Paul and the Philippians

Philippi was the first European city to be evangelized by Paul. He arrived there in the late summer or early autumn of ad 48, having tramped across western Turkey from Galatia. His ship from Troas docked at Neapolis, modern Kavalla (Acts 16:11). According to Luke, Paul did not spend any time in this port city, but continued inland to Philippi (Acts 16:12). This is confirmed by Paul's hint that his first converts came from Philippi (Phil. 4:15).

Given Paul's subsequent preference for coastal cities, notably Corinth and Ephesus, his haste to move inland is surprising. At this point in his career, however, he had not realized that he would have to keep in touch with his foundations. He understood his mission as simple evangelization, to plant the gospel and march on; the watering of the seed was not his responsibility (1 Cor. 1:17a). It was only two years later, when he arrived in Corinth and was forced to concern himself with the affairs of the church at Thessalonica, that he became aware that facility of communications had to be a critical factor in the choice of a missionary base.

Philippi

Philippi is a city that was formerly called Datus, and before that Crenides, because there are many springs bubbling around a hill there. Philip [II of {page 212} Macedon in 356 bc] fortified it because he considered it an excellent stronghold against the Thracians, and named it from himself, Philippi. It is situated on a precipitous hill and its size is exactly that of the summit of the hill. There are woods on the north through which Rhascupolis led the army of Brutus and Cassius. On the south is a marsh extending to the sea. On the east are the gorges of the Sapaeans and Corpileans, and the west a very fertile and beautiful plain.... The plain sloped downward so that movement is easy to those descending from Philippi, but toilsome to those going up from Amphipolis. There is another hill not far from Philippi which is called the Hill of Dionysus, in which are gold mines called the Asyla.� (Civil Wars 4.105-6; trans. White)

This description sets the scene for the battle of Philippi in 42 bc, when Octavian and Antony defeated Brutus and Cassius, and accurately reflects the excellent quality of Appian's sources. The construction c. 130 bc of the Via Egnatia, the great Roman road running across northern Greece from the Adriatic Sea to Neapolis, had brought no great prosperity to Philippi. Things changed, however, after the battle. More space was necessary to accommodate the Roman veterans settled there by Mark Antony. The town spilled down the mountainside towards the swampy land surrounding the lake. Coins attest its status as a colony with the title Antoni Iussu Cobnia Victrix Philippensium. A further influx took place after Octavian's defeat of Antony in 31 bc. According to Dio Cassius, 'By evicting those communities in Italy which had taken Antony's side, Octavian was able to settle his soldiers both in their cities and on the lands of his opponents. He compensated most of those who had been penalized in this way by allowing them to settle in Dyrrachium, Philippi, and elsewhere' (Roman History 51. 4. 6; trans. Scott-Kilvert).

Thereafter the official title of the colony became Colonia Augusta Philippensis. The settlers naturally retained their privileges as Roman citizens, and Philippi enjoyed the Ius Italicum. It was as if the city had been transferred to the soil of Italy; its residents were not subject to provincial land and personal taxes, and in theory at least were independent of the governor of the province of Macedonia.

The city was the civic and administrative centre of an area of some 2,100 sq. km. (730 sq. miles). The vast majority of the settlers lived on their land, but the city was the market for their produce, and the source of services and manu- {page 213} factured goods. As it expanded, facilities increased, and the city became a more attractive stopping-place for those travelling on the Via Egnatia. Increased opportunities drew in non-Roman immigrants from Greece and further east.

As the tongue of the dominant class, Latin was the official language throughout the city and colony. Greek, of course, continued to be used by the indigenous population. The relationship of the two is very aptly illustrated by Paul's use of Philippesioi (Phil. 4:15), which is derived from the Latin Philippenses, rather than the more authentically Greek forms Philippeis or Philippenoi. A Roman veneer had been applied to a population that remained essentially eastern. Moreover, many of the colonists, and certainly their descendants, would have known at least some Greek.

The great preponderance of Latin in official inscriptions only serves to highlight the fact that Greek is the language of half of the inscriptions pertaining to the worship of the Egyptian gods, who enjoyed the only real temple on the slopes of the acropolis. Its devotees were better off than others, who could not afford the same quality of construction. A quarry near the base of the hill housed wooden sanctuaries of the Roman deities Silvanus and Diana, and the eastern Magna Mater. Scattered over the acropolis are 187 rock-cut reliefs of rather poor workmanship. The figure of Diana predominates, but the Thracian rider, Magna Mater, Isis, Jupiter and Minerva are also represented. The Roman state religion dominated the area south of the Via Egnatia. The emperor and the Capitoline triad were venerated there in addition to Diana and Mercury.

The Founding of the Church

The abundance of evidence for the religious preferences of the pagan population of Philippi makes the absence of any archaeological or epigraphic hint of a Jewish presence significant. Luke's source evokes a 'place of prayer' outside the city near a river to which Paul and his companions went on the sabbath (Acts 16:13). The implication that it was a Jewish place of worship cannot be denied. The term 'place of prayer' does not exclude a building, but neither does it necessarily imply one. The known first-century Diaspora synagogues, however, are all within cities, as one might have expected, since Jews had a legal right to a place of worship. If they were too few to build a synagogue, a room in one of their houses would be the obvious place to meet for {page 214} study and prayer. Moreover, no Jews are mentioned among Paul's converts. Lydia is explicitly identified as a Gentile (Acts 16:14) and the same must be said of the jailer (Acts 16:30-1). Finally, the group whom Paul found assembled did not contain any men. Luke's source mentions only women (Acts 16:13), one of whom, Lydia, is identified as a 'worshipper of God'. In other words, she was a God-fearer, a pagan who associated herself with Judaism but without becoming a formal convert. Since a Jewish presence in her home town, Thyatira in Asia, is apparently attested, it is not necessary to assume that she was attracted by a Jewish community in Philippi.

In order to account for these data, it is necessary only to assume that the place of prayer served, not Jewish residents of Philippi, but Jewish travellers on the Via Egnatia, who happened to be in the city on the sabbath. Lydia herself had come from afar. In the absence of transient Jews, local God-fearers gathered there, and perhaps Jewish women married to pagans. According to Luke's source, it was among this group that Paul made his first converts. Some confirmation is provided by the letters which attest the prominence of two pagan ladies, Euodia and Syntyche, who expected recognition for their contribution to the evangelization of the city (Phil. 4:2-3; see below).

The tradition history of the material contained in Luke's detailed account of Paul's experiences in Philippi (Acts 16:13-40) is complex. The narrative of the encounter with the magistrates, however, and its consequences (beating, imprisonment, apology), 'belongs to a first-class source, indeed an eye-witness account [whose] details are historically exact'. Moreover, it is confirmed by the letters. In writing to the Thessalonians Paul mentions that he and his companions had 'already suffered and been shamefully treated (hybristhentes) at Philippi' (1 Thess. 2:2). The verb hybrizo is perfectly apt to describe the punishment of a Roman citizen without even the semblance of a trial. There can be no serious doubt that Philippi was one of the places where Paul was imprisoned and beaten with rods (2 Cor. 11:23-5).

The disagreeable episode ends with the departure of Paul from Philippi (Acts 16:40). How long had he spent there? This is one question which Luke does not answer. Haenchen rightly refuses any real value to the two chronological indications in Acts. The initial allusion to 'some days' (16:12) probably refers to the time between the arrival of the missionaries and the sabbath. The subsequent mention of 'many days' (16:18) is merely an ingredient in Luke's story-telling technique. There is something, however, in Luke's account which suggests a more realistic solution.

What concerned those who dragged Paul before the magistrates was the loss {page 215} of their livelihood, but what they said in court was 'These men are disturbing our city; they are Jews and are advocating customs that are not lawful for us as Romans to adopt or observe' (Acts 16:20-1). The discrepancy permits us to separate the the occasion from the charge. It is possible to refrain from judgement on the exorcism, while at the same time according the charge serious historical probability.

Loisy's interpretation of the charge, as implying a missionary effort of considerable duration and success, is confirmed by Paul's correspondence with Philippi. The letters reveal a well-organized, generous community, with the energy to support Paul's missionary endeavours elsewhere (Phil. 4:15-16). In no other letter does Paul single out women 'who have laboured side by side with me in the gospel' (Phil. 4:3). Nowhere else does he thank a church, whose very existence is a 'holding forth of the word of life' (Phil. 2:16), for its 'partnership in the gospel' (Phil. 1:5). What these allusions imply about the relationship of the believers to the Apostle, and their lived embodiment of authentically Christian values, could not have been achieved in a brief visit.

We must assume, in consequence, that Paul spent at least the winter of ad 48-49 in Philippi where he made converts among pagans. It is entirely possible that his stay there was cut short by the sort of event reported by Luke's source. Even though there was no organized Jewish proselytization in the first century, sufficient Romans had been attracted to Judaism that Tiberius in ad 19 felt himself obliged to react against the phenomenon by expelling the majority of Jews from Rome. The example of the Eternal City would carry weight in a Roman colony.

A Series Of Letters

The New Testament contains only one canonical letter to Philippi, but from the beginnings of critical study of the New Testament, serious doubts about its integrity have been voiced. Some commentators distinguish two letters. The majority detect three letters. But there always have been those who maintain the unity of the epistle. The history of the debate has been summarized at length by B. Mengel, but more thoroughly by D. E. Garland. The only new argument to appear subsequently has been the thesis that Philippians exhibits the rhetorical schema and so must be a literary unity. Obviously the historical {page 216} reconstruction of Paul's relations with Philippi changes radically if there is a series of letters rather than a single communication. Hence, some attention must be devoted to this problem.

Methodologically, literary unity is a presumption. It cannot be proved without the direct witness of the author. The presumption, however, can be overturned by arguments whose effect is to show that particular combinations are in themselves improbable or incompatible with a given author's style and approach. In his letters Paul regularly begins with what is uppermost in his mind, e.g. the backsliding of the Galatians (Gal. 1:6), the factions at Corinth (1 Cor. 1:10). In Philippians, however, we encounter the exact opposite.

An Ambivalent Expression of Gratitude

Paul's gratitude for the financial assistance of the Philippians appears only in 4:10-20, at the very end of the letter. Efforts have been made to interpret 1:5 and 2:30 as expressions of thanks. It is clear to any sensitive reader, however, that these allusions rather presume that the precise nature of the service has already been acknowledged. If the Philippians had not been thanked previously, it is inconceivable that their financial aid should not have been mentioned in 2:25-30. Moreover, the hypothesis that 4:10-20 belongs to the letter carried by Epaphroditus on his return to Philippi involves the unacceptable assumption that Paul did not avail himself of the messengers, who brought the news of Epaphroditus' illness back to his community (2:26), to thank the Philippians for their gift. All of these difficulties disappear if Philippians 4:10-20 was originally an independent letter, and the first addressed by Paul to the Philippians. For this reason I call it Letter A.

The one clue to the dating of Letter A is its self-conscious, defensive tone. At first sight this is surprising because Paul was used to receiving aid from the Philippians; they had assisted him financially more than once at Thessalonica (Phil. 4:16), and subsequently at Corinth (2 Cor. 11:9). If he found the gesture offensive, he had had many opportunities to ensure that it was not repeated. Paul's embarassment becomes understandable if the gift came at a time when there was danger that it might be misinterpreted. This condition was verified only after he had begun to preach the collection for the poor of Jerusalem. At that point acceptance of a personal gift could appear as if he were appropriating funds given for another purpose. It became important to emphasize that he had not solicited funds from the Philippians (Phil. 4:17), and that he needed nothing more (4:18). Letter A, in consequence, must be dated after the Jerusalem assembly.

There is no need to assume that Paul was under arrest when he wrote Letter A.� {page 217} He had not been imprisoned when he benefited by previous subsidies from Philippi. Of all his foundations the Philippians alone had the insight to recognize that Paul's efforts to be financially independent were not entirely successful and, when they were in a position to assemble some surplus cash, they sent it to him no matter where he was. In the present instance we must assume that Paul had informed Philippi, and the other European churches, where he was to be found in case he was needed.

The fact that Paul received money on a fairly regular basis from Philippi implies some organization. The church there must have delegated responsibility for the collection and transmission of funds to certain members of the community. In all probability these individuals were the episkopoi kai diakonoi 'supervisors and assistants' who are mentioned in the address (Phil. 1:1), which may have belonged to any or all of the three letters. With regard to its leadership structure Philippi was exactly the same as the other Pauline churches. Paul did not select leaders. He expected them to emerge from the community as their gifts were expressed in service. What he says to the Philippians, 'Mark those who so live as you have an example in us' (3:17), echoes what he had written to the Thessalonians (1 Thess. 5:12), and anticipates what he would direct the Corinthians to do (1 Cor. 16:15-18).

Other churches looked up to Paul as their founder, and treasured his letters, but did not send him financial assistance. This was not because they lacked resources. The adjective all antiquity applied to Corinth was 'wealthy', and Ephesus was not far behind. Unless we are to assume that such communities were not animated by a Christian spirit, the generosity of the Philippians cannot be explained merely by fraternal charity. If they gave despite their poverty (2 Cor. 8:1), it must have been for something over and above their affection for Paul. The reason suggested by Philippians is the apostolic spirit of the church at Philippi. If Paul gives thanks for their 'partnership in the gospel' (Phil. 1:5; cf. 1:7), it must be because the Philippians actively participated in the evangelization of their city (cf. Phil. 4:3).

Very quickly they became aware of the drain on their time and energy; they still had to earn a living. Yet they were in a much better position than a missionary like Paul. They had remunerative occupations with an established clientele and a stable network of family and friends. A new city offered Paul no guarantee of employment. He was always the vulnerable outsider, operating {page 218} without any cushion of connections. On the basis of their own experience, the Philippians recognized that if Paul was to live as an apostle he needed to be subsidized.

Once he had the opportunity to reflect on the implications of his generous gesture at the meeting in Jerusalem (Gal. 2:10), Paul quickly realized that a life which had never been easy was going to become much more difficult. The experience of his first journey into Europe had taught him that, as the demands of his ministry became more pressing, the less time he had to earn his living, and the more dependent he would become on gifts from others. Now that he was committed to requesting funds to be held in trust for Jerusalem, it became imperative for him to devise a way which would make clear that he was not using for his own needs money given for the poor of the Holy City. Paul, it will be recalled, lived in a world in which every official stole from the public purse; questions were raised only when they took too much. Tax collectors were hated because only a percentage of what they exacted went for its ostensible purpose (cf. Luke 3:12-13).

No doubt Paul considered and rejected a number of different plans as he plodded across Asia Minor. By the time he reached Galatia, however, he had a satisfactory answer, which he subsequently repeated to the Corinthians:

Now concerning the contribution for the saints. As I directed the churches of Galatia, so you also are to do. On the first day of every week, each of you is to put something aside and store it up, as he may prosper, so that contributions need not be made when I come. And when I arrive, I will send those whom you accredit by letter to carry your gift to Jerusalem. If it seems advisable that I should go also, they will accompany me.� (1 Cor. 16:1-4)

This strategy had several advantages. Weekly savings were certain to produce a greater sum than anyone could contribute at short notice. Paul was not responsible for safeguarding funds entrusted to him, and so his mobility was not impaired. Once the contributions were assembled, they were the responsibility of representatives of the donors. Paul himself was involved with the transmission of the gift to Jerusalem only to the extent that his accompanying letter identified the gift as the fulfilment of his promise to the three Pillars (Gal. 2:10)

Despite such precautions, however, within a year or so rumours spread by Paul's enemies smeared his reputation at Corinth. The unsolicited personal gift from Philippi may have provided them with the opportunity to inject a note of distrust into Paul's monetary arrangements. {page 219}

Two Further Letters

The material remaining after the abstraction of Letter A, namely, Philippians 1:1-4:9, is not a literary unity. It falls into two parts each with a different atmosphere and concern. In 1:28 Paul's attitude towards a threat to the community at Philippi is one of calm superiority. But the sneering tone of the deliberately insulting comments in 3:2 and 19 conveys a hint of desperation. Manifestly one danger is much more serious than the other.

In the latter instance the community is menaced by Judaization; the allusions to mutilation (3:2) and to the stomach as the matter of ultimate concern ('their god is their belly', 3:19) unambiguously evoke circumcision and Jewish dietary laws, respectively. When confronted by Judaizers, here as elsewhere (e.g. Gal. 3:1), Paul's fear is that his converts will be seduced from the true faith. The method of alienation evoked in 1:28, however, involves threats, and or force, or both, an approach which might 'frighten' the Philippians. Paul evidently is thinking in terms of persecution by pagans.

When associated with these two contrasts, an argument from silence gains weight. Paul mentions his imprisonment in 1:7, 13, and a further reference would be perfectly in place in the evocation of his sufferings in 3:8-11. The absence of any hint might suggest that ch. 3 was written after Paul's release.

If we call Letter B the section of Philippians in which an imprisoned Paul is complacent regarding the effect of pagan persecution, and Letter C the section in which he fears Judaizing infiltration, where do both begin and end?

Philippians 3:1 is the key to the answer. The words 'For the rest, my brethren, farewell in the Lord' in the first part of the verse are closely paralleled by 2 Corinthians 13:11, 'For the rest, brethren, farewell', which is the conclusion to 2 Corinthians 10-13. The second part of the verse reads, 'To write the same things to you is not irksome to me, and is safe for you' (3: ib). Some commentators understand 'the same things' as an allusion to Paul's repetition of the preceding exhortation. But how could such reiteration contribute to the Philippians safety? Hence 'the same things' must refer to what Paul is going to write. In no way, however, does 3:2 ff. repeat anything in chs. 1-2. The only alternative to uncontrollable hypotheses of oral or lost instructions, is to look forward to the admonition addressed to Euodia and Syntyche in 4:2, for there Paul repeats in a more specific form the pleas for unity in 1:27 and 2:2-4." The partisanship and vain ambition which Paul deprecates in 2:3 have a specific application in the case of these two women. He may have hoped that they would recognize the general pleas as directed to them, but at the last moment {page 220}< 14.0pt'> he decided that it would be safer to be explicit. Hence, Letter B consists of Philippians 1:1-3:1 and 4:2-9, while Letter C is made up of 3:2 to 4:1.

The Letter From Prison

Most unusually, Letter B tells us more about Paul's situation in Ephesus than it does about the Philippians. This is certainly a reflection of the closeness of Paul's relationship with the church at Philippi and the quality of its community life. It suffered the minor crises typical of a growing, vital community, but there were no serious problems, and in great part he could write for the pleasure of maintaining contact.

From the way Paul introduces the topic (1:7, 12), it would appear that the Philippians already knew that he had been imprisoned. His focus is on the impact of his incarceration, both as regards the Christian community and those with whom he came into contact while in prison. He is held while under investigation in 'the praetorium' (1:13), the official residence of the governor of Asia, and in which he also exercised his juridical functions. Since the capital of the Attalid kings had been Pergamum, it seems likely that this was one of the new edifices erected by Augustus.

The form of detention was entirely at the discretion of the magistrate, whose decision was determined not only by his own personality and the nature of the case, but particularly by the degree of influence the prisoner and his friends could bring to bear. The treatment accorded the rich, particularly in their own city, differed significantly from that meted out to the poor and strangers. His place of detention identifies Paul as one of the latter. Even though Philippians 1:13 uses 'bonds' in the sense of 'imprisonment', which conformed to contemporary usage, it is virtually certain that the expression should be taken literally. What precisely this involved is a matter of speculation. Paul may have been chained to a soldier (cf. Acts 28:16,20), or to the wall of his cell, or he may have been forced to wear handcuffs or leg-irons.

Although his movements were hampered, the conditions under which Paul {page 221} was imprisoned in Ephesus cannot have been too severe. He was not placed in solitary confinement. He could communicate with his collaborators, who were held with him (Phil. 2:19; Philem. 23; Col. 4:10). One of them may have served as the secretary he needed to write the letters to Philippi, Colossae, and Philemon, but the fact that outsiders such as Epaphroditus were able to visit him and receive commissions from him (Phil. 2:25) leaves open the possibility that he had access to a professional secretary.

Dealing with the Possibility of being Executed

Paul admits, however, that at one stage he had to face the possibility that he would be executed (Phil. 1:20-5). Like all his contemporaries he knew that the arbitrary abuse of authority was restrained only by the fear of reprisals. As an outsider lacking any high-level local support in Ephesus, there was no way he could create difficulties for the proconsul of Asia. Paul confesses that death greatly appealed to him, not because he was tired of life or afraid of suffering, but because it would mean union with Christ.

Quite clearly Paul is thinking in terms of conscious personal fellowship with Christ. In 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17, however, he had said that the dead would be restored to life, and would be with the Lord, only at the Second Coming. If he now thought that there would be no delay in full communion with Christ, would not the resurrection be superfluous? Paul would have been shocked at such a conclusion (Phil. 3:20-1). The inconsistency derives, not from a change of position, but from the fact that, while the human mind can envisage its own annihilation, it cannot conceive of an interruption in its existence. Hence the paradox that in order to benefit by resurrection one must continue to exist; otherwise it would be the creation of an entirely new being.

Speculation on how Paul conceived the so-called 'intermediate state' is pointless. In terms of understanding his personality, it is much more revealing to note the thrust of his internal debate, which pivots on the conviction that what is best in theory is not always to be chosen in practice. To die and be with Christ is the best option absolutely speaking, but that is not an adequate basis for a decision. The needs of the Philippians and others make it imperative to choose life and struggle; 'to remain in the flesh is more necessary on your account' (Phil. 1:24). In other words, the decisive criterion in Paul's moral judgement is not whether a course of action is good or bad in itself, but whether it will empower or injure one's neighbour. This key insight, derived from a tension-filled experience, will play a critical role in Paul's correspondence with the Corinthians (cf. 1 Cor. 8).

{page 222} The recognition that he was still needed perhaps contributed to Paul's conviction that divine providence would ensure release in the not too distant future (Phil. 2:24). His hope was also fed by the awareness that all those in the praetorium with whom he came in contact were convinced that he was neither a revolutionary nor a criminal (Phil. 1:13). It would not be long, he imagined, before word of his innocence filtered up to those responsible for the disposition of his case.

As soon as he regained his freedom, Paul planned to make a visit to Philippi (Phil. 2:23-4). This may have been conceived as a tactful gesture, or there may have been pastoral reasons. In any case, he had to prepare for the eventuality that even if he were exonerated, he might be expelled from Ephesus, as he had been from Philippi. He was not a citizen with legally guaranteed rights. As a Jew he had an indirect legal status in so far as he was accepted by the politeuma, the official corporation representing the Jewish community vis-d-vis the civil authorities. A word from the latter, of course, would make him unwelcome among his own people.

Opposition at Ephesus

As things turned out, once he was freed Paul was permitted to remain in Ephesus (1 Corinthians 16:8). He did not carry out his plan to visit Philippi. It was still on his calendar as his next stop when he wrote 1 Cor. 16:5, but a sudden deterioration in the situation in Corinth demanded his presence there, and it was only on his way back through Macedonia that he finally revisited Philippi (2 Cor. 1:16).

The reason why Paul stayed on in Ephesus was the unhappy situation of the community there. His imprisonment had split the church into three factions (Phil. 1:14-15). One group was frightened into silence. Its members presumably were considering whether it was wise to remain Christians. The majority, however, became even more active missionaries. This group was not homogeneous. The preaching of one faction, in Paul's judgement, was inspired by envy, rivalry, selfish ambition, insincerity, a desire to injure Paul, and embodied an element of pretence. It would be difficult to find a harsher catalogue. Yet he does not accuse them of preaching another Jesus (cf. 2 Cor. 11:4). The proclamation of the others, on the contrary, was rooted in good will and love, and was characterized by truth.

The latter makes it clear that the distinction between the two groups lay in their relationship to Paul; no doctrinal difference is even hinted at. He liked one party and reciprocated the dislike of the other. Commentators have made no plausible suggestions as to the identity of the factions, or the roots of the per- {page 223} sonality conflict. One becomes apparent, however, once it is recalled that Prisca and Aquila had been at work in Ephesus for a year before Paul's arrival. It is not unknown for members of a community to resent the assumption of authority by a latecomer. The history of the Essenes provides an instructive parallel. The movement split, when the Sadokite high priest dispossessed by Jonathan became a member of the sect and tried to assume control. Similarly when Paul arrived in Ephesus, there must have been some who did not welcome him with open arms. Even though he presumably had been warmly recommended by Prisca and Aquila, certain believers saw him as an intruder. When he landed in gaol, they were delighted to be in a position to show him that he was in no way necessary to the life and mission of the church. It had grown without him in the past and could expand without him in the future.

Given the extremely positive way he speaks of Prisca and Aquila subsequently (Rom. 16:3-4), it seems improbable that they took any part in the opposition to Paul. Nor are they covered by the blanket criticism of the whole community at Ephesus (with the exception of Timothy) as fundamentally selfish. 'They all look after their own interests not those of Jesus Christ' (Phil. 2:21). The context limits the applicability of this apparently universal criticism to the issue of going to Philippi.

His forced inactivity gave Paul the leisure to worry about the fate of the Philippians, who were suffering persecution (Phil. 1:28). He seethed with anxiety, and desperately needed someone to go to Macedonia, and to bring back word of the state of the community. Timothy was prepared to undertake the task, but Paul preferred to keep his closest collaborator with him until his fate should be decided (Phil. 2:23). The refusal of others was perhaps motivated by the realization that Paul could communicate with Philippi via the letter sent with Epaphroditus (Phil. 1:25), and that the problems there were not so severe as to need the additional presence of a trouble-shooter. Why, argued Ephesian believers, should they interrupt a fruitful missionary effort in their own city simply in order to gratify Paul's desire for information? On the contrary, was it not selfish of him to prefer his own consolation to the spread of the gospel? Not unnaturally, Paul did not see the matter in this light! {page 224} Paul's tantrum betrays a wilfulness that could not bear to be thwarted. The childishness of the identification of his needs with those of Christ needs no emphasis. Were there other outbursts of this type, as he tried to establish his authority at Ephesus, the natural reluctance of the community to accept a newcomer would be intensified, and the opposition discussed above becomes more explicable. The hostility which Paul attracted was not entirely due to his theological positions. His own character traits were also a significant factor.

Tensions at Philippi

The degree of Paul's self-absorption at this point in his career is remarkable. That he should reveal his feelings so frankly to friends is understandable. But Letter B was addressed to a church that was itself bedeviled by a clash of personalities!

I noted above that the directive 'Do not act out of a spirit of rivalry, nor out of vain ambition, but in humility count others better than yourselves' (Phil. 2:3) has a specific application to the dispute between Euodia and Syntyche (Phil. 4:2). Both of these ladies had participated in the spread of the gospel, 'they fought at my side for the gospel' (Phil. 4:3), and evidently felt that their talents and devotion had earned them an authoritative role in the nascent church. Such ambition would be irrelevant unless they both had supporters. It is natural, therefore, to think that each headed a house-church, as did Phoebe at Cenchreae (Rom. 16:1-2). Their competitive attitude engendered a disruptive spirit, which endangered the future of the community.

One wonders what the Philippians made of Paul's call for unity and reconciliation, when he exhibited nothing but contempt for those at Ephesus who disagreed with him? Did he perceive that he was sending contradictory messages when he told them 'Do what you have heard and seen in me' (Phil. 4:9)? Even when he recognized that his duty was to rise above hurt feelings, he could not resist a mean aside, 'What then? Only that in every way, whether in pretence or in truth, Christ is proclaimed. And in that I rejoice' (Phil. 1:18). The sincerity of his pleasure is at least open to question. If he recognized that the power of the gospel was derived from its effective incarnation in those who preached it (1 Thess. 1:6-8; Phil. 2:14-16), how could he even admit the possibility that it could be proclaimed with false motives, as part of a plan to hurt a fellow-believer? {page 225} A Liturgical Hymn

A further indication of Paul's self-absorption is his citation of a magnificent Christological hymn, which is perhaps the most damning condemnation, albeit implicit, of his egocentric attitude.

Since the beginning of the twentieth century it has been recognized that the rhythm and formulation of Philippians 2:6-11 make it stand out from its present context in the letter. Since Paul does not craft his paragraphs with the great care displayed in these verses, there is a wide consensus that he is quoting a pre-existent document. Its identification as a hymn is due to the detection of different strophes. There is a great deal of disagreement on the number of strophes, but I remain convinced that a three-strophe arrangement best respects the formal elements in the text.

I< 14.0pt'> < >	v. 6a	Who being in the form of God
	v. 6b	Did not claim godly treatment
	v. 7 a	But he emptied himself
	v. 7b	Taking the form of a servant. �� .

II< ;>	v. 7c	Being born in the likeness of men
	v. 8a	And being found in shape as a man
	v. 8b	He humbled himself
	v. 8c	Becoming obedient unto death.

III< ;>	v. 9a	Therefore God super-exalted him
	v. 9b	And gave him the supreme name
	v. 10a	So that at Jesus' name every knee should bow
	v. 11 a	And every tongue confess 'Jesus Christ is Lord'.

The clarity of the pattern is its own justification. Something so perfect did not happen accidentally. Only deliberate intention explains the structural balance of the first two strophes. The double mention of 'God' in the first strophe matches the repeated reference to 'man' in the second. In both strophes the third line contains the verb followed by a reflexive pronoun, whose meaning is explained in the fourth line. The humiliation of the first two strophes gives way to exaltation in the third. To the elevation of Jesus in line one of the third strophe corresponds the submission of humanity in line three. The name conferred on Jesus in line two is proclaimed in line four.

No one who goes to the trouble of creating such a perfect arrangement will destroy it. Hence, the extra words which appear in the letter, namely, 'death on a cross' (v. 8c), 'in heaven, on earth, and under the earth' (v. 10b), and 'to the glory of God the Father' (v. 11b), must have been added by a hand other than {page 226} that of the original composer. Whose was it? The insistence on highlighting the brutal modality of Christ's death points to Paul. Paul, therefore, not only quotes a hymn, but adapts it to his own theological perspective. Originally the hymn must have been the inspired composition of a charismatic believer (1 Cor. 14:26; Col. 3:16), which Paul saw as reflecting to a great extent his vision of Christ. He accepted what it said, but made explicit what he felt was lacking.

We do not know in which community the hymn originated, but in all probability it was one which had been founded by Paul. The strong emphasis on the deliberate choice involved in the self-sacrifice of Christ-'he emptied/humbled himself-reflects the perspective of Galatians 2:20, 'he loved me and gave himself for me' (cf. Gal. 1:4). The insistence that Christ became Lord is echoed in 1 Corinthians 15:45; Romans 1:3- 4 and 14:9. The hymn grew out of Pauline teaching.

In biographical terms the importance of the hymn is twofold. It tells us something about the way Paul interacted with his communities, and it reveals a critical development in his understanding of the person of Jesus Christ.

The Teacher Learns

Paul's message was always very simple. This caused problems in Galatia, and would again at Corinth. He did not believe in a speculative theology. All that was necessary, in his eyes, was to understand what Christ had done for us and to act accordingly. What this meant in practice was a matter for each community to decide. He had made this clear to the Galatians, and says the same thing to the Philippians; 'work out your salvation in fear and trembling, for God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure' (Phil. 2:12-13). The depth of Paul's conviction that the local church should be autonomous in its development is underlined by his willingness to learn from it, not only by way of challenge but, as in the case of the hymn, by way of formulation. The hymn gave dramatic, memorable formulation to his thought, and he acknowledged it publicly by citation.

Paul's reflection on the tangible evidence of the action of the Spirit in such 'spiritual songs' (Col. 3:16) culminated ultimately in his vision of the community as a spiritual temple (1 Cor. 3:16-17; 6:9), in which the presence of God made itself effective through a variety of gifts (1 Cor. 12-14). {page 227}

The Christology of the hymn is fiercely debated, and it has been made to say many different things about the person and role of Jesus. There is little doubt in my mind, however, that it was intended to be read against the background of the story of Adam as filtered through the sapiential literature.

In Galatians the Judaizers' stress on the figure of Abraham forced Paul to penetrate more deeply than hitherto into the mystery of the person of Jesus Christ. The hymn took him even further back into the history of salvation. Paul's adoption of its Adamic perspective on Christ proved to be a decisive development which would influence all his subsequent soteriological teaching.

If one is prepared to cleave to the essential, the insight of the hymn can be summarized without great difficulty. As the righteous person par excellence, Christ was the perfect image of God. He was what Adam should have been, the inspiring illustration of what God intended a human being to be. Christ's sin-lessness gave him the right to be treated as if he were a god, that is, to enjoy the incorruptibility in which Adam was created. This right, however, he did not use to his own advantage. On the contrary he gave himself over to the consequences of a mode of existence inaugurated by fallen Adam. He freely chose the life of a slave which involved suffering and death, the state which Adam experienced as punishment. Although in his human nature Christ was identical with other members of the human race, he in fact differed from them because he had no need to be reconciled with God. It was this which enabled him to become their saviour through obedience and death. Therefore God exalted him above all the just who were promised a kingdom, and transferred to him the title and authority which previously had been God's alone. He became the Lord, whom every voice must confess and to whom every knee must bow.

This is not the place to detail the light these insights throw on the human condition, on the nature of salvation, and on Christ's salvific role. Here it must suffice to indicate the broad outlines of ideas which Paul will develop in subsequent letters. The state of humanity was not simply a given, but was a living out of the consequences of Adam's sin; it was a radically unnatural way of being. Salvation was the reacquisition of Adamic identity as portrayed by Jesus in his revelation of love as the essential constituent of authentic humanity. {page 228}

The Letter Of Warning

Letter C (Phil. 3:2 to 4:1) begins with a triple imperative blepete. It is usually translated as 'look out for' (RSV), 'beware of (NRSV, NAB), 'be on your guard against' (Phillips). G. D. Kilpatrick, however, has argued that when blepein is used in this sense it is followed either by me with the subjunctive or by apo with the genitive. Here we have the direct object and so, he claims, it should be translated 'consider, take note of. In consequence, a number of commentators have insisted that the function of 3:2 to 4:1 is not to warn the Philippians against any particular group, but to hold up the Jews as a cautionary example. The church was not menaced by intruders, but by attitudes among its members which Paul desired to correct by illustrating their effect among Jews.

Despite its apparently sound grammatical base, this interpretation fails to do justice to either the tone or content of Letter C. It is implausible that Paul would use the Jews as a cautionary model for a church whose members had come entirely from paganism. If his intention was to contrast reliance on self with reliance on divine help, there were many examples from Greek history which would speak directly to Philippians. If Judaism did enter his mind, he had only to mention his own experience. There was no need to refer to dogs, evil doers, and mutilators, whose god was their belly (Philippians 3:2,19). The viciousness of such invective betrays the depth of Paul's fear for the future of the Philippians. The tone evokes, not a remote possibility, but an imminent danger. It is not surprising, therefore, that even those who acknowledge the accuracy of Kilpa-trick's observations do not always endorse his interpretation, and continue to read Letter C as a warning.

There is a wide variety of opinions regarding the identity of those against whom the Philippians are warned. Most have only a tenuous basis, if any, in the letter. The first element in Phil. 3:2 'Beware of the dogs' would make one think of Gentiles who, because they did not discriminate in what they ate, were considered 'dogs' by Jews. The third element, however, 'Beware of the mutilators. For we are the true circumcision' clearly refers to Jews, or Christians of Jewish origin. The possibility that Paul has two distinct groups in mind is excluded by the Gentile character of the church. Paul would not use 'dogs' in a sense applicable to the Philippians. Hence we must assume that he is {page 229} turning back on Jews one of their most vicious slurs. There can be little doubt that Paul intends to evoke circumcision and the dietary laws.

Those from whom danger comes are also alluded to in 3:19, which when translated in such a way as to respect its structure-'they have made their stomach and their glory in their shame their god'-reveals that Paul has in mind two matters of ultimate concern, one is 'stomach' and the other 'shame'. The relationship between stomach and diet needs no emphasis. That between shame and circumcision becomes evident only when it is recalled that Greeks and Romans heaped scorn and ridicule on circumcision, and that out of shame some Jews underwent an operation to restore the foreskin.

It is difficult to imagine that the second element in Philippians 3:2, 'beware the evil workers', is directed against all Jews. If Paul had suffered at the hands of some, most were totally ignorant of his existence. The substantive implies energetic effort. Since it cannot refer to Jewish proselytization, it must allude to the phenomenon with which Paul had to deal in Galatians. The parallel 'deceitful workers' (2 Cor. 11:13) confirms that what Paul feared was that the Philippians would come under pressure from Jewish Christians to adopt circumcision and the dietary laws. For Paul Judaizers were the real enemies of the cross of Christ (Phil. 3:18), because they denied its salvific value. For them Christ simply inaugurated the eschaton; salvation was still conditional on observance of the Law. Those who thought of a crucified saviour as folly (1 Cor. 1:23) were less dangerous.

This interpretation is reinforced by the parallels with Galatians, whose broad outline Letter C reproduces. The autobiographical material (Phil. 3:4-8) is reminiscent of Galatians 1, but it is not used in precisely the same way. In Galatians Paul was concerned to demonstrate his independence of Jerusalem, and thus indirectly of Antioch, whereas here his point is to show that he had once been a strictly observant Jew, but had found something better. The contrast between righteousness acquired by obedience to the Law and righteousness given by God 'through the faith/fidelity of Christ' (Phil. 3:9 = Gal. 2:16) is evocative of Galatians 3-4. The admonition that salvation is not an immutable given, but an ongoing struggle towards a future prize (Phil. 3:10-16) could serve as an accurate summary of Galatians 5-6. Note in particular the parallel between Paul's bearing the stigmata of Jesus (Gal. 6:17) and his sharing in the fellowship of Christ's sufferings (Phil. 3:10). The concluding exhortation to imitate Paul (Phil. 3:17) echoes Galatians 4:12, but in view of the divisions within the church at Philippi the Apostle creates the word 'fellow-imitators' to underline the corporate dimension of the believers' existence.

Where and how did Paul learn that Philippi was menaced by Judaizers? I have argued above that the Judaizers who troubled the churches of Galatia were sent by Antioch to reform the churches founded by Paul.72 Their natural course.subsequently would have been to follow his tracks to Europe, where Philippi was his first foundation. Once he realized what was going on in Galatia, Paul should have anticipated this danger, but there is no hint in either Letter A or Letter B that he did. Such carelessness may be another aspect of the self-absorption so evident in Letter B.

It is not impossible that Paul suddenly woke up to the potential threat to Philippi, and dashed off Letter C in fulfilment of his responsibility. In this case, however, one might have expected a hint of self-reproach. The note of urgency, which penetrates the letter, suggests rather that it was a reaction to precise information. The simplest hypothesis is also the most probable. One of Paul's supporters came from Galatia to inform him of the plans of the Judaizers to move against Philippi, and the other Pauline churches. It would be most surprising, if those who had alerted him to the presence of the latter should not have kept him in touch with the evolution of the situation in Galatia. A more complex hypothesis might claim that the Judaizers knew that Paul was headed for Ephesus when he left Galatia, and followed him there. When they failed to convince him and his converts, they headed north for Philippi. Not only is this hypothesis more complicated than the data demands, but there is no hint in Colossians or Philemon that Judaizers of the Galatian type had come west into Asia from Galatia.

Partnership at Philippi