By Mark W. Christy
In the first chapter of Philippians, Paul addresses two different ways that preachers reacted to his present imprisonment. One group responded most graciously, but the other group found offense with Paul. This second group seems to have been legitimate preachers despite their faulty reception of Paul. To better understand the divergence in response to Paul and his current imprisonment, this article will carefully study both groups and focus more deeply on why one group responded so unfavorably.
While writing his letter to the Philippians, Paul languished in prison under a constant guard which was changed regularly (cf. 1:13). While his example and his conversation with the guards was such that “the cause of Christ ha[d] become well known throughout the whole praetorian guard and to everyone else,”[1] Paul’s face-to-face preaching ministry had for the time grinded to a halt. Despite being downcast, he knew all too well how the Lord has purposed the cross for His saints and for the spread of their message. Paul, therefore, remained victorious in his imprisonments knowing that his “circumstances ha[d] turned out for the greater progress of the gospel” (1:12).
Outside of prison, Paul’s predicament had caused many gospel preachers to become even more emboldened in their work (1:14). These “brethren” to be sure had already trusted the Lord and were to one degree or another engaging in their calling; nevertheless, they had become timid like Timothy as the costs for proclaiming the truth had risen (cf. 2 Tim 1:6-8). This lack of fervency, however, was put aside as they witnessed Paul’s conviction, commitment, and conduct in the face of his ordeal. With their faith in the Lord made stronger, they were able to move forward with “far more courage to speak the word of God without fear” (1:14).
Unlike these exemplary brethren, Paul mentions another group who were preaching Christ with false motivations (1:15). This group, it appears, was not composed of Judaizers, heretics, or apostates; rather, context reveals quite clearly that they were a minor faction within the brethren (1:14-15). Apparently, the Church in Philippi had a degree of factionalism not unlike that of Corinth (cf. 1 Cor 1:12).
Like he did with the Corinthians, Paul avoided a stronger, condemning tone when he addresses their persons. To put this another way, the Apostle did not refer to them as “false apostles [and] deceitful workers [who] disguise[e] themselves as apostles of Christ” (2 Cor 11:13). Furthermore, he did not accuse them of teaching “a different gospel” (2 Cor 11:4; Gal 1:6). Paul’s avoidance of these sorts of criticisms informs his audience that these preachers at least were teaching proper theology and sound doctrine.
Their problem, as Paul points out, lies within their motives. These men were at the time of Paul’s writing well within the critique levied by the Lord against the Ephesian Church in Revelation 2:2-4. The Ephesians were well-versed in sound doctrine such that the Lord could commend their “deeds,” their “perseverance,” and their ability to “test those who call themselves apostles.” This commendation of their knowledge and actions was followed by a rebuke of their underlying motives: “But I have this against you, that you have left your first love.” This rebuke by the Lord which aims directly to the hearts of the Ephesians is fully in line with Paul’s comments about these errant, albeit truly Christian, preachers.
In his criticism, Paul attacks their motives by stating that they are envious and filled with strife (1:15). Given that Paul has been discussing the effects of his actions on the preachers in the Philippian Church and that “most of the brethren” were emboldened, it seems that these other preachers were relating to Paul’s imprisonment in such away that their hearts were leading them astray. While their remarks were of a personal nature, Paul chooses to discuss their behavior in an indirect manner without naming anyone.
With this in view, the identities of these preachers (apart from maybe one or two) may not have even been known to Paul since the Apostle. This hesitation by Paul also displays a sort of humility that is required when making assessment of another’s motives. Unlike the false teachers who were teaching clearly false doctrine, Paul lacked the same sort of objective evidence to wade in with a sharper and more directly personal rebuke. For these reasons so it seems, his criticisms of their envy and desire for strife remain undeveloped.
Judging from the context, the motivations of his detractors would have been a reaction to his imprisonment and quite the opposite of those preachers who responded favorably. One, therefore, can assume that they were somehow envious of the Apostle’s position, the power of his proclamation, the pervasiveness of his ministry, and other such things which can be seen. Just like all other Christians fighting their flesh, ministers find within themselves desires for success and recognition that they must learn to mortify via repentance, turning to God for grace, and then taking up their cross. Along the way, they can easily take the Ephesian detour where they still preach the Word even with doctrinal purity and yet their fleshly desires are getting the best of them.
For Paul’s critics, their envy caused them to lay aside the cross (hopefully only temporally), their inner peace, and their unity with the brethren. Instead of keeping their eyes on the Lord and loving Him completely, they were now returning to the egocentrism of the world around them. In Paul’s words, they were “proclaim[ing] Christ out of selfish ambition rather than from pure motives” (1:17). As they did so, their attitude toward the Apostle made a turn for the worse, so much so that their proclamation ministry in some manner was meant by them as a means “to cause [Paul] distress in [his] imprisonment” (1:17). In all of this, Paul’s actions and behavior never changed.
Any judgments that these contentious preachers were making presently would be being made on the same basic evidence that had always been available. Their reaction, therefore, was probably related not to the evidence, but to their suspicions (i.e., their ill will) about Paul apart from the evidence. Essentially, they would have been finding fault with Paul by questioning Paul’s motivations and somehow attacking him personally apart from the content of his theology and general character.
That this was almost certainly the case can be seen in how the overwhelming majority (“most of the brethren”) responded to Paul’s unfolding situation with “good will” (1:14-15). These preachers remain united in heart with Paul. They supported him in his efforts, regardless of whatever success and recognition that Paul attained. For them, Christ was their everything, and they looked at themselves simply as blessed servants who had been granted to minister before the Lord.
In conclusion, the church will always face dangers without from false teachers and others aligned with the evil one. These enemies of the cross can be joined by ministers of the true gospel who lay down their crosses and allow their fleshly desires to be given sway. To avoid this, ministers must keep their minds firmly fixed on Christ, and measure their success based solely upon their continued commitment to Him alone apart from whether or not outward success in manifestly present.
[1]All Scripture is taken from NASB1995.