CHAPTER 5

OPPONENTS EVERYWHERE -- PHILIPPIANS

Despite the common notion that Philippians is written to a church with few or no serious problems, there has been no shortage of hypotheses about opponents.Not only is there no consensus on the identity of the opponents, there is no agreement about how many different types of opponents are present or even where they are.Hypotheses have ranged from non-Christian Jews[1] and Cybele-Attis cult eunuchs[2] to Divine men,[3] Judaizers,[4] and libertine Gnostics,[5] or elements of both of these latter groups.

Identifying opponents in Philippians is complicated by questions about its integrity.This is an important question because our method demands that we treat letters individually.The commonly suggested divisions of Philippians and the studies of the genre of Philippians by recent defenders of its integrity exaccerbate this difficulty because these different views of its composition may lead to different understandings of various sections. For example, if Phil 3 is a separate polemical letter, the whole of the chapter might be identified as directly engaged with oppo­nents.[6]But if Philippians is a single letter, the material in ch. 3 might simply be another instance of that letter's use of anti­thetical examples with none of the chapter seen as polemical.[7]

The integrity of Philippians cannot be discussed at length here, but in the face of some substantial arguments to the contrary, several studies from differing perspectives have made a strong case in favor of its integrity.This will be the working hypothesis of the current treatment of Philippians.We will, however, take note of what difference a three letter hypothesis would make in our identification of opponents.

In addition to recommending the letter's integrity, studies of its rhetorical species strongly indicate that Philippians is deliberative rhetoric.[8]In addition to the arguments Watson presents for this view, the repeated use of to auto fronein (to think the same things) and related expressions (2:2-3, 5; 3:15; 4:3) also indicate that Philippians is deliberative.[9]More specifically and from a different perspective, Stowers makes a good case for seeing Philippians as a hortatory letter of friendship.[10]While these determinations cannot prove whether Philippians addresses opponents, they will inform our identification of types of contexts and suggest why certain topics emerge (e.g. the theme of presence and absence[11]).

Explicit Statements

3:2-3

A section which contains an often cited explicit state­ment about opponents begins at 3:1a.Since Paul sometimes uses to loipon (finally) to signal a change in topic (rather than signaling the conclusion of a letter),[12] 3:1a begins the section.Furthermore, identifying the letter as a hortatory letter of friendship supports interpreting ta auta(the things) in 3:1 as a reference to what follows because it is part of a common "hortatory idiom" in such letters.[13]Within the larger section 3:1-16, vv. 1-6 make up the first sub-section.

While 3:1-6 is most often identified as polemical,[14] Stowers identifies this section as more paraenetic,[15] a type of section which is more likely in a hortatory letter of friendship.A decision about the nature of this section depends largely on one's interpretation of the blepete phrases in v. 2.Kilpatrick's brief study indicates that blepete with the accusative always means, "look at, consider," rather than "beware."[16]This argument from usage is often countered with the assertion that the tone of the passage is too polemical and the name-calling too insulting for blepete to mean anything other than "beware."[17]Caird rejects this argument, asserting that the repetition and names are insufficient to outweigh "the evidence of usage."[18]Garland and Stowers add that those spoken of in 3:2 are given as negative examples of the attitudes Paul is promoting in the larger context.[19]However, the derogatory nature of the names and the three-fold repetition seem to indicate something beyond a negative example, even though serving as such an example may be a major purpose of their mention.These are people Paul has told the Philippians of before and he, no doubt, included his opinion of them then.So introducing them at 3:2 does not require such an insulting reference unless he perceives them as a danger to the Philippians.[20]Still, if they serve as a negative example, Paul must assume they have found little acceptance at Philippi.On balance, then, 3:1-6 is a somewhat polemical section which may also serve a broader hortatory purpose.

After introducing a new topic in 3:1, Paul speaks of "the dogs," "evil workers," and "mutilators."Interpreters often use these epithets to characterize these opponents."Dogs" has been used to identify them as non-Christian Jews,[21] Gentiles,[22] those outside the covenant,[23] and libertines.[24]But this general insult is not, as Koester notes, descriptive but invective; its aim is solely to insult.[25]Thus we learn nothing about these "dogs"[26] except that Paul opposes them in no uncertain terms.Such a response to them justifies Jewett's assertion that this description indicates that they are outside the Philippian community[27] which has been spoken of quite differently throughout the letter.This insult also indicates that Paul considers these people opponents.

The second insulting name Paul calls these opponents is "evil workers."Interpreters generally agree that ergatas (workers) indicates that these opponents are missionaries.[28]Koester conjectures that they use this title for themselves.[29]Several interpreters claim that this insult reveals some more particular chatacteristic of these opponents: e.g. Klijn and Lohmeyer assert that calling them evil or fasle apostles shows that they are non-Christian Jews.[30]Michael, however, argues that ergatas indicates that the opponents are Christian.[31]Drawing on the use of the same term in 2 Cor 11:13, Schmithals argues that the same opponents are combatted in Philippians and 2 Corinthians.[32]But as it was the case with the term "dogs", we cannot determine anything very specific about the opponents from this rather general insult.It does seem probable, however, that they are Christian missionaries of some type, given the use of this term within early Christianity.[33]

The third insult in 3:2 is katatomhn (mutilation).Baumbach asserts that this is the first position fixing designa­tion in 3:2 and that it indicates that they require circumci­sion[34]While most interpreters recognize a reference to circum­cision here, Ulonska argues that it refers to castration because Paul claims circumcision for himself in the immediately following verses.Thus, Paul has eunuchs in mind.[35]If, however, these opponents require circumcision of Gentiles, Paul may not be claiming for himself, a Jew, precisely what he judges Gentile circumcision to be.Further­more, since exaggerated language is common in polemical contexts and since we obviously cannot take the first insult (dogs) in any literal sense, such a reference to Gentile circumcision is not out of place here.Additionally, nothing else in the context suggests a problem with Cybele-Attis cult devotees.[36]

Caird argues that katatomhn (mutilation) along with the peritomhn (circumcision) in 3:3 shows that these opponents are Jews because only Jews call themselves the circumcision.[37]This argument rests on the dubious assumption that Paul is directly echoing the opponents' language.Furthermore, Paul uses precisely this language to describe Christians in Gal 2:12 when he speaks of "those from James" who come to Antioch.Thus, since Paul uses this terminology to refer to Christians, albeit Jewish Christians, who require Gentiles to observe some elements of the law, his use of it here in Phil 3:2-3 does not exclude the possibility that he has Christians in view.

Schmithals asserts that it is not clear whether the opponents require circumcision or only boast in their own circumcision as a sign of their superiority based on Jewish identity.[38]While there is no direct statement in the text, the paranomasia between katatomhn (mutilation) andperitomh (circumcision) makes no sense if they do not urge circumcision of Gentiles.[39]The combination of this word-play, the insulting nature of katatomhn, and the claim to be "the circumcision" in v. 3 makes it clear that these opponents do require Gentiles to be circumcised.

From 3:1-3a, then, we see that Paul concerns himself with opponents who are not part of the Philippian congregation.These opponents seem to be traveling Christian preachers who require Gentiles to be circumcised.It also appears that, in spite of the abusive epithets, they are making little or no headway at Philippi because Paul can present them as negative examples.We cannot specify what they claim is gained through circumcision.

1:15-18

An explicit statement about opposition to Paul appears in the first section of the body of Philippians.Most agree that this section is composed of 1:12-26.It begins with a disclosure formula in v. 12[40] and there is a clear change in topic at v. 27.[41]Craddock sees the section as an inclusio with prokophn (advancement) in vv. 12 and 26.The section's function is usually viewed in one of two ways: Beare, Craddock, and Gnilka see it primarily as a report about Paul's situation.[42]Sinilarly, Garland, O'Brien, and Lohmeyer see Paul interpreting his imprisonment for the Philippians.[43]Others, however, identify the section as apologetic.Collange asserts that Paul must defend the use of his citizenship to escape martyrdom.[44]Stowers also seems to find an apologetic element here as Paul must convince both friends and enemies that this misfortune is actually good fortune.[45]Watson approaches this text quite differently.He identifies 1:3-26 as an extended exordium, a device used when the audience did not recognize the gravity of the exigence addressed.[46]Thus, its function is to focus the Philippians' attention on an important topic.

V. 12, with its disclosure formula, sets out the theme of this section:[47] Paul's affairs have advanced the gospel.Vv. 12-18a supply the details which support this proposition,[48] while vv. 18b-26 look to the future advance of the gospel through Paul.This theme of the advance of the gospel through Paul's adverse circumstances requires no charges against him.Interpreters can find Paul defending himself against specific charges (e.g. those Jewett finds[49]) only through unsupported mirror reading.[50]At this early point in the letter Paul may well be establishing or confirming his ethos as a basis for subsequent commands.Similarly, Watson notes that these verses establish Paul as an example for those facing opposition and so prepare for the calls to imitation in 3:17 and 4:9.[51]Watson also sees Paul eliciting the Philippians' pathos in this section by showing his willingness to sacrifice his personal desires for their good.[52]Thus, this section seems to be primarily didactic.

1:15-18 is an excursus[53] on the people of v. 14 who have been encouraged to preach Christ through Paul's imprisonment.In vv. 15-18a Paul speaks of some who preach out of envy and strife and want to afflict him in his imprisonment.Paul's comments about these preachers are strange because, despite their opposition to him, he says they preach Christ.This fits quite well with the theme of the advance of the gospel through Paul's adversity, but is surprising to those familiar with the relationship he posits between his apostleship and his message in 2 Corinthians.Most interpreters agree that the problem with these preachers is not doctrinal (i.e. they are not false teachers) but rather their attitude toward Paul.Some, however, find a reference here to some type of opponent known from elsewhere.[54]But all such theses rely entirely on unsupported mirror reading and verbal parallels, especially with 2 Corinthians.Any identification of these opponents in Phil 1:15-18 with others who disagree with Paul on some significant doctrinal issue overlooks Paul's acknowledgement that these envious ones preach Christ.Paul does not allow that evaluation of Judaizers or his opponents in 2 Corinthians and his pejorative comments in 3:2f. eliminate the possibility that the same opponents are in view in chapter 1 and chapter 3.Jewett's contention that Paul could not call them heretics because he did not found the church where both Paul and these opponents are[55] does not explain how he could say they preach Christ, it only opens the possibility that he might be reticent to call them false teachers.But even that assertion is questionable in light of Paul's report in Galatians 2 of his own conduct at Antioch, a church he did not found, or his arguing at the Jerusalem Conference.Thus, it seems that the preachers of Phil 1:15-18a preach substantially the same message as Paul.

The basic accusation Paul makes against these opponents is that they preach from bad motives.Ernst thinks it is possible that no concrete background lies behind these statements, rather these envious preachers serve as a counter for the coming exhortation, just as such counter examples are used in some Jewish traditions and Pauline vice catalogs.[56]Stowers offers a more focused thesis, noting that vv. 15-18 use the "typical vocabulary of friendship and enmity."[57]He goes on to assert that the use of contrasting models is fundamental to the structure of Philippians and "a well-known hortatory strategy."[58]Since Paul is probably drawing on stock characterizations, it is difficult to deduce anything about these opponents from this passage.It does seem clear, however, that they are present in the city of Paul's imprisonment since he accuses them of stirring up tribulation for him while he is in chains (v.17)[59] and since they are among those emboldened to preach (v. 14).[60]This makes it highly unlikely that Paul had spoken of them previously as he had the opponents of 3:2-3.

All we can say with certainty about those Paul speaks of in 1:15-18a is that they are Christian preachers in the city from which Paul writes who do not treat Paul as he thinks they should.Even the conjecture that these opponents are leaders in that city's congregations who feel threatened by Paul's presence and prestige[61] goes beyond the evidence.Paul acknowledges that they preach Christ and condemns only their motives, so there are no significant doctrinal differences between Paul and these preach­ers.This understanding of them is further supported by the difference between his treatment of these preachers and those of 3:2-3 where some doctrinal difference is involved.Thus, these are not the same people as those of 3:2-3.

Unless the envious of 1:15-18a are wholly fictitious (which seems unlikely) and so inserted as a contrast to true friendship, Paul has spoken of two different groups which might be labeled opponents.One group treats Paul in some way which makes him see them as opponents, but do not advocate a teaching he opposes.This group is not troubling the Philippians.The second group appears in 3:2-3a.They do propagate beliefs Paul rejects and are at least a potential danger to the Philippians.

3:18-19

Another explicit statement about opponents appears in 3:18-19 where Paul speaks of "enemies of the cross."This passage belongs in a hortatory section[62] which begins at 3:17 (or perhaps 3:15[63]) and runs through 4:1.The section begins with a vocative which seems to signal a break,[64] but the flow of thought moves directly from the stoixein (hold fast to) of v. 16 to the exhortation in v. 17.[65]Despite this connection, vv. 15-16 seem more closely attached to vv. 12-14 and serve as a transition to the exhortation to imitate Paul in v. 17.This exhortation is the logical consequence of vv. 12-16 and dominates vv. 17ff.The remarks in vv. 18-19 support this exhortation by giving a counter-example, as even some who see the section as polemical seem to acknowledge.[66]

3:18 speaks of "many" who live as "enemies of the cross of Christ."This expression has been used to characterize these opponents as antinomians,[67] Gnostic libertines,[68] enthusiasts who understand perfection differently from Paul,[69] Gnostics who reject the soteriological significance of Jesus' death,[70] and even docetists.[71]All such uses of this expression rely heavily on unsupported mirror reading or parallels in other letters.Moreover, they neglect both the expression's polemical character and its function in this context.Koester recognizes the polemi­cal and abusive character of this verse but still uses it and v. 19 to identify specific aspects of the opponents' teaching.[72]But as Egger notes, "enemies of the cross of Christ" is not a description of the opponents as much as an attempt to make them contemptuous.[73]This imprecise and condemnatory language is a polemical evaluation which yields nothing about these opponents.With Michael, we can see the centrality of the cross in Paul's theology,[74] but this does not reveal how these opponents violate it.It is probable that these "enemies" are Christians because they are possible examples for the Philippians' lives.But it is not clear that the Philippians are threatened by these "enemies of the cross" because Paul says simply that he has told the Philippians about them.[75]V. 18 may even be, as Gnilka suggests, a general polemic which refers to many types of opponents[76] and not one specific type.This expression is general enough that it may include the opponents of 3:2ff., but it is not necessarily limited to them.Our only hope for more specificity is v. 19.

V. 19 is composed entirely of polemical evaluations of the "enemies of the cross."Paul says their end is destruction, their god is their belly, their glory is their shame, and they are earthly minded.Since accusations of this sort are typical of polemic generally and of Paul's polemics particularly,[77] they reveal nothing specific about the target opponents.[78]Still, interpreters have mirror read these accusations to identify these opponents as Judaizers,[79] libertines,[80] Gnostics,[81] and Cybele-Attis cult eunuchs.[82]But, as Perkins comments, this use of topoi which is "designed to discredit the moral character of one's opposition" renders use of these accusations to identify opponents "absurd."[83]Furthermore, Watson identifies v. 19 as an example of amplification which was used to "emphasize the evil nature of opponents and arouse negative pathos against them."[84]

The function of 3:18-19 within this hortatory context suggests that Paul needs no accurate description of some specific opponents.Rather, these polemical accusations support the preceding and following exhortations.The Philippians are to imitate Paul and those like him (v. 17) rather than others who are bad examples.These "enemies" are a contrasting model for the behavior called for in vv. 20-21.[85]As we have noted before, such contrasts are a fundamental feature of Philippians.

Thus 3:18-19 tells us nothing about those spoken of except that they are Christians[86] whose lives Paul rejects as examples for the Philippians.The context and polemic allow us to say no more.

3:4b(-6)

We have already identified 3:1-6 as a somewhat polemical section which serves a hortatory purpose.In v. 4b Paul speaks of those who put their confidence in the flesh.This is, of course, another polemical judgment about their teaching.They certainly would not have characterized their view in this way and would have rejected this evaluation as much as they would being called mutilators (v. 2).The surrounding verses show that their "confidence" rests on claims about being Jewish.It seems unlikely that these opponents are proselytes[87] because Paul seems to be matching the opponents' claims to Jewishness.His superiority comes not from being a real Jew instead of a proselyte, but from his dedication to his tradition.[88]

This passage indicates that these opponents make claims based on their Jewish credentials.[89]It does not, however, reveal what they call Gentiles to do.We cannot use mirror exegesis to specify what they demand--they obviously do not require Gentiles to become members of the tribe of Benjamin.

In addition to matching their credentials and, in the process, rejecting their claims to superiority, vv. 4-6 support the assertion of the superior value of knowing Christ (vv. 7-11).[90]Vv. 4-6 show only that these opponents claim some superiority based on their Jewishness and their adherence to Jewish traditions.

1:28

Our final explicit statement about opponents, 1:28, mentions those who are opponents of the Philippians.This statement appears in the large hortatory section[91] which begins at 1:27 and extends through at least 2:16[92] and perhaps 2:18.[93]1:27-30 is a sub-section within this larger unit.Vv. 27b-30 explicate the exhortation of v. 27a to "live (politeuesqe) worthy of the gospel of Christ."[94]The preceding discussion of the advance of the gospel through Paul's imprisonment supports this exhortation, as v. 30 intimates.Thus 1:12-26 serve a purpose beyond interpreting Paul's circumstances, they provide the Philippians with a needed example.[95]Paul uses his own experience of persecution in much the same way in 1 Thessalonians.

Paul gives no specifics about the opponents here except that they disturb the Philippians.This distin­guishes them from the opponents of 1:15-18a who were opponents of Paul personally.The opponents in 1:28 also comprise a different group than those of 3:2ff.However, Collange, who sees this section as part of a letter written earlier than chapter 3, argues that the same opponents are in view in both places.The difference is that by the time of the later letter the crisis has grown worse.[96]While Paul certainly views those mentioned in 3:2 as opponents of the Philippians, Collange can connect them with the opponents of 1:28 only because he understands the problem in both cases to be that they reject suffering.[97]But we have not found rejection of suffering to be an element of the opponents' teaching in chapter 3.Furthermore, the parallel Paul draws between the Philippians' experience and his own in v. 30 indicates that the opponents of 1:28 are non-Christians.[98]Thus we must reject the connection Collange makes with the opponents of 3:2ff.Based on the parallel between Paul's and the Philippians' experiences, the opponents in 1:28 are persecutors at Philippi.We can be no more specific than this.There is no evidence here for the extreme persecution Lohmeyer finds.[99]Neither is there evidence that the persecu­tors are Jews,[100] or Gentiles,[101] or participants in the Imperial cult.[102]The text gives no concrete information about them.[103]It does, however, place this persecution in an eschatological context[104] which gives meaning to the Philippians' suffering, and so supports the exhortation of v. 27.

We have now encountered a third group which may be referred to as opponents, namely persecutors of the Philippian Christians.These non-Christians are not included in the usual definition of Paul's opponents; they are more generally opponents of Christianity.Nevertheless, Paul refers to them as "opponents" of the Philippians.His remarks about these opponents add nothing to our understanding of those in 1:15-18a or 3:2ff.

Summary of Explicit Statements

Explicit statements about opponents in Philippians refer to three different groups who may be called opponents: Jewish Christian missionaries, personal opponents of Paul in the city of his imprisonment, and persecutors of the Philippians.The Jewish Christian missionaries require circumcision for Gentiles, but we cannot yet determine what they claim is gained by it.Paul evaluates their teaching as trusting in the flesh and recounts his Jewish credentials to match their claims to authority based on being Jewish to indicate that he fulfilled (and then rejected) the requirements they insist on.Furthermore, these traveling preachers have met little or no success at Philippi.Stowers may be correct that they have not even come to Philippi, though the level of the polemic makes this seem less likely.

The second group of opponents, those inflicting Paul in his imprisonment, seem to advance no teaching which differs significantly from that of Paul because he acknowledges that they preach Christ.The problem with this group is the way they treat Paul.It seems unlikely that they challenge the authenticity of his apostleship since he does not make that an issue, even though he often sees a necessary relationship between it and his gospel.

The third group, the persecutors of the Philippians, are non-Christians who trouble the congregation in some way which the Philippians perceive as persecution.Since these "opponents" are non-Christians, they do not belong among "Paul's opponents," understood as those who specifically oppose Paul, his teaching, or Pauline Christianity as distinct from other forms of Christianity.

Finally, Paul refers to opponents generally in 3:18-19.While Paul might apply the accusations found here to the opponents of 3:2ff., he does not seem to have them (or any specific group) in mind.Rather, those of 3:18-19 are a contrasting model used as a foil to support the surrounding exhortations.Even if Paul does have the opponents of 3:2ff. in view, 3:18-19, by virtue of its polemical nature and use of topoi, adds nothing to our understanding of them.

To this point, finding Philippians to be a compilation would not have changed our findings because we have found two different groups of opponents of Paul even while assuming its integrity.If it is correct that chapter 3 is a separate and polemical letter, it is more likely that 3:18-19 refers to the opponents mentioned earlier in that chapter.But, as we just noted, 3:18-19 yields no evidence about the beliefs or practices of those castigated there.

Allusions

3:7-10

The reference to the law in 3:9 and Paul's assessment of his own Jewish prerogatives indicates that 3:7-9 contains an allusion to the opponents of 3:2-4.The mention of sharing the sufferings of Christ in 3:10 may allude to the persecution the Philippians are suffering at the hands of their adversaries and so has been included here.If chapter 1 is part of a separate letter, there is no basis for seeing v. 10 as an allusion to opponents.

3:7-11 is a sub-section within 3:1-16.[105]Although some find this section to be directly polemical,[106] it seems much more likely to be an expository or didactic passage which develops the contrast in v. 7 between the things Paul valued in the past and his current evaluation of them in light of "the knowledge of Christ Jesus" (v. 8).[107]Vv. 7-11 are, then, closely related to vv. 4b-6[108] where Paul recounts his impressive Jewish credentials in the face of others who claim superiority on the basis of their Jewish heritage.[109]But in vv. 7-11 Paul is explaining his refusal to consider these advantages to be of primary importance.Since Paul is explaining his position, we identify the section as didactic.

The most obvious specific tie to the opponents of 3:2 is the reference to the law in v. 9.Here Paul equates righteousness from law (ek nomou) with one's own righteousness and contrasts those two with the righteousness from God.Several interpreters see at least v. 9 as a parenthesis.[110]V. 9b-c explicates the "being found" in Christ of v. 9a, while "to know" (tou gnwnai) of v. 10 resumes the "knowledge of Christ Jesus" in v. 8.[111]The explication of being found in Christ in v. 9 returns us to the issues Paul raised in 3:2-6.But even if this reference to righteousness has a directly polemical intent, it does little to expand our knowledge of the opponents.It cannot bear the weight O'Brien puts on it when he claims that "my righteousness" means the opponents believe they can make a claim on God.[112]Even Koester's claim that this section indicates that the question is whether "being in Christ" includes the law or is irreconcilably opposed to the law[113] is not clearly supported.There are no terminological connections sufficient to support any mirror reading of v. 9.[114]On the other hand, this reference to righteousness and the law is more significant than Caird allows when he identifies it as a "perfunctory allusion" to a past debate.[115]Still, Perkins may be correct that since this contrast between types of righteousness is not developed, it is not a key element in the dispute.[116]Paul's characterization of righteousness from law (ek nomou) as "my" righteousness is a polemically motivated evaluation rather than an accurate description of the opponents' teaching.But it does reflect their emphasis on keeping the law.It may intimate that they require more of the law than circumcision, but we cannot be certain of this.Paul may, instead, want to characterize their demand for circumcision in these terms to make it more unacceptable to the Philippians.This characterization also fits very well with a rejection of claims of superiority based on Jewish identity.We cannot determine from this allusion what these opponents claim is gained through circumcision, not even whether it involves initial justification or some higher achievement within Christianity.[117]Thus, this verse does little to clarify the opponents' demand for circumcision, but it does affirm that this demand is rooted in Judaism.

Paul's mention of "the knowledge of Christ Jesus" in v. 8 is sometimes claimed as evidence that the opponents have some Gnostic concepts,[118] but nothing in the context or in the explicit statements in Philippians supports this assertion.[119]Perhaps Caird and Ernst are correct that Paul draws this expression from the Hebrew Scriptures.[120]In any case, it does not advance our knowledge of the opponents.

As we noted above, if Philippians is a unity, the explica­tion of knowing Christ in 3:10[121] as sharing in his sufferings and being conformed to his death may allude to the opposition the Philippians face (1:28).Alternatively, it might allude to Paul's own situation of imprisonment and so again be interpreting his hardships for the Philippians.Even if 3:10 refers to the persecution the Philippians face, it does not clarify the situation in any significant way.Rather it gives persecution a positive meaning, as it does if it alludes to Paul's hardships.

Several interpreters contend that Paul is countering some type of realized eschatology in 3:10-11.[122]But this reading is not supported by explicit statements about opponents, and is based solely on unsupported mirror reading.These verses seem to have no direct polemical intent.Even Schmithals acknowl­edges this possibility, but then relies on both his broader reconstruc­tion and his presupposition that Paul is not well informed to find a reference to opponents here.[123]Klein, without these pre­suppositions, comments that the resurrection motif is not promi­nent enough to signal any opposition.[124]Furthermore, Perkins (who rejects the integrity of the letter) notes that the descrip­tion of knowing Christ in 3:10-11 as present suffering while anticipating resurrection recalls the hymn of chapter 2.[125]In addition, Baumbach argues that the eschatological reservation in 3:11 is a common characteristic of Pauline theology.[126]Thus, there is no basis for using 3:10-11 to describe opponents.

3:7-10, then, continues Paul's remarks about the "dogs" and gives his present evaluation of his Jewish credentials in terms of different types of righteousness.He polemically character­izes the former righteousness as his own and as being from the law.This seems to point to both the opponents' demand that Gentiles be circumcised and their claim to superiority based on Jewish credentials, but does not clarify what they claim is gained through circumcision.V. 8 may imply that they require more of the law than circumcision, but we cannot be certain of this.We find no evidence in 3:8-11 for Gnostics or a realized eschatology.Rather, vv. 10-11 interpret Christian suffering in the context of the superior value of knowing Christ (in contrast to claims of superiority based on Jewish heritage) for a community that knows persecution.

Summary of Allusions

The only recognizable allusions to opponents are found in 3:7-10 and relate to the opponents of 3:2-3 who call for Gentile circumcision.This allusion confirms that these opponents claim some superiority on the basis of their Jewish heritage.Since they call for Gentile circumcision, these opponents do more than claim authority over Gentiles.They must also assert that Gentiles can enhance their Christian status in some way by participating in the privileges of the circumcised.

Affirmations

3:12-16

Interpreters often rely heavily on 3:12-16 when identifying opponents in Philippians.But since there are no explicit statements about opponents or clear allusions to specific matters raised in explicit statements and allusions in these verses, we can classify this passage's statements only as affirmations.This means they can be used only minimally to identify opponents.Still, the call to remain in what the Philippians have attained in v. 16 may refer to the whole preceding discussion of the "dogs" and thus mean they are to reject the opponents of 3:2ff.

The beginning of a new subsection within 3:1-16 is signaled by the asyndeton between vv. 11 and 12.[127]Further­more, different terminology and concepts dominate this paragraph.[128]Klein asserts, in addition, that vv. 12-15 form an inclusio with teteleiwmai (I have been perfected) and teleioi (the mature/perfect).[129]The paragraph ends with v. 16 because the passage takes a new and more hortatory turn at v. 17 with the call to imitation.[130]The oppositional plhn (however) of v. 16, which is not continued in v. 17, also shows the clear connection of v. 16 to vv. 12-15.

Schmithals contends that 3:12-15 has an indubitably polemical aim.[131]Koester also finds a significant polemical element here, seeing all of vv. 9-16 as a refutation of boasting about "Jewish attributes."[132]Most interpreters identify two purposes for 3:12-16: avoiding misunderstanding of what Paul has said in the previous paragraph (or more generally his law-free gospel) and countering those who claim perfection.[133]Ernst and Stowers, however, tie the passage to the hortatory purposes of the letter and thus find no allusions to a perfectionist teaching.[134]Klein argues that vv. 12ff. are not polemical on the basis of the asyndeton at v. 12, which, he argues, shows that there is no simple continuation of the polemic.He further argues that the use of oux oti (not that) in v. 12 demonstrates the passage's non-polemical nature because Paul never uses that expression in polemic, but rather always to avert possible misunderstand­ing.[135]

The connection with the preceding paragraph is an important indicator of the nature of vv. 12-16.These verses play directly off v. 11--Paul's desire to attain, if possible, the resurrection through conformity to Christ's suffering and death.Our section, then, joins the eschatological reserva­tion of v. 11 and draws out its ethical consequences.[136]Thus, the rela­tionship of this section to the preceding section indicates that it is primarily exposition of vv. 10-11.It is, then, a didactic section with a hortatory intent.Identifying this passage as didactic excludes not only all mirror reading, but all use of affirmations to identify opponents.However, since so many interpreters find allusions to opponents here, we will give the passage some attention to determine whether their judgment is justified.

Teteleiwmai (I have been perfected) in 3:12 is usually identified as a slogan of some type of perfectionism.[137]All such identifications rely on both unsupported mirror reading and merely terminolog­ical parallels with material outside Philippi­ans.There have been no explicit comments (or even vague intima­tions) about realized eschatology, Gnosticism, pnuematic enthusi­asm, or antinomianism.Thus we cannot identify teteleiwmai in v. 12 or the teleioi (those who are perfect/mature) in v. 15 as slogans of opponents.[138]

It may yet be possible to see Paul's use of these terms as a less direct reference to conclusions he draws about the opponents' teaching.[139]3:15 seems to suggest the need to include all among the "mature,"[140] but even this is mirror reading.[141]Still, the overall context of chapter 3 may allow such an interpretation.If this were the case, it would indicate that the opponents were claiming to offer some advanced status within Christianity through circumcision.But this need not mean perfectionism in the sense that it includes some element of realized eschatology or moral completeness.Bonnard notes that teleiwmai had, by the first century, passed out of use solely in mystery religions and into more common usage where it described a higher state of spirituality.[142]If Paul is using it in this general way, it may speak to the opponents' offer to the Philippians.This would be no surprise; they must offer something to make circumcision attractive, but this passage does not indicate what that is.However, Klein rejects even this connection with the opponents, arguing that vv. 12-15 address only a potential danger.This interpretation, he asserts, makes the adversative of v. 16 more understandable.[143]One other possibility exists.Paul may be making it clear that in his description of his own experience he is not distinguishing himself from the Philippians.Just as they struggle with their faith in the midst of persecution, so also Paul has not risen above that struggle or the need to constantly conform more to the knowledge of Christ as he endures persecution.This purpose for the passage fits quite well with the following call to imitation (v. 17) and the overall hortatory inclination of Philippians.[144]

The apokaluqei ([God] will reveal) in 3:15 is another term often used to characterize opponents.Some interpreters claim that it shows that the opponents claim to receive visions.[145]But since this interpretation rests wholly on unsupported mirror reading and sometimes on a prior broader reconstruction, it must be rejected as without basis.

3:12-16, then, tells us very little or nothing about the opponents.These verses give no basis for finding any type of a second front of opposition to Paul's teachings in Philippi.Neither do they suggest that the opponents of chapter 3 are Gnostics, enthusiasts, perfectionists, or persons with a realized eschatology.The most one can glean is that it is possible they claim that circumcision leads to a higher level of spiritual achievement.But this minimum is almost inherently necessary in the demand for circumcision, unless some advantage for fellowship (or some similar practical purpose) is claimed. But we have not found this to be an issue in Philippians, in fact, we find nothing of what the claimed advantage was.It seems equally possible that 3:12-16 heads off any interpretation of Paul's earlier comments in the chapter which might lead the Philippians to see Paul on a level of existence which they have not or cannot attain.That is, Paul is clearly identifying himself with the types of spiritual struggles the Philippians encounter in order to prepare for the exhortation to imitate him which follows.This interpretation also accounts for Paul including them and himself among the teleioi (perfect/mature) in v. 15.In either case, we gain nothing significant about the opponents from this paragraph.

4:2-3

A possible reference to opponents appears in 4:2-3 where Paul exhorts two Philippian leaders to stop quarrelling.This is the first specific exhortation in the hortatory section 4:(1)2-9.While a few interpreters have read a dispute which involves the opponents into 4:2-3,[146] the text is too general to support any specificity about the substance of the disagreement between these two women.[147]It does seem probable that the disagreement is one that effects the life of the community since Paul raises the issue as he does.[148]It also seems a good possibility that this reference to a specific disagreement is related to the exhortation to unity in chapter 2.[149]But our method allows only explicit statements in hortatory contexts to be used as evidence for opponents.Thus, this passage tells us nothing about the opponents of either 1:15-18 or 3:2ff.

1:6, 9-11

The thanksgiving of this letter (1:3-11) contains some terms used in 3:12-16.According to our method, if no explicit statements about opponents appear in a thanksgiving, only its themes which tie directly to what we know about the opponents can be used to help identify opponents.The theme which runs through both 1:6 and 1:9-11 seems to be the continuation of growth until the parousia.The thanksgiving congratulates the Philippians for their progress while calling for advancement.This theme is echoed in 2:12-13 and serves as the basis for the various exhortations of the letter.It also connects well with the looking toward the future called for in 3:12-16.While 1:6, 9-11 could be seen to support the presence of some realized eschatology, we cannot use such statements in a thanksgiving to characterize opponents unless there is some clear tie to issues raised elsewhere.But this issue is not discussed anywhere else in Philippians.1:6, 9-11 do perhaps prepare for the instruc­tions of 3:12-16, but we cannot specify what 3:12ff. addresses on the basis of these non-explicit statements in a thanksgiving.

Summary

Affirmations which may address opponents have been limited to 3:12-16; 4:2-3; and 1:6, 9-11.Several other statements in Philippians speak of the situation there (e.g. 2:1-4; 2:12ff.), but these do not clearly relate to problems with opponents, just as we found no sufficient basis for a connection at 4:2-3.Thus, we do not need to deal with such passages here.Even if such instructions about unity do relate to problems caused by opponents, the most they could show is that the opponents are more successful than it appears in the rest of the letter.

The most it is possible to claim on the basis of affirmations in Philippians is that the "dogs" of 3:2 claim some, perhaps spiritual, advantage for those who are circumcised--hardly a startling revelation.But we cannot move beyond saying that even this is just a possibility because 3:12-16 may be a safeguard to prevent the Philippians from thinking Paul has moved beyond struggling to conform to the knowledge of Christ.

CONCLUSION

Philippians yields evidence for three types of "opponents."One group is specifically called opponents of the Philippians in 1:28.These opponents, who may frighten the Philippians, are non-Christians who persecute the Philippians Christians.They seem to have no other connection to Paul and so are not opponents of Paul, per se.

The second group of opponents appear in 1:15-18.This group is present in the city of Paul's imprisonment and do not treat Paul as he thinks they should.These opponents, whom he describes as envious, seem to have no significant doctrinal differences from Paul because he acknowledges that they preach Christ.Furthermore, these opponents have not troubled the Philippians or other Pauline churches outside the city of Paul's current residence.

The third group of opponents is addressed in chapter 3.These opponents are Jewish-Christian missionaries who claim some superiority on the basis of their Jewish credentials, but Paul does not indicate what advantage(s) they claim.They also demand that Gentiles be circumcised.There is insufficient evidence to claim that they require Gentiles to keep any other elements of the law.While the abusive epithets of 3:2 seem to indicate that Paul perceives them as a real threat, his use of them as a negative example without supporting arguments shows that they have not established a following at Philippi.Paul's references to them as ergatai (workers) and so missionaries indicates that they are not an isolated phenomenon but part of a movement which has troubled other Pauline churches.This seems to be the most likely reason for his violent reaction to them in 3:2.

If they are part of a larger group, this is the second such group we have encounter in Paul's letters; the opponents of 2 Corinthians were also part of a group which had come after establishing themselves at other churches.While there are some points of contact between the two groups (e.g. both emphasize their Jewish credentials), the points of commonality are too limited to see them as the same group.This becomes obvious when we note that the primary issues of 2 Corinthians (the Spirit and apostleship) play no significant role in Philippians, Paul does not even use the title apostle in the greeting of Philippians.The "opponents" of Galatians and those of Phil 3 have common features which are more central, both require circumcision and perhaps other elements of Judaism.But if we are correct that the teachers in Galatia did not know that their message differed from Paul's until they read Galatians, they must either not belong to the same group as the "dogs" of Phil 3 or they rejected the clarification of Paul's gospel set out in Galatians and hardened into an opposition party in response to that letter.If the latter option is chosen, we still cannot clarify their positions in either Philippians or Galatians on the basis of the other letter because we cannot know what their hardening toward Paul might have led them to and because Philippians, the later of the two letters, is so general.So while this process is at least possible, it does not expand our information about what views Paul opposes in either letter.

[150]




NOTES

[1]Benoit, P. Épitres de saint Paul aux Philippiens, à Philémon, aux Colossiens, aux Éphésiens, La sainte bible de Jérusalem, 4th ed. (Paris: Les Éditions du Cerf, 1969) 31; J.L. Houlden, Paul's Letters from Prison (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1970) 103; Beare, F.W. A Commentary on the Epistle to the Philippians, HNTC (New York: Harper, 1959), 24; Craddock, Fred B., Philippians, Interpretation (Atlanta: John Knox, 1985) 56; G.F. Hawthorne, "Philippians, Letter to the," in Dictionary of Paul and His Letters, eds. G.F. Hawthorne, R.P. Martin (Downers Grove: IVP, 1993) 711.

[2]Ulonska, H., "Gesetz und Beschneidung: Überlegungen zu einem paulinischen Ablösungskonflict," in Jesu Rede von Gott, ed. D. Koch (Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlag Mohn, 1989) 320ff.
[3]Collange, J.-F. The Epistle of Saint Paul to the Philippians (London: Epworth, 1979) 12-13.
[4]J. Ernst, Die Briefe and die Philipper, an Philemon, an die Kolosser, an die Epheser, RNT (Regensburg: Friedrich Pustet, 1974) 25; Peter T. O'Brien, The Epistle to the Philippians; A Commentary on the Greek Text, NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991) 14.
[5]Walter Schmithals, Paul and the Gnostics, trans. John E. Steely (Nashville: Abingdon, 1972) 84-85.
[6]As it is seen by Pheme Perkins, "Philippians: Theology for the Heavenly Politeuma," in Pauline Theology; Vol I: Thessalonians, Philippians, Galatians, Philemon, ed. Jouette Bassler (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991) 98; W. Schenk, Die Philipperbriefe des Paulus (Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 1984) 278.Cf. Joachim Gnilka, Der Philipperbrief, 3rd ed.(Freiburg: Herder, 1968) 184.
[7]See Stanley K. Stowers, "Friends and Enemies in the Politics of Heaven: Reading Theology in Philippians," inPauline Theology; Vol I: Thessalonians, Philippians, Galatians, Philemon 89-104.See also G.B. Caird, Paul's Letters from Prison, NCB (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1976) 130-133.
[8]Duane F. Watson, "A Rhetorical Analysis of Philippians and Its Implications for the Unity Question," NovT 30 (1988): 57-88.
[9]On the use of this expression in deliberative speeches see Margaret Mitchell, Paul and the Rhetoric of Reconciliation: An Exegetical Investigation of the Language and Composition of 1 Corinthians (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1991) 69.Mitchell (ibid., 141 n. 454) also notes that Phil 2:14 is the only place outside 1 Cor that Paul refers to grumbling, and this in the context of contrasting "concordant and discordant behavior."This further supports identifying Phil as deliberative.
[10]Stowers, "Friends and Enemies in the Politics of Heaven," 107ff. and those cited in 107, n. 6; L. Michael White, "Morality Between Two Worlds; A Paradigm of Friendship in Philippians," in Greeks, Romans, and Christians; Essays in Honor of Abraham J. Malherbe, eds. D.L. Balch, E. Ferguson, W.A. Meeks (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990) 201, 206.Cf. Loveday Alexander, "Hellenistic Letter-forms and the Structure of Philippians," JSNT 37 (1989): 90. 94-95 for a similar identification.
[11]See Stowers, "Friends and Enemies in the Politics of Heaven," 108-109.
[12]See the discussion of Marvin R. Vincent, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistles to the Philippians and to Philemon, ICC (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1897) 90.
[13]Stowers, "Friends and Enemies in the Politics of Heaven," 115-116.Others who accept this reading of ta; aujta; without identifying Philippians as a hortatory letter of friendship include O'Brien, Epistle to the Philippians 352; Vincent, Commentary on the Epistles to the Philippians and to Philemon 91-92; Ernest F. Scott, "The Epistle to the Philippians; Introduction and Exegesis," in The Interpreter's Bible, Vol. 11, ed. G.A. Buttrick (New York: Abingdon, 1955) 73.See also Watson, "A Rhetorical Analysis of Philippians," 73 n. 82.
[14]Those who identify at least 3:2-11 as polemical include Ernst, Philipper 89; Schenk,Die Philipperbriefe 278-279; B. Mengel, Studien zum Philipperbrief, WUNT (Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Siebeck], 1982) 260 (who comments that such a section is unexpected); Wilhelm Egger, Galaterbrief, Philipper­brief, PhilemonbriefiNENNnnnNEBib (Würzburg: Echterverlag, 1985) 65; Collange, Paul to the Philippians 12; Gnilka, Der Philipperbrief 184; Hawthorne, "Philippians," 707; Perkins, "Theology for the Heavenly Politeuma," 98-99.
[15]Stowers, "Friends and Enemies in the Politics of Heaven," 116.Similarly, Ronald Russell, "Pauline Letter Structure in Philippians," JETS 25 (1982): 295-306 sees 3:1-4:8 as exhortation.
[16]George D. Kilpatrick, "Blepete, Phil 3,2," inIn Memoriam Paul Kahle, ed. M. Black, G. Fohrer (Berlin: Töpelmann, 1968) 146-148.Among those who accept this understanding we find J. Hugh Michael, The Epistle of Paul to the Philippians, MNTC (New York: Harper, 1927) 134 and Vincent, Commentary on the Epistles to the Philippians and to Philemon 92.
[17]See Helmut Koester, "The Purpose of the Polemic of a Pauline Fragment (Phil III)," NTS 8 (1961/2): 318; Günter Klein, "Antipaulinismus in Philippi: eine Problemskizze," in Jesu Rede von Gott, ed. D. Koch (Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlag Mohn, 1989) 304.
[18]Caird, Letters from Prison 132-133.
[19]David E. Garland, "The Composition and Unity of Philippians: Some Neglected Literary Factors," NovT 27 (1985): 166-171; Stowers, "Friends and Enemies in the Politics of Heaven," 116.See also Ernst (Philipper, 91-92) who ackowledges that 3:1b may be taking up the exhortation of 2:12-18.Victor P. Furnish's interpretation of ajsfalev~ (3:1) as something "specific" seems to support seeing those spoken of in 3:2 as a negative example ("The Place and Purpose of Philippians III," NTS 10 [1963/4]: 84).
[20]See also Michael, Paul to the Philippians 134.
[21]E. Lohmeyer, Die Briefe an die Philipper, an die Kolosser und an Philemon, MeyerK 9, 13th ed. (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1964) 125; Benoit, Paul aux Philippiens 31; Beare, Epistle to the Philippians 103; Houlden, Paul's Letters from Prison 103.
[22]K. Grayston, "The Opponents in Phil 3," ExpTim 97, 6 (1986): 171.
[23]O'Brien, Epistle to the Philippians 14, 355.
[24]Schmithals, Paul and the Gnostics 84-85.
[25]Koester, "The Purpose of the Polemic of a Pauline Fragment," 319-320.
[26]So also Ernst, Philipper 92; Mengel, Studien zum Philipperbrief 20; Gnilka, Der Philipperbriefe 186; Joseph B. Tyson, "Paul's Opponents at Philippi," Perspectives 3 (1976): 93.
[27]Robert Jewett, "Conflicting Movements in the Early Church as Reflected in Philippians," NovT 12 (1970): 385.
[28]E.g. Beare, Epistle to the Philippians 104; O'Brien, Epistle to the Philippians 29; Schmithals, Paul and the Gnostics 85; C. Mearns, "The Identity of Paul's Opponents at Philippi," NTS 33 (1987): 194.
[29]Koester, "The Purpose of the Polemic of a Pauline Frag­ment," 320.So also O'Brien, Epistle to the Philippians 355.
[30]A.F.J. Klijn, "Paul's Opponents in Philippians III," NovT 7 (1964/65): 282; Lohmeyer, Briefe an die Philipper 125. Beare (Epistle to the Philippians 104) sees it as a parody of a term used for Christian missionaries which indicates that these opponents are Jews.
[31]Michael, Paul to the Philippians 135.
[32]Paul and the Gnostics 85.
[33]See the survey of its use in Takaaki Haraguchi, "Das Unterhaltsrecht des frühchristlichen Verkündigers Eine Untersuchung zur Bezeichnung ejrgavth~ im Neuen Testament," ZNW 84 (1993): 178-195.
[34]Günther Baumbach, "Die von Paulus im Philipperbrief bekämpten Irrlehrer," in Gnosis und Neues Testament, ed. K. W. Tröger (Berlin: Gütersloher Mohn, 1973) 300.
[35]Ulonska, "Gesetz und Beschneidung: Überlegungen zu einem paulinischen Ablösungskonflict," 320-321.
[36]Similarly, Grayston's conjecture that the opponents see circumcision as "an initiatory rite... out of semi-magical belief in ritual blood-shedding" ("The Opponents in Phil 3," 171) finds no support in the text.
[37]Caird, Letters from Prison 133. Cf. Beare, Epistle to the Philippians 104.
[38]Schmithals, Paul and the Gnostics 89, 119.Cf. Gnilka, Der Philipperbriefe 186-187.
[39]O'Brien, Epistle to the Philippians 357; Tyson, "Paul's Opponents at Philippi," 98-90.
[40]So O'Brien, Epistle to the Philippians 86.See there his discussion of this feature and the sources he cites.
[41]One exception to this division of the text is Hawthorne ("Philippians," 707) who sees all of 1:3-26 as thanksgiving.But the disclosure formula at v. 12 and the turn from addressing God at v. 13 count decisively against this.Scott ("The Epistle to the Philippians," 13) extends the section through v. 30, but the move to exhortation at v. 27 makes this division unlikely.
[42]Beare, Epistle to the Philippians 28; Craddock, Philippians 9; Gnilka, Der Philipperbriefe 54.
[43]D.E. Garland, "Phil 1:1-26," Review and Expositor 77 (1980): 331; O'Brien, Epistle to the Philippians 85-88; Lohmeyer, Briefe an die Philipper 5.Lohmeyer, of course, finds a significantly different interpretation of that imprisonment than Garland and O'Brien.
[44]Collange, Paul to the Philippians 9.Jewett ("Con­flict­ing Movements," 365-367) also see Paul responding to criticism.
[45]Stowers, "Friends and Enemies in the Politics of Heaven," 114.
[46]Watson, "A Rhetorical Analysis of Philippians," 61.
[47]Cf. Collange, Paul to the Philippians 53.
[48]Several interpreters find the beginning of a new section at v. 18b, e.g. Gnilka, Der Philipperbriefe 60; O'Brien, Epistle to the Philippians 97-98; Mengel, Studien zum Philipperbrief 229, 232; Schenk, Die Philipperbriefe 141-142.
[49]Jewett, "Conflicting Movements," 366-367.
[50]The unreliability of this technique is again demonstrated here as Collange (Paul to the Philippians 53) finds Paul defending himself because he has escaped martyrdom while Jewett ("Conflicting Movements," 366-369) finds divine men who say Paul should not suffer.
[51]Watson, "A Rhetorical Analysis of Philippians," 64-65.
[52]Ibid., 64.
[53]So O'Brien, Epistle to the Philippians 97-98; Schenk, Die Philipperbriefe 141-142; Gnilka, Der Philipperbriefe 60.
[54]E.g. Russell ("Pauline Letter Structure in Philippians," 301) finds Judaizers, Hawthorne ("Philippians," 711) finds divine men or Judaizers, Jewett ("Conflicting Movements," 365-369) finds divine men who reject suffering as part of Christian existence.
[55]Jewett, "Conflicting Movements," 366.
[56]Ernst, Philipper 46.See also Collange, Paul to the Philippians 57.
[57]Stowers, "Friends and Enemies in the Politics of Heaven," 114.
[58]Ibid., 115.
[59]Most interpreters agree with this, however, Paul S. Minear ("Singing and Suffering in Philippi," in The Conversation Continues: Studies in Paul and John In Honor of J. Louis Martyn, eds. R.T. Fortna, B.R. Gaventa [Nashville: Abingdon, 1990], 208-209) thinks they are in Philippi.
[60]Contra Vincent (Commentary on the Epistles to the Philippians and to Philemon 18) who argues that the envious are not included among those emboldened.
[61]So e.g. Vincent, Commentary on the Epistles to the Philippians and to Philemon 18.
[62]Those who see at least 3:17-21 as hortatory include W. Michaelis, Der Brief an die Philipper (Leipzig: Deichert, 1935) 61; Michael, Paul to the Philippians 167; Ernst, Philipper 103; O'Brien, Epistle to the Philippians 445.Baumbach ("Die von Paulus im Philipperbrief bekämpten Irrlehrer," 302) sees all of 3:12-4:1 as hortatory which builds on the eschatological reservation of 3:11.Others, however, see 2:17ff. as more polemical, e.g. Egger, Galater­brief, Philipperbrief, Philemonbrief 65; Schenk, Die Philipperbriefe 279; and seemingly Beare, Epistle to the Philippians 135-136 and Craddock, Philippians 64-65.
[63]Ernst (Philipper 103), Schenk (Die Philipperbriefe 279), and Vincent (Commentary on the Epistles to the Philippians and to Philemon 111) begin the section at v. 15.
[64]So Gnilka, Der Philipperbriefe 203 and O'Brien, Epistle to the Philippians 443.
[65]So Gnilka, Der Philipperbriefe 203; O'Brien, Epistle to the Philippians 443; Baumbach, "Die von Paulus im Philipper­brief bekämpten Irrlehrer," 304; Koester, "The Purpose of the Polemic of a Pauline Fragment," 325.Collange (Paul to the Philippians 136) sees 3:17 as a consequence of the preceding.
[66]E.g. Egger, Galaterbrief, Philipperbrief, Philemonbrief 68-69.
[67]Michael, Paul to the Philippians 172-173.
[68]Schmithals, Paul and the Gnostics 106; Ralph P. Martin, Philippians, NCB (London: Oliphants, 1976) 143-144.
[69]Baumbach, "Die von Paulus im Philipperbrief bekämpten Irrlehrer," 304; and seemingly O'Brien, Epistle to the Philippians 30, 453.
[70]Robert Jewett, "The Epistolary Thanksgiving and the Integrity of Philippians," NovT 12 (1970): 45, "Conflicting Movements," 378.
[71]Joseph B. Tyson, "Paul's Opponents at Philippi," 95.
[72]Koester, "The Purpose of the Polemic of a Pauline Fragment," 324-328.
[73]Egger, Galaterbrief, Philipperbrief, Philemonbrief 68.
[74]Michael, Paul to the Philippians 174.
[75]So Caird, Letters from Prison 146; Benoit, Paul aux Philippiens 18.Cf. Michaelis, Der Brief an die Philipper 62.Contra Michael (Paul to the Philippians 172-173) and Jewett ("Conflicting Movements," 376-377) who argue that Paul's use of the perfect tense shows that these opponents were in Philippi when Paul was.But the perfect tense shows only that Paul had spoken of them before, not that they were actually present in Philippi.
[76]Gnilka, Der Philipperbrief 212.However, he still thinks they were also present in Philippi.
[77]So also Baumbach, "Die von Paulus im Philipperbrief bekämpten Irrlehrer," 305 and Perkins, "Theology for the Heavenly Politeuma," 91 n. 10.
[78]So also Collange, Paul to the Philippians 137; Gnilka, Der Philipperbrief 205; Caird, Letters from Prison 146; Baumbach, "Die von Paulus im Philipperbrief bekämpten Irr­lehrer," 305.
[79]Mearns, "The Identity of Paul's Opponents at Philippi," 198; Benoit, Paul aux Philippiens 33; Houlden, Paul's Letters from Prison 103; O'Brien, Epistle to the Philippians 454.
[80]Jewett, "Epistolary Thanksgiving," 45-46, "Conflicting Movements," 378-380; Michael, Paul to the Philippians 175-176.
[81]Schmithals, Paul and the Gnostics 112; Martin, Philippians 144.
[82]Ulonska, "Gesetz und Beschneidung: Überlegungen zu einem paulinischen Ablösungskonflict," 327.
[83]Perkins, "Theology for the Heavenly Politeuma," 101.Perkins notes further (101-102) that while dogs, evil workers, and mutilators (3:2) sounds like pagan anti-Jewish slander, v. 19 sounds like Jewish slander of pagans.
[84]Watson, "A Rhetorical Analysis of Philippians," 75.
[85]See Michaelis, Der Brief an die Philipper 62; Egger, Galater­brief, Philipperbrief, Philemonbrief 68-69; Mengel, Studien zum Philipperbrief 274; Stowers, "Friends and Enemies in the Politics of Heaven," 117.
[86]Paul's exclusion of them as examples for Christians implies that they are Christians.Further, Lohmeyer (Briefe an die Philipper 153) asserts that Paul never uses "enemies" for unbelievers.Cf. Martin, Philippians 143.
[87]Contra Craddock, Philippians 57 and Beare, Epistle to the Philippians 106.
[88]It is unlikely that the "dogs" have dropped from sight, as Caird claims (Letters from Prison 134-135) since the topic remains the same.
[89]Mearns ("The Identity of Paul's Opponents at Philippi," 197) asserts that Paul is parodying his opponents' boasts.Cf. Ernst, Philipper 94; Vincent, Commentary on the Epistles to the Philippians and to Philemon 94-95; Tyson, "Paul's Opponents at Philippi," 92-93.
[90]O'Brien, Epistle to the Philippians 366.
[91]Nearly all interpreters recognize the hortatory nature of this passage.
[92]So Craddock, Philippians 9, 31; Lohmeyer, Briefe an die Philipper 5; Sigfred Pedersen, "`Mit Furcht und Zittern' (Phil. 2,12-13)," StTh 32 (1978): 2-3.Craddock (Philippians 31) argues that the exhortation ends at v. 16 and the autobiography resumes at v. 17.Lohmeyer (Briefe an die Philipper 5) sees vv. 17-18 as an transition to 2:19ff.
[93]So most interpreters.
[94]Schenk, Die Philipperbriefe 165-166.Pedersen ("`Mit Furcht und Zittern'," 3) sees 1:27a as the heading for all of 1:27-2:5 and 2:12-16.
[95]Seeing the close connection between Paul's circum­stances and the Philippians', Scott ("The Epistle to the Philippians," 13) identifies all of 1:12-30 as a section on Paul's life in prison.But there is a clear turn from description of Paul's circumstances to exhortation at 1:27.This exhortation in 1:27-30 may also foreshadow the call to imitation in 3:17.
[96]Collange, Paul to the Philippians 11, 71-72.
[97]Collange, Paul to the Philippians 11, 71-72.Mearns ("The Identity of Paul's Opponents at Philippi," 194) also seems to identify those of 1:28 with the opponents of 3:2ff.
[98]O'Brien, Epistle to the Philippians 153.
[99]Lohmeyer, Briefe an die Philipper 72-77, 100.
[100]As Houlden, Paul's Letters from Prison 65 finds.
[101]As Michael, Paul to the Philippians 69 finds.
[102]As Raymond R. Brewer, "The Meaning of POLITEUESTHE in Phil 1:27," JBL 73 (1954): 82 finds.
[103]Ernst, Philipper 61.
[104]Ernst, Philipper 61-62.So also Egger, Galater­brief, Philipperbrief, Philemonbrief 58 who draws support for this interpretation from 1:20.
[105]Michaelis (Der Brief an die Philipper 55-56) finds two sub-sections in vv. 7-11.Some begin the section at v. 8 (e.g. Gnilka, Der Philipperbrief 184; Michael, Paul to the Philippians 144; Schmithals, Paul and the Gnostics 91), but this makes little difference for interpretation of the passage.
[106]So Klein, "Antipaulinismus in Philippi," 306.Cf. Schenk (Die Philipperbriefe 279) who sees 3:8f. as the argumentio of the letter composed of 3:2-4:3, 8-9.However, even Schmithals (Paul and the Gnostics 91) acknowledges that there are no direct statements about opponents in 3:8-11.
[107]Michaelis (Der Brief an die Philipper 55) sees the topic of 3:7-8 to be Paul's present view of his Jewish past.Cf. Perkins, "Theology for the Heavenly Politeuma," 99; Michael, Paul to the Philippians 144, O'Brien, Epistle to the Philippians 382.Although he contends that a more polemical emphasis is present, Koester ("The Purpose of the Polemic of a Pauline Fragment," 322) finds vv. 9-16 to be a refutation of the possibility of "boasting" of Jewish attributes.
[108]Pierre Bonnard ("L'Épitre de Saint Paul aux Philippiens," Commentaire du Nouveau Testament, 10 [Paris: Delachaux & Niestlé, 1950] 61) makes all of 4:4-11 as a single section.
[109]At v. 7 Paul's strategy of giving himself as an example becomes more obvious.So Egger, Galater­brief, Philipperbrief, Philemonbrief 65.Cf. Lohmeyer, Briefe an die Philipper 132.Gnilka (Der Philipperbrief 194) comments that in 3:8-9 Paul wants his case to be seen as typical.
[110]E.g. Michaelis, Der Brief an die Philipper 57.
[111]See also Klein, "Antipaulinismus in Philippi," 307.Cf. Michael, Paul to the Philippians 147.
[112]O'Brien, Epistle to the Philippians 394-396.
[113]Koester, "The Purpose of the Polemic of a Pauline Fragment," 322.
[114]Contra Klijn, "Paul's Opponents in Philippians III," 283 and Schenk, Die Philipperbriefe 337.Schenk claims here that there are fifty words in 3:2-4:3, 8-9 which Paul takes from the opponents.
[115]Caird, Letters from Prison 138.
[116]Perkins, "Theology for the Heavenly Politeuma," 99 n. 53.
[117]Caird, Letters from Prison 138-139 claims, on the basis of Pauline usage, that v. 9 has to do with initial status.But this assertion about Pauline usage is based on prior theological judgments about Paul's use of dikaiosuvnh (righteousness).
[118]So Schmithals, Paul and the Gnostics 91-92.
[119]So also Ernst, Philipper 96; Klijn, "Paul's Opponents in Philippians III," 281; Jewett, "Epistolary Thanksgiving," 45.
[120]Ernst, Philipper 96; Caird, Letters from Prison 137.
[121]Michael (Paul to the Philippians 148) sees 3:10 as an expansion of the last clause in 3:8.Cf. Michaelis, Der Brief an die Philipper 57.
[122]Including Koester, "The Purpose of the Polemic of a Pauline Fragment," 323; Schmithals, Paul and the Gnostics 93-95; Gnilka, Der Philipperbrief 197.Cf. Collange, Paul to the Philippians 132.Mearns ("The Identity of Paul's Opponents at Philippi," 195) argues that 3:10 shows that the opponents give too little significance to the cross.
[123]Schmithals, Paul and the Gnostics 93.
[124]Klein, "Antipaulinismus in Philippi," 308-309.See also Ernst, Philipper 100.Vincent (Commentary on the Epistles to the Philippians and to Philemon 107) remarks that the notion of a reference to a spiritual resurrection is "entirely without support."
[125]Perkins, "Theology for the Heavenly Politeuma," 99.
[126]Baumbach, "Die von Paulus im Philipperbrief bekämpten Irrlehrer," 301-302.
[127]Lohmeyer, Briefe an die Philipper 143; Klein, "Antipaulinismus in Philippi," 302.
[128]Klein, "Antipaulinismus in Philippi," 302.
[129]Klein, "Antipaulinismus in Philippi," 302.
[130]Klein ("Antipaulinismus in Philippi," 302) seems correct in seeing v. 16 as a transition to vv. 17ff.
[131]Schmithals, Paul and the Gnostics 93-94.
[132]Koester, "The Purpose of the Polemic of a Pauline Fragment," 322.
[133]So e.g. O'Brien, Epistle to the Philippians 418; Michael, Paul to the Philippians 155; Baumbach, "Die von Paulus im Philipperbrief bekämpten Irrlehrer," 302-303; Lohmeyer, Briefe an die Philipper 143.Watson ("A Rhetorical Analysis of Philippians," 74-75) suggests that the section was included to avoid the appearance of arrogance after the call to imitation in the previous verses.
[134]Ernst, Philipper 100; Stowers, "Friends and Enemies in the Politics of Heaven," 109.Caird (Letters from Prison 141) also finds no polemical intention here.
[135]Klein, "Antipaulinismus in Philippi," 310.
[136]Baumbach, "Die von Paulus im Philipperbrief bekämpten Irrlehrer," 302.Baumbach still finds opponents in 3:12-16, but only through parallels with 1 Corinthians.
[137]E.g. O'Brien (Epistle to the Philippians 422-423) Mengel (Studien zum Philipperbrief 267-269) Tyson ("Paul's Opponents at Philippi," 90) and Mearns ("The Identity of Paul's Opponents at Philippi," 195-196) find perfectionism related to a realized eschatology; Lohmeyer (Briefe an die Philipper 143) sees a reference to perfectionist claims by those being persecuted;Koester ("The Purpose of the Polemic of a Pauline Fragment," 322-324), Schmithals (Paul and the Gnostics 95-99), and Carl Holladay ("Paul's Opponents in Phil. 3," RQ 12 (1969): 86-90) find Gnostic perfectionists; Baumbach ("Die von Paulus im Philipperbrief bekämpten Irrlehrer," 302-303) and Jewett ("Conflicting Movements," 373-387) find perfectionist, pneumatic enthusiasts.Michael (Paul to the Philippians 155-156) says on the basis of this passage that they may have antinomian tendencies.
[138]Vincent (Commentary on the Epistles to the Philippians and to Philemon 109) contends that it is superfluous to intro­duce opposition to any sort of perfectionism here, arguing that it is simply a contrast with "self-righteous­ness."Similarly Ernst (Philipper 101) understands vv. 12-13 to be the other side of Paul giving up his Jewish past.Klijn ("Paul's Opponents in Philippians III," 281) goes back farther and identifies a parallel between v. 12 and Paul's claim to being spotless with respect to the law in 3:6.
[139]Mengel (Studien zum Philipperbrief 267) speaks of "perfect" and "already attained" as Reizworte.It seems doubtful that teteleivwmai is part of the athletic metaphor used in later verses, as Caird claims (Letters from Prison 142).
[140]Caird (Letters from Prison 144) and O'Brien (Epistle to the Philippians 435-436) note that Paul's use of o{soi (whoever) is usually inclusive (Caird cites Rom 6:3; Gal 5:27) and so its use in Phil 3:15 indicates that Paul is calling all of those addressed tevleioi (mature/perfect).Vincent (Commentary on the Epistles to the Philippians and to Philemon 112-113) compares the use of tevleioi here with pneumatikoiv (pneumatics/spiritual ones) in 1 Cor 3:1 and the use of a{gio~ (saint) to refer to all Christians.I.e. these terms do not designate those who have achieved this status, but rather all Christians who have committed themselves to this life or goal.
[141]Egger (Galaterbrief, Philipperbrief, Philemonbrief 68) acknowledges that it is not certain that some at Philippi call themselves the perfect.
[142]Bonnard, "L'Épitre de Saint Paul aux Philippiens," 67.
[143]Klein, "Antipaulinismus in Philippi," 310-311.
[144]If chapter 3 is a separate letter, the last argument for this suggestion is less persuasive.
[145]So e.g. Collange, Paul to the Philippians 135; Gnilka, Der Philipperbrief 201; Schmithals, Paul and the Gnostics 101-102.
[146]E.g. Schmithals, Paul and the Gnostics 112.Lohmeyer (Briefe an die Philipper 165-166) says the quarrel must have been caused by persecution.
[147]So also Ernst, Philipper 113.Even the more general claims that their disagreement is over religious matters (Michael, Paul to the Philippians 189) or not over theological questions (Perkins, "Theology for the Heavenly Politeuma," 91) go beyond the evidence.
[148]So also O'Brien, Epistle to the Philippians 478.
[149]So Perkins, "Theology for the Heavenly Politeuma," 91 n. 11, 97; Scott, "The Epistle to the Philippians," 106-107. Mengel (Studien zum Philipperbrief 279) sees these women as the background for 2:1f. and 1:27f.N.B. Most interpreters who reject the integrity of Philippians identify 4:2-3 as part of the letter which includes 2:1-30.