Philippians 2:17 (WH): Ἀλλὰ εἰ καὶ σπένδομαι ἐπὶ τῇ θυσίᾳ καὶ λειτουργίᾳ τῆς πίστεως ὑμῶν, χαίρω καὶ συνχαίρω πᾶσιν ὑμῖν·
2 Timothy 4:6 (WH): Ἐγὼ γὰρ ἤδη σπένδομαι, καὶ ὁ καιρὸς τῆς ἀναλύσεώς μου ἐφέστηκεν.
σπένδομαι appears in both verses. Just what did Paul potentially mean when he utilized this verb?
One helpful article is here: https://www.academia.edu/33436664/Some_Reflections_on_the_Meaning_of_Spendomai_and_its_Early_Christian_Reception
John P. Heil (Philippians, page 101): "Paul vividly describes the ordeal of his current imprisonment for the sake of defending and promoting the gospel as his 'being poured out like a drink offering upon the sacrifice and service' of the audience’s 'faith' (πίστεως) (2:17a).10 This cultic metaphor expresses Paul’s suffering through imprisonment for the gospel as his 'being poured out' (σπένδομαι) like a wine drink offering to the Lord upon the 'sacrifice and service' or, as a hendiadys, 'sacrificial service' (τῇ θυσίᾳ καὶ λειτουργίᾳ) of the audience’s own suffering on behalf of Christ.11 This recalls and reinforces Paul’s desire to hear how the audience, as a unified community, are likewise struggling together for the 'faith' (πίστει) of the gospel (1:27). This and Paul’s previous assurance that he will remain with them for their advancement and joy in the 'faith' (πίστεως) (1:25) aim to motivate them not only to continue to demonstrate progress in the growth of their own faith but to work for the spread of the faith of the gospel of Christ to others.12 "
Commenting on 2 Timothy 4:6, William Mounce offers this explanation: "The verse gives the reason for the urgency of v 5; Timothy must persevere because Paul will soon be gone. σπένδειν means 'to offer a libation or drink-offering' (BAGD 761). The present tense here stresses that the process has begun, and the passive voice that God, not Rome, is still in control, despite appearances (the verb is always used in the passive in early Christian literature [BAGD 761]). The background is the drink offering, the OT ritual of pouring out a drink before the altar as a sacrifice to God, often accompanied by other sacrifices. This practice was common throughout ancient cultures (O. Michel, TDNT 7: 528– 35; T. H. Gaster, IDB 4: 150; Exod 29:38– 42 [with the daily burnt offerings]; Lev 23:13; Num 15:5; 28: 7). Lock compares it to the Greek ritual of pouring out a libation to Zeus at the end of a feast. He adds that 'the metaphor rests on the Jewish belief in the sacrificial value of a martyr’s death' (114)."
William Mounce. Pastoral Epistles, Volume 46 (Word Biblical Commentary) (Kindle Locations 22686-22692). Zondervan. Kindle Edition.
Monday, October 03, 2022
Philippians 2:17 and 2 Timothy 4:6: Drink Offering
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
https://biblehub.com/text/psalms/16-4.htm
That psalm likely has some impact on Paul's use of spendoomai, but the psalmist is also saying what type of sacrifices he won't offer.
spendomai
The difference between in Timothy and in Philippians is that in Philippians he knows it is not his time:
[Phl 1:22-26 NIV] [22] If I am to go on living in the body, this will mean fruitful labor for me. Yet what shall I choose? I do not know! [23] I am torn between the two: I desire to depart and be with Christ, which is better by far; [24] but it is more necessary for you that I remain in the body. [25] Convinced of this, I know that I will remain, and I will continue with all of you for your progress and joy in the faith, [26] so that through my being with you again your boasting in Christ Jesus will abound on account of me.
In Timothy, he knows it is his time:
[2Ti 4:6-8 NIV] [6] For I am already being poured out like a drink offering, and the time for my departure is near. [7] I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith. [8] Now there is in store for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, will award to me on that day--and not only to me, but also to all who have longed for his appearing.
He is awaiting that soon return of Christ:
[1Th 4:15-18 YLT] [15] for this to you we say in the word of the Lord, that we who are living -- who do remain over to the presence of the Lord -- may not precede those asleep, [16] because the Lord himself, in a shout, in the voice of a chief-messenger, and in the trump of God, shall come down from heaven, and the dead in Christ shall rise first, [17] then we who are living, who are remaining over, together with them shall be caught away in clouds to meet the Lord in air, and so always with the Lord we shall be; [18] so, then, comfort ye one another in these words.
I agree that the two contexts are different, between Philippians and 2 Timothy. However, while some have interpreted 1 Thess. 4:15-17 to mean that Paul thought he would be caught away soon, it's possible that he thought the parousia would not happen in his lifetime. At least, not to its fullest extent.
Is there anything particular that is unclear grammatically, or in the context, or is this just a general caveat against literalness?
I'm granting the plausibility of what you wrote, that Paul thought Christ would return soon, but I'm also just saying that the timing for the parousia could be understood differently. That is the minor point I'm making. Yeah, we have to consider numerous factors when we attempt to understand Pauline correspondences: they can't necessarily be read at face value.
One of the most disturbing things about the modern USA is that popular opinion trumps (or some say, "Trumps") actual data. "Many doubt the election (because of Trump's Big Lie) so maybe it was rigged? NO, it was NOT!
But in my view, (and I'm a dwindling minority), screw tradition. It is mere cowardice to hide the obvious behind traditions and unfounded concerns.
Is there anything in either the grammar/syntax or the context that would in any way change his assertion? If not, vote Democrat this midterm election, or lose to liars.
Paul said what he meant and meant what he said.
Paul distinguished between the living and those "asleep" in death: he did not preclude the possibility that he could be part of the latter group and furthermore, while it's possible to conclude that he meant the parousia of the Lord was near or would happen in his lifetime, that point is far from being conclusive. Btw, God's Kingdom "trumps" politics :-)
The Lord's kingdom is not of/from this world, but I digress. As you may know, I don't vote in this world's elections. However, I really did not want to start a thread about that subject here. I get what your point was.
How might it be conclusive? What would it take to remove **reasonable** doubt? That's my point. We belabor minutia of the grammar, but if at the end of the day, "People say..." is what we care about, why bother?
It's a big subject (hermeneutics/exegesis, that is) and I was only trying to make a very tiny point about the timing of Christ's parousia. You know that interpretation can be complex and there are so many factors to consider that one reading may be more reasonable than another, but getting people to agree on which interpretation is more reasonable is another matter. There are grammatical factors to consider and contextual issues as well. And when one talks about the parousia of Christ, it's difficult to exclude theological concerns. If we could easily resolve these matters, there would be no need for the scholarly guild with all of its published interpretations/commentaries.
Post a Comment