Bible Commentaries
Philippians 3

Verses 12-14

XXVI

PAUL’S LIBATION AND THE CHRISTIAN’S GROWTH IN GRACE

Philippians 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 Philippians 3:8 to the end of Philippians 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 VOCATION

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.”

QUESTIONS

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.

Verses 4-6

XV

PAUL’S EARLY LIFE BEFORE HE ENTERS THE NEW TESTAMENT STORY

Acts 21:39; Acts 22:3; Acts 23:6; Acts 23:34; Acts 26:4-5; 2 Corinthians 11:22; Romans 11:1; Galatians 1:13-14; Philippians 3:4-6; 1 Timothy 1:12-13; 2 Timothy 1:3.

This discussion does not make much headway in the text book, but it covers an immense amount of territory in its facts and significance. This section is found in Goodwin’s Harmony of the Life of Paul, pages 15-17, and the theme is Paul’s history up to the time that he enters the New Testament story. Saul, now called Paul, a Jew, of the tribe of Benjamin, of the sect of the Pharisees, yet a freeborn Roman citizen, by occupation a tentmaker, by office a rabbi, and a member of the Sanhedrin, was born in the city of Tarsus, in the province of Cilicia, about the time of our Lord’s birth. Tarsus was situated on the narrow coast line of the eastern part of the Mediterranean, just under the great Taurus range of mountains, and on the beautiful river Cydnus, which has a cataract just before it reaches the city, and a fall, beautiful then and beautiful now, coming down into that fertile plain where the city goes into a fine harbor, which opens the city to the commerce of the world through the Mediterranean Sea. It was on the great Roman thoroughfare, which was one of the best roads in the world. There were two of these mountain ranges, one of them right up above the city through the Taurus range into the coast of Asia Minor, the other following the coast line, which leads into Syria. This is the way that the mountains came down close to the sea, making a certain point very precipitous, and there was a typical beach between those mountains and the sea. That road into Syria was called the Oriental way. Over the Roman thoroughfare passed the land traffic, travel and marching armies for centuries. It was in that pass that Alexander fought his first great battle against the Persians, and thus obtained an entrance into the East. It was through that pass that, marching westward, and before Alexander’s time, Xerxes the Great, the husband of Esther (mentioned in the Bible), marched his 5,000,000 men to invade Greece. I could mention perhaps fifty decisive battles in ancient history that were set and were successful conquests by preoccupation of that pass. That shows the strategical position of this city – that it commanded the passes of the Taurus into Asia Minor, and the pass into Syria, and through its fine harbor came in touch with the commerce of the world on the Mediterranean Sea.

Paul says that it was "no mean city," in size or in population. It was notable, (1) for its manufacture, that of weaving, particularly goat’s hair, for on that Taurus range lived goats with very long hair, and this was woven into ropes, tents, and things of that kind; (2) because it was the capital of the province of Cilicia; (3) because, under Rome, it was a free city, i.e., it had the management of its own internal affairs, which constituted a city a free city, like the free city of Bremer in the early history of Germany. Other cities would be under the feudal lords, but there were a number of cities free, and these elected their own burghers, and governed their own municipal matters – a tremendous advantage.

Tarsus received from the Roman Emperor the privilege of being a free city. Keep these facts well in mind, especially and particularly as regards the land and sea commerce. (4) Because it possessed one of the three great world-famous universities. There were just three of them at that time: One at Tarsus; one at Alexandria, at the mouth of the Nile; and one at Athens. It was not like some other cities, remarkable for its great buildings, its public games and its works of art. You could see more fine buildings in Athens or in Ephesus or in Corinth than you had any right to look for in Tarsus. It celebrated no such games as were celebrated in the May festivals at Ephesus, and in the great Greek amphitheater in that city, or in such games as the Isthmian, celebrated in Corinth. It was not remarkable for any of these. Its popular religion was a low and mixed order of Oriental paganism. There is this difference between the Oriental and Occidental heathen – the former in the East, and the latter at Rome, and the West. Ephesus had an Oriental religion, though it was a Greek city. Tarsus, too, was a Greek city, but was partly Phoenician and partly Syrian. There were more arts and intellectuality in western paganism than in the Oriental, which was low, bestial, sensual, in every way brutal, shameful, immodest, and outrageous. The Phoenicians, who had a great deal to do with establishing the city of Tarsus, had that brutal, low form of paganism. That infamous emperor, Sargon, celebrated in the Bible, the Oriental king of the original Nineveh, was worshiped in that city. There never lived a man that devoted himself more than he to luxury in its fine dress, gorgeous festivals, its gluttony, its drunkenness, its beastiality. Paul was born in that city, and he could look out any day and see the heathen that he has so well described in chapter 1 of the letter to the Romans.

Citizenship in a free city under Rome did not make one a Roman citizen, as did citizenship in Philippi, a colony. To be born in a free city did not make one a Roman citizen. It conferred upon its members, its own citizens, the right to manage their own municipal affairs. To be born in Philippi would make one a Roman citizen, because Philippi was a colony. The name of its citizens were still retained on the muster roll in the city of Rome. They had all the privileges of Roman citizenship. Their officers were Roman officers. They had processions, with the magistrates, and the lictors and with the bundles of rods. But there was nothing like that in Tarsus. The question came up in Paul’s lifetime, when the commander of a legion heard Paul claiming that be was a Roman citizen. This commander says that with a great sum of money he did purchase his citizenship in Rome. Paul says, "But I was freeborn." If freeborn, how then could he have obtained it? In one of two ways: Before Christ was born, Pompey invaded Jerusalem, and took it. He was one of the first great triumvirate, with Julius Caesar and Marcus L. Crassus. Pompey’s field of labor was in the East, Caesar’s was in the West, and he (Pompey) took Jerusalem and led into slavery many Jews of the best families. When these slaves were brought to Rome, if they showed culture, social position, educational advantages, they were promoted to a high rank or office, among slaves; and if they particularly pleased their owners they were manumitted, either during the lifetime of their owner, or by will after his death. In this way many noble captives from all parts of the world were carried as slaves to Rome. They were first set free and then had conferred upon them the rights of Roman citizenship. It could have been that Cassius, who with Brutus, after the killing of Julius Caesar, combined against Mark Anthony, and Octavius (Augustus), who became the emperor and was reigning when Christ was born, captured this city of Tarsus and led many of its citizens into Rome as slaves. Paul’s grandfather, therefore, or his father, might have been led away captive to Rome, and through his high social position and culture may have been manumitted, and then received as a citizen. Necessarily it occurred before this boy’s time, because when he was born, he was born a Roman citizen. It could be transmitted, but he had not acquired it.

There is a difference between the terms – Jew, Hebrew, Israelite, Hellenist, and a "Hebrew of the Hebrews." All these are used by Paul and Luke in Acts. We get our word, "Hebrew" from Heber, an ancestor of Abraham. Literature shows that the descendants of Heber were Hebrews, and in the Old Testament Abraham is called "the Hebrew." That was not the meaning of the word in New Testament times. We come to the New Testament meaning in Acts 6, which speaks of the ordination of deacons, and uses the word "Hebrew" in distinction from "Hellenist." They both, of course, mean Jews. While a Hebrew in the New Testament usually lived in Palestine, but not necessarily, he was one who still spoke or was able to read the original Hebrew language and who practiced the strict Hebrew cult. A "Hellenist" was a Jew who had either been led into exile, or who, for the sake of trade, had gone into other nations, and settled among those people and had become liberalized, lost the use of the Hebrew tongue entirely, and neither spoke nor wrote the Hebrew language, but who spoke and wrote mainly in Greek. "Hellenist" is simply another term for "Greek." Whether used in the New Testament Greek or the Hellenistic Greek, it means Jews living among Greek people, and who had acquired the language, and in the many respects had followed more liberal Greek customs. Then a Hebrew living in Palestine would not allow himself to be liberalized.

Paul lived out of Judea. He, his father, and indeed his grandfather, adhered strictly to all the distinguishing characteristics of the Hebrews. The "Israelite" and the "Jew" mean anybody descended from Jacob. "Israelite" commenced lower down in the descent. "Hebrew" gets its name from the ancestor of Abraham, but an Israelite was a descendant of Jacob. The distinction of "Jew" came a little later to those descendants of Jacob living in Judea. The "Hebrew of the Hebrews" means a Jew-who went to the greatest possible extreme in following the Hebrew language, cult, habits, training, and religion. He was an extremist among them.

Some people would suppose from Paul’s occupation – tentmaking (he worked at that occupation, making tents with Aquila and Priscilla) – that from this unskilled labor his family were low in the social position, and poor. The inference is wholly untenable. In the first place, every Jew had to have a trade, even though he were a millionaire, and Paul’s old teacher, Gamaliel, used this language: "Any kind of learning without a useful trade leads to sin." Paul took up this trade because he lived at Tarsus. There anybody could go out and learn the trade of weaving ropes and check-cloth made out of the long hair of Mount Taurus goats. The trade would not simply satisfy the Jewish requirement, but a man could make his living by it. We see Paul a little later making his living just that way. Well for Paul that he knew something besides books.

I am more and more inclined to follow an industrial idea in systems of education. We have our schools and universities where the boys and girls learn a great deal about books, and the girl goes home and does not know how to make bread. She does not know how to rear a brood of chickens; she does not know how a house is to be kept clean, nor how to keep windows clean. The floors in the corners and in places under the beds and sofas are unswept. Boys come home that cannot make a hoe handle. They have no mechanical sense, no trade. They can neither make a pair of shoes nor a hat nor a pair of socks, nor anything they wear. And thus graduates of universities stand with their fingers in their mouths in the great byways of the world – practically beggars – not knowing how to do anything.

The Jews guarded against that. Let Paul fall on his feet anywhere, and withdraw from him every outside source of financial support, and he would say, "With these hands did I minister to my necessities." He could go out and get a piece of work. He knew how to do it. All this is bearing on the social and financial position of Paul’s family. Everything indicates the high social position of his family, and that it occupied a high financial position. They did not take the children of the lowest abode and give them such an ecclesiastical training as Paul had. They did not educate them for the position of rabbi, nor let them take a degree in the highest theological seminary in the world. Paul’s family, then, was a good one.

Paul’s religious and educational advantages were on two distinct lines: Purely ecclesiastical or religious, and I can tell just exactly what it was. A little Hebrew boy five years old had to learn the Ten Commandments, and the hallelujah psalms. When six, he advanced to other things which could be specified particularly. His education commenced in the home and went on until he entered the synagogue, which trained him in all the rudiments of biblical education. When he was twelve or thirteen years old he was called "a son of the commandments." Just like the occasion suggests when Jesus was twelve years old he had them take him to Jerusalem, and he was allowed to go into the Temple and to be with the great doctors there.

When Paul was twelve or thirteen his influential father sent him to the great theological seminary. There were two of these seminaries. One had a greater influence than the other in the city of Jerusalem. Therefore, he says, "I was brought up in this city. I was born in Tarsus, but brought up in the city of Jerusalem, at the feet of Gamaliel." He was a very noble character. The opposite seminary differed from this one. It was the Shammai Seminary, differing from the other on this point: The Shammai Seminary was very narrow; did not allow its pupils to know anything about literature whatsoever except religious literature. But the aged Gamaliel said to Paul and to all his other students, "There are certain classical lines along which you may study and learn." This is the kind which Paul attended, the school of Gamaliel, graduating there and becoming a doctor of divinity, or a rabbi. He studied profoundly. This religious part of his education he got in the original Hebrew. When he and Jesus met at the time of his conversion, they spoke in the Hebrew tongue to each other. "There came a voice which said in the Hebrew [the old Hebrew tongue], Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?" And he answered in the Hebrew. Then, of course, he spoke and wrote in the Aramaic, which was the common dialect in Judea, and different from the Hebrew, since the Hebrew had gone altogether out of use in the ordinary speech, and almost in the ordinary reading.

The New Testament abounds in evidence of Paul’s general educational advantages. The city of Tarsus possessed one of the three great universities of the world. Did Paul take a course in that? There is no evidence that he did, and no probability that he did. For the universities in that day did not mean as much as they do today in a certain line, though I am sorry to say that the great universities of the present day are dropping back and adopting the old utterly worthless studies of the universities of that day; that is, speculative philosophy about the origin of things, and they do not know anything more when they get through than when they began. Also the Epicurean philosophy, which we now call "Darwinism," making a speculative study of biology, botany, geology, etc., trying to prove that everything came from a primordial germ, and that man not only developed from a monkey, but from a jellyfish, and that the jellyfish developed from some vegetable, and that the vegetable is a development of some inorganic and lifeless matter.

There never was at any time in the world one particle of truth in the whole business. None of it can ever be a science. It does not belong to the realm of science.

Saul never had a moment’s time to spend in a heathen university, listening to their sophistries, and to these philosophical speculations, or vagaries. If he were living now he would be made president of some university. We learn from the Syrians that one of these universities, the one in Tarsus, had a professor who once stole something, and was put in "limbo." Their university professors were also intensely jealous. They had all sorts of squabbles, one part in a row with another part; so that after all there was not much to be learned in the universities of those times, and after a while there will not be much in ours, if we go on as we are now going. I am not referring to any university, particularly, but I am referring to any and all, where philosophical speculations are made thee basis of botany, zoology, natural history of any kind, geology, or any kindred thing. Paul struck it in the city of Athens, its birthplace, and smote it hip and thigh.

I do not suppose at all that Paul was a student in the university of Tarsus, but that while he was at Jerusalem, and under the teaching of Gamaliel, he did study such classics as would be permitted to a Jewish mind. Hence we find in his letters expressions like this: "One of themselves, a prophet of their own said, Cretans are always liars," and when at Athena he says, "Certain, even of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring." How could he become acquainted with those classical allusions if he had never studied such things? That chiliarch, who commanded a thousand men – a legion – said to Paul, "Do you speak Greek?" He had heard him speaking Greek. Of course he spoke Greek, and wrote Greek, All of his letters were written in Greek. He had learned that Greek language somewhere. He had not learned it in that university at Tarsus, but in the Seminary at Jerusalem. Take his letters and see his profound acquaintance with the Greek games of every kind. Some of them he may have attended, but he certainly knew all about them as though he had witnessed them. He may have seen only an occasional game. So he must have learned it from the literature, for he discusses every phase of it, especially the foot-racing, the combats in the arena between the gladiators, and the wrestling with the lions in the arena. His letters are full of allusions that indicate his acquaintance with the Greek literature. At Alexandria there was one of the other universities, a much greater one in its Greek literature than the university of Tarsus. Alexandria was founded by a Greek, Alexander the Great. One of the Ptolemies had a great library, the greatest library in the world, which was destroyed by the Saracens. But notice also how Paul puts his finger right upon the very center and heart of every heathen philosophy, like that of Epicureanism – our Darwinism; that he debated in Athens; and note the Stoics whom he met while there, and the Platonians, or the Peripatetics. You will find that that one little speech of his, which he delivered in the city of Athens, contains an allusion which showed that he was thoroughly and profoundly acquainted with every run and sweep of the philosophic thought of the day, and anybody not thus acquainted could not have delivered that address. This is to show the general culture of his mind.

Take the mountain torrent of his passion in the rapid letter to the Galatians. Take the keen logic, the irresistibility of its reasoning, which appears in the letter to the Romans, or take that sweetest language that ever came from the lips or pen of mortal man, that eulogy on love in 1 Corinthians 13. Then take the letter to Philemon, which all the world has considered a masterpiece in epistolary correspondence. It implies that he was scholarly. Look at these varieties of Saul’s education. He was a man whose range of information swept the world. He was the one scholar in the whole number of the apostles – the great scholar – and I do not see how any man can read the different varieties of style or delicacy of touch, the analysis of his logic or reasoning, which appear in Paul’s letters, and doubt that he had a broad, a deep, a high, and a grand general education.

As to Paul’s family the New Testament tells us in Acts 23:16 that he had a married sister living in Jerusalem, and that that sister had a son, Paul’s nephew, who intervened very heroically to help Paul in a certain crisis of his life. And in Romans 16:7-11 are some other things that give light as to his family: "Salute Andronicus and Junias, my kinsmen, and my fellow-prisoners . . . who also have been in Christ before me." Here are a man and a woman, Andronicus and Junias, Paul’s kinsfolk, well known to the apostles in Jerusalem, for he says, "Who are of note among the apostles." They were influential people, and they had become Christians before Paul was a Christian. Take Romans 16:11: "Salute Herodion my kinsman," and Romans 16:21: "Timothy, my fellow worker saluteth you; and Lucius and Jason and Sosipater, my kinsmen." So here we have found six individuals who are kinspeople to Paul, and who were all members of the church at Rome. We know that much of his family, anyhow.

The things which distinguished a Pharisee from a Sadducee were of several kinds: (1) The latter were materialists, whom we would call atheists. They believed in no spirit; that there was nothing but matter; that when a man died it was the last of him. (2) There were Epicureans: "Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die," they said. (3) Also in their political views they differed from the Pharisees. The Pharisees were patriotic, and wanted the freedom of their nation. The Sadducees were inclined to the Roman government, and wanted to keep up the servitude to the Romans. (4) The Pharisees also cared more about a ritualistic religion. They were Puritans – stern, and knew no compromise, adhering strictly to the letter of the law, in every respect. If they tithed, they would go into the garden and tithe the cummin and the anise. The phrase, "Pharisee of the Pharisees," means one who would whittle all that down to a very fine point, or an extremist on that subject. He said (Galatians 1:14), "I advanced in the Jews’ religion beyond many of mine own age among my countrymen, being more exceedingly zealous for the traditions of my fathers." They were just Pharisees – he was a Pharisee of the Pharisees. He went all the lengths that they would go, and he topped them. It meant something like this: "I am a son of Abraham; I am freeborn; I have never sinned; I need no vicarious expiation for me; I need no Holy Spirit; I was never in that bunch; you need not talk or present regeneration to me; I am just as white as snow." It followed that they were not drunkards, they were not immoral; they were chaste, and did not have any of the brutal vices.

Paul had perhaps never met Jesus. They were about the same age. Paul went to Jerusalem when he was thirteen years old, and stayed there until he graduated in the same city. Some contend from certain expressions, as, "I have known Christ after the flesh; henceforth I will know him . . . no more," that he had known Jesus in the flesh. It will be remembered that in the public ministry of Christ he was very seldom in Jerusalem. He stayed there a very short time when he did go. His ministry was mainly in Galilee. Even in that last mighty work of his in Jerusalem – there is a big account of it – but it just lasted a week. And Saul may have been absent at Tarsus during that time. I think when he saw Jesus the fact that he did not recognize him is proof enough, for if he had known him in the flesh he would have recognized him. But he said, "Who art thou?" when he saw him after he arose from the dead.

Paul, before conversion, was intensely conscientious in whatever he did – free from all low vice, drunkenness and luxurious gluttony and sensuality of every kind. He was a very chaste man, a very honest man, a very sincere man, a very truthful man, and all this before conversion. I take it for granted that he was a married man. An orthodox Jew would not have passed the age of twenty unmarried. He could not be a member of the Sanhedrin without marrying; and in that famous passage in Corinthians he seems to intimate clearly that he was a married man. Speaking to virgins (that means unmarried men and women and includes both of them that had never married) he says so and so; and to widows and widowers, "I wish they would remain such as I am." It seems to me that the language very clearly shows that at that time he was a widower. Luther says that no man could write about the married state like Paul writes if he was an old bachelor. I think Luther is right; his judgment is very sound. Paul did not marry again; he remained a widower, and in the stress of the times advised other widowers and widows to remain in that state; but if they wanted to marry again to go ahead and do so; that it was no sin; but the stress of the times made it unwise; and he boldly took the position that he had a right to lead about a wife as much as Peter had, and Peter had a wife.

QUESTIONS

1. What the theme of this section?

2. What Saul’s name, nation, tribe, sect, citizenship, occupation, office, birthplace, and date of birth?

3. Give an account of Tarsus as to its political, strategical, commercial, manufacturing, educational advantages, and its popular religion.

4. Did citizenship in a free city under Rome make one a Roman citizen as did citizenship in Philippi, a colony?

5. How, then, could one obtain it?

6. Distinguish the difference between these terms: Jew, Hebrew, Israelite, Hellinist, and a "Hebrew of the Hebrews."

7. What the social and financial position of Paul’s family, particularly in view of his occupation?

8. What Paul’s religious and educational advantages?

9. What New Testament evidences are there of Paul’s general educational advantages?

10. What do we know about Paul’s family as seen in the New Testament?

11. Was Paul a rabbi? If so, where did he probably exercise his functions as a rabbi?

12. What is the meaning of the phrase, "Pharisee of the Pharisees?"

13. Did Paul ever meet Jesus before his death? If not, how account for it in view of the interest and publicity of the last week of our Lord’s life?

14. What was Paul’s character before conversion?

15. Was he a married man, and what the proof?

Verses 15-23

XXVII

THE MINISTRY OF TEARS AND PAUL’S RECIPE FOR HAPPINESS

Philippians 3:15-4:23.

This chapter closes the exposition of the letter to the Philippians. Commencing at Philippians 3:15 we make a running comment on the rest of the letter.

"Let us therefore, as many as are perfect." It is somewhat surprising that just before this Paul said that he counted not himself to be perfect, but that is in the passive voice, to be perfected. Now we have an active form of the same word, only it is an adjective instead of a verb, and the question arises, Is there a contradiction? The answer is, no. The adjective "perfect" is frequently used in the New Testament in the sense of full-grown, mature, as a mature Christian and not a novice, not a babe in Christ, as in the letter to the Hebrews, where he says that "when for the time ye ought to be teachers ye have need that one teach you again the first principles of the oracles of God," and then says, "Let us go on to perfection," that is, to maturity.

To continue: "And if in anything ye are otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this unto you." What kind of a revelation is this? Does it mean that God will indefinitely keep up his external revelation, so that there will be continual additions to the Bible? It does not mean that. It is an internal revelation by the Spirit of God. In other words, where a matter is not clear a man, if he be of the right mind and seeks the Spirit’s guidance, then God will reveal the matter to him by inward monition.

Verse Philippians 3:17: "Brethren, be ye imitators together of me, and mark them that so walk even as ye have us for an ensample. For many walk, of whom I told you often, and now tell you even weeping, that they are the enemies of the cross of Christ: whose end is perdition, whose God is the belly, and whose glory is in their shame, who mind earthly things."

This passage puts before us two examples, one they are exhorted to follow, and the other they are exhorted to shun. The first is the example of Paul himself just cited and expounded in the preceding chapter. Every preacher should be an example to the flock, as Peter says: "Not lords over God’s heritage, but examples to the flock." Now Paul wishes to be imitated just as far as he follows Christ, as he explains it in another passage, "Follow me as I follow Christ." The other, the evil example, and before I expound it I raise this question: To what kind of people is he referring that give this evil example? Then I raise this question: Is he referring to the Judaizing element of the Christian church, as he has been doing in Philippians 3? He is referring to Antinomians, whether Jews or Gentiles. That is a big word and is applied in theology to that class of people who emphasize salvation through justification so as to deny the necessity of Christian people’s living right, that is, opposed to the law. I do not know any worse enemies to the cross of Christ than the Antinomians, and I am sorry to say that we have had some of them in Texas. They are not necessarily Jews, but people who, as Luther did in some things, so stress justification by faith, election, calling, and predestination that they take no account of the kind of life that a Christian ought to live. I am ashamed to say that I knew a Baptist preacher in Texas who, after offering an infamous proposition to a fellow Christian – too shameful for me to specify – said, "What harm will it do? You and I are both Christians, and nothing that a Christian does is charged against him."

Paul says, "I tell you, even weeping, that these people are enemies of the cross of Christ. Their god is their appetite – their lust; their god is the gratification of their animal desires, and they glory in their shame." To me the most horrible thing in the world is for a man to profess belief in the high doctrines of grace and then live an evil life. God calls men to good works; God regenerates men, creates them unto good works, and whom he calls he not only justifies but sanctifies, and I am sure that the unsanctified man will never enter heaven.

I quote a part of that verse again: "I now tell you, even weep-ing." Such a thing excited the deepest concern in Paul’s heart, and I recall attention to this verse in order to cite in this connection Monrod’s lectures, or sermons on Paul, and particularly the one on the "Tears of Paul." What things excited this man’s tears? There are many cases of Paul’s weeping, and in each case there was a specific cause for his tears.

Let us look at Jesus on Olivet weeping over Jerusalem. There is no such lamentation in all history: “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her brood under her wings, and ye would not! Behold, your house is left unto you desolate I" On this passage is based the hymn –

Did Christ o’er sinners weep? And shall our cheeks be dry? Let floods of penitential grief, Burst forth from every eye.

The psalm says, "He that goeth forth weeping, bearing precious seed, shall doubtless come again with rejoicing, bringing his sheaves with him." Tears are an indication of earnestness and sympathy. Macaulay, in that famous poem of his, "The Battle of Ivry," represents Henry of Navarre this way: He looked upon the foemen and his glance was stern and high; He looked upon his comrades and a tear was in his eve.

Verse Philippians 3:20: "For our citizenship is in heaven." The citizens of a city were enrolled. Rome enrolled her citizens, and the Philippians were all on that roll as being a Roman colony, but our citizenship is in the New Jerusalem, the heavenly Jerusalem, from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ. Where is Jesus now? He is in heaven, at the right hand of the Father. How long will he remain there? Until his enemies be made his footstool. Why will he come back to this earth? To raise the dead, the just and the unjust, and to judge the world in righteousness. Our citizenship is in heaven. From whence, i.e., from heaven; Peter says, "Whom the heavens must retain until the time of the restoration of all things," and our text adds, "Who shall change our vile bodies that they may be fashioned like unto his glorious body according to the working whereby he is able to subdue all things unto himself." That subject is abundantly discussed in 1 Corinthians 15, and it embodies a cardinal doctrine, vital and fundamental. A man who does not believe in the resurrection of the dead and the glorification of the bodies of the saints has no right to claim to be a Christian.

Keble in his "Christian Year" uses this language: Before the judgment seat, Though changed and glorified each face, Not unremembered we shall meet, For endless ages to embrace.

Philippians 4: "Therefore, my brethren beloved and longed for, my joy and crown." More than once I have called attention to Paul’s joy and crown. He says about the same thing in the letter to the Thessalonians – "Ye are my crown of rejoicing." The psalmist says, "He shall come again with rejoicing, bringing his sheaves with him."

When we enter heaven it will not delight us that on earth we were great generals, or great admirals, or great statesmen, but it will delight us to see there those who, through our instrumentality, were saved. That shares the very heart of Christ.

"He will be wondered at" in the old sense of the word admired in all them that believe, and the whole ransomed church of God will be his crown of rejoicing. "He shall see of the travail of his soul and be satisfied." So when we see those of them whom we have influenced to become Christians, or more faithful Christians, they will be our "crown of rejoicing."

When Spurgeon died a memorial service of his death was held in Nashville, Tennessee, and I was invited to deliver the oration; and my first volume of sermons is that oration. As a part of the oration I drew a picture, and yet a scriptural picture, of those who greeted Spurgeon when he entered heaven – the aged widows whom he had sheltered and protected, the orphans whom he had clothed and fed, the young preachers whom he had instructed and whose expenses he had largely met and who were supplied with libraries by his wife – these all, passing into heaven, were standing on the battlements to shout their welcome to the coming preacher, and he shouted back, "Ye are my crown of rejoicing," and it is this to which Paul alludes when he says, "For other foundation can no man Jay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. But if any man buildeth on the foundation gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay, stubble; . . . a day of fire shall declare it," and the bad material that he has put on shall be his loss. He, himself who is on the foundation will be saved, but only the good material that he has put in the building will be his reward. "He will come with rejoicing, bringing his sheaves with him."

We now come to an exhortation upon which I wish to give a few remarks. "I exhort Euodia, and I exhort Syntyche, to be of the same mind in the Lord. Yea, I beseech thee also, true yokefellow, help these women, for they labored with me in the gospel, with Clement also, and the rest of my fellow workers, whose names are in the book of life."

The position of women in Macedonia was far superior to many other countries, and the Macedonian women were particularly prominent and useful in the Philippian church. That, in fact, accounted in part for the great liberality of that church. Here were two sisters, both prominent, both great workers, that helped Paul when he was there, and also Clement, and they helped all the rest of Paul’s fellow workers. But they fell apart, I do not know just why. There might have been some little talk at a quilting, but I am pretty sure it was not at a bridge party. Or it might have been at a Ladies’ Aid Society. How sad! Paul stands up for these women. He gives them both a certificate of good character; they were both noble workers, his fellow laborers. He exhorts somebody, whoever this true yoke fellow is, to help these women to get together. It is a very sad thing when two prominent men in a church get to pulling apart, but I think it is a sadder thing when two prominent women get to pulling apart. Men know better how to put things in a parentheses than women. Whenever there is a sharp difference between two women in a church it is much more apt to reach the home and the children. A man can have a difference with a man and say nothing to the wife about it, and especially to the children, but if a woman has a difficulty everybody in the house has to hear about it, and everybody must take sides or get into trouble.

I am a great believer in women’s societies. A woman’s society helped to take care of our Lord. There are a great many Texas churches that would have gone into oblivion long ago but for a few faithful women. They were the life and soul of this Philippian church.

It is too bad that Euodia and Syntyche could not pull together. The longer we serve as pastors the more we find Euodias and Syntyches, and the Lord give us wisdom when we come to deal with these cases. "I beseech thee also, true yokefellow, help those women."

Let us look at this word "yokefellow." Is it a proper name or not? Farrar and others say that this is a proper noun, and by a play on words, not unusual with Paul, he calls him a true yokefellow. I think Paul refers to Epaphroditus, who was there when this letter arrived and who was the pastor, and he had just demonstrated at Rome that he was a true yokefellow with Paul. The subscription says that this letter was carried by Epaphroditus. Paul could refer to the pastor of the church as the yokefellow, who put his neck into the yoke when he found Paul in prison at Rome, and helped him pull the gospel wagon; so I doubt its being a proper noun.

Philippians 4:3 closes this way: "Whose names are in the book of life." On that book of life I give some scriptures to be studied: Exodus 32:32-33; Psalms 69:28; Psalms 87:6; Isaiah 4:3; Ezekiel 13:9; Daniel 12:1; Luke 10:20; Revelation 3:5; Revelation 13:8; Revelation 17:8; Revelation 20:12; Revelation 21:27. I also recommend that one of my sermons in the first book of sermons called The Library of Heaven. The last book mentioned as belonging to the "Library of Heaven" is the book of life, and in that sermon will be found some helpful light on this book of life, and particularly on this question: When does a man’s name go into the book of life? Of course in the divine purpose the roll of the saved was complete in eternity. He who hath numbered the very hairs of our heads I presume has numbered the heads as well, and in that sense the book would be the elect as in God’s thought, but I don’t think that is the thought here. The book of life is the register of the citizens enrolled. He says, "Our citizenship is in heaven." Our names go down and we become citizens, that is, whenever we are converted. It is a register of judicial decisions recorded as each one is justified. Hence this book is the deciding thing at the judgment seat of Christ: "Whosoever is not found written in the book of life" – already written before the judgment day comes – "shall be cast into the lake of fire." It is in view of that book that we have that good old Baptist hymn: When thou, my righteous Judge, shalt come, To take thy ransomed people home, Shall I among them stand? Shall I, who sometimes am afraid to die. Be found at thy right hand? How can I bear the piercing thought: What if my name should be left out?

In Philippians 4:5, going on with the running comment, we have this statement, "The Lord is at hand." What does that mean? It does not mean the Lord’s coming. It means his presence. It means that we should live continually as if sensible of the presence of the Lord right here. As John says in the letter to the Laodiceans, "Behold I stand at the door and knock" – at the door of the heart of the church member – "and if any man hear my voice and open the door I will come in and I will sup with him and he will sup with me." Commencing with verse 6 and extending to verse 9 we have the famous recipe for happiness as found in the analysis. Here is the secret of happiness, and it certainly consists of he following things:

1. "Be anxious about nothing." We have heard people say, "It is the pace that kills." It is not the pace that kills; it is the anxiety that kills – the anxiety that draws the wrinkles on the brow and the crow’s feet around the eyes, and makes a man look as if he was not only aged, but burdened – an Atlas with the world on his shoulders, and those anxieties are the kill-joys and the most foolish things in the world, for nine-tenths of the things that we are anxious about never happen. The danger exists in our imagination. "A brave man never dies but once – a coward is dying all the time. He dies every day of his life."

My father taught his children a solemn lesson. He had only twelve children of his own, so he adopted three other families, making twenty-five in all, and in the winter time the great room of our house was he dining room, about forty feet long, and a fireplace eight feet wide. It took two grown men to bring in the back log for us. Now, with that big fireplace roaring and the big, heavy dining table pushed back, the twenty-five of us would gather around that fire and he would talk and instruct us. One day – shall never forget it – it was Saturday – the dining table had just been pushed back and every boy on the place was growling because they had planned to go fishing and it was pouring down rain. My father looked around and said, "Boys, by the will of God, I give you permission to fret and be anxious about everything in the world but two things." We thought this allowed us a big margin and eagerly asked what they were. This was his answer:

"First, never fret or be anxious about a thing you can help. If you can help it, just help it, and quit worrying.

"Second, never fret about a thing you can’t help, for fretting won’t do any good."

The more we thought about it the more we found that there wasn’t any margin about it at all; the two things covered all things.

In Psalm 37 is a passage that I have read at family prayers oftener than any other in the Bible, another recipe for happiness: "Fret not yourselves because of evildoers . . . Trust in the Lord and do good . . . Delight thyself also in the Lord, and he shall bring it to pass. Rest in the Lord; wait patiently for him . . . I have seen the wicked in great power, spreading himself like a green bay tree; and lo I he passed away. . . . I have never seen the righteous forsaken nor his seeding begging bread. . . . The steps of a good man are ordered by the Lord." To the same effect is our Saviour’s Sermon on the Mount: "Be not anxious for the morrow, as to what ye shall eat or drink, or what ve shall out on." That is the first step in the recipe for happiness. Throw anxieties over your shoulders. They don’t do a bit of good.

It was a custom in that big family of ours to practice archery. It was noticeable that whenever a boy drew an arrow to the head and let it fly at the target, if the arrow, visible in its flight, seemed to be going too far to the right he would lean to the left, as if his leaning would shape the course of a shaft after it was sped from the bow. So in futile anxiety we waste our strength on impossible things.

2. "But in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known unto God." When we are troubled about anything let us take it to the Lord in prayer. We can’t carry it. Let us put in on him. That is the second step. What is the result? "And the peace of God which passeth all understanding shall keep your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus." The peace of God!

3. The first step disposes of anxiety, and the second substitutes prayers and supplication with thanksgiving. The third element of the recipe relates to the government of the thoughts: "Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honorable, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things."

I call attention to a law. We become assimilated, that is, made like unto the things that we habitually and steadfastly contemplate. If we habitually think about falsehood, and dishonesty, and murder, and unlawful things, and things of bad report, and immodest things, then we become like them.

A lady member of my church had great concern about the future of her daughter. I said to her, "My sister, what sort of pictures do you hang up in your daughter’s room to look at the first thing in the morning and the last thing at night? If you want her to be unselfish, put up the picture of Florence Nightingale or Clara Barton. If you want her to be modest or pure in heart, put up the picture of Mrs. Prentiss. If you want her to be worldly-minded, then put up those fashionable pictures that represent worldly things, like a round of fashionable social games and pleasures, as the thing for her to think about."

While I am talking about pictures I am not referring so much to painted canvas as to the direction of habitual thoughts. It is a tremendous lesson.

God pity the poor girl whose selfish, worldly-minded mother is thinking only of society’s demands and leaves the girl’s soul beggarly and bankrupt in the sight of God.

Dr. Broadus used to say, "The best way to judge a man to ask him to tell what he reads when he is tired. On what does he relax his mind." Some people want to go to a show, some to read yellow-backed literature, some to take a moral furlough. Our habitual trend is evidenced by what our minds turn to as soon as restraint of duty is removed. What comes to us first – say, on Monday morning after we have preached on Sunday – on what the preachers call "Blue Monday"?

4. The fourth element of the recipe for happiness is in the verses Philippians 11-13: "I have learned in whatsoever state I am, therein to be content. I know how to be abased, and I know how to abound: in everything and in all things have I learned the secret both to be filled and to be hungry, both to abound and to be in want. I can do all things in him that strengtheneth me." Of course that man is unhappy whose happiness depends on a big dinner, and he can’t get it, or upon the weather; he is miserable because it rains or is cold, or if the bank breaks and the crop fails. Here I give a secret that I told all over Texas in Philippians 1887: The springs of our happiness are never outside of us but in us. If we are all right inside, the external things can’t disturb our happiness. The remarkable, acute discernment of Robert Burns expresses the thought exactly: "Tis not in title, nor in rank, Tis not in wealth like London bank, To give us peace and rest; If happiness has not her seat And center in the breast; We may be wise, or rich, or great, But never can be blest.

I have already discussed the offerings that Paul next refers to, and so I come to the conclusion of the letter: "Salute every saint in Christ Jesus." But suppose a man is a Methodist! Well, if he be a saint, salute him. If he be a Roman Catholic, give him the hand of fellowship – not the hand of church fellowship – but Christian fellowship; rejoice in heart over every really converted soul of whatever denomination. "They that are of Caesar’s household salute you." What was Caesar’s household? It does not mean Caesar’s individual family, but his slaves and dependents. The household of a Roman Emperor included clients and advisers, as well as hundreds of slaves, well-trained, efficient, educated, and many of them nobles in their own land before their captivity. Some of the noblest men and women in Rome were slaves who had been princes and princesses in their own land; some of them had been heroes. Caesar’s household was very extensive. Dr. Lightfoot calls attention to the fact that a recent discovery bears on this passage. He says that the names of 170 members of Caesar’s household are inscribed on the monuments that have been discovered, and they include quite a number of names mentioned in Paul’s letter to the Romans.

QUESTIONS

1. What is the sense of "perfect" in Philippians 3:15, and what its distinction from "perfected" in Philippians 3:12?

2. What is the sense of "reveal" in Philippians 3:15?

3. What are two examples, one good and the other bad, are put before us in Philippians 3:17-18, and who are these "enemies of the cross"?

4. Cite the instances of Paul’s weeping, showing for what in each case, and cite every instance of our Lord’s weeping and for what in each case, together with a pertinent passage from the psalm concerning the same, and the cases of Elisha and Jeremiah, all bearing on the ministry of tears.

5. Who has given a great discourse on the tears of Paul?

6. Cite the first stanza of the hymn on the weeping of Christ, and Macaulay’s couplet on Henry of Navarre in the battle of Ivry,

7. What is the allusion in "Our citizenship is in heaven," and what the parallel passage in Ephesians?

8. On the "whence also we wait for our Lord" (Philippians 3:20), cite a passage from the Psalm and one from Peter in Acts, showing how long our Lord remains in heaven, and a pertinent passage each from Romans and 1 Corinthians to show what his employment is in heaven.

9. What is Paul’s "crown of rejoicing" in Philippians 4:1, and our Lord’s at the judgment?

10. Why is an alienation between two prominent good women of a church more disastrous and more difficult to heal than in the case of men?

11. Who is the yokefellow in Philippians 4:2, and does the reference to Clement mean that he, with the women, labored with Paul, or that these women labored with Clement and others as well as Paul?

12. Cite the passages in both Testaments on the "book of life," tell what it is, when the enrolment takes place, and what its final use.

13. Cite a stanza from a great hymn bearing on this final use.

14. What is the meaning of "The Lord is at hand," and cite a similar passage from James and one from Revelation.

15. State the four elements of the recipe for happiness in Philippians 4:6-8; Philippians 4:11-13, and give parallel to same, part in Psalm and part in the Sermon on the Mount.

16. What is the meaning of Caesar’s household?