A strong argument has been made out of the fact that we read that the

apostle in one breath tells us that he did not know what to choose between

life and death, and yet that he had a strong desire for something which was

far better.  Now if the apostle did say this, then it seems reasonable to

conclude that he was pressed out of two by a third, namely, the return of the

Lord, which is admittedly so much better than either living or dying.  Two

fallacies are here which demand exposure.  The first is an error of

reasoning, the second of interpretation.

It is assumed that what Paul chose, and what Paul desired, would be the

same.  If he had been an average selfish person, this reasoning might be

good, but the context clearly condemns this inference.  The whole of the

chapter shows us a man who has risen above all selfish motives.  His bonds

have fallen out to the furtherance of the gospel, he rejoices that Christ is

preached, even though some who preach Him seek to add to his sufferings.  His

magnificent, 'what then' is a rebuke to the narrow -minded inference that he

would necessarily choose what he most desired.  To Paul, to live was summed

up by the one word, Christ, and to die by the one word -- gain.  'Christ

shall be magnified in my body, whether by life or by death'.  The context,

therefore, together with the statement, 'For I have no one of equal soul

(with myself), for all seek their own' denies the inference.  Christ (2:21)

and His people (1:24) come first, and even though Paul's desire may lead in

one direction, there is every probability that he would choose that which ran

counter to his desire, if by so doing he could the better serve the Lord, or

bless His people.

The second fallacy is the wrong interpretation of a word.  Much

emphasis has been laid upon the statement that Paul says he did not know what

to choose, and yet he did have a very pronounced desire for something very

far better.

Is this true?  The A.V. and the R.V. seem to say it is, but the R.V.

margin exposes the error.

The word rendered here 'I wot', or 'I know', is gnorizo.  Out of the

twenty -four occurrences of the word, Paul uses it eighteen times, and out of

that eighteen, eleven occur in the three Prison Epistles, Ephesians,

Philippians and Colossians.  We will not quote all occurrences, but give the

whole of the references in these Epistles, the only other occurrence in

Philippians being shown first:

Phil. 4:6.

'Let your requests be made known unto God'.

Eph. 1:9.

'Having made known unto us the mystery of His will'.

Eph. 3:3.

'By revelation He made known unto me the mystery'.

Eph. 3:5.

'Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of

Eph. 3:10.

'Unto the principalities ... might be made known through

the Church' (R.V.).

'Might be known by' (A.V.) of course means the same.

Eph. 6:19.

'That I may open my mouth boldly to make known the

'Tychicus ... shall make known to you all things'.

'To whom God would make known what is the riches'.

'All my state shall Tychicus declare unto you'.

'They shall make known unto you all things'.