A 21  TO ME (emoi) to live. Christ.

Live in flesh. Fruit.

b Paul's choice. Not made known.

THE

c Paul's desire. With Christ.

STRAIT.

Abide in flesh. Needful.

b Paul's confidence. I know.

THE

c Paul's continuance. With you all.

CONFIDENCE.

A 26  BY ME (emoi) my presence. Glorying in Christ.

A great deal of the controversy that has arisen over this passage finds its origin in the fact that we all have a

tendency to pick on a few sentences, especially if they appear to contain some elements of controversial doctrine,

and then employ all our powers in the defence of the doctrine we hold to be true, and in the defeat of the doctrine we

hold to be false.

Many who clearly saw the teaching of Scripture as to the state of the dead, and the essential place of the

resurrection, accepted with relief and without critical examination, an alternative explanation which by focusing

attention on the `return' of the Lord, removed this passage from the armoury of those who still believe and teach a

conscious intermediate state. But in what are we profited if it should so turn out that in escaping from one error we

have but perpetuated another, and what is more, have, in the process, suppressed a definite truth for which the epistle

really stands and which it is essential that we should know?

The first thing that we must recognize is that Paul did not write `verses 21-26'; he wrote `an epistle', of which

this section is an integral part. He was saying something in the early part of the epistle, of which these verses

constitute both a sequel and a link. We have already discovered that the section Philippians 1:3-26 is divided into

three parts by the recurrence of the word pepoitha `confidence', and that confidence is not assurance of salvation, but

assurance of continuance `will perform' (v. 6); continuance `bold to speak' (v. 14); continuance `I shall continue with

you' (v. 25). This continuance is concerned with one thing `the gospel'. In the first place `your fellowship in the

gospel from the first day until now' (v. 5); in the second place `the furtherance of the gospel' (v. 12); and in the third

place `the furtherance and joy of faith' (v. 25).

Any system of interpretation that ignores the `scope' of a passage must sooner or later mislead, and to mislead in

interpretation is to substitute chaff for wheat, human ideas for God's truth, and must be resisted.

A strong argument has been made of the fact that we read that the apostle in one breath tells us that he did not

know what to choose between life and death, and yet he had a strong desire for something which was far better. If

the apostle actually said this, it is reasonable to conclude that he was indeed `pressed out of the two', i.e. of living or

dying, by a third thing, namely `the return' (depart) of the Lord, which admittedly would be far better than either

living here in the flesh with all its attendant suffering, or of dying. However, there are two errors here. The first is a

fallacy of reasoning, the second an error of interpretation.

First, the fallacy of reasoning. It is assumed that whatever Paul desired personally, that self same thing he would

choose. But who that knows Paul, that has any acquaintance with his unselfish attitude, or that even reads on to

chapter 2 and ponders the `mind that is in Christ Jesus' can maintain such a teaching? The whole of the context

reveals a man who rises above all selfish motives. He is in bonds, but his bonds have fallen out to the furtherance of

the gospel, and so he rejoices. Some who preach the gospel do so with evil motives, `supposing to add affliction' to

his bonds. Still he rejoices that Christ is preached. No man who could say the `what then?' of verse eighteen would

necessarily choose what he most desired, we should rather expect him to set aside his own desires and to choose

something quite the reverse, if the ministry of the gospel, the glory of Christ, or the blessing of His people should so

demand. Such an attitude would stand self condemned as we read `I have no man likeminded (one of equal soul

with myself), ... for all seek their own' (Phil. 2:20,21). Any interpretation of Paul's dilemma that makes him seek

`his own' is therefore excluded.

Second, an error of interpretation. It is said that Paul did not know what to choose, but this is a manifest error,

for the word gnorizo is never so used by Paul in any of his epistles! The Authorized Version uses an obsolete piece