Paul’s Letter to Veterans

In Philippians 2:1-13, Paul exhorts the Christians of Philippi to be of one mind and one love. “Be uniform,” we might paraphrase. This kind of language would appeal to Christians in this place because many of them were either veterans themselves or children of military veterans.

The town of Philippi is where Julius Caesar’s assassins, Marcus Junius (“you too?”) Brutus and Gaius Cassius Longinus fled before being caught by Caesar’s avengers, Mark Antony and Octavian. In 42 BC, the Battle of Philippi raged between a number of Roman legions loyal to either to Octavian or to Brutus. The victory went to Octavian, and the assassins and their troops were annihilated.

It was customary at the time for entire legions to be raised and retire together. If their service was honorable, they were given plots of land and some money, the equivalent of modern veterans benefits. Octavian became Caesar and retired most of the 28th Legion there in Philippi not long after the battle. In honor of their retirement, the city was renamed Colonia Victrix Philippensium, or “Victory Colony, Philippi.” Twelve years later, in 30 BCE, Octavian retired more veterans, this time from his secret service unit, the Praetorian Guard. Paul references this unit in 1:12-13 “I want you to know, beloved, that what has happened to me has actually helped to spread the gospel, so that it has become known throughout the whole imperial guard and to everyone else that my imprisonment is for Christ.” This verse is the only place in which this reference to the elite security force occurs in the New Testament. It’s noteworthy that Paul doesn’t reference it disapprovingly, either, because Paul knew his audience would see the protection of Caesar’s life as a good thing. In fact, many of them would have had fathers or grandfathers who served in that very unit.

Paul’s letter to the church in Philippi is usually dated in the late 50s AD, just 80 years after Octavian’s personal security detachment was retired there. Roman citizens were at the top of the social hierarchy in the provinces, so it is safe to assume the land stayed in their family, and may have even been inhabited by the very next generation of those who had known the Roman military establishment so well. In fact, the town was ruled by two military commanders called duumviri appointed by those in the imperial capitol, and was known informally as a “miniature Rome.” Any church born in Philippi would have identified very strongly with the military culture and customs of the time.

Paul is writing to a military town, and he knows it.

We shouldn’t  read Paul’s address as just another letter to a house church on the outskirts of the empire. Paul is not writing to to some relatively homogenous group that happens to be a bit more northern than the rest. Luke refers to Philippi specifically as a “Roman colony” in Acts 16:12 and it is the first place Paul preaches on the European continent. In fact, it is where Paul and Silas are imprisoned and a Roman soldier tries to kill himself for failing at his job of keeping them secure when the earthquake miraculously frees them.

In writing to Philippi, Paul is writing to a military town, and he knows it. He uses language with which soldiers are intimately familiar. Paul knows that soldiers count it a “privilege” to “[suffer] for” others (1:29), and refers to Epaphroditus as a “fellow soldier” (2:25) who Paul compliments by saying “he came close to death for the work of Christ, risking his life.” (2:30) Soldiers who are trained in the value of obedience would be encouraged by Paul’s reminder “just as you have always obeyed me…work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.” (2:12)

Rank also plays an important role in his letter to them, reminding officers and enlisted alike that “If anyone else has reason to be confident in the flesh, [he has] more: circumcised on the eighth day, a member of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew born of Hebrews; as to the law, a Pharisee.” (3:4b-5) What is unique here is that Paul flips martial meritocracy, insisting to the rigidly hierarchical veteran community that “whatever gains [he] had, these [he has] come to regard as loss because of Christ” (3:7) – it is no longer about acquisition and prestige in the empire of God, it is about forfeiture and humility.

Thanks to Roman roads across the empire, the Roman military was very mobile. Soldiers in most any unit would have been familiar with tactics used in provinces known to be rather hostile, like Judea, where it was standard operating procedure to be dominating and in charge. When Paul admonished the descendants of this community to consider not being the top dogs, but to rather “consider others better than yourselves,” it might not have been the easiest pill to swallow. To a community accustomed to godlike status, to forcibly bending the insubordinate indigenous knee, Paul’s letter insisting that “every knee should bend” (2:10)… and “every tongue confess that Octavian Jesus Christ is Lord” (2:11) probably carried a little sting.

As to the Enemy soldiers are so accustomed to engaging, “their glory is in their shame; their minds are set on earthly things.” (3:19) As for the veterans and their descendants in Philippi, they know what is is to stand “firm in one spirit, striving side by side with one mind” (1:27) because they first learned how in their military training. But the letter to the veteran colony at Philippi is not the only place that soldiers have a part in the story of our faith, and it will not be the last.

What is God saying to and through military communities of our own day? Let me know what you think in the comments!

2 thoughts on “Paul’s Letter to Veterans

  1. Logan. This is very good. Seriously excellent insights about how the post-military context would inform Paul’s rhetoric and subtle metaphors. You bring this up, but I think the hymn in chapter 2 that claims that Jesus Christ is Lord radically reframes their sense of duty and honor around a different kind of King. Whereas under the emperor’s service their king commanded them to raid new lands, conquer them in the name of Rome, with little regard for the dignity or humanity of the inhabitants…. the way of Jesus invites them to find their victory in a Jewish peasant who was executed by Rome. But as we know, the story doesn’t end there. It ends with this peasant being vindicated over all rulers (spiritual and visible), and bowing at his feet. Jesus is Lord, therefore Caesar isn’t, and he is the only one worth giving your allegiance to. That would sting. Perhaps bring comfort to reformed soldiers who have now found the subversive way of Peace. But the highest version of their values, those honorable characteristics, would be something to definitely appeal to, now that they could be reframed around a different kingdom.

    • I agree with everything, but I’m especially interested in how Paul addressing military communities was not derogatory, even subtly. If that is basically true, then many of us pacifists need to rethink how we think & talk about the military. In other posts, I’ve addressed the subtle distinction between fighting and serving, but too often people on both sides of the theo-political aisle refer to the military in far too generic terms. Here, Paul does not seem to do so; referring to a specific prestigious unit without condescension, playing up their particularly martial strengths (sacrifice, obedience) while also pointing out where those strengths are properly directed.

      The only thing I am not sure I agree with is the assumption that we have only one allegiance to give. Humans are complex creatures, and we’re meant to be. We are fully capable of being loyal to two or more things or people at once. The difficulty is when loyalties come into conflict, only one may ultimately be your ‘master.’ I think where I depart from most pacifists is the idea that service (armed or not, speaking of loyalties broadly) is mutually exclusive to our faith in Christ. I think that kind of stark contrast is not supported by the text; we are to sort out of salvation in dynamic communion with others, and absolutes (like shunning or excommunication, for example), are reserved for only the most extreme cases. We can promise a contingent allegiance to our national union while maintaining a totally unconditional and primary allegiance to Christ and his body. I think Paul’s rhetorical moves in this letter support that claim. What do you think?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s