¹ Regarding the distinction between ‘direct’ and ‘indirect’ evidence, see Berger, K., ‘Die impliziten Gegner. Zur Methode des Erschlieβens von “Gegnern” in neutestamentlichen Texten’, in Kirche. Festschrift G. Bornkamm (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1980) 373–400;Google Scholar also Furnish, V., II Corinthians (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1984) 50–1.Google Scholar

² See Schmithals, W., ‘Die Irrlehrer des Philipperbriefes’, in Paulus und die Gnostiker. Untersuchungen zu den kleinen Paulusbriefen (Hamburg: Herbert Reich, 1965) 47–88;Google ScholarKlijn, A. F. J., ‘Paul's Opponents in Philippians iii’, NovTest 7 (1964) 278–84;Google ScholarKoester, H., ‘The Purpose of the Polemic of a Pauline Fragment (Philippians III)’, NTS 8 (1961/1962) 317–32;CrossRefGoogle ScholarGnilka, J., ‘Die antipaulinischen Mission in Philippi’, BZ 9 (1965) 258–76;Google ScholarJewett, R., ‘Conflicting Movements in the Early Church as Reflected in Philippians’, NovTest 12 (1970) 362–89;Google ScholarSiber, P., Mit Christus leben (Zürich: Theologischer, 1971).Google Scholar The history of the debate concerning the opponents of Paul is summarized by Ellis, E. E., ‘Paul and His Opponents: Trends in Research’, in Christianity, Judaism, and Other Graeco-Roman Cults. Festschrift M. Smith (Leiden: Brill, 1975) 264–98.Google Scholar

Schmithals conceives the supposed opponents in Philippi as Jewish-Christian Gnostic libertines, who regarded circumcision as a symbol of their spiritual liberation from the flesh and as the distinctive mark of their Jewish origin, to which they appealed as a sign of their personal authority, but who may or may not have demanded circumcision from the Philippians. Most scholars, however, perceive the opponents as Jewish-Christian Judaizers, who explicitly demanded circumcision and submission to the law as a condition for participation in the promises of salvation. But scholars differ as to the actual identity of these opponents, whether they were similar to those known from 2 Corinthians (Gnilka), or Galatians (Jewett), or perhaps from Colossians (Koester), and whether they were moral libertines (Gnilka), or legalistic perfectionists (Koester), or whether opponents of both varieties were present (Jewett).

³ Cf. Doty, W. G., Letters in Primitive Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1973) 27;Google ScholarBeker, J. C., Paul the Apostle (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980) 23–5;Google ScholarKeck, L. E., Paul and His Letters (Philadelphia, 1988) 19;Google ScholarConzelmann, H., An Outline of the Theology of the New Testament (New York: Harper & Row, 1969) 164–5;Google ScholarDonfried, K., in The Romans Debate (ed. Donfried, K.; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1991) xli–xlii.Google Scholar

⁴ This is true even for interpretations that regard Phil 3 as a secondary interpolation. The Pauline authorship of this material is simply assumed, and so also the fact that the teachings here are addressed to specific opponents: cf. Rahtjen, B. D., ‘The Three Letters of Paul to the Philippians’, NTS 6 (1960) 167–73;CrossRefGoogle ScholarBornkamm, G., ‘Der Philipperbrief als paulinische Briefsammlung’, in Neotestamentica et Patristica. Freundesgabe O. Cullmann(Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1962) 192–202;CrossRefGoogle Scholar Schmithals, ‘Irrlehrer’, 51–2; Koester, ‘Purpose’, 317; Siber, Mit Christus leben, 99ff. It seems clear to me that Phil 3.2–21 is in fact a secondary insertion, which may have been added to universalize the particularity of the original writing, or simply to preserve material regarded as deriving from the apostle himself. But the redactional character of the Pauline writings is a complex issue, which would require separate and extensive consideration. Hopefully, my focus here on the deutero-Pauline character of this passage, and on the considerations which lead to such a conclusion, will contribute to this discussion.

⁵ ‘Purpose’, 319–20.

⁶ Contra Schmithals, ‘Irrlehrer’, 62; also Koester, ‘Purpose’, 320; Gnilka, ‘Mission’, 262; Jewett, ‘Movements’, 382. In Luke 13.27 the phrase έργάται άδικίας refers in general to those who are excluded from the kingdom of God.

⁷ Gager, J. observes that ‘throughout the first century, it would appear that circumcision came to be seen as a synonym for Judaism itself’: The Origins of Anti-Semitism (New York/Oxford: Oxford University, 1985) 56Google Scholar. Klijn points out that this is already the case in the Pauline writings (Rom 15.5; Gal 2.7–9; Eph 2.11) (‘Opponents’, 280).

⁸ Nowhere else does Paul characterize his opponents as ‘enemies of the cross of Christ’. In fact, apart from 1 Cor 1.17, a reference to the ‘cross of Christ’ appears elsewhere only in Gal 6.12, where the reference seems to be to the Christian faith as such.

⁹ Contra Schmithals, ‘Irrlehrer’, 76, 87. Schmithals appeals to Gal 5.25 as ‘the closest parallel to these verses’, and observes that the teachings in Gal 5.16–24 ‘emphatically criticize the ethical conduct of the opponents’. But concrete specifications like those in Gal 5 are absent in Phil 3. Schmithals also observes (Ibid., 78) that in Phil 3.19 it is said that the enemies of the cross are destined for ‘destruction’ (άπώλεια), and argues that they must be the same as the libertines in Corinth who regarded the ‘word of the cross’ as ‘foolishness’ and who, according to Paul, are ‘being destroyed’ (άπολλμενοι, 1 Cor 1.18). The reference in 1 Cor 1.18, however, applies to Jews, who ‘demand signs’, and to Greeks, who ‘seek wisdom’ (1.22). This has no obvious connection with libertinism.

¹⁰ ‘Mission’, 275.

¹¹ Cf. Jewett, ‘Movements’, 379.

¹² Koester observes that such accusations represent not ‘a direct and accurate description of the people Paul had in mind’, but ‘a polemical description employing abusive language in the characterization of his opponents’, and that therefore ‘we can only draw indirect conclusions’ (‘Purpose’, 325). But Koester nevertheless assumes that Paul has specific opponents in mind here, and that ‘every single feature of the polemical designation of the enemies has its very distinct aim’. How do we know this?

¹³ Cf. Behm, J., ‘κοιλία’, TWNT 3 (1938) 788Google Scholar. Contrary to Schmithals (‘Irrlehrer’, 79), it is not evident that the affirmation in 1 Cor 6.13 (τά βρώματα τ***η κοιλίᾳ) refers specifically to a libertine disdain for regulations governing food. Schmithals also refers to Rom 16.17–18 as a parallel (‘Die Irrlehrer von Röm 16.17–20’, in Paulas und die Gnostiker [above n. 2], 159–74). But here also the accusation in v. 18 that certain persons serve only ‘their own bellies’ refers not specifically to Gnostic libertines, but to all those who create ‘dissensions and difficulties’ in opposition to apostolic teaching (v. 17). More important, however, from a methodological perspective, one cannot simply read particularities from other Pauline writings into Phil 3, where the absence of such particularity is an issue to be explained.

¹⁴ Schmithals, ‘Irrlehrer’, 80–1; Jewett, ‘Movements’, 381; Bultmann, , ‘αίσχνω κτλ̣’, TWNT 1 (1933) 188–90: 190.Google Scholar

¹⁵ Schmithals, ‘Irrlehrer’, 80–1.

¹⁶ Gnilka observes that the purpose of the ‘bitter, irony-filled antitheses’ in v. 19 ‘is to describe not the opponents, but their end’ (‘Mission’, 275).

¹⁷ Contrary to Koester (‘Purpose’, 320–1), the decisive ήμεῖς in v. 3 refers not only to Paul and his fellow workers, but (as in v. 20) to the community of the faithful: see Schmithals, ‘Irrlehrer’, 64; also Gnilka, ‘Mission’, 262; Dibelius, M., An die Philipper (HNT 11; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 2nd ed. 1925) 67Google Scholar; Friedrich, G., Der Brief an die Philipper (NTD 8; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 9th ed. 1962) 116Google Scholar; Collange, J.-F., The Epistle of Saint Paul to the Philippians (London: Epworth, 1979) 125.Google Scholar

¹⁸ Cf. Gnilka, ‘Mission’, 264.

¹⁹ Contrary to Lüdemann, (Opposition to Paul in Jewish Christianity [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1989] 108)Google Scholar, this is not implied by Gal 1.13 or 1 Cor 15.8.

²⁰ See Sanders, J. T., The Jews in Luke–Acts (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987) 98–101Google Scholar. In Acts we are told that Paul believes ‘everything laid down by the law’ and therefore has ‘a clear conscience toward God and toward men’ (Acts 24.14–16). He has committed no sin at all ‘neither against the law of the Jews, nor against the Temple, nor against Caesar’ (Acts 25.8). Nowhere do we find such claims in Paul's own writings.

²¹ ‘Irrlehrer’, 67.

²² Lohmeyer, Philipper, 132, 136; Dibelius, Philipper, 68; Lang, F., ‘σκβαλον’, TWNT 7 (1964) 446–8: 447.Google Scholar

²³ Schütz, J., Paul and the Anatomy of Apostolic Authority (SNTSMS 26; Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1975) 133.Google Scholar

²⁴ The term κέρδος (‘gain’, ’profit’, ‘advantage’) refers elsewhere to profits made in commerce (Matt 25.16; Mark 8.36; Jas 4.13). Ζημία (‘loss’, ‘disadvantage’) is the opposite: see Schlier, , ‘κέρδος κτλ’, TWNT 3 (1938) 671–2Google Scholar; also Lohmeyer, Philipper, 132. The language implies the calculation of profit and loss. The verb ζημιόω (‘to forfeit’, ‘suffer loss’) has a similar implication.

²⁵ Sanders, E. P., Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985) 43Google Scholar, n. 132.

²⁶ Contra Koester (‘Purpose’, 322), in Phil 3 the question is in fact whether righteousness based on law or life in Christ is the ‘higher value’.

²⁷ See Bultmann, , Theology of the New Testament (New York: Harper & Row, 1951) 1.242.Google Scholar

²⁸ Cf. Lohmeyer, Philipper, 127. In the proverbial saying in Mark 8.36 ‘forfeiting one's life’ (ζημιωθναι τν ψυχν αὐτο) is compared with the value of ‘gaining the whole world’ (κερδσαι τν κσμον ὅλον). The term σκβαλον (‘refuse’) was a common way to refer to the transitory and worthless character of all human goods and achievements: see Lang, F., ‘σκβαλον’, TWNT 7 (1964) 446–7Google Scholar. Since what precedes refers to social and religious advantages, Lohmeyer himself regards such language as ‘very imprecise and misleading’. In fact, the language here (ἅτινα ἦν μοι κέρδη) is intentionally vague. The reference is to ‘confidence in the flesh’ as such (v. 4), for which Paul's own social and religious past (vv. 5–6) is merely an example.

²⁹ Cf. Lohmeyer, Philipper, 126. Schmithals also observes that this affirmation seems to say ‘We Christians, not these Jews, are the true people of the circumcision’ (‘Irrlehrer’, 65). According to Beare, F. W., ‘the title which he (Paul) denies to Jews, he claims for the Christians’ (The Epistle to the Philippians [New York: Harper & Row, 1959], 104)Google Scholar. And Jewett comments that ‘it is the Pauline church which stands in the place of Israel as the true “circumcision”’. (‘Movements’, 383). Lüdemann, G. observes that arguments against Jewish Christians would also apply to Jews (Opposition to Paul in Jewish Christianity [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1989] 271, n. 164)Google Scholar. In this case, however, we would have to assume the reverse, namely that arguments which reject Judaism as such are in fact aimed at specific Judaizing opponents. Without specific evidence, this is a difficult assumption.

³⁰ Schmithals perceives 2 Cor 11.18, 21–2 as an ‘exact parallel’ with this passage, with ‘complete agreement’ with regard to content (‘Irrlehrer’, 66); see also Koester, ‘Purpose’, 321; Gnilka, ‘Mission’, 262; Collange, Philippians, 122; Lightfoot, J. B., Saint Paul's Epistle to the Philippians (London: Macmillan, 1927) 146.Google Scholar

³¹ See Gager, Anti-Semitism, 117–33,153–9.

³² Opposition, 117–99; citation from 199.

³³ Lloyd Gaston points out that Christian polemic in the second century often identified various forms of false teaching as ‘Judaism’ (‘Judaism of the Uncircumcised in Ignatius and Related Writers’, in Anti-Judaism in Early Christianity 2: Separation and Polemic (ed. Wilson, S.; Waterloo, Ontario: Wilfrid Laurier University, 1986] 33–44Google Scholar).

³⁴ Cf. Lohmeyer (Philipper, 132): ‘The Jewish “gain” recedes totally into the background. “Everything” or even “the whole world” becomes a loss. Christ and world stand over against one another: one must choose between them.’

³⁵ See Schmithals, ‘Irrlehrer’, 71; Koester, ‘Purpose’, 322; also Gnilka, ‘Mission’, 273; Friedrich, G., Der Brief an die Philipper, in Die kleineren Briefe des Apostels Paulus (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1962) 92–129: 120Google Scholar. Other interpreters attribute such views to persons in the Philippian community itself: see Collange, Philippians, 131–5; Jewett, ‘Movements’, 373–6.

³⁶ ‘Irrlehrer’, 68.

³⁷ ‘Purpose’, 323, 324.

³⁸ ‘Mission’, 267.

³⁹ Sellin, G., ‘“Die Auferstehung ist schon geschehen”. Zur Spiritualisierung apokalyptischer Terminologie im Neuen Testament’, NovTest 25.3 (1983) 220–37: 221–7Google Scholar. Contrary to Koester (‘Purpose’, 323), such claims cannot be understood simply as a ‘reinterpretation of all future apocalyptic expectations’.

⁴⁰ Schmithals characterizes the salvation claimed by the opponents as the ‘unspeakable bliss, beyond which there is nothing more to achieve’ (‘Irrlehrer’, 71); and Koester refers here to their ‘possession of the qualities of salvation in their entirety, the arrival of heaven itself’ (‘Purpose’, 322). But what do such generalities really mean? It is commonly assumed that references in the Pauline writings to resurrection from the dead as a future event (e.g., Rom 6.5; 1 Cor 15.22–3) have polemical significance. Though it should be obvious, it must be pointed out that resurrection ‘from the dead’ can only be conceived and spoken of as a future event, and that here or elsewhere resurrection from the dead is portrayed in such a way does not necessarily indicate that such teachings are polemical. For Paul, the crucial issue is not whether salvation is present or future, but how the ‘qualities of salvation’ associated with ‘fulfilment’ differ from salvation understood to be grounded in the power of God (cf. 1 Cor 6.13–14, 19–20): see Doughty, D., ‘The Presence and Future of Salvation in Corinth’, ZNW 66 (1975) 61–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁴¹ The ‘sufferings of Christ’ (παθήματα το Χριστο) is not a central Pauline motif. The nearest parallel to our passage is 1 Pet 4.13, where ‘sharing in the suffering of Christ’ (κοιῖνωνν τονς τοε Χριστοε παθήμασιν) is conceived as a condition for participation in the ‘revelation of the glory’ of Christ (ἴνα καί έν τῇ άποκαλψει τς δόξης αὐτο χαρτε) (cf. 1 Pet 1.11; 5.1, 9–10).

⁴² Most such interpretations are based on the view that Paul's ‘theology of the cross’ conceives suffering as a necessary mark of Christian existence, perhaps even as a condition for salvation. According to Koester, Christian existence is ‘characterized’ by ‘sharing the suffering and death of Jesus Christ’ (‘Purpose’, 323). And according to Gnilka, the faithful are those who ‘self-sacrificingly commit themselves to the acceptance of suffering’ (‘Mission’, 267). That Paul regards his suffering for the sake of the gospel as a manifestation of the power of God (2 Cor 4.7), however, in no way means that suffering is something to be desired, let alone required, for Christians.That the faithful are able to rejoice in sufferings (Rom 5.4) in no way means that suffering is God's will. Suffering is the mark of a world under the dominion of sin (Rom 8.18), and contrary to God's will for humankind (Rom 8.21).

⁴³ Philipper, 4.

⁴⁴ ‘Mission’, 267; cf. 261, n. 12. According to Siber, Paul refers here to suffering he has experienced in his work as an apostle (Mit Christus leben, 113). But it is unclear what is meant when Siber says that Christian existence as such is ‘existence in suffering’ (Ibid., 115).

⁴⁵ Martinus de Boer observes that in the deutero-Pauline tradition the apostle's suffering becomes ‘the basis for an edifying piety of suffering of which Paul is the model’ (‘Images of Paul in the Post-Apostolic Period’, CBQ 42 (1980) 359–80: 369Google Scholar).

⁴⁶ Even Schmithals admits that verses 10–11 ‘are fully understandable without the assumption of a polemical intention’ (‘Irrlehrer’, 68). Bultmann observes that Paul makes use of Gnostic language in this passage, but assumes that this describes ‘the character of Christian existence in general’ (TWNT 1.710). Most interpreters in fact understand these teachings in such a way.

⁴⁷ Contrary to Schmithals, ‘Irrlehrer’, 72; Koester, ‘Purpose’, 324; Gnilka, ‘Mission’, 273. Lüdemann rightly observes that the τέλειος motif appears elsewhere in the Pauline writings (Rom 12.2; l Cor 2.6; 13.10; 14.20; also Col 1.28; 4.12), and that there is no reason to assume its appearance here reflects the language of opponents (Opposition, 106–7). In 1 Cor 2.6 at least some of the faithful are regarded as already τέλειοι.

⁴⁸ Koester, ‘Purpose’, 323; Collange, Philippians, 135.

⁴⁹ Koester attempts to maintain the unity of the passage by arguing that the Jewish Christian opponents conceived ‘righteousness based on law’ in terms of moral and spiritual ‘perfection’ (‘Purpose’, 322–3). Other interpreters, however, distinguish between legalistic, Jewish Christians addressed in vv. 2–9 and spiritual (or Gnostic) libertines in vv. 16–21: see Beare, Philippians, 133–4; Friedrich, Philipper, 116, 120–1; Lohmeyer, Philipper, 152–4; Dibelius, Philipper, 71. Jewett makes a similar distinction (‘Movements’, 376–87), but seems to regard the teachings in vv. 10–16 to be primarily directed to the Philippians themselves (Ibid., 373–6). Schmithals largely dismisses the polemical significance of vv. 2–9, and perceives the distinctive Gnostic proclamation of the Jewish Christian opponents first addressed in vv. 10–21. Lüdemann denies that opponents are in view in vv. 12–21 (Opposition, 106).

⁵⁰ See Howard, G., ‘On the “Faith of Jesus Christ”’, HThR 60 (1967) 459–65Google Scholar; Williams, S., Jesus' Death as Saving Event. The Background and Origin of a Concept (Missoula, MT: Scholars, 1975)Google Scholar; Johnson, L. T., ‘Romans 3.21–26 and the Faith of Jesus’, CBQ 44 (1982) 77–90Google Scholar; Keck, L., ‘“Jesus” in Romans’, JBL 108 (1989) 443–60Google Scholar; and most recently Seeley, D., The Noble Death. Graeco-Roman Martyrology and Paul's Concept of Salvation (Sheffield: JSOT, 1990).Google Scholar

⁵¹ Seeley, Noble Death, 99–112.

⁵² Contra Bultmann, ‘γινώσκω’, TWNT 1.710.

⁵³ Collange, Philippians, 131; cf. Siber, Mit Christus leben, 116; also Bultmann, ‘γινώσκω’, 710. According to Koester (‘Purpose’, 325), the reference is to the future experience of such power in the resurrection from the dead, which the opponents falsely claim to have already experienced (also Schmithals, ‘Irrlehrer’, 69; Dibelius, Philipper, 69; Gnilka, ‘Mission’, 266).

⁵⁴ Bultmann observes that in 2 Peter and the Pastoral Epistles the term έπίγνωσις has become ‘almost a technical term’ for the knowledge of God (and Christ) that ensues from conversion to Christian faith, and that in all such cases a theoretical moment is primary (‘γινώσκω’,706). However, the term γνσις can be used in a similar way (2 Pet 3.18; cf. 1 Tim 6.20). In the Pastorals (and probably in 2 Peter as well) the ‘full knowledge’ (έπίγνωσις) mediated by the apostles stands over against the incomplete knowledge of the opponents (cf.2 Tim 2.25; 3.7). This opposition is not present in Phil 3.

⁵⁵ This would explain the apparent ‘reversal’ of resurrection and suffering in v. 10, which some interpreters regard as having a polemical purpose: Gnilka, ‘Mission’, 266; Dibelius, Philipper, 69; Collange, Philippians, 131; Barth, G., Der Brief an die Philipper (Zürich: Theologischer, 1979) 61Google Scholar. That κοινωνίαν παθημάτων αὐτο, however, has a different, existential meaning than the ‘knowledge of Christ and the power of his resurrection’ referred to in 10ab is indicated not only by the different form of this reference (where we might otherwise expect simply καί τά παθήματα αὐτο) but also by the interpretation that follows.

⁵⁶ The expression έπί τῇ πίστει (‘based on faith’) appears elsewhere only in Acts 3.16. Phil 3.9 is sometimes appealed to as the key for understanding the δικαιοσνη Θεο⋯ as the righteousness that comes ‘from God’ (έκ Θεο⋯) as a gift of grace (cf. Käsemann, E., Commentary on Romans [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980] 24ff.Google Scholar). But what is the meaning here of έπί τῇ πίστει? Faith in what? Or whom? According to Paul, as God's power and gift, the δικαιοσνη Θεοñ excludes the possibility that even faith can be conceived as a human achievement (see Doughty, D., ‘The Priority of Χάρις’, NTS 19 [1973] 163–80)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. But the formulation τήν έκ Θεο⋯ δικαιοσνην έπί τῇ πίστει obscures this understanding. It may well be that for Paul the gift of righteousness, as God's power, is also ‘a challenge to responsibility’ (Käsemann, 28). In vv. 10–14, however, the meaning of faith is elaborated as a way of life for which δικαιοσνη έκ Θεο⋯ is the reward. Where Christian life is conceived in such a way, salvation is a human achievement, even if the righteousness one finally receives comes ‘from God’.

⁵⁷ ‘Purpose’, 322.

⁵⁸ Both ‘righteousness from God’ (v. 9) and ‘resurrection from the dead’ (v. 11) are traditional motifs, now conceived here in terms of ‘fulfilment’ (v. 12) and bodily ‘transformation’ (v. 21).

⁵⁹ Vv. 12 and 13–14 are entirely parallel. Vv. 13–14 simply elaborate what was said in v. 12. But the elaboration in 13–14 is significant: the ‘fulfilment’ that Paul ‘pursues’ (v. 12) is now characterized as a ‘prize’ (βραβεῖον) one receives upon reaching the ‘goal’ (σκόπος).

⁶⁰ Peter Stuhlmacher distinguishes between the conception of righteousness found here and the understanding of righteousness as ‘confirmation’ or ‘self-justification’ found in the Pastorals: Gerechtigkeit Gottes bei Paulus (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1965) 233–5Google Scholar. In fact, however, righteousness is conceived here in the same way as in the Pastorals, namely, as a goal to be ‘pursued’ (δίωκε δικαιοσνην) (1 Tim 6.11; 2 Tim 2.22) and as a prize that one receives. 2 Tim 4.6–8 presents a close parallel to the ideas found here: ‘I am already on the point of being sacrificed; the time of my departure has come. I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith. Henceforth there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, will award me on that Day …’ (RSV).

⁶¹ ‘Γινώσκω’ TWNT 1.710.

⁶² This motif appears nowhere else in the NT. The reference is to a specific event in the past, and the allusion may be to Paul's Damascus experience (cf. Dibelius, Philipper, 70). But this experience is portrayed elsewhere as an intervention by God (Gal 1.15; 1 Cor 15.10). Only in Acts is Paul's Damascus experience conceived as an intervention by the heavenly Lord (Acts 9.4–6; 22.6–10; 26.12–18). In any case, while the reference may be to the ‘determining motivation’ of the διώκειν (Lohmeyer, Philipper, 144), it is not clear that this experience also makes such conduct possible.

⁶³ Contrary to Schmidt (‘καλέω κτλ.’, TWNT 3 [1938] 488–539: 490Google Scholar), in the Pauline writings καλεῖν is not a ‘terminus technicus for the salvation event’. In Rom 8.30, Gal 1.6 and Gal 5.13 the salvation significance of being called by God is clarified by elaborations. The salvation significance of 1 Cor 1.9, where it is said that believers are called by God ‘into the fellowship of his Son’, is ambiguous. Elsewhere in the Pauline writings persons are called to a vocation (Rom 1.1), or a way of life (1 Cor 7.17; Gal 5.8). And references to being called by God serve most often, therefore, as a basis for moral exhortation (1 Cor 7.15,17, 20; Gal 5.13; 1 Thess 2.12; 4.7; 2 Thess 1.11; 2.13–15; Eph 4.1; 1 Tim 6.12; 1 Pet 2.20–1; 2 Pet 1.10). But in such texts it is not obvious that being called by God has indicative significance (see Bultmann, Theology, 2.160–1).

⁶⁴ Cf. Bultmann, Theology, 2.161.

⁶⁵ ‘Irrlehrer’,81.

⁶⁶ ‘Purpose’, 328.

⁶⁷ Cf. Koester, Ibid.

⁶⁸ Ibid, 330.

⁶⁹ This is quite different, for example, from the apocalyptic perspective in 2 Pet 2.11, where ‘entrance into the kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ’ is a future expectation. The reference to Jesus as ‘Saviour’ (σωτήρ) appears only here in the Pauline writings. In Eph 5.23 Christ is referred to as the ‘Saviour’ of the body (the Church). And the Pastoral epistles refer both to ‘God our Saviour’ (1 Tim 1.1; 2.3; 4.10; Tit 1.3; 3.4) and to our ‘Saviour Jesus Christ’ (2 Tim 1.10; Tit 2.13; 3.6). References to Jesus as Saviour, however, appear most often in 2 Pet (1.1, 11; 2.20; 3.2, 18), and only here in the NT do we again find the full designation, ‘Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ’ (1 Pet 1.11; 2.20; 3.18). This is deutero-Pauline language (cf. Ign. Phld. 9.2).

⁷⁰ Koester perceives the singular Pauline appearance of the term σωτήρ in Phil 3.20 as evidence that Paul makes use here of an ‘apocalyptic tradition’ in which ‘the title σωτήρ had a strictly apocalyptic meaning’, and appeals to 1 Thess 1.10 as a parallel. In 1 Thess 1.10, however, Jesus is referred to not as ‘Saviour’ (σωτήρ), but as ‘Son of God’ (ό υίός αὐτο). All these texts have in common is the idea that Jesus comes ‘from heaven’ as a bearer of salvation. According to Dibelius and Conzelmann, the context in Phil 3.19–20 is ‘clearly eschatological’, since ‘in contrast to the τά έπίγεια φρονοεντες, Christians are citizens of heaven’ (Die Pastoralbriefe [Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 3rd ed. 1955] 74)Google Scholar. This contrast, however, is not eschatological, but ontological.

⁷¹ H. Strathmann rightly observes that the concept of a πολίτευμα έν ορανοις describes the ‘alienation’ of the faithful with regard to the earthly sphere as such and their ‘membership in the heavenly kingdom of Christ’ (‘πόλις’, TWNT 6 [1959] 516–35: 535)Google Scholar.

⁷² This even goes beyond Phil 2.9 and Eph 1.20–2, where the subjection of all things to Christ is still conceived as the work of God.