Were the Opponents at Philippi Necessarily Jewish?
Yüklə 221,58 Kb.
|
|
quotation of Tacitus see Cohen, " ‘Those Who Say They Are Jews and Are Not,’ " 16- 17.
[khru a]ga know [ei]do because they imagine [oi]o e]gei The contrasting motives of these two groups of preachers were based on their relationship with Paul. Some in both Rome and
Philippi preached Christ because of their love for Paul. Since Paul viewed the saints at Philippi as "partners" in serving and suffer-
ing for the gospel (1:5, 7; 3:10; 4:14),46 their motivation was obvi- ously based on their love for him (1:3-7; 2:25; 4:14-18). Those
who preached Christ in an attempt to grieve Paul reflected the per- sonal opposition he was facing in Rome—perhaps not unlike the
antagonism the church was facing in Philippi (1:27-28). Never- theless the identity of this group of anti-Pauline preachers is
rather nondescript. Nothing in 1:15-17 supports a reference to a group of ethnic Jewish opponents.
Yet regardless of the contrasting motivations of these preachers, whether in Rome or Philippi, Paul was pleased that
Christ was being proclaimed (1:18). While encouraging the Philippians to live Christ-honoring lives, Paul hoped to hear of their stance against those who opposed them.
"Only live your lives [politeu gospel of Christ; so that [i!na] whether I come and see you or I
remain absent, I may hear of your circumstances—that you are unified in your stance [sth together for the faith of the gospel, and by not being frightened in any way by those who oppose you. Your confident and unified
stance [h!tij] is a sign to your opponents [au]toi?j] concerning their 1 Cor. 10:16–17). In Philippians 1:5, 7; and 4:14 koinwni wne ing the gospel message (cf. business relationships in Plato, Republic 5.10.462b; Lev. 6:2 [LXX]; Sirach 42:3; and Amherst Papyri 2.92.18). Paul referred to Titus as "my
partner" (koinwno>j e]mo>j, 2 Cor. 8:23). For further discussion see Fredrich Hauck, "koinwno and Gerhard Friedrich (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1965), 3:804-9. Were the Opponents at Philippi Necessarily Jewish? 53
sign of your salvation, which is from God" (author's paraphrase). Philippians 1:28 highlights that the church's confident and
unified stance was a sign, on the one hand, of salvation to the saints, and, on the other hand, of everlasting torment and death
(a]pwlei in Philippi. This reference, like the one in 1:15-17, is vague and
thus veils the identity of those whom Paul explicitly mentioned here in 1:28 as "those who oppose" (tw?n a]ntikeime Philippi. Nothing in 1:27–28 supports a reference to a group of ethnic Jewish opponents. Although the sort of opposition is not
specified, perhaps the conflict concerned their preaching (1:15– 17). Whoever they were and whatever the conflict, they were not
saints, since they would experience everlasting torment. A third contrast occurs in Philippians 3:2–3, in which Paul gave an unmistakable and resolute charge to the church. "Continually
consider [ble those evilworkers, continually give thought to [ble
lators of the flesh. For we are the true people of God [h[ peritomh<] the ones who serve in God's Spirit [oi[ pneu and the ones who place their confidence [kauxw sus and not in Jewish rituals [ou]k e]n sarki> pepoiqo paraphrase). The threefold repetition of ble tense signals perpetual action and also serves as a point of con-
vergence concerning those who opposed the saints at Philippi message (2 Pet. 2:3; 3:16). The destruction is an everlasting state of torment for un- godly people (2 Pet. 3:7; cf. Matt. 7:13), the Beast, and people whose names are not
written in the Book of Life (Rev. 17:8, 11). Thus "destruction" seems to speak of an everlasting state of torment and death for the unregenerate. Since those who op-
posed the church at Philippi were doomed to destruction, the ones referred to in Philippians 1:28 and 3:19 were probably unregenerate. For other occurrences see
Albrect Oepke, "a]po the Septuagint, Kilpatrick concludes that when ble it has the meaning "look at" or "consider" (Mark 4:24; 1 Cor. 1:26; 10:18; 2 Cor. 10:7;
Col. 4:17). "There is no example," argues Kilpatrick, "of ble cusative demonstrably with the meaning ‘beware of’" (G. D. Kilpatrick, "BLEPETE,
Philippians 3:2," in Memoriam Paul Kahle, ed. M. Black and G. Fohrer [Berlin: Topelmann, 19681, 146-48). This rendering is of particular importance to Philippi-
ans 3:2 for two reasons. It supports, as Kilpatrick notes, a smooth connection be- tween 3:1 and 3:2, and it supports the idea that whoever these individuals were, the
Philippians were to "consider" them continually. 54 BIBLIOTHECA SACRA / January—March 1998
stand their opponents and thereby to avoid mixing ritualistic practices of Judaism (e.g., circumcision) with Christianity.
The appellations "those dogs" (tou>j ku (tou>j kakou ascribed to a group of people who apparently claimed to be God's people but were not (cf. 1:15-17, 27-29). These negative appella-
tions contrast positive designations attributed to the saints in Philippi, as seen in the following lines.50
(tou>j ku (tou>j kakou (th>n katatomh (kauxw e]n sarki> pepoiqo church at Philippi. This passage, however, is a little more de- scriptive than the previous ones. The very ones who preached
Christ based on self-interest (e]c e]riqei suffer eternal torment (a]pwlei least one ritual (viz., circumcision) that is typical of a Judaizer. tioned in Philippians 1:27-29 and 3:2 and implicitly referred to in 1:15-17 were the same group (cf. tou>j kakou "The Composition and Unity of Philippians," 172-40. sults in 3:2 are chiastically balanced with the three statements about saints in 3:3. The chiastic structure below reflects this writer's understanding of Garland's dis-
cussion.
C. the mutilators (th>n katatomh C.' the true circumcision (h[ peritomh>) B.' the ones who serve (oi[ . . . latreu A.' the ones who boast . . . not in the flesh (oi[ . . . ou]k e]n sarki> pepoiqo Although Garland makes a good case for "B" and "C," his explanation that
"confidence in the flesh" refers to obedience to food laws, works of the Law, and circumcision does not fit with his previous discussion of dogs. The chiasm seems
forced (Garland, "The Composition and Unity of Philippians," 167-70). This is not to deny the paronomasia between "the mutilators" (th>n katatomh circumcision" (h[ peritomh<); it merely questions the chiastic structure. Were the Opponents at Philippi Necessarily Jewish? 55
rected at Jewish Judaizers, do the appellations in Philippians 3:2 necessarily specify Jewish ethnicity?
The first appellation to consider is "those dogs" (tou>j ku In his description of contemporary prophets, Isaiah verbally ma-
ligned Jewish prophets when he said they were "all mute dogs" and "greedy dogs" (Isa. 56:10-11). David, likewise, called his
enemies "dogs" (Ps. 22:16, 20).51 First-century Jews used the term to speak disparagingly of non-Jews (Matt. 7:6; 15:26). John de-
meaned those who practice sorcery, sexual immorality, murder, idolatry, and everyone who loves and practices falsehood when he
referred to them as "dogs" (Rev. 22:15). Josephus opprobriously said of Apion, the Alexandrian rhetorician, that he was gifted
with "the impudence of a dog."52 Ignatius, an early church father, disdainfully referred to those who opposed the church in Ephesus
as "mad dogs who bit secretly, and you must be upon your guard against them."53 To be compared with a dog is an insult whether it
is directed at a Jew, a Gentile, or a nonbeliever. In essence, by re- ferring to them as dogs Paul discredited people who claimed to be
God's. Thus Paul's purpose was not to describe a group of people but to insult them.
The second appellation is "those evil workers" (tou>j kakou e]rga works of the Law while others give e]rga workers of the Law and missionary workers),54 the best view is
that e]rga e]rga erally (Matt. 20:1-2, 8; Luke 13:27; Acts 19:25; James 5:4), but bodies and lick spilt blood (1 Kings 21:19, 23-24; 22:37-38; Ps. 68:21-23; Jer. 15:3). In Psalm 22:16 and 20, "dogs" is a figure that implicitly compares David's enemies to a
band of ravenous dogs that attack people—in this particular case, him. Similar figurative usage occurs in 1 Samuel. When Goliath saw that David was only a boy,
the giant said, "Am I a dog, that you come at me with sticks?" (1 Sam. 17:43). Appar- ently he viewed Israel's choice of David as belittling.
were often associated as unclean animals (2 Pt. 2:22; Hora., I, 2, 23ff.; bShab., 155b; P. Oxy., V, 840, 33). They did not refer to distinct classes of men but to men of all
classes who set themselves in opposition to the Gospel" (Otto Michel, "ku ion," in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, 3 [19651: 1101—4).
10:2, 7).55 "Paul styles them kakou their malicious intent."56 The point is that these people were pro-
fessing Christians on a mission to convert others. Their motiva- tion for preaching Christ was self-oriented (1:15–17).57 Again the
phrase says nothing of their ethnic identity. The third appellation, "the mutilators" (th>n katatomh one designation that may describe ethnic Jews. However, is this appellation from a Gentile perspective or from the perspective of a
Jew of the Diaspora? Although circumcision was important to Ju- daism of the first century, it was not, as noted earlier, unique to
being a Jew. Though Gentiles may have considered it Judaistic behavior, circumcision of itself did not make one a Jew. In addi-
tion, Barclay observes that "whenever it is commented on by non- Jews, circumcision is derided, either as a peculiar ‘mutilation’
(on par with castration, according to Hadrian's later prescript) or, perhaps, as a ‘barbarian’ rite properly abandoned by
‘civilized’ men."58 The point is that whoever practiced circumci- sion—whether Ethiopians, Egyptians, Colchians, Syrians, Jews,
Gentile Judaizers,59 Jewish Christian Judaizers, Gentile Chris- tian Judaizers, or Jewish Christians—the practice was derided as
mutilation. Also the verbal form of katatomh< in nonbiblical Greek is fre-
quently used in ironic or malicious observations. For instance, an ironic-metaphorical usage occurs in a speech against Demos-
thenes when it was said that "he has hacked off [katate own filthy head a thousand times." "This ironic use may not be
without significance," according to Koester, "for an understand- ing of katatomh< in Phil. 3:2."60 Paul may have been using
Collange, L'epitre de saint Paul aux Philippiens, 110; and Martin, Philippians, 125.
144).
church is without question. However, since "a great number" (plh?qoj polu<) but not all "God-fearers" or Gentile Judaizers accepted Christianity in Thessalonica (Acts
17:4), it is reasonable to postulate the same results in other cities Paul visited (cf. Acts 14:5). Thus some "God-fearers" became Christians while others remained Gen-
tile Judaizers. Jewish or Gentile Judaizers. In fact it was Gentile Christians who incorporated Judaistic practices with Christianity whom Ignatius
especially sought to combat.61 In his protest against professing Gentile Christians who mixed Judaistic practices with
Christianity, Ignatius wrote, "But if anyone expounds Judaism to you do not listen to him; for it is better to hear Christianity from a
man who is circumcised than Judaism from a man who is uncircumcised."62 "For if we continue to live until now ac-
cording to Judaism we confess that we have not received grace."63 Thus some Gentiles obviously intermingled Christian and Ju-
daistic teachings. Apparently they were professing Gentile Christians who were promoting Judaistic rituals.
In his composite picture of Gentile Judaizers in Asia Minor, Wilson concludes two things from the above passages. First, Ig-
natius' Letter to the Philadelphians states that "some (if not all) of the Judaizers were Gentile in origin," and second, Ignatius' Let-
who formerly (and presently) lived like Jews and expounded Ju- daism."64 Wilson's second conclusion is supported by Ignatius'
attempt to persuade professing Christian Gentiles to abstain from practicing Judaistic rituals. Ignatius called on the church of
Magnesia to "put aside the evil leaven" (th>n kakh>n zu bishop of Antioch in Syria (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 3.22). Although he was condemned to death in Rome sometime during Trajan's reign (A.D. 98-117), he
wrote seven significant letters to combat Docetism and Gentiles who mixed Judais- tic practices with Christianity. While on the way to Rome to face the beasts in the
amphitheater, Ignatius wrote seven letters. While in Smyrna he wrote to Ephesus, Magnesia, Tralles, and Rome; while in Troas he wrote to the Philadelphian and
Smyrnean congregations as well as to Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna (Kirsopp Lake, Press, 1912], 1: 166-68). ers were reproved for both expounding (i.e., belief, Letter to the Philadelphians 6- 8) and living (i.e., practices, Letter to the Magnesians 8—10) according to Judaism;
(2) Judaizers were part of the church rather than the synagogue community (Letter Judaism and Christianity and thus compromised the distinctive identity of the lat- ter (Letter to the Philadelphians 8. 2; 9. 1-2; and Letter to the Magnesians 10.2).
See Stephen G. Wilson, "Gentile Judaizers," New Testament Studies 38 (1992): 605- 16. For other examples of Gentile Judaizers in the early church, see ibid., 610-15;
and Grayston, "The Opponents in Philippians 3," 171-72. spoke of Jewish Judaizers in Galatians 5:9. Both Ignatius and Paul viewed the practices of the Judaizers as "evil" (kako did so when he wrote against Jewish Christian Judaizers in Galatia, and Ignatius did so when he wrote against Gentile Ju-
daizers in Asia Minor. Perhaps the reason Paul spoke so disparagingly of these peo-
ple (i.e., "the mutilators," th>n katatomh was being advocated by Gentiles.66 Could it also be that Paul em-
phasized his own personal Jewishness in Philippians 3:4-6 in order to contrast those who purported to know about Judaism, who
preached about Judaism and Christianity, and who selectively intermingled aspects of Judaism with Christianity? Of all people
Paul would know more about Judaism than a Gentile Judaizer. That seems to be the point of Ignatius' comments in his Letter to
carp to forward Ignatius' letters because they would have served not only to reinforce Paul's teaching but also to provide further
guidance.67 Thus Philippians 3:2 does not necessarily support the Jewish ethnicity of those who opposed the church in Philippi.
Although Philippians 3:18-21 includes echoes of Paul's previous statements, here he expanded the contrast to include others. For
instance rather than speaking specifically of "some people" (tine the Philippian saints to "consider continually" (ble ever-present opponents, Paul expanded the contrast to include oth-
ers ("many people," polloi<) who opposed the gospel message. While encouraging the saints to follow Paul's pattern (tu
3:17), he explained (ga destructive.
He wrote in verses 18-19, "For [ga not just those who oppose you] . . . continually live lives
[peripatou?sin] that oppose [tou>j e]xqrou [tou? staupou? tou? Xristou?]. Their destiny will be an everlasting
state of torment and death [a]pwlei h[ koili does Paul describe the church as ‘the circumcision’, and nowhere else does he speak disparagingly of circumcision" ("The Opponents in Philippians 3," 170).
sent to us by him. . . . These are joined to this letter, and you will be able to benefit greatly from them" (Letter to the Philippians 13.2).
on the present world [ta> e]pe previous statements, this description of opponents says nothing to
support a reference to ethnic Jewish opponents. The description, |