Performance Notes:  

I first performed Philippians as part of the “Using Performance to Teach the Bible” Workshop at the 2019 SBL Annual Meeting in San Diego. My presentation, “Using Performance to Explore Literary Unity,” included several performance “experiments” to test various theories regarding the literary unity of Philippians. Special thanks to the workshop attendees whose feedback has shaped my comments below. This post is lengthier than usual, but, as part of my own learning process, I needed to wrestle what I’ve learned about Philippians into sentences and paragraphs. And, as it turns out, I’ve learned a lot about the letter through this process. Below are my initial reflections.

Partition Theories of Philippians

Many of those who have read and carefully studied Paul’s letter to the Philippians have raised the question: could these four chapters actually be multiple letters to the Philippian church that the early Christian community combined and circulated together? No manuscript evidence supports this proposition (that is to say, we don’t have ancient manuscripts that separate the Philippian correspondence into multiple letters or manuscripts that include only one of the proposed letters; Philippians always occurs as a unified composition), and advocates of any partition-theories (as they’re called) would need to explain why the community stitched the letters together in this way, cutting salutations and concluding greetings to give the final product the appearance of a single letter rather than simply stringing the complete letters together as a set. (If we can have a 1, 2, and 3 John in the New Testament canon, for example, why not have a 1, 2, and 3 Philippians?) Nevertheless, features internal to Philippians repeatedly lead interpreters to this question. In particular, two sections of Philippians raise the most pointed questions about the unity of the letter. 

Delayed Thanks?

First, in 4:10–20, Paul explicitly thanks the Philippians for sending a gift with Epaphroditus (while at the same time deemphasizing his need for the gift). Some interpreters wonder: if Paul is writing a letter to the Philippians to thank them for sending a gift, why would he wait until the end of the letter to finally mention it directly? Similarly, 4:10–20 seems to imply that Epaphroditus has recently arrived with the gift, and it would be fitting for Paul to send a thank you note soon after receiving it. In Philippians 2, however, Paul says that he hopes to send Epaphroditus back to the Philippians because they have been worried about him. Epaphroditus fell gravely ill, the Philippians learned about his illness, Epaphroditus heard that they were worried about him, and now he’s distressed because they are worried. So, Paul plans to send him back to the Philippians to ease everyone’s anxiety.

That whole sequence of events requires the passage of time and multiple communiques back and forth between Epaphroditus and the Philippians. If that much time has passed since Epaphroditus first arrived—and if they’ve sent short messages back and forth with updates on Epaphroditus’s health—why wouldn’t have Paul thanked them for their gift in one of those earlier pieces of correspondence? Why the long delay before sending his thanks? If 4:10–20 is a discrete letter—a short thank you note sent immediately upon receiving the gift—then these questions are resolved. (It doesn’t hurt that 4:10–20 functions well as a letter, opening with a statement of joy and ending with a doxology. Additionally, 4:9 itself works well as a closing that transitions into the concluding greetings in 4:21–23.) 

Through the process of learning Philippians by heart and telling it to audiences, I’ve come to think differently about 4:10–20. Contrary to what some interpreters conclude, I do not believe that these verses are the first time that Paul explicitly thanks the Philippians for their generosity. Not only does he implicitly refer to the gift when discussing Epaphroditus’s work in 2:25–30; he directly mentions it in his opening thanksgiving (1:3–11). Attending to a verbal link between the first and last chapters (that can be emphasized in performance through a repeated gesture) confirms that Paul addresses the gift throughout the letter.

In 4:15, Paul reminds the Philippians that in the early days of his work, “no church shared (ἐκοινώνησεν) with me in the matter of giving and receiving expect you alone.” And now, in this letter, he thanks them for reviving their concern for him (4:10). But this is not the first time he has thanked them for their sharing. In the first sentence of the letter’s thanksgiving (1:3–6), he says that he continually thanks God in his prayers for the Philippians because of their “sharing (τῇ κοινωνίᾳ) in the gospel from the first day until now.” He continues his heartfelt thanks, telling them that they hold him in their heart because they “share (συγκοινωνούς) in God’s grace” with him, both in his imprisonment and in his defense of the gospel. In other words, Paul begins and ends the letter with explicit thanksgiving for the Philippians’ gifts of support during the early days of his ministry and in the present time of his imprisonment.

The NRSV captures the verbal link by translating the various forms of κοινός as “share,” but the precise nature of the sharing remains ambiguous. To make clear that I believe Paul thanks them for gifts of support (rather than, for example, assuming that “sharing in the gospel” refers to their conversion and membership in the Christian community), I use the same gesture (presenting an imaginary gift with palms up) in both 1:5 and 4:15. The visual link reinforces the verbal link and ensures that the letter functions as a whole for the audience.

An Impossible Shift?

Second, those who divide Philippians into multiple letters often cite a startling shift in tone in the middle of the letter. In 3:1, Paul implores the Philippians to “rejoice in the Lord;” then in 3:2, without warning or transition, he exhorts them to “Beware the dogs! Beware the evil workers! Beware those who mutilate the flesh!” Who are these “dogs” and why is Paul so worried about them? Their unannounced introduction into the letter surprises the hearer almost as much as the sudden shift in tone.

Additionally, in 3:1 Paul introduces the imperative with a telling adverb: “Finally, my brothers and sisters, rejoice in the Lord.” This word (τὸ λοιπόν) seems to indicate that Paul is drawing the letter to a close, which would be fitting after discussing the travel plans for Timothy and Epaphroditus in 2:19–30. The letter continues for two more chapters, however, resuming the call to rejoice in 4:4. In fact, if one removes 3:2–4:3, the logic flows smoothly: “Finally, my brothers and sisters, rejoice in the Lord. To write the same things to you is not troublesome to me, and for you it is a safeguard. Rejoice in the Lord always; again I will say, rejoice.” Excising 3:2–4:3 not only joins Paul’s exhortations to rejoice; it also creates context for Paul’s apology about his repetition. It’s not troublesome to remind them to rejoice; so, he’ll do it again! 

The cumulative weight of these observations has led some interpreters to conclude that 3:2–4:3 (or 3:2–4:10) is a separate letter that Paul sent to address the rise of opponents in the Philippian community. Even those who maintain the unity of Philippians struggle to explain the sudden shift in tone and the “false” ending. One highly speculative solution suggests that Paul took a break from dictating the letter at 2:30, received troubling news from Philippi that evening or the next day, and then changed his tone to address the new development when he returned to dictating the letter in 3:1. Once again, however, learning and telling Philippians as a whole has led me to reject the partition theories. Even though Paul’s tone undeniably shifts in 3:1–2, the letter as a whole nevertheless sustains a coherent argument. In fact, the logic and force of the letter would be materially impoverished if 3:2–4:3 were removed. 

When telling Philippians, I employ specific performance decisions to demonstrate the rhetorical continuity of the letter (and thereby address the various address challenges to literary unity raised by the shift in 3:1–2). First, “finally” in 3:1 need not indicate the closing of the letter as a whole. Some choose to ease the tension by translating the Greek adverb τὸ λοιπόν in other legitimate ways, but this is unnecessary. “Rejoice in the Lord” is the third and “final” imperative in Paul’s instructions regarding Epaphroditus, even though this has been obscured by the chapter break in modern translations. Earlier, Paul tells the Philippians that he is sending Epaphroditus back to Philippi so that they may “rejoice at seeing him again.” Then, in 2:29–31 he gives them three instructions regarding Epaphroditus’ return (which likely would have corresponded with their receiving he letter): (1) welcome him with joy; (2) honor him; and, finally, (3) rejoice in the Lord (at his safe return after his near-fatal illness). To help the audience hear 3:1 in this way, I enumerate each imperative on my fingers. As a result, “Finally, my brothers and sisters, rejoice in the Lord,” functions as the concluding imperative in the triad rather than a transition to the closing of the letter. 

Additionally, an alternate translation for βλέπετε (“beware”) in 3:2 eases the shift in 3:1–2 and better communicates the rhetorical purpose of this section of the letter. While English translations unanimously translate the repeated imperative βλέπετε as “beware,” the grammatical construction suggests other options. In fact, in similar constructions elsewhere in the New Testament and other early Christian literature, the word typically means something more like “consider” or “take notice of.” Though such translations can soften the shift in tone, they do not completely explain the transition. For example, the performer cannot ignore the intensity Paul creates by stacking emotionally charged direct objects—dogs, evil workers, mutilation/mutilators of the flesh. “Beware” captures this intensity, and, as a result, I only chose to use a different translation in my performance for other reasons.

Even more easing the sudden shift in tone, the alternate translation “take note of” better communicates the logical structure of Paul’s argument at this point in the letter. To this point, Paul has highlighted positive examples of those who imitate the pattern of Christ’s self-emptying (which he powerfully describes in the hymn in 2:5–11), including Timothy, Epaphroditus, and himself. In 3:2, after describing Timothy and Epaphroditus, he turns to describe counter-examples that they should avoid. He has hinted at counter-examples earlier in the letter. (In other words, the introduction of the “evil workers” in 3:2 is not as sudden and unexpected as some commentators imply). For example, he laments those who “proclaim Christ out of selfish ambition” rather than love (1:17) and contrasts Timothy’s selfless concern for the Philippians with those who “seek their own interests” (2:20–21). Now, in 3:2, he points more directly to these counter-examples who, by implication, boast in the flesh rather than Christ. The climax of Paul’s comparison between these “evil workers,” who are marked by the selfish pursuit of honor, and the positive exemplars, who are typified by Christ’s self-emptying humility, comes in 3:17–18. “Join in imitating me,” Paul exhorts the Philippians, “and observe those who live according to the example you have in us, for many live as enemies of the cross of Christ.” Not many embrace the vulnerable, self-emptying posture of the cross, Paul tells the Philippians; so, observe those who do and imitate them (e.g., Timothy, Epaphroditus, and Paul himself), and resist the temptation to imitate those who reject self-emptying in favor of self-aggrandizement. 

In my performance, I communicate this overarching structure of the letter by imagining the positive exemplars in the space on my left and the negative exemplars on my right. When referring to Timothy and Epaphroditus, I gesture to my left, inviting the audience to imagine them standing in that space. Then, when exhorting the audience to “take note of the dogs,” I gesture to my right. Earlier in the performance, I gesture to my right when describing those who proclaim Christ out of selfish ambition and those who seek after their own interests. When I call attention to this same space in 3:2, therefore, the “dogs” are visually linked to these earlier groups (rather than being a sudden interruption to Paul’s train of thought). Then, I bring the comparison to a conclusion by once more gesturing to my left when calling the audience to “observe those who live according to the example you have in us” and to the right when warning the audience one last time about the “enemies of the cross.” Heard this way, 3:2–4:3 is not an awkward interruption or digression; instead, in this section Paul continues to develop examples and counter-examples for the Philippians as he builds toward his appeal to two specific members of the community: Euodia and Syntyche. 

Extended Plea to Euodia and Syntyche

My performance of Paul’s plea to Euodia and Syntyche offers one final argument against dividing Philippians into multiple letters. Those who argue the shift in 3:1–2 indicates a clumsy joining of two different letters often assume that the inserted letter ends at 4:3 or 4:9. As noted above, 3:1 flows nicely into 4:4, seemingly supporting partition theories that argue 3:2–4:3 is a distinct letter. Through learning and telling Philippians, however, I experimented with the transition in 4:3–5 and found a compelling thread stitching these verses together.

While Paul directs the repeated second-person plural imperatives in 4:4 to the whole community—“Rejoice in the Lord always; and again I say, Rejoice”—I imagine the letter carrier maintaining focus on Euodia and Syntyche with this line. This accounts for the repetition (two imperatives for two people) and extends Paul’s instructions to these important women. First, he tells them to “be of the same mind in the Lord,” focusing his oft-repeated exhortation to the whole community on these two individuals. (Making a similar gesture every time Paul uses the phrase “same mind” highlights the connection for the audience.) Then, he encourages the attitude that undercuts their conflict. “Rejoice in the Lord,” he tells each of them. The verb “rejoice” occurs nine times in Philippians in six different verses (1:18, 2:17, 28; 3:1; 4:4, 10), and in almost all of the occurrences it could be glossed as “celebrate with gratitude the well-being of your brothers and sisters.” So, when Paul exhorts Euodia and Syntyche to “rejoice in the Lord,” he’s not offering a vague platitude: “Don’t worry; be happy.” Instead, he’s calling them to celebrate with thanksgiving one another’s well-being. Such an attitude would attack the root of their division, whatever it might be. Finally, he articulates the means by which they will achieve accord: “Let your gentleness be known to everyone.” Again, the pronoun is plural—Paul is speaking to the whole community—but in my performance I imagine the letter carrier maintaining focus on Euodia and Syntyche as he speaks this exhortation to the gathered community. This possible double-meaning for the imperative cannot be communicated in silent print. Performance, on the other hand, has the capacity to communicate the rhetorical complexity of directing instructions to the whole group while focusing those same instructions on two individuals. As I perform the letter, I speak to the whole community while looking directly at an imagined Euodia and Syntyche, communicating that what is true for the whole group (namely, patient forbearance as a means to overcome conflict and division) is particularly relevant for the two concrete individuals. Rhetorically, this concrete focus does not alienate the rest of the audience. Instead, it creates an arresting intimacy that prompts them to imagine the concrete relationships in their own lives where gentle forbearance can overcome division.

Such an interpretation, of course, assumes that 4:2–5 would be heard together as part of a unified letter. My performance of these verses, therefore, along with the understanding of the letter demonstrated in my performance of 3:1–2 and 4:10–20, present Philippians as a literary unity rather than a combination of separate letters. Not only is such a presentation possible, the process of learning the letter by heart and telling it to audiences has led me to reject the various partition theories that other careful readers have proposed.