Abstract
This article argues that Paul, in Philippians 3:17–21, borrows the present honorable civic identity of the first readers, namely, patriotic merchant, to persuade them to be transformed into Christ-citizens running with the King of Kings forever in the future. Drawing on insights from the concept of possible social identities, a new socio-rhetorical interpretation of Philippians 3:17–21 is proposed. Instead of eliminating or marginalizing it, I argue that Paul makes use of the civic identity “patriotic merchant” of the first readers to construct a new hybrid social identity. Not only is there no anti-imperial connotation, but first readers may also hear Paul's encouragement to retain their civic identity re-oriented in their new future hybrid social identity.
Keywords
Philippians 3:17–4:1 is a typical group/intragroup rivalry discourse in the letter to the Philippians. There are at least four instances of group/intragroup rivalry mentioned in the Letter to the Philippians (1:15; 2:3; 3:2–3; 3:17–21; 4:2–3). Therefore, some socio-historical approaches to the letter to the Philippians (e.g. Ascough) compare the Philippians’ Christ-community with other voluntary associations in the Roman world, for this group rivalry or intragroup rivalry among voluntary/unofficial associations was common in antiquity. In Philippians 3:17–21, Paul labels a group negatively as an enemy of the cross of Christ. Then he starts (3:20–21) with a formula of social identity formation: “For our politeuma. …” After assigning two verbs in the present tense in 3.20 for its definition, Paul further delineates this identity with a key verb in the future tense: “will transform” (metaschēmatisei) in the ensuing context (3:21). What does this identity mean? Why is this future destiny significant to the first readers? In all, what are Paul's rhetorical purposes in this group/intragroup rivalry discourse?
One school interprets it as anti-imperial rhetoric, for the titles “Savior” and “Lord” are often attributed to the Roman emperor. In addition to the connotation of political power in the prefix polis, the term politeuma refers to the citizenship of another empire. Philippians 3:20–21 is then interpreted as Paul's anti-imperial agenda: Paul introduces another king (Jesus Christ) and another citizenship (in heaven) to the first readers (de Vos: 283–84). Thus, 3:20–21 is interpreted as a critique against
imperial ideologies portraying the Roman emperor as the savior of all the world and all things as subject to his rule (Oakes: 138–45), or
the imperial authority itself, for “[W]hen Paul said, ‘Jesus is Lord,’ a good many of his hearers must have known at once that this meant, ‘So Caesar isn't'” (Wright: 384); the kingship of Jesus is antithetical to the ruling and saving power of the present Roman emperor (Wright: 1292–93), or
the imperial cult, taking politeuma ascribed to the Christian community as a voluntary association in rivalry with other voluntary associations practicing imperial cultic worship, in which the enemy of the cross of Christ was still participating (Sergienko: 14–15, 162–76).
According to this anti-imperial rhetorical interpretation, Paul is then portrayed as a leader urging the community of Christ-followers to be critical against the ideologies or the ruling power itself. Taking politeuma as citizenship under the rule of a King other than the Roman emperor in the present world, the social location of the Christian community is directed in the world. The Christian community cannot serve two kings on the same level in the same territory. Thus, Paul's exhortation in Philippians 3:20–21 is inevitably understood as a call for Christ-followers to stand against the imperial authorities. It emphasizes that the Christian community is in the world, and the implication is inevitably political/geopolitical.
This anti-imperial reading of Philippians 3:20, however, renders Paul's attitude towards imperial authorities as strangely in contrast to his rhetorical tone in Philippians 1. In Philippians 1, Paul testified to the first readers that his own imprisonments by Roman authorities turned out to be a help to spread the gospel (1:12). Paul seemed to be not intimidated by imperial powers; he was confident that his own imprisonment was temporary. On the other hand, the Praetorian Guard was portrayed positively as reliable witnesses for the enhancement of the gospel (Cohick: 175). In Philippians 1, there is no hint of Paul's opposition to the Roman authorities who put him in prison.
Another school leads in the opposite direction. Politeuma directs towards a social space on a different level from the ruling authorities. This notion is based on historical studies of the Jewish Diaspora in antiquity. Past Jewish scholarship had doubted the historicity of Jewish politeuma in Hellenistic cities, in particular in Egypt (Kasher: 258–61). Based on the usage of politeuma in the Letter of Aristeas 310 (which depicts the Jewish Diaspora community as resident aliens in Alexandria) and after a comprehensive study of 20 papyri in antiquity which demonstrated the autonomous life of Jewish Diaspora in Herakleopolis as well as the existence and meanings of Jewish politeuma in Hellenistic Egypt (Cowey & Maresch), scholars of Jewish history nowadays generally accept that politeuma refer to a “recognized, formally constituted corporation of aliens enjoying the right of domicile in a foreign city [,a] … semi-autonomous civic body, a city within the city” (Smallwood: 225–26). Another Pauline school contends that Paul, in Philippians 3:20, might adopt this concept for Jewish diaspora or other minority ethnic groups in Hellenistic cities and apply it directly to the Philippians Christ-followers. Paul's rhetorical purpose is to remind them of their “resident alien” status in Roman Philippi; their “homeland” is out there in heaven (Lincoln; Hansen: 268–77). Paul is portrayed as a leader urging the community of Christ-followers to be more detached from the surrounding society. The social location is oriented to the other-worldly and the group is conceived more like a sectarian group with minimal contact and participation in the world.
This sectarian reading raises problems of consistency in relation to the preceding text. It is difficult to account for Paul's expectation of a sectarian community to be “children of God without blemish in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation, in which you shine like stars in the world [italics mine]” (Phil 2:15).
Although these two readings lead in opposite directions, one engaging the political powers or ideologies and the other being disengaged from the surrounding society, they come to the same consensus that Paul's emphasis on “our” at the beginning of Philippians 3:20 is for constructing a group identity for Christ-followers. While the preposition at the beginning of 3:20 is “for” (gar), not “but,” I observe that there is a parallel sentence construction of 3:20 with the earlier verse 3:3: “For our politeuma is in heaven” (20) // “For it is we who are the circumcision” (3).
Both start with “we” (hēmōn/hēmeis) in contrast with a group mentioned before; politeuma bears a function similar to “the circumcision” (hē peritomē) in 3:3, designating a group identity of Christian community antithetical to the preceding group—“our” versus “they.”.
Recent NT scholarship has demonstrated that the social identity approach brings insight in interpreting Paul's letters, such as Romans (Esler), 1 Corinthians (Tucker; Finney; Ho), 1&2 Corinthians (Lim), and other NT Texts (Tucker & Baker). Yet, I observe that there is not much scholarly literature that focuses on Paul's rhetoric of social identity formation in the letter of Philippians.
I write this article to figure out Paul's rhetoric in Phil 3:17–21 as well as the rhetorical unitary flow of Philippians 3 from the first readers’ perspective. I take the concept of possible social identities proposed by Marco Cinnirella as a heuristic device to investigate Paul's rhetoric. Instead of eliminating or marginalizing their civic identity, it is my contention that Paul makes use of the existing honorable civic identity of the first readers to construct a new hybrid social identity for them. The proposed reading will be more consistent with the preceding contexts of the letter to Philippians.
Possible Social Identity: Expanding Possible Group Membership
Possible Social Identities are defined as “perceptions of current and possible group memberships” (Cinnirella 1998: 230). Marco Cinnirella was motivated by the study of changes of social identities of various European countries towards European Integration at the end of the last century. It can also be regarded as a further development of a broader concept of possible selves: “representations of the self in the past and … in the future” (Markus & Nurius 1986: 954).
Possible selves are different from the current selves but are closely connected to them. Possible selves include possible personal selves and possible social identities. Yet, Cinnirella aligns himself more to the trajectory development of social identity theory (abbreviated as SIT) of Henri Tajfel and the Self-Categorization Theory (abbreviated as SCT) of John C. Turner, rather than possible personal selves, for his own empirical study on the formation of European identity belongs to the possible construction of social identities, an inquiry into how peoples perceive themselves as members of the European Union in the future. It is related to the study of possible social identities, not possible personal selves. The latter self-concepts are more relevant to psychological analysis, criminology of youths and educational psychology (cf. Markus & Nurius 1986, 1987; Oyserman; Cross & Markus).
To strengthen the strong group mindset that distinguishes ingroup from outgroup members, both SIT and SCT emphasize the factors of social influence. The critical difference of SCT from SIT is that SCT delves into a fundamental question of social identity formation: “How does a collection of individuals become a social and psychological group?” (Turner: 1) Tajfel regarded this process as a natural social categorization without further inquiry. He seemed to assume that it would be natural for people to develop a sense of group membership and then proceed to form social identity and social comparison (Tajfel: 74). John Turner, however, observed that this very first step should not be taken for granted as “it happens.” There were various factors that depersonalized an individual and oriented one socially as a group member. John Turner then developed SCT to respond to some fundamental questions related to the formation of collective identity: how could a collection of individuals depersonalize themselves and identify themselves as group members with shared values and common sense of belongings?
If this understanding of SCT is correct, it is reasonable to classify the concept of possible social identity (abbreviated PSI) as a further development of SCT, for PSI mainly addresses similar questions: how could a collection of individuals or a collection of various groups come to identify themselves into a larger social group that encompasses them all with a new common sense of belonging? PSI contends that social identity is not static or fixed. It may evolve through time.
In his study of people's evaluation from different European countries in the 1990s, Marco Cinnirella observed that while some peoples, like Italians, Germans, and French, hoped for the establishment of the European union before the end of the last century, many Britons were quite reserved or fearful about this change. Through comprehensive surveys and questionnaires, he discovered that the the fear of change was not about economic loss or immigrant problems but the fear of loss of group identity they had valued in the past:
What we might here call a past-oriented possible self … many British respondents felt such a possible self was under threat—losing sovereignty somehow involved not just a loss of current power and control, but was also perceived as being incompatible with Britain's imperial past. Those few Britons who were eager to embrace a European identity tended to adopt a future-oriented perspective, dwelling on what might be achieved, and making use of positive future possible selves [Cinnirella 1996: 268].
Based on his statistical study of European integration (Cinnirella 1997), he proposed the concept of possible social identities to account for the macro social identity construction of the European Union. Marco Cinnirella's empirical study of European integration at the end of the last century is a classic example for the study of social identity formation in macro scale over time: while peoples bore their own national identity in 1990s, how could they form a new social identity (“European”) in the coming European integration in the third millennium and with social psychological sense of belonging afterwards?
Cinnirella does not reject the previous social identity theory or self-categorization theory, but seeks to provide more analytical tools, in particular, temporal aspects, to supplement their weaknesses and limitations (Cinnirella 1996: 253). The social identity theorist Susan Condor has reflected on the development of SIT and SCT during the 25 years after Tajfel. She concluded that social identity may extend and evolve in continuity over time, but SCT “focuses on documenting the synchronic moment. There is no account of how specific moments can be seen to fit together diachronically” (Condor: 289). The concept of PSI— future PSI in particular—may fill up this lacuna and account for the dynamic and logical effects of renewed past and present possible social identity on the future PSI of a group.
Key Elements of PSI Relevant to the Rhetoric of Philippians 3:17–21
Returning to our rhetorical analysis of Philippians 3:17–21, I point out three possible points of contact of PSI and rhetorical interpretation of Philippians 3:20–21. They are helpful analytical tools for delineating the steps of Paul's rhetorical purposes throughout these four verses.
Future PSI Builds on Renewed past PSI
Cinnirella contends that constructing a “dormant” possible social identity in the past is a basis for the construction of possible social identity projected in the future. One key feature of PSI distinguishing it from SCT is that PSI considers temporal aspects as key elements for social identity construction (Cinnirella 1998: 228). These temporal aspects refer to the changes in conceptual understanding of both the past of a group and the corresponding changes of discourse on future projection. The formation of different social groups and self-categorizing of the different social group members into one larger group can be achieved, Cinnirella (1998: 236) contends, by retelling a shared story about some common features in the past of different groups that have been hidden or overlooked before, the articulation of a dormant possible social identity: “An ethnic group, for example, through archaeological or historical research, could re-discover or re-activate what one might call a ‘dormant’ possible social identity.” Through retelling the story of the past and evoking some cultural memories that were overlooked in the past understanding of history, an ethnic group or an ideological movement may recruit different existing social groups together as one by retracing the common ancient roots of the past for existing different ethnic groups.
Generalizing this contention, social identity formation of different groups, in general, can also project the advantages of the possible social identity in the future that different groups may converge into “we,” and highlight the superiority of this new social identity to the present one.
In sum, social identities of various social groups may change and be open to future possible identities in harmony and continuity with their past renewed understanding of the corporate self (Cinnirella 1998: 236). Moreover, the retold story of the past can be taken as a paradigm to present to different social groups to construct a shared social identity in the future (Cinnirella 1998: 238).
Future PSI as Hybrid Expansion of Existing Positive Social Identity
The construction of the future possible social identity expands or integrates with the present ones of each social group. It can overlap with the present ones or extend from them. “In situations where group memberships are seen as relatively fixed… possible social identities are likely to be largely based on projections of current social group memberships” (Cinnirella 1998: 237). In other words, the future PSI can be a hybrid identity projected from the positive aspects of the existing social identity with the addition of new elements.
Social groups like Britons, Marco Cinnirella concluded, were attached their social identity to the past glorious history of the British Empire; they feared that change might destroy or eliminate the privileged honor and autonomy they had enjoyed before. This explained well psychologically why many Britons feared assuming a social identity as “integrated Europeans. People may desire/fear the future possible social identity depending whether the change may or may not maintain a positive sense of social identity. Thus, Cinnirella (1996: 270) suggested making European identity multi-dimensional to strengthen European identity for Britons, “to stress that these do not in any way threaten national culture, but rather complement it.”
This is indeed a natural implication of the notion of holding positive social identity. If people esteemed their present existing social identity or past social identity, why did they still consider adopting features of other possible social identities? The change advocate must demonstrate that the future PSI is comparable with or better than the present or renewed past social identity. Future PSI does not replace, cancel out, or condemn the present ones; it is simply a social identity analogous to or projected from the present social identity.
Recent research on the ethnic identity of 2nd generation immigrants in Europe has discovered that hybrid identities, or hyphenated identities like Brasians instead of British Asians, become more common for the self-identification of 2nd generation European immigrants. They deem the new national identity (British) as compatible and coherent with their old ethnic identity (Asian) and blend them together into a fluid united hybrid self-categorization:
The category “Brasian” suggests that there is no “dominant” or psychologically salient identity which must be prioritized and “hierarchized,” but rather a fluid “new ethnicity.”… While dominant social representations might dictate that ethnic and national identities are qualitatively discrete, the individual will perceive them as being entwined and inseparable, signally a high level of coherence (Cinnirella & Jaspal: 522–23).
The new PSI can integrate into the present social identity as complementary and hybrid instead of antithetical to the present one.
Future PSI should be Desirable and Attainable
It is proposed that the future PSI should be anticipated as desirable and attainable. Anticipatory identification might take place only if group boundaries became permeable and common visions achieved together in the future would be desirable (Cinnirella 1998: 239). The key about the realization of the possible social identity is whether it is possible and desirable. The implication to the change advocate is that he bears two missions besides reshaping the past understanding of the group's collective identity:
the change advocate should be able to cast out the visions of future possible identities that the social group finds desirable according to their existing value systems and renewed corporate self-understanding of their past;
the new possible social identity is attainable according to some evolutions of the present practice of social norms or behaviors. The anticipatory identification is not a radical revolution that overturns the past and present, but a progressive natural growth from the present social norms.
Renewing past Social Identity of the First Readers: Echoing Philippians 2 in Philippians 3:17–20a
My first observation on Philippians 3:17–21 is that the story of Jesus Christ in Philippians 2:6–11 is echoed three times by three ordinary words in 3:18, 19 and 20 consecutively, which are present only in Philippians 2:6–11 and 3:17–20a of this letter. The first element discussed above, “constructing a dormant past possible social identity” of PSI, may shed light on Paul's rhetorical purpose in echoing Philippians 2.
“Cross” Echoes 2:8; “Earthly” and “Exist/being” Echo 2:6, 10
The first ordinary word is “cross.” This term “cross” (stauros) is common in Pauline letters (1 Cor 1.17–18; Gal.5.11, 6.12, 14) and the motif “cross of Christ”/“Christ crucified” is a common theme in Pauline letters. Yet, it appears only in 3:18 and 2:8 in the letter to Philippians.
Reading 3:17–18 in light of the intratextual echo of 2:8, explicates the meaning of Paul's condemnation, that “they walked” as enemies of the cross of Christ. This condemnation highlights both the lifestyle (O'Brien: 453; Arnold: 20) and attitude (Reumann: 568) of this group—“enemies of the cross of Christ.” If Christ who died on the cross is the one who does not insist on one's own right or honor, “enemies of the cross of Christ” insist on their own rights. If Christ walked the path of humiliation with obedience to the destination of death on the cross (2:8), this group headed in the opposite direction, walking away from being shamed by the society and labeled by the “enemies of the cross,” to the honors in the Roman world. The second metaphorical labeling, “whose god is the belly,” continues to condemn this group which focuses on pursuing their own honor and avoids being shamed in the present world. The term “belly” (koilia) in 3:19 can symbolize one's deepest desire, including the love of honor through competition. They might have incited the strife and disputes within the community of faith that Paul urged them to avoid in 2:14.
On the other hand, the motif of imitation in 3:17–18 may generate positive rhetoric towards the first readers. Paul urges them to be fellow-imitators with himself (3:17). This imitation command summarizes the rhetorical purpose of the long “I” discourse in 3:1–16: the “I” is paradigmatic for all Christ-followers to run on the same race. The phrase “I may attain unto” (katantēsō eis) in 3:11 denotes the following object in the accusative case (tēn exanastasin tēn ek nekrōn) as a place at which he may finally arrive. Throughout this “running man” metaphor, Paul urges the first readers to seek honor granted by Jesus Christ at the endpoint. If the notion of “cross of Christ” recalls Christ's voluntary surrender of his own honor and suffering in 2:8, it entails that the experience of losing one's honors and suffering in the present world is inevitable for acquiring the honorable prize from Jesus Christ at the end point of our race.
The second ordinary word that appears only twice in this letter is “earthly” in 3:19 and 2:10. After Jesus’ resurrection, “earthly” (epigeiōn) things will bestow and give honor to Jesus Christ (2:10). This group, “enemies of the cross of Christ,” however, thinks in an “earthly manner.” They are those with an “earthly mentality,” thinking on the values ascribed by society. Paul seems to echo Philippians 2:6–11 to warn the readers again that we should not pursue earthly honors; earthly things are but agents for honoring Christ.
The third ordinary word is the verb “exist/being.” It is common in the New Testament, including the Pauline letters. Yet, in this letter, it exists only in 3:20a and 2:6 (hyparchōn). In Philippians 2:6, it is used to depict the very nature of Jesus Christ as being in the form of God. Paul seems to continue to urge the readers to set their mind on the model of Jesus Christ depicted in 2:6–11 to construct their social identity. As Jesus Christ exists as the form of God, our politeuma exists in heaven. This echo reminds the first readers that their honorable social identity is derived and acquired, not from the world but from above, as the existence of Jesus Christ (in the form of God) connotes.
Renewing a past Possible Social Identity for the First Readers
Philippians 2:6–11 is echoed three times in 3:18, 19 and 20 consecutively. Paul seems to retell the story of Jesus Christ in Philippians 2:6–11 to remind the first readers of the common origin of Christ-followers community. According to the first element of PSI, Paul highlights a dormant aspect of the social identity grounded on the model of Jesus: laying down one's present temporary honor for the sake of future eternal honor. The renewed past possible social identity indicates that we are the community defined by the following:
Christ's attitude of willingness to lay down one's own life in suffering, even to the cross (stauros);
our ultimate source of honor in the future: the resurrected Christ on whom all earthly (epigeiōn) things will bestow honor; earthly things are eventually utilized to honor Christ; they are not springs of ascribing honor;
Christ's own divine existence (hyparchōn as the form of God).
Paul seeks to reconstruct a renewed past social identity for a group that strives for the honor from above, which Jesus Christ has been waiting to grant us as the prize (3:14).
The renewed past possible social identity is rightly called “friends of the cross of Christ.” Its immediate implication is to urge the first readers to be distanced from the group “enemy of the Cross of Christ.” Not only is the sentence construction of Philippians 3:20 parallel to Philippians 3:3, so is also the logic. Philippians 3:3 reminds the readers of the common identity of circumcised and non-circumcised as worshippers led by the Spirit of God and boasting in Christ Jesus. In a similar manner, Paul (in 3:17–20a) roots the renewed past possible social identity in the Christ story of laying down His own honor as a common identity of first readers from different social status/ethnic groups in Roman Philippi.
Utilizing the Existing Positive Social Identity “Patriotic Merchant” of the First Readers in 3:20b–21
Paul uses Politeuma in 3:20 in a metaphorical sense, and in fact metaphors permeate throughout Philippians 3. The study of the social lives and civic identity of the first readers in Roman Philippi may show the relevance of the second element of PSI and the rhetorical purpose of 3:20b–21.
Past scholarship translates politeuma as “citizenship,” “political body,” “commonwealth,” “colony,” “colony of resident aliens,” or “members of the prominent, popular clubs in the city” (Cottter: 101). Synchronic study of meanings of politeuma in inscriptions or archeological findings reveals that this word is a generic term referring to “voluntary association” (Ascough: 77–78), “unofficial association” or “corporate body” (Harland: 27, 191, 197). I deem the latter generic translation more reasonable because there were various semantic usages of this word in different contexts in antiquity. The kind of unofficial association depends on the specific context of the first readers.
Recent socio-historical studies of voluntary associations in Macedonia show that commerce or professional association is one common type of voluntary association in Roman Philippi. There are numerous inscriptions of commerce associations found in Roman Philippi, such as a Coppersmith guild, an association of donkey drivers (logistics company!), silversmiths, an association of grave-diggers, and an association of Banqueters (Ascough, Harland & Kloppenborg: 37–39, 41, 46, 48). They were like present-day merchants who make profits by selling their own manufactured products or services. They negotiated with different people to maximize the profit for themselves. Occasionally, they had to give up some good deals for the sake of other better and valuable business options.
Moreover, many commerce associations in antiquity were patriotic and voluntarily honored the emperor (Kloppenborg & Ascough: 299). Scholars have pointed out the prevalence of Romanization in first-century Philippi. There were numerous images of Caesar Augustus on coins as well as statues in the city to glorify him. This distinctive Roman-ness of ancient Philippi was best explained by the victory of civil war in 30 BCE. Afterwards, Octavian became the Roman Emperor Augustus, and he refounded this city as Colonia Iulia Augusta Philippensis.
There is abundant archaeological evidence of imperial cults in Roman Philippi. One inscription found in the port of Neapolis shows Augustus's wife Cornelia Asprilla as an object of imperial cult. The priestess was responsible for the sacrifice. The imperial cult was under the patron-client network for giving thanks to the imperial family, not to Caesar alone (Cohick: 169–70). Honors voluntarily bestowed upon the emperors by the merchants are evident from an inscription about the merchants association in Acanthos (Macedonia) at the beginning of the first century: “The city, the association of Roman merchants, and the inhabitants dedicated this to emperor Caesar Augustus, god, son of god” (SEG 1 [1923], #282; English trans. from Ascough, Harland & Kloppenborg: 37).
This shows that the motivation for benefits among the merchants association came hand in hand with honoring their emperor. Besides, there is an inscription (Philippi II 697/M580) showing a group of purple dyers in Philippi who dedicated honor publicly to a benefactor:
The city honored from among the purple dyers an outstanding citizen, Antiochus the son of Lycus, a native of Thyatira, as a benefactor (euergetes) [Ascough, Harland & Kloppenborg: 42].
Others showed the dyers honoring the civic benefactor, priestess and high priestess of the city (Kloppenborg & Ascoug: 364). These inscriptions showed that the pursuit and bestowal of civic honors were common in the commerce associations of ancient Philippi. Patriotic commerce associations honoring emperors also sought honors from civic authorities.
Taking the social context of prevalent patriotic commerce associations in Macedonia and the second element of PSI into consideration, we see that these patriotic social contexts in ancient Philippi did not lead to Paul's anti-imperial rhetoric in Philippians 3:20–21; rather, I argue that Paul made use of the present social identity of the first readers as patriotic merchants to persuade them to adopt a future possible social identity.
Symbolic Meanings of Commercial Terms throughout Philippians
Throughout the letter to the Philippians, Paul frequently utilizes commercial terms to symbolize the divine economy. One typical pair of terms common to bookkeeping is “gain-loss” (kerdos-zēmia): “The ‘gain-loss’ language is reminiscent of bookkeeping terminology: from the credit side of the ledger his former ‘gains’ have been transferred to the debit side; they are not merely seen to be valueless, but as a loss” (Williams: 174). Besides gain-loss language (1:21; 3:7-8), other terms or phrases pertaining to the ordinary lives of merchants in trade or manufacturing products include: “approve for the most valuable things” 1:10; evaluate” 2:3, 6, 25; “evaluate as loss” 3:7-8; “reckon, take into account” 3:13; “to the account of” 4:15, 17.
Most important of all, the phrase “in the matter of giving and receiving” in 4:15 (in Greek eis logon doseōs kai lēmpseōs) has been identified as Paul's Greek translation of the Latin phrase ratio dati et accepti, meaning “an account or ledger of monies, goods, and services given and received” (Holloway: 188; cf. O'Brien: 533; Ogereau: 93–104, 269–80). It indicates that Paul utilized a common commercial jargon to symbolize the deposit in the divine account of the first readers. Later, in 4:17, Paul explicitly explains the symbolic meaning of “account” in 4:15: “Not that I seek the gift itself, but I seek for the profit which increases to your account (logon).” Paul consistently makes use of accounting terms to symbolize his teachings regarding the divine economy.
Patriotic Merchants’ Mindset I: Exchange of Less Valuable for the Most Valuable
Besides utilizing commercial terms, Paul appeals to patriotic merchants’ mindset of giving up valuable things for the more valuable ones to persuade the first readers. At the beginning of Philippians 3 (vv 4–11), Paul introduces the first long paradigmatic “I” discourse in which the first person singular pronoun “I” serves as a rhetorical device to convince the first readers of something. In 3:7–8, Paul does not refer to the intrinsic value when he deems his past Jewish identity as loss or rubbish; rather, it shows that Paul esteems highly his past identity, as James D. G. Dunn (481) rightly notes:
Paul does not deny the benefit of his previous situation: it had been ‘gain.’… It was tantamount to losing everything—another reminder that his life as a zealous Pharisee had been all-consuming; it had meant everything to him.
Paul compares good things with the best ones. He does not, in 3:3–6, regard the intrinsic value of his own Jewish identity as dung; yet, when he compares his Jewish identity markers with what he gains in Christ, those are but dung to him. To use the rhetoric of treasuring Christ effectively, the first comparable item must be good and valuable. In other words, Paul's own autobiographical rhetoric in 3:4–11 is good-to-best rhetoric. Only then can his own valuable Jewish identity be able to serve as a foil to highlight the noble value in the ensuing discourse 3:7–9: winning Christ and being found in Him.
This mindset of giving up valuable things for more valuable ones is common among merchants and politicians. Merchants in the Roman world, though having the opportunity of making great wealth, mainly remained in the low social rank. As Christ-followers were properly composed of ordinary people rather than elites in Roman Philippi, Paul seemed to talk to the audience as ordinary people with common commercial practice rather than politicians who were an elite minority of the society.
I do not contend that all first readers had to be former members of commercial associations. I argue, rather, that Paul's repeated use of bookkeeping terminology and the rhetoric of exchange of less value for the most valuable in Philippians 3 particularly echoes the mentality and daily lives of members of commerce associations. Paul's intended audience here may be members of some commerce associations or people getting acquainted with commerce association members.
Patriotic Merchants’ Mindset II: Future-gain-oriented Investment Mindset
Another mindset of merchants is that they were fully aware of the time lapse between the costs they incurred and the reward they would reap. Every present sacrifice was regarded as an investment for the future.
Paul presents this common merchants’ mindset in his second metaphor in Philippians 3:12–16: the running man metaphor. An athlete longs to win the medal after the race in the future; this future hope makes one better focused on participating in the present race. Paul further applies this merchant's second mindset in 3:17–21. Once the reward anticipated in the future is different, “the way of life” (3:17, 18) of those people will, in the present, be radically different. The reward anticipated by us in the future demarcates us from the enemy of the cross of Christ.
The key symbolic term politeuma recalls Paul previous instruction in 1:27: “Live your life” (politeuesthe). Comparing 1:27–28 and 3:17–21 more closely, I observe that the latter is more future-oriented:
Destruction proved vs. end/outcome: the enemy in 1:28 is at present threatening the church and this “is” (estin) already a proof of their “destruction,” while 3:19 depicts the end/outcome (telos) of the enemy of the cross of Christ as “destruction.” Paul emphasizes the future “outcome” (telos) of the present lifestyle and arrogant attitude of the enemy in 3:19. Therefore, in contrast to this enemy, Paul formulates the social identity “us” in 3:17–21 in a future-oriented manner.
Living worthily with the gospel of Christ vs. the Politeuma which exists in heaven: while Paul urges them to “live your life” (politeuesthe) worthily with the gospel of Christ in 1:27, laying emphasis on this present life, he reorients the same word politeuma to the future in 3:20. The clause in 3:20b “out of which we wait for the savior and Lord Jesus Christ” further explicates what the phrase “our politeuma which exists in heaven” designates. The formulation does not state that “we are a politeuma of heaven,” taking heaven as our original place and impyling that our status on earth is like that of resident aliens within a city. Grammatically, the word “heaven” does not describe “our” alone; it describes the whole phrase “our politeuma” (hēmōn to politeuma). Nor is it a description of politeuma alone, translated as “heavenly,” which would imply that our sense of belonging lies somewhere else—the otherworldly understanding of “this world is not our homeland.” It does depict the becoming of “our politeuma” for which we wait and long. Paul once again formulates “us” in a future-oriented manner as social identity.
Patriotic Merchants’ Mindset III: Dream for Honor Bestowed from Emperor
One main future reward for patriotic merchants in Roman Philippi was the compliment and honor that might be granted by the Roman emperor. In a veteran commerce association, members sought to win both material profits and civic honor endorsed by the Emperor.
When the first readers listened to key terms like “Savior” and “Lord” in the first clause “out of which we wait for the savior and Lord Jesus Christ” which elucidates the meaning of “our politeuma which exists in heaven,” they properly recalled the scene of the city's great benefactor Caesar coming into the city to celebrate his battle in victory. Peter Oakes’ (145) observation is right: “In the first century AD, the one whom most people would see as saving in accordance with his power to subject all things to himself was the Emperor.” The titles “Savior” and “Lord” in Philippians 3:20b were often attributed to the Roman emperor in the social contexts of the first readers, calling the emperor “Savior of the world.”
However, I do not concur with the implication that Paul raises a criticism against civil authority in Philippians 3, nor is there rhetoric on Paul's part against the patriotic merchants’ imperial ideologies. Just as Paul is not anti-Jewish in 3:4–11, there is no any hint of anti-patriotic-merchant rhetoric here in 3:20b–21. Moreover, Paul articulates the running man metaphor in 3:13–14 in the manner of “vivid description” common in ancient moral philosophies (Arnold: 197–202) and mostly in “stadium” terms (Reumann: 556). Both depictions probably refer to the common civic life experience of the first readers watching runners at the end of a race. By evoking this common life experience of the first readers, Paul persuades them to join with him in hot pursuit of the mark—the prize from God through Jesus Christ (Silva: 175). If Paul does not discredit the athletic game in his running man metaphor in 3:13–14, it is strange to interpret the metaphor of 3:20b–21 as Paul's discrediting the present civic identity as a patriotic merchant who has a “lust” for honor from the Roman emperor, although the real prize in Paul's mind may be different from that sought by a racer or a patriotic merchant. If Paul's rhetoric in 3:20b–21 is consistent and analogous to the preceding context in Philippians 3:4–16, it is reasonable to conclude that Paul evokes another “vivid description” of their glorious moment of watching the Emperor or city authorities coming to the city to illustrate the most honorable reward we may receive in the future, namely, the reward at the coming of the royal Savior Jesus Christ.
Unlike the enemy of the cross of Christ who seeks only earthly honors and temporal gain and runs contrary to the way of Jesus Christ, we are politeuma existing in heaven—a commerce association which runs for gaining Christ and seeks for eternal honor at the coming of royal Jesus in the future. According to the second element of PSI, Paul utilizes their present social identity, patriotic merchants, to reorient them to imagine a future possible social identity. All sufferings or shames that we face in the present society are but reasonable investments for our hope of the honorable rewards and possible selves transformed in the future. Present sacrifices are then taken as an investment cost, not a loss. The thrust of the argument pertaining to imperial terms is not about allegiance, power struggles or imperial ideologies; it refers to a smart deal of present investment for future gain.
Future PSI as Hybrid: Additional Positive Values Deduced from Bodily Resurrection in 3:21
The second clause “who will transform …” (hos metaschēmatisei …) in 3:21 further depicts the new future possible social identity as more honorable than the present most glorious moments, for it will contain some additional honors that the present patriotic civic identity of first readers lacked. No matter how patriotic and rich a citizen was, he had to take off his coat to welcome Caesar to the city. After a short period of time for celebration, Caesar and the soldiers would march out of the city and leave them behind in the end. Citizens could not walk along with their glorious Caesar forever.
Our awaited King Jesus Christ, on the contrary, will transform our bodies into conformity with his own glorious body. Instead of our having to take off our coats for the emperor, the King Jesus Christ will clothe us with bodies conformed to his glorious body. “Be conformed” (sym-morphon in Greek—3:21) recalls the beginning of Paul's exhortation “Be my fellow-imitator” in 3:17: Sym-mimētai mou ginesthe. This exhortation is linked to the preceding running man metaphor and refers to “being my fellow-imitator to run the course towards the prize in Jesus Christ.”
Combining this previous exhortation of “fellow-imitator” (Sym-mimētai) in 3:17 with the future vision of “being conformed” (sym-morphon) to the glorious body of Jesus Christ himself in 3.21, it implies that the future PSI can achieve two things that the present patriotic merchant identity cannot attain:
we will share together in the victorious glory and honor of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ;
we will accompany him and continue the running even after we receive the prize. The present honor lasted only for a moment and vanished after the award ceremony or the departure of the Caesar from the city. The future honor we share with Jesus Christ, however, will last forever, for we will continue to run with Jesus Christ himself by our synchronized body forever.
The future PSI is therefore hybrid: it adds some novel and more valuable elements to the present patriotic merchant's identity.
While the future PSI is more honorable, it must be emphasized again that this glorious body is generated and complementary to the present “patriotic merchant” social identity held by the first readers. Otherwise, the first readers might not be able to grasp how glorious it would be in eternity. Paul launches his good-to-best rhetoric again in 3:21. This argument strategy is more evident when Paul counts our present body as the body of humiliation in 3:21. The term “of humiliation” (tēs tapeinōseōs) does not designate the intrinsic value of our present body; it is in a humiliating state compared with the body of glory that will be conformed to Jesus Christ in the future. Paul's good-to-best rhetoric in 3:21 is best explained by the notion that future PSI is a hybrid projection rather than replacement of the present one. “Our politeuma (which exists in heaven)” contains more valuable elements that the present honorable civic identity is lacking, but are imaginable.
Future PSI as Desirable and Attainable
There is a striking absence of moral commands or further concrete practical instructions after Paul's condemnation against the “enemies of the cross of Christ” in 3:17–18. The third element of possible social identity may be helpful to figure out the shrewd rhetorical strategy in 3:17–21 and the significance of bodily resurrection in Philippians 3.
According to SIT, Paul started 3:17–21 with social group comparison. He constructed the social identity of a group with negative social identity (enemies of the cross of Christ) in 3:17–18 in tears to persuade the first readers to be detached from this group: not to be like them. This can be regarded as Paul's social identity construction for the first readers. If Paul had continued to move only on this line of thought, the emphasis would have pressed only on passive endurance of present suffering for the cross. Leaving the group “enemy of the cross of Christ” and becoming friends of the cross would have been deemed as unavoidable or even merely a choice of lesser evil.
In 3:20b–21, however, Paul shrewdly shifts his rhetoric, according to the third element of the concept PSI, to the construction of future PSI by demonstrating its positive and desirable destiny. Paul utilizes the existing social identity (patriotic merchants) and the positive experience connoted by this for the first readers to project a future PSI “Our politeuma (which exists in heaven).” The previous running man metaphor in the long “I” discourse, together with echoes of their present glorious experience of “eagerly waiting” for the savior and lord Caesar coming to town in victory, renders the hope for the glory of the future PSI defined by Jesus Christ tangible and so desirable.
Moreover, the projected future possible social identity is attainable, for we have been running towards the mark for the prize at the location of Jesus Christ (Phil 3:14). The assurance of our Lord Jesus Christ's nearness in the ensuing text (Phil 4:5) reminds the first readers of the closeness of the ending of the race in the running man metaphor; it renders the future possible identity attainable and so possible.
In sum, Paul creates a pull factor in 3:20b–21 for the first readers to desire changes and identify themselves with the most honorable future King and transformer Jesus Christ. Bodily resurrection in 3:21 is the climax of Paul's rhetoric. First readers might probably perceive Philippians 3:17–21, and probably the whole of Philippians 3, as Paul's paraphrase of Jesus’ parable of the pearl, and the pearl is the reward of bodily resurrection stated in 3:21. “Our politeuma (which exists in heaven)” is then understood by first readers as a Christ-citizen running with the King of Kings with a transformed body forever in the future.
Conclusion
Paul's rhetorical purpose in the group/intragroup rivalry discourse (Phil 3:17—21) is to use the existing patriotic ideologies of the first readers to strengthen their community identity. By taking the concept “Possible Social Identity” as an analytical tool for Paul's rhetoric, I have argued that in Philippians 3:17–20b Paul awakens in the first readers a dormant past PSI of being friends of the cross and urges them to distance themselves from the rivalry group “enemy of the cross of Christ.” After urging them to be of the same mind with the King Jesus Christ, Paul shrewdly casts out future hope rather than giving moral guidance. Instead of casting out the negative attitude of passive endurance of suffering, Paul undertakes good-to-best rhetoric in 3:20b–21. He makes use of their existing honorable patriotic merchant identity to construct a more desirable and glorious hybrid identity in the future: we will become Christ-citizens running with the King of Kings with transformed bodies forever.
This rhetoric is parallel to and prepared beforehand in Paul's own autographical discourse in 3:4–11 and the running man metaphor in 3:13–14. Not only shall we be benefited by an instant glorious moment of receiving the prize from Jesus, but we future Christ-citizens will also be benefited by sharing the glory with our Lord Savior (King) Jesus Christ forever. Paul does not persuade them to resist the civil authorities who put him in prison. Nor does he marginalize their civic identity as patriotic merchants. Rather, Paul utilizes their patriotic spirits and merchant mindsets to construct a future hybrid possible social identity which is both desirable and attainable to the first readers.
The present study has provided a fresh response to questions related to the purpose of the letter to Philippians. I have demonstrated that the concept of PSI is helpful for delineating Paul's self-categorizing rhetoric in Philippians 3:17–21. As a result, this new proposed socio-rhetorical interpretation of Philippians 3:17–21 renders Philippians 3 as a more coherent and united discourse.
Paul had evangelized and stayed in Roman Philippi for a short period of time according to Acts. How did Paul build up the faith and consolidate the religious identity of this neophyte Christ-following community in his absence? Further explorations of self-categorizing rhetoric on other group rivalries discourses (1:15; 2:3; 3:2–3; 4:2–3) may bring up new insights on the purpose of the letter to Philippians. Furthermore, it is worthwhile to explore how Paul used imperial ideologies of patriotic citizens (mimicry? transform? deconstruct?) in the identity formation of the Christ-following community.