For the past few years I have been following with keen interest and excitement the researches of Colin Humphreys into the last supper narratives in the gospels. Previously he had investigated the exodus of the Israelites from Egypt and the ten unusual happenings recorded as accompanying that event. He also offered a new identification of the ‘star of Bethlehem’ as a comet that appeared in 5 bc. Finally, he made a fresh attempt to date the crucifixion of Jesus by using astronomical evidence for determining the likely year and also by proposing that Peter's reference in his Pentecost speech to the moon being turned to blood (Acts 2:20) was to a lunar eclipse in ad 33 at which the moon would indeed have had a blood-red appearance.

This new book returns to this last theme and offers a detailed study of the associated puzzles caused by the apparent discrepancy between the gospel of John and the other three gospels on the date of the last supper of Jesus. Colin's solution is a new version of the old theory that different Jewish groups may have used different calendrical systems, together with a proposal that Jesus held his meal not on the Thursday immediately preceding his crucifixion on the Friday but on the Wednesday evening, a view that allows a more adequate period of time for all the recorded events that have to be fitted in between the meal and the crucifixion.

Having seen something of the theology expressed in Philippians, we must now attempt to ‘place’ it in relation to other NT documents. Space precludes anything more than a comparison with other Pauline documents. In terms of our ‘building’ metaphor, we want to compare Philippians with other structures designed by the same builder to see how far they express the same basic design adapted to different situations. According to J. C. Beker, whatever theological differences exist between the various letters of Paul may be explained in terms of the categories of ‘coherence’ and ‘contingency’. Beker sees in the mind of Paul a coherent system of thought which is developed in appropriate ways according to the different contingent circumstances in which he is writing. We shall look at four main areas.

CHRISTOLOGY

What kind of christology is presented in Philippians? Here we have one of the most explicit utterances of Paul on the subject. Can we determine its character? Numerous attempts have been made to categorise it.

Adam christology

A contrast between Adam and Christ is possible. Adam too was made in the image of God, and in Jewish thought was endowed with sovereignty over creation; man is a little lower than the angels and crowned with glory and honour (Ps. 8). Where Adam fell, Jesus resisted temptation.

This line of thought has been popular with exegetes who have had difficulty in attributing the concept of pre-existence, as traditionally understood, to Paul or to a pre-Pauline source. The contrast between Adam and Christ is familiar elsewhere in Paul (Rom. 5, 1 Cor. 15).

We suggested that we could understand Paul's theology of the church in Philippians by examining, first of all, the foundation on which both his theological thinking and the church itself rests. The foundation can be regarded both as the gospel and as Jesus Christ himself.

Paul's central concern in his work is with what he calls ‘the gospel’ (1:5, 7, 12, 16, 27a and b; 2:22; 4:3, 15). The gospel is also called the ‘word’ (logos, 1:14) which brings ‘life’ (2:16). There is something called ‘the faith of the gospel’ (1:27b) which must mean ‘the faith prescribed by the gospel’, the response which is demanded by it. The Philippians must live in a manner that is worthy of the gospel (1:27a). Thus the gospel controls the life of both Paul and his readers.

When Paul speaks of the gospel he means: the Christian message and its content. But the content of the gospel is ‘preaching Christ (1:15, 17f.) – Christ is the basis of the individual Christian's life and of the communal life of the church.

It is not surprising, then, that Jesus Christ is central to Paul's thought in this letter. We may demonstrate this, admittedly in a rather superficial way, by noting that Jesus is mentioned by one form of name or another some forty-nine times; by contrast the word ‘God’ comes only twenty-four times and ‘Spirit’ five times.

Although the New Testament is usually taught within Departments or Schools or Faculties of Theology/Divinity/Religion, theological study of the individual New Testament writings is often minimal or at best patchy. The reasons for this are not hard to discern.

For one thing, the traditional style of studying a New Testament document is by means of straight exegesis, often verse by verse. Theological concerns jostle with interesting historical, textual, grammatical and literary issues, often at the cost of the theological. Such exegesis is usually very time-consuming, so that only one or two key writings can be treated in any depth within a crowded three-year syllabus.

For another, there is a marked lack of suitable textbooks round which courses could be developed. Commentaries are likely to lose theological comment within a mass of other detail in the same way as exegetical lectures. The section on the theology of a document in the Introduction to a commentary is often very brief and may do little more than pick out elements within the writing under a sequence of headings drawn from systematic theology. Excursuses usually deal with only one or two selected topics. Likewise larger works on New Testament Theology usually treat Paul's letters as a whole and, having devoted the great bulk of their space to Jesus, Paul and John, can spare only a few pages for others.

It will be beneficial to have a clear understanding of the term ‘apocalyptic’ before comparing the thought of 2 Thessalonians to other parts of the New Testament. Paul Hanson urges that one must distinguish this concept in three ways: as a distinctive literary genre that can be referred to as an ‘apocalypse’, as a religious perspective known as ‘apocalyptic eschatology’, and as a social movement identified as ‘apocalypticism’ whose identity and interpretation of reality is codified by a symbolic universe of apocalyptic. These distinctions allow for some clarity in comparing 2 Thessalonians with other New Testament writings. First, its genre is that of a letter, not an apocalypse. Second, within the genre of letter, the eschatology of 2 Thessalonians can be described, as can that of 1 Thessalonians, as apocalyptic eschatology. The second letter is more comprehensively apocalyptic in the sense that it uses more consistently language and descriptive elements drawn from the symbolic universe of apocalyptic, as in the case of the salvationjudgment oracle found in 2 Thess. 2:3–12. Third, one may identify the author of 2 Thessalonians with ‘apocalypticism’ in so far as he ‘develops a protest of the apocalyptic community against the dominant society’ and is less concerned ‘with systematic consistency than with the demands of the immediate crisis, especially those of defining identity within a hostile world, and of sustaining hope for deliverance’. Using Hanson's categories, one finds several remarkable similarities between 2 Thessalonians and the book of Revelation.

PROMISE AND ENCOURAGEMENT DURING PERSECUTION

Persecution and misinterpretation of the faith are the dominant problems present in Thessalonica and they occasioned this second letter. Certainly these problems are not limited to the churches of the first century. Let us reflect on these issues one at a time. Christian communities, in so far as they call into question the values and judgments of persons and societies, can easily become objects of ridicule and derision. This type of negative behaviour can be expressed through such relatively moderate means as marginalisation and isolation of the Christian, or, at the other extreme, through outright floggings, persecution and death. The peripheralisation and persecution of Christians continues to this day and some readers will have encountered or may still be encountering it first-hand.

For those who find themselves in these kinds of situations, an inevitable question arises: is it worth remaining a Christian? Does God know, let alone care, about my predicament? For the author of 2 Thessalonians, the answer is a resounding ‘yes’. The fundamental presupposition of his appeal is that the gospel has been proclaimed to the Thessalonians and that they have believed in it (1:8 and 2:14). They have been loved by God and chosen by him. This strong beginning and evident growth and maturation in faith (2:13 – ‘sanctification’) is a cause for joy for the writer(s) of this letter.

Since this world is corrupted by sin and polluted by the power of Satan, Christian communities can easily be confused by his deceptions.

Our final task is to consider the significance of this understanding of Christ and the Christian life for today. There are two aspects to the question.

On the one hand, our aim so far has been to elucidate the thought of the letter to the Philippians as a single document. In the previous chapter we have argued for the coherence of the thinking in Philippians with that expressed in Paul's other letters. But what is the distinctive contribution of Philippians to our understanding of the Christian faith? Suppose that Philippians was missing from the canon: would we be significantly the poorer? If we as Christians regard the Scriptures as being providentially gathered together for our benefit in the church, what is the importance of Philippians within the canon?

On the other hand, we want to know whether we as Christians today can still live in the same theological ‘building’. In discussing this question I proceed on the basis that, if we are in the same situation as the original readers, what is said to them will also apply to us, but if our situation is different the message may need reapplication.

We shall attempt to look at both sides of this question simultaneously as we consider a number of areas where the thought of Philippians may be regarded as in some ways distinctive and also applicable to today.

THE RHETORICAL STRUCTURE

The introductory comments made about rhetoric in our discussion of 1 Thessalonians are relevant to 2 Thessalonians and we urge the reader to review that material at this time. There is wide consensus that 2 Thessalonians belongs to the deliberative genre of rhetoric. This genre includes honour and advantage as the standard topics. These topics are used in 2 Thessalonians to advise the audience concerning their present actions and the result of those actions in the future.

Frank Witt Hughes provides the following analysis of the rhetorical structure of 2 Thessalonians. It is one that we accept.

1. I Exordium (introduction) (1:1–12)

2. A epistolary prescript (1:1–2)

3. B thanksgiving prayer (1:3–10)

4. C intercessory prayer (1:11–12)

5. II Partitio (statement of the proposition) (2:1–2)

6. A subjects to be dealt with in the probatio (2:1–2)

7. B point of disagreement (heresy to be refuted) (2:2)

8. III Probatio (proof) (2:3–15)

9. A a first proof (refutatio) (2:3–12)

10. B second proof (2:13–15)

11. IV Peroratio (epilogue) (stated as an intercessory prayer; 2:16–18)

12. V Exhortation (3:1–15)

13. A command (or request) to pray for Paul (3:1–4)

14. B intercessory prayer (3:5)

15. C command to work (3:6–15)

16. VI Epistolary postscript (3:16–17)

17. A intercessory prayer (3:16)

18. B authentication (3:17)

19. C final blessing (3:18)

Knowing that 2 Thessalonians is an example of deliberate rhetoric permits the interpreter to be sensitive to the argumentation of the letter in general, and by examining the various components of this rhetorical structure one can be made sensitive to the central issues at stake in the dialogue between this author and his audience.

THE GOD OF JUSTICE

The themes of the Thessalonian Christians' election by God and their suffering, both articulated in 1 Thessalonians, find resonance in 2 Thessalonians. In 2 Thess. 2:13 the author gives thanks that ‘God chose you as the first fruits for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and through belief in the truth.’ If this is a perspective shared by the author and the Thessalonians, then the critical issue that emerges is why, if they have been called by God, must they continue to endure afflictions and intensified persecutions for the sake of the kingdom of God? Is this not rather a sign that they have been abandoned by God? The response that is given to this dilemma is that the ongoing situation and persecution is intended to make them worthy of the kingdom of God and to signal the righteous judgment of God against the afflicters on the last day (2 Thess. 1:5–12). Juridical and apocalyptic concepts are employed in responding to this crisis of faith: in particular, the understanding of God as the God of justice and Jesus as his apocalyptic agent who will vindicate the afflicters and bring comfort to the afflicted.

The theme of the justice of God is specifically articulated in 2 Thess. 1:6. God, as the chief apocalyptic actor, will repay with vengeance those who are persecuting the Thessalonians through the apocalpytic agency of the Lord Jesus at the time of his future revelation with his mighty angels.

So far we have seen that Jesus Christ is the centre of Paul's thought and message in the letter. Our next task is to explore how the readers are related to him. Pursuing our metaphor of the building, we aim to see how the individual stones relate to the foundation. Paul uses three key phrases in this letter to express the relationship between Christ and Christians: ‘in Christ’, ‘with Christ’ and ‘knowing Christ’.

‘IN CHRIST’

The phrase ‘in Christ’ (and equivalents) is used about 165 times in the Pauline corpus to express the relationship of believers to Christ. It plays a dominating role in Philippians, occurring twenty-one times (as frequently as in Romans).

Difficulties have sometimes arisen in understanding it because it is assumed that it must have the same force every time it is used. In the most careful study of this phrase in English E. Best has observed that the phrase occurs in nine types of expression. The occurrences in Philippians are allotted by Best to five of his categories. It may be helpful to summarise his analysis and then make some observations starting from it.

Some revision of this allocation is needed. In particular, several of the examples allotted to other groups seem to belong to the category Best calls ‘ordinary’ – cases in which the use of ‘in’ arises out of normal Greek syntax. Let us attempt a reclassification.

Ordinary usage

First of all, Paul can use a verb that is naturally and normally followed by ‘in’, and there is no ‘technical’ use of the phrase.

In a well-known passage in 1 Corinthians 3 Paul compares his work as an apostle to that of a builder. The building is the church, and the letters which he writes may fairly be regarded as the tools of his trade. Despite the dangers of over-simplification and of forcing the material into a rigid pattern, it may provide a helpful structure for our consideration of the theology of the letter to the Philippians if we take up this metaphor. We shall therefore consider in successive chapters:

Although there are various other angles from which Paul's work can be considered, we shall confine ourselves to a study of the theology which he develops in order to build the church. The primary aim of Philippians is a theological one, however much personal and social factors may affect its character and presentation, and what we want is to find out the character of the theological points that Paul specifically makes in it and to relate these to his underlying theology.

Paul resembles a person who knows a particular language; what he says on a given occasion does not express all of that language, although from what is said one could produce a tolerable picture of its structure.

THE EARLY AND THE LATE PAUL

General perspectives

In several of our previous discussions we have compared, on occasion, selected themes in 1 Thessalonians with other writings in the New Testament and particularly with some of the other Pauline letters. Our goal in this section will be to engage in a brief comparison of the early Paul with the late Paul and then, in the section that follows, we will present a comparison of the early Paul of 1 Thessalonians with the portrait of the Apostle found in Acts. At the outset it will be important to state a general principle, namely, that the proper starting point for the analysis of Pauline thought must be 1 Thessalonians, especially since it contains the key to the theology of the early Paul, and therefore, we would insist, also the key to understanding the theology of the late Paul. Although a whole range of additional topics needs to be investigated – for example, a further discussion of eschatology, flesh-spirit, sin, pre-existence christology and the related christological developments alluded to earlier on in this study, the theology of the cross, baptism and the church as the body of Christ, the progress and maturation of the Christian in and according to the Spirit, and ethics – we will limit ourselves to some concise remarks with regard to the theme of the law and the theme of justification in view of the fact that these seem to dominate the discussion about the validity of an early Pauline theology different from the later one manifest in Galatians and Romans.

So far we have shown that the foundation of all that Paul has to say in Philippians is Jesus Christ himself. We have seen how believers are related to Jesus Christ in various ways. Now we must examine what Philippians has to tell us about the resulting structure, i.e., about the character of the Christian community.

THE NATURE OF THE CHURCH AS CORPORATE CHRISTIAN EXISTENCE

It goes without saying that Paul views individual believers as constituting communities. In 4:15 the company of people to whom Paul is writing are described as a church and placed alongside other similar groups.

Another name for this group is ‘saints’. This name is almost always used in the plural in the NT (in 4:21 ‘every saint’ is in effect plural). This could of course be because Paul is addressing a group rather than an individual, but in fact he is thinking of the group who comprise the people of God.

But the most important indication of the corporate nature of Christian existence is seen in the concept of fellowship (koinonia), which is particularly stressed in this letter (1:5; 2:1; 3:10; cf. 1:7; 4.14f.). The basic idea is that two or more people have a common possession, concern or interest in which they participate, and consequently they share together in it. Depending on the situation the elements of participation in the common object or the activity of sharing together may be uppermost.

In 1.5 Paul refers to the sharing of the readers with regard to the gospel.