A blog reader recently asked me about an intriguing passage in Paul’s letter to the Philippians where he says that “To live is Christ, to die is gain” (1:21) and then goes on to say that he is not sure “what to choose” — to “depart to be with Christ” or “to remain in the flesh” (1:22). Choose?
Most people have never looked at the passage carefully, but as often happens, have simply skirted over it without paying it much attention. But think about it. What is Paul saying exactly? In what sense does he have a “choice”? Is he thinking about taking matters in his own hands? Isn’t that the ultimate sin?
I talk about the matter briefly in my textbook on the New Testament. Here is what I say there:
******************************
In an intriguing book that discusses suicide and martyrdom in the ancient world (A Noble Death: Suicide and Martyrdom among Christians and Jews in Antiquity. HarperSanFrancisco, 1992) Arthur Droge and James Tabor argue that the modern notion that suicide is a “sin” stems not from the Bible but from the fifth-century Saint Augustine. Prior to Augustine, suicide per se was not condemned by pagans, Jews, and Christians. On the contrary, in certain circumstances it was even advocated as the right and noble thing to do. Indeed, several famous classical authors spoke of self-inflicted death as a “gain” over present afflictions, one that should be accepted joyfully.
The protagonist of Sophocles’s play Antigone, for example, says, “if I am going to die before my time, I count it gain. For death is a gain to one whose life, like mine, is full of misery.” She ends up, then taking her own life. So too in a famous passage in Plato’s Apology, Socrates, prior to ending his life by drinking hemlock, reflects that “the state of death is one of two things: either it is virtual nothingness… or it is a change and a migration of the soul from this place to another. And if it is unconsciousness, like sleep in which sleeper does not even dream, death would be a wonderful gain.”
It is striking that in Philippians, Paul indicates that for him “to live is Christ and to die is gain” (1:21). Is he contemplating suicide? Before making a snap decision that he could not have been (on the ground that suicide is a sin), it is important to remember that there were numerous instances of self-death that were “approved” in ancient texts: pagan (e.g., Socrates), Jewish (e.g., the martyrs discussed in the Maccabean literature), and Christian (e.g., early martyrs; and cf. Jesus himself, who is said in the Gospel of Mark to have “given his life” and in John to have “laid down his own life”).
Even more important, we should notice how Paul himself talks about the possibilities of life and death in Philippians: “If it is to be life in the flesh, this would be a good work for me, and I do not know which to choose (the Greek word here does not mean “prefer,” as in some modern translations, but actually “choose”!), but I am constrained by the two things, having the desire to depart and be with Christ, for that is much better, but to remain in the flesh is more nece3ssary for your sake” (1:22-24).
Paul seems to be debating his options – whether to depart and to be with Christ or to stay with the Christians. Some interpreters have taken this to mean that he’s deciding whether to mount a spirited defense on his own behalf when put on trial (he is in prison at the time) – on the assumption that failing to do so would lead to his execution. But Paul says nothing about an upcoming trial for a capital offense and seems to assume that he will be able to visit the Philippians shortly (2:24). And it may be pressing the matter too far to think that Paul could control not only his defense but also his own sentencing (and if he did think in any event, that he could ensure that someone else would execute him, wouldn’t that simply be another way of inflicting his own death?).
Could it be, then, that when Paul debates whether he should “choose” life or death that he is contemplating the real benefits of taking his own life? And that he rejects that option – not because it was a sin, but because he could still accomplish some good among his followers in Christ?
I didn’t know suicide was permitted in the Christian church before Augustine’s time.
Another golden gem from the Blog!
Thanks!
If Paul believed in a future resurrection, rather than heaven/hell in the modern conception, why would he expect to be with Christ by killing himself? I suppose by his understanding, upon death the next thing he would perceive is being with Christ, but would it really get him there any sooner?
I’m thinking of Bill Maher in Religulous asking a gentleman, if he believed he would go to heaven after he died, then why doesn’t he kill himself. The man replied, after appearing a bit unsettled at first, that God still had a purpose for him. That is in line with what Paul says here. There is still good he can do until then.
If believing in the resurrection of Jesus is all one needed to do to secure their spot until the second coming, (plus or minus avoiding further sin), it seems that suicide would be the surest way to ensure they didn’t lose that spot (assuming that suicide isn’t a sin). If folks ever got that idea, might it have been a problem Paul had to address?
My argument is that in Paul’s *early* letters he expects to be alive when Jesus returns to earth; but as time went on he realized he might die first, and that made him begin to think that he would see Christ *before* he returned and restored everyone back to life. In otehr words, Paul developed teh veiw that htere was an “interim” state for believers who died before the resurrection, where they would immediately be in Christ’s presence at the point of death.
One of my podcasts highlighted, in a very frank way, what is politely suggested in this blog post: that Jesus committed suicide. The idea being that Jesus, with all of the powers of heaven at his disposal, could have easily prevented his crucifixion.
While we have the Christian view of Christ’s death as an atonement for sin and salvation, as a prolific thinker, I am often struck at how little consideration seems to be have been given to other theories of Jesus’s life, death, and resurrection.
Given the prevalence of conspiracy theories in history, you would think the scenario most ripe for prolific theories would be that the omnipotent creator of the universe, adopted human form, submitted to human authority, even to the point of accepting a death sentence, and then raised himself from the dead.
Wow, truthfully I have never thought about it so deeply. I guess I thought Paul wished he would die. That this world is too hard.
He certainly thought he had a much better one waiting.
Could a certain vision of suicide molded in the sacrificial spirit of giving one’s own life be equated to the “desire for martyrdom” seen in other christian instances? Would that apply to Paul here in some way? In this case it implies someone else’s agency, though. This said, there is a simulacra of martyrdom and the self-sacrifice of Christ in rituals of self-inflicted pain to touch the sanctity it is supposed to bear? Silas in the Da Vinci Code, to take a lesser quality example… connecting dots with a crooked line.
Yes, that connection of self-sacrifice and desire for death is often made.
Phillipians 1: 1-2 seems to contradict or differ with Acts 16: 25-30.; the jailer guarding Paul & Silas story. I think you’re right about the perceptions of suicide changing with the writings of Augustine. Seems like Judas was more condemned for his suicide than betraying Jesus.
Firstly, suicides are tragic and anyone suffering from depression should seek help and be offered it. Here, of course, we are talking about a very different kind of death.
One thinks also of Peregrinus, and of Ignatius, who wrote “I pray, as I will find [the lions] swift. I am going to make overtures to them, so that they may devour me with all speed.” These people are claiming agency, just as Jesus does in John 10:18, “No one takes [my life] from me, but I lay it down of my own accord.”
We must understand Phil 1:21-24 in the context of 1:12-30 and the whole letter. Paul writes to encourage the Philippians to stand firm in the face of persecution. He wants them to rejoice in their sufferings (4:4) and he offers himself as an example for them to follow. Imprisonment is a sign of salvation. When Paul refers to the theoretical possibility of choosing death he is claiming agency. He makes the rhetorical point, that imprisonment, and even death, is not defeat but triumph. Those who think that Paul was actually contemplating suicide are taking him too literally. He was a high context writer in a high context culture.
The Peregrinus story is terrific — and it’s unfortunate most people haven’t read it. Lucian’s one of my favorite authors from antiquity. I’d say it is a bit different from Ignatius, in taht in one case a person actually commits suicide and the other willingly goes to his martyrdom by others (well, the others in this case being wild beasts….)
Galatians 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
Since Paul seems to be okay with women as pastors, can this verse mean Paul thinks men and women are equal? or is it only after the resurrection that women can become equal to men?
It’s a difficult passage. They didn’t have “pastors” then, but Paul does speak about women apostles, deacons, and church leaders.
I read a bit and found an interesting view by N.Clayton Crow, who posits that Paul may be using an ancient technique of
“feigned perplexity”. He cites Socrates.
But this alone would not explain the passage.Paul’s emotions were strong and extreme at times. And he was zealously devoted to his ministry. Suicide would not have been literally his meaning. The ” choice” or ” preference” would be ” being dead, in peace, with Christ” rather than depressed – depression is a horrible illness which revels in death wishes and thinking- and in prison.
But: I would suggest that Paul finally finds not a ” choice” but a synthesis. If being with Christ – as he was already- meant serving his memory and living for others’ salvation, he had both.
Was Paul’s longing to be physically ” dead”, ending his suffering, or being one with Christ? These are different things.
On a personal note,I spent my life answering ” if you had to choose, would you choose your family or your career”?
It was an easy answer for me.Abandoning my family, causing them pain, was the equivalent of death. I would not have survived it. So,between a deadly career and life, I would have chosen life.
My sense is that Paul already felt like he was “one” with Christ, but he was not physcially in his presence, and that’s what he longs for. The fact he longs for it and has “to choose” suggests that what he ultimately wants is not what he has at present. And yup, the early Christians urged the opposite — go for missionary work, not your family! Not exactly what we would consider family values….
Thanks! I kept thinking about Paul’s despair, which I interpret as depression, when life was just too hard. And his surely was. Perhaps this mental ” weakness”, this ” humbling” ( Paul’s own descriptions)which God seemed to like, constitute the ” thorn in his flesh” he mentions. I read some attributed his affliction to conjunctivitis, or to epilepsy, but I find his manner of describing it closer to what we know about depression. But the psychiatrist is my son, not me!
What do you think was Paul’s affliction, his ” thorn in the flesh” which he said was from Satan?
I wish I knew. There are tons of theories of course, from epilepsy to homosexual passions to blindness to non-homosexual passions to stuttering to — well, name your “affliction”….
Epilepsy sounds plausible
Deuteronomy 30:19
Aramaic Bible in Plain English
“I have called Heaven and Earth to witness before you today: life and death I have put before you, a blessing and a curse;
choose life for yourself that you shall live….”
Paul the Pharisee, who grew up with the Hebrew Bible, and still performed many Law commandments, would have remembered this.
Do you know of any writer/thinker who has made a comprehensive and systematic effort to interpret the Bible (or maybe just the NT or just the Gospels) based on the assumption that it’s central, overriding message consists of the Great Commandment and that God loves us? It would be an interpretation that tries to make the rest of the Bible consistent with that message.
This approach would make love more authoritative than what the Bible itself, outside of the central message, literally says. And it would mostly utilize a broad, “humanistic” (though not necessarily atheist), 20th/21st century view of what love is. But still be open to learning about love from the specifics of what the Bible says and how the Bible has already contributed to our contemporary understanding of love.
Frankly, I see it as a way to fruitfully discuss the Bible with those who understand it more literally. For example, rather than argue about whether something really happened, we could discuss what it means from the standpoint of love and whether it’s consistent with that standpoint.
It could also include the results of the historical-critical method without limiting the interpretation to those results.
Since many writers about the Bible do see Love as the key to the texts, I’m sure there must be tons of books like that. But none by recent scholars that I know of.
I think Paul’s imprisonment in Ephesus was reported in 2 Cor :
“We do not want you to be uninformed … about the troubles we experienced in the province of Asia. We were under great pressure, far beyond our ability to endure, so that we despaired of life itself” (2 Cor 1:8)
GREAT PRESSURE
FAR BEYOND OUR ABILITY TO ENDURE
WE DESPAIR OF LIFE ITSELF
All this matches with Paul’s feelings in Philippians 1: 21-26.
In Phillipians 2:23-24 Pauls says:
“I hope, therefore, to send [Timothy] as soon as I see how things go with me. And I am confident in the Lord that I myself will come soon. “
So Paul will send Timothy to Philippi ,depending on “how things go with me”( clearly he thinks something could go wrong) and IS CONFIDENT IN THE LORD he could also go.
Maybe this promise is a way not to worry the Phillipians about the real danger Paul was experiencing , once the danger passed away Paul could speak freely to his churches about what really happened as in 2 Cor 1:8, so he starts ““We do not want you to be uninformed”.
As you probably know, there have been debates for a very long time about where Paul was in prison when he wrote the “Prison epistles”
I know many scholars believe the ‘prison epistles’ were written in Rome but I don’t know your own position.
I think Paul never reached Rome (I even think the letter to the Romans didn’t make it!).
What is interesting is that Luke gives many clues for the reader to believe that the ‘prison epistles’ were written during Cesarea’s imprisonment (it would take me many posts to show that).
In connection to this I think the key to understanding Phil 1: 21-26 and 2 Cor 1:8-12 is in Acts 24:26 “[Felix] hoped that money would be given him by Paul”.
I think something like that really happened but in Ephesus, that was the “great pressure” but again it would take me many posts to show how I think things developed in Paul’s final days.
I very much doubt it was Rome, but I have no trouble imagining Paul being imprisoned in a variety of places at different times, and there’s no real reason to think that all of them were written from thesame place.
I think Eph-Col-Phlmn are linked to the same background.
The reference to Tychicus (not mentioned in any authentic Paul letter) in Eph 6:21-22 and Col 4:7-8 and the same exact wording of “παντα γνωρισει uμιν τυχικoς ο αγαπητoς αδελφoς…ον επεμψα πρoς uμας εις αuτo τοuτο, ινα γνwτε τα περὶ ημwν καὶ παρακαλεσῃ τας καρδιας uμwν ” in both letters makes me think were forged during the same Paul imprisonment.
I can imagine somebody using parts of Colossians to create Ephesians (or the other way around) for theological reasons but why this exact passage if it were not important for the forger to include?
So , since this position of Tychicus as “the only gate to know about Paul’s circumstances” is so stressed in both letters I think that in fact Ephesians and Colossians were forged
by former Paul followers led by Tychicus while Paul himself was in prison and probably isolated.
While Colossians was addressed to a real church in Colossae , Ephesians was something as a framework to be used in composing a letter to any new church the group could initiate ( apparently in very old manuscripts the “in Ephesus” of Eph 1:1 is absent ).
If one wants to understand and theologically interpret the gospels as written, are there certain themes that most scholars consider to be the most authoritative? My assumption is that, in the gospels as written, there are more than a few contradictions, inconsistencies, obscurities, etc. To understand the gospels better, one needs to first identify the themes—that are most prominent, pervasive, illuminating, that tend to best unify the gospels. Then the rest can be better interpreted in terms of those main themes.
For me the best examples of the main themes include: the kingdom of God, atonement, the Great Commandment, Jesus is God, and believe in Jesus.
Is there a consensus among scholars about what the main themes are and how they help us better understand and interpret the gospels? What are a few of the “surface” inconsistencies, contradictions and obscurities that these themes help resolve?
I suppose this needs to be done for each gospel individually but maybe there are overall themes that are helpful too?
Nope no consensus. Not even a consensus that they share key themes. I for one don’g thing they do apart from in a very general sense in broad understandings of Jesus and God and the Sriptures, e.g. — rather different themes for different gospels. (I don’t think Luke does have a theme of atonement, e.g.,; or that Jesus is God is a dominant theme outside of John; etc.)
Ok. That makes sense. But I also wonder if there are key themes within each gospel that help to resolve contradictions, inconsistencies, obscurities, puzzles, etc, say, in the gospel of Matthew? I think Jesus as the new Moses is a major theme but are there others?
Lots of major themes in each of the Gospels, some of them shared (Jesus is the Messiah; the Son of God; etc.). But I”m not sure how these resolve contradictions necessarily. THey certainly help show why the Gospels can be *different* (when one promotes a theme not in the others that leads it to say thing that are at odds with what the others say)
Is it correct to say that the critical-historical method does a great deal to resolve contradictions, inconsistencies, obscurities, puzzles, etc, within each gospel?
I’m thinking that things that do not go back to the historical Jesus may create these sorts of problems with things that do. Thus, for example, a contradiction may be resolved by sorting these things out. Likewise, understanding the theological interests of an author may help us to understand where inconsistencies come from?
Could you give an example or two of this?
They *explain* such differences, but they don’t show them not to be differences (i.e., they don’t “resolve” or “reconcile” them)
I suppose I’m thinking of something like in the Synoptics as written if it’s ambiguous whether Jesus calls himself God or the Son of Man the critical method can show that this arises from the differences between what the historical Jesus probably said about himself vs the theological interests of the writers.
Yes, that kind of change ahppens all the time. The views of the authors lead them to alter accounts — and taht often creates contradictions (you’ve probably seen me explain this a bunch, for example with respect to the day of Jesus’ death in Mark and John)
Is it known whether or not Paul suffered physically, had illness or pain? I’ve heard that he did, but I’m wondering what you have found?
We don’t know if he was in pain at the time of writing Philippians, no. We know he was in pain a good deal of the time, as he indicates when he goes through his list of sufferings in 1 Corinthians 11 (hungry,beaten, flogged, stoned, shipwrecked, etc.)
In modern colloquial usage, it seems to me that, when people talk about “choosing” between two alternatives, they are not necessarily claiming the power or intention actually to effect their notional choice. When people talk about choice, there is an often implicit unspoken clause: “if I had a choice, which I do not.” It’s like the old expression “If I had my druthers . . . ,” which I believe is commonly understood as a statement of passive preference rather than active intention.
Perhaps something similar was going on in the early Christian setting, a rhetorical question posed to oneself or one’s audience.
And for the last 40 years I’d thought Paul’s references to death (“I die daily’) were somewhat gnostic in context, a devotional attitude of rejection of the world for the coming world of Christ’s kingdom. Now I see that the KJV translation of 1st Cor. 15:31 is about the persecution of the Christian community. But is it possible that some of Paul’s references to dying were metaphors of self-denial?
You have to look at the context in each case. In terms of Philippians it wouldn’t make any sense, since he’s contrasting his desires to die and be with Christ or to live and so remain with the Philippians. (He’s not debating between self-denial and living)
Things can get even more complicated. I do remember reading in a newspaper years ago, a brief account of a Catholic priest who was convicted of murder– he fell in love with a female parishioner, and shot her to death just after hearing her confession. He said he wanted to give her the greatest gift– paradise. And then you have the inquisitors who apparently imagined that their tortures were ultimately good since they believed their horrific actions were “saving souls”. After all, a few days of torment in this life is to be preferred to eternal torment in the next. And so on. Every form of supernaturalism seems to have a slippery slope built in.
Jihadists would give another example…
Thanks, Mr. Ehrman, my daughter committed suicide over 3 years ago, this writing helped me to understand more about the suicidal phenomenon In antiquity and reframe what happened to my daughter.
I am so very sorry to hear it. Plesaee accept my sincere and heart-felt condolences. In the ancient world, there was widespread agreement that suicide was not inherently wrong or bad; the issue was always WHEN it was appropriate. Again, I”m so very sorry.
Thing is that in the New Testament, including in Paul’s letters, it talks about being “in” Christ and “in” God and “in” the Holy Spirit. It’s like one can be with and “in” Christ *now*, without having to die.
One can be “In” Christ’s life and love and energy and insight and spirit and so forth. (I’m thinking that also his/their spirit(s) can be “in” or inside an individual person also.)
The idea of having to die to be with Christ, seems to be contradictory to what these other ideas are saying.
Another contradiction in the bible. Big surprise. 🙂
What if Jesus had spoken to Paul, offering him a choice?
Paul having suffered so much in his ministry, would welcome the relief from suffering. That Paul continued in his ministry suggests that he was willing to suffer even more, for the sake of others.
Wouldn’t have been the first time Jesus spoke to Paul.
Do you mean in a vision? I”m not sure how we would be able to know something like that?
Paul at least doesn’t say “The Lord appeared to me and….” disabledupes{03e09b78be2318d75348e21a796223d3}disabledupes
There are many places in both the OT & NT where the referent appears to be missing.
In this instance I suspect a previous letter or meeting where Paul gave the referent, and assumed that the reader of this letter would recall it.
Inferences, induction from the author’s past writings, from the scriptures in total, more often than not, provide referents.
While Paul doesn’t specifically say so, his past experience of Jesus speaking to him on the road to Damascus, would provide a reasonable inference that Jesus spoke to Paul on more than that single occasion.
So why not infer that Jesus could have given Paul notice that he was ready to take Paul “home”? We may not have empirical evidence, but we can also form sensible beliefs about things through theoretical reasoning.
If according to the doctrine of the Trinity, can the death of Jesus also be considered suicide? I often doubt the justice of the doctrine of atonement, where a father sacrifices his own son to atone for others, but his son is not guilty. Unless God sacrifices himself, the triune God sacrifices the triune God, and this self sacrifice is indeed noble. God devised a plan of redemption, making Jesus certain of death, and Jesus is God himself, destined to be killed. If this theory holds, Christians have no reason to attack those who choose euthanasia.
No, I don’t know of theologians who have said that. (Suicide, btw, is not condemned as a sin in the Bible or in early Christianity until the fifth century; like most other ancients Christians though it was appropriate in some cases.)
May I ask what books are available to read about Augustine’s opposition to suicide? I know nothing about Augustine’s theology. Thank you, Professor.
I’d suggest Arthur Droge and James Tabor, A Noble Death.
Thanks