BillMounce.com

Paul begins his letter to the Philippians with praise for them, and then says this now famous verse. “And I am sure of this, that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ” (ESV).

It is not that difficult of a verse to translate. The only really question is the translation of en hymin. The “you ” is plural, a fact obscured by the English language. This is partly why some translations prefer “among” instead of “in” since it helps clarify that Paul’s confidence is in God’s work within all the people of the Philippian church.

But these types of constructions can be confusing. Can this verse be used, as it often is, to reassure a single believer that God will bring his work to completion in an individual, or is this only a promise to the larger group of the church? The plural “you” alerts us to the fact that it cannot only be a promise to an individual but that it is primarily for the group. But is that the end of the discussion? And what specifically is the “good work”?

Hawthorne sees the good work in terms of the immediate context. The Philippians started to share in Paul’s material support, and God will continue to work through them. But it is difficult to get “through you” out of en hymin. It is not a natural reading of the text.

Last week I talked about the emphatic use of αυτος in the Beatitudes, and a related question came in this week about the use of the emphatic form of εμου in Matt 10:18. The question specifically had to do with the word order and whether “on account of me” is emphatic because of its unusual word order.

Unfortunately, I do not have access right now to the commentators listed in the question so perhaps some of you out there could check this out.

The verse reads, “and you will be dragged before governors and kings for my sake (ενεκεν εμου), to bear witness before them and the Gentiles” (ESV).

There are really two issues here. The first is word order, which is, roughly, “before governors and kings you will be dragged for my sake.” This does not especially strike me as unusual word order, the prepositional phrase following the verb it modifies.

Coming to a clear and accurate understanding of the emphatic use of pronouns can be a little tricky. It is a matter of nuance and often difficult (if not impossible) to translate. The oblique cases of the first and second pronouns have distinct forms, but what about the third person personal pronoun, αυτος?

Since the verb contains the reference to its object, αυτος ακουει and ακουει have the same basic meaning, “he hears.” And so the reasoning goes, αυτος is unnecessary and its presence is making a point.

That point is most often seen in contrasts. John the Baptist says, “I (εγω) baptize you with water... He (αυτος) will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire” (Matt 3:11).

But one of the most theological powerful and provocative uses of the emphatic third person pronoun is in the beatitudes. All have the same construction. “Blessed are the … for they (αυτοι) will ….” The nuance of αυτος is that they they alone will receive the blessing.

I have always had a bit of a soft spot in my heart for Nicodemus. Jesus is the new kid on the block, the new radical. He is already stirring up problems for the religious establishment, and Nicodemus takes a pretty big risk. He comes at night, during his normal study time but also under the cloak of darkness, and wants to talk with Jesus face to face. (How many personal and organizational conflicts would be settled if we would follow Nicodemus’ example and actually talk with the other person rather than attack and gossip.)

What apparently drove Nicodemus was that while Jesus seemed to be radical — cleansing the temple was not an act of compliance with the status quo — Nicodemus cannot avoid the obvious fact of Jesus’ miracles and the implication that Jesus must therefore be from God. He’s pretty bold if you stop and think about it.

Jesus of course gets right to the point, and Nicodemus struggles to keep up, falling further and further behind with every verse. Eventually Jesus is monologuing and Nicodemus seems not to exist.

But there is more to the story than that, and it is seen in the alternating between singular and plural, a grammatical nicety that comes into English only with difficulty.