Isaac D. Blois. Mutual Boasting in Philippians: The Ethical Function of Shared Honor in Its Biblical and Greco-Roman Context

Abstract

This revised University of St Andrews 2017 dissertation by Isaac Blois, under the supervision of Scott Hafemann, examines the role of mutual boasting in Philippians. Focusing on Phil 1:25–26 and 2:14–16, it argues that “Paul’s paraenesis is motivated by a mutuality of honor between God/Christ and the Philippians understood against the backdrop of Deut 26:19, but one that includes Paul within this relationship in light of his sharing the role of the Isaianic Servant in Isa 49:4, albeit now in the new eschatological reality brought about by the exaltation of Christ” (p. 163).This study consists of three parts sandwiched between an introductory and a concluding chapter. Chapter 1 defines key terms and surveys the history of research pertinent to the overall project. Part one (chs. 2–3) investigates the motif of mutual glory in the Jewish Scriptures. Chapter 2 analyzes how καύχημα functions as a sign of mutual honor in Deuteronomy. In Deut 10:21, God is declared to be Israel’s boast; in 26:19, Israel is God’s boast. Chapter 3 outlines the trifold mutuality of glory found in Isaiah, a glory that is shared between YHWH, Israel, and the Suffering Servant. Part two (chs. 4–5) explores mutual honor in Roman antiquity. Chapter 4 looks at the influence and mutuality of honor in the Greco-Roman world. Chapter 5 probes how mutual honor is used within interpersonal communications to persuade others toward appropriate action. Part three (chs. 6–8) interrogates mutual honor in Philippians. Chapter 6 exegetes 1:25–26, examining how Paul’s faithfulness and self- sacrifice garner honor for the Philippians. Chapter 7 shows how 2:14–16 offers the corresponding idea to 1:26. The Philippian’s exemplary behavior garners praise not only for themselves but also for Paul. Blois further argues that the presence of Deuteronomic and Isaianic allusions in Phil 2:12–18 directs us to read Paul’s καύχημα language in 2:16 within the scriptural framework outlined earlier in part one. The boast that accrues to Paul from the Philippians’ behavior in Phil 2:16 parallels the boast that accrues to YHWH from Israel’s behavior in Deut 26:19 (p. 143). The reason Paul dares to insert himself into this parallelism is that he understands his mission in light of the Isaianic servant (note the allusion to Isa 49:4 in Phil 2:16). As the mediator between God and his people, he shares in the honor given to the Servant. Chapter 8 examines Paul’s use of mutual honor to motivate the Philippians to act accordingly to his exhortations. Chapter 9 concludes this study.Blois’s dissertation is a welcome contribution to studies on honor motifs in Philippians. While others have called attention to the theme of reciprocal boasting between Paul and his readers in Philippians, Blois advances the discussion in two ways. First, Blois situates the reciprocal boasting discourse within its cultural context. In particular, Blois effectively shows how Paul’s use of mutual honor as a motivational tool is both similar to and different from the cultural norms within the Greco-Roman world. It is similar in that Paul uses mutual honor as a rhetorical strategy to motivate others toward appropriate behavior. It is nevertheless different in that the mutual honor in Philippians entails a “tridirectional flow of honor between Paul, the Philippians, and God/Christ” (p. 153). Second, Blois situates the reciprocal boasting in Philippians within its theological context. Specifically, he argues that both Deut 26:19 and Isa 49:4 form the scriptural background for appreciating Paul’s language of mutual boasting. He also notes that the trifold mutuality of glory in Philippians (between God/Christ, the Philippians, and Paul) parallels that found in Isaiah (between Yahweh, Israel, and the Servant). Blois has made a case for his reading. Nonetheless, his line of argument requires quite a number of moves. His reading may therefore not be compelling to some.The amount of research that Blois has put into this work is clear. The abundant footnotes show his extensive engagement not only with important primary sources but also with a wide swath of secondary literature in German, French, and Spanish. This volume will therefore benefit others who wish to study the motif of honor in the Pauline letters.