We begin with a look at the rhetorical situation in Philippi and the problem that Paul aimed to address. Duane Watson’s early study on the rhetoric of Philippians identified the exigence as, “the appearance of a rival gospel in Philippi.”2 This he
infers from the warning that Paul issues in chapter 3 about a group of potential
opponents.3 Watson interprets the warning as an expression of Paul’s concern over the ongoing influence of Judaizers, even though he admits they are not “firmly
entrenched.”4 While the possibility of a false gospel in Philippi is plausible, it is not
explicit in the text and does not necessarily follow from Paul’s warning about these opponents.5 Paul is never so harsh towards the Philippians as he was towards the
1 Wright, Resurrection, 225.
2 Duane F. Watson, "A Rhetorical Analysis of Philippians and its Implicatons for the Unity
Question," NovT 30 (1988): 57-88, here 58.
3 For a survey of scholarly opinion on the opponents in Philippians, see Peter T. O'Brien, The Epistle to the Philippians (NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), 26-35.
4 Watson, "Rhetorical Analysis," 59.
5 Cf. the warning from John M. G. Barclay, "Mirror-Reading a Polemical Letter: Galatians as a
Galatians when he perceived that some among their number were turning to a false gospel (Gal 1:6–9). To the contrary, the generally positive and friendly tone of
Philippians is commonly recognized. Could there be a more probable problem that this letter was intended to address?
Keeping in mind that Paul’s portrayal of the situation is itself part of his rhetoric, I suggest there were at least two distinct but related issues that formed the exigence of the letter and contributed to Paul’s motivation for writing: (1) the Philippians were experiencing persecution or suffering of some kind from outsiders, and (2) there was some level of divisiveness present within the group, though the extent of this divisiveness remains unclear.6 Evidence for the first issue comes in 1:28– 30 where Paul exhorts the Philippians to resist intimidation by their opponents (1:28). He then describes the presence of opposition as an opportunity to suffer for Christ (1:29) and compares it to his own ongoing struggle (1:30). That is not to suggest that members of the Philippian congregation were imprisoned or facing the possibility of imminent martyrdom as Paul was, and he does not provide detail with regard to the specific nature of their suffering; rather, the point of comparison highlights Paul’s conviction that following Jesus may result in suffering of various kinds.7 The clearest
evidence for the presence of divisiveness comes in 4:2–3. Paul here names two female leaders and instructs them “to be of the same mind” (τὸ αὐτὸ φρονεῖν). He follows this up by calling upon a third person, known only as “my loyal companion” to help the process of restoring unity. The direct appeal to these women by name and the repetition of παρακαλῶ together serve to highlight the urgency of Paul’s concern for their reconciliation. Before addressing the two women by name, Paul exhorts the community in general to be unified at a variety of points in the letter (1:27; 2:1–4, 14– 15; 3:15–17). The most likely explanation is that in Paul’s mind their disagreement poses a threat to the overall unity of the group as a whole. There is no evidence to suggest that the factions are so far developed as those dealt with in 1 Corinthians; however, as with 1 Corinthians, the rhetorical objective here is to cultivate concord among the Philippian Christ-followers.8
6 Sandnes, Belly and Body, 139. 7 O'Brien, Philippians, 162.
8 Ben Witherington, Paul's Letter to the Philippians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2011), 25.
There is not enough evidence to support the proposal of Peterlin who gives a detailed reconstruction of “the church polarized around Euodia and Syntyche who were the forces of disunity,” see Davorin Peterlin, Paul's Letter to the Philippians in the Light of Disunity in the Church (NovTSup 79; Leiden: Brill, 1995), 221; cf. the critiques by Fee, Philippians, 7 n. 24; 66 n. 41; G. Walter Hansen, The Letter to
It is worth observing that while these matters of external opposition and internal dispute are clearly distinct, they nevertheless have potential to bear upon one another. This is clear in 1:27–28, “Only live as citizens in a manner worthy of the gospel of Christ, so that…I will know you are standing firm in one spirit, striving side by side with one mind for the faith of the gospel, and are in no way intimidated by your opponents” (italics mine). Group unity and strength in the face of persecution are here held together as ways of faithfully living worthily of the gospel. In order to stand firm against external opposition, the Philippians must be unified within. And the stronger the social bond within the group, the more likely they are to resist and withstand suffering imposed on them by outgroupers. Whatever rhetoric Paul thus deploys must deal with this explicit double threat.9 I suggest that this account of the exigence makes a great deal of sense in light of Paul’s rhetoric. I further suggest, and the argument below will bear it out, that Paul’s rhetoric as it relates to the resurrection, not least with regard to his use of examples and the rhetorical synkrisis that he develops between the anticipated resurrection of the Philippians and the expected destruction of their
opponents, functions both to strengthen the salience of the common ingroup identity of the Philippian Christ-followers by constructing a temporally coherent social identity, which strengthens the letter’s potential to mitigate discord among the Philippians, and to put them in a better position to remain faithful in spite of persecution. The problem is the double danger of suffering and discord, and the contrast between the two groups functions to deal with that problem.