The Cradle, the Cross, and the Crown (142 page)

Thompson, M. M.
Colossians and Philemon.
Two Horizons New Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005.

Turner, M. “Ephesians.” Pages 1222-44 in
New Bible Commentary
. Edited by D. A. Carson, R. T. France, J. A. Motyer, and G. J. Wenham. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1994.

__________. “Mission and Meaning in Terms of ‘Unity’ in Ephesians.” Pages 138—66 in
Mission and Meaning: Essays Presented to Peter Cotterell.
Edited by A. Billington, T. Lane, and M. Turner. Carlisle: Paternoster, 1995.

Ware, J.
The Mission of the Church in Paul's Letter to the Philippians in the Context of Ancient Judaism.
Novum Testamentum Supplement 120. Leiden: Brill, 2005.

Watson, D. F. “A Rhetorical Analysis of Philippians and Its Implications for the Unity Question.”
Novum Testamentum
30 (1988): 57-88.

Wilson, R. McL.
A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Colossians and Philemon.
London: T&T Clark, 2005.

Winter, S. “Paul's Letter to Philemon.”
New Testament Studies
33 (1987): 1-15.

Witherington, B., III.
Friendship and Finances in Philippi.
Valley Forge: Trinity Press International, 1994.

___________.
The Letters to Philemon, the Colossians, and the Ephesians: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on the Captivity Epistles.
Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007.

Wright, N. T.
The Epistles of Paul to the Colossians and to Philemon.
Tyndale New Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986.

Yoder Neufeld, T. R.
“Put on the Armour of God”: The Divine Warrior from Isaiah to Ephesians.
Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement 144. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997.

¹
F. C. Baur,
Paul, the Apostle of Jesus Christ
(Peabody: Hendrickson, 2003).

²
A significant debate exists over whether to call this passage a “hymn” or “exalted prose.” P. T. O'Brien,
Philippians
, NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), 186—202, makes the best case for calling this passage a hymn, while G. D. Fee, “Philippians 2:5—11: Hymn or Exalted Pauline Prose?”
BBR
2 (1992): 29—46, provides the most forceful account for why the passage is Pauline exalted prose.

³
Debates rage over the passage's structure (how many strophes or couplets?); theology (does it express preexistence?); and purpose (imitation of Christ's humility or sharing in Christ's death and resurrection in order to secure a place in the church body?). For an excellent guide, see O'Brien,
Philippians
, 186—202.

⁴
Space constraints do not permit a detailed analysis of the textual tradition of Philippians. See the excellent work of M. Silva,
Philippians
, BECNT, 2d ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2005), 22-26.

⁵
V. Koperski, “The Early History of the Dissection of Philippians,”
JTS
44 (1993): 599—603, notes that a partition theory for Philippians was first proposed in the nineteenth century but did not come to have prominence until the twentieth century. Advocates include W. Schenk, “Der Philipperbrief oder die Philipperbriefe des Paulus? Eine Antwort an V. Koperski,”
ETL
70 (1994): 122—31; and W. Harnisch, “Die paulinische Selbstempfehlung als Plädoyer für den Gekreuzigten: Rhetorisch-hermeneutische Erwägungen zu Phil 3,” in
Das Urchristentum in seiner literarischen Geschichte: Festschrift für Jürgen Becker zum 65. Geburtstag
, eds. U. Mell and U. B. Müller, BZNW 100 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1999), 133-54.

⁶
See especially E. J. Goodspeed,
An Introduction to the New Testament
(Chicago: University Press, 1937), 90—91: “There is between 3:1 and 3:2 a break so harsh as to defy explanation.”

⁷
See Lightfoot,
Philippians
, 138—42. But the entry in
BDAG
, s.v.
ἐπιστολή
states, “In all probability the plur. in our lit.—even Ac 9:2; Pol 3:2—always means more than one letter, not a single one.”

⁸
See O'Brien,
Philippians
, 350-52.

⁹
Carson and Moo,
Introduction to the New Testament
, 510.

¹⁰
See the extensive links proposed by P. Wick,
Der Philipperbrief: Der formale Aufbau des Briefi ah Schlussel zum Verständnis seines Inhalts
, BWA(N)T7/15 (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1994); and J. T. Reed
, A Discourse Analysis of Philippians: Method and Rhetoric in the Debate over Literary Integrity
, JSNTSup 136 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997).

¹¹
The best summary of the options and case for literary integrity is probably still D. E. Garland, “The Composition and Literary Unity of Philippians: Some Neglected Factors,”
NovT 27
(1985): 141—73.

¹²
See M. E. Thrall,
Greek Particles in the New Testament: Linguistic and Exegetical Studies
, New Testament Tools and Studies (Leiden: Brill, 1962), 28:
λοιπόν
in post-classical Greek could be used simply as a transitional particle, to introduce either a logical conclusion or a fresh point in the progress of thought” (cf.
BDAG
, s.v. "
λοιπός
" 602—3). The expression can mean “finally” (2 Cor 13:11), but context must determine if it has a concluding or a transitional nuance. E.g., 1 Thess 4:1 clearly uses the word in a transitional sense, because it is followed by two chapters of material.

¹³
See 2 Cor 1:12—2:4; 2:12—13; 8:16—24; 1 Thess 2:17—3:10. On the reasons for including the travelogue here, see O'Brien,
Philippians
, 15.

¹⁴
See further the discussion below.

¹⁵
M. Bockmuehl,
The Epistle to the Philippians
, BNTC 11 (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1998), 25-32; G. D. Fee,
Paul's Letter to the Philippians
, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 34-37; Silva,
Philippians
, 5-7; O'Brien,
Philippians
, 19-26.

¹⁶
F. Thielman, “Ephesus and the Literary Setting of Philippians,” in
New Testament Greek and Exegesis, Fs. Gerald F. Hawthorne
, ed. A. M. Donaldson and T. B. Sailors (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), 205—23; id.,
Theology of the New Testament
(Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005), 307. Kümmel (
Introduction
, 332) also slightly favored the Ephesian hypothesis over the Caesarean one and regarded the Roman theory as the least probable. Carson and Moo (
Introduction to the New Testament
, 506) cautiously said that “there is a little more to be said for Ephesus than for Rome, but we can say no more than this (and many would hold that we are not entitled to say even this).” Finally, some suggest the city of Corinth, but this proposal has not garnered much scholarly support.

¹⁷
“The Philippians are Macedonians. These, having received the word of truth, remained steadfast in the faith. The apostle commends them, writing to them from prison in Rome.”

¹⁸
O'Brien
(Philippians
, 25) correctly calculated that as few as three journeys between Rome and Philippi are possible before Paul penned the letter depending on where Epaphroditus was when he became ill. If Paul wrote Philippians toward the end of his two-year imprisonment in Rome, there is more than adequate time for the required trips. The three one-way trips to Philippi by Epaphroditus, Timothy, and Paul, respectively, do not pose a real problem for a Roman provenance. Concern should focus on the number of trips between the beginning of Paul's incarceration and the penning of the letter.

¹⁹
A. Deissmann, “Zur ephesinischen Gefangenschaft des Apostels Paulus,” in
Anatolian Studies Presented to Sir William Ramsay
, ed. W. H. Buckler and W. M. Calder (Manchester: University Press, 1923), 121-27.

²⁰
Some scholars also point out that 2 Corinthians records a reference to a severe hardship in Ephesus, which could imply imprisonment.

²¹
Thielman (“Ephesus and the Literary Setting of Philippians,” 205—23) offered the most sustained case for links between Philippians and earlier letters such as Galatians, Corinthians, and Romans. G. W. Beare (
Philippians
, BNTC, 2d ed. [London: A. & C. Black, 1969], 20) adopted the Roman hypothesis but called the literary similarities between Philippians and the earlier letters “perhaps the most weighty
[sic]
part of the argument for Ephesus.”

²²
F. F. Bruce (
Philippians
, NIBC [Peabody: Hendrickson, 1989], 12) argued that this inscriptional evidence is not relevant because the “praetorianus mentioned in three Latin inscriptions was a former member of the praetorian guard who later discharged police duties as a stationarius on a Roman road in the province of Asia.”

²³
See especially G. S. Duncan, “A New Setting for Paul's Epistle to the Philippians,”
ExpTim
43 (1931—32): 7—11.

²⁴
These criticisms are largely drawn from G. F. Hawthorne, “Philippians, Letter to The,” in
Dictionary of Paul and His Letters
, ed. G. F. Hawthorne, R. P. Martin, and D. G. Reid (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1993), 710.

²⁵
Hawthorne (“Philippians, Letter to The,” 711) remains a contemporary advocate.

²⁶
Silva,
Philippians
, 6.

²⁷
Kümmel (
Introduction
, 329—30) rejected the Roman hypothesis and stated that “the observations concerning linguistic kinship of Phil with I and II Cor and Rom can be matched by observations of linguistic kinship with Col (and Eph), which shows that Phil does not have a unilateral association linguistically with one or the other group of Pauline letters.” He also pointed out that Paul could have faced Judaizing opponents at a later date or feared similar groups.

²⁸
Beare,
Philippians
, 24; Bruce,
Philippians
, 11—16.

²⁹
Bruce,
Philippians
, xxii—xxiv.

³⁰
See the note in J. B. Lightfoot,
Epistle to the Philippians
(London: Macmillan, 1913), 99—104. Lightfoot assumed a Roman provenance and used this assumption to define the term in this particular context.

³¹
R. P. Martin,
Philippians
, NCBC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980), 51.

³²
For an extensive discussion of “Caesar's household,” see the excursus in Lightfoot,
Philippians
, 171—78.

³³
Acts 16:14 records that Lydia was the first convert. She and her family responded to the gospel and were baptized (Acts 16:15). Her house also functioned as the meeting place for the church. The Acts account also mentions the conversion of the Philippian jailer and his family (16:30-33). G. F. Hawthorne (
Philippians
, WBC 43 [Waco: Word, 1983], xxxv) noted that the names in Philippians (Epaphroditus, Euodia, Syntyche, and Clement) reveal that the church was made up largely of Gentiles.

³⁴
Colonists were exempt from the poll tax and land tax. They could also purchase, own, or transfer property, and file civil lawsuits (see Hawthorne,
Philippians
, xxxiii).

³⁵
L. M. McDonald, “Philippi,” in
Dictionary of New Testament Background
, ed. C. A. Evans and S. E. Porter (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2000), 787-89.

³⁶
There is a debate over whether the false teachers were present in Philippi or Paul was warning the church about a potential threat.

³⁷
See especially the excellent discussion in O'Brien (
Philippians
, 61—63), who highlighted the “many-sided activity” of the Philippians in their partnership in the gospel. He said it probably included (1) proclamation of the gospel to outsiders (1:27—28); (2) suffering for the gospel with Paul (1:30; 4:14—15); (3) intercessory prayer (1:19); and (4) their cooperation with Paul in the gospel (1:5) demonstrated by their financial assistance in the past (4:15—16) and the present (4:10).

³⁸
D. A. Carson,
Basics for Believers: An Exposition of Philippians
(Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996), 16.

³⁹
G. Kennedy,
New Testament Interpretation Through Rhetorical Criticism
(Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1984), 77.

⁴⁰
F. R Watson, “A Rhetorical Analysis of Philippians and Its Implications for the Unity Question,”
NovT
30 (1988): 57-88, especially 59.

⁴¹
See Fee,
Philippians
, 2—7; B. Witherington III,
Friendship and Finances in Philippi
(Valley Forge: Trinity Press International, 1994); S. K. Stowers, “Friends and Enemies in the Politics of Heaven: Reading Theology in Philippians,” in
Pauline Theology: Thessalonians, Philippians, Galatians, Philemon
, vol. 1, ed. J. M. Bassler (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991), 105—21, especially 107—14.

⁴²
L. Alexander, “Hellenistic Letter-Forms and the Structure of Philippians,”
JSNT37
(1989): 87-101.

⁴³
See, e.g., Silva,
Philippians
, 19.

⁴⁴
Wick,
Philipperhrief.

⁴⁵
A. B. Luter and M. V. Lee, “Philippians as Chiasmus: Key to the Structure, Unity, and Theme Questions,”
NTS
41 (1995): 89-101.

⁴⁶
The skepticism regarding macrochiastic structures expressed by I. H. Thomson
(Chiasmus in the Pauline Letters
, JSNT-Sup 111 [Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995], 25) seems appropriate.

⁴⁷
Reed,
Discourse Analysis of Philippians.
Hawthorne (
Philippians
, xlviii) took the opposite view that there is no logical progression in the letter, remarking that the “swift changes of topic and even of tone come as no surprise” and casting Philippians as the “antithesis of Romans” in this regard.

⁴⁸
Some scholars minimize the importance of Paul's mention of Timothy. Acts portrays Timothy in a significant ministry role throughout Macedonia. Silva (
Philippians
, 39) is probably correct in stating that good reasons exist to believe that “the Philippians had a strong attachment to Timothy.” Carson and Moo (
Introduction to the New Testament
, 507) took a very different track in saying that Paul's later commendation of Timothy (2:19—24) implies that “the Philippians did not know him well.”