Abstract
In The Price of Partnership, Mark Jennings aims to demonstrate that Philippians is a unified letter in which Paul argues, clearly and consistently throughout, that his readers are “to be steadfast in their commitment to his gospel of Christ” (p. 4; emphasis original). The primary purpose of the letter is to shore up this partnership. Hence, what is at issue is neither disunity among the members of the Philippian church nor any actual impending threat from outside, but rather the risk of waning support of Paul's mission. Jennings traces the texture of Paul's argument along three interwoven thematic threads: koinonia, rivalry, and finances.
The first chapter lays out the author's position on the most salient interpretive debates relevant to both Philippians and Jennings' thesis. To wit, Philippians is a family letter, reflecting “deliberative rhetoric with epideictic elements” (p. 15), wherein Paul “incorporates the church into a fictive kinship” (p. 17). Writing from Ephesus around the same time as Galatians and 1 Corinthians, Paul implores his readers not simply to further the gospel as such but to continue in their loyalty to him. They are to persevere as “his partners in his gospel mission” (p. 25; emphasis original), just as they have done already by sending Epaphroditus with their financial gift.
Philippians 1:1–11 (chapter 2) is the letter's exordium wherein Paul introduces five topics of discussion: (i) the formative power of Paul's gospel, (ii) the reciprocality of the Philippians' partnership with Paul in his mission, (iii) both of which are “divinely appointed” and (iv) have a “sacrificial ethic,” and (v) the eschatological implications of the partnership's success. Chapter 3 focuses on the function of Philippians 1:12–26 as a narratio that furthers Paul's rhetorical strategy by providing select details about his situation that will enhance his ethos and support the propositio to be stated in 1:27–30, which is the subject of Jennings' fourth chapter. The heart of Jennings' reading is that Paul's charge to live in a manner worthy of the gospel should be understood within the context of Hellenistic Judaism. It signals that Paul has foremost in view the Philippians' corporate identity as God's faithful Israel, an identity they demonstrate through their loyalty to him and his gospel and by their rejection of any alternative. In chapter 5, Jennings demonstrates the role that 2:5–18 plays in supporting Paul's appeal “by articulating the eschatological vindication awaiting those who persevere for the Pauline gospel” (p. 95), and doing so primarily by means of the exhortations of 2:12–16 rather than by the Christ-hymn. The thrust of chapter 6 is that 2:19–4:1 is not digressive but rather a series of case studies that provide “ocular proofs of loyalty” (p. 148). Finally, in chapter 7, Jennings takes up Philippians 4:2–20, arguing that the appeal to Euodia and Syntyche, the concluding reiteration of Paul's main concerns and his emotional call to action, and the discussion of the Philippians' financial gift that occasioned the letter are all best understood from within the framework of Paul's chief contention articulated in 1:27. Hence, Jennings concludes that “by refraining from discussing the gift until the end, [Paul] is able to establish it firmly within the call for perseverance that has given shape and energy to the entire epistle” (p. 177).
One aspect of Jennings' study that is particularly commendable is his foregrounding of sections and topics in the letter that have typically been treated as asides or as awkwardly placed fragments from an assortment of letters ultimately combined into what we now know as Philippians (e.g., 2:1-4; 2:19-30; 3:2-16; 4:2-3). On the other hand, I was not convinced by his emphasis on the role played by Jewish scripture throughout the letter. To be sure, I think Jennings is right to argue that it provides the governing narratives and metaphors for Paul's thought. But it is difficult to imagine the letter's recipients being sufficiently attuned to such subtle echoes and allusions for them to have had the effect that Jennings suggests Paul intended.
This disconnect between what Paul may have imagined and what the Philippians themselves may have heard or thought raises another more critical issue for me. Although I was not surprised by its absence, I would have liked to read a clear statement of Jennings' evaluation of Paul's position. Is it a good thing that Paul equates faithfulness to the gospel with faithfulness to his mission? I am reading and reviewing this book in self-isolation alongside a newsfeed populated by reports regarding a President who decides whether to assist states on the basis of whether he deems them loyal to him (see, e.g., Rebecca Shabad, “Trump says ‘bailouts' unfair to GOP since states needing aid ‘run by Democrats in every case,'” NBCNews.com, May 5, 2020) and articles contending that America has become religiously devoted to capitalism (see, e.g., Tara Isabella Burton, “America's Civil Religion is Capitalism,” The Washington Post, March 26, 2020). Granted, Jennings finished writing this book long before the COVID-19 crisis, and it is difficult to imagine how different the world will look once this review appears in print. Nevertheless, when Jennings writes, for example, that “in Philippians, Paul has elevated something as mundane as money and support into a sacred act, an obedient response to God's revelation” (p. 7), that “Paul will also use their response to [his] governing imperative [1:27a] to assess the church's standing within the eschatological Israel of God” (p. 73), and that “[Paul's] gospel becomes the measure for assessing the faith and obedience of his churches and his rivals” (p. 82), I cannot help wincing. I am not necessarily questioning whether this indeed may have been what Paul thought or whether Philippians is an effort to impel his readers to hold such a view. But I am questioning the ethical implications and ramifications of such a position in light of our contemporary reality. This question is brought to the fore in Jennings' statement that “the Philippians may not have considered their gift as a display of public loyalty, but Paul did” (p. 173). Against this backdrop, the book's title—The Price of Partnership—takes on a disconcerting edge.