A. CITY AND CHURCH OF PHILIPPI
The city of Philippi was named after Philip, the father of Alexander. It was the scene of the battle between Brutus and Octavian, which gave birth to the Roman Empire in 42 B.C. Octavian (Augustus), the head of the new state, rebuilt Philippi and filled it with his own soldiers, making it a military outpost and colony of Rome. The strategic location of the city made this colonization extremely advantageous. It commanded one of the principal routes between Europe and Asia. It was the “chief” or “first” city of Macedonia (Acts 16:12), evidently meaning the farthest eastward from Rome, and the “first” city after entering Macedonia from the east.
The inhabitants of Philippi were Roman citizens and thus granted special privileges, with the right of voting, governed by their own senate and magistrates rather than by the governor of the province. The official language was Latin, though Greek was the language commonly used. The colony was a miniature of the Imperial City, and its citizens were proud of their connection with Rome.
A variety of national types assembled in Philippi—Greek, Roman, Asiatic—representing different phases of philosophy, religion, and superstition. That the inhabitants were religiously zealous is attested by the archaeological finds of the rocks near Philippi, which have been called a “veritable museum of mythology.”1 It was appropriate, and quite likely the desire of the apostle, that the gospel in the empire should begin in such a strategic and cosmopolitan city.
The church at Philippi was established by Paul and his companions in his second missionary journey about A.D. 52. There were only a few Jews in the city, an insufficient number to sustain a synagogue. Thus Paul, unable to follow his normal practice of reasoning in the synagogue, joined a group on the riverside “where prayer was wont to be made” (Acts 16:13). Lydia, a seller of purple, was converted, as was also a slave girl, whose conversion brought a loss of profit to her masters, resulting in the imprisonment of Paul and Silas. From the prison they prayed and sang praises to God and were set free by an earthquake. The prison keeper, seeing the power of God, was converted, with all his household (Acts 16:33).
From this simple beginning the church was constituted, composed initially of Lydia, the first European convert to Christianity, in whose home the church met (Acts 16:40); then the slave girl, the Philippian jailer, and his family. The charter membership of this congregation indicates the power and universality of the gospel. Lydia, the businesswoman, was Asiatic and somewhat wealthy; the slave girl was a native Greek, and represents the lower segment of society; the jailer was a Roman citizen and from the middle class.2 In Christ Jesus there is no distinction of male or female, bond or free (Gal. 3:27-28).
Luke may have remained at Philippi after Paul's initial visit to organize the Macedonian churches. This is inferred from the fact that Luke uses the first person (“we”) throughout his account of the organization of the church (Acts 16), but uses the third person (“they”) in describing the events of Paul's travels between his departure from and return to the city (Acts 20:6), 3 at which time Luke apparently rejoined his traveling missionary companions.
It seems likely that the church at Philippi inherited the persecution centered around Paul (1:7, 28-30). They thereby became attached to the apostle in a very personal way, and were intensely loyal to him. Though the congregation apparently was poor (II Cor. 8:1-2), it was marked by a spirit of fidelity and liberality. At least twice prior to the offering delivered by Epaphroditus (1:25, 30), the church had sent gifts to Paul to supply his needs— in Thessalonica (4:16) and Corinth (II Cor. 11:9).
B. AUTHORSHIP
There is no sufficient reason to doubt the authenticity of this letter. External evidence for Pauline authorship comes in part from Clement of Rome, and from Ignatius, Polycarp, and Diognetus.4 The internal evidence places the issue almost beyond question. The teaching, language, style, and manner of thought are clearly Pauline.
The only argument advanced against Pauline authorship is based on the reference in 1:1 to “bishops” (episcopois) and “deacons” (diakonois). These offices, so the theory goes, reflect a later stage in the development of the Church. Thus the letter could not be by Paul. This argument, however, is not convincing, since we know that Paul appointed officials in every church he founded (Acts 14:23; 20:17; Titus 1:5). It is not unreasonable to assume that these titles which later became so prominent in the Church were used at the time of this writing, though without the later organizational significance attached to them.
Though the authorship has not been seriously questioned by reputable scholars, some have doubted the integrity of the Epistle, suggesting that it is a composite of two or more letters. This theory has been advanced in light of the fact that Paul drastically changes his tone from 3:2 to 4:3. It has been said that this portion constitutes a separate and initial letter written shortly after Epaphroditus delivered the gift from the church. On this theory 1:1—3:1 and 4:4-23 were written later and carried by Epaphroditus on his return home. This suggestion seems to be supported by the fact that correspondence between Paul and the Philippians is implied, and also by the express reference of Polycarp to “letters” (plural) by Paul to the church at Philippi.5
Such a theory, though reasonable, is not compelling, since Paul's change of tone can be adequately accounted for in a simpler manner. In a highly personal letter such as this one, the writer speaks informally and without definite plan. He moves rapidly and sometimes abruptly from one topic to another. Further, it seems likely that Paul is replying point by point to a letter or letters from the Philippians in which they provoked such a change in mood by raising the question of the Judaizers, or perhaps the backslidings of Gentile converts (3:2). It is not difficult to infer that Paul is using this method in composing the entire letter (cf. 1:12 ff.; 2:3 ff., 27; 4:2, 8, 15). In addition, no argument can be made from Polycarp's reference to “letters” since the plural was sometimes used to describe a single writing. Thus Pauline authorship is virtually beyond dispute, and the evidence is insufficient to cause doubt as to the integrity of the Epistle.
C. PLACE AND DATE OF WRITING
The traditional view has been that Paul was in prison in Rome when he wrote the Epistle. It has been argued by some, however, that he was in Ephesus or Caesarea. Both of the latter theories are objectionable. We cannot be certain that Paul was in prison in Ephesus, though this might be inferred from I Cor. 15:30-32 and II Cor. 1:8-10. Even so, the duration could not have been long, and the Epistle suggests a lengthy captivity. It also implies a relationship of long standing between the apostle and the church at Philippi. If Paul had written from Ephesus, this relationship would have existed only three or four years. Further, Paul refers to the fact that of those with him only Timothy is acting unselfishly in sharing his concern (2:20). Such an event seems unlikely at Ephesus, since some of Paul's close friends were there (Acts 19:31; 20:1). Likewise the Caesarean theory may be dismissed. We know that, in Caesarea, Paul was not in immediate danger of his life. The Caesarean imprisonment would not justify the tone of martyrdom which characterizes Philippians.
Clearly the traditional view is the best. The references to “Caesar's household” (4:22) and the praetorium (1:13) seem most natural in Rome. Also on this view the correspondence presupposed by the Epistle can be accounted for best because of the close and direct connections maintained between Rome and her colonies. If the Roman imprisonment is accepted, the letter was written about A.D. 60-61. This would be during Paul's two-year captivity (Acts 28:16-31), at the beginning of which he was permitted to live in his own hired house (Acts 28:30). The letter apparently was written late in this imprisonment after several exchanges of correspondence passed over the eight hundred miles separating Paul and his readers, and possibly after Paul's prison liberties had been sharply curtailed.6
D. CHARACTER AND PURPOSE
This letter is the spontaneous and affectionate expression of one whose whole “remembrance” of the Philippians is highly cherished (1:3). It is written as friend to friends. With the possible exception of II Corinthians and Philemon, this is the most personal and informal of all the apostle's writings. The personal quality of the letter is seen in the fact that Paul uses the personal pronoun approximately one hundred times, in spite of the fact that Christ, rather than self, is constantly exalted. Its informal character is reflected in Paul's rapid movement from one theme to another (2:18, 19-25, 25-30; 3:1, 2, 3, 4-14, 15). There is also the absence of any reference to himself as an “apostle,” a reference which characterizes all his other letters except those to the Thessalonians and Philemon. “Philippians is more peaceful than Galatians, more personal and affectionate than Ephesians, less anxiously controversial than Colossians, more deliberate and symmetrical than Thessalonians, and of course larger in its applications than the personal messages to Timothy, Titus, and Philemon.”7
The occasion for the letter is the return of Epaphroditus to Philippi. As one of the leaders in the church, he had brought an offering from the Philippians to Paul in prison, with instructions to stay and assist the apostle in Rome (2:25, 30; 4:10-18). In so doing Epaphroditus had fallen dangerously ill. The church had learned of the illness and its concern had been communicated to Paul. Thus he writes to thank the church for her generosity (4:14-16) and to alleviate her anxieties concerning Epaphroditus' welfare, as well as to assure for him, because of his faithfulness, a good reception at home (2:25-30).
On the whole a spirit of unity characterizes the Philippian church, though Paul finds it necessary to admonish two ladies, Euodia and Syntyche, to agree in the Lord (4:2). The primary purpose of the letter is not ethical; nor is it doctrinal, though the apostle prays that the Philippians may grow in “knowledge” and “judgment” (1:9). And yet both doctrinal and moral precepts are evident and warmly intertwined. For example, it is in the context of Paul's reference to small personal dissensions in the church that the classic “kenosis” passage is written (2:3-10). While warning against the Judaizers (or perhaps Gentiles who had fallen away from the faith) and against the notion that perfection is attainable by works (3:2), he at the same time encourages his readers to walk worthily of their true “citizenship,” which is in heaven (3:17-21), and to look to the final day of Christ as a runner keeps his eye on the goal (3:13-14). Thus he expertly weaves doctrinal and practical matters into a single and beautiful pattern.
Philippians has been called the “Epistle of Excellent Things,” and is a good summary of all Paul had delivered to the churches in his earlier Epistles. He is unwavering in his faithfulness to the “gospel,” which is referred to nine times (1:5, 7, 12, 17, 27; 2:22; 4:3, 15). Some twenty times the author uses such terms as “rejoice,” “thanksgiving,” “content,” “praise”—none of which are dependent on outward circumstances. In fact Paul is experiencing, in spite of his own uncertain future, the inner calm and peace denoted by these terms. In this sense the letter may be considered a kind of “spiritual autobiography.”
The church at Philippi had been formed by the singing of hymns in prison, and now Paul from another prison with joy addresses this church (1:4). No wonder it has been called a “singing letter, a love letter.”8
Here is a letter of “faith.” It embodies the apostle's confidence that, as in the case of the faithful Philippian church, which had such humble origins, small things are not to be despised (1:6). That Paul's labor of faith was rewarded is evident from Polycarp's Letter to the Philippians,9 written some sixty years after Paul's last visit there, in which we learn that the church was still standing firm. The keynote of the letter is “fellowship” (koinonia, 1:5). It is worthy of note that “sin,” the breaking of fellowship, is not once mentioned. The mutual bonds of love which bind Paul and this Christian community together are no mere human sentiment. He and they are knit together as common members of the body of Christ—members who have been “partners” together in the gospel. No more beautiful picture of the relationship between genuine disciples of Christ is to be found in the New Testament than in this simple and charming letter to the Philippians.