Envoys, Part 1

In Philippians 2.19–30, Paul discusses in turn two men known to himself and the church at Philippi. These men—Timothy and Epaphroditus—were essentially functioning in the role of envoys, an office well known in the Hellenistic world of Paul. Margaret Mitchell has written an article* on NT envoys and makes a number of significant points, some of which are relevant to Paul’s epistle to the Philippians.

Mitchell takes issue with the judgment of Robert Funk that (in Mitchell’s words) “Paul sent envoys as only ‘inadequate substitutes’ [Funk’s phrase] for his own physical presence because of the busyness of his schedule.”

She goes on: “Is it not more likely the case that in certain instances Paul sent envoys of letters (or both) to represent him because he thought that they might be more effective than a personal visit in dealing with a particular situation that was facing a church? It is quite possible that we have a Pauline corpus in the first place because of the relative ineffectiveness of Paul’s personal presence and his own creative recognition of that limitation.”

Part of Mitchell’s overall point is that the envoy served many purposes for the one sending the message; he was not always simply a substitute. Paul’s strained relationship with the Corinthians would especially have called for an envoy that could also function as a sort of mediator. In the case of Philippians, where there seems to have been a genuine and uncomplicated mutual affection between apostle and church, the envoy’s role would presumably not have been so complicated. Yet I would still think that both Timothy and Epaphroditus, for instance, could effectively bolster Paul’s message of unity and gospel participation so as to make Paul’s own job easier.


* “New Testament Envoys in the Context of Greco-Roman Diplomatic and Epistolary Conventions: The Example of Timothy and Titus.” JBL 111/4 (1992) pp. 641­–662.