Paul expresses joy and contentment in
Philippians despite his imprisonment. What does Paul mean by joy and
contentment in Philippians? Rayan S. Schellenberg attempts to answer this
question in his book Abject Joy: Paul, Prison, and the Art of Making Do.
The imprisonment of Paul is an enduring image of Paul both in the ancient and
modern Christian imagination. Being a propagandist, Luke depicts Paul with the
characteristics of a nobleman like the Roman philosopher Seneca in which Paul’s
physical suffering is not a point of pity but admiration and his imprisonment
is not a picture of abjection but heroism. This picture does not do justice to
Paul’s enormous physical suffering that is mentioned in his letters. Further,
comparing Paul’s self-description as a joyful prisoner with other prison
letters and the Stoic idea of moral progress despite circumstances often
reinforces the heroic picture of Paul’s imprisonment. Such comparisons often
failed to reckon with “the particular social matrices and somatic context out
of which their writings emerge” (p.15). Moreover, the introduction outlines the
methodological framework used in this study. The study proceeds from the fact
that Paul was a human person, a body; Philippians is a biographical artifact
that witnesses Paul’s emotions. Emotional dispositions are shaped by the social
and somatic location of an individual. Therefore, history of emotion is the
history of body, which is the history of social interaction.
First chapter begins with an argument
that only itinerant Christian leaders were imprisoned, not adherents of Christ,
in the early state of persecution of Christians. It surveys various levels of the
jurisdiction of Roman administration, focusing on the limitation and scope of
local magistrates and administration. Pauline scholars use the phrase “Roman
officials” to represent governors and their adjuncts. They assume that Roman
officials imprisoned Paul. They overlooked the local magistrates and
administration. However, this chapter argues that it is unlikely that Roman
officials were involved in the imprisonment of Paul. Paul was mostly arrested
by local magistrates and officials who were concerned about maintaining the security
of their own local communities. Junia, Andronicus, and Paul (multiple
imprisonments, 2Cor. 11:23) were released after their detention. If they were
in the governor’s custody, it might be difficult to explain their release,
probably multiple releases of Paul from detention. Further, Schellenberg
acknowledges that the detention mentioned in Philippians is exceptional. In
this case, Paul was arrested by local authorities and transferred to Roman
provincial authorities. Paul’s references to the praetorium and the “household
of Caesar” (1:13; 4:22) may refer to the involvement of Roman administration.
Why was Paul in custody? He was not charged with treason or religio
illicita. Paul’s activities disturbed local householders and magistrates
like other itinerary freelance religious experts whose activity is often
considered disruptive. Consequently, local authorities took Paul into custody
to maintain local civic peace.
Second chapter analyses the implication of Paul’s somatic
location for exploring Paul’s yearning for death while in prison (Phil. 1:23).
Schellenberg locates prison within a broader economy of violence in the Roman
world. Physical violence was casually and routinely inflicted upon bodies of
social inferiors as a display of mastery of social superiors. An offense was an
attack on one’s honor in the Greco-Roman world.
Judicial authority was conceived as a power to avenge violated honor by subjecting
offenders to punishment and thus dishonor and shame. Prison was corporal
punishment and a means of bodily humiliation intended to degrade a person to
subjugation. For Greco-Roman elites who usually were not accustomed to bodily
violation, prison was a violation of their honor and a breach of the symbolic
boundary between them and those who were subjected to them. However, a socially weak person like a slave was
not a person of dignity and therefore cannot be violated. For Paul, like any
other social non-elite, prison was a familiar reality of subjection to the
mastery of social superiors. For Paul’s captors, Paul’s imprisoned body was an
emblem of their mastery and power over him. In contrast, for Paul, his body was
an emblem of the glory of Christ (Phil. 1:20). Paul’s yearning to die must be
understood in the context of his suffering and his desire to be “with Christ”
(Phil. 1:23) connotes Paul’s vision of “co-glorification,” a somatic
transformation that shares sovereign glory of Christ (Phil. 3:20-21). In this
“co-glorification,” Paul envisions Christ’s rule, his sovereign mastery over
everyone, and every knee will bow before Christ (Phil. 2:9– 11). This is a
rearrangement of power relationships and an alternative economy of somatic
domination in which Paul’s body is transformed like the glorious body of
Christ.
Third chapter outlines four categories
of prisoners: prisoners of war; ill-
fated aristocrats; non- elite malefactors; and out spoken philosophers,
diviners, astrologers, and other heralds of divine truth. Imprisonment of elite
aristocrats received overrepresentation in primary and secondary literature,
therefore, Schellenberg paid attention to give details of imprisonment of
non-elite, the last two categories. For non-elites, prison was not associated
with crimes like murder in the first place but with economic crisis and
constraint. Prison destroyed non-elites’ ability to eke out a living, not their
honor in the first place. Imprisonment was tyrannical abuse of power. For
freelance philosophers and religious experts, prison was a setting of a battle
for truth. Against this non-elite context, Schellenberg contextualized Paul’s
self-perception as a prisoner and his assertion that he will speak boldly (1:20).
Paul depicted that his imprisonment was for the defense of the gospel (Phil.
1:16). Paul’s term ἀπολογία
(Phil. 1:7,16) should not be taken as his reference to defense speech that he
will give before the magistrate. Instead, it refers that Paul and those who
attended him defended the gospel wherever they had an opportunity. Paul’s word παρρησίᾳ (Phil. 1:20) hints that
Paul perceived his detention through the paradigm of an imprisoned truth-teller.
For Paul, prison is a tyrant’s futile attempt to silence a divine messenger and
it became a means to advance his truth (1:12-14, 20). Paul had confidence in the
Philippian community’s continued support to him and he also shared with the Philippian
community a sense of displacement from the social order in which a magistrate’s
justice was portrayed as an emblem. Paul and the Philippian community were
waiting for a true judgment (Phil. 1:10-22, 2:16) and an alternative
commonwealth.
Chapter four analyzes
Paul’s contentment (αὐτάρκης) mentioned in Phil. 4:11. Generally, commentators
interpret αὐτάρκης in the light of Stoic discourses. However, Schellenberg
locates αὐτάρκης as part of wider moral
discourses in the Greco-Roman world instead of locating it as a distinct ideal
of philosophers. In the immediate context of Phil.4:11, αὐτάρκης refers to Paul’s ability to make do with material lack.
In Paul’s time, αὐτάρκης is seldom used to indicate
self-sufficiency in a technical sense rather it is used to imply financial
independence. In Phil. 4, Paul was not in a position to deny the financial
assistance of the Philippian assembly but asserted his financial independence.
He wanted to protect his honor. So, he expressed his gratitude for renewed
assistance from the Philippian community, but still he insisted he has been
getting on fine. Thus, Phil. 4 is an amalgam of Paul’s feelings of grateful
affection and threatened honor. Comparing Paul’s contentment with modern prison
writings, Schellenberg suggests that Paul’s
claim of contentment expresses a lived affective stance. Assertion of being
content refuses degradation that is intended to come to Paul through
subjugating his body in imprisonment. Paul expects a somatic transformation of
his body in a glorious way. Meanwhile, he lives in contentment.
Final chapter focuses on the theme of
joy in Philippians. Traditionally Paul’s joy is interpreted from the
perspective of his self-relinquishment (cf.1:22-26) or Paul’s joy is an
attitude, not an affect. In contrast,
Schellenberg argues that the joy that Paul speaks in Philippians is a real felt
emotion. The word joy is used eleven times to refer to emotions that arise
within a web of mutual care, concern, and affection comprising Paul, Timothy,
Epaphroditus, and the Philippian community. Philippians, like ancient letters
that were exchanged among family, friends, and other close associates, reflects
a language of joy, especially in the context of mutual care, loved one’s
suffering, and possible reunion. Paul’s joy is integrally connected to the
“highly emotive context of the letter as a whole and epistolary situation it
presupposes” (p. 159). He emphasized the role of the Philippian community in
producing joy in Paul. Philippians is an epistolary vehicle to cultivate,
coordinate and intensify a positive affect in Paul as well as in the Philippian
community. It also reinforces group solidarity. This perspective will help us
to understand three interrelated key themes of the epistle: shared suffering,
mutual rejoicing, and unity of purpose.
Schellenberg skillfully and creatively
interpreted Philippians, especially Paul’s imprisonment and the affective
aspects of Philippians by contextualizing the primary data in the context of
prison in the ancient world. Interestingly, he could bring insights not only from
the ancient prison narratives but also from the modern prison context and
ethnography. He was careful enough not to read modern scenarios into the
ancient text but successfully drew insights from modern context to illuminate
ancient texts. Methodologically this is very interesting, relevant, and
creative, but such a hermeneutical attempt should exercise caution particularly
to avoid anachronistic reading.
His approach to Philippians,
especially Paul’s imprisonment and joy, stands different from the standard
approach to Philippians by biblical scholars. Noticeably, he situated Paul,
unlike the heroic description of Paul in Acts, with non-elite. This does not
align with the common Christian imagination of Paul as a political prisoner, an
anti-imperial Paul, and a Roman citizen
who was on a trial. Situating Paul in a non-elite context played a crucial
interpretation role in understanding Paul’s imprisonment in this work. For
instance, traditionally Paul’s boldness (Phil. 1: 20) was interpreted as his
plan to defend[1]
himself in his upcoming trial, but Schellenberg argues that Paul would not have
been allowed to defend himself in the court since he was a non-elite. He
suggests that Paul’s boldness simply refers to Paul’s defense of the gospel
wherever he had an opportunity. Further, unlike other scholars like Paul Holloway,[2]
he emphasizes that Paul’s approach to joy does not neatly fit to the Stoic
method of gaining joy in difficult circumstances. He argues that Paul’s joy is
not cognitive, but somatic. He focuses on the emotional-somatic aspect of Paul
instead of the usual scholarly focus on Paul’s thoughts. He rejects the
traditional interpretation of Paul’s joy as part of his rhetorical strategy or
his strategy to present himself as a model. Instead, Paul’s joy is provisional.
Even though his recognition of the provisional aspect of Paul’s joy is
noteworthy, it seems that he uncharitably discounts previous studies on joy and
the rhetorical aspect of Philippians. Further, this is not the first study that
considered the social context of prison seriously. Craig S. Wansink studied Paul’s imprisonment in the social context of ancient prison
and emphasized Pauline rhetorical strategy in Philippians[3]
whereas Schellenberg‘s study on Paul’s imprisonment in the social context of
prison emphasized the affective aspect of Philippians.
Overall, this is a thought-provoking,
creative, and well-argued work. Evidence from ancient and modern sources are
efficiently and creatively used to study Philippians historically, to
defamiliarize with the standard approach of biblical scholarship on Philippians
and to redescribe data from Philippians. Historical imaginations and
speculations based on evidence are vividly evident. I consider that his
engagement with contemporary and ancient prison scenarios is an invitation for
any human being to compassionately engage with the contemporary prison context.
[1] For example, Gerald F. Hawthorne et al., Philippians,
Volume 43: Revised Edition, ed. Bruce M. Metzger, David Allen Hubbard, and
Glenn W. Barker, Revised edition. (Zondervan Academic, 2015), 286.
[2] Paul A. Holloway, Consolation in
Philippians: Philosophical Sources and Rhetorical Strategy (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2001).
[3] Craig S. Wansink, Chained in Christ:
The Experience and Rhetoric of Paul’s Imprisonments, Journal for the Study
of the New Testament 130 (Sheffield, England: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996).