roman authority, and precipitate the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. As these fires grew hotter it would be necessary later to write the letter to the Hebrew Christians of Asia that would make a complete and final break between Judaism and Christianity, and that would turn all Jewish Asia against Paul as he so sadly notes in his last letter (2 Timothy 1:15).

In a time of intense fanatical patriotism the letter to the Hebrews, so clearly showing the abrogation of the Jewish polity and the complete supersession of the Old Covenant, would incense all Jews against the writer. Midway between Philippians 3 and the letter to the Hebrews would appear Colossians 2:8-23, showing progress toward the final break. Paul’s prescience discerned the signs of the times, and the desperate intolerance that would be awakened in the misled patriot party of Jews. On this account we have Paul’s admonition.

There is here, as elsewhere, a play on the words “dogs,” “workers,” and “concision.” The Pharisees counted Gentiles as dogs and stressed ritualistic observance and external works and fleshly circumcision as a means to salvation, indeed counted themselves as free, never in bondage, because of lineal descent from Abraham and of the circumcision. Paul retorts: “They are the real dogs; their works are evil and unavailing; their circumcision is a mere mutilation of the flesh.” Regeneration is the spiritual circumcision and the source of good works. The issue was vital and fundamental, as announced by our Lord to Nicodemus.

THE FLESH VS. THE SPIRIT Paul illustrates by his own example. He was of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, circumcised the eighth day (therefore not a proselyte), a Hebrew of the Hebrews, of the sect of the Pharisees, touching the law blameless, zealous to persecution, so if any man might have confidence in the flesh, he more. But all these things he counted as refuse in comparison with the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus, through whom comes the true righteousness grasped by simple faith. So far the passage is in line with Galatians and Romans on justification by faith, apart from natural birth and works of the law. He then passes on like Romans 8 to sanctification, and like 1 Corinthians 15 to glorification.

Commencing with “That I may gain [or win] Christ” (last clause of Php 3:8 to the end of Php 3:14) is the remarkable part of the chapter which calls for special explanation. Adopting the logical rather than the consecutive order of the words we notice first:

THE HIGH CALLING, OR Paul’s calling (Acts 9:3-6; Acts 22:6-10; Acts 26:12-19) was special and effectual. It was a high calling, not only as coming from on high, but because it was toward high things of both duty and glory. It was calling of God in Christ Jesus. Like a foot race, it had a goal where the judge awarded a prize. The race is not run until the goal is reached, nor won until the prize is awarded.

What, then, is the goal? It is the state of the resurrection from the dead, and includes both complete sanctification of the spirit and glorification of the body. Paul had not yet attained either one. What is the prize? It is that which is to be won: “That I may win, or gain, Christ, and be found in him at the great judgment day.” Here the “winning of Christ,” or the prize, is not merely Justification by faith, when one first believes, but getting to him where he now is, and being completely like him in both soul and body. It is that state in which the final judgment finds us. “Attaining unto the resurrection from the dead” means attaining to the state of the resurrection from the dead, and not merely the act of being raised.

It is quite important that we know when the salvation of the soul is complete, and when sanctification of the soul is perfected. It is only the other side of death that the “spirits of the just made perfect” are seen. (Hebrews 12:22-24.)

As long as life has a lesson to be learned, or a discipline to be endured, the race of the soul is not run, nor the goal reached. By one fact we positively know when the soul discipline is ended. It is precisely at that time when it is passing over the line where accountability to judgment ceases. And the final judgment takes cognizance of the deeds done in the body.

No soul, good or bad, is judged on account of what it does after the death of the body, but it is judged for all deeds up to that event.

Therefore the goal for the soul is the death of the body, and the goal for the body is its resurrection. If it be raised in dishonor, the prize is lost. If it be raised in honor, glorified like the body of our Lord, the prize is won.

You can thus understand Paul’s words: “Not that I have already obtained, or am already made perfect.” He had “not yet laid hold on all the things for which Christ laid hold of him.” When Christ apprehended Saul of Tarsus on the way to Damascus, he laid hold of him for more things than Paul had yet laid hold of. Paul wanted more than had yet been realized. He was indeed already justified and regenerated, and had already made much progress, but much was yet ahead. The race was not yet run over the whole course; the goal and the prize were yet to be reached and won. Later, indeed, when actually facing martyrdom be wrote: “I am already being poured out, and the time of my exodus is come. I have fought the good fight, I have finished the course, I have kept the faith: henceforth [not sooner] there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, shall give to me at that day; and not to me only [to show that the goal is the same with all the runners] but to all them that have loved his appearing” (2 Timothy 4:6-8).

This is in line with what he wrote to the Thessalonians: “And the Lord of peace himself shall sanctify you wholly [not in part] ; and may your spirit and soul and body be preserved entire, without blame, at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ (1 Thessalonians 5:23).

Those who claim to be sinless now, to have already attained perfection of spirit, only advertise their guilty distance from God and put themselves into an attitude of direct conflict with the scriptures.

See 1 Kings 8:36; 1 John 1:8. Making such a claim in this life shows that the one making it is in a dim light. Light makes manifest. Job, apart from God and confronted by man only, maintained his integrity, but when Jehovah came in the whirlwind Job said, Who is this that hideth counsel without knowledge? Therefore have I uttered that which I understood not, Things too wonderful for me, which I knew not. Hear, I beseech thee, and I will speak; I will demand of thee, and declare thou unto me. I had heard of thee by the hearing of the ear; But now mine eye seeth thee: Wherefore I abhor myself, And repent in dust and ashes. – Job 42:3-6 Isaiah was the saintliest man of his generation, but in the year that King Uzziah died he saw the Lord of hosts in the supernal light of heaven, and heard the cherubim crying, “Holy, Holy, Holy, is Jehovah of hosts,” then he said, “Woe is me! for I am undone; because I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips: for mine eyes have seen the King, Jehovah of hosts.”

If, then, Paul had not yet attained and counted not himself already perfect what does he do? (1) Forgetting the things behind, (2) stretching out to the things before, (3) be presses on toward the goal.

The meaning of these words needs to be brought out in a realistic way. We forget a defeat in the past when we do not stay whipped in mind, but courageously try another battle, like Robert Bruce, who failed twelve times and then won the thirteenth time, at Bannockburn. We forget past victories when we do not rest on our laurels but “count nothing done while anything remains to be done.” General Gates rested on the laurels of Saratoga and found defeat at Camden. He fled at the beginning of the battle, ran eighty miles to Charlottesville, and if he had not died he would be running yet.

Dr. Burleson used to tell of a man who related such a brilliant experience to the church when he joined it that it evoked unusual praise from pastor and church. So much was said about it that he, himself, began to glory in it. He carefully wrote it out and would read it to every visitor. He became so complacent over it that he stopped right there – no progress – a case of arrested development. In the lapse of time the mice got into the drawer where he kept his precious document and ate up his Christian experience! We need an experience that rats cannot eat up – an experience not folded up and put in a drawer, but one that moves forward taking “the steps of the faith of Abraham.”

1. State the terminal points of this great exhortation, and its rank.

2. Show that exhortation is a distinct gift of the Spirit, and distinguish between exhortation and teaching.

3. Cite the names of some early Texas Baptist preachers or deacons who were great in exhortation, and the effect on both Christians and sinners.

4. What mistakes may be made as to exhortation, and what is the real lightning of exhortation?

5. To what class, saints or sinners, is this whole exhortation addressed, and to what particular duty does all the exhortation in this letter point?

6. Cite three special points in the exhortation, and the four ends in view.

7. Between what phases of salvation does this letter clearly distinguish?

8. What three important observations on Paul’s allusion to the drink offering in his possible libation?

9. What is the exact meaning of his being “poured out” on the sacrifice of their faith and service?

10. What two grave errors of interpretation by some commentators on this passage, and what the fearful consequences of the second?

11. Show that what is here spoken of as a possible libation is later spoken of as a certainty.

12. Cite the illustrative passage in Tom Moore’s, Paradise and the Peri, and what is a greater libation and why either cannot open the gates of paradise, giving two proofs from the revised text of Revelation, which tells of paradise regained.

13. In the references to Timothy and Epaphroditus, what great excellencies of heart does Paul exhibit, and how do these immortalize both of them?

14. Where should the third chapter commence, and what probably calls forth this abrupt change in the direction of the exhortation, and how probably this also called forth Colossians 2:8-23 and still later the letter to the Hebrews?

15. How may this letter to the Hebrews have occasioned the “turning away of all Asia” from Paul, referred to in 2 Timothy 1:15?

16. Show the play on words in “Beware of the dogs, beware of the evil workers, beware of the concision.”

17. What is the antitype of circumcision, what the real issue here involved, and what its importance?

18. How does Paul illustrate the case?

19. Where in his illustrative example does the reference to justification by faith end, and where commences and ends the reference to sanctification of soul and glorification of body?

20. Explain the “high calling.”

21. What athletic game is used to illustrate?

22. What is the “goal” for the spirit, and how do you prove it?

23. What is the “goal” of the body?

24. Show that this does not make death a purifer.

25. If one makes claim of perfection of spirit now, what two things does it prove? and illustrate by two Old Testament examples.

26. Not having yet obtained, show what three things Paul does, and explain and illustrate the terms.

27. Relate Dr. Burieson’s illustration.