Prefigurative Peace in Philippians

Abstract

Paul refers to peace twice in Phil. 4:7 and 4:9. This paper argues that the peace of God is a prefiguration of the eschatological peace to come in God’s world. It is be proposed that as Philippians is dealing with a social order (i.e., that of life in Christ) that is distinct from the dominant social order of the Roman empire or that of the colony of Philippi, political implications are at the very least a corollary of what Paul is writing to the Christ devotees in this city. The main points that will be argued are that peace is best understood as a key dimension for God’s upcoming new world that is already present “in Christ”. The Philippian community is called upon to stand firm in Christ (Phil. 4:1), which is, due to devotional and ethical practices, to result in the experience of God’s peace or the God of peace. This must be understood as both a present and a future reality. Accordingly, the Philippian community can be seen as prefiguring God’s future world by inhabiting this world now already in their communal life.

1. Introduction

In Phil. 4:7 and 4:9, Paul refers to peace twice,1 once to the “peace of God” (v. 7) and once to “the God of peace” (v. 9). At the same time, the text has a distinctly eschatological feel, as it is apparent in v. 5 with its reference to the Lord’s being near; also, the notion of being preserved or protected in Christ Jesus (v. 7) may point to an eschatological orientation. This paper will proceed to take this eschatological dimension of the text as a starting point for also interpreting the peace of God as something eschatological that is, at the same time, already present and can be experienced in the ἐκκλησία. This experience amounts to a prefiguration of the peace that is to come when the Lord, who is near, will indeed come (on the “day of Christ”, cf. Phil. 2:16).2 The attitudes that Paul calls for in this passage, then, such as being gentle (v. 5), or prayerful (v. 6), and the list of laudable forms of behavior mentioned in v. 8, can, in a next step, also be interpreted as anticipations of God’s peaceful world. In this way, the moral meets the eschatological, as the various forms of virtuous behavior that Paul mentions remain, on the one hand, precisely that: morally recommendable attitudes; yet, they also become, on the other hand, anticipatory performances of God’s future. In fact, this paper will argue that it is precisely the eschatological expectation that was, presumably, shared by Paul and the Philippians which created the space required for persisting in such behavior and for remaining faithful to Christ by such persistence. The paper will make use of theoretical insights about this kind of prefiguration, i.e., of the ἐκκλησία prefiguring God’s new world, derived from philosophical reflection on this mode of thinking, which can, even though developed in the course of the 19th and 20th centuries,3 nonetheless help to elucidate the modus vivendi of Paul and the Philippians.4

In what follows, first general observations about peace in Philippians and the Pauline correspondence will be offered. These are followed by a consideration of the relationship between peace and the presence of God in the same sources, as well as of the coincidence of the presence and the absence of peace. In a next step, this is further developed with the help of insights from the aforementioned discourse on prefigurative politics, which feeds into a consideration of peace, as it occurs in Phil. 4:7.9, in the social and political context of the Roman world.

2. Peace in Its Literary Context

Apart from its occurrence in the letter’s salutation (1:2: χάρις ὑμῖν καὶ εἰρήνη), peace occurs prominently in Paul’s Letter to the Philippians in chapter 4. In a section demarcated from the preceding exhortations directed at individuals (Euodia, Syntyche, an unknown ‘yoke fellow’, and Clemens), by the emphatic and more general call to ‘rejoice’ in v. 4 (χαίρετε ἐν κυρίῳ πάντοτε· πάλιν ἐρῶ, χαίρετε)5 and a shift of topic between vv. 9 (on the God of peace) and 10 (on the concern the Philippians have shown for Paul), accompanied by a shift to the first person singular from more general statements in the preceding verses, two references to peace occur, first to the ’peace of God’ (ἡ εἰρήνη τοῦ θεοῦ) in v. 7 and subsequently to the ‘God of peace’ (ὁ θεὸς τῆς εἰρήνης) in v. 9.

In fact, each statement concludes a segment of the general paraenesis that Paul issues in Phil. 4:4b–9, as τὸ λοιπόν in v. 8 clearly subdivides this section of the letter,6 even if there is thematic continuity, which, in turn, continues the concerns of Phil. 4:1–4a on a more general plane by now not addressing individual members of the community by name but focusing on the behavior of the community at large. In fact, both the admonitions in 4:2–4a and the general exhortations in 4:4b–9 can be seen as being governed by Paul’s call in 4:1 στήκετε ἐν κυρίῳ.7

Both the rejoicing and thanksgiving, the focus of vv. 4b–6, issues into a statement on peace and, therefore, as does the exhortation to display all kinds of virtuous behavior that runs from v. 8 to the beginning of v. 9. In the first case, divine peace is said to guard the heads and minds of the Philippians in Christ Jesus (φρουρήσει τὰς καρδίας ὑμῶν καὶ τὰ νοήματα ὑμῶν ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ)—the use of the military expression φρουρήσει is striking and will require more attention—in the second case, the statement is that the God of peace will be with the Philippians (ὁ θεὸς τῆς εἰρήνης ἔσται μεθ’ ὑμῶν).

In both cases, the connection between the exhortation and the remarks about peace is made through the conjunctive copula καί, which seems innocuous but does raise questions, as one could wonder whether the (desired) behavior of the Philippians can, as it were, produce God’s peace or compel it to be amongst them; alternatively, it can be taken as an indication that v. 9 goes beyond v. 7 by stating that not (merely) God’s peace will be there but that the God of peace will himself be present. This will be returned to below. For now, it has been established that divine peace, resp. the God of peace, plays a central role in the clearly demarcated section Phil. 4:4b–9 and is closely connected to the behavior of the Philippians as a community.

3. Peace and God’s Presence

A next question to ask is what the role of the divine peace and the God of peace is precisely in these verses. When surveying commentaries, there is considerable anxiety resulting, in fact, from the conjunctive copula καί, as it is argued that the peace or the presence of the God of peace resulting from the Philippians’ behavior ought not to be understood along the lines of the result of God’s reconciliation with God’s people that also results in peace (as in Rom. 5:1). Such anxiety, resulting from the reception of Paul in the confessional traditions of Christendom (and of which I am part as well), is always a good reason for taking a second look. A starting point for such a second look can be a survey of the use of the noun εἰρήνη in Paul’s (undisputed) letters. When inventorying this use, the following picture emerges (leaving out Phil. 4:7.9).

First, Paul uses the term εἰρήνη in his salutations, such as in Rom 1:7, 1 Cor. 1:3, 2 Cor. 1:2, Gal. 1:3, Phil. 1:2, 1 Thess. 1:1 and Phlm. 1:3 (see also a wish such as Rom. 15:13 or 15:33, or also 1 Cor. 16:11, 2 Cor. 13:11, Gal. 6:16), where it is typically coupled with χάρις. This use is both relatively generic, as it uses a greeting common among Jews, such as Paul, in letters, and is specific, as it adjusts the common Greek χαίρε or (more commonly) χαίρειν to χάρις,8 thereby giving it a particular theological twist, especially as usually a specification is also added, such as in Phil. 1:1 χάρις ὑμῖν καὶ εἰρήνη ἀπὸ θεοῦ πατρὸς ἡμῶν καὶ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, of which especially the final part is of significance, as it is so specific (the expression ἀπὸ θεοῦ πατρὸς ἡμῶν—“from God our father”—could, in theory, refer to any number of deities). Paul does not elaborate on the meaning of peace in his salutations; yet, given the general use of εἰρήνη (and its Hebrew and Aramaic equivalents), it can be assumed to refer to a situation of well-being that goes beyond the absence of war and life but consists of the good life (with the note that the source of this is Jesus Christ).9 If this interpretation of Paul’s salutations is right, then the use of εἰρήνη here agrees with that found in, for instance, Rom. 2:10, where ‘honor and peace (τιμὴ καὶ εἰρήνη) is the outcome of God’s judgment for the righteous. Again, peace can be taken here to refer to something like the good life; it goes beyond the absence of strife. Something similar occurs in Rom. 3:17, where reference is made to those who do not know the way of peace (ὁδὸν εἰρήνης οὐκ ἔγνωσαν), which is here both a walk of life in agreement with and leading to the good life, which is characteristic of the just. The reference to peace in Rom. 8:6 can be seen to concur with this, as here also a quality of, in this case, the mind, is indicated by means of a reference τὸ δὲ φρόνημα τοῦ πνεύματος ζωὴ καὶ εἰρήνη. This also goes for Rom. 14:17, where the quality of God’s kingdom is described as consisting of δικαιοσύνη καὶ εἰρήνη καὶ χαρὰ, Rom. 14:19, which agrees with the aforementioned use of the term (see also, albeit less forcefully 1 Cor. 7:15, compare 1 Cor. 14:33). The expression ὁ δὲ θεὸς τῆς εἰρήνης (Phil. 4:9) agrees with this when it occurs in Rom. 16:20 (cf. also 1 Thess. 5:23), God is the one representing peace and accordingly stamping out evil (in this verse: Satan). Along similar lines, peace is mentioned among the fruits of the Spirit in Gal. 5:22.

A second, distinct but related, use of the term εἰρήνη appears in 1 Thess. 5:3, where a(n imperial) slogan is quoted that refers to εἰρήνη καὶ ἀσφάλεια, which Paul problematizes subsequently.10

A third kind of use of εἰρήνη can be found in statements about reconciliation, for instance in Rom. 5:1, where a statement like εἰρήνην ἔχομεν πρὸς τὸν θεὸν refers more to a situation of conflict that has been ended and a relationship that has been restored than to ‘the good life.’ This is also suggested by the language of enmity and conflict resolution in Rom. 5:10: …γὰρ ἐχθροὶ ὄντες κατηλλάγημεν τῷ θεῷ διὰ τοῦ θανάτου τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ…11

This survey shows two things. First, two or three distinct uses of the term εἰρήνη can be found in Paul’s letters, of which the first is much more prevalent than the second two. Even when breaking down the first or first two categories down further, e.g., by distinguishing between statements about peace and formula’s wishing it on others, the distinction in terms of content remains, with one emphasizing a general state of well-being, which seems to both social and spiritual in nature (and thereby goes beyond being at peace psychologically), and another the resolution of a conflict through forms of mediation and peace brokering.

4. Peace: Both Present and Absent

One dimension of Paul’s remarks about peace is that it appears to be both a present reality and an absent or future one.12 On the side of the present there is, for instance, Paul’s notion that there is now peace between God and humankind (Rom. 5:1) but also the idea that peace belongs to the fruits of the Spirit and (Gal. 5:22) refers to the present experience of the ἐκκλησία, while also 1 Cor. 7:15 mentions peace as something that ought to govern the community now, which also goes for 1 Cor. 14:33. The various wishes for peace, as they have been listed above, point to peace as something that the congregation is hoped to experience, clearly in the present, but as wishes point to a future reality, they are more than a statement about the current state of affairs. This also applies to the two references to peace in Phil. 4:7.9, given that here a particular kind of behavior is to lead to the presence of peace or (even) the God of peace;13 καί in both v. 7 and v. 9 should, therefore, be understood in a consecutive way,14 which suits the future tense that is used, expressive as it is of a certain development.15 Clearly eschatological is the reference to peace in Rom. 2:10, while a statement about peace as one of the qualities of the kingdom of God, such as in Rom. 14:17, is somewhere in between, referring both to the state of affairs in God’s future reign as well as to the situation as it ought to be in the church.16

For the interpretation of the statements on peace in Phil. 4.7.9, this relation of peace to both the present and the future is of relevance. To begin with, the idea that certain practices of the Philippians will lead to Christ’s peace encompassing them and the presence of the God of peace with them shows that (the God of) peace is both an absent reality as one that can be expected to be experienced in this world (as distinguished from the world to come). Beyond this, one can argue that this peace is also related to something that is in the past and that determines the future, i.e., the reconciliation through Christ that leads to peace between God and humankind, if Paul subscribes to this idea expressed in Rom. 5:1 already in his letter to the Philippians.17 In addition, one can argue that peace also has an eschatological dimension and that it will determine the world to come, governed by the God of peace (e.g., Rom. 2:10, 14:17).

A weakness of this approach is that it uses rather a lot of (possibly later) Pauline epistles to interpret Paul’s remarks in Phil. 4:7.9. However, the idea that something that is experienced now already is at the same time a foreshadowing of the fullness of God’s new world and also occurs in Phil. itself. This applies to both positive and negative experiences of this ἐκκλησία. A positive example is when Paul describes the (desired) behavior of the Philippians, the quality of which he seems to remember from his time among them in 2:14–18; whatever causes the Philippians to shine like stars in the world now (2:15) can be regarded as announcing their eschatological salvation (2:16). Interesting enough, Paul is even more keen to interpret negative experiences in the present as pointing towards future salvation. This is the case, for instance, in ch. 3, where he views both his own suffering (and rejection or loss of social status) as a form of identification with Christ (as described in the “hymn” in 2:5–11) and the difficult situation of the Philippian ἐκκλησία as well; both are not so much harbingers of further future humiliation but rather foreshadow future glorification. With regard to himself, Paul writes about knowing the power of Christ’s resurrection and identifying with his suffering, in the hope of once participating in the resurrection as well (τοῦ γνῶναι αὐτὸν καὶ τὴν δύναμιν τῆς ἀναστάσεως αὐτοῦ καὶ τὴν κοινωνίαν τῶν παθημάτων αὐτοῦ, συμμορφιζόμενος τῷ θανάτῳ αὐτοῦ, εἴ πως καταντήσω εἰς τὴν ἐξανάστασιν τὴν ἐκ νεκρῶν). With regard to the Philippians, he announces that the Lord will transform the humiliated bodies of the Philippians to those akin to his body of glory (μετασχηματίσει τὸ σῶμα τῆς ταπεινώσεως ἡμῶν σύμμορφον τῷ σώματι τῆς δόξης αὐτοῦ).

Paul’s remarks of peace can be understood in a similar manner: they lead to an experience of God’s peace or the presence of the God of peace in the here and now that, at the same time, points to the fullness of peace in God’s future. This way of thinking about Paul’s remarks about peace in Phil. 4:7.9 also has another advantage, i.e., the notion that the Philippians somehow “earn” God’s peace (or the presence of God), which would sit strangely in the context of Paul’s general emphasis on not earning anything from God, can be sidelined. This is to say that the behavior that the Philippians ought to display according to Paul (4:5b–6; 4:8) does not so much earn them anything but rather aligns them with God’s (eschatological) reality of peace, which then can be experienced in their midst and as determining their outlook on life.18 Their life of rejoicing in Christ and of thanksgiving prayer as well as of living a virtuous life (after the example of Paul)19 resonates in such a way with God’s peace that it can be said that this is present among the Philippians. Their lives in Christ are lives that go beyond behavior that is morally appropriate but are lived as if they have already arrived in God’s world fully, of which the experience of the quality of this world, i.e., its peace, is a consequence.

These observations give rise to another consideration that has to do with the difference in formulations between Phil. 4:7 and 4:9, i.e., between εἰρήνη τοῦ θεοῦ and ὁ θεὸς τῆς εἰρήνης that is often commented upon, especially in terms of an increase in intensity: first “merely” God’s peace is the prospect that Paul offers, which is then surpassed by an outlook on God’s own presence. This (supposed) increase is odd, given that it is hard to see why Paul would feel the need to make this distinction within the scope of only a few verses, in which twice a rather similar line of though it espoused. If, however, the devotion and virtue in the life of the Philippian community are of a quality that can be said to be a form of the presence of God’s peace, then one can also wonder whether this peace does not communicate the presence of God in the community. Imagining God’s personal presence would go beyond Paul’s awareness of God’s otherness, yet viewing the praxis pietatis of the Philippian community as something through which God’s peace becomes present and the idea that this peace communicates God’s presence at the same time, given that God is the God of peace, circumvents this problem and also makes it possible to view the statements in Phil. 4:7 and 4:9 as referring to the same reality in two different ways, rather than seeing them as referring, somewhat oddly, to a lesser and superior effect of the praxis of the Philippians. At most, Phil. 4:9 goes beyond 4:7 by unpacking that the experience of God’s peace amounts to experiencing God’s presence, which is mediated through this experience of peace,20 but it does not seem to be the case that in v. 9 something is announced that is qualitatively different from what was said in v. 7.

5. Peace and Prefiguration

Having argued for an understanding of the experience of God’s peace as a mode of the presence of the God of peace mediated by the praxis of the Philippian community,21 this can be contextualized further in two ways. First, it can be contextualized by tying it to Paul’s overarching concern in his Letter to the Philippians, i.e., encouraging to the Philippians to allow themselves to be drawn into a further life in Christ. Second, it can be placed in a broader eschatological context, which, as such, is also an important dimension of the epistle; it is here that an argument can be made that the peace in Phil. 4:7.9 has a prefigurative dimension.

First, the idea that the Philippians are to show a particular kind of behavior does not occur for the first time in the letter in its ch. 4. In fact, Paul’s exhortations begin much earlier and these earlier instances of paraenesis provide an important context for what he says in Phil. 4. In particular, at the end of Phil. 1, in vv. 27–30, and the beginning of Phil. 2, in vv. 1–4, and subsequently following the “Christ hymn” in Phil. 2:5–11 (in vv. 12-28), Paul exhorts the Philippians to behave in a particular manner, following his own example (cf. 1:30 τὸν αὐτὸν ἀγῶνα ἔχοντες οἷον εἴδετε ἐν ἐμοὶ καὶ νῦν ἀκούετε ἐν ἐμοί), especially by having the attitude that is also there in Christ (2:5 τοῦτο φρονεῖτε ἐν ὑμῖν ὃ καὶ ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ). As the Philippian Christ devotees are “in Christ” (cf., e.g., the salutation: πᾶσιν τοῖς ἁγίοις ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ), they are also to align themselves with Christ’s attitude, which is described in the hymn as a basis for the Philippians’ walk of life. In turn, such discernment of the right way of life Paul has earlier on indicated as a fruit of righteousness through Jesus Christ (1:11—πεπληρωμένοι καρπὸν δικαιοσύνης τὸν διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ εἰς δόξαν καὶ ἔπαινον θεοῦ, see the emphasis on grown in love and discernment in the preceding verses). The development of a Christ-like praxis in the Philippians community can, therefore, be seen as a form of living into the reality in which they have been placed, i.e., that of being in Christ and based on the righteousness received through Christ. These observations are reinforced when noting that the call that governs all of Phil. 4:1–9, i.e., στήκετε ἐν κυρίῳ, results, in fact, from Paul’s eschatological vision of the heavenly citizenship in Phil. 3:20–21; it is by standing firm in Christ and inhabiting, as it were, this citizenship now already that God’s peace can be experienced.22

Second, the eschatological dimension of peace and, with that, its relationship with the world to come requires attention. At first, there might be little reason to think that the peace in Phil. 4:7.9 has an eschatological dimension at all. One could also imagine, as it has often been done, that it is all about experiencing a kind of divinely imbued mindfulness.23 However attractive this may be for forms of proclamation in late capitalist forms of Christianity with its focus on well-being, it misses the linguistic mark, given that is has been shown convincingly that εἰρήνη refers much less to an inner sense of tranquility and much more to a harmonious social order, which, in turn, can of course contribute to mental well-being (a topic that cannot be pursued further here), even to a form of the same that goes widely beyond that what can be achieved by any human νοῦς, although such inner peacefulness is a dimension of an overarching divine order of divine peace, which is, finally, in agreement with God’s character as a God of peace.24 This need not surprise, given that this is exactly the referent of the Hebrew שָׁלוֹם that echoes through Paul’s use of εἰρήνη, while it also agrees fully with common Greek uses of the term.25 The gist of that understanding has also been formulated convincingly by Kreinecker, when she argued that εἰρήνη like pax was understood primarily as ‘a complex political programme’ rather than as a state of mindfulness.26 What the Philippians are to experience is, therefore, not so much a particular mental state as a particular quality of life in communion that is a key aspect of the order of God’s world to come, which is both a future and an already present reality. Living into an existence in Christ mediates God’s peace, in this sense of the word, to the Philippians already.27 This agrees with the immediate context of the remarks about peace, as they are prefaced by Paul’s statement ὁ κύριος ἐγγύς (4:5), which places the entire section in an eschatological context.28 The same is true for the qualification of the peace as (ἡ) ὑπερέχουσα πάντα νοῦν, which also points to a reality that is beyond the present one, in other words: forms of foreshadowing, or prefiguration seem to be occurring.

This dimension of prefiguration can be developed further with reference to the contemporary political philosophical discourse on prefigurative politics, which, although it has roots in the Christian tradition with its own origins in Judaism, often pays little attention to religious discourses, while, vice versa, those studying theological sources do not frequently utilize this discourse in their research either.29

6. Prefigurative Politics: Some Contours

Prefigurative politics, ‘an experimental political practice in which the ends of one’s actions are mirrored in the means applied in their realisation’30 is a relatively recent model which is used in the analysis of contemporary movements such as ‘Occupy’ or earlier movements, such as the Paris Commune of 1871 (religious movements are not typically analyzed from this vantage point). Leach describes the functioning of such movement as follows:

Rather than looking to a revolutionary vanguard to seize existing power structures and implement revolutionary change on behalf of the masses or to trade unions or political parties to leverage reforms within the existing system, a prefigurative approach seeks to create the new society “in the shell of the old” by developing counterhegemonic institutions and modes of interaction that embody the desired transformation.31

First developed in the 1970s,32 the concept facilitates overcoming dichotomies such as that between means and end (the end is present in the means) and between a future ideal and the present: the future is already there in the present through its prefigurative performance in communal practices.33 Thus, prefigurative practices manipulate time to the extent that the dichotomy between present and future becomes blurred. However, this is not the only kind of dichotomy that is called into question in prefigurative practices. Beyond the dichotomy between future and present, others include the following:

• The dichotomy between means and end because the end is already present in the means.
• The dichotomy between presence and absence because what is (yet) absent is also (already) there.
• The dichotomy between ideal and reality, as the ideal is present in a reality that does not agree with the ideal; with this, also a strict dichotomy between body and mind becomes blurred as the (noetically) imagined future is imagined through physical practices and experiments.
• The dichotomy between center and margin, as (marginal) prefigurative practices both establish themselves as center and continue as marginal.

Inherent in the analysis of a religious movement,34 such as the early Jesus movement, as a form of social experimentation and in terms of prefigurative politics is, of course, also the collapse of the dichotomy between religion (a problematic term for any first century CE phenomenon to begin with) and politics (this would also invite the analysis of not explicitly religious forms of social experimentation from a theological point of view, of course, as forms of ‘secular liturgy,’ as it were).

As it seems that the blurring or even collapsing of these various dichotomies is what characterizes prefigurative practices, or is at least one of their outstanding characteristics, they will be used in what follows as an organizing principle for the analysis of aspects of peace in the Letter to the Philippians.

7. Peace in Prefigurative Perspective

The first dimension to consider is the relationship between present and future. As it was argued above already, these two overlap in the sense that the peace, in the sense of social order, of God’s future world becomes present in the community in the present. This matters much, as the construction of time is always also deeply political in nature.35 As soon as a community not only orients itself towards an alternative political order, in this case alternative to the order of the Greco-Roman world, including its imperial dimensions, but also crafts its own understanding of time, it positions itself independently. If important dimensions of the calculation (and, with that, construction) of time are geared towards the political structures that dominate this world—and with a calculation of time ab urbe condita or in terms of the years of rule of emperors and the like, this was certainly the case—36 and one introduces an understanding of time, in which the present is no longer primarily determined by what one may call imperial time but rather by the future of the God of peace, the inauguration of which is very much connected to the glorification of his son, who was crucified on behalf of the empire, then the prefigurative presence of God’s peace in the Philippian community is deeply political in nature and contributes to shaping its social profile, both in this world while not being of it. This also means that new light can be shed on the Lord’s nearness as it is mentioned in v. 5, from a prefigurative perspective, as both interpretations emphasize its eschatological orientation and exegeses underlining the Lord’s proximity in the here and now can be seen as two dimensions of the same phenomenon: the coming Lord is already near.

A further dichotomy to consider is that between means and end; this dichotomy is, logically, relativized in prefigurative approaches, as the end is always already present in the means used to achieve it (or this should be the case at least). For the understanding of peace in Philippians, this is of relevance as the behavior of the Philippians that mediates God’s peace, as it was argued above to be the case, is not merely a technique to achieve something that is distinct from the procedure itself; rather God’s peace, the eschatological “end”, of the community, is already present in the “means”, i.e., the community’s practice and way of life employed to journey towards this end. Another way of putting it would be that the mediation of God’s peace and, with that, the presence of the God of peace takes place because the community’s being drawn into a fuller life in Christ takes place through an ongoing (and explorative) practice of life in Christ already (with a formulation that somewhat circumvents the lurking question as to the initiative and the agency involved in all of this in relation to Paul’s general views on divine and human agency).37

Closely connected to the question of future and present is that of presence and absence, given that God’s peace and with that the presence of the God of peace is on the one hand a reality in the life of the Philippian community, or, at least, it can be a reality, while on the other it is also something that is not (yet) there, or not fully. Also, if, as it will be addressed below, it makes sense to view the peace that Paul refers to as distinct from other kinds of peace, then the absence of this kind of peace in the world at large and its presence in the ἐκκλησία overlap and the imagery that Paul uses in Phil. 2:15 may well be applicable here as well (…ἵνα γένησθε ἄμεμπτοι καὶ ἀκέραιοι, τέκνα θεοῦ ἄμωμα μέσον γενεᾶς σκολιᾶς καὶ διεστραμμένης, ἐν οἷς φαίνεσθε ὡς φωστῆρες ἐν κόσμῳ). Although God’s new world is largely absent, it is at the same time very much present, at least in the experience of the Philippian Christ devotees.

Also, the distinction between ideal and reality and with that mind and body is of relevance, given that the “idea” of God’s peace is presented as being there in and through the praxis of the Philippian ἐκκλησία; whatever images or concepts of peace the congregation may have, it is through its developing embodiment of life in Christ (through the practice of particular virtues and other forms of behavior) that it becomes clear what these are, not primarily through conceptual refinement. The social experiment or laboratory that the community is leads to a discovery as to which means agree with the imagined end through the experience of God’s peace (in the sense of a social order in the community of a particular quality) in the ἐκκλησία. This is of importance, as it provides another reason for moving beyond “peace” as an inner feeling of being at peace, or the like.

Next, and agreeing with what was said about the relationship between presence and absence, the dichotomy between center and margin is of importance. What plays a role here is the fairly marginal social position of the Philippian community as it seems to be under duress (cf., for instance. Phil. 1:27–30 and also ch. 3, internal strife is discussed in ch. 4),38 while Paul himself writes out of prison.39 From one perspective, then, the Philippian ἐκκλησία is marginal, yet given the presence in it of the social reality of God’s world to come, it is at the same time at the center of things, a state of affairs that may well contribute to a sense of self-esteem and the development of resilience in a community such as the one that Paul addresses. In any case, also here, two kinds of reality coexist, the “empirical” reality of the marginal situation of the Philippian congregation and the “theological” reality of its prefigurative embodiment of God’s world to come, which is real at an even deeper level than that of sociology.

Finally, leaving the series of dichotomies that have served as a way of structuring the past few paragraphs, two other observations can be made. They both have to do with the exploratory nature of prefigurative strategies. First, as groups engaging in prefigurative politics are commonly seen as social experiments and as early Christianity can certainly be seen as such,40 viewing peace from the vantage point of prefigurative strategies underlines its experimental dimension. Engaging in forms of social life that agree with God’s peace (or the God of peace) is more than executing a particular plan or living according to a certain blueprint, but rather it means experimentally exploring which forms of life together indeed align with this peace (and this God). Second, and related to this, is the dimension of the unknown,41 which is inherent in experimenting, given that all experimentation is aimed at discovering what is unknown. This also means that the precise kind of behavior that the Philippians are to engage in as part of their being in Christ and hence being ordered according to God’s peace is also something that needs to be discovered through trial, error and evaluation—this, in fact, fits Paul’s terminology in Phil. 4, as it is rather open and leaves it to the Philippians to discern what is really true, honorable, good, etc. (v. 8). Beyond this, it also fits the general ad hoc and discursive nature of the Pauline correspondence, in which theory and practice befitting the life in Christ is developed through working through and reflecting on concrete cases and questions.42

8. Peace and Politics

A recurring discussion about the topic of peace in the New Testament is as to its relationship to peace in the Greco-Roman world at large, especially in relation to the so-called Pax Romana,43 i.e., the imperial peace, which is evaluated in rather different ways by different authors, with some emphasizing its colonial and repressive nature, while others stress the stability and space for development that it created. Such ambivalence is also associated with Roman monuments dedicated to peace, such as the Ara Pacis in Rome and the Templum Pacis in the same city—with the first being constructed on the occasion of Augustus’ return from successful campaigns of conquest and repression in Hispania and Gallia and the second being built following the success of Vespasian and Titus in the Jewish War (the spoils of which contributed to financing the edifice). An accompanying question is as to whether the New Testament authors intentionally took a stance vis-à-vis such views of peace and were thus deliberately anti-imperial in their modus operandi or whether this is not the case and they sought, rather, either to live in peace and quietness or in an overarching apocalyptic worldview that was not aimed at the Roman empire per se. The following observations can be made based on the above considerations.

First, as peace is seen as a form of social order, the question naturally arises as to its origins and profile, which has, when it comes to the relationship with broader views of peace and the like, at least the following aspects. To begin with, the various forms of behavior that are mentioned in Phil. 4:5–6.8–9 are not particularly controversial, in fact, certainly in vv. 8–9, Paul seems to be appealing to commonly held values (ὅσα ἐστὶν ἀληθῆ, ὅσα σεμνά, ὅσα δίκαια, ὅσα ἁγνά, ὅσα προσφιλῆ, ὅσα εὔφημα, εἴ τις ἀρετὴ καὶ εἴ τις ἔπαινος, ταῦτα λογίζεσθε). Second, however, the origin of the peace is of interest, given that it is God’s peace and, although the expression ἡ εἰρήνη τοῦ θεοῦ (v. 7) or ὁ θεὸς τῆς εἰρήνης (v. 9) does not have an especially outspoken profile, tying the first to Christ (…ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ, v. 7) and the second to Paul’s example (ἃ καὶ ἐμάθετε καὶ παρελάβετε καὶ ἠκούσατε καὶ εἴδετε ἐν ἐμοί, ταῦτα πράσσετε, v. 9) changes matters, given that these are two figures that lived (and, in the first case, died) in marked tension with those in charge of maintaining the peace and upholding the desired social order in the Roman empire. Christ was crucified and Paul was, at the time of writing of his letter, imprisoned. At the very least, this suggests that participating in God’s peace can be at odds with the peace of the Roman empire. This does not amount to an outright challenge or an actively anti-imperial stance, but it is clear that if the values and forms of behavior mentioned in vv. 5–6.8–9 are to be understood from the vantage point of Paul and Christ, some controversy and tension is to be expected. In addition, and in order to return to a detail of the text, i.e., the use of the military term φρουρήσει, stating that the preservation of hearts and minds comes from (this) God’s peace, this at least relativizes other forms of protection, such as the one offered by the structures and institutions of the Roman empire.44

Second, the focus of the use of peace in Phil. 4:7.9 is primarily on it being God’s peace and with that a mode of presence of the God of peace, mediated through the life in Christ of the community. In other words, it has a positive not a negative orientation. Naturally, because it has its own profile (as stressed in the previous point), tension with other ideals concerning peace and order emerges, yet it would seem that this is only as a corollary of the positive orientation chosen. Therefore, tensions arise because of what the Christ devotees in Philippi strive for and whose examples they follow, not because they agitate against something or someone. Such tensions could arise, for instance, when worshiping someone who had been executed as an insurrectionist (or bandit—or both) as one’s lord and god and also, given the vindication of the humble and humiliated involved in the resurrection of this person, rejecting commonly held values (as Paul does extensively in Phil. 3), or when taking one’s cue from an imprisoned leader, who proclaims a message that there is a power far superior to that of the empire, i.e., of the God and father of Jesus Christ, who rose him from the dead.

Of course, many other aspects of Philippians could also be considered here, such as the reference to alternative citizenship in Phil. 3:20,45 yet for the present purposes these considerations need to suffice. On their basis, it can be proposed that as Philippians is dealing with a social order (i.e., that of life in Christ) that is distinct from the dominant social order of the Roman empire or that of the colony of Philippi, political implications are at the very least a corollary of what Paul is writing to his beloved Christ devotees in this city.46

9. Concluding Observations

The conclusions to this study can be relatively brief. The main points that have been argued are that, when understanding Paul’s references to peace as a reference to a social order, this is best understood as a key dimension (or even pars pro toto) for God’s upcoming new world that is already present “in Christ.” As the Philippian community is called upon to stand firm in Christ (Phil. 4:1, ἐν κυρίῳ)—which is, due to devotional and ethical practices (vv. 5–6.8–9), to result in the experience of God’s peace or the God of peace (the former likely being a metonymy for the latter)—which must be understood as both a present and a future reality, the Philippian community can be seen as prefiguring God’s future world, characterized by peace as concretum pro abstracto or pars pro toto of the “good life”, both according to Greco-Roman and Jewish understandings of the term, by inhabiting this world now already in their communal life.