Phil 2:5-11 as Pattern

ilThe life of Christ shows that the way up is by stepping down, that the way to gain for oneself is by giving up oneself, that the way to life is by death, and that the way to win the praise of God is by steadfastly serving others. The teaching of Jesus during his years on earth was articulated not only by the words he spoke but by the life he lived… In his humility, Jesus did what he asked others to do. And it was his great act of humility that was sung about by the church as its members met together to worship and praise him who is now exalted to the highest station in heaven. Placing the Christ-hymn precisely in this place in his letter, Paul simply wants to say, “Follow this example, pattern your life after his life.” Imitation of Christ, then, is the pattern of discipleship in Philippians.[1]

[1] G. F. Hawthorne, “The Imitation of Christ: Discipleship in Philippians.” in Patterns of Discipleship in the New Testament Edited by R. N. Longenecker (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 169.

Philippians 3 and the New Perspective

The Law/Torah is not a system of legalism by which a person tries to earn/merit a place in God’s covenant community. The question Paul is often dealing with is: Should ex-pagan’s be circumcised or not? Or more directly, “how do you define the people of God?”[1] The Torah provides the governing paradigm for how the people of God are to demonstrate that they are indeed part of the covenant people. The question in Judaism is, “how do you know who’s in and who’s out?” What marks out God’s people? Historically, the symbols of circumcision, Sabbath, food-laws, temple and land have demarcated the people of God. A version of the New Perspective suggests that the faithfulness of Jesus has inaugurated a new era of the kingdom of God and in this era the people of God are demarcated by faith/loyalty to/in Jesus. Jesus is now the boundary marker of God’s covenant people.

What has all of this to do with Philippians 3? We’ll start with Wright’s translation of Philippians 3:2-11

Watch out for the dogs; watch out for the evil-workers; watch out for the mutilated ones. For it is we who are ‘the circumcision’ – we, who worship God in the Spirit, who boast in King Jesus, and put no confidence in the flesh. I too, however, do have reason for confidence in the flesh. If anyone else thinks they have confidence in the flesh, I have more: circumcised on the eighth day, of the race of Israel and the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews, as to the law a Pharisee, as to zeal a persecutor of the church, as to righteousness in the law blameless.

But whatever gain I had, that I counted loss because of the Messiah. Indeed, I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worthy of the knowledge of King Jesus, my Lord, through whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and reckon them as trash, so that I may gain the Messiah, and be found in him – not having a righteousness of my own, from the law, but that which is through the faithfulness of the Messiah, the righteousness from god that comes upon faith: that I may know him and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, becoming conformed to his death, if somehow I may attain to the resurrection of the dead.[2]

It is important to note that Paul has not named any “works” which would merit salvation. Rather, he is appealing to Israel’s ethnic identity markers.

The point to be noted in the debate occasioned by the new perspective on Paul, is that what he objects to thus far is confidence in ethnic identity, confidence in the fact of belonging to Israel, the covenant people of God, confidence in having been circumcised and thus, even as an eight-day old, having been faithful to that covenant. In speaking of Jewish confidence before God he did not turn first to thoughts of self-achievement and merit-earning deeds. Rather, it was pride in ethnic identity, of the Israelite over against the other, of Jew over against Gentile, against which he registered his first protest in setting out to express afresh what the gospel of divine righteousness meant to him.[3] The passage confirms that a central problem, which found its resolution in Paul’s understanding of how God’s righteousness worked, was Jewish confidence in their ethnic identity as Israel, the people of God, the people of the Torah, ‘the circumcision’. The implication is fairly obvious that such reliance on ethnic identity carried with it the corollary that Gentiles, ‘the uncircumcision’ as such, were debarred from the benefits of God’s covenant with Israel.[4]

It is clear that Paul undermines these boundary markers by appealing to the Spirit and Christ (3:3) as the new boundary marker of God’s people.[5] But Paul is not denigrating his Jewish heritage. Rather, when compared to knowing the Messiah, he can look back upon his ethnic identity markers as utterly worthless in attaining the righteousness of God. Rather, according to 3:9, Christ’s faithfulness (taking πίστεως Χριστοῦ as a subjective genitive) to humanity has established the righteous relationship that Paul now experiences.

What is the point of this passage within the context of Philippians? Why did Paul choose to incorporate this chapter into his epistle? How does this fit with the themes of Philippians? Wright argues that Paul used his own example of confidence and privileged status according to the flesh, and his now sacrificing all such privileged status to know Christ, as a paradigm for the Philippians to follow suit.[6] Given that some of them were Roman citizens who were perhaps prone to elitism due to their own status, Paul uses this scenario as an exemplary paradigm to show them that none of that really matters. In fact, compared to knowing Christ, it’s all σκύβαλον. They are to imitate Christ’s attitude to privilege and status, and consider others, laying down their lives for one another (2:5). Thus, we see the convergence of the New Perspective and the themes of Philippians coalescing neatly.

Bibliography on Philippians 3 and the New Perspective

N. T. Wright, What Saint Paul Really Said: Was Paul of Tarsus the Real Founder of Christianity? Michigan: Eerdmans, 1997, 124-125

N. T. Wright, Justification: God’s Plan and Paul’s Vision London: SPCK, 2009, 119-130

J. D. G. Dunn, The New Perspective on Paul Michigan: Eerdmans, 2008, 469-490

--------------------------

[1] N. T. Wright, What Saint Paul Really Said: Was Paul of Tarsus the Real Founder of Christianity? (Michigan: Eerdmans, 1997), 120.

[2] Wright, 123.

[3] J. D. G. Dunn, The New Perspective on Paul (Michigan: Eerdmans, 2008), 475-476

[4] Dunn, 490

[5] cf. 1 Cor 12:3.

[6] Wright, 124

Friendship in Antiquity & Philippians

The ancients valued friendship and spent much time discussing this concept. Here's a few quotes that illustrate their various views. I've specifically focussed on the concept of μιᾷ ψυχῇ as found in Philippians 1:27.

Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics 9.8.2

Men say that one ought to love best one's best friend, and man's best friend is one who wishes well to the object of his wish for his sake, even if no one is to know of it; and these attributes are found most of all in a man's attitude towards himself, and so are all the other attributes by which a friend is defined; for, as we have said, it is from this relation that all the characteristics of friendship have extended to our neighbours. All the proverbs, too, agree with this, e.g. 'a single soul', and 'what friends have is common property', and 'friendship is equality', and 'charity begins at home'; for all these marks will be found most in a man's relation to himself; he is his own best friend and therefore ought to love himself best. It is therefore a reasonable question, which of the two views we should follow; for both are plausible.

Plutarch, De Amicorum Multitudine 96F

[I]n our friendship's consonance and harmony there must be no element unlike, uneven, or unequal, but all must be alike to engender agreement in words, counsels, opinions, and feelings, and it must be as if one soul were apportioned among two or more bodies.

Euripides, Electra 1045

My dearest, you who have a name that sounds most loved and sweet to your sister, partner in one soul with her!

A helpful discussion of friendship in antiquity, from a biblical scholar, comes to us from Luke Timothy Johnson.

In the Greek world, friendship was among the most discussed, analysed and highly esteemed relationships. Epicurus included it among the highest goods available to humans. The Pythagoreans founded a way of life on its basis. For Plato, it was the ideal paradigm for the city-state. Even the more pragmatic Aristotle considered friendship the prime metaphor and motive for society. The word “friendship” was not used lightly in these circles, nor was friendship considered simply a casual affection. On the contrary, it was regarded as a particularly intense and inclusive kind of intimacy, not only at the physical level, but above all, at the spiritual…

To be “one soul” with another meant, at the least, to share the same attitudes and values and perceptions, to see things the same way. Indeed, the friend was, in another phrase frequently repeated, “another self.”

L. T. Johnson, Brother of Jesus, Friend of God: Studies in the Letter of James (Michigan: Eerdmans, 2004), 213-4.

This illuminates the genre of Philippians as a "Friendship" letter (Fee, Paul’s Letter to the Philippians, 2-7 and deSilva, An Introduction to the New Testament, 653). It also suggests that the theme of unity in Philippians (O’Brien, Philippians, 38) is a central concern. I would also suggest that the element of κοινωνίᾳ (partenership/fellowship), is central in Philippians.

I'm struggling to find an adequate translation for μιᾷ ψυχῇ as one soul doesn't capture the concept in contemporary usage. One life is not much better. If anyone has ideas, let me know... Back to the drawing board... conceptually that is.

Philippians 1:28b

ἥτις ἐστὶν αὐτοῖς ἔνδειξις ἀπωλείας, ὑμῶν δὲ σωτηρίας

This is an extraordinarily difficult section to interpret. It offers various options which provide very different views, and has thus given rise to dispute among exegetes.[1] Before entering into such discussion, we should remember the context in which this section is found.

Paul has noted that his apparent misfortune has actually helped to advance the gospel (1:12-14). In 1:15-18 Paul describes those who preach Christ from both pure and impure motives, yet his perspective is one of indifference since what matters is that Christ is proclaimed, and in this Paul rejoices (1:18b-19a). Paul then describes his own struggle in prison, being seized by two options: life and death (1:23), and yet his perspective is that to carry on living will benefit others, and help to advance the gospel (1:24-26). We then arrive at what many have labelled the thesis statement (1:27-28a) of Philippians where Paul’s governing imperative is to “focus solely on living as citizens, worthy of the gospel of the Messiah.” Regardless of what happens to Paul, they are Stand firm in the Spirit, united together in one accord, striving together for the advancement of the gospel, not being intimidated by society.[2] In all this however, before approaching our particular phrase, we must remember Gorman’s insight that “when Paul writes autobiographically, he writes paradigmatically.”[3] Paul has not just recounted these details to merely inform the Philippians. Rather, he is intentionally describing his own response to suffering and trials, and providing them with a model of how to respond. With this in mind, we are now ready to read and interpret 28b.

ἥτις ἐστὶν αὐτοῖς ἔνδειξις ἀπωλείας, ὑμῶν δὲ σωτηρίας

For them this is a sign of destruction, but for you salvation

The questions which are raised include the following: What is the sign? What sort of destruction is this? Who is the sign for? Who is destroyed? How does the sign communicate, and what does it communicate?

As Fowl notes, most commentators understand that the “sign” or “proof” to which Paul appeals, is in fact the steadfast loyalty of the Philippian Christians in the face of great opposition.[4] Thus, the argument concerning the referent of the antecedent ἥτις, is inconsequential. What matters, is what follows next.

Fowl describes the position of many commentators on the next phrase when he writes:

The majority of the recent commentators and recent English translations take it that Paul is claiming here that the Philippians’ steadfast faith in the face of opposition is a concrete manifestation to their opponents of the opponents’ destruction.[5]

But is this necessarily the case? This reading raises the interesting question of how the opponents would interpret this sign? How would they see Christian faithfulness as a sign of their own destruction?[6] This appears implausible, and does not fit neatly with the context we have outlined above.[7]

Hawthorne and Fowl have advanced a view that I find particularly helpful in answering and explaining the questions raised above. They see this verse (28b) as offering two different ways of evaluating the Philippians’ faithfulness in the wake of fierce opposition. Hawthorne thus offers the following translation:

For although your loyalty to the faith is proof to them that you will perish, it is in fact proof to you that you will be saved – saved by God.[8]

The Philippians are to view their situation of persecution as a positive sign that they are remaining faithful, and are in fact living as citizens of heaven (1:27a; 3:20), even though those who oppose them view their faithfulness as a sign that they are going to be destroyed, through incarceration by officials and through punishments from the gods.[9] Just as Paul is currently in prison and suffering for his living worthy of the gospel (1:12-26), yet maintains a godly perspective, this verse shows us that Paul is exhorting these Philippian followers to remain faithful and live worthy of the gospel of the Messiah, despite the perspective of outsiders. As

Fowl concludes,

In 1:28 Paul is displaying two competing conceptions of the result of the Philippians’ adhering to their faith in the ways Paul admonishes. To the opponents, it is wilful flaunting of Roman authority and anticipates the Christians’ imminent destruction. In reality, it marks the salvation of the Christians. On this account, debates about whether the destruction/salvation pairing here refers to the temporal or eternal realm simply miss the point. The opponents view the Philippians’ physical destruction as testimony to their eternal perdition. For Paul and the Philippians, their steadfastness demonstrates their salvation, whether they live or die. It is simply the way they magnify Christ in their bodies (cf. 1:20).[10]

Granted this reading is not perfect, and the traditional interpretation is still plausible, we find this reading fits better with the context outlined, and thus should be considered carefully.

[1] G. D. Fee, Paul’s Letter to the Philippians (Michigan: Eerdmans, 1995), 168-170; G. F. Hawthorne, Philippians (Waco: Word, 1983), 58-60 and S. E. Fowl, “Philippians 1:28b, One More Time” in New Testament Greek and Exegesis: Essays in Honour of Gerald F. Hawthorne Edited by A. M. Donaldson and T. B. Sailors. (Michigan: Eerdmans, 2003), 167-179. “No one view stands head and shoulders above the rest. Indeed, all attempts to make sense of this verse end up having to supply words or concepts that are not directly expressed, but perhaps implied, in these two clauses.” (172).

[2] Fowl, 171 “As the rest of vv. 27-28 unfolds, it is clear that, for the Philippians, ordering their common life in a manner worthy of the gospel will require a set of practices in which they as a community will have to engage.”

[3] Michael Gorman, Apostle of the Crucified Lord: A Theological Introduction to Paul and His Letters (Michigan: Eerdmans, 2004), 258

[4] Fowl, 173. See Fee, 168-169 as well as M. Bockmuehl, The Epistle to the Philippians (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1998), 101; P. T. O’Brien, The Epistle to the Philippians (Michigan: Eerdmans, 1991), 154.

[5] Fowl, 174. See Bockmuehl, 101; Fee, 168f.; O’Brien, 156-157. Fowl also notes this is the interpretation taken by many translations, RSV, NRSV, NEB, CEV, and NAB.

[6] Fowl, 174

[7] Beare, while taking this question seriously, proposes that the opponents would be affected psychologically by the Christians response. While this is possible, it unlikely this is what Paul had in mind. See F. W. Beare, Philippians (London: Black, 1959), 68.

[8] Hawthorne, 54

[9] Fowl, 176, “It is a concrete manifestation to the opponents of the Christians’ impending destruction, a destruction that would have entailed not only physical death but also the judgement of the gods.”

[10] Fowl, 176

πολιτεύεσθε - Phil 1:27a

Phil. 1:27a Μόνον ἀξίως τοῦ εὐαγγελίου τοῦ Χριστοῦ πολιτεύεσθε

Only, live as citizens (πολιτεύεσθε) worthy of the gospel of the Messiah...

Reumann: This point only: Exercise your citizenship in a manner worthy of the gospel of Christ...

NLT: But whatever happens to me, you must live in a manner worthy of the Good News about Christ, as citizens of heaven.

NKJV: Only let your conduct be worthy of the gospel of Christ...

NCV: Only one thing concerns me: Be sure that you live in a way that brings honor to the Good News of Christ.

Living Bible: But whatever happens to me, remember always to live as Christians should

As you can see, contemporary English translations opt for the word live but probably because we don't really have many alternatives, and thus lose a particular nuance of the Greek word. Thus, Reumann's translation is interpretive, but carries the particular nuance of the Greek.

πολιτεύεσθε is a fascinating word with a rich heritage. R. R. Brewer, "The Meaning of Politeuesthe in Philippians 1:27," JBL 73 (1954) provided us with a helpful survey of how this word is used in various civic and Pauline contexts. He suggested that it was a way of describing one's obligations as a citizen. Then came E. C. Miller, "πολιτεύεσθε in Philippians 1:27: Some Philological and Thematic Observations," JSNT 15 (1982). Appealing to its use in the LXX (Esth. 8:12; 2 macc 6:1; 11:25; 3 Macc 3:4; 4 Macc 2:8, 23; 4:23; 5:16) and Josephus (Vita 12; Letter of Aristeas 31) Miller suggested that this refers to "the Jews living in fidelity to Torah as God's chosen nation."

Enter the discussion on Paul's understanding of this word in Phil. 1:27. Scholars are quick to note that Paul does not employ his usual word for "life" (An example is περιπατεω, as in 1 Thess 2:12; Rom 13:13; etc.). Given that Philippi is a Roman city, an imperial outpost if you will, should πολιτεύεσθε be taken as a reference to living as a citizen of Roma, or as those who conduct themselves faithfully in light of the Gospel's teaching, as God's chosen people? Are these mutually exclusive options, or can one be a dual citizen?

Perhaps Paul has left open the ambiguity of citizenship in this passage, and chooses to unveil that only in 3:20?

Bockmuehl is probably right to read this as a politically relevant act, which in the context is distinguished from alternative lifestyles that might have been chosen... The rhetorical force of Paul's languge is to play on the perceived desirability of citizenship in Roman society at Philippi, and to contrast against this the Christian vision of enfranchisement and belonging... Paul interposes a counter-citizenship whose capital and seat of power are not earthly by heavenly, whose guarantor is not Nero but Christ. (Bockmuehl, Philippians, pg. 97-98).

At play here is the sticky hermeneutical issue of how much we allow Paul's audience to determine the meaning of the passage. While Paul may be reading this word in light of it's usage in the LXX (plausible), would the Philippian audience be aware of this (unlikely)? Or would the majority of them understand it the way Romans usually understood it? Bockmuehl's interpretation probably navigates through this impasse.

πιστις χριστου in Phil 3:9

I'm currently engaged in a back and forth discussion with Mark Keown regarding the validity of the subjective genitive reading of πιστις χριστου in Philippians 3:9. Mark is remaining neutral, while I am persuaded that this is clearly a subjective genitive, and thus refers to the faithfulness of Christ. Commentators on Philippians are divided on this issue: Barth, O'Brien, Sumney, Fowl, Bockmuehl and Cousar have argued for a subjective genitive, while Hawthorne, Fee, Silva, and Reuman have argued for an objective genitive. The entries by O'Brien and Bockmuehl are particularly helpful in demonstrating the subjective genitive reading.

If anyone has any other references to scholarship that deal specifically with Phil. 3:9, please could you let me know. [[I've lost my copy of Morna Hooker's excellent article, 'πιστις χριστου,' NTS 35 (1989) pg. 321-42, so I'll have to go make another copy (EBSCO doesn't have it!) The discussion by Ian G. Wallis The Faith of Jesus Christ in Early Christian Traditions (Cambridge, 1985) is particularly helpful!]]

I've translated Philippians 3:9 as follows: not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but one that comes through the faithfulness of the Messiah, the righteousness from God based on faith. The contrast between human righteousness and God's righteousness alone suggests to me that the faithfulness of the Messiah (sub. gen.) is the correct reading.

Since there is an echo of the Christ hymn (Phil 2:6-11) in chapter 3, the phrase dia pisteos Christou can serve as shorthand for the obedient self-surrender of Jesus - that is, to his faithful obedience unto death on a cross (2:8). Futhermore, if the subjective genitive is read, then one avoids duplication with the last phrase in 3:9, "the righteousness of God based on faith.

[Charles Cousar, Philippians and Philemon: A Commentary, NTL (WJK, 2009) pg. 73-74]

The righteousness of God is revealed and established "through the faithfulness of Christ" to which believers respond on the basis of faith.

[Stephen Fowl, Philippians, (Eerdmans, 2005) pg. 154]

Let the debate, I mean discussion, continue.

Fundamental Facts - Provenance of Philippians

Hawthorne helpfully notes key issues we must address when discussing the provenance of Philippians.

There are certain fundamental factors that must be considered before even a tentative conclusion as to place and date can be reached. Some of these include (1) the fact that Paul was in prison when he wrote (Phil 1:7, 13, 17); (2) the fact that Paul faced a trial that could end in his death (1:19-20, 2:17) or acquittal (1:25; 2:24); (3) the fact that from wherever it was that Paul wrote there was the praetorium (1:13), and there were “those who belonged to Caesar’s household” (4:22); (4) the fact that Timothy was with Paul (1:1; 2:19-23); (5) the fact that extensive evangelistic efforts were going on around Paul at the time he wrote to Philippians (1:14-17); (6) the fact that Paul soon planned to visit Philippi if he were acquitted (2:24), and (7) the fact that several trips were made back and forth between Philippi and the place from which Paul wrote Philippians – all within the time-span of his imprisonment: (a) news travelled to Philippi of Paul’s arrest, (b) the Philippians therefore sent Epaphroditus to Paul with a gift to aid him in his distress, (c) news of Epaphroditus’ illness was sent back to Philippi, (d) word that the Philippians were greatly concerned about Epaphroditus reached Paul (See 2:25-30) and (e) Paul hoped to send Timothy to the Philippians and get encouragement back from them through him before he himself set off for Philippi (2:19, 24).

Hawthorne, Philippians, pg. xxxvii

Overall, I'm beginning to favour a Roman provenance, against Hawthorne who unusually advocates a Caesarean origin (See Acts 23:23-26:32). While I think Rome is probable, we must admit a certain epistemic humility in our judgements as the evidence is ambiguous and incomplete.

The Provenance of Philippians

The three options for the provenance of Philippians are Rome, Caesarea, and Ephesus. The two most argued places of composition are Rome [See the commentaries by O'Brien; Fee; Bockmuehl and Hooker] and Ephesus [See the commentaries by J. H. Michael; Carolyn Osiek and Frank Thielman's, "Ephesus and the Literary Setting of Philippians"]. Traditionally, Rome is the preferred option, although there is an increase in interest in Ephesus. Interestingly, The Acts of Paul note Paul's incarceration at Ephesus:

Now they who drew up the travels of Paul have related that he did many other things, and among them this, which befell when he was at Ephesus. Hieronymus being governor, Paul used liberty of speech, and he (Hieronymus) said that he (Paul) was able to speak well, but that this was not the time for such words. But the people of the city, fiercely enraged, put Paul's feet into irons, and shut him up in the prison, till he should be exposed as a prey to the lions. But Eubula and Artemilla, wives of eminent men among the Ephesians, being his attached disciples, and visiting him by night, desired the grace of the divine washing. And by God's power, with angels to escort them and enlighten the gloom of night with the excess of the brightness that was in them, Paul, loosed from his iron fetters, went to the sea-shore and initiated them into holy baptism, and returning to his bonds without any of those in care of the prison perceiving it, was reserved as a prey for the lions.

[Translation by M. R. James]

Interestingly, Charles Cousar in his latest commentary on Philippians suggests this, and notes that "Ephesus [is] the least problematic option of the three options... Ephesus seems the better choice and the one I use in the commentary."

Resident blogger, Mike Bird appears to opt for an Ephesian setting as well. Mark Keown argues strongly against this in his monograph, Congregational Evangelism in Philippians. Since Mark will be my teacher next semester, we'll have plenty of opportunity to thrash this around.

Leadership in Earliest Christianity

Matthew Montonini posts on Philippians 1:1-2. This is a fascinating text for several reasons, one being the mention of overseers and deacons. Scholars suggest various positions along the continuum of whether this refers to an official position or just a function. Because many have adopted an evolutionary model of leadership in the early Christian community, Philippians throws some what of a curve ball, because it is written far to early for there to have been an established office of leadership - or so it is supposed. A key issue in this discussion is what we do with Luke's description.

For example, Luke tells us in Acts 14:21-23 that after they had proclaimed the good news to that city and had made many disciples, they returned to Lystra, then on to Iconium and Antioch. 22 There they strengthened the souls of the disciples and encouraged them to continue in the faith, saying, “It is through many persecutions that we must enter the kingdom of God.” 23 And after they had appointed elders for them in each church, with prayer and fasting they entrusted them to the Lord in whom they had come to believe.

Is this Luke projecting backwards, or noting what actually happened? For various reasons, including 1 Thessa 5, this is an adequate summary of Paul's modus operandi regarding the appointment of leaders. I also concur with Charles Barrett, Acts 1-14, pg. 687 who notes that “This was, no doubt, a kind of ordination, in that it gave some Christians a special kind of responsibility and service; cf. 6:6; 13:1-3; 20:17, 28.” Which brings us back to our text in Philippians 1. Does this refer to a position or function? And more importantly, can we separate these two ideas in the 1st century? The dictum, you are what you do, raises several questions at this point. O’Brien, Philippians, pg. 48, comments that:

It has been suggested that these titles are to be understood in a functional rather than an official sense, that is, describing an activity rather than an office (cf. Rom 12:8; Gal. 6:6; 1 Thess. 5:12). Here, however, he has in view particular members of the congregation who are specifically described and known by these two titles; otherwise the additions seem to be meaningless.

Dunn, Beginning From Jerusalem, pg. 1017-1018 cautiously notes that:

we learn that there were two groups of office-bearers, or probably more accurately, two leadership roles which had already emerged in Philippi – ‘overseers (episkopoi) and deacons (diakonoi)’ (1:1). It will hardly be coincidental that these become the titles for regular offices or roles in the churches of the next generation. Whether the structures of church organisation which we see in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1 were already emerging in Philippi, it is not possible to determine now. Certainly some leadership and administrative functions must be attributed to the episkopoi and diakonoi of Philippi. But how well defined or (alternatively) amorphous or embryonic these functions were some twelve years after the church began, and to what extent the use of these titles indicates a drawing on religious or secular precedents, we cannot tell.

This group was known in the capacity that they served for Paul takes it for granted that the Philippians will know who he is talking about when he greets this group(s). Paul did appoint leaders in newly founded/established communities of faith, and whatever specific functions or tasks these elders and deacons (or elders who serve, depending on how you translate it) they were distinct enough for Paul to offer them specific greetings, because they served specific/special functions.