Explanation:

We know from the context that Paul is about to warn the Philippians against the doctrine of the Judaizers, who think one is righteous before God by the Mosaic law. Thus, when Paul refers to the same things, he likely refers to previous teachings he has already given to the Philippians concerning the Judaizers. We know that Paul had ministered to the Philippians in person (Philippians 4:15), so it makes sense that if he is referring to something he already taught, he would point this out. Further, that he refers to previous teachings makes sense of the context, for he says that it is not troublesome but safe for the Philippians that he write the same things. Of course, it is not trouble for Paul to remind the Philippians about the Judaizers, and it is safe for the Philippians, for it clarifies their thinking. Thus, Paul is about to warn the Philippians about the Judaizers, and the same things refers to his previous teachings on this topic.

Counterargument:

The problem here is that Paul does not say he is going to write to them what he previously spoke to them about. He says that it is not troublesome for him to write the same things. In other words, Paul seems to refer to what he previously wrote, not what he taught in person. Of course, there is no evidence that Paul wrote any other letter to the Philippians. So it is not clear that he is referring to anything outside the letter to the Philippians. Thus, he likely refers to something he previously wrote in this same letter.

Response to counterargument:

In fact, when he says it is not troublesome for him to write the same things, the phrase same things is in the emphatic first position.³ This implies that the focus of Paul’s intent is on the content of the same things not whether these same things were spoken or written previously. Thus, he is likely saying that it is not a chore for him to write now about the same things he previously spoke to them about. Still, even if we are committed to the notion that Paul refers to something previously written, it could be that Paul wrote other letters to the Philippians that no longer exist.⁴ We know that Paul wrote to the church of Laodicea, but there no longer exists the letter to that church (Colossians 4:16). Thus, it could be that Paul refers to what was previously spoken or written in a now-lost letter.

Explanation:

When Paul says that it is not burdensome for him to write the same things again, he likely means that he is about to refer to instruction he gave them on a previous occasion. We can deduce this because when we reach Phil 3:18, Paul explains that there are many who, as he has often told them, are enemies of Christ.⁵ Interestingly, Philippians 3:18 comes near the end of his warning against the doctrine of the Judaizers. Thus, Paul has sandwiched his warnings against the Judaizers between two references to his past instruction. Paul writes the same thing as he explained in the past; that is, as he has often told them, many are enemies of the cross.

Counterargument:

According to this argument, when Paul refers to the same things, this has to do with the instructions against the teachings of the Judaizers. The problem here is that Paul’s instructions against the Judaizers ends at Philippians 3:16. Paul then begins a new train of thought that has to do with imitating him, and he reminds them that as he has told them often, many live as enemies of the cross. Given that Paul begins a new train of thought at Philippians 3:17, it is unlikely that his referring to what he has told them often has anything to do with the Judaizers. Thus, one cannot argue that because Paul referred to what he says in the past in Philippians 3:17, he does the same in Philippians 3:1, for Philippians 3:18 is not referring to the same content as Philippians 3:1.

Response to counterargument:

The argument here is simply that Paul sometimes refers back to things he already taught, as evidenced by Philippians 3:18, which implies he does something similar in Philippians 3:1. The argument is not that Philippians 3:18 is necessarily connected to his instructions about the Judaizers. Rather, the argument makes the simple observation that Paul refers to his past teachings in Philippians 3:18, and so may also do so in Philippians 3:1.

The only weakness of this view is that Paul does not specify whether he refers to teaching he already gave them outside this particular letter. This leaves open that the same things are things he already mentioned in the letter to the Philippians. Unfortunately, as will be argued below, it is unlikely that the same things does refer to things contained in the letter to the Philippians. Thus, it is more likely that the same things refers to teachings Paul had given the Philippians in the past.

Explanation:

Paul says that it is not troublesome for him to write the same things. Interestingly, he says this right before his command that the Philippians rejoice in the Lord. So it may be that the command to rejoice in the Lord is the same thing that Paul has written. Support for this notion comes from the fact that Paul has mentioned rejoicing several times up to this point in the letter. First, in Philippians 2:17–18 he says that if he is the drink offering poured out on the Philippians’ sacrifice, he rejoices, and the Philippians should also rejoice. Then in Philippians 2:28 he writes that he sent Epaphroditus to the Philippians that they may rejoice at seeing him. So Paul has already mentioned rejoicing three times. Then in Philippians 3:1, Paul commands them to rejoice in the Lord before saying it is not troublesome to write the same things. In other words, it is not troublesome for Paul to continually repeat the need for rejoicing.⁶

Counterargument:

The problem here is that when Paul says that he writes the same things to the Philippians, he uses the adjective in the plural.⁷ That implies that what Paul is writing again has to do with a body of information, not just one thing. Of course, rejoicing in the Lord is not a body of information, but is one thing. Thus, when Paul refers to writing the same things, he likely does not have rejoicing in the Lord in mind.

Response to counterargument:

Paul uses the plural because he has repeated the call to rejoice several times. As has already been pointed out, Paul mentions his rejoicing with the Philippians for being a drink offering, their rejoicing with him in this, and their rejoicing over the return of Epaphroditus. Now Paul calls the Philippians to rejoice in the Lord. By calling the Philippians to rejoice in the Lord, Paul writes the same things (plural) again, but he says this is not troublesome for him. Interestingly, based on the cultural context in which Paul writes, he is not hesitant to repeat himself, which demonstrates his friendship with the Philippians.⁸

Explanation:

After Paul commands the Philippians to rejoice in the Lord, he says it is not troublesome for him to write the same things and is a safeguard for the Philippians. Paul’s command to rejoice in the Lord is not troublesome to Paul, and is a safeguard to the Philippians, so likely the command to rejoice is what Paul means by writing the same things. We can deduce that the command to rejoice is a safeguard because we can take the adjective ἀσφαλής, which we normally translate safeguard, to mean something like stability or firmness. Thus, what Paul is saying to the Philippians is that it is stabilizing for them when he repeats the notion to rejoice. The Philippians face persecution and suffering, and Paul knows that to rejoice in the Lord is to regain firmness and stability for perseverance.⁹

Counterargument:

The notion that Paul would point out that his command to rejoice in the Lord is not troublesome for him but is a safeguard for them, is unlikely.¹⁰ Rejoicing in the Lord is an obvious refrain for Christians, so Paul does not need to explain that it is a safeguard for them when he repeats this. On the other hand, Paul is about to follow up Philippians 3:1 with a long set of important doctrinal reminders concerning circumcision and the Mosaic law. Instructions about circumcision and the Mosaic law are somewhat tedious and technical, but of ultimate significance when it comes to understanding the gospel. Given the technical nature of such doctrinal material, it makes sense for Paul to preface his repeated instructions concerning circumcision and the Mosaic law by stating this repetition is not troublesome for Paul and is a safeguard for the Philippians. In other words, Paul is saying, I am about to rehash some technical doctrinal issues. I know I have explained these before, but they are of ultimate significance. Do not gloss over these or think that I am wasting paper.

The weakness of this view is that it is not natural for the same things to refer to rejoicing. Rejoicing in the Lord is common for Christians, and it is awkward for Paul to point out that he has called them to rejoice once again.