Contents

Map—Appian Way and Egnatian Way vi

1. Introduction to Philippians 1

2. Briefing the Philippians 12 (Philippians 1:1–26)

3. Paul’s appeal for unity 42 (Philippians 1:27—2:11)

4. Paul’s appeal to the Philippians 64 (Philippians 2:12–18)

5. Timothy and Epaphroditus 73 (Philippians 2:19–30)

A timeline for Timothy 74

6. Joy and safety ‘in the Lord’ 82 (Philippians 3:1—4:1)

7. Euodia and Syntyche 104 (Philippians 4:2–3)

8. Final concerns 110 (Philippians 4:4–23)

9. Paul’s letter to Philemon 127

• R

om

e

• B

run

dis

ium•

Dyr

rach

ium

Phili

pp

i •

Ap

pia

n

Way

The

Eg

na

tia

n

Way

Ph

ilip

pi

in t

he

An

cien

t R

om

an

wo

rld

vi

Chapter 1

Introduction to Philippians

1. ROME

Rome under Nero (54–68 AD)At 17, Nero was the youngest Caesar ever to be

appointed. His earlier years were relatively uneventful where he devoted himself to oratory, play-acting and singing, and matters related to town planning and architecture. He was not renowned for his military conquests, although his generals secured peace with the Parthians and crushed a rebellion in Britain. His general Vespasian invaded Israel in 66 AD initiating a war that ended with the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple in 70 AD.

During the late 50s AD Nero’s affairs were dominated by family disputes, especially with his mother Agrippina. Once the ambitious Agrippina lost her influence to Burrus and Seneca who were Nero’s advisors she began lobbying for the interests of Brittanicus, Nero’s younger half-brother, and Octavia his half-sister and wife. Nero had both of them murdered and then arranged for the killing of Agrippina.

This was the Caesar to whom Paul ‘appealed’ as a Roman citizen (Acts 25:11). It is unlikely that Paul would have had the opportunity to argue his case before Nero, but he may have done so before Burrus (the Praetorian Prefect) and Seneca (Nero’s speechwriter and advisor), or both.

Seneca was the younger brother of Gallio, Proconsul of Achaia, who in 52 AD dismissed the charge against Paul that

1

his church meeting in Corinth violated Roman custom (Acts 18:12–17). When he returned to Rome we can be confident that Gallio discussed this case with Seneca. Seneca and Burrus would have regarded Gallio’s verdict as setting a precedent and therefore would have looked sympathetically at Paul’s defence. Seneca and Burrus were at the height of their powers in the early sixties, which coincides with the time Paul wrote Philippians in which he expressed confidence for his release.

After 62 AD, however, the evil Tigellinus replaced Burrus as Praetorian Prefect, and Seneca withdrew from public life and was later forced to commit suicide (in 65 AD). Philippians 1:7 (‘in my imprisonment and in the defence and confirmation of the gospel’) suggests that his circumstances had changed from his ‘two whole years’ under open arrest (Acts 28:30). It appears that a trial process had at last begun. A negative outcome (execution) was possible, but apparently less than likely. Paul expected to be released and indeed to travel to Philippi ‘shortly’ (Philippians 2:24; cf. 1:26). This implies that Burrus and Seneca were still in control of events in Rome. Burrus died early in 62 AD.

After a short period in the Aegean region (as documented in 1 Timothy and Titus) Paul returned to Rome most probably just before the Great Fire in 64 AD. In Second Timothy, Paul notes that he survived one attempt on his life, but now faced another, final threat.

As part of Nero’s massive assault on the Christians, Paul was beheaded. Others like Peter were crucified but Paul—as a Roman citizen—was executed by a speedier and more humane means.

In 68 AD the Senate declared Nero a public enemy. In face of imminent capture he compelled an attendant to kill him. His death marked the end of the Julio-Claudian dynasty (31 BC–68 AD) and unleashed two years of instability until Vespasian was acclaimed emperor in 69 AD, marking the beginning of the Flavian era (69–96 AD).

Joy in the Lord

2

Biblical evidence

1. RomansFrom Corinth, Paul wrote to his mission supporters in

Rome in 57 AD, whom he names in Romans 16. The 26 whom he specifically ‘greets’ were mostly from the eastern provinces, but there were also unnamed saints who met with them in this network of house churches in Rome.

Paul engages with various critics throughout the letter (see Romans 2:1 for example) who appear to have been Jewish Christians hostile to Paul and his doctrines of grace. He also warns his ‘fellow workers’ against ‘those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine you have been taught’ (16:17). It is reasonable to assume the critics and ‘those who cause divisions’ were from the same group and that Paul wrote Romans to buttress his friends against them.

In strengthening his fellow missionaries Paul makes it clear that he was not building on ‘someone else’s foundation’ (15:20). In other words, there were two groups of believers in Rome, Paul’s supporters and those associated with the unnamed ‘someone’.

A feature of Romans (written in 57 AD) and Philippians (written in 62 AD) is that neither letter mentions Peter, a striking omission. Yet we know from Peter’s first letter that he was a presbyter in a church in Rome (1 Peter 5:1) whom he describes as ‘she who is in Babylon’ (1 Peter 5:13). It seems that Peter’s church, built on his foundation was separate from the body of mission supporters Paul addresses in Romans. For his part, Peter does not mention Paul in 1 Peter, although he does in 2 Peter.

How can we explain Paul’s failure to refer to Peter? One possible answer is that the Jewish Christians who opposed Paul looked to Peter as leader of the mission to Jews (Galatians 2:7–9). Were these the troublemakers Paul mentions in Romans? Were they also the ones who sought to afflict Paul in his imprisonment in Rome (Philippians 1:17)? Had Paul endorsed Peter in Rome this may have indirectly

Introduction to Philippians

3

supported those who sought to undermine Paul’s ministry to the Gentiles.

It was not the case, however, that Paul’s mission group and Peter’s church were totally separated. Peter’s colleagues in Rome, Silvanus and Mark, had also been associates of Paul. Despite Paul’s silence about Peter there is no sign of ill will towards the unnamed ‘someone’.

2. ActsWhen Paul arrived in Rome in 60 AD he was able to live

in rented accommodation that he paid for, but with a soldier guarding him (Acts 28:16, 30). Based on Philippians 1:13, we think the soldier would have been a member of the Praetorian Guard and that Paul’s accommodation was near the barracks. It may have been through Paul’s witness to the personal guards that the ‘whole imperial [Praetorian] guard’ came to hear the gospel.

Local Jewish leaders visited Paul (Acts 28:17–29), reminding us of the large population of Jews in the metropolis. The Roman general Pompey had brought many Jews to Rome as slaves, of whom some at least by Paul’s day had secured their freedom. There were as many as 50 synagogues in Rome. Paul was unsuccessful in persuading his Jewish visitors about the message of Jesus. Many others, however, who we suppose were Gentiles, visited Paul to hear the message of the kingdom of God (Acts 28:30–31).

Good friends like Luke, Priscilla and Aquila, and especially Timothy, had access to Paul during these years of imprisonment.

Luke summarises Paul’s two-year sojourn in Rome in few words. The most natural reading of the final chapter of Acts is that Paul obtained his freedom after this period of imprisonment. Naturally we are curious that Luke does not indicate what Paul did next. However as someone often referred to in Paul’s pastoral letters to Timothy, Luke was fully aware of Paul’s movements between 62 AD and his death in c. 65 AD. Since Luke was aware of Paul’s movements as in the Pastoral Letters there was no need for him to write a further volume to the Acts of the Apostles.

Joy in the Lord

4

Post-biblical evidence

1. ClementClement, a church leader in Rome wrote to the church

in Corinth in c. 95 AD.But, to pass from the examples of ancient days, let us come to those champions who lived nearest to our time. Let us set before us the noble examples that belong to our generation. Through resentment and envy the greatest and most righteous pillars of the Church were persecuted, and contended unto death. Let us set before our eyes the good apostles [Peter and Paul]—Peter who because of unrighteous resentment endured not one but many afflictions, and thus having borne his testimony in this fashion went to the place of glory that was his due.1

Clement introduced Peter and Paul together, as part of ‘a vast multitude ... victims of jealousy (zēlos)’ (1 Clement 6:1), a likely reference to those who were martyred by Nero after the fire of Rome in 64 AD, who belonged ‘to our own generation’.

Whose ‘resentment’, ‘jealousy’ and ‘envy’ was responsible for the deaths of Peter and Paul? Did this arise from the wider community or from within the Christian community? The language points in the latter direction. Romans were angry with the Christians, but not ‘jealous’. But according to Philippians, written a few years earlier, there were ‘some’ who ‘preach Christ from envy and rivalry’ (1:15). It seems that the deaths of Peter and Paul should be laid at the feet of these persons.

2. Paul and SenecaSeneca, a stoic philosopher, was Nero’s boyhood tutor

and later his speechwriter and chief advisor. The height of Seneca’s fame coincided with Paul’s ‘house arrest’ in Rome (60–62 AD). It is possible—even likely—that Paul appeared

1. 1 Clement 5.1–5 quoted in Bockmuehl, M 2012, Simon Peter in Scripture and Memory, Baker, Grand Rapids, p. 109.

Introduction to Philippians

5

before Seneca and even more so that Paul was familiar with some of Seneca’s teachings.

A fake correspondence between Paul and Seneca was written in the early fourth century in which Seneca calls Paul ‘brother’ and ‘my dearest Paul’ who was inspired by the same spirit as Seneca.

Some of the early church fathers referred positively to Seneca. Lactantius, advisor to the first Christian emperor, Constantine commended the reading of Seneca as one who upheld virtue but who condemned vice. Jerome referred to ‘our Seneca’ and included him in the company of the saints. Augustine, however, condemned Seneca’s Stoic’s tenet that a wise man could be free of vice.

Emily Read, a modern biographer,2 is critical of the philosopher Seneca. Seneca continued to be Nero’s chief advisor but was complicit in the murder of the mother Agrippina. By accepting the huge wealth that Nero lavished on him Seneca was morally compromised. When commanded to commit suicide he did so with calculated theatricality and spared no thought for the accompanying suicide of his wife Paulina.

In short, according to Read, Seneca’s actual behaviour did not match his fine words. One key example was his utterance about the unimportance of wealth while he lived in luxurious villas and was attended by a large retinue of attendants. His poverty was contrived and arguably self-indulgent.

As it happens there are two subjects that Paul touches on in Philippians that Seneca also writes on: wealth and death.

Seneca and Paul on wealthIn his own day Seneca faced vigorous criticism for his

immense wealth. He owned numerous estates, villas and palaces, which were lavishly furnished. These were acquired by Nero’s gifts and extended by usury and slave labour.

Somehow his self-justification for choosing to live more moderately than he could have done—given his extreme

2. Wilson, E 2014, Seneca: A Life, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Joy in the Lord

6

wealth—did not carry much weight in the Rome of his day. His words, ‘If my wealth goes away, it takes nothing with it except itself’, did not convince his critics. To many in Rome, Seneca was a hypocrite.

By contrast we reflect on the sentiments of Paul the prisoner of the Praetorian Guard, who would have been dependent on Timothy and other friends for the barest necessities:

Do not be anxious about anything, but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known to God. And the peace of God, which surpasses all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus. (Philippians 4:6–7)

I rejoiced in the Lord greatly that now at length you have revived your concern for me. You were indeed concerned for me, but you had no opportunity. Not that I am speaking of being in need, for I have learned in whatever situation I am to be content. I know how to be brought low, and I know how to abound. In any and every circumstance, I have learned the secret of facing plenty and hunger, abundance and need. I can do all things through him who strengthens me. (Philippians 4:10–13)

I have received full payment, and more. I am well supplied, having received from Epaphroditus the gifts you sent, a fragrant offering, a sacrifice acceptable and pleasing to God. And my God will supply every need of yours according to his riches in glory in Christ Jesus. (Philippians 4:18–19)

Despite his real poverty and its accompanying suffering, Paul expresses deep trust in God and gratitude to the Philippians for ‘supplying’ his needs. The contrast with Seneca’s circumstances and attitudes could not be starker.

Seneca and Paul on deathSeneca faced death with fortitude, but his expectations

were bleak:We die every day. You see, every day a little bit of our life is taken away from us, and even at the moment we are growing, our life is decaying. We lose our infancy, then childhood, then adolescence. Even up to yesterday, all

Introduction to Philippians

7

past time is gone; even this day that we are spending now, we share with death. It’s not the last drop that empties the water clock, but whatever flowed out before.3

As a Stoic, Seneca believed that God was the source of the ‘word’ that gave life, but equally that death inevitably followed. His words above are rationally consistent with his naturalistic world view. Emperor Marcus Aurelius (d. 180), also a stoic philosopher, said that suicide is not only acceptable but is a perfectly appropriate and necessarily ethical act in certain situations.

Compare the Stoic view of death with the resurrection-based hope of Paul the Christian:

… it is my eager expectation and hope … now as always Christ will be honoured in my body, whether by life or by death. For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain … My desire is to depart and be with Christ, for that is far better. (Philippians 1:20–23)Not that I have already obtained this (resurrection) or am already perfect, but I press on to make it my own, because Christ Jesus has made me his own … I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus. (Philippians 3:12, 14)

Seneca speaks out of a godless, Christless world. Paul, however, rests in the righteousness of Christ (not his own) and is confident about his future risen life. We can only wonder how a reflective person like Seneca would have responded to the apostolic message of the resurrection. The Stoics in Athens scoffed, but Seneca may have opened his heart to this gracious and true message.

2. PHILIPPIPhilippi was a major city in eastern Macedonia. It took

its name from Philip, king of Macedon, father of Alexander the Great. Following Roman conquest in the second century BC the city became a Roman colony, where many retired legionaries were resettled. Its full name was Colonia Iulia

3. Quoted in Wilson, Seneca, page 194.

Joy in the Lord

8

Augusta Philippensis. A Roman colony was the Imperial City in miniature, in its values, practices and, above all, its politics of ambition.

Typical of Roman colonies was the division between citizens and non-citizens, and between the free and the slaves. There were several levels of social and economic stratification within the ranks of free citizens.

The early Julio-Claudian Caesars were noted orators, a skill they employed to win support in the Senate, but also to woo the people at large. Various Roman colonies like Pompeii and Corinth were notorious for their extreme politics and there is no reason to doubt that Philippi was the same. Rome and its colonies were economically stratified with the wealthy and powerful engaging in patronage of those who were dependent on them. This created a culture of obligatory ‘friendship’ (amicitia), but it was self-serving and self-interested.

The wealthy used their resources and influence to promote their political fortunes in Philippi, and if possible become so eminent as to warrant appointment to the Senate in Rome. This was a very high achievement for a provincial politician.

Philippi’s location also connected it directly with Rome. The Egnatian Way passed through the port city of Neapolis then soon came to Philippi which straddled the famous thoroughfare. The Egnatian Way crossed northern Greece to the port Dyrrachium, which in turn connected by shipping lanes to Brundisium on the ‘heel’ of western Italy where the Appian Way provided travellers with easy access to Rome.

It was, however, a lengthy journey of more than 1000 kilometres. A journey to Rome from Philippi might have taken between one and two months.

This would have been the route taken by Epaphroditus whom the Philippians sent as their ‘apostle’ (apostolos) to care for Paul in Rome (2:25). It seems that Epaphroditus was to relieve Timothy for him to travel to Philippi, where he had long associations with the church. Unfortunately Epaphroditus fell ill, either on his long journey, or after he arrived in Rome.

Introduction to Philippians

9

There is evidence that retired Praetorians were living in Philippi. A coin minted in Philippi from the time of Claudius (51–54 AD) or Nero (54–68 AD) bears the words COHOR(tes) PRAE(toriae) PHIL(ippensis): ‘Praetorian Cohorts of Philippi’. It is possible that Epaphroditus or other members of the Philippian church knew local retired Praetorians who could provide him with a letter of introduction or some other means of favorable access to Paul’s custodians in Rome.

There were three main reasons Paul wrote to the Philippians. First, he thanked them for their ‘partnership in the gospel’ as shown by their dispatch of Epaphroditus with a gift of money. Secondly, he wanted to mollify any criticism of Epaphroditus, who may have seemed to have failed in his mission, and to explain why he and not Timothy was coming to them. Thirdly, he needed to address issues of arrogance that were bringing division within the church (1:27; 2:2–5, 14; 4:2–3). Nothing blunts the effect of the gospel so much as quarrelling and division within the church, as Paul well knew.

We know little about the size and composition of the church in Philippi apart from those named:

Lydia and her householdthe jailerthe servant girlEpaphroditusEuodiaSyntyche‘True yokefellow’Clement.

Apart from these, we know only that the church was led by ‘overseers and deacons’. Since Paul, Luke, Silvanus and Timothy stayed with Lydia we think the church may have met in her house, at least initially (Acts 16:15). Clearly she was a wealthy woman.

However, it is possible that the jailer, Epaphroditus, Euodia, Syntyche, ‘True yokefellow’, Clement and the bishops and deacons were also heads of households, say 15

Joy in the Lord

10

in all. Such a household would have consisted of children, poorer freemen and women, and male and female slaves, perhaps as many as a dozen in all, depending on the wealth of the family. It is possible that the Philippian church had 150 or more members, although this estimate is obviously speculative. It is possible that church numbers had increased in the intervening years.

Introduction to Philippians

11