Looking over My Shoulder (VII)

A you may or may not know, I am preparing to write a commentary on Philippians this Fall for an evangelical publisher in Great Britain. When I was so rudely interrupted by real life last week, I was just about to explain to you how Paul’s letter to the Philippians is a classic reflection of the Greek rhetorical approach of that day. The best treatment of that approach that I am aware of is that of Ben Witherington, in his volume Friendship and Finances in Philippi (Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press Intl., 1994), which follows:

Epistolary Prescript (1:1-2)

Exordium and Thanksgiving Prayer (1:3-11)

The Narratio (1:12-26)

The Propositio (1:27-30)

The Probatio (2:1-4:3)

- Appeal 1 (2:1-18)

- Appeal 2 (2:19-30)

- Appeal 3 (3:1-4:1)

- Appeal 4 (4:2-3)

The Peroratio (4:4-20)

- Division I (4:4-9)

- Division II (4:10-20)

Epistolary Closing/Subscription (4:21-23)

Allow me to briefly explain the Latin terms for your edification:

The “epistolary prescript” is simply the standard elements that were found at the beginning of a letter in that day. It was very much parallel to the date and inside address information in a standard business letter in our culture today.

Similarly, at the other end of the letter, the “epistolary closing” is nothing more than closing personal comments and final greetings. It would be like the closing paragraph of a business letter, included to keep it from ending too abruptly, then the signature (and in some of Paul’s letters there actually is a signature–e.g., 1 Cor. 16:21; 2 Thess. 3:17).

According to Witherington, the Exordium is always the beginning part, “aimed at making the audience open and well-disposed toward what follows.” Paul weaves this formal beginning in with his standard initial prayer for his readers.

The Narratio follows, explaining to the audience “the nature of the matters on which the discourse will dwell.” In the case of Phlippians, Paul picks up the theme of the book from the Exordium–”partnership in the gospel” (see 1:5) and develops it in terms of his own personal situation in jail–probably house arrest in Rome, in my studied opinion.

The Propositio is “where the essential propositions of the speaker… are laid out.” In this case, the main point is that the Philippian believers needed to stand firm and stand united in regard to the gospel.

The Probatio “brings in arguments to support the speaker’s case” and sometimes, as in Philippians, is where “the opponent’s arguments are disproved… .”

Essentially, the Peroratio recaps “the main points of the Probatio, attempting to arouse the emotions for the speaker’s viewpoint by amplifying what has been said before.”

You may be asking, “Why are you boring us with all this ancient structure stuff?” Very simply, because this is the format in which educated authors expressed themselves in that culture. And, to best understand Philippians, we have to put ourselves in their shoes as much as possible. Legitimate biblical interpretation is not finding what we want to hear in our day in the text, but figuring out what the author was saying to the original audience, then–and only then–carefully applying it to our day.

But–and here is a key point–it was not the only format in which they communicated. In fact, although it has been widely misunderstood by many “scholars” of past generations, the Hebrews were not the only ones in the Ancient Near East who used inverted balancing structures in their speaking and writing. More and more examples of that kind of elegant format continue to be found.

Allow me to show you what seems to me to be an indisputable micro- (or mini-) inverted parallel structure in the Book of Philippians. This will make it clear that Paul was familiar with such a chiastic (i.e., from the Greek letter Chi, which, as a capital letter, crosses in the middle like an X) structuring. And, if even one clear example is found in the book, how can the possibility of the whole being an intended inverted parallel structure be ruled out without very careful consideration?

Check out the parallel ideas in the first and second half of this structure for yourself:

A (3:10a) “My goal is to know Him and the power of His resurrection“

B (3:10b) “the fellowship of His sufferings“

B’ (3:10c) “being conformed to His death”

A’ (3:11) “Assuming that I will somehow reach the resurrection from the dead”

So, what does this kind of structuring in which the second half is a mirrored parallel to the first half mean from a practical standpoint? The main point is spotlighted in the middle. In this case, the practical point of the structure is that there is no other way to get to resurrection power than through suffering and death. That was obviously true for Christ. It is equally true for the Christian life, where suffering and death to self precede the outworking of resurrection power in the believer’s experience.

Selah and Amen!

Coming Thursday: I will lay out and explain my own symmetrical (chiastic) structuring of Philippians