Philippi was located on a small plain in eastern Macedonia about ten miles inland from the Aegean Sea. To the west was Mt. Pangaeus and to the east Mt. Orbelos. The acropolis at the foot of which the city was built was in fact a spur of Orbelos. Also just to the west was a small river, the Gangites which was the probable site of the prayer meeting of Acts 16:13. Some ten miles to the southeast was the port city of Neapolis (Acts 16:11), known today as Kavalla. The city of Philippi was excavated between 1914 and 1938, and extensive ruins are visible today including the theater, the forum, several Christian churches, and a portion of the Egnatian Way. There is no modern city near the ancient site.

About 357 B.C. Philip II of Macedon, the father of Alexander the Great, occupied the ancient Thracian village of Crenides (“the springs”) , enlarged and fortified it, and renamed it for himself. Philip apparently used the new out­ post to keep the Thracians in subjection and to exploit the gold mines in nearby Mt. Pangaeus. Following the breakup of Alexander’s empire Philippi was a part of the Hellenistic kingdom of Macedonia. When the Romans defeated Macedonia in 168 B.C. Philippi found itself in the first of the four semi-independent, client republics into which the country was divided to enfeeble it.^[1]The best attested text of Acts 16:12 refers to Philippi as “the (literally, a) first(= the capital?) city of the (or, that) district of Macedonia.” Philippi, however, was not the capital of either the first Roman district in Macedonia or of the whole province. Arnphipolis and Thessalonica respectively held those honors. As a result many scholars have adopted a conjecture for which there is no Greek evidence but which involves the addition of a single Greek letter and which results in the reading “a city of the first district of Macedonia” – a reading with which there is no problem. The best solution is to retain the well-supported text and to understand Luke to mean “an important city of that district of Macedonia.” In 148 B.C. Rome crushed a rebellion by these republics and formally annexed Macedonia as a province. Philippi next appears in history as the site of the famous battle in 42 B.C. between the imperial forces of Anthony and Octavian and the republican forces of Brutus and Cassius which resulted of course in the defeat of the latter. Some veterans of the victorious army were settled there, and the city was organized as a Roman military colony under the name Colonia Victrix Philippensium. Soon after the battle of Actium in 31 B.C. in which Octavian defeated Anthony, other veterans and dispossessed persons settled there, and the colony was refounded as Colonia Julia Philippensis. In 27 B.C. when the senate conferred upon Octavian the title of Augustus, the name was changed to Colonia Augusta Julia Philippensis.

A Roman military colony was considered to be an extension of the city of Rome itself. The citizens of the colony were citizens of Rome and as such enjoyed all the privileges of such citizenship including the use of Roman law in local affairs and exemption from certain taxes. Such colonies tended to be exceedingly jealous of their status and loyal to Rome. By Roman times the gold mines had been exhausted, and the primary importance of Philippi was that it guarded the famous Egnatian Way, the main east-west road across Macedonia, at a point shortly after it turned inland.

 

Paul and Philippi

Acts 16:11-40 indicates that Paul first came to Philippi on what is usually referred to as his second missionary journey. He was certainly accompanied by Silas (v. 19) and presumably by Timothy (cf. 16:1-3) and Luke (the implication of the use of “we” beginning in 16:10) as well he Acts account records the conversion of Lydia, the exorcism of the sooth­saying girl, the beating and imprisonment of Paul and Silas, the conversion of the jailer, and the expulsion of Paul and Silas from the city. The mistreatment of Paul is corroborated by his own statements in I Thess. 2:2 and perhaps Phil. 1:30. Phil. 4:15-16 indicates that the church at Philippi sent Paul gifts while he was in Thessalonica and perhaps also Corinth during the following months (cf. also II Cor. 11:9). Acts 19:22 indicates that while he was at Ephesus during his third missionary journey Paul sent Timothy and Erastus on a mission to Macedonia. Philippi is not actually mentioned here or in connection with Paul’s later journeys, but it is improbable that Paul or his helpers would pass through Macedonia without visiting Philippi. Acts 19:21 and I Cor. 16:5 state Paul’s intention of visiting Macedonia after leaving Ephesus. Acts 20:1-2 records this visit, and vv. 3-6 indicate that Paul went through Macedonia for a third time after leaving Greece, no doubt Corinth-and while making his way back to Palestine. In fact Philippi is explicitly mentioned in v. 6. The Philippian   and other Macedonian Christians contributed generously to the offering for the church at Jerusalem which Paul collected during his third missionary journey, and he commends them in II Cor. 8:1-5 and 9:1-4. The occasion for Paul’s letter to Philippi will be discussed below.

 

Authorship

The book claims to have been written by Paul (1:1). Associated with him is Timothy (1:1 and 2:19) , an assistant who is mentioned also in Acts, Romans, I and II Corinthians, Colossians, I and II Thessalonians, I and II Timothy, and Philemon. The letter is among the most personal of those bearing the name of Paul, and there are several references to his experiences ( his imprisonment in 1:7, 12-14, 16-17; his sufferings at Philippi in 1:30; and the gifts he received from the Philippians in 4:14-18).

There was never any dispute in the early church about the authorship or the canonicity of the book. There may be allusions to the epistle as early as I Clement (A.D. 95) and the Letters of Ignatius (ca. 110). Polycarp’s Letter to the Philippians 3.2 (110-135) probably refers to the canonical Philippians when it states, “Paul . . . wrote letters to you.” Philippians was included among the letters of Paul in Marcion’s heretical canon list (ca. 145), as it is also in the orthodox Muratorian canon list, a list of books used as Scripture by the church at Rome ca. 180.^[2]The early date and the Roman provenance, however, have been disputed by A. C. Sundburg, Jr., “Canon Muratori: A. Fourth-Century List, Harvard Theological Review 66 (1973): 1-41. The letter is quoted and attributed to Paul by Irenaeus of Lyons in Gaul (ca. 180), Clement of Alexandria (ca. 190), and Tertullian of Carthage (ca. 210).

The authenticity of the book has been questioned but rarely by modem scholarship. The first to do so was F. C. Bauer in his Paulus der Apostel Jesu Christi (1845). He argued that the reference to bishops and deacons in 1:1 points to a date after Paul’s lifetime, that the epistle is de­pendent upon other letters bearing Paul’s name, that it reflects second-century Gnosticism, and that it was written to reconcile Jewish and Gentile Christianity. Only the first of these arguments is considered to have any validity today, and the few who are impressed by it merely remove the words “bishops and deacons” from the text as a later interpolation. Recently the authenticity of Philippians has been denied again by A. Q. Morton and James McLeman on the basis of a difference in the frequency of occurrence of such words as kai (and), de (but), en (in), autos (he), and einai (to be) in Philippians on the one hand and Romans, I and II Corinthians, and Galatians on the other.^[3]Paul, the Man and the Myth (London: Hodder and Stoughton., 1966) 89-97 and tables. The validity of their method, however, has been widely denied by biblical scholars and statisticians alike. It is a fair statement to say that the authenticity of Philippians is not an issue in contemporary New Testament scholarship. It is accepted by even the most liberal scholars.

 

 

Unity

Is Philippians a single letter written at one time and place, or is it the result of an editorial piecing together of several different letters? That is the problem of unity, and unity is one of two or three major problems relating to Philippians.

Few questions have been raised about, the unity of chapters one and two. There is also widespread agreement among those who deny the unity of Philippians that certain verses in chapter four also belong to this letter. The problem therefore is whether chapters three and four contain a part of one or two other genuine letters of Paul quite probably to Philippi, and, if so, what is the exact content of these letters.

Among those who find only two letters in the canonical Philippians are J. H. Michael^[4]Epistle of Paul to the Philippians, Moffatt New Testament Commentary (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1928), xi-xii. and Leander Keck.^[5]Letter of Paul to the Philippians,” lnterpreter’s One-Volume Commen­tary on the Bible, ed. C. M. Laymon (Nashville: Abingdon., 1971), 846. The former thinks in terms of 3:1b-19 having been interpolated into what he calls Philippians proper. According to the latter the first letter chronologically consists of 1:1-2:30 and 4:10-23, the second of 3:2-4:9, with 3:1 being an editorial splice. The first is virtually complete, but only the last part of the second has survived.

Most of those who partition Philippians, however, claim to be able to find in it the whole of one and parts of   two letters. Some representatives of this position are:

First Letter              Second Letter              Third Letter

Marxsen^[6]Willi Marxsen, Introduction to the New Testament. trans. G. Buswell (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1968), 61-62.

4:10-20                 1:1-3:1; 4:4-7, 21-23           3:2-4:3, 8-9

Perrin^[7]Nonnan   Perrin, New Testament, an Introduction (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1974), 105-106. Perrin gives no indication of where he thinks 4:21-23 belongs.

4:10-20                 1:1-3:1                                    3:2-4:9

Beare^[8]F. W. Beare, Commentary on the Epistle to the Philippians, 2nd ed., Black’s New Testament Commentaries (London: Adam & Charles Black, 1969), 1-5.                      4:10-20                 1:1-3:1; 4:2-9, 21-23

Schmithals^[9]Walter Schmithals, Paul and the Gnostics, trans. J. E. Steely (Nashville: Abingdon, 1972), 78-81. G. Bornkamm, “Der Philipperbrief als paulinische Briefsammlung,” Neotestamentica et Patristica, Supplement to Novum-Testa­mentum 6 (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1962), 192-202, adopts a similiar division.             4:10-23                1:1-3:1; 4:4-7                         3:2-4:3, 8-9

Rahtjen^[10]B. D. Rahtjen, “Three Letters of Paul to the Philippians,” New Testa­ment Studies 6 (1959-60): 167-173.

4:10-20                1:1-2:30; 4:21-23                  3:1-4:9

All of the above have a similar reconstruction of the occasion and purpose of the three letters. The first was a letter of thanks written soon after the receipt of the gift brought by Epaphroditus. The second was written at a later date when Epaphroditus had recovered from his illness and Paul was about to send him back to Philippi, perhaps earlier than the Philippians had intended-thus the defense of Epaphroditus.^[11]Rahtjen, “Three Letters,” 169-70, however, insists that Epaphroditus had previously returned home and had been received with coolness and even hostility. Paul also used the letter to deal with some comparatively minor problems in the church. The third letter was written still later when Paul received some detailed information about the presence of false teachers in the church.^[12]Here again Rahtjen, ibid., 171-2, differs slightly in claiming that the occasion was the outbreak of the Neronian persecution and Paul’s realization that he would soon be executed. Under such circumstances it would be natural for Paul to attack the Jews who were responsible for his being in prison in Rome.

The main argument in favor of  4:10-20 (or 23) constituting a separate letter is the inappropriateness of waiting several months before acknowledging a gift and then waiting until the end of the letter to do so, which would seem to be the case if Philippians is a unity. It has also been claimed that the situation of Epaphroditus is different in 4:18 and in 2:25-30. There are, however, several things which can be said in reply. It is possible that Paul had already sent thanks by word of mouth or by a previous letter. It may be that he had deliberately waited several weeks or months to communicate with the church so that he could see how things would go with the gravely-ill Epaphroditus. He may have waited until the end of the letter to acknowledge the gift so that he could do so with his own hand.^[13]It was Paul’s usual practice to dictate his letters and then to add the last few lines with his own pen. Cf. I Cor. 16:21; Gal. 6:11; Col. 4:18; II Thess. 4:17. Of course if Phil. 4:10-23 is Paul’s autograph it would be longer than any of the others, but this would be no great objection. There may already be an allusion to the gift, however, in 1:3, 5. The genitive in 1:3 may be subjective rather than objective so that one would translate “your remembrance of me.”

The main argument for the presence of another letter in chapter   three and probably the first part of four as well (letter number three above) is the change in subject matter and tone beginning in 3:2. In 3:1 the letter seems to be coming to an end, but in 3:2 there is a new and violent beginning. It has often been said that there is nothing in chapters 1 and 2 which prepares f m the unparalleled invective in 3:2ff. This claim, however, will be questioned below where the pervasiveness of themes and terms is discussed. In any vent one must not make too much out of the change of tone in 3:2ff. For one thing Paul quickly returns to a more reserved and positive tone such as characterizes chapters one and two. For another, sudden shifts are attested in other letters, e.g. between Rom. 16:16 and 17, I Cor. 15:58 and 16:1, and I Thess. 2:14 and 15. There are other ways to explain the change in tone than to conjecture a later letter. J. B. Lightfoot thought that just as Paul was about to bring the letter to a close he was interrupted by the receipt of news of trouble at Philippi.^[14]Saint Pauls Epistle to the Philippians, 4th ed. (London: Macmillan, 1878), 69-70. Maurice Jones. supposed that the cause for the sudden attack upon the Judaizers was the arrival in Rome of a Jewish delegation to press the charges against Paul.^[15]Epistle to the Philippians, Westminster Commentaries (London: Me­thuen, 1918), xiv-xi . More recently T. E. Pollard, “Integrity of Philippians,” New Testament  studies 13 (1966-7): 57-66 and in particular p. 61 has sec­onded Jones position. Of course it is impossible to know for certain what diverted Paul.

Other   arguments   have   been   advanced   to   justify seeing another letter in 3:2ff. There is no reference to Paul’s being in prison in chapters three and four. But most of those who find a third letter in these chapters think Paul was in prison at the   time   of   writing.   The yokefellow   addressed   in 4:3 must be Timothy, but in 1:1 Timothy is with Paul. But the identity of this person is most uncertain. The use of the word “goodbye” in 3:1 and 4:4 (cf. the Goodspeed translation) indicates that Paul did not expect to see the Philippians again, whereas in 2:24 he does. But although the word chairete may mean goodbye, it usually means rejoice (so RSV and most English translations). In 1:27-30 the danger is hypothetical and vague, whereas in 3:2ff. it is very real. The same kind of argument is expressed differently in the claim that in 1:27-30 Paul has but limited information about troublemakers at Philippi, whereas in 3:2ff. he has detailed information-thus implying an altogether different situation. But it is by no means certain that the opponents in 1:28 are the same as those in 3:2ff. (see below). None of these arguments therefore is convincing. Furthermore, there is one consideration which weighs heavily against the reality of the letter in question. Its advocates cannot agree where it begins (whether in 3:1a 3:1b, or 3:2) or where it ends (whether in 3:19, 4:3, or 4:9) .

Quite aside from the identification of particular letters, there are some general considerations bearing upon the problem of unity. First, there are several ancient and medieval references to letters to Philippi. Polycarp in his own Letter to the Philippians 3.2 written between 110-135, says that “Paul . . . wrote you letters.” Polycarp, however, may not be expressing himself precisely; he may be using the plural to indicate importance rather than number; or he may be referring to a collection of Paul’s letters possessed by the church at Philippi. Of course Paul may have written more than one letter to Philippi which has or have been lost. Then the Syriac Catalogus Sinaiticus (ca. 400) refers to two Philippian letters, but obviously this is due to accidental repetition.^[16]Alexander Souter, Text and Canon of the New Testament, rev. C. S. C. Williams (London: Gerald Duckworth, 1954), 209. Also George Syncellus (ca. 800) mentions a First   Philippians.^[17]Cited in Rahtjen, “Three Letters,” 167-8. Not much confidence, however, can be put in such a late witness. If the canonical Philippians was produced by combining two or three letters, it was done before any of these letters began to circulate.

Second, for the theory to be tenable one must explain how the letters came to be combined. Marxsen thinks that such combination   took place when Paul’s letters began to acquire canonical status. In that situation the historical situation of individual letters ceased to be important, and the only way the shorter and morn occasional letters could have value for the second-century church was for them to be combined with the longer.^[18]Introduction, pp. 66-67. Rahtjen supposes that the Philippians themselves combined the letters at the time they passed them on to another church or to a person who was collecting Paul’s letters and that they did so to increase their own status in the eyes of other churches.^[19]”Three Letters,” p. 173. But size and occasional nature are no indication of importance and relevance as can be seen by the presence of Philemon in the canon. Most important is the incongruity of the facts that until Paul’s letters began to acquire canonical status there was no motive for combining them and once they became sacrosanct it is inconceivable that a sympathetic editor would have combined them by deliberately discarding introductions and conclusions and perhaps other portions as well. Furthermore, any abrupt transitions can better be explained as the result of Paul writing an informal letter in the difficult circumstances of an imprisonment than as the result of careful editing.

A third consideration favoring unity is the presence in the several parts of Philippians of similar themes and terminology. This point is developed by Pollard^[20]”Integrity.” and Jewett.^[21]Robert Jewett, “Epistolary Thanksgiving and the Integrity of Philippians,”   Novum Testamentum 12 (1970): 40-53 and especially 49-53. There is a concern for unity and a disapproval of things which threaten it in 1:14, 17, 27; 2:3-4; 4:5-7. There is repeated contrast between confidence in the flesh and confidence in the Lord. Note 1:14, 19-26; 2:14-18, 24; 3:3-16; 4:6-7, 10-20. There is parallelism of thought in 2:5-11 and in 3:4-11. The significance of suffering is treated in 1:12-14, 27-30; 3:10; 4:14. Joy is a major theme in chapters 1-2, but it is also sounded in 4: 10. Concern for a correct mental attitude is seen in the ten uses of phronein scattered throughout the letter. The word kerdos (gain) is found in 1:21 and 3:7 but only one other time in the New Testament. The verb hegeomai  (consider, think, rule) is found two times in chapter two and three in chapter three but only three times elsewhere in the Pauline Epistles. In 2:7 Paul speaks of Christ being found in human form, in 3:8-9 of himself being found in Christ. In a similar vein Jewett cites Paul Schubert, Form and Function of the Pauline Thanksgivings (Berlin, 1939), to the effect that the epistolary thanksgiving is a formal device used to announce and introduce the topics of a letter. Step by step Jewett follows Schubert in showing how the thanksgiving in 1:3-11 does this.

In the opinion of the present writer the evidence strongly supports the unity of Philippians.^[22]Other recent writers who support the unity of Philippians include W. J. Dalton, “Integrity of Philippians,” Biblica 60 (1979): 97-102; and V. P. Furnish, “Place and Purpose of Philippians III,” New Testament Studies 10 (1963-4): 80-8.

 

Place of Writing

Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, and Philemon traditionally have been grouped together and referred to as the Prison Epistles because Paul calls himself a prisoner (Eph. 3:l; 4:l; Phm. 1, 9; cf. Col. 4: 10; Phm. 23) and refers to his bonds ( Phil. 1:7, 13, 14, 17; Col. 4:3, 18; Phm. 10, 13) and chains (Eph. 6:20). The question arises therefore, where was Paul imprisoned at the time of writing? In considering the question it should be noted that, despite the denial of the , authenticity of the first two, Ephesians, Colossians, and Philemon appear to have been written at about the same time and to have been delivered by the   same messengers. Eph. 6:21 and Col. 4:7 indicate that these letters were carried by Tychicus. Col. 4:9 indicates that Tychicus was accompanied by Onesimus, who of course was the bearer of Philemon. And of course Ephesians and Colossians have much content in com­ mon. Philippians, however, stands apart in terms of both content and bearer and must have been written either before or after the other three (see below). Some, however, would go further than that. T. W. Manson denied that Philippians was written from prison by claiming that the references to bonds were metaphorical.^[23]Studies in the Gospels and Epistles, ed. Matthew Black (Manchester: Manchesier University Press, 1962), 149-167. Few have followed Manson in his claim. F. F. Bruce, although maintaining a prison origin of Philippians,   places it in the second group of Paul’s letters along with Romans and I and II Corinthians^[24]Many scholars and the present writer, but not Bruce, would add Gala­tians to this group. which were written during the third missionary journey, whereas he retains Ephesians, Colossians, and Philemon in the third group and locates their writing in Rome.^[25]F. F. Bruce, “Epistles of Paul,” Peake’s Commentary on the   Bible, ed. M. Black and H. H. Rowley (London: Thomas Nelson and Sons, 1962), 932-3. These considerations would seem to dictate that the place of writing of Philippians be considered without reference to the other Prison Epistles. There are three theories which will be considered in chronological order, those of Ephesian, Caesarian, and Roman origin.

Acts of course makes no mention of an Ephesian imprisonment. Many scholars, however, have conjectured that there was one and have scoured Paul’s letters and early Christian literature to find supporting evidence.^[26]The champion of this view is G. S. Duncan, St. Paul’s Ephesian Ministry (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1929). Such evidence includes the following. In II Cor. 11:23 Paul speaks of having had many imprisonments. Yet according to Acts he had been imprisoned only once, overnight in Philippi, prior to the writing of II Corinthians. But this does not prove an Ephesian imprisonment. In I Cor. 15:32 Paul refers to fighting with the beasts at Ephesus; this was likely preceded by an imprisonment. But a Roman citizen would not be subjected to such a fate; the language is surely metaphorical just as is the preceding   statement, “I die every day.” The Acts of Paul (ca. 150) describes Paul’s encounter with a lion at Ephesus. But no confidence can be placed in this fantastic account; it   is nothing more than an inaccurate inference from I Cor. 15:32. In II Cor. 1:8 Paul recalls a great affliction he experienced in Asia. But this does not necessarily refer to an imprisonment. Clement of Rome (I Clem. 5:6) mentions seven imprisonments of Paul. But there is no reference to Ephesus. In Ephesus there is a building called Paul’s Prison. But there is no evidence that this tradition has ancient roots. These considerations do not prove an Ephesian imprisonment. Even if they did, that alone would not prove that Philippians or the other Prison Epistles were written from Ephesus. Other factors must be considered.

Certainly one of the strongest arguments for an Ephesian origin of Philippians is that it has much in common with Romans, I and II Corinthians, and Galatians which were probably written during or shortly after Paul’s Ephesian ministry. The main thing Philippians has in common with   these is opposition to the Judaizers. There are, however, some uncertainties   at this point. As will be indicated below, it is disputed whether the reference in 3:2ff. is to Judaizers or Jews. And the identity of Paul’s opponents in the “Major Epistles” is itself a problem, namely whether they are Judaizers or Gnostics. It is also true that   Philippians has at least something in common with most of the other letters of Paul.

Another argument in favor of Ephesus is that the promised visit of Paul in 1:26 and 2:24 is fulfilled in Acts 20:1 which relates what Paul did upon leaving Ephesus, and that of Timothy in 2:19, 23 is fulfilled in Acts 19:22 (cf. I Cor. 4:17; 16:10-11) . Furthermore there is no evidence that Timothy was with Paul in either Caesarea or Rome. This, too, is a weighty argument. The only thing that can be said in reply is that the mere lack of information about later movements of Paul and Timothy does not rule out a later date and another place of origin for Philippians.

The reference to the Philippians’ gift in 4: 10   is also   said to favor the Ephesian hypothesis. It can easily be seen how the Philippians would have had no opportunity to help Paul between the time he left Corinth on his second journey and the time he arrived in Ephesus   on his   third. It is difficult to see, however, how the Philippians could have had no opportunity between Paul’s leaving Corinth and his arrival in either Caesarea or Rome, especially since he visited Philippi twice in the interval. But 4:10-20 nowhere defines the   point at which the interval began. The interval could well be between his final departure from Philippi (Acts 20:6) and his arrival in Rome. Also the Ephesian period when Paul was promoting an offering for the church in Jerusalem, an offering in which the Philippians no doubt participated, may not have been a time when they could or would have given to Paul personally.

On the other hand the lack of reference to the offering in Philippians is perhaps a factor against an Ephesian origin. In 1:20-22 Paul makes it plain that the issue in his imprisonment is life or death. It is difficult to see how this fits either an Ephesian or Caesarean imprisonment from which appeal to Rome was possible.

Acts 23-26 records the two-year Caesarean imprisonment of Paul, and a comparatively small number of scholars have attempted to find there the writing of the Prison Epistles.^[27]Among them are J. J. Gunther, Paul: Messenger and Exile (Valley Forge: Judson, 1972), 98-107; Lewis Johnson, “Pauline Letters from Caesarea,” Expository Times 68 (1956-7): 24-6; Bo Reicke “Caesarea Rome and the Captivity Epistles,” Apostolic History and the Gospel…Essays Pre­sented to F. F. Bruce …, ed. W. W. Gasque and R. P. Martin (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979), 277-86, who, however, places Philippians alone in Rome; and J. A. T. Robinson, Redating the New Testament (Philadelphia: Westminster 1976), 57-67. Most of what can be said in favor of the theory pertains to Ephesians, Colossians, and Philemon and not to Philippians. If those whom Paul attacks in 3:3ff. are Jews rather than Judaizers, the background could be the tensions between Jews and Gentiles in Caesarea or the fact that Paul was in prison there because of Jewish charges. But the identity of the opponents is uncertain, and certainly there was Jewish opposition to Paul and conflicts between Jews and Gentiles in Rome and Ephesus as well. Acts 23:35 says that Paul was kept in Caesarea in Herod’s praetorium. The same word is used in Phil. 1:13. But the expression “to all the rest” makes it clear that the word in 1:13 refers to people, the praetorian guard, not a place. On the other hand there are many objections to a Caesarean origin for Philippians. One is the enormous distance, about 1200 miles between Philippi and Caesara (cf. below the same objection to a Roman origin). There is no mention in Philippians of Philip the Evangelist, who according to Acts 21.8 was a resident of Caesarea a few weeks before Paul was imprisoned there, or of Luke, who, according to the implication of the “we” passages in Acts was with Paul when he arrived in Jerusalem and when he left Caesarea and presumably between the two as well. It is doubtful that a small city such as Caesarea would have been the site of all the preaching activity implied by 1:12-18. In 1.25-26 and 2:24 Paul is optimistic of his chances for release, but it is doubtful that he enjoyed such optimism at Caesarea. The same passages reflect Paul’s intention to visit Philippi again, but while at Caesarea his goal was Rome   and beyond it Spain. A Caesarean origin therefore is improbable.

A two-year Roman imprisonment is attested by Acts 28:16-31 and by early Christian tradition generally, and the traditional view is that Philippians was written from Rome. The Marcionite Prologue (2nd century) so indicates as does also Chrysostom (d. 407).^[28]Cited without reference in Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible 3:789. Although it has been shown that both groups were found throughout the Empire, the references to the praetorian guard (1:13) and Caesar’s household (4:22) surely support Rome. The divided Christian community which seems to be reflected in 1:15-18 best suits Rome. The real possibility of martyrdom (1:19-26) does also.

There are serious objections to a Roman provenance, however. Perhaps the most important is the distance from Rome to Philippi, some 800 miles. A journey between Rome and Philippi in ancient times would have taken at least a month, and six weeks to two months would be more realistic. Philippians reflects several journeys: word was sent from Rome to Philippi that Paul was imprisoned; Epaphroditus traveled from Philippi to Rome with the gift (4:18) ; news is taken back to Philippi of Epaphroditus’ illness (2:26); and the Philippians send word to Paul of their concern (2:26). At the time of writing therefore there had been four journeys. Three more are anticipated, those of Epaphroditus (2:25), Timothy (2:19), and Paul himself (1:26;   2:24) from Rome to Philippi. The four journeys, however, could have been completed in about eight months. Paul was in prison in Rome for at least two years (Acts 28:30). Furthermore, the Philippian church may have learned even before he arrived there that Paul was being taken to Rome, and Epaphroditus may have fallen ill along the way rather than after arriving in Rome.

Also against Rome as the place of writing is the fact that according to Rom. 15:28 Paul intended to go from Rome to Spain, not Philippi. But four years of imprisonment may have changed his mind. According to 1:13 Paul was in prison for being a Christian and for preaching the gospel. The Acts account, however, suggests that his imprisonments in Caesarea and Rome were for supposedly defiling the temple. But the two charges could easily be combined and/or be interchangeable.

A decision between Rome and Ephesus is difficult. For most it will hinge upon the difficulty of the distance between Philippi and Rome versus that of the uncertainty of an Ephesian imprisonment. The present writer leans toward the Roman view.

 

Date

Date in large part depends upon place of writing. Although systems of chronology of the apostolic age vary from one to three years, if the letter was written in Ephesus the date would be about 54-56, in Caesarea 57-59, and in Rome 60-62. If, however, Philippians reflects the same imprisonment as Ephesians, Colossians, and Philemon and if that imprisonment is in Rome, there remains   the question whether it was written before or after them. Lightfoot argued for an early date because of the affinities of Philippians with Romans.^[29]Philippians, pp. 41-46. It is more likely, however, that Philippians is later than the other three. One must allow time for the various journeys it reflects, for Paul to have become well known to, the praetorian guard, for some in Caesar’s household to have been converted, and for the trial to have neared its completion.

 

Paul’s Opponents at Philippi^[30]The best survey of the problem and the theories is that of Ralph Martin, Philippians, New Century Bible (Greenwood, S.C.: Attic, 1976), 22-36.

The first question is whether the opponents of 1:27-30 are the same as the false teachers of chapter three. It is improbable that they are. Inasmuch as the opponents of 1:28 are the cause of suffering of both Paul (v. 30) and the Philippians (v. 29), it is likely that they are pagan persecutors. In chapter three, however, theological differences are a factor. The second question, therefore, is the identity of the false teachers in chapter three. A prior question, however, is whether one group or two groups of false teachers are in mind. The traditional view is that there are two groups, legalists in 3:2-17 and libertines in 3:18-21.^[31]It is possible to mention only two recent examples: Robert Jewett, “Conflicting Movements in the Early Church as Reflected in Philippians,” Novum Testamentum 12 (1970) : 362-390; and Ralph Martin, Philippians, 28-34. The first group is described as “dogs” (a Jewish term of contempt for gentiles which Paul turns back upon the Jews), “evil workers” (apparently a reference to legalistic works which in their effect are evil rather than good), and “those who, mutilate the flesh” (an obvious reference to circumcision as v. 3 shows). The second group is characterized by indulgence in food (“their god is their stomach”) and sex (“their glory is in their shame”) and by worldliness in general (“who set their mind on earthly things”). The main objection to the two­ front hypothesis is that there is no indication of transition in the text. Paul was never a systematic writer, however, and writing from prison or even house arrest would likely aggravate this fault.

Can the two groups be further identified? Are the legalists orthodox Jews or Jewish Christians of the Judaizing type Paul opposed in Galatians, Romans, and perhaps II Corinthians? A decision is difficult because each item of description in the text could apply equally to both. Because Paul certainly denounces Judaizers   rather   than   Jews   elsewhere, he probably does here also. It is more probable that the beliefs and practices of the Philippian church would be upset by Judaizers who claimed to be Christians than by Jews who did not. As for the libertines, it is probable that they represented a primitive form of Gnosticism. Certainly some of the second-century Gnostics were characterized by indulgence.

Several recent scholars, however, have argued for but one group of opponents. A.F.J. Klijn contends that they were Jews.^[32]Paul’s Opponents in Philippians iii,” Novum Testamentum 7 ( 1965): 278-84. John J. Gunther, St. Paul’s Opponents and Their Background (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1973), claims that the opponents were non-conformist Jews similiar to the Essenes. But the Essenes tended to withdraw from society. There is no evidence that they ever engaged in missionary activity or were present in Asia Minor or Greece. Of course the problem with this view is that the vices enumerated in vv. 18-21 did not characterize ancient Jews. Paul nowhere accuses the Jews of any kind of immorality. Klijn does not face up to this problem. J. Mueller-Bardorff describes the opponents as pneumatics who both embraced circumcision and practiced indulgence at the same time.^[33]Zur Frage der literarischen Einheit des Philipperbriefs,” Wissenschaft­liche Zeitschrift der Universitaet Jena, Gesellschaftsund sprachwiss. Reihe 7 (1957-8) : 591-604, cited in Martin, Philippians, 25, and in Jewett, “Epistolary Thanksgiving,” 47-8. In 3:2-17, however, the issue extends far beyond circumcision to a general observance of the Jewish law. Concern with observance of the law is incompatible with free living. Helmut Koester thinks in terms of gnostic Jewish-Christian apostles who taught perfectionism by keeping the law.^[34]”Purpose of the Polemic of a Pauline Fragment,” New Testament Studies 8 (1961-2): 317-32. Such perfectionism included present possession of resurrection and freedom from suffering and death. Koester is able to maintain his position only by denying that there is any reference to libertinism in 3:18-21. He contends that v. 19 is not an accurate description but merely abusive language. Exegesis, however, will not support this contention nor the one about perfectionism. Similarly Walter Schmithals finds in chapter three a group of Jewish-Christian-Gnostics who made much of circumcision while ignoring most of the other claims of the law.^[35]Paul and the Gnostics, 65-122. J, B. Tyson, “Paul’s Opponents at Philip­ pi,” Perspectives in Religious Studies 3 (1976): 82-95, synthesizes Koester and Schmithals and indicates his agreement with the two. But why would circumcision, one of the most difficult requirements of the law, alone be exalted? It is best therefore to maintain the traditional view that Paul was opposing both nomists and libertines.

 

Occasion and Purpose

Using the conclusions reached above it is now possible to reconstruct the occasion and purpose of writing. The occasion was the return of Epaphroditus to Philippi. There were several purposes. First, it would appear that Epaphroditus was returning earlier than the Philippian church had intended when it had sent him to Paul with the gift and to remain and minister to the apostle. Paul wanted to head off any criticism that Epaphroditus had deserted him in his time of need. Second, no doubt Epaphroditus had told Paul about the presence of false teachers and division in the church at Philippi. Paul wrote to deal with these problems. Third, Paul wanted to thank (again?) the Philippians for their gift. Fourth, he wanted to convey to what was perhaps his favorite church a personal word about his situation and prospects.