1. For a broad range of views on these matters, see the NT Introductions by Kümmel, 320–35; Guthrie, 541–63; Carson-Moo-Morris, 317–29. For an Introduction of a different kind, toward which I have personal proclivities, see L. T. Johnson, Writings, 338–49. Reading the chapters on Philippians in these volumes will give one a good sense of the issues as well as of different approaches.
2. I had already settled on this some months before I read Stowers, “Friends,” who argues essentially the same thing. I have learned much from this article, to which I am indebted for some of the insights presented here. Where I differ from Stowers is at the point of history. Although he brings the letter to bear on the situation in Philippi, he is much more interested in the question of “genre” per se, so that one gets the feeling that the letter itself is “generic” in the sense that because it is a “hortatory letter of friendship,” it could have been written to any of Paul’s churches and come out pretty much the same way. Whereas I am equally convinced that it is a letter of friendship, I think it can only be understood as case specific, written to a very concrete situation in Philippi in the early 60s.
3. See also L. T. Johnson, Writings, 338–49; L. M. White, “Morality”; Stowers, “Friends.”
4. On this matter, see esp. Malherbe, Theorists, 1–11, plus his many examples; S. Stowers, Letter Writing, 27–40; J. L. White, Light, 189–220; cf. n. 14.
5. See Malherbe, Theorists, 6–7; Stowers, Letter Writing, 32–35; White, Light, 189–90.
6. “Epistolary Types,” by Pseudo-Demetrius (falsely attributed to Demetrius of Pharlerum, 4th c. BCE), cannot be dated with precision (from 2nd c. BCE to 2nd c. CE); for text and translation see Malherbe, Theorists, 30–41. “Epistolary Styles,” by Pseudo-Libanius, dates from the 4th to 6th c. CE; for text and translation, see ibid., 66–81. This work has expanded the list from 21 to 41. Interestingly, his first “type” is the “hortatory” letter; he lists the “friendly letter” as no. 7.
8. It should be noted here, as Stowers points out (Letter Writing, 71), that the so-called “family letter,” which abounds among the papyri, was not recognized as a distinct type by the ancient theorists. But that is because, as the illustration by Pseudo-Demetrius makes clear, the content of the so-called family letter belonged to the category of “friendly letter”; cf. Pseudo-Libanius, “the friendly style is that in which we exhibit simply friendship only.”
9. Gk. τὰ πρός σε; see n. 17 on 1:12.
10. Gk. καλῶς οὖν ποιήσεις; cf. on 4:14, but in the past tense.
11. See “Letter-Forms.” One needs to be properly cautious here, as to whether the “form” or the reality came first; i.e., whether a preexistent form determined how the letter was written, or the “form” is our discovery based on empirical data (cf. Alexander, 88–89). Surely in this case it is the latter.
12. I should note here that I read Dr. Alexander’s article after I had written the commentary, with the present outline already in hand. Her analysis has given clear evidence that this general pattern had already existed in some of the “family letters” from among the papyri.
It will also be recognized that 3:1–4:9 and 4:10–20 do not easily fit the scheme. While some see this as evidence for dismembering our present letter into three (see below, pp. 21–23), I have argued in the commentary, on the basis of content and the striking parallels between chaps. 2 and 3, that there are better solutions as to how these sections fit in. See the discussion below (pp. 37–39).
13. Cf. Alexander, “Letter-Forms,” 97–98.
14. Stowers (“Friends,” 107) points out that this has long been recognized by classicists dealing with ancient letter writing (e.g., Koskenniemi, Studien, 115–27; Thräde, Grundzüge).
15. Cicero, Fam. 2.4.1: “Letter writing was invented just in order that we might inform those at a distance if there were anything which it was important for them or for ourselves that they should know. A letter of this kind you will of course not expect from me; for as regards your own affairs you have your correspondents and messengers at home, while as regards mine there is absolutely no news to tell you” (LCL, 25.101; cited also in Malherbe, Theorists, 21; emphases mine, to show the ties with Pseudo-Demetrius noted above). Cicero then goes on to indicate that he intends to write on “something more serious.”
16. For discussions in the secondary literature, see Saller, Personal Patronage, 7–39; P. Marshall, Enmity, 1–34; Stowers, “Friends,” 107–14. Among the primary sources, see Aristotle, Eth. Nic., Book 8; Cicero, Amicitia; Seneca, Ep. Mor. 11; Plutarch, De Amic. Mult.
17. Cf. Saller, Personal Patronage, 12; see his discussion on pp. 12–22; cf. P. Marshall, Enmity, 21–24.
18. On the matter of “benefits” and its larger significance for society in general, see G. Peterman, “Giving,” 63–104.
19. See esp. chap. 2 in P. Marshall, Enmity, 35–69, and Stowers, “Friends,” 113–14. I am indebted to these scholars for these insights.
20. Stowers, “Friends,” 113, referring to Plutarch (De Util. 87B); cf. Plutarch in De Amic. Mult. 96A-B (LCL, 2.63): “Enmities follow close upon friendships, and are interwoven with them, inasmuch as it is impossible for a friend not to share his friend’s wrongs or disrepute or disfavor.” Cf. the threat to Pilate recorded in John 19:12, “If you let this man go you are no friend of Caesar’s,” implying that since Jesus as a rival “king” was therefore Caesar’s enemy, Pilate must act in accordance with “friendship” or he automatically becomes Caesar’s enemy.
21. On this matter see Saller, Personal Patronage, 8–39; see also the discussion of 4:15–16. In his relationship with other churches, this whole matter caused no end of personal tension for Paul, having to do with (1) his role as apostle and thus his authority over his churches, which (2) gave him the right to material support, but which (3) he rejected everywhere but in Philippi; in so doing (4) he inevitably experienced hunger, thirst, being poorly clad, sleepless, etc., a path (5) he appears to have chosen so as to model Christ as “servant of all.” In the final analysis, the gospel prevails over everything else, but one cannot miss the moments of tension in his letters because of that choice.
22. See Gunther, Opponents, 2.
23. For bibliography see O’Brien, 26–27, whose overview of the discussion is also helpful for those who wish to pursue this question further.
24. The basic method is called “mirror-reading,” in which statements made by Paul are “mirror read” as reflecting the statements and/or positions of the “opponents.” A very useful attempt to bring some order into the current chaos on this matter may be found in J. M. G. Barclay, “Mirror-reading,” whose cautions and criteria were worked out in the context of a “polemical” letter (Galatians); they are all the more noteworthy here since Philippians is not a polemical letter, although that is often assumed and sometimes asserted. Barclay isolates four “cautions” (= the primary errors in methodology) and offers seven positive criteria.
The cautions (dangers): (1) Undue selectivity (= the need to determine which of Paul’s statements are most revealing [as to the Philippian situation]); (2) Over-interpretation (the inclination to read into every statement by Paul some counter-statement as to the “teaching” of opponents); (3) Mishandling of polemics (the tendency to read the intention of opponents strictly from the heated, polemical descriptions by Paul); (4) Reading too much into very little (the tendency to latch onto a word or phrase, that occurs only once or twice, and reconstruct the whole problem in light of that). On this matter see further n. 60 on 3:3.
The criteria: (1) Type of utterance (e.g., assertion, denial, command, prohibition, all of which function differently); (2) Tone (the kinds of urgency or lack thereof in the various types of utterance); (3) Frequency (an occasional remark does not seem to carry the same weight as those items to which Paul returns again and again); (4) Clarity (we can mirror-read with confidence only those statements that are reasonably clear); (5) Unfamiliarity (with due cautions imposed, we may consider the presence of unfamiliar themes in a letter a reflection of the unique situation to which it is addressed); (6) Consistency (unless there is strong evidence to the contrary, one should assume one type of opponent or argument); and (7) Historical plausibility.
25. The primary methodological errors in the case of Philippians are two: first the unwarranted assumption that Philippians can be “mirror read” as though it were a polemical letter; second, little methodological care is given as to which, or what kind of, statements are “fair game” in order to determine the nature of the opposition. The literature is full of examples of abusing cautions 2 and 4 noted above (preceding n.).
26. The point is that whenever Paul begins to take on “opponents” in his letters, one is no longer dealing with more or less calm and rational conversation, but with something much more polemical, which varies from letter to letter, depending on the degree to which the community is capitulating.
27. Although I suggest in the commentary that Paul’s primary reason for mentioning them is probably paradigmatic.
28. On other options (Jewish proselytizers; “Gnostic missionaries”), see n. 38 on 3:2.
29. On this matter see esp. Malherbe, Moral Exhortation, 11–15.
30. These words are Stowers’s (Letter Writing, 96).
31. In Stowers’s words, “the writer recommends habits of behavior and actions that conform to a certain model of character and attempts to turn the recipient away from contrasting negative models of character” (Letter Writing, 96). See esp. the descriptions by Pseudo-Demetrius (of his “advisory type”), “we exhort (someone to) something or dissuade (him) from something” (Malherbe, Theorists, 37), and by Pseudo-Libanius (of his “paraenetic style”), “Paraenesis is divided into two parts, encouragement and dissuasion” (ibid., 69).
32. Cited in Malherbe, Theorists, 75.
33. Especially since (a) he narrates his own present response to suffering at the hands of the Empire, which corresponds to their situation, and (b) the “centre of gravity” (Martin; see n. 3 on 1:12–26) for the whole narrative is v. 18, with its “in this I rejoice; what is more, I will further rejoice,” which becomes a primary imperative throughout (cf. esp. 2:18).
34. See L. M. White, “Morality,” 206 (“Philippians … is primarily a friendly hortatory letter”), and Stowers, “Friends,” 107 (“a hortatory letter of friendship”).
35. But as Johnson (Writings, 341) points out, “In calling Philippians a letter of friendship, I do not suggest that it precisely follows a letter form for the friendly letter … I mean, rather, that Paul uses the rhetoric of friendship to evoke appropriate responses in his readers.”
36. Cf. Seneca, Ep. Mor. 75.1, “I prefer that my letters should be just what my conversation would be if you and I were sitting in one another’s company or taking walks together” (LCL, 2.137; cf. Cicero’s letter cited in n. 15); Seneca plays this in reverse in Ep. Mor. 40.1, “I never receive a letter from you without being in your company forthwith” (LCL, 1.263).
37. As Peterman, “Giving,” 105–38, has argued (although his argument on 1:3, following O’Brien, lacks persuasion).
38. See n. 47 on 1:5, and Part IV below (pp. 47–48); cf. O’Brien, “Importance.”
39. For a useful overview see C. C. Black, “Rhetorical Criticism.” From Aristotle’s analysis, there are three basic forms of rhetoric: deliberative, which aims to persuade or dissuade (or both); epideictic, whose basic purpose was to praise or blame someone; forensic, which occurs in situations of controversy, very often therefore apologetic. One can well understand, given what we have noted above about “letters of moral exhortation,” why the hortatory sections of Philippians might have led to seeing the letter as a whole as “deliberative rhetoric.” It should be further noted that the rhetorical theorists are speaking primarily of orations and secondarily of tracts or treatises. Rhetoric becomes applicable to letters only when they function as a substitute oration, or more commonly as a tract. The “form” of rhetorical address has at least four parts (although there are sometime others, including “digression,” “exhortation,” or “epilogue”):
1. An exordium (not necessary in deliberative rhetoric), which attempts both to “win over” the audience and to prepare them in advance for what is coming. (It is not difficult to see that Paul’s thanksgivings often function in these ways, but it is doubtful that he deliberately intended them to be exordia as such.)
2. A narratio, which in effect gives the “history” of the matter (past, present, and future), so as to put the audience “on board” with regard to the argument that is to follow.
3. The argumentatio, which is the main aim of the oration, in which the attempt to persuade by argument takes place, the part which also, understandably, has the greatest amount of “formal” flexibility.
4. The peroratio, which aims both to summarize and to offer, sometimes by exhortation, final arguments to persuade the audience.
40. Indeed, it has now become something of a fad, which nonetheless when the dust is cleared will have contributed considerably to our knowledge of the NT letters and especially to how their “argumentation” works. But it is doubtful that this way of looking at the letters is as much an end-all answer to our quest for understanding as some of its stronger advocates would have us believe. Cf. especially the cautious words of D. E. Aune’s review (RelSRev 7 [1981] 323–28) of Betz’s commentary on Galatians: “Perhaps one of the chief perils of the enterprise is the tacit assumption that all ancient literary compositions worthy of the name were consciously or unconsciously patterned after generic models which, when recognized, can provide the necessary keys for unlocking some of the enigmatic features of such texts. Literary variation, however, was one of the hallmarks of the Greco-Roman period” (323).
41. See Watson, “Rhetorical Analysis,” and Bloomquist, Function, esp. pp. 84–96, 119–38; see also the three articles that appeared in 1992 Heidelberg symposium volume (Snyman, “Persuasion”; Basevi and Chapa, “Philippians 2.6–11”; J. W. Marshall, “Ethical Appeal”).
42. Not surprisingly, the two analyses are about as far apart from each other as one could imagine it to be possible. While both see the letter as “deliberative” rhetoric, they see the “parts” quite differently. Watson labels 1:3–26 as “exordium,” while Bloomquist (more convincingly) limits it to 1:3–11; Watson views 1:27–30 as “narratio,” while Bloomquist narrows it to 1:12–14; the latter sees 1:15–18a as “partitio” (= “where he agrees with his opponents but controversy remains”); Watson thus views 2:1–3:21 as “argumentatio” (“probatio” is his term), divided into four parts (first development 2:1–11, second development 2:12–18, digression 2:19–30, third development 3:1–21), which Bloomquist sees as 1:18b-4:7, divided into five parts (“confirmatio,” 1:18b-26; “exhortatio,” 1:27–2:18; “exempla,” 2:19–30; “reprehensio,” 3:1–16; second “exhortatio,” 3:17–4:7); Watson then sees 4:1–20 as the “peroratio,” which Bloomquist sees as 4:8–20. A careful reading of these two pieces side by side does not lead to one’s finding one more convincing than the other, but to the conviction that both represent a basically wrong approach to the analysis of Philippians. Nothing exhibits this more than the rather cavalier way the concept of “narratio” is treated by both. At no point in Philippians does Paul use narrative to give a “history” of their relationship or of the matters with which this letter deals; and to turn the first imperative (1:27–30) into “narratio,” as Watson does, is to superimpose a rhetorical template onto this letter that simply does not fit.
43. In this regard Bloomquist’s study tends to fare much better, in that he attempts to take the epistolary features of Philippians with equal seriousness. Unfortunately, his epistolary analysis is limited to the basic elements of “form” (salutation, body, closing greetings), without evidence of concern for epistolary types. The result is that his rhetorical analysis wins the day altogether, which is again unfortunate in that he regularly lets his (very questionable) analysis of rhetorical form dictate meaning.
44. See, e.g., n. 8 on 1:21; n. 3 on 3:7–11; n. 5 on 4:8–9.
45. Although in this regard, see Wilder, Rhetoric; G. Kennedy, New Testament; and Achtemeier, “Omne Verbum.”
46. Perhaps we should add, “and not pored over by exegetes and theologians so as to milk every word and sentence for all it’s worth.” In fact, even when read privately, all the evidence we have is that people read aloud, by articulating as they read. “Silent reading” appears to have come in at a much later time. See the discussion by Achtemeier, “Omne Verbum.”
47. I use this word in a nontechnical sense, since one cannot know how much Paul thought through such matters and how much of it was simply inherent to his being part of a predominantly oral culture.
48. Cf. Achtemeier (“Omne Verbum,” 26), who notes regarding Philippians that the “changes of topics” in the letter are “clearly signaled” for the hearer: “a doxological form in 1:11; 4:9, 19; words expressing closure in 3:1 … and 4:1 … , with the whole letter concluding with a doxology. Each of those closures would have alerted the listener that one topic had ended and another was about to begin.”
49. For this matter in Pauline studies see R. B. Hays, Echoes.
50. In their case, the only Bible they had, the OT, whose “story” they knew well because they understood themselves as being in continuity with that story. In this regard see esp. 1 Cor 10:1–11, where Paul actually says to a predominantly Gentile church about the OT people of God that “all our ancestors were under the cloud and passed through the sea.” This phenomenon renders irrelevant the frequent suggestion that because Philippi was without a Jewish contingent, therefore Paul argues from a more Greco-Roman perspective (see, e.g., L. M. White, “Morality,” 205–6; and others he cites there; cf. Reumann, “Contributions,” 444 [n. 30]).
51. By Pauline standards, that is; it is much longer by far than the ordinary papyrus letter, but matches favorably with some of the letters of Cicero and Seneca.
52. Including all of the recurrences of the definite article, prepositions, and particles. This count is based on the NA26 text and includes the words they put in brackets as doubtful. The exact number, of course, is ultimately irrelevant; this count simply gives one an idea of length.
53. ἁγνῶς (1:17); αἴσθησις (1:9); ἀκαιρέομαι (4:10); ἄλυπος (2:28); ἀναθάλλω (4:10); ἀπουσία (2:12); ἁρπαγμός (2:6); αὐτάρκης (4:11); γνησίως (2:20); ἐξανάστασις (3:11); ἐπεκτείνομαι (3:13); ἐπιπόθητοι (4:1); ἑτέρως (3:15); εὔφημα (4:8); εὐψυχῶ (2:19); ἰσόψυχον (2:20); κατατομή (3:2); καταχθόνιος (2:10); κενοδοξία (2:3); λήμψις (4:15); μεγάλως (4:10); μυέω (4:12); ὀκταήμερος (3:5); παραβολεύομαι (2:30); παραμύθιον (2:1); παραπλήσιος (2:2); πολίτευμα (3:20); προσφιλής (4:8); πτύρω (1:28); σκοπός (3:14); σκύβαλα (3:8); σύζυγος (4:3); συμμιμητής (3:17); συμμορφίζω (3:10); σύμψυχος (2:2); συναθλέω (1:27); ὑπερυψόω (2:9), plus five names: Ἐπαφρόδιτος (2:25); Εὐοδία (4:2); Κλήμεντος (4:3); Συντύχη (4:3); Φιλιππήσιοι (4:15).
54. ἀδημονέω (2:26); αἴτημα (4:6); ἀναλύω (1:23); ἀποβαίνω (1:19); ἀρετή (4:8); ἀσφαλής (3:1); ἀφίδω (2:23); βεβαίωσις (1:7); βίβλος (4:3); γογγυσμός (2:14); διαστρέφω (2:15); δόσις (4:15); εἰλικρινής (1:10); ἔντιμος (2:29); ἐξαυτῆς (2:23); ἐπιλανθάνομαι (3:13); ζημία (2:7, 8); ἴσα (2:6); καίπερ (3:4); Καίσαρος (4:22); κύων (3:2); μορφή (2:6, 7); οἴομαι (1:17); πολιτεύομαι (2:27); πραιτώριον (1:13); σκολιός (2:15); συγκοινωνέω (4:14); συλλαμβάνω (4:3); ταπείνωσις (3:21); ὑστέρησις (4:11); φαρισαῖος (3:5); φωστήρ (2:15); χορτάζω (4:12).
55. Which are deceptively high in this letter. One must be especially careful in the use of these statistics, since they include, inter alia, proper names, compounds, and cognates (i.e., other words that belong to the same semantic field). In analyzing vocabulary it is of very little value, e.g., to separate χαίρω (“I rejoice”), συγχαίρω (“I rejoice with”), and χάρα (“joy”), since they clearly belong together. When one eliminates the dubious hapaxes (proper names, some compounds, those that result from citation of the LXX, and cognates [e.g., adjectives where the noun occurs elsewhere with precisely the same meaning]), the numbers reduce to 30 and 20 respectively. If one is interested in statistics, these are the only ones that count! It may be of interest also to note that when hapaxes concentrate, they do so in three kinds of material: where the subject matter is unique to this letter and calls for the language (e.g., the “friendship” materials in 4:14–15), where a metaphor calls for the language (e.g., 3:12–14), or where Paul is apparently deliberately using the language of “hellenism” in a Christianized way (4:8, 11–12). It should be noted that the concentration is much greater here than 2:6–11, where an alleged high concentration of hapaxes has been used to condemn it as non-Pauline.
57. On these matters see respectively n. 76 on 2:4; n. 79 on 1:7; and n. 41 on 1:1.
58. It occurs only 13 times in Philippians; cf. the 105 in 1 Corinthians, 77 in 2 Corinthians, 36 in Galatians, and 144 in Romans.
59. The closest thing to it is “and be found in him” in 3:9.
60. For a considerable list of those who take this view (up through 1983) see Garland (“Composition,” 141 n. 3).
61. It is a cause for some wonder that some scholars have not only convinced themselves that this letter is at best a patchwork quilt—without design—but that they can assert as much, as though this were as common as writing letters itself, which it is not.
62. Some have followed P. N. Harrison in dividing Polycarp’s letter to the Philippians into two as well (1–12, 13–14), but his criterion was too subjective to convince the majority (see the second edition of Lightfoot’s Apostolic Fathers, edited by M. W. Holmes, 120–21).
63. At least that is how many understand 2 Corinthians (for good internal reasons, esp. the future coming of Titus and “the brother” in 8:18, which are spoken of in the past tense in 12:18).
64. Cf. Kümmel, 334, “incomprehensible.”
65. And it is and ever will be only that—a hypothesis. We do have the letter in its present form, and this is what all should be under some kind of obligation to make sense of.
66. Cf. Kurz, “Kenotic Imitation,” who has argued particularly in this vein, but who leaves the question of redaction somewhat open.
67. For a useful overview of the city and its history see the entry in ABD, 5.313–17 (by H. L. Hendrix; see p. 317 for further bibliography).
68. As with all cities and towns in antiquity, the final resolution of placement was a combination of the need for protection, proximity to something of significance (e.g., agriculture), and water. Philippi was well supplied with the latter by a small, still flowing, stream where Paul first met Lydia and the other women who were to form the core of this community.
69. On the vexed textual question regarding this designation see especially Wikgren, “Problem.”
70. He renamed it (in honor of his daughter) Colonia Augusta Julia Philippensis.
71. In this regard see especially the citation from Tarn in n. 31 on 4:2, and the further bibliography noted there.
72. See, e.g., Suggs, “Concerning,” who on the basis of the grammar of 4:15–16 suggested a ministry in Macedonia as early as 40 CE.
73. It seems especially to be corroborated by two statements from Paul’s letters, evidence of a kind that we are often lacking elsewhere. In 1 Thess 2:2 he reports, “We had previously suffered and been insulted in Philippi, as you know,” and in our present letter (4:15) he testifies, “At the beginning of the gospel, when I set out from Macedonia, not one church shared with me in the matter of giving and receiving, except you only; for even when I was in Thessalonica, you sent me aid again and again when I was in need.” Since this squares so perfectly with Acts, there is every reason to accept Acts as reliable history. Cf. the important discussion in Rapske, Acts, 115–34.
74. Cf. Torjesen, When Priests, 53–109, who has correctly assessed the sociological significance of Lydia’s role as head of her household and patron of Paul and for her probable role as primary leader of the church that met in her house.
75. This assumes Luke to be the identity of the “we” in the “we-sections” in Acts, which begin in 16:10–16. One cannot prove, of course, either that Luke wrote Acts or that he was the person who wrote its “we” sections, but despite the modern consensus against this identification, there are good historical reasons to think so—far better from my perspective than the “evidence” against it, which has much too much subjectivity (= theological presuppositions) in it for my liking. For further discussion on this matter see on 4:3 below.
76. 1 Tim 1:3, which I take to be Pauline and reliable history (see Fee, 1 Timothy, 7–10), mentions a further visit, apparently the one anticipated in our letter (1:26; 2:24), while the combined evidence of Tit 3:12 and 2 Tim 4:13 suggest yet another visit before his final arrest and death in Rome. Since Nicopolis is west of Philippi and he was apparently arrested in Troas, which is east (and south), he would most likely have gone back through Macedonia on his way from Nicopolis to Troas. But this is more conjectural, since it assumes that the plans of Tit 3:12 were followed through.
77. It is of some interest that two dissertations that came to hand while I was in the process of writing this commentary take up one and the other of these two matters, in each case seeing the one as the primary cause over against the other. See Bloomquist (Function), who sees their suffering as the key to the whole, and Peterlin (“Paul’s Letter”), who sees “disunity” in the church as what drives the letter.
78. It is also noteworthy that the two intermediate narratives about Timothy and Epaphroditus (2:19–24, 25–30), while functioning as “letters of commendation,” also seem to present these two brothers as models regarding these two matters: Timothy of the “mindset” that stands over against selfish ambition, the root cause of the unrest (see on 2:3–4); and Epaphroditus of one who had risked his life to the point of death for the sake of Christ.
79. Although this view has been adopted by Blevins, “Introduction,” 318–20.
80. So also D. W. B. Robinson, “Circumcision,” 28.
81. For a more detailed expression of the view outlined here, see M. Tellbe, “Christ and Caesar.”
83. Since this is much-covered ground, and since there are no significant reasons for rejecting the tradition, I do not here intend to “reinvent the wheel,” but simply to give my reasons for staying with the (in this case very solid) tradition and briefly noting why the other options have little in their favor—from my point of view. For the arguments pro and con, one should read on all sides of the issue to see how different scholars handle the same evidence (e.g., for Rome: see Guthrie, O’Brien, Reicke [“Caesarea,” 282–86]; for Caesarea: Hawthorne; for Ephesus: Duncan, Kümmel, Carson-Moo-Morris).
84. It is of some interest that this evidence is often turned on its head by proponents of other views (cf. n. 13 on 4:22). So, e.g., Kümmel (Introduction, 328): “Since there are no unambiguous arguments for the writing of Phil in Rome, and some evidence against it …” But that should be stated precisely in reverse: “While there is some evidence in favor of a Roman imprisonment, there is no evidence against it.”
85. Bruce (11) points out that Paul’s use of this loanword “suggests that it bears its technical sense.”
86. It has been common to find the presence of the guard there on the basis of an inscription in the vicinity of Ephesus (cf. CIL, iii. 6085, 7135, 7136). But this inscription refers not to the presence of the guard in that city, but to a former member of the guard who is now on police duty on a road outside of Ephesus. On this matter see Bruce, 12, who describes the inscription as “irrelevant” (see further, “St. Paul in Macedonia,” 263 n. 3). Despite the large number of scholars who embrace an Ephesian provenance (first suggested by Deissmann, it owes its present popularity to Duncan’s Ephesian Ministry), I find myself in full sympathy with Bruce, who bluntly asserts, “Ephesus … may be ruled out” (“St. Paul in Macedonia,” 263); indeed, there is not a single piece of historical evidence in favor of this view, yet it has recently been noted that “Ephesus has been adopted by an increasing number of scholars and now rivals or even surpasses Rome as the imprisonment site favored by most” (Fitzgerald, ABD, 5.322). The reasons for espousing an Ephesian provenance are often closely related to the issue of integrity (see pp. 21–23 above), and the need for a shorter distance for the sending of three brief letters within a short time frame. But this is an example of one unlikely hypothesis building on another. Most damaging to this hypothesis, besides the lack of a praetorium (= “governor’s palace”) there (see next n.) or praetorian guard stationed there, is the nature and duration of Paul’s present imprisonment. Those who favor an Ephesian provenance hypothesize an imprisonment there as though it were as natural as eating (on the basis of 2 Cor 11:23, “in prisons often”! and then reading between the lines in 1 Cor 15:31–32 and 2 Cor 1:8–11). But besides being an altogether unlikely interpretation of these two texts (being rescued from a deadly peril sounds very little like an imprisonment), and even if one were to allow that Paul might have been imprisoned at some point during his stay there, the imprisonment described in Philippians seems historically impossible in Ephesus (esp. in light of the evidence from Acts 19–20 and 1 Corinthians, which was written from Ephesus): of considerable duration; under imperial custody for preaching the gospel; whose outcome could result in death. The evidence of Acts 23–24, written by an eyewitness, stands in strong opposition to such an imprisonment having happened to a Roman citizen in the first half of the sixth decade (between 52–55) in Ephesus.
87. Since Ephesus was in a senatorial, not imperial, province; and there is no known evidence that refers to a senatorial governor’s palace as a praetorium. One must finally therefore resort to the unlikely hypothesis that Paul either did not know what he was talking about, or that he used language loosely—neither of which makes much sense in this case, since what Paul says is hardly “in passing.”
88. Which Bruce rightly describes as “a political backwater” (“St. Paul in Macedonia,” 264). He adds, “certainly everybody in Herod’s praetorium would know that [Paul] was there and why he was there, but would there be anything very remarkable about that?” For arguments in favor of a Caesarean origin of our letter see Lohmeyer, Hawthorne, and Gunther (Paul, 98–107).
89. On this matter, and its refutation, see the comments on 2:26, and especially nn. 28, 29, 31.
90. That Paul should be held to his “word” regarding planned itineraries is shaky business at best, given the row this very matter created in Corinth (see 2 Cor 1:15–20). In any case, it hardly “creates a real difficulty for the theory of a Roman origin for Phil,” as Kümmel suggests (Introduction, 326).
91. The point is that if Epaphroditus took ill along the way, as is implied by the grammar of 2:30, one of his companions could easily have broken off and taken this news back to Philippi, which cuts out at least two of the alleged trips back and forth. On the unlikelihood of his traveling alone, see n. 30 on 2:26.
92. Indeed, it would seem to exist only because one is committed to other reasons for rejecting the tradition. It presupposes far more than is warranted and dissipates completely if one takes seriously—as the internal evidence of the letter would lead one to—that Philippians was written toward the end of the imprisonment (which Luke put at two years).
93. This is based partly on the “sense” one gets that the detention has been long and trying. For it both to have resulted in the whole Praetorian Guard being apprised of it as for Christ and to have evoked the various responses to it noted in 1:15–17 implies a certain amount of time. So, too, with the events surrounding the coming of Epaphroditus noted above. But a later rather than earlier date is based mostly on the fact that Luke mentions a two-year incarceration, and Paul in this letter is anticipating his release, which he apparently expects to happen reasonably soon (2:19, 24).
94. On the question as to whether Paul expected release or martyrdom, the texts are clearcut: he expected to be released and never once contemplated that it might go the other way. See the commentary on 1:23–24, 25–26; 2:17, 19–24 (esp. v. 24). On this matter, which drives much of his “Egocentric Letter,” Fortna is psychologizing, not working with the data from the text, when he speaks of, “[Paul’s] imprisonment and the possibility, seeming to him at times the certainty, of execution ([1:]7).” Paul may indeed prefer that his trial go against him (as 1:22–23 indicate), but there is nothing in the letter that implies that he thinks indeed it will.
95. Much of the substance of this excursus appeared in BBR 2 (1992) 29–46, under the title “Philippians 2:5–11: Hymn or Exalted Pauline Prose?” For a more thorough (and more objective) discussion of these matters, see O’Brien, 186–202, although his discussion is equally carried on in the framework of conviction—in his case that it is in fact a hymn.
96. Thus the title of Martin’s monograph (Carmen Christi = “hymn of Christ”).
97. On the matter of criteria for distinguishing hymns and confessional materials in the NT, see esp. Gloer, “Homologies”; cf. Martin, DPL, 420–21. Although this passage reflects several of Gloer’s criteria, the fact that vv. 9–11 fit them all so poorly should give everyone reason to pause.
98. On this matter see n. 4 on 2:5–11.
99. See G. D. Fee, First Corinthians, 626.
100. Indeed, there is nothing else quite like this in Paul, where, in vv. 14–15, one has the order ἐν ᾧ/ὅς (“in whom”/“who”), rather than the expected ὅς/ἐν ᾧ. The subsequent ὅτι in v. 16b, which looks like a berakoth formula from the Psalter, plus the second ὅς in 18b, also makes one think that we are here dealing with a hymn fragment of some kind.
101. E.g., several passages in 1 Corinthians come immediately to mind: 1:22–25; 1:26–28; 6:12–13; 7:2–4 (!); 9:19–22, etc.
102. There is also no verb expressed in line 11b, “The Lord Jesus Christ,” but this is a nominal sentence in which a form of “to be” is presupposed. It is not surprising that four of these verbless “lines” are in vv. 9–11, which has nothing at all of the quality of poetry to it.
103. On this matter see the discussion in Fee, “Philippians 2:5–11,” 32–34.
104. E.g. by Käsemann, Martin, and Murphy-O’Connor.
105. By “un-Pauline” I mean “that which is uncharacteristic of Paul”; “non-Pauline” means that it is judged as quite foreign to Paul.
106. As does Murphy-O’Connor, “Christological Anthropology.”
107. By “citing” I refer to that kind of quotation from the OT or elsewhere, where some kind of introductory formula is used, or as in the case of 1 Cor 10:26, a γάρ is used with a quote that the apostle can assume will be well known to his readers.
108. Cf. the critique by Strimple, “Philippians 2:5–11,” 250–51. Others, especially Käsemann (“Critical Analysis”) and Martin (Carmen), seem to make the same exegetical error, though a little more subtly. In their case the meaning of the “hymn” is discovered first of all in isolation from its present context, then that meaning is contended for as the one Paul himself intends in context. There is an obvious circularity to this kind of reasoning; thus it does not surprise one that almost all who go this route have the common denominator of opposition to the so-called ethical interpretation of the passage.
109. See the excursus on this matter in Presence, 272–81.
110. For this new understanding of authenticity, put in this very forthright way, see Fitzgerald, ABD, 5.319–20.
111. See her “Philippians 2:6–11,” 152.
112. Ibid.
113. Most of those who write on this passage simply fail to come to terms with the ὥστε that begins v. 12. Not only is this a thoroughly Pauline form of argumentation, but it is so in such a way that what precedes forms the theological basis for the concluding paraenesis. See the discussion in the commentary.
114. On this matter see Fee, “Toward a Theology,” and Presence, 2–5, 11–13, 799–801.
115. Some NT scholars will not be congenial toward this alleged anachronism. For a defense of this usage—even though Paul does not engage in Trinitarian speculation—see Fee, Presence, 827–45; cf. “Christology and Pneumatology.”
116. Although “Son of God” language is noticeably missing from this letter, it is presupposed in three instances where God is called “Father” (1:2; 2:11; 4:20), since in each instance this appellation comes in a context where God is mentioned in close proximity with Christ.
117. As is the judgment that comes on those who reject his salvation (1:28).
118. In this regard see the comments on 1:2 and 2:11; cf. n. 25 on 1:1; n. 65 on 1:6 and n. 38 on 4:5.
1. For helpful studies of letter writing in the Greco-Roman period, see J. L. White, Light, whose analysis is based on the Greek papyri, and Stowers, Letter Writing, who throws the net more widely. Either (or both) of these is essential reading for the serious exegesis of one of the NT letters. Along with the useful collection of such letters in Stowers and White, see also Hunt and Edgar, Select Papyri I, for further examples from the Greek papyri.
2. All the true “letters” in the NT follow this pattern (including the letter from James in Acts 15:23–29), except for 3 John, which lacks the standard greeting. For a collection of examples from the papyri, see Exler, Form, 23–68; for a further collection and detailed study, see Schnider and Stenger, Studien.
3. Noticeably absent in Galatians, 1 Timothy, and Titus.
4. Cf., e.g., 2 Thess 1:11–12; Col 1:9–11.
5. The word proemium is the technical one to cover all of these matters, both the “prescript,” which refers to the salutation proper, and the thanksgiving-prayer report.
6. Although sometimes noted by earlier commentators, awareness of the significance of this phenomenon for Paul’s letters took root with Paul Schubert’s Form and Function of the Pauline Thanksgivings (1939).
7. The later MajT has the word order, “Jesus Christ,” against all the early evidence of all kinds.
8. Several MSS, including K 33 1739 1881, read σὺν ἐπισκόποις as one word, συνεπισκόποις, thus turning “overseers” and “deacons” into indirect objects. The resultant text, “to all the saints in Christ Jesus at Philippi, to the fellow-bishops and deacons, grace and peace,” is a patently secondary reading, reflecting the ecclesiology of a later time. Cf. Metzger, Textual Commentary, 611.
9. He does so in seven letters in the corpus: 1 and 2 Thessalonians (Timothy and Silas), 1 Corinthians (Sosthenes), 2 Corinthians (Timothy), Philemon (Timothy), Colossians (Timothy), and here (Timothy). There are no known examples outside the Pauline corpus. The only known reference to co-authorship is in Cicero, Att. 11.15.1: “For my part I have gathered from your letters—both that which you wrote in conjunction with others and the one you wrote in your own name …” (LCL 2.363). See the discussion in Bahr, “Letter Writing,” 476–77.
10. So also Jones, Müller, Bruce. Most commentaries think otherwise, often following Meyer (11), who asserts on the basis of Rom 16:22 that “the amanuensis as such is not included in the superscription” (emphasis his). More likely the difference between Tertius (who is clearly the amanuensis of Romans but not mentioned in the salutation) and Timothy and Sosthenes (1 Corinthians) is that the latter were Paul’s co-workers, and were also known to the recipients.
11. Cf. 1 Cor 16:21 and Gal 6:11, the latter in a letter that lacks any internal information as to who the secretary might be. This is probably an indication that Paul wrote that letter at a time when Timothy was not with him—although it also may be that Timothy was not personally known in the churches of Galatia.
12. This is especially true in the case of 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 2 Corinthians, and Philippians; it is more problematic for Colossians and Philemon.
13. On Philippians as a letter of friendship, see the Introduction, pp. 2–7.
14. After all, in v. 3 Paul assumes the role as the only writer, a stance that carries throughout the letter. Furthermore, in 2:19 he speaks of Timothy in the third person while referring to himself still in the first singular. By way of contrast cf. the reference to Timothy in 1 Thess 3:2.
15. This is made evident by how Paul speaks of him to them in 2:19–23; it is further corroborated by Acts 16:1, 13, where he was present at the founding of the church; cf. 17:14, where he is also present at the founding of the church in Thessalonica. According to Acts 19:22 and 20:3–4, Timothy visited Philippi twice more during Paul’s so-called Third Missionary Journey.
16. “Paul, apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God” (Col 1:1); “Paul, prisoner of Christ Jesus” (Phlm 1).
17. Cf. 1 Cor 1:1, where the same distinction occurs between Paul as an apostle and Sosthenes as a “brother,” and Phlm 1, where Paul likewise distinguishes himself from Timothy (“Paul, prisoner of Christ Jesus, and Timothy our brother”) because Timothy was not in fact a prisoner; only Paul was. This evidence should occasion some caution as to how much weight one puts on Paul’s having joined Timothy’s name with his in this case (as, e.g., Hawthorne, 3–4). Of the various terms of self-identification used by Paul in his salutations, this one (i.e., “slave of Christ Jesus”) in particular can include others on equal grounds, without the need to distinguish himself from his writing companion(s).
18. See the Introduction, pp. 2–7, 10–14.
19. In this regard see esp. the comments below on 1:7–8, 25–26, 27; 2:1–2, 12, 17–18; 4:1, 10, 14–16; cf. the Introduction, pp. 13–14.
20. Altogether this word group appears 59 times in the Pauline corpus: δοῦλος, “slave” (30x); συνδοῦλος, “fellow-slave” (2x); δουλέυω, “to perform the duties of a slave, to serve” (17x); δουλεία, “slavery” (4x); δουλόω, “to enslave” (6x). On the meaning of this word in Paul see, inter alia, K. H. Rengstorf, TDNT 2.261–80; H.-G. Link and R. Tuente, NIDNTT, 3.589–98; A. Weiser, EDNT, 1.349–52; Sass, “Bedeutung.”
21. Cf. KJV, AV, RSV, NRSV, NIV, GNB, NEB, NAB, JB. Weymouth and the NASB have “bondservants”; Confraternity has “bondsmen.” The latter are attempts to find a middle way between the rather totally negative connotations of “slave,” conditioned as it is by slavery in American history, and the less than servitude connotations in the word “servant.” The latter, to be distinguished from a slave, was designated by the word διάκονος, which appears in the next phrase where it is translated “deacons.” But because the word “slave” often carries the connotation of “servility,” which δοῦλος never does in Paul (so also Vincent, 2), it fares little better than “servant” as an adequate translation into English. Cf. Michael, 2–3.
22. Cf. Bruce, 26, who dismisses altogether the possibility of a second connotation (as suggested below).
23. Their slavery, which originated with captives from war, became primarily a socioeconomic phenomenon. For overviews of Greco-Roman slavery, see S. S. Bartchy, ABD, 6.65–73, and E. Ferguson, Backgrounds, 56–59; see their bibliographies for more detailed studies.
24. On the sociological question of the early churches as a religious “society” in the Greco-Roman world, see esp. W. A. Meeks, Urban, 74–80; J. E. Stambaugh and D. L. Balch, Social Environment, 124–26, 140–41; and Ferguson, Backgrounds, 131–36.
25. See, e.g., Moses (2 Kgs 18:12; Ps 104:26); Josh 24:29 (“Joshua, the servant of the Lord, died”); Jon 1:9 (“I am the servant of the Lord” [δοῦλος κυρίου]); Neh 1:6 (where Nehemiah in prayer calls himself “your servant”); Ezek 34:23 (referring to David as “the Lord’s servant”); Ezek 38:17 (“my servants the prophets”; cf., Jer 25:4; Amos 3:7; Dan 9:6, 10). That Paul should substitute “Christ Jesus” for “the Lord [= Yahweh]” is another of those subtle, but significant, moments in Paul where his “high Christology” emerges as presupposition, not argumentation (cf. Sanday-Headlam, Romans, 3).
26. Only here and in Rom 1:1, where it appears as his first self-designation, before he also reminds them that he has been “called” to be an “apostle” of the gospel. But cf. Gal 1:10 (“Christ’s slave”), and Col 1:7 and 4:7, where Epaphras and Tychicus are each called a συνδοῦλος, “fellow slaves/servants in the Lord.”
27. For this translation of the verb in Gal 5:13, see Fee, Presence, 425 n. 201.
28. Cf. Collange, 26; Hawthorne, 4.
29. In this regard, see esp. 2:16–18 (of Paul toward the Philippians); 2:22 (of Timothy); 2:25–26 (of Epaphroditus).
30. Gk. οἱ ἅγιοι, which occurs in 6 of the 9 letters addressed to churches (1 and 2 Corinthians, Romans, Colossians, Ephesians, Philippians). It also occurs in 4:22 to designate God’s people in Rome who return greetings (cf. 2 Cor 13:12).
31. Most often it carries an “elitist” sense, co-opted by the later church to designate its “special” people, as, e.g., “Saint Paul.” This is about as far removed from biblical usage as one can get. The word also carries a more popular sense, referring to anyone who is well known for godliness or good deeds, as in “my uncle Alton was a real saint.” This is a bit closer to the biblical sense, which presupposes such “sanctity” as being common to all who belong to Christ.
32. In the repeated, “you shall be holy, for I the LORD your God am holy.”
33. Cf. Ps 16:3 (LXX 15:3), “As for the saints who are in the land”; 34:9 (LXX 33:9), “Fear the Lord, you his saints”; 74:3 (LXX 73:3), “All this destruction the enemy has wrought among your saints.” See esp. Dan 7:8, 18, 21, 22. See the helpful discussion by Evans, “New Wine.”
34. Thus trying to keep intact both the “ontological” (= people) and “ethical” (= holy) dimension of this term.
35. Although Paul does not make that point here, there can be little question of this connection in his own thinking; see, e.g., the discussions of 1 Thess 4:8; 1 Cor 6:11; and esp. Rom 15:16 in Fee, Presence, 50–53, 127–32, 626–27. Cf. Kennedy, 416, on the present text.
36. Lightfoot, 81–82, notes that it was probably the “moral idea” in this word, almost entirely wanting in the word for “sacred” (ἱερός), that led the LXX translators to choose ἅγιος to render the Hebrew word for “holiness.”
37. On the possible significance of the word order (“Christ Jesus” instead of “Jesus Christ”), see Kennedy, 415, who sees the order as “strik[ing] the keynote of Paul’s attitude toward his Master.”
38. An idea first made popular by A. Deissmann in Formel. For English readers a succinct overview of his position can be found in Paul, 123–35. The idea was carried forward vigorously by W. Bousset in Kyrios Christos and esp. by A. Schweitzer, Mysticism.
39. Cf. Collange (37): “The long history of interpretation of the Pauline ‘en Christo’ is familiar enough, and it is sufficient for the present to say that the ‘en’ (‘in’) has temporal and historical, not spatial, force here.”
40. On the geography, history, and sociology of the first century city, see the Introduction, pp. 25–26, and the bibliography cited there.
41. See 1:2, 7 (2x), 8, 25; 2:17; 4:21. For this emphasis see esp. D. Peterlin’s dissertation (“Paul’s Letter,” 29–31), although as with many theses the influence of the element of “disunity” in the letter is overdone, partly because of methodological weaknesses related to “mirror-reading” (see the Introduction, p. 7 n. 24). The only other letters where this word appears in the salutation are Romans (1:4), a letter addressed to a situation where Jew-Gentile relations are at stake, and 2 Corinthians (1:1) in a prepositional phrase that expands the greeting to include “all who are in Achaia.”
42. Although one should also observe that in this, its first occurrence, there is no reason to think it emphatic. The emphasis comes in its “studied repetition.”
43. For the considerable bibliography on these two words, see the excursus in the commentaries by Lightfoot, 95–99, 181–269; Vincent, 36–51; Gnilka, 32–41; Collange, 37–41; as well as the significant studies on church order in the early church (E. Schweizer, Church Order; von Campenhausen, Ecclesiastical Authority); cf. Best, “Bishops.” Schenk (78–82) has argued against the authenticity of the phrase; but his arguments are circular and ultimately based on subjectivity (a distrust of the titles in such an early letter). The basic objection is that it requires hypothesizing a kind of scribal activity for which there is no analogy (the fact that these words are secure in the entire textual tradition of Philippians and that they were never transported from here to other letters indicates how unlikely it is that a scribe would have created such a phrase here “out of thin air”). Cf. Peterlin’s counter-arguments to each of Schenk’s points (“Paul’s Letter,” 27–28). It is equally unlikely that the καί is epexegetic, thus forming a hendiadys (= “overseers who serve”), as Collange (39–40) and Hawthorne (9–10), following Lemaire (Les ministères, 96–103), who picked up the suggestion from Chrysostom.
44. Because of the predominant view that the Pastoral Epistles are “deutero-Pauline,” most would say the “only” such designation in Paul’s letters. On the probable authenticity of these letters, see Fee, 1 Timothy, 23–26; in any case, they are far more Pauline than otherwise. That is, even if “deutero-Pauline,” they are in that sense very clearly Pauline, and thus are filled with Pauline themes and concerns. For similar judgments in recent studies, see Towner, Goal; Fowl, Story; and Kidd, Wealth.
On the improbable suggestion made by some (e.g., Houlden, 49; allowed as possible by Hawthorne and O’Brien) that these terms are likely parallel to the “helpers, administrators” of 1 Cor 12:28, see Fee, First Corinthians, 621–22; this is to read back into Paul the concerns of a later time and has no basis in either Paul’s use of words or his concerns.
45. Another observation that is seldom made in the commentaries. On Schenk’s suggestion that these words are a later interpolation see n. 43 above.
46. Although it seems very likely on sociological grounds that the head of the household, the paterfamilias, functioned in a similar role of leadership in the house church that met in his or her household as he or she did in the household itself.
47. Gk. σύν, which carries the connotation of “accompaniment, association.”
48. Cf. Motyer, 40–41.
49. Gk. ἐπίσκοποι, found here and in 1 Tim 3:2 and Tit 1:7 in Paul; cf. Luke’s version of Paul’s “speech” in Acts 20:28. Because of the inherent interest both in the term itself and in early church leadership in general, there is a considerable literature on this term. Among many other items, one should note H. W. Beyer, TDNT, 2.606–22; L. Coenen, NIDNTT, 1.188–92 (further bibliography, 200–201); Lohse, “Entstehung”; J. Rohde, EDNT, 2.35–36; Porter, “ἐπίσκοπος”; Stalder, “Episkopos,” plus the items noted above (n. 43). For an earlier view, still worth reading, see the excursus in Lightfoot, 181–269.
50. So esp. in the LXX, where it is altogether a “functional” term. See, e.g., Num 4:16 (ἐπίσκοπος; Eleazar, who was “in charge of” the oil); Num 31:14 (those in charge of the army are called “the ἐπίσκοποι of the forces”); Jdgs 9:28 (Zebul, Abimelech’s “deputy” [v. 28], is the ἐπίσκοπος of the city). In some more recent literature a septuagintal background has been called into question, finding it instead in Greek usage for governmental supervisors or officials in societies; see Reumann, “Contributions,” 449–50 (following E. Dassmann, “Hausgemeinde,” and G. Schöllgen, “Hausgemeinden”). This may well be so, especially since it would have been a convenient term to adopt; but the emphasis is all the more on function rather than on title as such.
51. In Greek literature the noun and verb are frequently used to refer to a “god,” whose primary function would be to “care for” people. This usage occurs of Christ in 1 Pet 2:25; cf. 1 Clem 59:3 (of God).
52. Lightfoot, 95–99, followed by many others, argued that πρεσβύτεροι (“elders”) and ἐπίσκοποι (“overseers”) are interchangeable terms. While that is true to a degree—they are almost certainly not coterminous—more likely, on the basis of the evidence in the Pastoral Epistles, “elder” is the broader term that included all people in leadership, including “deacons” (see Fee, 1 Timothy, 78).
53. Both here and in 1 Timothy. This is further confirmed by the fact that by the second c. it had become the primary title for local, apparently area-wide, leaders. The translation “bishop” derives from this latter usage and should never be used, since it has altogether misleading implications for this plural, which refers to local leaders of some sort.
54. All of this acutely raises the question of translation, so as not to mislead. Do we use “titles” (such as “deacon” has become in English) or “functional” equivalents, such as “helpers” (as GNB)? The latter would seem preferable, although it is also bland, considering the “servant” implications of the word.
55. See Silva, 144; for other (earlier) suggestions see Meyer, 13, who opts for a much earlier tradition that they had been responsible for seeing that the gift had been collected and transmitted to Paul (cf. inter alia, Barth, Beare, Benoit, Martin), which seems to focus on a lesser concern in the letter, and fails to explain why they are not further mentioned in 4:10–20.
56. So also Michael, 6; Collange, 41; Hawthorne, 10; Garland, “Philippians 1:1–26” (although Michael sees the friction as between the congregation and its leaders [“the members wanting in due respect to the officials”], concerning which, one should note, there is not the slightest hint in this letter).
57. The whole phrase “from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ” is missing in 1 Thessalonians; the “our” is missing in 2 Thessalonians and Galatians; “and the Lord Jesus Christ” from Colossians; while “mercy” is added in 1 and 2 Timothy (but not Titus) and the “our” is transferred from God to Christ in the Pastoral Epistles (in Titus “Savior” is substituted for “Lord”).
58. Gk. εἰρήνη; on this word see V. Hasler, EDNT, 1.394–97; and H. Beck, C. Brown, NIDNTT, 2.780–82. It is just possible that, since this Hebrew word had connotations of “well-being” inherent to it, Paul is here using this Jewish greeting as an equivalent of the “health wish” found in many of the papyrus letters (so Russell, “Structure,” 298); but one should perhaps also remember that the English “hello” derived from “health to you”! Whether the greeting “shalom” carried with it a wish for health by the time of Paul seems moot, though possible.
59. At the same time, he may also be modifying a Jewish blessing formula (ἔλεος καὶ εἰρήνη, “mercy and peace”), found, e.g., in 2 Bar 78:2 and echoed (in reverse order) in Gal 6:16. This cannot be demonstrated, of course, since Paul could very easily have made his theological point by adopting the blessing without modification. More likely the blessing formula lies in the background, but the modification is the result of his being a man of two worlds, as suggested here.
60. It should perhaps be noted that one cannot be sure that Paul himself is responsible for this “transformation into gospel” of traditional formulas. But his is the earliest evidence for it, and it is quite in keeping with what he does elsewhere; see, e.g., on 4:8 and 4:11–13.
61. Thus the letter also signs off with “the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirits.”
62. In Paul “peace” can refer in turn to (1) peace with God (= cessation of hostilities), (2) peace within the believing community, (3) inner peace in place of turmoil, and (4) rest or order within a context of worship. Other commentaries express more confidence than I could muster that one can isolate any of these nuances in the Pauline salutations. In the context of greetings to a community it at least includes (1) and (2), and perhaps (3).
63. On the probable eschatological dimension of this word in Paul, see C. H. Giblin, Hope, 96.
64. On the (rightly rejected) possibility that Paul means “from God our Father as well as the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,” see Hawthorne, 12.
65. In Philippians see esp. 1:6, 27; 2:9, 13; 3:9.
66. In Philippians see 1:11; 2:11; 4:20.
67. In Philippians see 1:11; 2:8; 3:9–11, 12, 20–21.
1. As in 2 Corinthians and Ephesians—although Ephesians contains both a benediction (1:3–14) and thanksgiving (1:15–23). In contrast to the thanksgiving report, in which Paul essentially creates something new in the place of a very stereotyped formula (see the discussion), the benedictions are adaptations of a Jewish liturgical formula (see, e.g., Furnish, II Corinthians, 116–17).
2. The Pauline thanksgivings have been subjected to careful investigation twice: Schubert, Form and Function; O’Brien, Thanksgivings.
3. It is common to refer to Paul’s thanksgivings as a Christianized form of ancient thanksgivings as such, but scholarship needs to be more cautious in its use of “formulaic” language. A “thanksgiving” as such rarely occurs either in the literary or papyrus letters; and when they do occur they are simply a variation of the true “formula”—a wish for the recipient’s health (see nn. 4 and 5 below). On this matter, see Arzt, “Epistolary Introductory Thanksgiving,” who has demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that such a formula in ancient letters is a myth of scholarship, not the reality of the letters themselves.
4. This is the most common form, which occurs over and again in a very stereotyped way, either, “If you are well, it would be wonderful (εἰ ἔρρωσαι, ἔχοι ἂν καλῶς)” or as part of the greeting itself (“greetings and good health”). Cf. the letters collected and commented on in J. L. White, Light; a quick thumbing through the collection in Hunt and Edgar (Select Papyri, LCL 1.268–395) could also be a good introductory excercise in “form-criticism”!
5. See, e.g., letter 109 in White (Light, 173), “Before anything else I pray that you are well; I myself am also well. I make obeisance on your behalf daily before the lord Sarapis”); cf. letters 103A, 103B, 104B, 105, 110, 111; and the variation in letter 64 (“May you always be well, just as I pray”).
6. Cf. letter 26 in White (Light, 52), “I offer up thanks to all the gods (τοῖς θεοῖς πάσιν χάριν ἔχομεν) if you yourself are well.”
7. The only thing that remotely represents a thanksgiving can be found, e.g., in letter 103 (White, 159), where Apion, in writing to his father, thanks the lord Sarapis for having been rescued at sea (but that is a different thing from thanking the gods for someone). The thanksgiving in letter 115 (p. 182) is in fact a letter of thanksgiving.
8. Cf. Jewett, “Epistolary Thanksgiving,” who, however, considerably overstates this reality (“The entire letter as it now stands is the product of the author’s intention set forth in the epistolary thanksgiving,” 53). Bloomquist (Function, 121–23, 145–47) considers this section to be the exordium of a piece of “persuasive” rhetoric (see nn. 39 and 42 in the Introduction), but his presentation itself is not persuasive. Unfortunately he lets his prior commitment to “form” dictate his understanding of “meaning” (only by such a predetermination would one note that there are no imperatives in a Pauline thanksgiving [p. 121]!).
9. Cf. 1 Thess 1:2–3 (“We thank God for you … as we mention you in our prayers”); Rom 1:8, 9; Phlm 4; Col 1:3; Eph 1:16; 2 Tim 1:3. For prayer reports see 2 Thess 1:11–12; Col 1:9–14; Phlm 6; Eph 1:17–21 (cf. 3:14–19, which I take to be a renewal of the prayer report begun in chap. 1).
10. See the Introduction, pp. 13–14.
11. The Western tradition (D* F G b Ambst Casspt) reads ἐγὼ μὲν εὐχαριστῶ τῷ κυρίῳ ἡμῶν (“I, for my part, thank our Lord”). Although favored by Kennedy (418), Michael (9, following Zahn), and Barth (13), this is a secondary reading on all counts. (1) It is the habit of this tradition to offer idiosyncratic readings; and such a reading, supported only by Western MSS, is highly suspect under any circumstances. (2) The addition of ἐγὼ μέν can easily be accounted for on the twofold basis of the inclusion of Timothy (καὶ Τιμόθεος) in the salutation and the first person singular verb (εὐχαριστῶ) with which the thanksgiving begins. (3) Although it is true that the “more difficult reading” is usually to be preferred, this is a case where the reading is simply too difficult; Paul never elsewhere offers thanks “to our Lord” (cf. Collange, 43).
12. In order to clarify the difficult compounding of phrases and participles in this sentence, some MSS (F G Ψ 2495 pc) have inserted a καί between μετὰ χαρᾶς and τὴν δέησιν ποιούμενος. The resultant text is probably to be understood as supporting the punctuation of the NA26 (followed by the NIV), thus making an independent clause of the insertion, “also making my prayer with joy.”
13. A considerable number of significant MSS have the reverse word order, “Jesus Christ” (
A F G K P 33 81 104 365 614 1175 1739 1881 2464 pc). The text is read by P46 B D Ψ Maj lat. This is a tough call. The external evidence is rather evenly divided; and one can make a good case on internal grounds for either: the order “Christ Jesus” predominates in this letter, and in the thanksgiving in particular. Did Paul use this predominant form, which scribes then changed either accidentally or to conform to another usage with which they were familiar? Or, as seems more likely to me, did Paul himself here write the less usual “Jesus Christ,” which scribes then conformed to the usage in v. 1 and v. 8?
14. The NIV, following NA26 (but not UBS3), has vv. 7–8 as a separate paragraph. Although this represents a common position, these verses are better understood as a continuation of the sentence that began in v. 3 (see the discussion below).
15. A few MSS omit the ἐν which here precedes τῇ ἀπολογίᾳ, thus making a three-member prepositional phrase (“in my bonds and defense and confirmation of the gospel”). This is patently secondary. Paul’s prepositions suggest a two-sided reality: “in my chains” and “in the defense and confirmation of the gospel.”
16. See n. 86 below for comment on the NIV’s handling of this complex set of clauses.
17. Despite breaking it into two paragraphs (n. 14), the NIV has otherwise done a good piece of work in bringing some degree of order to the sentence.
18. Some scholars would add the similar apparent ambiguity in v. 7 regarding who is whose heart. But as noted there (n. 83), that has been satisfactorily resolved on grounds of grammar (usage).
19. Similarly, Kennedy, Michael, Lohmeyer, Hawthorne, Silva, Melick, thus taking v. 5 to be primarily expressing the reason for his joy in prayer and thanksgiving. Others (e.g., Lightfoot, Gnilka, Martin, O’Brien, Omanson [“Note”]; cf. RSV) take v. 4 as parenthetical, understanding v. 5 therefore as further dependent of the main verb (“I thank my God for you […] for you participation …”).
20. Since the second clause is grammatically dependent on the former, however, the whole should be thought of as on a continuum: thanksgiving and joyful prayer happen together, which include his grateful remembrance of them and his joy in that remembrance occasioned by their long-time association in the cause of the gospel. Cf. Silva, who (rightly) notes that “the ambiguities, touching no matter of substance, probably did not even occur to Paul” (44), and “how easy it is for Paul to shift or readjust his thought in the middle of a sentence” (48). His further caution against interpreters making far too much out of very little is wisely taken.
21. See the Introduction, pp. 12–14.
22. See especially the strong future orientation of so much in the letter (cf. the Introduction, p. 30).
23. The formula appears in 1 Thess 1:2; 1 Cor 1:4; Rom 1:8; Col 1:3; Phlm 4. In 2 Thess 1:3 and 2:13 there is the slight alteration to “we are bound to give thanks to God.”
24. That is, in 1 Cor 1:4; Rom 1:8; Phlm 4; and here—which also explains the variant reading in 1 Cor 14:18. Whenever the verb is plural, “we thank,” the possessive is missing. The phrase “my God” also occurs in 4:19 and 2 Cor 12:21.
25. Cf. Acts 27:23 (“whose I am and whom I serve”). The contrast between this expression of personal relationship and the more general expressions of piety in the contemporary Greco-Roman letters is especially striking. See the illustrations in nn. 5 and 6 above.
26. Gk. πάντοτε, which is missing in Rom 1:8 (but is picked up in the resumption of the thanksgiving in v. 10).
27. Gk. περὶ [πάντων] ὑμῶν. The “all” occurs in 1 Thess 1:2 and Rom 1:8.
28. The alleged ambiguity lies with the genitive ὑμῶν, which technically could be either “objective” or “subjective.” But as noted below, there is no known instance of the combination of this noun with a personal pronoun in the genitive where it is not an objective genitive.
29. This view was adopted, inter alia, by T. Zahn, A. Harnack, Ewald, Kennedy, Schubert (Form and Function, 74), Martin, O’Brien, Jewett (“Epistolary Thanksgiving,” 53), Garland (“Defense,” 329–30), Reumann (“Contributions,” 441); Peterman (“Giving,” 108–14); Houlden is open to it. O’Brien (58–61; cf. Thanksgivings, 41–46) presents the most significant case for this view. The only English translation known to me which adopts it is Moffatt (“I thank my God for all your remembrance of me”), which, however, is argued against by Michael in the Moffatt NT Commentary. The traditional view is adopted, inter alia, by Meyer, Lightfoot, Plummer, Robertson, Müller, Barth, Beare, Hendriksen, Lohmeyer, Gnilka, Collange, Bruce, Hawthorne, Silva, Melick (in some cases [Plummer, Beare, Lohmeyer, Melick] without discussion). N. Turner (Insights, 91) suggests that Paul is intentionally ambiguous, which is unlikely. When authors are ambiguous (from our point of view, as here), they usually do not intend to be; their intent, after all, is perfectly clear to themselves (which is why authors have editors!).
30. See, e.g., Martin, 64, who makes this comparison the primary reason, not noting how many—and more significant—dissimilarities with the other thanksgivings such an interpretation imposes on the present text. See further n. 37 below.
31. O’Brien, Thanksgivings, 45.
32. Cf. esp. Martin; but that is not quite so, since their gift seems to be a first point of reference in v. 5 (q.v.), not to mention its being alluded to in 2:25 and 30.
33. Gk. μνεία, which occurs only in Paul in the NT (1 Thess 1:2; 3:6; Rom 1:9; Phlm 4; Eph 1:16; 2 Tim 1:3), thus six times in his thanksgivings. In the other instances in Paul’s thanksgivings, it means something very close to “mention,” i.e., to “remember” by “mentioning.” It can perhaps mean that here as well (BAGD, Hawthorne), although in the other cases it means “mention” in conjunction with the participle ποιούμενος (= “making mention”). But the word is used in 1 Thess 3:6, as here without the participle, in the sense of “to remember,” where Paul unambigously says, “you always have good remembrance of us.” One should also note this usage in hellenistic letters; e.g., Apion (Antoninus Maximus) to his sister Sabina (2nd c. CE): “making mention of you (μνείαν σου ποιούμενος) before the gods here” (White, Light, 160).
34. In the LXX, Job 14:13; Ps 110 (111):4; Wis 5:14; Zech 13:2; Isa 23:16; Jer 38 (31):20; Bar 4:27; 5:5; Ezek 21:32 (37); 25:10. In the NT, Rom 1:9; Eph 1:16 (v.l.); 1 Thess 1:2 (v.l.); 3:6; Phlm 4. The passage in Bar 5:5, τῇ τοῦ θεοῦ μνείᾳ, is the only subjective genitive, made so in this case by the “enclosed genitive” and the repeated definite article. That is scarcely analogous to the usage here.
35. In light of the linguistic data, one should also note the role of orality in a matter like this. Both in Paul’s dictation and in their hearing, his remembering them is the only possible sense. There would be no “marker” in the text that would cause them to go back and “rehear” it in a reversed way.
36. Philemon is the lone exception.
37. There are further supporting reasons for the standard interpretation: (1) In two cases where Paul remembers his converts while in prayer, he also, as here, uses the preposition ἐπί in conjunction with “making remembrance,” where it can only mean “on the occasion of my prayers.” It does not help to argue, as some do, that when this preposition accompanies the verb “to give thanks,” it tends to mean “on the basis of,” because it may just as easily mean, as it almost certainly does here, “I give thanks on the occasion of my every remembrance of you.” (2) This view in fact creates a most unusual Pauline thanksgiving, namely that “always, in my every prayer for you all,” what I thank God for is your gift to me! While remotely possible conceptually, such a view is contrary to all analogy. (3) Most significant is a point of grammar seldom noted. If “you” were the “subject” of the verbal idea in “remembrance,” that leaves the phrase without an object at all. Whereas that might seem remotely possible, it founders in this case precisely because the otherwise unexpressed object must be carried over from the preceding phrase, where Paul is the subject. To put this another way, since by any reading of the text, a reference to Paul must be carried over from the opening clause, the natural implication is that the subject is unexpressed in the ensuing phrase precisely because it would be understood to be the same as the subject of the sentence. The alleged ambiguity, therefore, exists only because the normal reading of the sentence is circumvented.
38. Gk. πάσῃ τῇ μνείᾳ, which technically means “all the” (with the implication that he remembers them “all the time”), rather than “every time.” But there is good reason to doubt whether this differentiation can be unswervingly sustained during the koine period. Paul is very likely intending his “all the” to be all embracing; but in reality the remembrance of them happened from time to time, especially in prayer. Cf. Silva, 49.
39. Cf. Fee, “Pauline Spirituality.” The point is that gratitude expressed by way of thanksgiving is the beginning point, the proper stance of humility before God for his grace; in recognizing his congregations both as belonging to God, not to himself, and as God’s “gifts” to him, he is thus set free to thank God for them—for all of them.
40. Because of the ἐπί in v. 5, many see this material (v. 4) as parenthetical, but that seems to miss what Paul is up to. See the introductory discussion of this paragraph (and n. 19).
41. Gk. ἐν πάσῃ δεήσει (lit. “in every prayer,” which the NIV makes plural, “all my prayers”). This is one of only two occurrences of δέησις in the Pauline thanksgivings (cf. 2 Tim 1:3). Ordinarily he uses the close synonym προσεύχη, which is the more general word for prayer (of all kinds). In biblical Greek δέησις is almost always directed toward God and carries the narrower sense of supplication or intercession. It occurs again in 4:6 in combination with προσεύχη and “thanksgiving.”
42. On this matter, see Fee, “Pauline Spirituality.” Granted the Spirit is not mentioned, but prayer for Paul is especially an activity of the Spirit in the believer’s life (see Fee, Presence, 866–68).
43. That is, Paul has already mentioned his standard “thanksgiving for you always in every prayer of mine.” By adding the phrase “with joy,” he feels compelled to note that the joy comes in the context of “his every prayer.” Thus he repeats, “the prayer making,” all of which means, “thanking God for you always in every prayer of mine for all of you, making that prayer with joy.”
44. Gk. ἐπί, which is not quite causal in the strictest sense, i.e., that their participation in the gospel causes his joy, but in the sense that it serves as a basis for such joy and thanksgiving.
45. Cf. Collange, 44, and Silva, 44–45, who also see v. 5 as offering the reason for his joy and thanksgiving together.
46. Gk. εἰς, here with the sense of “unto,” i.e., “with the furtherance of the gospel in view.” Cf. ASV (“in furtherance of the gospel”), GNB (“in the work of the gospel”); NAB (“helped promote the gospel”). On the significance of this preposition with the noun κοινωνία, see n. 50 below.
47. The noun εὐαγγέλιον, which occurs 9 times in this letter, is thus mentioned far more frequently (in terms of occurrences per hundred words) in Philippians than in any of the other letters in the corpus (there are also 9 occurrences in Romans, plus two occurrences of the verb; but Romans is four times longer than Philippians).
48. Gk. κοινωνία; the word group appears six times in this letter (1:7; 2:1; 3:10; 4:14, 15).
49. This clear shift in focus, not to mention the word order itself, is what makes altogether unlikely the possibility suggested by Silva (45, but correctly not adopted) that this phrase refers to v. 3.
50. At least this seems to be true for the most part, and especially when it is accompanied by a genitive as in v. 7, 2:1, and 3:10. Cf. J. Hainz (EDNT, 2.304): “The neutral rendering, ‘participant,’ ‘participate,’ ‘participation,’ is overwhelmingly preferred [to its religious character in Pauline usage].” But in the two other cases in Paul where this word is followed by the preposition εἰς (2 Cor 9:13; Rom 15:26), it refers to the collection for the poor in Jerusalem, and means something close to “participation” in the sense of “contributing unto them.” For bibliography, see Fee, First Corinthians, 466 n. 18. Hawthorne, 19, argues that the use of εἰς here supports the view that their gift to Paul is primarily in mind. While I do not doubt, esp. in light of the verb in 4:15, that this passage includes their gift, Paul’s language does not suggest that their gift to him is the first, or even primary, referent. The εἰς functions quite differently here than it does in 2 Cor 9:13 and Rom 15:26, where it points to the people who benefit from the “participation” in the fund for the the poor. Here it is telic pure and simple; the advance of the gospel—not a gift to Paul—is the goal of their “participation.”
51. One should note at this point, what will become clear as the letter unfolds, that inherent to Paul’s understanding of “the gospel” is the notion of evangelism (see the Introduction, p. 47; cf. vv. 12, 27). Hence it is difficult not to see evangelism as inherent in this phrase as well.
52. Indeed, the compound συγκοινωνούς in v. 7, repeated in its verb form in 4:14, is the clue to its present focus (cf. n. 87). The σύν implies their joint participation in the same reality; Paul and the Philippians have not only together experienced the benefits of the gospel, but have mutually shared in its proclamation and in (present) suffering for its sake.
53. On the much larger issue of how Paul supported himself, see the discussion below on 4:15–16.
54. Cf. in this regard the use of κοινωνία to refer to the collection itself in Rom 15:26.
55. But see Plummer, 9; Robertson, 61; Martin, 65; Silva, 46–47, who tend to limit it to this concern (see Meyer, 17, for earlier scholars who took this position). Likewise difficult to sustain are those interpretations that see the usage as general here, without specific reference to their gift (e.g., Seesemann, Lohmeyer, Gnilka, Panikulam). On Sampley’s view that κοινωνία is here a Greek equivalent for a “consensual societas” (legal partnership for a common purpose), see n. 4 on 4:14–17. Besides lacking hard linguistic evidence for this equation (cf. the critique in Peterman, “Giving,” 230–31), Sampley seems to have it quite backward in suggesting that Paul’s preaching of the gospel beyond Macedonia is “as the representative of the Macedonians.” To the contrary, Paul says in 1:7 and 4:14 that the Philippians are participants with him in the gospel. They are involved in his ministry, not he in theirs.
56. On this matter see the Introduction, pp. 11–12; cf. the introduction to 1:12–26 and comments throughout that passage.
57. So Lightfoot, 83; Hawthorne, 20.
58. Cf. Peterman (“Giving,” 118): “This active participation (working to propagate the gospel message) presupposes static participation (receiving the gospel message).”
59. Indeed, in 4:2–3 he refers back to his time in Philippi, when Euodia, Syntyche, Clement, and the rest “contended by my side in the gospel.”
60. E.g., Hawthorne, 29 (Plummer, 11, and Martin, 65, who take the narrower view of v. 5, abandon it here).
61. Grammatically, it could be dependent either on the main verb, “I give thanks,” or on the preceding participle, “making my prayer.” Although a case can be made for either of these, most likely it is dependent on the preceding participle in a rather loose way. Thus Paul is neither offering yet another reason for thanksgiving (as, e.g., O’Brien) or offering an additional reflection on what happens to him when he prays and thanks God for them (as, e.g., Vincent), but while keeping his sentence going by means of a participle, he is actually offering further—theological—reflection on the immediately preceding phrase “from the first day till now.” Cf. Meyer, 18, who sees the confidence as “accompanying” the thanksgiving.
62. Gk. αὐτὸ τοῦτο (lit., “this same thing”), an emphatic combination stressing “this very thing” that has been or is about to be mentioned. In this case, the ὅτι that follows makes it clear that it points forward. Cf. 2 Cor 2:3; 7:11; Col 4:8; Eph 6:22, all of which point forward with similar constructions. Contra Meyer, 18–19, who, on the analogy of Gal 3:10, argues that it means “for this very reason” and refers to their participation in the gospel in v. 5.
63. Gk. ἐναρξάμενος … ἐπιτελέσει. For this way of talking about the present and future of salvation in Christ, as evidenced by the life of the Spirit, see Gal 3:3. The same confidence about the future, predicated on the work of Christ in the present, can also be found in the thanksgiving in 1 Cor 1:4–9, but with different vocabulary.
64. Gk. ἄχρι, which normally does not mean “at” (Paul always uses temporal ἐν for this nuance; e.g., 1 Cor 1:8), but “until.” The usage here is dictated first of all by its appearance in the preceding clause; hence: “from the first day until now,” which in turn is related to the “good work that God is also doing in your lives (lit., among you) and will continue to do “until the day of Christ’s coming.” The obvious implication of the two verbs (“began” and “will bring to completion”) is that the latter will be fully realized “at the day of Christ,” although it is obviously understood that there is an ongoing process until the day of his coming.” Cf. the unique use of εἰς ἡμέραν Χριστοῦ in 1:10 and 2:16, which probably = “for the day of Christ,” thus reflecting the same “already but not yet” sense that this phrase does.
65. The “Lord” in the OT phrase now understood as referring to Christ—another subtle but significant expression of a very high Christology (cf. the final comment on v. 2). See the Introduction, pp. 49–50.
66. See esp. 1 Thess 5:2 (4); 2 Thess 2:2 (cf. 1:10).
67. See 1 Cor 1:8; 5:5; 2 Cor 1:14; and 1:10 and 2:16 in our letter. So also the shortened form “the day” in 1 Cor 3:13; Rom 2:16; 13:12; and “that day” in 2 Thess 1:10; 2 Tim 1:12, 18; 4:8 (cf. “day of wrath,” Rom 2:5; “day of redemption,” Eph 4:30).
69. Not only so, but one would expect him also to say “this good work,” not the indefinite “good work” or “a good work.” Moreover, the theological and eschatological emphases seem to have more than mere material support in purview. Hawthorne, 21, suggests that the ἐν here could be instrumental, and (wrongly) offers Gal 3:3 as support (the latter is instrumental, but does not have the ἐν); the context calls for a locative sense to the ἐν here.
70. So most commentaries, though not always with this language. For “salvation in Christ” as the central theme of Pauline theology, see Fee, Presence, 11–13. Paul’s language here assumes a connection between this passage and 2:12–13.
71. Similarly, Kennedy, 419; Michael, 13; Hendriksen, 54–55; Caird, 107; O’Brien, 64.
72. As with that text, therefore, contra Silva and Melick, the focus is first of all on the church as the people of God in Philippi, rather than on all of them as individuals—although of course God’s work “in them” is carried out first of all at the individual level. Cf. on 2:4 and 13.
73. See 2 Thess 2:17; 2 Cor 9:8 (where it also includes the grace of giving!); Rom 2:7; 13:3; Col 1:10; Tit 1:16; 3:1; 2 Tim 2:21; 3:17. Cf. also those places where he speaks of “working [or doing/pursuing] what is good”: 1 Thess 5:15; Gal 6:10; Rom 2:10; 12:9; 16:19. Many (Gnilka, Martin, Collange, O’Brien) have suggested an allusion here to Gen 2:2, but that seems irrelevant at best and far-fetched at worst (see the response in Silva, 51–52).
74. See, e.g., 1 Thess 1:3; 1 Cor 1:7–8; Col 1:12 (in the prayer report).
75. Jewett (“Conflicting Movements,” 375, following Lütgert) seems to turn this dimension of the passage on its head by associating it with the language “fear and trembling” in 2:12, and thus to suggest that the Philippians were rejecting such “fear and trembling” having to do with the coming day of judgment. Thus Paul’s concern is once again to put the proper “fear” of future judgment before them. That seems quite foreign to this motif in Philippians.
76. Contra BAGD, who suggest that καθώς has a “causal” sense when used as a conjunction at the beginning of a sentence and include this reference. But καθώς does not in fact begin a sentence here; it concludes the one that began in v. 3. The whole of vv. 3–6 are to be understood as the οὕτως, for which v. 7 will now serve as the proper comparison. Thus, “so I give thanks in this way, just as it is fitting for me to feel this way about you.” Analogy for the present usage is to be found in 1 Thess 1:5 and 1 Cor 1:6, in the thanksgivings of those letters (on this question, see Fee, First Corinthians, 40). The other passages cited by BAGD are likewise suspect on this matter.
77. Gk. τοῦτο, the first of several (somewhat ambiguous) appearances of this demonstrative in this letter. See the discussion on 2:5.
78. Gk. δίκαιον, the ordinary adjective for “righteous, just, upright” (cf. 4:8), which in this usage has the sense of something “obligatory” in view of what is “right” in a given situation; cf. BAGD.
79. Gk. φρονεῖν; BAGD offer “think of, be intent on, be careful about, set one’s mind on, be disposed,” as its basic range of meaning. Although not especially frequent in Paul’s earlier letters, it occurs no less than 10 times in Philippians, and usually at critical moments. It is the key verb in the appeals to harmony in 2:2 (twice) and 4:2, in the appeal to Christ’s example in 2:5, in the appeal to keep alive their keen sense of future orientation in 3:15 (twice), as well as in the sad description of those who are doing otherwise in 3:19. It also occurs twice in 4:10 with reference to their renewed concern for Paul.
80. It is of interest that the verb occurs 7 times in the paraenetic section of Romans (chs. 12–15), which begins with emphasis on the “renewing of the mind,” and otherwise only 6 times in the rest of the corpus. The clue to its special nuance in Philippians is to be found in its cognate noun (φρόνημα), which occurs three times in Rom 8:6–7 with the sense of “mindset.”
81. On this kind of language as common to the “letter of friendship” in Greco-Roman antiquity, see Stowers, Letter Writing, 58–60.
82. Cf. NEB, Hawthorne. The problem lies with the Greek infinitive, which as in English takes both its subject and object in the accusative (English, objective) case (e.g., “I thought her to be him”).
83. J. T. Reed, “Infinitive” (disc. of our text on p. 10); S. E. Porter, “Word Order” (see p. 197). So most interpreters (Meyer, Lightfoot, Vincent, Michael, Hendriksen, Lohmeyer, Collange, Martin, Bruce, Silva, O’Brien, Melick); for others (e.g. Plummer, Beare) it is so clearcut that they do not even discuss the alternative.
84. So also Meyer, Lightfoot (“[the ‘for’] requires it”), Vincent, Hendriksen.
85. See v. 3; cf. v. 1. See the next paragraph and v. 8 as well.
86. At this point the NIV (probably correctly) renders as an explanatory clause (“for whether I am …”) what in Paul’s Greek is a much more complex set of clauses. Woodenly transferred into English, his sentence reads: “… me in the heart you both in my chains and in the defense and confirmation of the gospel fellow participants of me of the grace all of you being.” Two matters are at issue grammatically: (a) whether “both in my chains etc.” belongs to the preceding clause (“I have you in my heart both in my chains and in the defense and confirmation of the gospel” [so Meyer, but surely incorrectly; the word order in this case is emphatic—in both of these ways they are participants together with him]); (b) the relationship, and thus nuance, of this participial clause to its preceding clause. The explanatory clause of the NIV is probably right; the problem is that in so rendering it, they eliminate the explanatory γάρ by which v. 8 is explicitly tied to v. 7, by means of which, in turn, Paul goes on to explain how it is that he has them in his heart.
87. Gk. συγκοινωνούς; cf. 4:14, where the cognate participle occurs (cf. n. 52 above). The compounding of κοινωνός with σύν is probably the sure giveaway that the word κοινωνία on its own does not mean to fellowship in the sense of “share something together” or “be partners in something” (as Sampley, Partnership, 60–61), but to “participate in” something. The compound means precisely what many have considered the basic word to mean, “to share together in,” hence to be “participants together” in the grace of God.
88. Gk. συγκοινωνούς μου τῆς χάριτος. The μου is ambiguous. Grammar disallows that it means “with me,” since that would require a dative. Thus it is possessive, most likely going with the “fellow-partners,” hence “my fellow-partners.” This is the ordinary word order in Greek. Cf. the discussion in O’Brien, 70. On the so-called vernacular possessive, where the possessive pronoun precedes its noun—in Paul almost always emphatic—see on 2:2 (“my joy”).
89. E.g., Vincent, Müller (partly), Martin, Motyer, O’Brien.
90. E.g., Bonnard, Collange, Bruce, Hawthorne, Silva, Melick; this in light of Paul’s frequent reference to his ministry as “the grace given to me” (e.g., 1 Cor 3:10; Gal 2:9).
91. Lit. “You have been ‘graced’ (ὑμῖν ἐχαρίσθη) on account of Christ not only to believe in him but also to suffer for his sake.”
92. So also Müller, 43; Loh-Nida, 14; Martin, 66; Hawthorne, 23.
93. The Greek is quite clear that Paul here intends to speak of their “partnership with him in the gospel” in two aspects: ἐν τοῖς δεσμοῖς μου and ἐν τῇ ἀπολογίᾳ καὶ βεβαιώσει τοῦ εὐαγγελίου (cf. n. 15). This is made certain by the τε … καί and the repeated “in” following the καί. Meyer, 21, suggests (plausibly) the two phrases refer to Paul’s position and his employment in this position.
94. See the discussion of the theme in the Introduction, pp. 29–32. The primary reason for downplaying it is in reaction to Lohmeyer’s “martyrological” understanding of the whole letter (see, e.g., O’Brien, 70). For a historical overview of the handling of the motif in Philippians, see Bloomquist (Function, 18–70), although his own approach, based on a questionable use of ancient rhetoric, is less than satisfactory.
95. On the matter of chaining prisoners see Rapske, Acts, 25–28.
96. Rapske, Acts, 28.
97. It is not, of course, that any gift is “mere.” The question throughout this thanksgiving, however, is whether, even though it has undoubtedly been triggered by their gift, his gratitude is limited only to their recent gift, or whether it has a much broader horizon.
98. So Plummer, 12.
99. Cf. Deissmann (Bible Studies, 108–9), who has demonstrated that these two words together carry a technical sense of “defense” and “vindication” (cf. Moffatt, “as I defend and vindicate the gospel”). This suggests, therefore, that although the gospel is “confirmed” in various ways, especially as it has reached into the Praetorian Guard—the emperor’s elite troops—as well as the emperor’s own household, Paul’s present concern is with its vindication, even (or, especially) by his imprisonment and subsequent trial (cf. Hawthorne, 23–24). See further on vv. 19–20.
100. He calls on God as his witness also in 1 Thess 2:5, 10; 2 Cor 1:23, and Rom 1:9. In other cases he asserts, “I am telling the truth, I am not lying” (Rom 9:1; 1 Tim 2:7; cf. 2 Cor 11:31; Gal 1:20). Such an oath probably derives from the OT practice of calling on God as witness between two parties (so Str-B, Collange, O’Brien); see, e.g., Josh 22:27; 1 Sam 12:5; 20:23; Jer 42:5.
101. Gk. ὡς; Hawthorne, 24–25, and O’Brien, 71, make a bit too much of the conjunction as equivalent to ὅτι (= “that”) here. But it must be pointed out that Paul does not use ὅτι. Most likely he means something like our cumbersome, “how that.”
102. Gk. ἐπιποθέω; cf. 1 Thess 3:6; Rom 1:11; 2 Tim 1:4. In our letter the same verb is also used of Epaphroditus’s “longing” for “the folks back home” (2:26). Here it refers especially to his deep feelings for them.
103. Contra Hawthorne, 25.
104. Gk. ἐν σπλάγχνοις (= the entrails), referring to the “inner parts” of one’s being—probably because of the physical, deeply visceral, internal “feelings” that one sometimes experiences in the emotion of deep affection for another. Meyer, 24, takes the ἐν as locative (= “by virtue of the dwelling and working of Christ in me”).
1. A few not insignificant MSS (B D Ψ 81 2464 2495) read the aorist περισσεύσῃ for Paul’s (almost certainly) original present (περισσεύῃ). Since the aorist is the “normal” tense in the subjunctive, the change from the present to the aorist is frequent in the copying tradition (for this matter in the Gospel of John, see Fee, “John 20,30–31”). Whether tense is “meaningful” here is moot; the present subjunctive was probably used because it goes more naturally with “more and more.” Thus, “that your love will keep on growing more and more” (GNB).
2. Perhaps influenced by the LXX of Prov 3:9 and 13:2, the later manuscript tradition (Ψ Maj sy) changed Paul’s singular καρπὸν … τόν to the plural καρπῶν … τῶν.
3. In one of the more puzzling sets of variation in this letter (not to mention the NT), the phrase found in the majority of witnesses, εἰς δόξαν καὶ ἔπαινον θεοῦ (“unto the glory and praise of God”), is read three other ways: D* εἰς δόξαν καὶ ἔπαινον Χριστοῦ (“unto the glory and praise of Christ”); F G Ambst εἰς δόξαν καὶ ἔπαινον ἐμοί (“unto my glory and praise”); P46 εἰς δόξαν θεοῦ καὶ ἔπαινον ἐμοί (“for the glory of God and my praise”). The evidence of P46 suggests that the variation had a more troubled history than one might guess; nonetheless the corruption is most likely due to the unusual usage—for Paul—of the word ἔπαινος as directed toward God rather than people. The text of D is a simple change toward the repeated mention of Christ in this passage; the texts of F G and P46 represent independent errors that lean toward the more standard usage of ἔπαινος—although the text of F G is preferred by Ross (“Unnoticed Points,” 70); Hawthorne (14) is ambivalent. Metzger (Textual Commentary, 611) adopts the standard reading on the basis of the external evidence.
4. Thus the prayer comes very close to being a compendium of Pauline ethics, whose purpose is God’s glory, whose pattern is Christ, whose principle is love, and whose empowering is the Holy Spirit (see Fee, Presence, 879). Missing here is the empowering dimension of the Spirit (Christ as “pattern” is the point of 2:5–11), although it may well be implied by the language of “fruit” (of righteousness) with its apparent anticipation of 3:2–11, a passage that begins by asserting that “we are the true circumcision who ‘serve’ by the Spirit of God.”
5. However see Silva, 62, who sees the anticipation in the prayer as emphasizing “progressive sanctification” vis-ō-vis some form of perfectionism (3:12–14). While one can easily recognize an emphasis on “progression,” Paul’s concern seems less related to the possibility that some think they have already arrived than to their need to “overflow all the more” in behavior that already characterizes them.
7. The present sentence begins with a καί (“and”). Since parataxis (sentences beginning with “and”) are relatively rare in Paul, one can usually show good reason for such when it happens. In this case it suggests the closest possible tie of the prayer to what has preceded, flowing directly out of v. 8, but also thereby picking up the mention of the fact of his praying for them in v. 4; cf. Silva (57, 62), who sees it as resumptive of v. 4, and O’Brien (73) for what is argued here. On this kind of parataxis in Paul, see Fee, Presence, 45–46, 672 n. 43 (on 1 Thess 1:6; Eph 2:1).
8. Gk. ἵνα. Earlier commentators (e.g., Kennedy) debated as to whether or not this clause expressed purpose. It does not, at least not in any direct sense. This is a common koine idiom, where ἵνα, following τοῦτο as in this case, functions like ὅτι, giving the content of the “this” (cf. Hawthorne, 25).
9. Perhaps surprisingly these are the only two instances in a prayer report he uses this kind of language (in 2 Thess 3:5 he prays that their hearts might be directed “into God’s love,” but in that case it refers to God’s love for the Thessalonians). This motif, however, appears often in his thanksgivings. See 1 Thess 1:3; 2 Thess 1:3; Col 1:4; Phlm 5; Eph 1:15.
10. Otherwise Spicq, Agape, 2.277; Lohmeyer, 31; Hawthorne, 25; O’Brien, 74; who suggest that since there is no expressed object, Paul refers to love in its most comprehensive sense, going in every possible direction, that they thus be people of love as God is. The context of the letter, however, suggests a more focused concern.
11. Gk. ἀγάπη (agape), a word found only sparsely among Greek writers. It was chosen by the LXX translators to render the Hebrew root 
, apparently to distinguish it from ἔρος (“desiring love”) and φιλία (“natural sympathy” or “mutual affection”). Thus it is used both of God’s love for his people (e.g., Deut 7:7) and in the two love commands (for God [Deut 6:5 and passim] and neighbor [Lev 19:18]). This usage, which thus fills an otherwise empty word full of theological grist, is unquestionably the source of its usage among the early Christians, for whom it became the ultimate theological word both to describe God’s character and to articulate the essence of Christian behavior. For useful overviews see the articles by G. Schneider, EDNT, 1.8–12; and W. Günther and W. G. Link, NIDNTT, 2.538–47. Cf. the longer article in TDNT, 1.221–54 (by G. Quell and E. Stauffer), as well as the monographs by James Moffatt and A. Nygren.
12. So V. Warnach, “Love,” in Encyclopedia of Biblical Theology (ed. J. B. Bauer; 31967) II.518.
13. Gk. περισσεύῃ, a favorite Pauline word (26 of 39 NT occurrences), which reflects his own understanding of the lavish nature of life in Christ, effected by the Spirit. At various times he either urges or acknowledges that believers “overflow” in love (1 Thess 3:12; 4:10), building up the church (1 Cor 14:12), the work of the Lord (1 Cor 15:58; cf. 2 Cor 9:8), thanksgiving (2 Cor 4:15; 9:12; Col 2:7), faith, speech, knowledge, earnestness, and the grace of giving (2 Cor 8:7), and hope (Rom 15:13). And all of this because God’s own grace and love have “overflowed” toward us (Rom 5:15; Eph 1:8).
15. Gk. ἔτι μᾶλλον καὶ μᾶλλον. The NIV (cf. RSV, NRSV, JB, NAB) leaves out the ἔτι as redundant; but cf. the NASB (“still more and more”) and NEB (“ever richer and richer”).
16. Gk. ἐν ἐπιγνώσει καὶ πάσῃ αἰσθήσει. It has sometimes been pointed out (e.g., Bonhöffer, Epiktet; Gnilka; Hawthorne) that αἴσθησις and the phrase τὰ διαφέροντα that follows are also found in the Greek moral philosophers. So also with the language of 4:8 and 11–12. Whether “dependent” on the philosophers or not, as 4:13 makes abundantly clear (q.v.), this reflects Paul’s habit of adapting, and thereby transforming for his own purposes, language well-known to, or used by, his readers. Cf. Hawthorne, 27.
17. In this regard see esp. 1 Cor 13:12, where the cognate verb occurs. Ἐπιγνῶσις is the kind of “knowledge” of us that God has, and that we will eventually experience when “we see him as he is.” The usage in Rom 3:20 is likewise instructive, that “through the Law comes the ἐπιγνῶσις of sin.” That is, with the coming of the Law people who were otherwise already sinners came to “know” sin for what it really is. Cf. Phlm 6, where Paul prays that Philemon’s active sharing of his faith will be “with the ἐπιγνῶσις [full understanding, NIV] of every good thing that is ours in Christ Jesus.” See the fuller discussion in O’Brien, 75–76, who notes Paul’s dependence on the OT for this concept, and thus points out: “In the OT, as well as in the writings of Paul, knowledge was not a fixed quantum but rather something that developed in the life of people as they were obedient.” Cf. K. Sullivan, “Epignosis.”
18. Cf. the discussion by Delling, TDNT, 1.187–88.
19. For the understanding of the clause reflected in this translation see Fee, Presence, 640–43.
20. Gk. δοκιμάζειν, which always carries the connotation of “proving”—thus “approving”—something by putting it to the test. In this sense only does it mean to “discern.”
21. Gk. τὰ διαφέροντα; cf. Rom 2:18 (“approve of what is superior,” NIV). Its proper opposite is adiaphora, “non-essentials.” Some earlier commentators (Kennedy, 431–32; Vincent, 13 [with a list of others before him]) suggested that the meaning should be to “test things that differ,” i.e., what is good and bad. But that does not seem to be the concern in this context and disregards Paul’s usage in Rom 2:18. It is not possible, of course, for such “discerning” or “approving” of “what counts” to be without a degree of comparison. But the emphasis here is not on the comparative process, but on their being able to discern that which God has already marked off as essential or “superlative” regarding life in Christ.
22. Other matters may be anticipated here as well. Some items in this letter are less clear to us than others, especially how some (apparently) disparate elements might be related: the nature of the “posturing” that is going on, so that Euodia and Syntyche have to be urged to “have the same mind” (4:2–3); why the sudden (repeated) warning against circumcision in 3:2; who the people are who have left off striving for the heavenly prize because their minds are on earthly things (3:18–19); and why Paul’s final exhortation in 4:8–9, still in the context of urging harmony among themselves, urges them in the language of the highest ideals of Hellenism to “think on whatever is true, honorable, upright, pure, lovely, and admirable,” and in this matter to imitate what they have seen and heard in Paul himself. Although certainty may forever allude us here, very likely there is a close connection between “thinking on merely earthly things” and thus abandoning one’s keen sense of striving for the heavenly prize and the posturing by some in the community that is more closely aligned with “selfish ambition and vain conceit” (2:3) than it is with the pure gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. Perhaps the present concern over “full knowledge and moral insight so as to approve what really counts” may be related to some of this as well.
23. Gk. εἰς ἡμέραν (cf. 2:16). These are the only two instances of εἰς with this term in the Pauline corpus. It simply cannot mean “on” (as the NIV translates in 2:16), for which Paul invariably uses the temporal ἐν (cf. 1 Cor 1:8; 5:5; 2 Cor 1:14; Rom 2:5, 16). Since he has already used ἀχρί in v. 6 to express this reality in terms of “until,” and since in Eph 4:30 he uses εἰς with “the day of redemption,” which in that case is almost certainly telic (= “for the day of redemption”; see Fee, Presence, 716–17), that is most likely the sense here (contra BAGD). Thus he prays that they might be pure and blameless “for the day of Christ,” that is, with the day of Christ in view as their ultimate goal.
24. One might note again the similarity with the prayer in 1 Thess 3:12–13, where an increase and overflow of love is linked to being “blameless … when our Lord Jesus comes.”
25. On the phrase “day of Christ” and the future orientation that marks so much of this letter see the comments above on v. 6.
26. Gk. εἰλικρινεῖς, the only occurrence of the adjective in Paul (elsewhere in the NT, only in 2 Pet 3:1); but cf. Paul’s use of the cognate noun, which bears exactly the same sense (1 Cor 5:8; 2 Cor 1:12; 2:17). See the discussion by H. Goldstein, EDNT, 1.391.
27. Otherwise Kennedy, 422, who thinks it refers to their “openness toward God,” while the next word picks up the horizontal dimension.
28. Used elsewhere in Paul only in 1 Cor 10:32, where it clearly carries its primary denotation of “giving no offense.”
29. Cf. the disc. below on 2:15 and 3:6.
30. Gk. πεπληρώμενοι, a perfect passive participle that modifies “that you might be.” This is an excellent example of the nuance of the Greek perfect, which is not easily carried over into English. It reflects the present state of something that happened in the past; in this clause, which is from the perspective of the future day of Christ, the “past” is the present.
31. Preferred, inter alia, by Beare, Hendriksen, Caird, Collange, Ziesler (Righteousness), O’Brien—although it should be noted that both views end up at the same point: that Paul’s concern is with their “righteous” behavior.
32. Although it also needs to be noted that in Paul one cannot have the latter without the former, so in that sense the gift of a right relationship with God is also included in “the fruit of righteousness that comes through Jesus Christ,” even though the concern here is with ensuing behavior.
33. Cf. Jas 3:18 (“the fruit of righteousness is sown in peace for those who make peace”), which both the NIV and NRSV tranlate as “a harvest of righteousness,” where again the emphasis is on righteous behavior.
34. On the significant textual variation involved in this phrase, see n. 3 above.
35. Many scholars have pointed out that these words are similar to those that regularly conclude the prayers of Jewish piety (e.g., Ps 21:13; 35:28; Sir 39:10; 1QSb 4:25). Such comparisons only indicate how deeply Paul’s piety is rooted in his Jewish heritage. O’Brien (82) goes on to argue that these final words are intended to be a doxology that brings the entire thanksgiving to its conclusion. If so, it is not a formal doxology of the kind with which he concludes the letter in 4:20 (q.v.). More likely, this is simply the conclusion of Paul’s prayer, whose ultimate concern is that the Philippians live to the glory and praise of God.
1. On Philippians as a letter of friendship, see the Introduction, pp. 2–7. On the possibility that Paul is also reflecting some features of ancient rhetoric, see Bloomquist (Function, 119–57), whose analysis disregards Paul’s own structural signals (see n. 17 below) and the fact that all of 1:12–26 is a first person singular narrative, while 1:27–2:18 is second person plural and functions as exhortation; cf. the critique in the Introduction, pp. 14–16.
2. Paul begins, γινώσκειν δὲ ὑμᾶς βούλομαι, ἀδελφοί, ὅτι. Among the letters collected by Hunt and Edgar (Select Papyri), see, e.g., pp. 303, 317, 327, 329, 342. Thus, a certain Apollinarius writes to his mother (2nd c. CE):
“Apollinarius to Taesis, his mother and lady, many greetings. Before all I pray for your health. I myself am well and make supplication for you before the gods of this place.
I wish you to know, mother, that [γινώσκειν σε θέλω, μήτηρ, ὅτι] I arrived in Rome in good health on the 25th of the month Pachon and was posted to Misenum, etc.” (p. 303)
Or this one from an Isis to her mother (3rd c. CE):
“Isis to Thermouthion her mother very many greetings. I make supplication for you every day before the lord Sarapis and his fellow gods.
I wish you to know that [γινώσκειν σε θέλω ὅτι] I have arrived in Alexandria safe and sound in four days. etc.” (p. 341)
For an earlier study of this phenomenon as a “form” see T. Y. Mullins, “Disclosure,” who calls it a “disclosure formula”; cf. also J. L. White, Form.
3. These two sections are divided by Paul’s use of the present and future of χαίρω in v. 18 (καὶ ἐν τούτῳ χαίρω. Ἀλλὰ καὶ χαρήσομαι; “and in this I rejoice. But I shall also rejoice …”), which Martin, 70, calls “the centre of gravity” for this section. The failure to note this clear rhetorical device and to observe the shift from reflection on the present to anticipation of the future marks Bloomquist’s handling of this section as altogether suspect (see n. 1 above). See the discussion on v. 18b below.
4. Most noticeable is the large number of first person pronouns and verbs that occur in these verses (23 in all). In v. 24 a shift begins toward the second person plural, which just as noticeably dominates 1:27–2:18. Galatians, to be sure, begins with a considerable narrative regarding Paul’s calling and commission as an apostle, but that is apologia (pace G. Lyons, Pauline Autobiography, 75–176). Nowhere else is there anything like this—reflection on his own present and future circumstances.
5. Noted also by Garland, “Defense,” 331; Peterman, “Giving,” 124; et al. (usually after the fact at v. 25).
6. Silva, 66, sees the reason as more directly related to their gift (“supporting Paul … they have a ‘right’ to find out about his affairs”). But the suggestion made here not only fits well with the whole of the letter (esp. the recurring “imitation” motif), it also gives a satisfactory reason for vv. 15–17.
7. See n. 17 below; cf. the Introduction, p. 3.
8. For evidence of this expectation from the bearer of his letters, see esp. Col 4:7–8; cf. Eph. 6:21–22.
9. That the vocative ἀδελφοί means “brothers and sisters” in the Pauline letters is made plain from Phil 4:1 and 2, where Paul uses this vocative and then specifically addresses two women.
10. Although the genitive modifier τοῦ θεοῦ (“of God”) is found in most of the early and best MSS ( A B [D*] P Ψ 33 81 104 326 365 629 1175 1241* 2464 lat syp.h** co Clement; F G read κυρίου; it is missing in P46 1739 MajT r Marcion), it is highly suspect as an addition by a later hand (so Lohmeyer, Gnilka, Houlden, Hawthorne, Metzger [Textual Commentary]). Two matters make one think so: (1) Although Paul at times refers to the message of the gospel with the absolute “the word” (1 Thess 1:6; Gal 6:6; Col 4:3; 2 Tim 4:3), more often he adds a genitive qualifier (either “of God,” “of the Lord,” “of Christ,” “of truth”). In light of Pauline usage elsewhere, the scribal tradition would more likely have added such words than they would have omitted them. That is especially true in this case where the absolute use of “the word” seems to cry out for a genitive qualifier. (2) Although the reading of F G could easily be a corruption of τοῦ θεοῦ, the more likely explanation for the two variations is that we have here two different ways of “emending” Paul’s own text.
11. This is the language of BAGD, 2.
12. See 3:1, 17; 4:1, 8; cf. the more personal ἀγαπητοί μου (“my beloved friends”) in 2:12 and 4:1. Thus these vocatives usually appear at the beginning of a new section, but sometimes elsewhere, as in 3:13, to emphasize a point, or as in 1 Cor 15:58, to bring an argument to conclusion.
13. A somewhat similar formula does occur twice at the beginning of new sections of an argument (1 Cor 11:3; Col 2:1: θέλω δὲ ὑμᾶς εἰδέναι); cf. “I do not want you to be ‘not knowing’ ” in 1 Thess 4:13; 1 Cor 10:1; Rom 1:13; 11:25.
14. See n. 2 above. What is striking in this formula is that it appears so often with the same words and in the same word order. It should be noted that the formula also occurs in other forms of client-patron relationships, where the “client” begins the letter by informing the “patron” of present circumstances. See the example in Kennedy, 422.
15. On this matter, see BAGD; cf. M-M, 8–9; J. Beutler, EDNT, 1.29.
16. For the significance of this passage to Pauline theology, see Fee, Presence, 398–412.
17. Although “what has happened to me” (cf. NRSV) catches the sense of Paul’s language, it also tends to obscure the structural tie of this verse with v. 27 (τὰ κατʼ ἐμέ = “my circumstances/affairs”; τὰ περὶ ὑμῶν = “your circumstances/affairs”). On this as the sense of τὰ κατʼ ἐμέ, see BAGD, κατά II,6. Cf. esp. the usage in Col 4:7 (τὰ κατʼ ἐμὲ πάντα γνωρίσει ὑμῖν Τύχικος, “Tychicus will make known to you all about my affairs”); cf. the parallel in Eph 6:21, where τὰ κατʼ ἐμέ, in a slightly rearranged sentence, has become τὰ περὶ ἡμῶν! On the use of this formula in letters of friendship, see the Introduction, p. 3. Collange’s suggestion (53) that the phrase here refers to a specific recent event, viz., Paul’s revealing of his Roman citizenship so as to be set free, is not only purely speculative, but fails to recognize these parallels and this usage in letters of friendship.
18. This is good colloquial English for Paul’s μᾶλλον (“rather”). Some (e.g., Kennedy, 423; Collange, 9, 51–52) have suggested that this word implies that a change in Paul’s circumstances had occurred. But as Omanson (“Philippians 1.12”) has correctly pointed out, here μᾶλλον announces that the reverse of what they might have expected has come true; cf. Lightfoot, 87; Vincent, 16; Plummer, 19; Collange, 53; O’Brien, 90. There is no need, therefore, to postulate that Paul is trying to counteract rumors that are floating about (as Hawthorne, 34). More recently B. J. Capper (“Dispute,” 208–9) has suggested that the μᾶλλον indicates a “rift” between Paul and the Philippians. But this represents “mirror-reading” of a most unfortunate kind (see the Introduction, pp. 7–8; cf. the critique of this view in n. 4 on 4:14–17).
19. Gk. εἰς; for this kind of telic use of this preposition see v. 5 (cf. vv. 15, 19, 25).
20. Gk. προκοπή; for this usage in Greek philosophy, see Stählin, TDNT, 6.704–7, where it refers to the “progress” toward wisdom (cf. Sir 51:17). Paul here reflects its nontechnical sense found frequently in the papyri, where it refers simply to making progress, in a good sense (see M-M, 542; cf. New Docs 2,95; 4,36). For an illustration of the present usage, where something impersonal “advances,” or “makes progress,” see Jos. Ant. 4.59: a sedition “progresses from bad to worse.” Closer to Paul’s sense is 2 Macc 8:8, referring to the beginnings of the campaign of Judas Maccabeus against the Syrians: “When Philip saw that the man [Judas] was making progress [εἰς προκοπήν] little by little.”
21. This is the word Paul uses in 2 Cor 6:3; in 1 Cor 9:12 he uses the cognate ἐγκοπή.
22. As noted in the introduction to this section, this word occurs again in v. 25, regarding the Philippians, as to why Paul expects to be released from prison: It would be for their own “progress and joy regarding the faith.” Thus the word functions as a kind of inclusio for the section.
23. See the discussion on v. 5; for the concerns articulated here, see 1 Cor 9:3–18, esp. vv. 12, 16, 18, which in vv. 19–23 is stated explicitly, “that I might win some.”
24. Indeed, those who rather thoroughly dislike Paul for this passion understand him far better than others, especially among scholars, who profess love for the apostle, but are embarrassed by his fashioning his whole life around this singular concern—to know Christ and to make him known.
25. Gk. ἐν, which as in Rom 1:19 is locative, expressing not what is clear to them (as NEB, NJB), although that is certainly implied, but the extent to which it has been manifested, namely, throughout the entire Praetorian Guard (but all 9,000 of them? and in any case, how could he know its actual extent?). This is conventional hyperbole, where “the whole” stresses the considerable breadth to which this has become known. On the other hand, even as hyperbole, this phrase tends to cut the ground from under hypotheses of either an Ephesian or Caesarean provenance for this letter, since (1) the guard cannot be demonstrated ever to have existed in Ephesus and (2) Herod’s praetorium in Caesarea was scarcely of a size to call for this emphasis. See the Introduction, pp. 34–36.
26. On this expression see the discussion on v. 7.
27. Gk. φανερούς, which means “plain for all to see”; in Paul cf. Rom 1:19; Gal 5:19.
28. Gk. ἐν Χριστῷ; see also 2:1 (cf. ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ in 1:26; 2:5; 3:3, 14; 4:17, 19, 21; and ἐν κυρίῳ in 1:14; 2:19, 24, 29; 3:1; 4:1, 2, 4, 10). On this phrase in Paul, which has had a long history of interpretation, see the discussion by M. A. Seifrid in DPL, 433–36, and the bibliography there.
29. Some (e.g., Plummer) have taken it adverbially (“in the power of Christ”); cf. F. Neugebauer (In Christus), who likewise takes it adverbially, but as referring to Christ’s saving activity, by which Paul’s life is forever determined. While this phrase may ultimately point in that direction, it is doubtful whether it can be so overloaded in the present clause. Others (e.g., Ellicott, Michael), who recognize that it goes with φανερούς, suggest that it does not stress the cause of his imprisonment being revealed but the spirit in which he endured it. This seems overly subtle. The best solution is to see the sentence as somewhat elliptical here; thus, “so that my chains have been manifest [as being] in Christ.”
30. So most interpreters; cf. Beare’s paraphrase: “it has come to be recognized by the whole Praetorian Guard … that if I am in fetters, it is because of my activities as a Christian.”
31. So also Bruce, 41; Silva, 68; O’Brien, 92.
32. Cf. the Introduction, pp. 34–36.
33. As in Mark 15:16 and Acts 23:35, where the palace is called “the Praetorium.” Hence the marginal note in the NIV, which indicates the possibility that Paul is referring to the palace itself, not to the guard. The usage in Acts 23:35 is the source of the theory that this letter was penned in Caesarea. But against this is (a) that Paul is clearly referring to a body of people, and (b) that there is no lexical evidence that this word was ever used to denote the people associated with a governor’s residence (cf. Reicke, “Caesarea,” 283).
34. See esp. Lightfoot, 99–104, whose arguments on this matter have never been overturned. A further view, however, was offered by W. Ramsay (borrowing [incorrectly, it appears] from Mommsen), to the effect that it refers to “persons connected with the imperial court.” But no hard evidence for this view was ever forthcoming.
35. Gk. ὅλῳ τῷ πραιτωρίῳ; on its size and the difficulty this phrase creates for other than a Roman imprisonment, see n. 25.
36. Gk. καὶ τοῖς λοιποῖς πᾶσιν, lit. “all the rest”; cf. 2 Cor 13:2. Some earlier interpreters (Chrysostom, Calvin) suggest “in all other places” (KJV; cf. Moffatt). But that is against all analogy, and in this case is nearly impossible. Paul may not always be tidy, but neither would he be so obscure when such an idea could be stated easily and unambiguously.
37. Cf. Bruce (“St. Paul in Macedonia,” 265), who suggests, “those who were in any way concerned with the arrangements for the eventual hearing of his case.”
38. Cf. Houlden, 58: “In getting himself put in prison, in Rome above all, he has acted the Trojan horse, entering into the very heart of the Gentile world to which Christ had despatched him as an apostle.”
39. This clause is joined to v. 13 with a καί (“and”), and thus concludes the sentence that began in v. 12. The “nuts and bolts” of his sentence thus runs: “What has happened to me has served to advance the gospel, so that (1) the whole Praetorian Guard and all the rest know that my imprisonment is for Christ, and (2) the brothers and sisters here have been emboldened to speak the message fearlessly.”
40. My own experience is that not all are so generous, including the writer of this commentary. Does this man always sing in prison?
41. Gk. πεποιθότας; the NIV’s “have been encouraged” is foreign to any known nuance of this verb, which means to “persuade,” and in the perfect, as here, takes on the nuance of “being convinced or confident” (cf. Paul’s “persuasion/confidence” about the Philippians’ sure future in v. 6, and of his release from prison in v. 25).
42. Gk. περισσοτέρως, an adverb whose cognate verb (περρισεύω, “to abound or overflow”) appears in v. 9. The translation is that suggested by BAGD.
43. Michael, 37, observes (correctly) that Paul is speaking of all believers, not just about those in leadership (ministers, e.g.); cf. O’Brien, 94, contra Silva, 69, who is more cautious. E. E. Ellis proposes that “brothers” at times becomes a quasi-technical term for Paul’s “co-workers,” or at least for “leaders in ministry” (see Prophecy, 6–15). But in view of Paul’s usage elsewhere, and especially in view of his use of the vocative to address the entire community of believers to whom he writes (e.g., Phil 1:12; 3:1, 13, 17; 4:1), one seems hard pressed to make that work here.
44. But see Martin, 72, who leans this way. Schmithals’s view (Paul, 75) that Paul is referring to the situation in Philippi has nothing in the text to commend it and everything against it (cf. Bruce, 45: an “extraordinary argument”).
45. See also Bruce, 42. As with the case of the “whole Praetorian Guard” (see n. 25), Paul has not counted noses so as to know that well over half of the individuals in the churches are now evangelizing. This is more popular language to refer to the way the whole of the Roman church has been affected by his being imprisoned there.
46. Although see n. 5 on 1:15–18a for interpreters who in an earlier time challenged this.
47. And a few others (KJV, NASB, Alford, Kennedy, Lohmeyer, Beare, Houlden, Bruce; cf. Moule, Idiom Book, 108).
48. One wonders how one escapes the conclusion that to qualify “brothers and sisters” in this way implies another option, brothers and sisters who are not in the Lord. The appeal frequently made to Col 1:2 is not relevant, since in that case the whole phrase modifies, and thereby more narrowly defines, “those who are in Colosse” to whom he writes; they are the “holy and faithful brothers and sisters in Christ,” which unpacked means, “those in Colosse who are in Christ, and who are thereby both brothers and sisters [with all other believers in Christ] and likewise with them God’s holy and faithful children.”
49. Thus, in 2:24 he is “confident in the Lord” (NIV) that he will see them soon; cf. Gal 5:10; Rom 14:14.
50. So also Vincent, 17; O’Brien, 95.
51. Cf. NEB, “with extraordinary courage.”
52. On this usage and the textual question involved see n. 10 above.
53. See 1 Thess 1:6; Gal 6:6; Col 4:3; 2 Tim 4:2. Elsewhere, depending on whether the emphasis is on its source or its content, he refers either to “the word of God” (= the message that comes from God; see 1 Thess 2:13; 1 Cor 14:36; 2 Cor 2:17; 4:2; Col 1:25; 2 Tim 2:9; Titus 2:5) or “the word of the Lord/Christ” (= the message about Christ; 1 Thess 1:8; 2 Thess 3:1; Col 3:16). Note also his use of “the word of truth” (= the message containing the truth from God) in 2 Cor 6:7; Col 1:5; Eph 1:13; 2 Tim 2:18.
1. Against all the early evidence (P46 A B D* F G P 33 81 365 1175 1739 1881 latt co), the later MajT (including Ψ syh) has transposed vv. 16–17, so that the two follow-up sentences to v. 15 follow the same order as they appear there. There is nothing inherently better, or “more difficult,” about one reading or the other—although the secondary text climaxes both sentences on the positive note of good will and love, while the original text appears as a form of chiasmus (see p. 118 below). This is one of the few major transpositions of this kind in the textual transmission of the Pauline corpus.
2. There is textual variation between τὸν Χριστόν (“the Christ” [P46 A D Maj]) and simply Χριστόν (“Christ” [B F G Ψ 1739 1881 pc]). The omission is probably secondary; in any case, the articular usage in v. 15 (where Christ is the object, as here) and the nonarticular usage in v. 18 (where Christ is the subject) indicate that the presence or absence of the article carries no significance.
3. In place of the original ἐγείρειν (“raise up, lift up, erect, stir up” [one of the verbs for resurrection in the NT]), read by the earliest and best evidence ( A B D* F G P 33 1739 1881 pc latt co), the later MajT reads ἐπιφέρειν (“bring upon, inflict”). This is secondary by the very fact that had such an appropriate verb as ἐπιφέρειν been in the text originally, one cannot imagine the circumstances whereby it would have been changed (so early and so often) to a verb like ἐγείρειν, which would scarcely be the first to come to a copyist’s mind under any circumstances.
4. The earliest witness to the Pauline corpus, P46, supported by some MSS of the Bohairic version, insert an ἀλλά (“but”) before the καί, with which this clause begins. This is secondary on all counts, and probably is a simple error of sight, where the scribe’s eye picked up the beginning of the next sentence (v. 18c) when copying this one.
5. Indeed, some earlier interpreters (e.g., Ellicott, Meyer, Kennedy, Vincent) argue that people who preach out of “envy and strife” could not possibly be included by Paul among “most of the brothers and sisters” in v. 14. But that is an altogether unnatural reading of the Greek. It would take an extraordinary display of contextual evidence to the contrary for the combination τοὺς πλείονας (“the majority”), followed by τινὲς μέν … τινὲς δέ (“some … others”), not to mean: “Most … , some of whom … , others of whom” (cf. Michael, 37). For the latter to be “set over against the πλείονας,” as Vincent asserts, would seem to require a differentiating word like ἄλλος μέν. Moreover, one is thus put in the awkward situation of detaching the second group (τινὲς δέ) from v. 14 as well. This view has nothing to commend it, and clearly arose to defend Paul from including as “brothers and sisters” those whom he also accuses of preaching from a motive of jealousy.
6. The operative word here is “seems to.” The common—almost certainly misguided—assumption is that these people are of a kind with his “opponents” in Galatians, 2 Cor 10–13 (and Phil 3:2); see on vv. 16–17.
7. On the textual question see n. 1 above.
8. So also Silva, 72.
9. Which rather nicely captures Paul’s τινὲς μὲν καί; the καί in this case is ascensive (= some, on the one hand, indeed …).
10. Gk. τὸν Χριστὸν κηρύσσουσιν. Again, this is the language of evangelism (see above on v. 5 [n. 51] and v. 12). On the textual question regarding the definite article (and its apparent lack of significance) see n. 2.
11. Gk. φθόνος (“envy, jealousy”); ἔρις (“strife, discord, contention”). The “rivalry” of the NIV nicely captures this sense, as long as it is understood to be carried out contentiously.
12. By “together” I do not mean next to each other, but in the same list. In Galatians they appear in reverse order as the 7th and 13th items on that list; in Romans in the second grouping, “full of envy, murder, strife.”
13. For this view of things, see Fee, 1 Timothy, on 1 Tim 6:3–5. That the desertions took place among some of the leadership is what makes 2 Tim 1:15 so poignant: “All in Asia have deserted me.”
14. Otherwise, Schütz (Paul, 162), who makes the surprising assertion that “they … are directed toward the entire community, or at least are not directed toward Paul as an individual.” This appears to be based on a prior analysis of the words in Galatians, where the community is in view; but to think so here seems to disregard the chiastic structure of these verses and thus of the relationship of vv. 16–17 to v. 15 (those who preach out of “envy” [v. 15] are the same who do so in order to afflict Paul [v. 17]). Jewett (“Conflicting Movements,” 364–65; following O. Linton, “Situation”) mirror reads the passage to reflect a division in the (he thinks Ephesian) community over Paul’s imprisonment, i.e., whether his imprisonment for a private “crime” is jeopardizing “his role as an advocate of the gospel.” But that is to find far more than is in the text, or even hinted at.
15. Gk. εὐδοκίαν; cf. 2:13. Here it can only mean “good will toward Paul” (so most commentaries).
16. The preposition ἐξ in both cases offers the “grounds,” hence the motivation, for the respective reasons for preaching Christ.
17. Indeed, there is very likely a deliberate contrast between those who know (εἰδότες) in v. 17 and those who suppose (οἰόμενοι) in v. 16. The one group “know” the apostle and the others do not; so also Collange, 57; O’Brien, 101.
18. Gk. κεῖμαι (“lie, recline”), but which in figurative uses can mean, as it almost certainly does here, “appointed, or destined for” something; cf. 1 Thess 3:3; Luke 2:34. See BAGD 2.a.
19. That is, whether or not Christianity, no longer clearly attached to Judaism in its Greco-Roman settings, should receive the same status as its parent religion (as a religio licita, “approved religion”); or perhaps the whole issue of whether those who claim “Jesus is Lord” can also recognize Caesar as “lord.” If not, it would amount to treason (maiestas).
20. Gk. καταγγέλλουσιν, used 6x by Paul for “proclaiming Christ” (here, v. 18; 1 Cor 2:1; 9:14; 11:26; Col 1:28), as a synonym for κηρύσσω (used in v. 15).
21. Gk. ἐξ ἐριθείας; a very difficult word to pin down with any precision. Most likely it is a derivative from ἔριθος, a word denoting “hired laborer,” from which it derived a secondary, pejorative sense of “mercenary.” BAGD consider its meaning in the NT a “matter of conjecture.” The choice seems to be between “rivalry” and “selfish ambition,” which in this context come out very nearly at the same place. See further on 2:3 below.
22. In the debate over “integrity” and “opponents” (see the Introduction, pp. 21–23, 7–10), it is common to refer to Paul’s treatment of these people as “mild” in comparison with what he says of the “dogs” in 3:2 (e.g., Rahtjen, “Three Letters,” 170, who overstates this matter with considerable rhetoric). But this is a half-truth, perpetuated for the sake of a theory. Despite his rejoicing over the fact that the gospel is still being advanced, the language Paul uses to describe their motivation is that of indictment, not amelioration!
23. On this whole question, see the Introduction, pp. 7–10.
24. For a helpful overview, see O’Brien, 102–5, which will not be repeated here.
25. Pace Schmithals’s assertion to the contrary (Paul, 74 n. 45).
26. See Rom 16:3–15; cf. Bruce, “St. Paul in Macedonia,” 266.
27. For a brief overview of this perspective on Romans, see chap. 7 in Fee, Presence.
28. Some have suggested options not involving Jew/Gentile distinctions at all (e.g., Kennedy, 424; Vincent, 19); see the discussion of other options in O’Brien (n. 24).
29. I am not herewith contending that this is in fact who the preachers in v. 17 are, but am trying to offer a reasonable explanation as to how Paul can so violently oppose “Judaizers” but treat others more kindly who might hold a theological point of view similar to the Judaizers. A position similar to that suggested here is also taken by Silva, 73.
30. This is clearly so, e.g., in the case of Galatians (see 5:7–12; 6:11–13); it is very likely so in 2 Corinthians as well (cf. 2:17–3:18 and 11:1–23, esp. v. 22). In our letter see esp. 3:2–9.
31. This distinction is what is missed by those interpreters who think Paul is here referring to “Judaizers” as such, i.e., those who are compelling Gentiles to be circumcised (e.g., Meyer, Lightfoot). There is no hint here that these “preachers of Christ” are trying to make Jewish Christians out of Gentile Christians; indeed Paul’s language suggests the opposite, that they are trying to make Christians out of those are not.
32. A point also made by Beare, 60; Melick, 68 (as one reason among several). Barth, Dibelius, Schmithals, Gnilka, et al. see the paragraph as basically an “excursus,” a viewpoint that fails to see its interconnectedness with the whole letter.
33. On the theme of “joy” in this letter see the Introduction, pp. 52–53; see also on 1:4; 2:2, 18; and (esp.) 4:4.
34. Gk. προφάσει, having to do with one’s ostensible reason, or pretext, for doing something, but not based on truth or reality. Cf. 1 Thess 2:5, where it appears in close connection with hypocrisy.
35. Gk. γάρ (“for”), which never means “but,” under any stretch of the polyvalence of words. Paul says simply, τί γάρ (“For what?”). His more usual expression in such moments is τί οὖν (“What, then?” cf. Rom 3:9; 6:15; 1 Cor 14:15, 26). The γάρ here is to be understood as tying what is said directly to v. 17 in a sort of “explanatory” way: “For (even in light of those mentioned in v. 17) what does it matter?”
36. Gk. πλήν, an adverb used as an adversative conjunction. Here it stands in contrast to the “for what?” “In any case,” he adds, meaning something very close to the NIV’s “the important thing is”; cf. on 4:14.
37. Even though that is not said here, it is said twice later on (3:17; 4:9). Here is surely one of the things they are to “practice” which they have “heard and seen in him.” All the more so, in light of the close connection between his “rejoicing” over the gospel in the midst of his pain, which he reaffirms in 2:17 and then explicitly urges them to emulate in 2:18.