The
Command to Rejoice—Phil. 3:1a
This chapter opens with a
command—“Finally, my brethren, rejoice in
the Lord.” There are two things one should consider before moving on.
First, how should we take the word finally?
Second, how is it connected to what follows, or does it?
The word finally is assumed to be a conclusion statement. However the Greek
word loipos has a wide
variety of meanings,[1]
including henceforth, besides, the rest, furthermore, in addition, as well as
finally. The word is used here in the present tense, which indicates
continuance. It seems best to me to understand it the continuing sense, not the
concluding sense. It certainly is not the start of the conclusion of the
epistle, for 40% of the epistles remains from this point. Besides, the word is
found again in 4:8 which is much closer to the end of the epistle.
To me a more difficult question is how this is
connected to what follows. It seems there is disconnection between the command and
what follows. While not calling it a disconnection, O’Brien points out it is an
“abrupt transition.”[2]
Certainly there is a change of tone in what follows. It changes from a tone of
rejoicing to a tone of servere warning. Or, as Baker says: “His meek, submissive, humble tone changes to
one of anger, as he warns about people he calls dogs and evil workers.”[3]
Certainly there is no easy answer to the abrupt change. Some have suggested
part of an earlier letter to them has been inserted into the letter. Schmithal
says “Verses 3:1 and 4:4 fit together
so exactly that upon sober reflection one must come to the conclusion that a
later hand has pulled the two verses apart.”[4]
This proposal has been rejected, as it should be. There is no evidence that
such an insert was made in any of the manuscripts. Others suggest that Paul had
intended to bring the letter to an end at this point and as he continued
decided against it.[5]
My suggestion is that this verse
goes with what went before, not what follows. I agree with Calvin who wrote it
is, “The conclusion of what goes
before; for as Satan never ceased to dishearten them with daily rumors.”[6]
Therefore, this half of verse one is connected with the exhortation of 2:17-18,
and wraps up the statement of Paul to receive Epaphroditus with all joy (2:29).
It is a summary statement with all that Paul had written up to this point. It
is a more natural connection than to try to connect it with what follows. It
also sets up a reminder for what follows, but does not lead to what comes next.
Paul’s
Warning Against Errors—Phil. 3:1b-4:1
In my opinion, chapter three
should start at this point: “To write the
same things [again] is no trouble to me, and it is a safeguard for you”
(3:1b). It is the natural beginning. Here Paul begins to treat the false
teaching and teachers of doctrine. Also he helps them in detecting and guarding
themselves doctrinally.
Warning against Legalism—Phil.
3:lb-11
He opens the warning with an
introductory statement. This statement implies two things: (1) Repetition. He
is not troubled to write the same things.
He realizes as any good teacher that repetition is a key to learning. The same things may refer back to what
Paul has written in the first two chapters, particularly the exhortation of
1:25; 2:18, 28, 29, that of rejoicing. If so, then Paul seems to see the calls
to rejoice as a positive attitude that will save them from the ills and false
doctrine that is making its way in the local body.[7]
However, joy is not the cure for disunity, but humility is (2:3-4).[8]
This phrase may imply this is not the first letter he has written to them. If
so, the first letter has been lost in the halls of history. There is no
evidence of such a letter. Or it could refer to the same things which he spoke
to them when he was with them. This is in line with the phrase “of whom I often told you” in 3:18 and is
the best option in understanding the phrase: to write the same things. (2) He writes it for their protection. He
wants to safeguard them. The word
translated safeguard is the Greek word asphallo,
meaning to make firm; secure from falling; or sure and steady. Repeated
teaching of the Word is the best option to safeguard and secure the believer.
In this section we see:
- The nature of the warning—Phil. 3:2
Three times Paul uses the present
active imperative—Beware (Greek: blepete). The present active has
the idea of continual, and the imperative puts it in the voice of a command.
The words give a sense of urgency. We are continually to keep on watch, or be
persistent in looking out with the purpose of avoiding danger. What is this
danger? That has been debated by Bible students. Some see three dangers:
Gentiles, greedy teachers, and Jews. This is based on the three descriptions
that follow the three bewares—“Beware of
the dogs, beware of the evil workers, beware of the false circumcision”
(Phil 3:2). Dogs being Gentiles, evil teachers being greedy teachers, and the
false circumcision being Jews. However,
it seems better to see the descriptions as the three-fold characteristics of
the same people. But who? Hawthorne
sees this group as unbelieving Jews.[9] The majority see them as Judaizers. Judaizers
have been defined as “Jewish
Christians who wanted Gentile Christians to become Jews in practice.”[10]
They were legalists and champions of circumcising Gentiles (Acts 15:1 cf. Gal.
1:11-21). They were a continual presence and disrupters of the gospel of grace.
Notice the same type of language used here is found in regard to them by Paul
on other occasions (2 Cor. 11:13-15; Gal. 1:8-9; 5:12; 6:12-13).
Paul describes these men as:
- Dogs. While
the term was used as a synonym for Gentiles (Matt. 15:26); Isaiah clearly
used it to describe
The dogs here were the mangy, flea-bitten,
vicious starved scavengers of the oriental streets which the dogs our Lord
referred to where the well-cared for little house pets of an oriental
household.[11]
- Evil workers. This speaks of their character. They were deceitful (2 Cor. 11:13). Motivated by the flesh and pride; and legalistic in their teaching. They centered on the works of the flesh (cf. Gal. 2:4; Phil. 3:18).
- False Circumcision (cf. Gal. 6:12-13). This speaks of their perversion. The word used here is katatomen, meaning literal “to cut up from,”[12] thus mutilation or concision. Gromacki tells us:
The descriptive title must be seen in
contrast to genuine circumcision (peritome) which is based upon the same verb stem.
The Judaizers were literally cutting down (kata) whereas
circumcision involved a cutting around (peri). Physical mutilation, practiced in pagan
idolatry, were prohibited by God through Moses (Lev. 21:5; 1 Kings 18:28).[13]
In reality they did
not belong to the circumcision but to the mutilators. “When Jewish rituals are practiced in a spirit that contradicts
the message of the gospel, these rituals lose their true significance and
become no better than pagan practices” observes Silva.[14]
Baker says, “Circumcision (peritome) as practiced by the Judizers had degenerated into concision (katatome) flesh-cutting or butchering.”[15]
- Basis for the warning—Phil. 3:3
“For we are the [true] circumcision, who worship in the Spirit of God,
and glory in Christ Jesus, and put no confidence in the flesh” (Phil. 3:3).
The word for (gar) denotes the reason for the warnings. They (verse
2) are not the true circumcision. This word also sets up a contrast. In
contrast—“we are the circumcision”
(the word true is not in the Greek
text). Some try to limit the word we
here to believing Jews, and not to the Gentiles. I see two problems with this
view: First, Paul writes directly to the Church, the Body of Christ: “in Him you were also circumcised with a
circumcision made without hands” (Col. 2:11). True circumcision involved
the heart and the spirit (cf. Rom. 2:28-29). Second, the basis would be
meaningless to the majority of the Philippians, since they were Gentiles. The
reference is to spiritual circumcision and includes the believing Gentiles as
well as the believing Jews.
It should be noted that Hawthorne concludes from
this that the Church is the New Israel.[16]
This is a wrong conclusion. There is no evidence that the two equates here in
this passage, nor that a replacement has taken place. While circumcision of the
heart applied to Israel
and that it applies now to the church does not make them the same, or that one
replaced or the two are made into one entity.
In addition, Paul uses the term Israel
(3:5) in the national sense, and there is no indication in the context that old
Israel
has now become the New Israel of the church. “Nowhere
in discussions of ‘spiritual circumcision’ does Scripture explicitly specify
Gentiles as Jews or the church as a new Israel
Likewise the context centers upon
the act of circumcision. It is clearly a rebuke to those who see physical
circumcision as a necessity to have a relationship with God. He is rebuking
them by building on the basis of the Old Testament as to spiritual circumcision
(cf. Lev. 26:41; Deut. 10:16; Jer. 9:25-26; Ezek. 44:7). Paul makes clear that
Gentiles “have been made partakers of
their spiritual things” (Rom. 15:27, KJV), he still makes a distinction
between the church and Israel
by the words Gentiles and their (Israel ). One of these spiritual
things is spiritual circumcision, but the sharing in this does not make the two
the same.
That this is in regard to true
believers is reinforced by the three descriptive terms used in reference to
spiritual circumcision by Paul.[18]
- “Who worship in the Spirit of God.” While some deny that this reference refers to the Holy Spirit, and refers to the human spirit, I see this as doubtful. I agree with Muller who says the translation should be “worship by the Spirit of God.”[19] It is “an instrumental dative, indicating that the worship is under the impulse and direction of the Holy Spirit.”[20] Lloyd-Jones gives three important aspects of true worship in the Spirit. He points out:
To worship God by the Spirit means that we
do not have to force ourselves to worship him, but are conscious of being moved
and being led, to worship.[21]
To worship by the Spirit of God is not
something cold and formal, it is always warm and loving and free. …It is the
warmth of the Spirit, not a cold formality.[22]
True worship of God in the Spirit can be
tested in this way: the man who worships God in the Spirit does not think of
God as some distant abstraction, almost a philosophical concept, away in the
distance. The man who worships in the spirit realizes the presence of God; he
knows that God is there at his side.[23]
- “Glory in Christ Jesus,” The Greek word behind the
word glory is kauchaomai and clearly means
glory or boasting. It is used both in the negative and positive sense in
Scripture, determined by the context. The same Greek word is found in 1
Corinthians 1:29: “no man may boast
[or glory] before God.” The Judaizers made their boast in the law (cf.
Rom. 2:23). We are to make our boast—in
Christ Jesus. It is a preposition of sphere or location. We boast or
glory in Christ, who has made us acceptable to God (cf. 2 Cor. 10:7; 1
Cor. 1:31). Thus we boast in the person and work of Christ. As Eadie says:
“in Christ Jesus, and in
Him alone-not in Him and Moses-not in Son and servant alike; gloried in Him; in
His great condescension; His birth and its wonders; His life and its blessings;
His death and its benefits; His ascension and its pledges; His return, and its
stupendous and permanent results.”[24]
- “Put no
confidence in the flesh.” This third participial phrase signifies the
grounds in which we cannot boast (cf. 1 Cor. 1:29). This is in sharp
contrast to the Judaizers who are putting confidence in the fleshly act of
circumcision. It is in contrast to glorying in Christ. Confidence in the
flesh is to trust in human attainment and works. In light of the context,
Paul is rejecting ritualism as a ground for confidence before God.
This verse also
should be seen as a transition verse. Paul takes the concept of boasting and
confidence and carries it over to his experience. Three key phrases account for
the summary of Paul’s experience.
PAUL’S
EXPEREINCES
|
Phil 3:8
|
Phil 3:12
|
Phil 3:20
|
|
I count loss
|
I press on
|
Look for
|
|
Past
|
Present
|
Future
|
[1] Perschbacher, NEW ANALYTICAL GREEK LEXICON,
260
[2] O’Brien, NIGTC: PHILIPPIANS, 347.
[3] Baker, UNDERSTANDING THE BODY OF CHRIST, 92.
[4] Quoted by Silva, PHILIPPIANS, 165.
[5] Ibid, 167.
[6] Calvin, CALVIN’S NEW TESTAMENT COMMENTARIES:
PHILIPPIANS, 267.
[7] Hawthorne, WBC:PHILIPPIANS, 124.
[8] O’Brien, NIGTC:PHILIPPIANS, 351.
[9] Hawthorne, WBC:PHILIPPIANS, 125.
[10] Siliva, PHILIPPIANS 169.
[11] Wuest, PHILIPPIANS, 87.
[12] Perschbacher, LEXICON, 228.
[13] Gromacki, STAND UNITED IN JOY, 135.
[14] Silva, PHILIPPIANS, 170.
[15] Baker, UNDERSTANDING THE BODY OF CHRIST, 93.
[16] Hawthorne, WBC: PHILIPPIANS, 126.
[17] Robert L. Saucy, A CASE FOR PROGRESSIVE
DISPENSATIONALISM, 205.
[18] These are in contrast with the three
descriptive terms used of the Judaizers in verse 2.
[19] Muller, NICNT:PHILIPPIANS, 107 fn 4.
[20] Loh and Nida, TRANSLATORS HANDBOOK:
PHILIPPIANS, 92.
[21] D. Martin Lloyd-Jones, THE LIFE OF PEACE, 28.
[22] Ibid, 29.
[23] Ibid, 30.
[24] Eadie, PHILIPPIANS [3:3].
No comments:
Post a Comment