Philippians 4:11-12--What Does It Mean to Be Self-Sufficient? (Vincent and Hellerman)

Greek (SBLGNT): οὐχ ὅτι καθ’ ὑστέρησιν λέγω, ἐγὼ γὰρ ἔμαθον ἐν οἷς εἰμι αὐτάρκης εἶναι· οἶδα καὶ ταπεινοῦσθαι, οἶδα καὶ περισσεύειν· ἐν παντὶ καὶ ἐν πᾶσιν μεμύημαι, καὶ χορτάζεσθαι καὶ πεινᾶν, καὶ περισσεύειν καὶ ὑστερεῖσθαι·

Many works have dealt with these verses, but in this entry, I will confine myself to a couple of observations on the text. My focus is the Greek, εἰμι αὐτάρκης εἶναι. To see the complete remarks by these authors, please consult their respective works.

Marvin R. Vincent (Philippians and Philemon):

αὐτάρκης: ‘self-sufficing.’ Only here in N.T.; LXX Sir. 40:18; αὐτάρκεια, 2 Co 9:8; 1 Ti 6:6. Αὐτάρκεια is an inward self-sufficing, as opposed to the lack or the desire of outward things. Comp. Plat. Tim. 33 D, ἡγήσατο γὰρ αὐτὸ ὁ ξυνθεὶς αὔταρκες ὂν ἄμεινον ἔσεσθαι μᾶλλον ἢ προσδεὲς ἄλλων: “For the Creator conceived that a being which was self-sufficient would be far more excellent than one which lacked anything.” It was a favorite Stoic word. See on πολιτεύεσθε, 1:27. It expressed the doctrine of that sect that man should be sufficient unto himself for all things, and able, by the power of his own will, to resist the force of circumstances. Comp. Seneca, De Vita Beata, 6, addressed to Gallio: “Beatus est praesentibus, qualiacunque sunt, contentus.” A list of interesting paralls. in Wetst. Paul is not self-sufficient in the Stoic sense, but through the power of a new self—the power of Christ in him. (Comp. 2 Co 3:5.)


Joseph H. Hellerman (Philippians):

Commentators differ over whether Paul has Stoicism directly in view. By Paul’s time the technical meaning of αὐτάρκης, “self-sufficient,” had given way to a general, nonphilosophical sense, “content” (G. Kittel, TDNT 1.466–67; Fee 431–32; O’Brien 521; Reumann 653; Silva 204). Paul uses the cognate αὐτάρκεια elsewhere twice in this nontechnical sense (2 Cor 9:8; 1 Tim 6:6). The appearance of the hapax αὐτάρκης here, however, in a context full of Stoic overtones, suggests a philosophical background (MM 93c; H-M 264; Hansen 311; “it is difficult to imagine the Philippians not having recognized it as such” [Fee 432]).

Paul’s αὐτάρκεια, however, is ultimately not a “self-sufficiency” at all. No Stoic would have added πάντα ἰσχύω ἐν τῷ ἐνδυναμοῦντί με (v. 13). Nor would a Stoic philosopher have engaged in Paul’s outburst of joy in v. 10 (for the Stoic “emotional detachment is essential” [Hansen 310]; ἐχάρην is “unStoic” [Fee 428 n. 20; Reumann 701], as is λύπην ἐπὶ λύπην [2:27]; cf. Wright 433–34, on Paul’s different perspective on suffering). The contrast articulated by G. Findlay more than a century ago deserves citation: “The self-sufficiency of the Christian is relative: an independence of the world through dependence upon God. The Stoic self-sufficiency pretends to be absolute. One is the contentment of faith, the other of pride. Cato (a Roman Stoic) and Paul both stand erect and fearless before a persecuting world: one with a look of rigid, defiant scorn, the other with a face now lighted up with unutterable joy in God” (G. Findlay, Christian Doctrine [London: Charles Kelly, 1894], 31).