Philippians Study 2022, 1:1-11

[Bootstrap]

I'm turning my attention to this thread now. I plan to start the next section (1:12-26) two weeks from now, on Thursday, July 21.

As a side note to the moderators - it was hard for me to find this thread via search, because the headings on the posts are wrong (they say "Re: Philippians Study 2022: Background and context"). I'm not sure why this is happening.

Are you looking for general comments on these verses? I'm waiting to follow your lead, but I'm not sure what is most helpful.

[joey_the_ox]

I'm turning my attention to this thread now. I plan to start the next section (1:12-26) two weeks from now, on Thursday, July 21.

As a side note to the moderators - it was hard for me to find this thread via search, because the headings on the posts are wrong (they say "Re: Philippians Study 2022: Background and context"). I'm not sure why this is happening.

Are you looking for general comments on these verses? I'm waiting to follow your lead, but I'm not sure what is most helpful.

Sure! I don't have anything super structured in mind, and it will probably be a couple days before I can get my thoughts in order. So feel free to go ahead.

[joey_the_ox]

This section of the text breaks down nicely into a greeting or salutation in verses 1-2, followed by Paul's thanksgiving and prayer in verses 3-11.

The greeting is translated as as follows in the ESV:

Paul and Timothy, servants of Christ Jesus, To all the saints in Christ Jesus who are at Philippi, with the overseers and deacons: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

And here is David Bentley Hart's translation, which I like for color:

Paul and Timothy, slaves of the Anointed One Jesus, to all the holy ones in the Anointed One Jesus who are in Philippi, together with supervisors and ministers; Grace and peace to you from God our Father and Lord Jesus the Anointed.

The greeting has several interesting aspects, all of which could be studied in detail. One is that Paul does not "pull rank" as he does in his other letters. Here both he and Timothy are described as servants (douloi) of Christ Jesus, and Paul does not feel the need to make any distinction. (I always think of the contemporary cognate "doula" when I read the Greek transliteration .) The fact that Timothy is included as a sort of "co-author" is also notable, because the body of the letter seems to be composed from Paul's perspective alone.

The mention of "overseers and deacons" stood out to me. I looked at some commentaries about this, and (perhaps unsurprisingly) they contained a wide range of explanations, most of which seemed to reduce to the author's current ecclesiastical stance and preferences. I like St. John Chrysostom's explanation found in his Homilies on Philippians, which is essentially that terminology was still fluid at this point, and became more formalized later:

What does this mean? Were there many bishops in one city? No, not at all, but he calls the presbyters by this name. You see, in the past up to this point they used names interchangeably, and the bishop was said to be a deacon. ...
So, as I said, in olden times both the presbyters were called bishops and deacons of Christ and the bishops were called presbyters. From that situation even to the present day many bishops write to a "fellow presbyter" and to a "fellow deacon." But after that time the specific name was assigned to each rank, the bishop and the presbyter.

But this is a point where I recognize that others here will probably read things quite differently.

I like the phrase "saints/holy ones in Christ Jesus." Much could be said about the preposition "in" here. It seems to pull from the idea of the church as the body of Christ - the saints are in that body.

I'll close these brief thoughts on the greeting with another quote from St. John Chrysostom, this one on Paul's use of the word "slave" or "servant":

He calls himself a slave and not an apostle. This is a great honor, to be a "slave of Christ" - not merely to be called a slave but to be one. One who is a "slave of Christ" is truly free from sin. If he is truly a slave of Christ, he is not a slave in any other realm, since then he would not be a slave of Christ but only half so.

This is a great honor, to be a "slave of Christ"!

[joey_the_ox]

I will eventually get to the "eternal security" question posed by Sudsy earlier in the thread, but it might be a few days .

[Sudsy]

This section of the text breaks down nicely into a greeting or salutation in verses 1-2, followed by Paul's thanksgiving and prayer in verses 3-11.

The greeting is translated as as follows in the ESV:

Paul and Timothy, servants of Christ Jesus, To all the saints in Christ Jesus who are at Philippi, with the overseers and deacons: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

And here is David Bentley Hart's translation, which I like for color:

Paul and Timothy, slaves of the Anointed One Jesus, to all the holy ones in the Anointed One Jesus who are in Philippi, together with supervisors and ministers; Grace and peace to you from God our Father and Lord Jesus the Anointed.

The greeting has several interesting aspects, all of which could be studied in detail. One is that Paul does not "pull rank" as he does in his other letters. Here both he and Timothy are described as servants (douloi) of Christ Jesus, and Paul does not feel the need to make any distinction. (I always think of the contemporary cognate "doula" when I read the Greek transliteration .) The fact that Timothy is included as a sort of "co-author" is also notable, because the body of the letter seems to be composed from Paul's perspective alone.

The mention of "overseers and deacons" stood out to me. I looked at some commentaries about this, and (perhaps unsurprisingly) they contained a wide range of explanations, most of which seemed to reduce to the author's current ecclesiastical stance and preferences. I like St. John Chrysostom's explanation found in his Homilies on Philippians, which is essentially that terminology was still fluid at this point, and became more formalized later:

What does this mean? Were there many bishops in one city? No, not at all, but he calls the presbyters by this name. You see, in the past up to this point they used names interchangeably, and the bishop was said to be a deacon. ...
So, as I said, in olden times both the presbyters were called bishops and deacons of Christ and the bishops were called presbyters. From that situation even to the present day many bishops write to a "fellow presbyter" and to a "fellow deacon." But after that time the specific name was assigned to each rank, the bishop and the presbyter.

But this is a point where I recognize that others here will probably read things quite differently.

I like the phrase "saints/holy ones in Christ Jesus." Much could be said about the preposition "in" here. It seems to pull from the idea of the church as the body of Christ - the saints are in that body.

I'll close these brief thoughts on the greeting with another quote from St. John Chrysostom, this one on Paul's use of the word "slave" or "servant":

He calls himself a slave and not an apostle. This is a great honor, to be a "slave of Christ" - not merely to be called a slave but to be one. One who is a "slave of Christ" is truly free from sin. If he is truly a slave of Christ, he is not a slave in any other realm, since then he would not be a slave of Christ but only half so.

This is a great honor, to be a "slave of Christ"!

You got my attention with speaking about being a "slave of Christ" and I was wondering why we are sometimes called 'servants' and other times 'slaves'. I found this link interesting that suggests there is a difference between the two -

https://www.whatchristianswanttoknow.co ... of-christ/

Here is a little excerpt from this link as a teaser to read all of it -

there is a massive difference between being a slave and being a servant. A servant works for their master and then they go home. The master does not own a servant. They pay them for their work but a slave has no pay. They have no rights. They are not their own, however, a slave frequently becomes part of the family and a slave doesn’t have to worry where their next meal is coming from; they don’t have to worry about where they’ll sleep at night, and they don’t have to be worried about how much the rent is or the household bills. That’s because they are more than slaves…they are a part of the family. Such was the relationship between most of the slaves and the masters in the first century.

[joey_the_ox]

You got my attention with speaking about being a "slave of Christ" and I was wondering why we are sometimes called 'servants' and other times 'slaves'. I found this link interesting that suggests there is a difference between the two -

https://www.whatchristianswanttoknow.co ... of-christ/

Here is a little excerpt from this link as a teaser to read all of it -

there is a massive difference between being a slave and being a servant. A servant works for their master and then they go home. The master does not own a servant. They pay them for their work but a slave has no pay. They have no rights. They are not their own, however, a slave frequently becomes part of the family and a slave doesn’t have to worry where their next meal is coming from; they don’t have to worry about where they’ll sleep at night, and they don’t have to be worried about how much the rent is or the household bills. That’s because they are more than slaves…they are a part of the family. Such was the relationship between most of the slaves and the masters in the first century.

Yes, it seems to be an interesting translation problem which word ("slave" or "servant") in our contemporary usage better matches what Paul meant by using doulos in his time.

What did Paul mean? Here are some thoughts from the Word Biblical Commentary on Philippians by Hawthorne and Martin describing two possible meanings (I have removed some of the references and shortened the discussion with ellipses):

The word δοῦλοι, often translated “servants,” literally on its sociological background means “slaves,” a word that carries the normally negative ideas of abasement, subservience, and total submissiveness. Slavery was a commonplace feature of the Roman world of the first century and a fact of life seldom questioned or challenged. There was no autonomy for the slave. His own will was totally subject to the will of another, so that he was a person with “no right of personal choice”. The service he provided was not voluntary but forced. He was totally in bondage to the claims of his master. He had no rights and no freedoms.

It is possible then that Paul understood δοῦλοι in terms of this contemporary cultural practice.

...

δοῦλος, “slave/servant,” however, was used frequently in the Septuagint to describe Yahweh’s special servants (Exod 14:3 ; Num 12:7 ; Jer 25:4 ; Ezek 38:17 ; Amos 3:7 ; Zech 1:6). It is possible, therefore, that this title may have had a quite different meaning for Paul from that outlined above. Understood in the context of the OT, δοῦλος may have conveyed to Paul the idea of leader or prophet, and he may have understood it as a title of esteem (Gnilka) to be used to inform his readers that he and Timothy were two of the select few who had the “God-given authority to speak and act in his name, as his accredited (representatives)”.

...

If one must choose between these two ideas, it appears that the better choice is to affirm that Paul derived the meaning of δοῦλος from his Hellenistic-Roman environment, yet with undertones that belong to his Hebraic heritage, since he will go on to write chap. 3.

[Sudsy]

I think we are in a culture of great resistance to being a 'slave' of anyone. This, being a slave, is quite a contrast to our concepts of living in freedom to do as we please when and wherever we can and we rebel against any perceived threat to our freedoms. In worldly views we pride ourselves in being 'free' and not being under any dictatorship by any one man or government who may challenge our freedoms.

I think we have to guard ourselves from the sway of worldly thinking about how to live in freedom as it can have some negative influence on our thinking about being a slave to Christ. And I think, to the degree that we live as a slave of Christ, those earthy freedoms concern us.

Interesting study in itself for a thread sometime.

[ohio jones]

From v. 7:

...for you are all partakers with me of grace, both in my imprisonment and in the defense and confirmation of the gospel.

The reference to grace repeats the theme of the greeting in v. 2. This time it is not a desire that they receive grace, but a recognition that they already have. Paul and his readers are bound together by a common grace. Their experiences are different (the Philippians are not in prison like Paul is), but God's grace transcends that and allows them to experience fellowship.

[Sudsy]

From v. 7:

...for you are all partakers with me of grace, both in my imprisonment and in the defense and confirmation of the gospel.

The reference to grace repeats the theme of the greeting in v. 2. This time it is not a desire that they receive grace, but a recognition that they already have. Paul and his readers are bound together by a common grace. Their experiences are different (the Philippians are not in prison like Paul is), but God's grace transcends that and allows them to experience fellowship.

I find it interesting how the version of this text in the OP and only one other version I have found use the word 'joy' instead of 'grace'. It would seem in these the experience is not about fellowship as it is joy. They are experiencing a common joy. Any thoughts on this and why 'joy' may have been chosen here ?

[silentreader]

From v. 7:

...for you are all partakers with me of grace, both in my imprisonment and in the defense and confirmation of the gospel.

The reference to grace repeats the theme of the greeting in v. 2. This time it is not a desire that they receive grace, but a recognition that they already have. Paul and his readers are bound together by a common grace. Their experiences are different (the Philippians are not in prison like Paul is), but God's grace transcends that and allows them to experience fellowship.

I find it interesting how the version of this text in the OP and only one other version I have found use the word 'joy' instead of 'grace'. It would seem in these the experience is not about fellowship as it is joy. They are experiencing a common joy. Any thoughts on this and why 'joy' may have been chosen here ?

Did you notice that this Catholic version also reads "fruit of justice" instead of "fruit of righteousness" in v. 11?