PHILIPPIANS

GORDON H. CLARK

The Trinity Foundation

Philippians

Copyright 1996 Lois A. Zeller and Elizabeth Clark George Published by

The Trinity Foundation Hobbs, New Mexico 88240 ISBN:0-940931-47-8
CONTENTS
Introduction

Preface

Chapter One

Chapter Two

Chapter Three

Chapter Four
Introduction
This commentary on Philippians is one of the last books that Gordon Clark
wrote before his death in 1985; its date is about 1982. Philippians is the
twelfth commentary Clark wrote-cover-ing not quite half the New Testament
corpus. It is, like his other commentaries, a concise and clear explanation of
the meaning of the text. Clark makes it clear that Pauls letter is relevant to
our situation at the end of the twentieth century. Paul may have written this
letter nearly 2,000 years ago, but because it is the mind of God, it is
normative for us today. Like all of Gods Word, it is inerrant, necessary,
comprehensible, and sufficient for our needs. May God grant the reader
wisdom and understanding.

John W. Robbins April 1996

Preface
Having published commentaries on several New Testament books, some
characteristics of which have been misunderstood, I think a preliminary
warning will help the readers of this commentary to understand its purpose
more fully. First, the translation is not intended to be in the polished English
style suitable for reading from the pulpit on Sunday morning. This translation
is crabbed. It is so for two reasons. (A third might be that I am not competent
enough to write in good style.) But the first is that Pauls Greek style is also
crabbed, and I have tried to reproduce it as best as English can. Pauls
sentences are often extremely complex, extremely long, and therefore
involved. The Christians of Ephesus, Colosse, and Philippi must have had a
hard time studying them. The modem reader also needs explanations. Some
explanations can be made by breaking up Pauls sentences and making three
or four out of one, but this is a form of explanation, and in my view it is
better to show first what must be explained.

This leads to the second reason for the crabbed translation here imposed on
an innocent public. It furnishes the reader of the modern polished versions
with the best means of judging the merits of these several translations. With
the King James, the Revised Standard Version, the New International
Version, and the New American Standard before him, todays serious reader
must often ask himself which version is correct, which one has altered the
sense, what is the sense anyhow? A crabbed translation offers the best hope
of being accurate. There may be mistakes in this present translation, but at
least one source of error has been eliminated.

If an impatient reader cannot wait to determine the present authors

evaluation of the versions, let it be said that the American Revised Version of
1901 or its later New American Standard edition is the most accurate of all.
The King James is second in accuracy and first in style. The advertising
campaigns of modern versions have unfairly maligned it. The Revised
Standard Version makes some deliberate mistakes, more frequent in the
Old Testament than in the New. The New International Version is too much
of a paraphrase, but of course much better than the travesty of Good News for
Modern Man. This should be sufficient to satisfy initial curiousity.

The main purpose, of course, which really underlies the preceding, is to

explain the text. Some commentators, personally very devout, are so
devotional that nothing is explained. The worst of these indulge in a
saccharine sentimentality that tastes sour in the stomach. The best furnish
light reading for light readers. Other authors, very liberal, are often so
interested in undermining Biblical religion that their critical discussions
crowd out the text, and again little or nothing is explained. Therefore this
commentary ignores a whole section of modern scholarship and centers its
attention on discovering precisely what Paul means. And that is what
commentaries are supposed to do.

If then this commentary ignores some phases of New Testament scholarship-

particularly the discussion of authenticity-the non-academic reader may
wonder why in the world the much more technical, detailed, and dreary
textual problems are introduced. Well, first, liberal destructive higher
criticism has been completely defeated. There is probably not a single liberal
critic in the whole world who dares to restrict Pauline authorship to Romans,
1 and 2 Corinthians, and Galatians, as they used to do. But the Westcott and
Hort views on lower or textual criticism, once seemingly unquestioned, are
now a matter of considerable discussion. Accordingly, if any ordinary
American, who never hopes to become a professional scientist, is interested
to learn that our spaceship to Saturns rings devastated great areas of
astronomy, so should any ordinary Christian take an interest in the less
spectacular details of determining the text.

As the citizen knows no mathematics, so the ordinary Christian knows no

Greek. But as the citizen reads that Saturns rings are not rings at all, so too
the Christian may be surprised to learn that there are several thousands of
manuscripts of the New Testament (though only eighteen of Platos Timaeus,
and about seven of Aristotles Physics); and they can hardly guess how many
and how difficult textual problems are. This is precisely the reason why some
examples are included here. With a little patience a person of ordinary
intelligence can and ought to understand something of the issues involved.
Just a little patience. Read slowly.

Readers may more justifiably regret the absence of historical detail. Some
commentaries expound the passages in Acts which describe Pauls work in
Philippi, plus some of the previous history of the city. Ralph Martin in The
Epistle of Paul to the Philippians (Eerdmans, 1959), though his volume is
small, gives thirty-five pages to a most interesting Introduction.
Perhaps instead of a long bibliography a few references to previous
commentaries chosen at random would be welcome here. One of the very
best is that of Lenski (Augsburg Publishing House, 1937). Hendriksen
(Banner of Truth, 1963) is also excellent, except that he wanders too much
into side issues and homiletic outlines. Of course the older nineteenth century
commentaries, such as Eadies (1859) are standard. H.C.G. Moules (1897) is
perhaps smaller, though the print is rather small so that its 116 pages may be
equal to Eadies 296. Jacobus J. Muller has one of 200 pages
(Eerdmans, 1955). Merrill C. Tenney wrote a small book on Philippians,
but it is not really a commentary. Also small but more of a commentary is
Kenneth Graystons contribution to the Cambridge Bible Commentary on the
New English Bible (1967, 116 pages). Since there are also other
commentaries, one may always doubt that another is needed. Obviously the
present writer thinks he has a little something to add, and also something to
subtract, but the reader must judge for himself.

Finally, not only must the paragraphs on textual criticism be read slowly, but
nearly all the other paragraphs as well. It is essential that the reader keep his
Bible open before him. Aside from some relaxing illustrative material, every
line requires close attention to Pauls words. Be patient; study; meditate.