It is scarcely to be doubted that Polycarp of Smyrna, who encouraged the Philippians to study closely letters of the ‘blessed and glorious Paul’ (Pol. Phil. 3.2), was himself a serious student of Paul.Footnote 1 Consequently, Polycarp's reception of 1 Timothy 6 has the potential to elucidate recent discussions of the meaning of ‘the commandment’ (ἡ ἐντολή) in 1 Tim 6.14.Footnote 2 In a short study in NTS in 2011, Nathan Eubank argues that ‘the commandment’ in 1 Tim 6.14 is an idiom for the practice of almsgiving, a reading that potentially explains both the enigmatic referent of ‘the commandment’ and the seemingly intrusive placement of a personal charge to Timothy in the middle of a discourse otherwise about wealth (1 Tim. 6.6–19).Footnote 3 Eubank contends that almsgiving as ‘the commandment’ was a well-known idiom in rabbinic literature with roots in the Second Temple period.Footnote 4 He thus renders 1 Tim 6.14: ‘I command you – in the presence of God who gives life to all things and of Christ Jesus who testified the good confession before Pontius Pilate – to give alms without spot or blame until the appearance of our Lord Jesus Christ, which he will bring about at the right time.’Footnote 5 This rendering, Eubank maintains, explains a seemingly disjointed passage as a coherent discourse on the proper use of wealth (6.6–16).Footnote 6
The lexical evidence marshalled by Eubank, however, has been called into question in a more recent NTS article by Anthony Giambrone. Giambrone also sees a relationship between ‘the commandment’ and almsgiving, but he argues that Leviticus Rabbah and the Testament of Asher are too late and too lexically problematic to be of use for the interpretation of 1 Tim 6.14.Footnote 7 Instead, Giambrone finds Sir 29.9 and especially Did. 1.5 (cf. 13.5, 7) to be the most relevant early evidence that ‘the commandment’ was developing into an expression for the practice of almsgiving.
Thus far neglected in this discussion is a passage from Polycarp's Philippians in which ἡ ἐντολή appears to refer to almsgiving in the very context of the Smyrnean bishop's appropriation of 1 Timothy 6. Polycarp's use of ἡ ἐντολή in Phil. 3.3–5.1 to refer to the practice of merciful care for the needy, therefore, strengthens Eubank's claim that ‘the commandment’ in 1 Tim. 6.14 is almsgiving.Footnote 8 The lexical aspects of the arguments advanced by Eubank and Giambrone seek to establish that ἡ ἐντολή was beginning to have a stabilised meaning as ‘almsgiving’ at the time 1 Timothy was written. We take as a starting point the previous lexical work of Eubank and Giambrone, but our argument is primarily wirkungsgeschichtliche. That is, assuming that the term ἡ ἐντολή could refer to the practice of almsgiving, we turn to Polycarp's Philippians to ascertain whether such an understanding elucidates his reception of 1 Timothy 6 and, in turn, the plausibility that early readers of 1 Timothy might have understood ‘the commandment’ as a reference to almsgiving. This approach, by shifting the interpretive focus from what an author meant to what a reader understood, sets forth early evidence of what might have been ‘culturally presupposed’ as regards the term ἡ ἐντολή and thus complements the arguments advanced by Eubank and Giambrone.Footnote 9 After establishing that Polycarp was indeed an early reader of 1 Timothy 6, we will argue that his use of ἡ ἐντολή in Phil. 3.3–5.1 is best understood in terms of almsgiving.
Polycarp's Philippians and the Reception of 1 Timothy 6
The appropriation of 1 Timothy 6 by Polycarp is almost certain. The strong verbal coherence between Pol. Phil. 4.1 and 1 Tim 6.7, 10 indicates that some literary relationship exists between the texts:
In Pol. Phil. 4.1a, ἀρχή replaces ῥίζα, χαλεπός replaces κακός, and εἰμί is omitted. In Pol. Phil. 4.1b, ἀλλά replaces ὅτι, and ἔχω replaces δύναμαι. Although the texts are not identical, the verbal similarities between Pol. Phil. 4.1 and 1 Tim 6.7, 10 clearly signal that they are somehow related.Footnote 10
The precise nature of the literary relationship between these texts, however, remains undetermined. Aside from Polycarp's dependence on 1 Timothy, there are proposals that the two texts were written by the same author, that 1 Timothy depends on Polycarp, that two authors independently used common sayings, and that the authors shared the same paraenetic material.Footnote 11
Yet three pieces of evidence weigh strongly in favour of Polycarp's appropriation of 1 Timothy 6. First, Polycarp uses εἰδότες ὅτι to introduce authoritative texts every other time he employs this construction in his letter (1.3; 5.1; 6.1).Footnote 12 The use of the formula in Pol. Phil. 4.1 thus strongly suggests that Polycarp is introducing a text he regards as authoritative. Second, the two sayings included in both 1 Tim 6.7, 10 and Pol. Phil. 4.1 were well-known maxims, but they did not often appear together.Footnote 13 Polycarp's use of both sayings in close proximity makes dependence on 1 Tim 6 more plausible than the independent use of common sayings by both authors. Third, Kenneth Berding has shown a notable tendency in Polycarp ‘to cluster Pauline citations and allusions after each of the three references to the apostle’.Footnote 14 Thus, allusions to Gal 4.26 and, presumably, 1 Tim 6.10, 7 follow the reference to the ‘blessed and glorious Paul’ in Pol. Phil. 3.2; allusions to Phil 2.16, 2 Tim 4.10, 1 Cor 15.58 and Rom 12.10 follow the exhortation to exercise endurance like Paul in Pol. Phil. 9.1; and allusions to 2 Thess 1.4, 3.15 and Eph 4.26 follow the evocation of Paul's teaching and labour in Pol. Phil. 11.2–3. For all of these reasons, Polycarp's use of material from 1 Timothy 6 in Pol. Phil. 4.1 is nearly certain.
‘The Commandment’ in Pol. Phil. 3.3–4.1
Of the four times Polycarp uses the lexeme ἐντολή, two appear in close proximity to his appropriation of 1 Timothy 6 (Phil. 3.3; 4.1).Footnote 15 In both instances, ἐντολή seems to refer to almsgiving, particularly because of the relationship Polycarp establishes between adherence to ‘the commandment’ and the proper use of wealth.
In Phil. 3.3c–4.1a, Polycarp explains to the Philippians that the ‘commandment of righteousness’ is fulfilled by love for God, Christ and neighbour, which he contrasts with the love of money by recalling 1 Tim 6.10. He writes: ‘For if anyone is within the limits of these things [i.e. faith, hope and love], that person has fulfilled the commandment of righteousness (πεπλήρωκεν ἐντολὴν δικαιοσύνης), for whoever has love is far away from all sin. But the beginning of all evils is the love of money’ (3.3c–4.1a).Footnote 16 Here the economic commitment entailed though perhaps not exhausted by love (ἀγάπη) is made clear through its contrast (signalled by the adversative δέ) with love of money (φιλαργυρία). To love by practising almsgiving is to fulfil the commandment of righteousness.
The contrast between these two loves – one rightly directed to God, Christ and neighbour and one wrongly directed to money – becomes more striking in light of the spatial metaphor that Polycarp develops as he introduces righteousness as the topic of his letter. Faith, hope and love are the boundaries within which the commandment is fulfilled: ‘for if anyone is within the limits of these things (ἐὰν γάρ τις τούτων ἐντὸς ᾖ), he or she has fulfilled the commandment of righteousness (ἐντολὴν δικαιοσύνης)’ (3.3b). These limits, however, are more like the walls of a caravan than a fence around a plot of land, for Polycarp conceptualises love for God, Christ and neighbour as a guide that ‘leads the way’, while hope ‘follows’ (3.3a). This spatial metaphor throws into sharp relief the contrast between the love by which the commandment of righteousness is fulfilled and the love of money. Love leads one far away from sin because the commandment of righteousness is fulfilled by loving with mercy. By contrast, the love of money locates one outside the limits of faith, hope and love at the very wellspring of evils (cf. 1 Tim 6.10). That is, the love of God and neighbour entails an economic commitment incompatible with the love of money, which is ‘the beginning of all troubles’ (cf. 1 Tim 6.10).
In Phil. 4.1, Polycarp appropriates the claim, derived from 1 Tim 6.7, that ‘we have brought nothing into the world, but neither do we have anything to bring out’ as a warrant for his exhortation: ‘Let us teach ourselves first to follow the commandment of the Lord’ (ἡ ἐντολή τοῦ κυρίου, 4.1b). In the context of 1 Timothy, this saying militates against the desire to be wealthy, a desire that elicited ‘ruin and destruction’ and caused some to wander away from the faith (1 Tim 6.9–10). In the context of Polycarp's letter to the Philippians, the οὖν relates the saying back to his contrast between love for God, Christ and neighbour and the love of money. Since readers know that the love of money is the beginning of all evils and wealth itself is evanescent, the Philippians ought to walk in ‘the commandment of the Lord’. Although no immediate referent elucidates the content of ‘the commandment of the Lord’, the reason Polycarp gives for following this commandment points towards an open-handedness with wealth motivated by genuine love. In other words, if we take ‘the commandment of the Lord’ to mean ‘almsgiving’, then the warrant given for following the commandment becomes particularly compelling.Footnote 17
After the charge to ‘teach ourselves first to follow the commandment of the Lord’ in 4.1, Polycarp offers a separate instruction – marked by the adverb ἔπειτα – for wives in 4.2. This signals the transition to Gemeindetafeln regarding wives (4.2), widows (4.3), deacons (5.2), young men (5.3), young women (5.3) and presbyters (6.1). The instruction provided for members of the congregation in specific roles in 4.2–6.1 is broken by a general exhortation in 5.1: ‘Therefore, knowing that God is not mocked, we ought to walk worthy of the commandment and glory of God’ (τῆς ἐντολῆς αὐτοῦ καὶ δόξης). That the general exhortation to walk worthy of the commandment and the glory of God follows immediately the advice to widows in 4.3 is intriguing, for the virtuous behaviour commended to widows is rooted in their knowledge that ‘they are God's altar and that all offerings are inspected and nothing escapes his notice, whether thoughts or intentions or secrets of the heart’. The metaphor of widows as God's altar reflects the concept, discerned by Giambrone in several other early Jewish and Christian texts, of ‘a kind of “parallel cult”’, one in which the provision of material assistance to the needy is imaged as cultic sacrifice.Footnote 18 For Polycarp, widows are God's altar not because they offer prayers to God, as Hartog suggests, but because they are the recipients of the sacrificial offering of alms (cf. 1 Tim 5.3–16).Footnote 19 Polycarp's instruction regarding the necessary purity of widows as they receive sacrificial offerings is then followed by a general exhortation for readers ‘to walk worthy of the commandment and the glory of God’. God's commandment in 5.1, then, is also probably a reference to almsgiving: readers will be worthy of God's commandment if they provide material care for widows, who function as God's altar when they receive these sacrificial offerings.
In addition to the literary features that point to understanding the term ἐντολή as almsgiving in Pol. Phil. 3.3–5.1, Peter Oakes’ plausible reconstruction of the historical context of Philippians suggests a scenario in which the practice of almsgiving might work as an antidote to the communal disease of φιλαργυρία. Gathering evidence in both Paul's and Polycarp's letters to the Philippians that believers in Philippi suffered on account of their faith (Phil 1.27–30; 3.10; 4.1; Pol. Phil. 1.1; 2.3; 9.1), Oakes argues that the Philippians probably suffered beatings, imprisonment and compromised social relations and that ‘the most tangible long-term effect was likely to be economic’.Footnote 20 In this context, φιλαργυρία threatened community boundaries because it could draw Christians back into relational networks and practices that involved a breach in faithfulness to God, Christ and neighbour. In order to avoid φιλαργυρία one had to stand firm in the faith when facing economic loss.Footnote 21 To recall the spatial metaphor Polycarp develops in his appropriation of 1 Tim 6.10, φιλαργυρία locates one at the wellspring of evils, outside the boundaries of faith, hope and love.
The way Polycarp addresses the sin of Valens, an elder among the Philippians who seems to have fallen into φιλαργυρία, strongly suggests that the remedy to φιλαργυρία is the practice of almsgiving. In Pol. Phil. 11, when Polycarp first introduces the story of Valens, the bishop does not articulate a precise remedy for the transgression of the fallen presbyter and his wife, aside from his wish that the transgressors be granted ‘true repentance’ (poenitentiam veram, 11.4). It may be, however, that Polycarp proposes the antidote to Valens’ sin in 10.3, where he issues a woe against ‘the one through whom the name of the Lord is blasphemed’ and calls for all to be taught self-control. Since Valens lacks the virtue of self-control, he is disqualified from teaching about the topic (11.2).Footnote 22 Polycarp's claim in 3.3 that ‘whoever has love is far away from all sin’ may already anticipate his solution to the sin of Valens. Just prior to addressing the sin of Valens and after he exhorts the believers in endurance, mutual love, concern, unity and gentleness, Polycarp commends the practice of almsgiving with a saying from Tobit: ‘When you are able to do good, do not put it off, because charity delivers one from death (quia eleemosyna de morte liberat)’ (10.2). The phrase ‘charity delivers one from death’ is a citation of either Tob 4.10 (διότι ἐλεημοσύνη ἐκ θανάτου ῥύεται) or Tob 12.9 (ἐλεημοσύνη γὰρ ἐκ θανάτου ῥύεται).Footnote 23 If Polycarp's citation of the phrase ‘because charity delivers one from death’ from Tobit is directed at the Valens situation, perhaps the bishop envisions love shown through almsgiving as a way to counter the sin of avarice and to restore ‘sick and wayward’ believers such as Valens and his wife.Footnote 24
While love in Polycarp's Philippians need not be reduced to demonstrations of material assistance for the needy, it is evident that Polycarp expected love to be revealed through works of mercy.Footnote 25 In Phil. 9.2, for example, faithful and righteous sufferers such as Ignatius, Zosimus, Rufus and Paul ‘did not love the present world but the one who died for us and who was raised by God for our sake’ (cf. 2.2). Since these martyrs are set forth as examples of righteousness and endurance, Peter Oakes contends that Phil. 9.2 relates to the avoidance of φιλαργυρία, that is, ‘“not loving the present age” would particularly be lived out in terms of issues such as reputation and wealth’ (cf. 9.2).Footnote 26 Oakes’ observation is supplemented by the suggestion that not loving the present age would also entail love for the needy among the suffering community of believers (cf. 1 Tim 6.17–19). Interestingly, the only other use of the noun ἀγάπη outside Phil. 3.3 and 4.2 refers to the hospitality and material assistance that the Philippians provided to ‘the imitators of true love’ (1.1).Footnote 27 For Polycarp, the opposite of φιλαργυρία is ἀγάπη. On the other side of avoiding φιλαργυρία is love shown forth in merciful care for those in material need. In a historical context in which the Philippians were threatened by economic loss on account of their faith, the imperative to ‘follow the commandment of the Lord’ by providing material assistance to fellow Christ-believers with economic need becomes all the more urgent.
Conclusion
Polycarp uses the term ‘the commandment’ with apparent reference to the practice of almsgiving in his reception of 1 Timothy 6. Although there is no direct statement in Philippians that ‘the commandment’ is almsgiving, both lexical evidence highlighted in earlier studies and the relationship Polycarp sets forth between the commandment and wealth strongly suggest that ‘the commandment’ refers to merciful care for the needy. In light of the economic suffering the Philippian community probably faced at that time, Polycarp's instruction ‘let us teach ourselves first to follow the commandment of the Lord’ (4.1) offers both an antidote to the sin of φιλαργυρία and an exhortation for the Philippians to practise almsgiving. Thus, Polycarp's Philippians is a witness to how the charge to keep ‘the commandment’ in 1 Tim 6.14 was received as a summons to the practice of almsgiving by one of its earliest readers. Polycarp's Philippians, therefore, offers important support for the arguments advanced by Eubank and Giambrone that ‘the commandment’ in 1 Tim 6.14 refers to almsgiving.
