… τοῦ γνῶναι αὐτòν καὶ τὴν δύναμιν τῆς
ἀναστάσεως αὐτοῦ καὶ [τὴν] κοινωνίαν [τῶν]
παθημάτων αὐτοῦ, συμμορφιζóμενος τῷ
θανάτῳ αὐτοῦ, εἴ πως καταντήσω εἰς τὴν
ἐξανάστασιν τὴν ἐκ νεκρῶν. (Phil 3.10-11)
1. Introduction: The Problem
In Philippians 3, Paul likens his past privileges and achievements to ‘dung’, as the Authorised Version puts it, when set next to knowing Christ. Paul’s ambition to know Christ involves participating in Christ’s sufferings and the power of his resurrection life in the present, in order eventually to experience his own resurrection from the dead in the future.
But Paul expresses this future hope in uncharacteristically hesitant terms – ‘εἴ πως I might attain to the resurrection from the dead’ (Phil 3.11). This εἴ πως is put into English by such expressions as ‘if somehow’ (NRSV, NASB), ‘so, somehow’ (NIV, NET), or ‘if possible’ (RSV), or ‘if by any means’ (KJV; cf. ESV). Scholars have often expressed surprise at Paul’s use of εἴ πως and his resulting tone, labelling it ‘unusual’, ‘difficult’, ‘assez surprenant’, even ‘problematic’.Footnote 1 This article seeks to bring additional clarity to the semantics of εἴ πως, and in combination with other evidence thereby to revive and substantiate a little-known proposal for the meaning of Phil 3.11. Specifically, the aim here is to show that, in Philippians 3, Paul is unsure whether he will survive until the parousia or not, but he expresses the strong though uncertain hope that he will die, in order then to be raised.
2. Eἴ πως: Some of the Facts
At the outset, then, it is necessary to establish the semantics of εἴ πως, as this involves clearing up certain misconceptions. There are three features of the phrase which can be identified.
2.1 Eἴ πως Expresses Uncertainty
The first point to make is that it is hard to exclude uncertainty from εἴ πως and to make those words instead an introduction to a straightforward expectation, as various scholars do.Footnote 2 This section will quote a fairly extensive set of examples of the usage of εἴ πως, since they will also be relevant to the other two features, discussed in §2.2 and §2.3.
We can take the three other New Testament examples first. In Romans 1, Paul prays εἴ πως he might visit the Romans (1.10), and in chapter 11 he glorifies his ministry among the gentiles εἴ πως he might provoke Jews to jealousy (11.13–14). These are evidently hopes, not certainties: Paul is at that point not certain that he will reach Rome (Rom 15.30–2), and he does not know how long the hardening of Israel will last. In Acts 27.12, Paul and his companions continue sailing εἴ πως they might reach Phoenix and spend the winter there (but they did not in fact reach it).
The same tone emerges in the LXX.Footnote 3 In 2 Sam 14.15, the woman of Tekoa comes to David with a request, and pictures herself saying, ‘May one speak to the king, εἴ πως the king will fulfil the request of his servant.’ In LXX 1 Kgs 21.31 [20.31], after a crushing defeat by Israel, the officials of the Aramaean king Ben-Hadad propose that they go to the king of Israel εἴ πως he would spare their lives. In Jeremiah’s lament over Babylon (LXX Jer 28.8 [51.8]), God exhorts listeners to bring a potion to the fallen city εἴ πως she shall be healed. Here, the sense ‘in the hope that’ fits all the examples in both the NT and LXX.Footnote 4
In the Apostolic Fathers, there is a solitary example in Ignatius (with ἐάν), where he exhorts the Smyrnaeans to avoid contact with the ‘wild beasts’, but only to pray for them ἐάν πως they might repent – which Ignatius regards as difficult (o῞περ δύσκολον).Footnote 5
There are seven examples in Philo. (1) In Decal. 60, Philo discusses the person who is unable to see his own soul, even though (καίτοι) he might try very hard ‘in the hope that it were possible to see it’ (εἴ πως ἰδεῖν οἷóν τε ἦν). (2) In Decal. 85, Philo argues that, since it is best to avoid swearing oaths, a person should dither and play for time ‘in the hope that it might be possible’ (εἴ πως ἐνδέχοιτο) not to have to take the oath. (3) In Spec. 2.135, the law would not have hesitated to put a bridle upon certain lusts ‘if it could’ (εἴ πως οἷóν τε ἦν), but this is difficult or even impossible (χαλεπόν μάλλον δ’ ἀδύνατον). (4) In Praem. 36, we encounter the ἀσκητής, who leaves no stone unturned in the hope that it might be possible for him to trace out the truth (εἴ πως δυνηθείη τὴν ἀξιέραστον ἀλήθειαν ἰχνηλατῆσαι). Here the quest is successful, but from the point of view of the seeker, he was not certain of that success (εἴ πως δυνηθείη). (5) In Prob. 63, those who are good pray that it might be possible to reform the lives of others (εὐχόμενοι μέν εἴ πως ἐνῆν, ἐπανορθώσασθαι τὸν βίον), but when they are unable to do this (τὸ δὲ ἀδυνατοῦντες…) they tend to retire into solitude. (6) In Flacc. 28, Herod Agrippa pulled into the harbour at Pharos under cover of darkness, in the hope it would be possible (εἴ πως οἷόν τε ἦν) to avoid being seen. (7) Finally, in Leg. 174 Philo says that the members of the delegation to Gaius tried everything in the hope that they might be able (εἴ πως δυνησόμεθα) to soften up Gaius’ favourite, Helicon. But this proved unsuccessful (Leg. 178).
There are two examples in Josephus. (1) In Ant. 2.159, Jacob’s son Judah threw himself at Joseph’s feet in hope of mollifying his anger (εἴ πως ἐκμαλάξειε τὴν ὀργὴν αὐτοῦ) to bring about the release of Benjamin. (2) In BJ, 6.422, Josephus reports a census of Jerusalem taken by Cestius, who asked the high priests if it might be possible (εἴ πως δυνατόν) to count the whole population.
These examples suffice to show that εἴ πως introduces varying degrees of possibilities, rather than certainties.Footnote 6
2.2 Eἴ πως Expresses Hope
The Brill Dictionary’s definition of εἰ has a sub-entry for εἴ πως and provides glosses for the latter of ‘if in any way’, and ‘if perchance’;Footnote 7 the Cambridge Greek Lexicon gives as one gloss ‘if perhaps’.Footnote 8 Focant’s commentary glosses εἴ πως as ‘peut-être’.Footnote 9 Similarly, Otto remarks: ‘In all of the contexts, “perhaps” would suffice as the translation.’Footnote 10
Translations such as ‘perchance’ or ‘perhaps’, however, fail to do justice to the positive nature of the wish introduced with εἴ πως. As we have seen from the examples above, people do not (negatively) worry εἴ πως something bad might happen, or (neutrally) wonder εἴ πως an event may take place. The examples across the board display positive hopes. Negative possibilities are introduced by μή πως (‘in case’ of a negative outcome), as in the examples of Paul’s concern in case (μή πως) he may have been running in vain (Gal 2.2), or his several expressions of fearing in case (φοβοῦμαι … μή πως in 2 Cor 11.3, 12.20; Gal 4.11). Even in the absence of a φοβοῦμαι, the notion of a degree of fear is implicit in most cases of μή πως,Footnote 11 just as the notion of hope is implicit in εἴ πως. In short, in all the usage in the NT, LXX, Apostolic Fathers, Philo and Josephus, εἴ πως introduces a positive wish, rather than a neutral or negative possibility.Footnote 12 The most suitable gloss would therefore be ‘in the hope that…’, rather than ‘perhaps’.
2.3 Eἴ πως Does Not Express Uncertainty of Method or Manner
Πως on its own is an adverb of manner (‘in any way’, ‘somehow’), and this has led to many mechanical translations of εἴ πως in various branches of scholarship. Among lexica, the Brill Dictionary gives the glosses, ‘if in some way’ or ‘if in any way’; the Cambridge Greek Lexicon’s and especially BDAG’s ‘if somehow’ is probably influential on Bible translations of Phil 3.11 with this phrase (NRSV, NASB) as well as upon commentators.Footnote 13
As well as meaning ‘in some particular/ undefined way’, however, πως can also just ‘qualify force’ (LSJ) or add a further touch of vagueness. LSJ, for example, supplies an instance from Sophocles, ἠθάς εἰμί πως τῶν τῆσδε μύθων (‘I am somewhat aware of her tales’), and another from Thucydides, πράσσοντές πως ταῦτα (‘doing roughly these things’).Footnote 14 As these examples illustrate, πως does not always retain its sense as a real adverb of manner which implies a method or means.
This is especially true in combination with εἰ. In Acts 27.12, for example, there is at least no need to see uncertainty of manner: οἱ πλείονες ἔθεντο βουλὴν ἀναχθῆναι ἐκεῖθεν, εἴ πως δύναιντο καταντήσαντες εἰς Φοίνικα παραχειμάσαι.Footnote 15 Similarly in Romans 11.13–14, there is no uncertainty of manner or means, because Paul has specified it: τὴν διακονίαν μου δοξάζω, εἴ πως παραζηλώσω μου τὴν σάρκα. In the LXX examples, too, the means is always specified. Indeed, there are no clear instances in §2.1 above of method or means being implied in εἴ πως, and there are plenty of counter-examples. Various other instances could be adduced to show this. In Dio Chrysostom’s Trojan Discourse, the Achaeans stay in Troy despite the danger, and set about pillaging Troy εἴ πως Paris would get worn out by their plundering (Or. 11.114). Or again, Lucian or one of his imitators reports how Aeschines of Sphettus, a writer of dialogues, went to Sicily taking his works with him, εἴ πως by them he would become acquainted with Dionysius the tyrant (Paras. 32). In both these instances, the means by which the actors hope to carry out their goals are not uncertain, because they are specified.
There is thus a degree of redundancy in πως, or, better: πως reinforces the sense of indefiniteness rather than referring to manner or means. As a result, the conventional English translations ‘if somehow’ (NRSV, NASB) or ‘so, somehow’ (NIV, NET) or ‘if by any means’ (KJV) are probably not correct. As Otto remarks on the biblical examples: ‘All in all, it seems highly unlikely that means or method is involved in the use of εἴ πως.’Footnote 16
2.4 Eἴ πως: Conclusions
In sum, three conclusions can be drawn about the linguistics of εἴ πως:
• εἴ πως introduces a result envisaged as uncertain.
• εἴ πως introduces a positive hope.
• εἴ πως does not imply anything about manner or means.
We can proceed to apply these conclusions (along with other evidence) to the evaluation of existing proposals for the meaning of Philippians 3, before ending with a proposed solution.
3. Previous Solutions
Scholars have advanced several explanations of Paul’s language in Phil 3.11, which are not all mutually exclusive.
First, some have denied any sense of hesitancy, as reflected for example in the translation ‘assuming that I will somehow reach the resurrection’ (CSB). For Gundry-Volf, similarly, ‘Paul’s formulation of his aim with εἴ πως does not call into question the realization of his hope, but reveals that the expected fulfillment lies with God alone. εἴ πως thus highlights this dependency on God’s working out of God’s purpose through the apostle.’Footnote 17 Others have taken a similar view.Footnote 18 As we have seen above in §2.1, however, there is no real evidence that εἴ πως can introduce a straightforward expectation without any uncertainty.Footnote 19
Secondly, others have argued for a softer version of the same view, maintaining that Paul was not in doubt about his resurrection, but was uncertain about the circumstances of how he might die. This view overlaps with the first position, but does have a materially different interpretation of εἴ πως, taking seriously its implication of uncertainty. Martin is a good illustration of this view of Paul’s stance: ‘He does not doubt that he will be raised. The qualification if by any means reflects the same uncertainty of his immediate future which was noted in i. 22, 23, i.e. it relates to the immediate prospect of his trial and its issue, which hangs in the balance at the time of writing.’Footnote 20 The difficulty with this view is that, as discussed above (§2.3), it is hard to take the πως in εἴ πως as signalling uncertainty of means or manner.
Thirdly, some think that Paul is hoping not for resurrection in general, but for the martyr’s status and a resulting special resurrection. Lohmeyer sought to show that Paul’s hesitancy arose from the fact that he had not yet experienced a martyr’s death.Footnote 21 For Lohmeyer, the whole of Phil 3.1–11 is imprinted with the thought of martyrdom, and with Paul’s hope to step into the holy sphere created by Christ’s death and resurrection.Footnote 22 By giving up his life, the martyr (which Paul aspired to be) would reach this sphere.Footnote 23
One form of this view interprets Phil 3.11 in the framework of a kind of premillennial theology: ‘To the first resurrection (ἡ ἀνάστασις ἡ πρώτη), which shall be the crowning event of this glorious epoch, we believe that Paul had reference in the passage under consideration. It was to be attained only by the most intense and persevering efforts after holiness.’Footnote 24 Similarly, the only dedicated study of the εἴ πως expression, by Otto, also takes this line.Footnote 25 Otto sees Paul in Philippians as going through an ‘existential crisis’, concerned about ‘how will he fare in the impending crisis of decision’, namely ‘whether he would be willing to maintain that confession unto death and die as a martyr’.Footnote 26 This death as a martyr would enable him to participate in the first resurrection. But there is little evidence in Philippians for such an aspiration for special status on Paul’s part, or that Paul was in crisis about how he would respond, and it is even more difficult to find in the epistles ideas of multiple eschatological resurrections.Footnote 27
Fourthly, some have argued that Paul’s hesitation makes sense in a polemical context, as he is opposing false teachers who think differently about resurrection.Footnote 28 Müller rightly questions how a polemical thrust on Paul’s part would be helped by such a hesitant tone.Footnote 29
Fifthly, perhaps the most common explanation is that εἴ πως is ‘an expression, not so much of doubt, as of humility’. So Ellicott in 1861, and many scholars have since followed suit.Footnote 30 This can be seen either as a function of self-distrust on Paul’s partFootnote 31 or as a result of his unwillingness to presume upon what can only be a gift of God.Footnote 32 This is of course a possibility, and 1 Cor 9.27 is sometimes adduced as a parallel.Footnote 33 But 1 Corinthians 9 does not have the uncertainty that Phil 3.11 has.Footnote 34 We might also wonder whether it is a right assessment to ascribe to Paul a form of modern self-deprecating modesty. This is probably unlikely, given that elsewhere in Philippians he states as a straight fact that if he were to die, he would go to be with Christ (1.23), and that in the end Christ ‘will transform our lowly bodies so that they will be like his glorious body’ (3.20–1).Footnote 35 The same assurance is apparently evident elsewhere (1 Cor 15.49–57; 2 Cor 4.14, 5.1; 1 Thess 4.15–17, 5.9–10).Footnote 36
Finally, some have thought that Paul’s hesitation about whether he would rise from the dead is a result of his uncertainty about whether he would survive until the parousia or not: if he were to survive until the parousia and not die, he would of course not require resurrection. The first place where I have encountered this possibility is the old Kritisch-Exegetischer Kommentar of Meyer. He comments on the ‘impression, not of doubt that he will attain to the resurrection of the dead (in case, namely, he should not live to see the Parousia), but of humility’.Footnote 37 Meyer thereby raises the idea only immediately to dismiss it.
Over a hundred years later, however, in 1991, two scholars apparently independently make positive mentions of the possibility. Peter O’Brien remarks as follows: ‘More recently it has been claimed that while the goal of the resurrection is certain, the way or route by which the apostle will reach it is unclear. On this view the element of uncertainty lies with πως (‘somehow, in some way’).’ O’Brien comments further, ‘he might reach the resurrection through martyrdom (or by some other kind of death), or might be alive at the coming of Christ (cf. Phil. 1:20–6)’.Footnote 38 O’Brien seems to assume at least the possibility of Paul’s survival to the parousia lying behind Phil. 3.11, but the argument does not work. There is a degree of confusion here, because being alive at the coming of Christ cannot be a ‘way or route’ to a resurrection which is ‘certain’, because the redemption of the living at the parousia is quite different from resurrection, as Paul is well aware (1 Thess 4.16–17). O’Brien also relies on εἴ πως implying doubt about manner, which as we have seen is unlikely.
A more straightforward version of the argument was made in 1991 by Andrew Perriman, who argued that Phil 3.11 is ‘rendered intelligible if we recognise that the alternative envisaged by Paul is not spiritual failure but that the parousia might take place before he dies, robbing him of the opportunity to complete, in the words of Colossians 1:24, what is lacking of the afflictions of Christ in his flesh’.Footnote 39 The uncertainty in εἴ πως can be taken seriously: ‘Resurrection is uncertain for the simple reason that death itself is uncertain.’Footnote 40 Paul apparently rather reluctantly accepted continuing (for the moment) in life for the Philippians’ sake: ‘Having accepted that he must continue in the flesh, his point in 3:10–11 is that he would rather continue until death than be alive at the parousia.’Footnote 41
We will argue below that Perriman is on the right track here, but a more satisfactory explanation can be found than that Paul might be deprived from completing his ministry, which is an odd thing to say.
The facts that O’Brien’s suggestion lacks coherence and that Perriman’s proposal is in need of better justification are probably reasons why no interpreters in the last generation have entertained their solutions.Footnote 42 Nevertheless, the following section will propose a version of their approach.
4. Paul’s Uncertain Hope for Death before the Parousia
In line with the evidence in §2, and contrary to many of the proposals in §3, Phil 3.10c–11 can best be translated: ‘being conformed to his death, in the hope that I reach the resurrection from the dead’. This section will justify and explain this further, drawing out the implications of the linguistic evidence for (§4.1) Paul’s uncertainty about his death and resurrection, and (§4.2) Paul’s hope for death and resurrection and then finally (§4.3) providing an explanation of why Paul preferred not to survive until the parousia but rather to die and be raised.
4.1 Paul’s Uncertainty about his Death and Resurrection
We have seen that a clear implication of the linguistic evidence about εἴ πως is the uncertainty of what is introduced by the phrase (§2.1). Paul’s resurrection, therefore, is not assured. We have seen that it is nigh on untenable that Paul doubted his future salvation. The best explanation for Paul’s uncertainty about resurrection in Phil 3.11, therefore, is that he considered that the parousia might come before his death.
Philippians is suffused with hope for the parousia and its surrounding events.Footnote 43 The opening section refers to ‘the day of Jesus Christ’ and ‘the day of Christ’ in quick succession (1.6, 10). Paul may shortly thereafter be talking about his final salvation in the references to his deliverance and not being put to shame (1.19–20). Again, only a few verses later Paul sees evidence of the Philippians’ future salvation and the future destruction (ἀπώλεια) of their opponents (1.28). The climax of the ‘Christ hymn’ is every knee bowing and every tongue confessing Christ – almost certainly a final event (2.11). There are more subtle allusions to the end in the salvation noted in Phil 2.12 and the ‘word of life’ in Phil 2.16. Immediately after our εἴ πως … clause we have an extended discussion of Paul’s future hope (3.12–14), followed by another reference to the ἀπώλεια of opponents (3.19) in parallel with the glorious hope of future transformation when Christ returns (3.20–1).Footnote 44 There is thus little suggestion of potential imminence being abandoned in Philippians in favour of some sort of bourgeois Christianity. This is especially obvious if the ‘Marburg school’ is correct in dating Philippians around 54–55 ce, i.e. about the time of 1 Corinthians.Footnote 45 As a result, Paul must have reckoned with the serious possibility of the parousia coming before this death.
Further support for Paul’s uncertainty either way may be found in Phil 1.20: ‘Rather, with all boldness, as always and also now, Christ will be magnified in my body whether through life or through death.’ (ἀλλ’ ἐν πάσῃ παρρησίᾳ ὡς πάντοτε καὶ νῦν μεγαλυνθήσεται Χριστòς ἐν τῷ σώματί μου, εἴτε διὰ ζωῆς εἴτε διὰ θανάτου.) Paul’s wavering between life and death here is not directed narrowly only towards his immediate fate, but is his attitude ὡς πάντοτε καὶ νῦν. This same attitude is found elsewhere in Paul, where he also wavers between the expectation of life and death: e.g. in 2 Cor 5.9, ‘whether we are at home or we are away’ (εἴτε ἐνδημοῦντες εἴτε ἐκδημοῦντες) or Rom 14.5–8, ‘whether we live or we die’ (ἐάν τε οὖν ζῶμεν, ἐάν τε ἀποθνήσκωμεν).Footnote 46
As the prominence of the eschatological material in Philippians suggests, Paul may well have thought it quite possible that the parousia would come before his death, which would mean Paul being ‘caught up … to meet the Lord in the air’ (1 Thess 4.17) rather than his resurrection. On the other hand, along with his wavering (εἴτε διὰ ζωῆς εἴτε διὰ θανάτου), the εἴ πως signifies uncertainty here: Paul is unsure whether he will face death (which would lead to his resurrection) or live to see the parousia (which would not). As Perriman notes, ‘It is difficult to tell which he thought most likely.’Footnote 47 Paul appears to know that, in the short term, he will live to see the Philippians again (Phil 1.23–6). Beyond that, he does not know whether he will die first or survive till the parousia.Footnote 48
4.2. Paul’s Hope for (Death and) Resurrection
The second consequence of the linguistic evidence which we have seen about εἴ πως is that Paul clearly had a positive hope to rise from the dead.Footnote 49 As he says in Phil 3.10–11, ‘… being conformed to his death, in the hope that I reach the resurrection from the dead.’ The corollary of this is that amidst the uncertainty just mentioned above, of whether he would live to the parousia or not, Paul has a clear preference: he would prefer to die than to survive until the parousia, so that he can participate in the future resurrection of the saints.Footnote 50
Further evidence for this preference can be seen in verse 10, where Paul talks about ‘being conformed to his (Christ’s) death’. This language perhaps primarily refers to the cruciformity of Paul’s life and ministry. On the other hand, it is also likely – given what we have seen about his desire for resurrection – that Paul wants to participate in a literal death that is also Christ-like. Paul uses the unusual verb συμμορφίζομαι in connection with Christ’s death,Footnote 51 and thereby perhaps alludes to Christ μορφὴν δούλου λαβών in Phil 2.7, as well as Phil 2.8: ἐταπείνωσεν ἑαυτòν γενóμενος ὑπήκοος μέχρι θανάτου, θανάτου δὲ σταυροῦ. Several scholars identify Philippians 3 as following the pattern of the ‘Christ hymn’.Footnote 52 Be that as it may, Paul still has a clear sense that Christ has set an example of self-enslavement, humility (even humiliation) and utmost obedience unto death. There is therefore probably a sense that συμμορφιζóμενος τῷ θανάτῳ αὐτοῦ goes beyond κοινωνίαν παθημάτων αὐτοῦ, and at least potentially includes a Christ-like death.Footnote 53
Paul’s reasoning in Philippians 3 therefore implies a clear wish or hope (though not a conviction) that he would die, and that God would raise him from the dead. In other words, he hopes to take part in the general resurrection of the saints (e.g. 1 Cor 15.22; 1 Thess 4.16). Paul’s hesitation in Phil 3.11 shows that the parousia may interrupt the process of his death and resurrection, but they – rather than surviving to the parousia – are his desire.
4.3 Why Did Paul Prefer Death and Resurrection over Survival until the Parousia?
As noted above, Perriman commented that Paul preferred death to survival until the parousia on the grounds of his nervousness that ‘the parousia might take place before he dies, robbing him of the opportunity to complete, in the words of Colossians 1:24, what is lacking of the afflictions of Christ in his flesh’.Footnote 54 First, however, it seems strange that Paul might think that Christ’s return would interrupt his work.Footnote 55 Would Paul not assume God to be sovereign over such matters? Secondly, this idea assumes that Paul had a sense of the quantum of suffering involved in completing what was lacking in the suffering of Christ. Thirdly, why would Paul’s death not have the same interruptive result as the parousia? Clearly, a more grounded justification for Paul’s preference for death and resurrection is needed.
There is a justification ready to hand in Philippians 3. Paul’s thinking here appears to be dominated by his desire that he be conformed as closely as possible to Christ’s own experience of first dying and then rising from the dead. In a sense, then, there is some truth in Lohmeyer’s theory of Paul’s aspiration to a martyr’s death, although Paul does not imply any privileged sort of reward for such a death. This ‘death wish’ on Paul’s part is not as surprising as it may sound, since his desire to be maximally conformed to Christ (especially his death) is evident in Paul’s accounts of various parts of the Christian life.
First, Paul’s view of initiation in baptism is one according to which the believer participates in Christ’s death; the consequence of this death with Christ is a new kind of life already in the present, in accordance with Jesus’ resurrection (Rom 6.3–4). Paul himself has been ‘crucified with Christ’ (Gal 2.20).
Secondly, the ongoing life of discipleship and ministry is also one of participation in Christ’s death and resurrection. This is particularly evident in Paul’s account of his ministry: ‘We always carry around the dying of Jesus in our bodies, so that the life of Jesus may also be revealed in our bodies. For we who are alive are always being handed over to death for Jesus’ sake, so that his life may also be revealed in our mortal bodies.’ (2 Cor 4.10–11; cf. 13.4). Here Paul speaks in quick succession of his present ministry as identified with the crucifixion, and of Jesus’ risen life as actively present and manifest in apostolic bodies. A similar picture of participation in Christ features in the immediate context of Phil 3.11. Paul’s overwhelming ambition is not only to know Christ (3.8, 10) but also to participate in Christ: to be found in him (3.9), to know the power of his resurrection (3.10a), to know the fellowship/partnership/participation in his sufferings (3.10b) and to be conformed to his death (10c): τοῦ γνῶναι αὐτòν καὶ τὴν δύναμιν τῆς ἀναστάσεως αὐτοῦ καὶ κοινωνίαν παθημάτων αὐτοῦ, συμμορφιζóμενος τῷ θανάτῳ αὐτοῦ.
Finally, however, initiation in baptism and the activity of Paul’s ministry do not exhaust his understanding of identification with Christ. Although the συμμόρφωσις in Phil 3.10 encompasses Paul’s whole ministry, it would find its most complete fulfilment in a death like that depicted in Phil 2.8. Paul actually wants – like Christ – to die. And thereafter – like Christ – he wants to be raised from the dead.Footnote 56 We probably do not have sufficient information to gain a full insight into Paul’s motivation here, and we cannot assume that he had the same predilection for death throughout his ministry. On some interpretations of 2 Cor 5, for example, Paul expresses there a desire to survive until the parousia.Footnote 57 His aspiration to rise from the dead as Jesus rose from the dead in Phil 3.11, however, entails that at least in Philippians he expresses a preference for death before the parousia.
5. Conclusion
The point of this article has been to advocate a view that was imagined but dismissed in 1874, then suggested by two scholars in 1991, only to vanish without trace again: Paul had a hope that he would die and rise again according to Phil. 3.11, but in the light of the potential imminence of the parousia this hope was not a certainty. The one solid proposal of this near-extinct view, by Perriman, has too speculative a basis. This article has sought to substantiate the view that, in Phil 3.11, Paul expresses a clear preference expressing a hope that he will (via death) be resurrected because he wanted to participate in Christ’s own narrative as closely as possible. The aim here has been to set this position on a firm linguistic footing through analysis of the semantics and function of εἴ πως, and to explain Paul’s rationale for his preference. This predilection of Paul in Phil 3.11 resists a reduction to doctrine, and reminds us that Paul was a thinker with aspirations and preferences as well as ideas.
Acknowledgements
I am very grateful to James Carleton Paget, Jamie Davies, Douglas Moo, Murray Smith and George Van Kooten, and to the anonymous NTS reader, for their helpful feedback and advice on the article.
Competing interests
The author declares none.
Open access
