Sometime in my youth a preacher suggested personalizing Biblical promises and commands.  Thus:

“God so loved Greg that he gave his only begotten son…” and,
“Greg shalt have no other Gods before me….”
 
When I was older—like, ten minutes later—it occurred to me that personalizing the Bible could be abused.  I found 1 Samuel 15. I could personalize it! “Now, Greg, go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.”

I did not know any Amalekites, but I had suspicions about a local bully.
 
I was reminded of Bible personalization when I was looking for birthday cards and found this one:

I used to have no trouble treating Philippians 1:6 as yet another promise to me, especially if I kept the whole sentence:

“He who began a good work in Greg will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ.”
 
Hold up your hand if you feel this verse encourages you individually to trust that God is completing you, as a master carpenter would complete a construction project.
 
Stretch your hand even higher if this verse assures you that God’s work in you personally won’t stop until heaven.

OK, that’s fine. Individual growth does happen, thanks to God's work and Spirit evidenced in virtues such as I cited in recent posts. You know, love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, smiting. But here’s my thesis:
 
Individual growth is not what this verse promises, at least not directly.
 
This verse invites me not to a solitary hike, not to pilgrim’s progress. It calls me to get on the bus.

Philippians 1:6 is about the church. It assures church perseverance!  The good work God has done among us, God will complete. Growth in number of members is not excluded, but saying Philippians 1:6 is about headcount overlooks qualitative good ways in which God works in a group, invisible and highly visible community virtues such as love, joy, peace, patience, generosity, wise counsel, and more. Can a community be peaceful and encouraging? Yes it can.
 
Of course, growth as a community comes from God working on individuals. Church growth tends both to benefit from individual spiritual growth and lead to individual personal growth. Yes indeedy. But just as it would have been inappropriate for me to go off on my own and smack Amalekites, Philippians 1:6 is not so much a personal promise as a corporate encouragement: Church, our God will complete his work among you. That God will bring peace and generosity to a community is exponentially more astonishing than the claim that God will bring peace and generosity to me. It must be something in the water, right? If in Moses' time one first-born died, that's the breaks.  If all the first-borns die... that's a scary miracle.  Similarly, sometimes a person matures. That's pleasantly remarkable. If a community matures... now that's a scary miracle. It was by such a corporate miracle that the early church grew.

There are two ways I aim to prove that, “He who began a good work in you,” refers to the church: by context and by grammar.

Read the opening of Philippians. Imagine that a messenger such as Timothy or Epaphroditus or a local leader such as Liddie or Jay Lorr is presenting this letter. Does the epistle to the Philippians ever address some individual? Or is this a letter to the group?

Philippians chapter 1 verses 1-7

Paul and Timothy, servants of Christ Jesus,

To all the saints in Christ Jesus who are at Philippi, with the overseers and deacons:
Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
I thank my God in all my remembrance of you,
always in every prayer of mine for you all making my prayer with joy,
because of your partnership in the gospel from the first day until now.
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. It is right for me to feel this way about you all, because I hold you in my heart, for you are all partakers with me of grace…

You can easily scan through the four chapters of Philippians. Paul speaks collectively to "brothers", "brothers and sisters". "saints", "every saint". "children of God" and so on.

That was context. Now grammar.

A long time ago, a teacher asked me to name three pronouns.  I said, "What? Who? Me?"

As painful as English grammar can be, pretty much all other languages each have more complex grammars. The Greek language has two distinct word families that translate to the one English pronoun "you".

1. For one singular sensation, individual “you”, Greek has a whole word family pronounced sue.  This is the pronoun recorded in Matthew 16:18 when Jesus says, "You are Peter," Sue ei Petros.  Philippians has exactly one verse containing a singular sue:
 
   Philippians 4:3
       Yes, I ask you also, true companion,
       help these women,…

2. The other 36 occurrences of English "you" in Philippians come from the Greek word family pronounced who-mays. Grammatically, this references a collective such as an army or political party. John the Baptist uses this plural who-mays "you" twice when he trash-talks the Pharisees and Sadducees: "YOU bunch of snakes! Who warned YOU to run from the coming judgment?" 

Like apparently all languages except English, the Spanish language distinguishes between singular and plural "you". Below is what Wadmar tells me is the most-used Español Bible translation, highlighting the “you” words. 

• The quotes from Philippians 1 are plural "you". 
• The quote from Philippians 4:3 is the solitary singular "you" in Philippians.

Filipenses 1:6-7 Reina-Valera 1960 (plural “you” vosotros)
estando persuadido de esto, que el que comenzó en vosotros la buena obra, la perfeccionará hasta el día de Jesucristo; 
como me es justo sentir esto de todos vosotros, por cuanto os tengo en el corazón; y en mis prisiones, y en la defensa y confirmación del evangelio, todos vosotros sois participantes conmigo de la gracia.
 
Filipenses 4:3 Reina-Valera 1960 (singular “you” ti)
Asimismo te ruego también a ti, compañero fiel, que ayudes a estas…
 
For up-to-date Español contemporáneo everywhere outside Spain:
 
Filipenses 1:6-7 Reina Valera Contemporánea 2011  (plural “you” ustedes)
Estoy persuadido de que el que comenzó en ustedes la buena obra, la perfeccionará hasta el día de Jesucristo.
Es justo que yo sienta esto por todos ustedes, porque los llevo en el corazón. Tanto en mis prisiones como en la defensa y confirmación del evangelio, todos ustedes participan conmigo de la gracia.
 
Filipenses 4:3 Reina Valera Contemporánea 2011  (singular “you” ti)
También a ti, mi compañero fiel, te ruego que ayudes a éstas …

I suspect many English translations ignore the difference between singular "you" and plural "you" because:

(a) Tradition!
(b) Let context reign. Same-sentence singular context such as “you are Peter” and plural “you bunch of snakes” should be obvious. Larger scope such as the greetings in Philippians, Ephesians, etc., simply requires alertness from readers. Never mind birthday cards, one-verse devotions, and its-all-about-me.
(c) When your translation credo is word-for-word, then Greek "en" otherwise maps cleanly to English "in". That means we must add a word, changing "you" to "you all", or "all of you".
(d) We come to Christ as individuals. Whatever benefits the church tends to occur by individual growth or result in individual growth. Still, if we take Philippians 1:6 as about a work of God on our team and in our team, that makes a difference.

In any case, few English Bible translations clearly distinguish source plural “you” from singular “you”.

• The 1901 ASV and 1994 KJ21 follow the 1611 KJV in using "ye" for singular (Phil 4:3) and "you" for plural (Phil 1:6, etc.). The 1982 NKJV uses "you" for both singular and plural.
• The CSB and NET relegate plural “among you” to a footnote.* 
• The PNT uses inline brackets: “in [among] you....” 
• The NRSVA and VOICE use “among you”.

    * but who reads footnotes?

The prize for most nearly consistent word-by-word attention to Greek and Hebrew second person plural and some other nuances goes to https://yallversion.com. Singular "you" Sue remains "you" and plural "you" who-mays becomes “y'all”! I've found some omissions but not nearly as many as other English language translations.

Philippians chapter 1, Y'all Version:
 
¹ Paul and Timothy, servants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus who are at Philippi, with the overseers and deacons: ² Grace and peace to y’all from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
 
³ I thank my God every time I remember y’all. ⁴ In every prayer for all y’all, I always pray with joy,  ⁵ because of y’all’s partnership in the gospel from the first day until now, ⁶ being confident of this very thing, that ʜᴇ who began a good work in y’all will complete it until the day of Jesus Christ. ⁷ It is right for me to think this way about all y’all, because I have y’all in my heart, since both in my chains and in the defense and confirmation of the gospel, all y’all are partakers of grace with me. ⁸ For God is my witness, how I long for y’all in the affection of Christ Jesus.

Philippians chapter 4, Y'all Version:
¹ Therefore, my beloved siblings whom I long for, my joy and crown, y’all stand firm in the Lord in this way, my beloved.
² I urge Euodia, and I urge Syntyche, to think the same way in the Lord.
³ Yes, true partner, I ask you to help these women who have struggled together with me in the gospel, along with Clement and the rest of my fellow workers, whose names are in the book of life.
⁴ Y’all rejoice in the Lord always! Again I will say, “Rejoice y’all!”

Footnote: Would you be surprised the Y'All Version comes from a Dallas Theological Seminary guy?

Reading a singular "you" when there's really a Greek plural "you" makes a big difference in Luke 17:21. The KJV and at least two dozen other versions have Jesus say,

   "For behold, the Kingdom of God is within you."

A couple more say, "the Kingdom of God is inside you."

However, the "you" in the Greek source is genitive plural: ὑμῶν, pronounced who-moan. Thus, I'm with two dozen or more English translations that render this verse,

   "The kingdom of God is among you", or "the kingdom of God is in your midst."

Hey, the context of Luke 17:21 has Jesus addressing multiple Pharisees. I don't think Jesus is claiming that the kingdom of God is within a "white-washed tomb."

The plural pronoun makes me side with the Y'All version. I find "Empire" a little strange, but can live with it.

 “ When you are a Bear of Very Little Brain, and you Think of Things, you find  sometimes that a Thing which seemed very Thingish inside you is quite different when it gets out into the open and has other people looking at it.”

 A.J. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner (1928) ch 6.

Puritan preacher Jonathan Edwards was 19 in late 1722 when he began journaling for a year his personal to-do list. Entries include:

You can read all seventy of Edwards’ resolutions here. A modern language version is here.

I admire Edwards’ desire for excellence but question the mechanism. As a bear of very little brain, I’d probably miss the moment to act while pondering which of my seventy resolutions applied.

Jesus observed of the teachers of the law and the Pharisees, “they make strict rules and try to force people to obey them, but they are unwilling to help those who struggle under the weight of their rules.”

The Hebrew Bible offered 613 commands. King David highlighted eleven in Psalm 15. Isaiah 33 identifies six. Two virtues, wisdom and respect for the Almighty, drive the Proverbs.  Micah 6 spotlights three life practices: “He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the Lord require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?” Isaiah 56 identifies two life rules: “Preserve justice and do what is right.” Amos 5 compressed the Law into one aspiration given by God: “Seek Me and live!”

Meanwhile, over in Greece, the Stoics and later Plato and Aristotle identified four ethical elements: justice, wisdom, fortitude, and temperance. They considered justice as the virtue that best benefits society. To these Church authorities added faith, hope, and love, for a total of seven “cardinal virtues”.

Elsewhere in a world not-fictional-enough, what is best in life was debated:

Outside Christianity, one finds similar reductions of life principles. The five Confucian Ideals are: Rén (仁) compassion with generosity; Yì (義) honesty with lawfulness; Lǐ  (理) respect in relationships and worship; Zhì (智)  wisdom with knowledge; and Xìn (信) faithful integrity. More links: Buddhist ideals….  Islamic Character…. “The only Hindu value of note is ahimsa (non-violence) and all moral issues can be effectively explored though it.”

In stark contrast to the Barbarian, Greek, Roman, and other proposed virtues, you surely already know that Jesus and his followers repeatedly spotlight one virtue, unselfish love.

It's diabolically indicating that the English language and several other modern languages have lost a single noun and a single verb to name unselfish love. The Hebrew Bible uses אהבה  (love, pronounced ah-hah-vah) and חֶסֶד (loving-kindness, pronounced khes-ed).  The Greek Bible has ἀγάπη (pronounced ah-gah-pay).  Agape is “the greatest of these” (1 Corinthians 13). Unfortunately, in English the word “love” can apply to ice cream or to a romantic interest or patriotism; to a passing infatuation or to a lifetime of faithfulness. So Christians are apt to say “agape love” rather than the ambiguous “love”.

Jesus prioritized ἀγάπη: “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.”

This can be stated less colorfully:

Love God with everything you have.

The giving of everything is demonstrated in the ensuing story of the Good Samaritan.

I am a bear with very little brain. My governance consists of two resolutions of two words each.

I start with a less ambiguous form of “love”: kindness. This carries a sense of gentle unselfishness; but fierce kindness exists too.  "Be kind" is too passive for my purposes. English lacks an unambiguous verb form of “kindness”, but that’s easy to fix: “Do kindness.”

As a farm boy, I tried to be kind to abandoned baby birds, forsaken bunnies, injured possums, and exploited turtles. I left many small corpses behind in the process. Thus experience tells me, kindness without discernment is not kindness. So, I add a rule 2. Here are my rules:

1. Do kindness.
   
2. Get discernment.

I am not proud that these two lack Christian orientation. But this serves. For example, every time I visit a physician these days, I am asked a wellness question like, what did you accomplish this week?  The assistants and MDs are pleasantly intrigued by these two goals and my adventures in their pursuit.

These two are both preamble and implementation for guiding scriptures, including the following:

The pursuit of discernment requires humility and... SCIENCE!  I have continuing ignorance, biases, and need to learn. Per Socrates: “I do not think I know.” Or better, per Jeremiah:

This is the start of the book of First Samuel.

There was a certain man of Ramathaim-zophim of the hill country of Ephraim whose name was Elkanah the son of Jeroham, son of Elihu, son of Tohu, son of Zuph, an Ephrathite. 2 He had two wives. The name of the one was Hannah, and the name of the other, Peninnah. And Peninnah had children, but Hannah had no children.

3 Now this man used to go up year by year from his city to worship and to sacrifice to the Lord of hosts at Shiloh, where the two sons of Eli, Hophni and Phinehas, were priests of the Lord. 4 On the day when Elkanah sacrificed, he would give portions to Peninnah his wife and to all her sons and daughters. 5 But to Hannah he gave a double portion, because he loved her, though the Lord had closed her womb. 6 And her rival used to provoke her grievously to irritate her, because the Lord had closed her womb. 7 So it went on year by year. As often as she went up to the house of the Lord, she used to provoke her. Therefore Hannah wept and would not eat. 8 And Elkanah, her husband, said to her, “Hannah, why do you weep? And why do you not eat? And why is your heart sad? Am I not more to you than ten sons?”

9 After they had eaten and drunk in Shiloh, Hannah rose. Now Eli the priest was sitting on the seat beside the doorpost of the temple of the Lord. 10 She was deeply distressed and prayed to the Lord and wept bitterly. 11 And she vowed a vow and said, “O Lord of hosts, if you will indeed look on the affliction of your servant and remember me and not forget your servant, but will give to your servant a son, then I will give him to the Lord all the days of his life, and no razor shall touch his head.”

12 As she continued praying before the Lord, Eli observed her mouth. 13 Hannah was speaking in her heart; only her lips moved, and her voice was not heard. Therefore Eli took her to be a drunken woman. 14 And Eli said to her, “How long will you go on being drunk? Put your wine away from you.” 15 But Hannah answered, “No, my lord, I am a woman troubled in spirit. I have drunk neither wine nor strong drink, but I have been pouring out my soul before the Lord. 16 Do not regard your servant as a worthless woman, for all along I have been speaking out of my great anxiety and vexation.” 17 Then Eli answered, “Go in peace, and the God of Israel grant your petition that you have made to him.” 18 And she said, “Let your servant find favor in your eyes.” Then the woman went her way and ate, and her face was no longer sad.

19 They rose early in the morning and worshiped before the Lord; then they went back to their house at Ramah. And Elkanah knew Hannah his wife, and the Lord remembered her. 20 And in due time Hannah conceived and bore a son, and she called his name Samuel, for she said, “I have asked for him from the Lord.”

21 The man Elkanah and all his house went up to offer to the Lord the yearly sacrifice and to pay his vow. 22 But Hannah did not go up, for she said to her husband, “As soon as the child is weaned, I will bring him, so that he may appear in the presence of the Lord and dwell there forever.” 23 Elkanah her husband said to her, “Do what seems best to you; wait until you have weaned him; only, may the Lord establish his word.” So the woman remained and nursed her son until she weaned him. 24 And when she had weaned him, she took him up with her, along with a three-year-old bull, an ephah of flour, and a skin of wine, and she brought him to the house of the Lord at Shiloh. And the child was young. 25 Then they slaughtered the bull, and they brought the child to Eli. 26 And she said, “Oh, my lord! As you live, my lord, I am the woman who was standing here in your presence, praying to the Lord. 27 For this child I prayed, and the Lord has granted me my petition that I made to him. 28 Therefore I have lent him to the Lord. As long as he lives, he is lent to the Lord.”

And he worshiped the Lord there.

__________________________________________

Ok, welcome to the inner working of my mind.

First, I’m reminded of the passage that says, don’t be drunk with wine, but be filled with the Spirit. Check. 

The disciples in Acts 2, were also perceived as hammered. Peter has to tell the crowd that no, not alcohol, but the burden and influence of the Holy Spirit was the cause of their clearly being under an Influence. In the same way Hannah in her “all in” prayer was more concerned with connection than with decorum. God give us all of us that heart to pray. Raw. Real. Passionate. Effective.

Second, the critical path of parenthood is temporary. If you don’t release your kids back to God at some point, that will be incredibly controlling and toxic. So on one hand, Hannah giving Samuel back to God seems extraordinary, and on the other, we should all follow in her footsteps.

Third, I’m fascinated by Hannah’s motive here. This was part honest desire, part ego, part cultural importance, part a seeking to get away from humiliation in a less than ideal family situation, and part God breathed burden / prophetic desire to press into calling.

Fourth, it’s cool how God uses prayer that seems local to become a means by which He draws us into a global Mosaic and His purpose in the earth.

Fifth, don’t miss, “the Lord of Hosts” here. This is the compound name, Jehovah-Saboath and appears in verses 3 and 11. It means the Lord of Armies, both heavenly and, in some sense, earthly and speaks to God as Powerful, Commanding and Sovereign. In Hannah’s prayer, she isn’t just praying to the intimate God of Covenant in His relationship with Israel. She is also making her personal appeal to the King, to the Commander in Chief, to the One Who is in Charge of Everything.


The character of Samuel is a towering figure in the story of the Hebrew Bible. He is at the nexus of so many high level historical and spiritual junctions.

He was the last Judge, and the first to hold the formal mantle of Prophet. He brought anointing to Kings, and spoke truth to power. He stood before a shepherd boy and spoke God’s word and calling over a young David. In, what was no doubt a surprise move to the charlatan medium, God even allowed him to speak His word from beyond the grave thundering judgment and ghostly visage. Hearing the voice of God as a child, he responded, being lent to the Lord for His purpose in an extraordinary generation.

Hannah’s prayer was heartfelt, as mentioned before, and I can’t help but wonder if she knew that something was afoot beyond her own personal stake in this. That if, on some level, she knew that this child of promise was going to be something of a World Historical Individual. That nations would change trajectory at his word… that this unborn child’s destiny was of such weight and purpose that Hannah couldn’t help but be a bit overwhelmed.

Prophet. Child. Judge. The one who calls the next generation into service.

Remind you of anyone?

Hannah’s prayer and beautiful outshining of a miraculous child point us directly to the advent of Christ. In the ashes of her sorrow, the Lord remembers her and brings forth a miracle of creation to bring God’s will to earth in His purpose and through the heartbeat of a divinely purposed baby. Like our Messiah, Samuel was a surprising outshining from the God of Angel Armies. He came, not as a warrior (though he wasn’t shy to use a sword when God directed him to)… but as a teacher, a prophet and connector of God’s word and will.

That the answer to Hannah’s prayer to Jehovah-Saboath came as a baby, is just beautiful, almost beyond description. That she had the heart and wisdom and selfless sensitivity to calling to give her child back to God is beyond extraordinary. That God’s general for the hour was a little boy who stood to say, “yes Lord” in the middle of the night is just fun and cool.

Here’s the question.

Can we pray in such a way as to be the vehicle of our own answered prayers? To carry the baby we ask for? Do we have the courage and commitment to truth in God our Father to give those dreams back to God? Do we have the will to surrender our own desires and major pieces of life back to heaven to use as He will? Can we call with all of our heart to the Lord of Hosts and celebrate the answer in the form of the vulnerability of the start of a new generation of leadership?

Can we pray like this hero of the faith?