Philippians 3

CHAPTER III

Paul Adds a Warning against Judaizers and Points to his own Example

Philippians 3:1

1 The supposition that Paul intended to close his epistle with τὸλοιπόν, but that something else flashed into his mind at the moment so that he began again and then made another attempt to close with another τὸλοιπόν in 4:8, is not tenable. Paul certainly intended to write 4:10, etc., as the final part of his letter. Please note that already in Paul’s time τὸλοιπόν began to be little more that οὖν in force (R. 1146) and that it has come to be this in modern Greek. So the expression may occur more than once in a piece of writing and not necessarily only as marking the conclusion. Here this adverbial accusative introduces the warning against the Judaizers and concludes the admonition against pagan adversaries begun in 1:27–30. That is why τὸλοιπόν is quite in place, and why it is untenable to deny that there is a connection between this chapter and the preceding. In fact, even 4:8, 9 is not a conclusion but rather the summary and last positive admonition.

Furthermore, my brethren, rejoice in the Lord! To be writing the same things to you for me (is) not sluggish but for you (it is) safe.

The call to the affectionately addressed “my brethren” to rejoice in connection with the Lord to whom they belong with heart and soul, is the preamble to what follows, which, however, is not merely the brief direct warning against the Judaizers but far more the glorious position of the Philippians in contrast to these errorists (v. 3), which is illustrated at length by using Paul himself as an example (v. 4–14), whom the Philippians are to follow (v. 15, etc.). So this is the proper note to strike by way of preamble even as joy rings through the entire epistle. This is not an afterthought but a carefully thought-out, integral part of the letter.

“The same things” refers to what follows and not to the call to rejoice. These “same things” are frequently taken to be warnings that were written to the Philippians in previous letters, namely letters which thanked them for remittances for Paul’s support, in which letters he also repeatedly warned against the Judaizers. But we have already seen that, besides the gift just sent Paul, only two other gifts had been sent while Paul was in Thessalonica (4:16). The multiplication of these gifts is unnecessary. “The same things” refers to 1:27–30. There he warns the Philippians to stand firm against opponents; now he issues the same warning against another set of opponents. Today some would say, “The same old polemics over again!”

Μέν and δέ balance: thus to repeat “for me (is) not sluggish,” or sluggishness as though my mind is lazy and can harp only on one string. These things are, to be sure, practically the same things. But to repeat them as I do, “for you (it is) safe” or a safe thing, the word “safe” is to be taken in an active sense, tending to make you safe. “Not sluggish” is a litotes. Paul is diligent and very active in repeating warnings and fortifying them. Standing on Zion’s towers, he is no dumb dog (Isa. 56:10), he does not fail to blow the trumpet, no blood of any poor victim will be required at his hand (Ezek. 33:2–6). Paul is pure from the blood of all men (Acts 20:26).

Here is the interpretation of “for you—safe,” the answer to those who balk at “the same things” when they hear the least polemics. This double statement is the narrower part of the preamble.

Philippians 3:2

2 Now the direct warning. Beware of the dogs! Beware of the base workers! Beware of the Mutilation!

Concise, crushing! Like Tennyson’s: “Break—break—break!” (R. 1178), with great rhetorical effect (R. 1100). This is the entire warning, all the rest is offered in substantiation. Βλέπετε is frequently used in the sense of “look out for,” “beware of.” We may imitate the Greek direct object: “Beware the dogs!” The verb indicates that these “dogs,” etc., were not as yet present in Philippi but that they might appear at any time. They had invaded the Galatian churches and had done great damage in Corinth. These Judaizers established no congregations of their own, they bored into sound congregations that had been built up by others. See their arrogant tyranny in 2 Cor. 11:20.

There is no need to seek for the connotation of “the dogs” and to think of insolence, shamelessness, roaming tendencies, barking at people, etc. “Dogs” was the Jewish designation for all Gentiles; Paul hurls it back at the Judaizers: they are “the dogs” in the true sense of the word. In the Orient the dogs were ownerless, roamed the streets and acted as scavengers, and were filthy in this sense. In Matt. 15:26, 27 the point of Jesus’ answer is lost when “dogs” is understood in this sense. Jesus used the word κυνάρια, the diminutive, “little pet dogs” that were owned by the family, kept in the house, allowed under the dining table (see the author’s interpretation). Yes, Paul called errorists rather harsh names. He followed Jesus in this respect: “ravening wolves” (Matt. 7:15), Paul: “grievous wolves” (Acts 20:29).

These are not wrong, passionate names but terribly true ones. They are a little unpopular today. The Expositor’s Greek New Testament (Kennedy) refers to Luther “who, in prospect of death, could not depart without wishing for his followers not only the blessing of God but also hatred of the pope.”

“Dogs” is figurative, “base workers” is literal. They were exceedingly energetic like the Pharisees from whom they sprang, who compassed land and sea to make one convert and made him thereby twofold the child of hell (Matt. 23:15). Fanatic errorists are marked by this energy which is the very opposite of gospel zeal (Jesus, John 2:17; Paul, 2 Cor. 11:26, 27). Κακός = “base,” i. e., morally base in all their energy. This adjective describes these men and their personal moral character and not merely their fruits. This is a fact on which to reflect, for this is their regular characterization in Scripture.

“The Mutilation” is the abstract for the concrete, κατατομή in annominatio with the following περιτομή (R. 1201). These words are similar in sound, opposite in sense, and deadly in effect: “the Mutilation—the Circumcision.” The former is here not applied to all Jews as circumcised individuals but only to the Judaizers who mixed the law with the gospel and made physical circumcision necessary for all believers in Christ. Our versions try to keep the similarity in sound: “Concision—Circumcision,” but the former does not convey the point clearly enough. By their insistence on circumcision for believers in Christ these Judaizers were “the Mutilation,” this being their true name for the cutting which they did. What Christ had abrogated they demanded as essential; what now counted as nothing (Gal. 6:15) they counted as everything. To yield to them was to fall from grace, to let Christ become of no effect (Gal. 5:3, 4).

What the three terms lack in length they more than make up in force. Is the third sarcasm? What else would sarcasm be? All three are definite (hence the articles) and denote one well-known, dangerous and vicious class. Those who think that they designate three different classes cannot point these out. Pagan opponents are not mentioned after 1:28; “base workers” cannot be “base Christians” in general. All that follows is stated in opposition to Judaizers.

Philippians 3:3

3 For we on our part are the Circumcision, those worshipping God’s Spirit and boasting in Christ Jesus and not resting confidence in flesh.

Beware of the dogs, etc., “for” we are the very opposite and cannot have the least to do with them! This is the connection. “We” is decidedly emphatic; the articulated predicate “the Circumcision” is identical and interchangeable with the subject “we” (R. 769) and is amplified by the apposition which includes three participles that are united by one article (οἱ). These three balance the three terms used to designate the Judaizers. When Paul says to the Philippians: “We are the Circumcision,” the opposite of “the Mutilation,” this means the true spiritual Circumcision that is not handmade (see Eph. 2:11). “You” in v. 3, now changed to “we,” includes also Paul and Timothy (1:1), in other words, all true Christians; the Judaizers are excluded. The abstract term is again used to indicate a concrete class.

“We” cannot be restricted to Paul and his assistants in the work of the gospel. The participial additions do not admit such a restriction. The epistle thus far has not touched on this restricted group. The view that in the following Paul speaks of himself as being physically circumcised is answered by the fact that two assistants of his, Titus and Luke, were not circumcised.

What makes Paul, Timothy, and the Philippians “the Circumcision,” the true succession of the Israel of God (Gal. 6:16), who must beware of the Judaizers lest they, too, fall from grace and lose Christ (Gal. 5:4)? This that they are “the ones worshipping the Spirit of God,” etc. Meyer terms this the Erfahrungsgrund. Christians know from their own experience who and what they are, yet they know this in the way which Jesus indicates in John 7:17 when he includes the doctrine which makes them what they are. In Scriptural literature λατρεύω is used only in the religious sense to indicate the service we owe to God, which is obligatory for all of us and not only for persons in office, to indicate which latter the word λειτουργῶ is used (the noun in 2:17).

The correct reading is “God’s Spirit” and not the dative “God” (A. V.). But the dative “God’s Spirit” is not instrumental, the means “by” which we worship (R. V.), If that were the force, the very inferior reading πνεύματιΘεῷ would be preferable: worship God with (our) spirit (compare A. V.), John 4:24: “in spirit and truth.” The Scriptures never say that we use the Holy Spirit as a means for worship or for anything else. On the other hand, we challenge the statement that the Scriptures never present the Holy Spirit as the object of our worship; this is sometimes extended to include also our Lord Jesus Christ. This claim is Arian. Right here Paul writes: “We are the ones worshipping God’s Spirit.”

Next, we are “the ones boasting in Christ Jesus”; ἐν names the cause of our happy pride and exaltation, “Christ Jesus,” office and person, all that he is, has done, and will yet do for us. Finally, “the ones having and ever continuing to trust not in flesh” but, as the two preceding participles show, in God’s Spirit and in Christ Jesus and what they do for us.

What do those called “the dogs” know about the worship of “God’s Spirit”; “base workers” about “Christ Jesus” and his real work; “the Mutilation” besides “flesh” which they mutilate, to which neither God’s Spirit nor Christ Jesus impels them? These three contradict the Judaistic three. Moreover, “God’s Spirit” and “Christ Jesus” are properly named because through them alone and not through “flesh” the Father works our salvation.

Philippians 3:4

4 This verse should be construed with the preceding: “We are … the ones resting confidence not in flesh” although I for my part possessing confidence even in flesh.

Bengel is right: having but not using. Πεποίθησις, “confidence,” is here used objectively, not to indicate feeling, but the objective reason or cause that might produce such a feeling whether it actually does so or not. The participial construction is continued from v. 3: Paul is one of those worshipping the Spirit, glorifying in Christ, not resting confidence in flesh although he especially (ἐγώ, emphatic) possesses everything in the way of flesh that inspires the Judaizers with their confidence and, if Paul would permit it, would so inspire also him. Among all the Christians who do not (οὐ, clear-cut, decisive negative when it is, as here, used with the participle, v. 3) put their confidence in flesh Paul stands pre-eminently as one who actually has reason for the Judaistic mistaken confidence. On καιπέρ, “although,” as stating an emphatic opposite point see R. 1154.

Philippians 3:5

5 A new sentence begins. If any other person thinks of resting confidence in flesh, I for my part—(even) more!—i. e., I on my part have more reason to think so than any other man. “In regard to flesh,” i. e., anything of that kind (no article is used with the three phrases), Paul challenges any Judaizer to excel him. Of course, this is only “flesh” and not “flesh” in the purely ethical sense, namely our depraved human nature, but rather in the physical and Judaistic sense, prerogatives of Jewish birth and of Jewish religious standing and attainments, as the following shows. This emphatically repeated phrase “in (such a thing as) flesh” already makes plain to every Christian reader what folly it is for any man to rest his confidence in such a vacuous thing, however much he might possess of it.

Now there comes the catalog of the “flesh” prerogatives which Paul actually “has,” in which he excels any Judaizer, on which, if he were a fool as they are, he might rest his confidence instead of resting it exclusively on Christ Jesus. All the items are appositional extensions of ἐγώ: “I (even) more”—as to circumcision an eighth-day-one; out of Israel’s stock, Benjamin’s tribe; a Hebrew out of Hebrews; as touching law, a Pharisee; as touching zeal, a persecutor of the church; as touching righteousness in connection with law, one come to be blameless.

The Greek has the adjective “an eighth-day-one” with the dative of relation “as to circumcision.” Circumcision is named first because this was the chief thing for which the Judaizers contended. Well, Paul had it; nor did he get it later on in life like the many proselytes of the Jews or like Judaizing proselytes and like converts made by Judaizers. Paul was circumcised exactly on the eighth day according to the law.

Secondly, he was of genuine Israelite stock, namely of Benjamin’s tribe, which tribe, together with that of Juda, constituted the real Jews after the loss of the ten tribes and after the Babylonian captivity. Paul was not a leftover from any of the ten tribes. Since he was a Benjaminite, his father named him after the one king, Israel’s first, who had been furnished by this tribe: Saul.

Thirdly, Paul was a pure-blooded Hebrew, “a Hebrew out of Hebrews,” no ancester on either side being of other blood. The word Hebrew means “one from beyond the river (Euphrates)” who returned to Palestine from there after the Babylonian captivity; then it also means one who speaks the Aramaic dialect. Paul’s Hebraic extraction was the genuinely purest and best in Jewish eyes.

Already in these three physical “flesh” excellencies many and many a Judaizer was outclassed by Paul. But he climbs higher and higher until he leaves every Judaizer behind. This list is cumulative.

He names three more “flesh” prerogatives, the very highest in all Jewish and Judaistic eyes, these are marked by κατά which denotes measure or norm. Measured by “law,” Paul was “a Pharisee,” a pharush, a “separatist,” the strictest Jewish sect that stood for completest observance of law (Acts 26:5) and was revered as such by all Jews. Paul was even the son of a Pharisee (Acts 23:6), a most genuine article of this type. How many Judaizers could say this of their Jewish past?

Philippians 3:6

6 Measured by “zeal,” i. e., zeal for Pharisaic observance of law, Paul had been “a persecutor of the church,” this innovating body of Christians who were abrogating the law and following Jesus, who had been crucified as one accursed of God according to the Jewish estimate (see on “death of a cross,” 2:8). We know how Paul outdid himself in this “zeal” which was so meritorious in Jewish eyes. With their “zeal” the Judaizers only proselyted the Christians. What was that compared to Paul’s old record? Here he leaves them all behind. Gal. 1:14.

The most important item is kept for the last. Measured by the standard of “righteousness,” namely “that in connection with law,” the old Jewish standard which the Judaizers were upholding with might and main, Paul was “one become blameless,” faultless. Δικαιοσύνη is forensic as always; but here the judges who pronounce the verdict: “Righteous because blameless!” are the Jews and the Judaizers. That is the verdict and the quality Paul had actually reached (aorist participle). How many of either class, Jews or Judaizers, could truthfully say the same?

The anarthrous νόμος = “law” in its quality as law. While the Jewish law is referred to, “the law” would be an inexact translation, compare “blameless” in Luke 1:6; Phil. 2:15. Paul scored 100 per cent in regard to all six items. The first three without will or act of his own, the other three by his will and his acts; the first was character derived, the last, character personally attained.

Philippians 3:7

7 But what things were for me gains, these I have considered because of Christ loss.

They “were” at one time in Paul’s blind Jewish eyes “gains,” the Judaizers still regarded them thus, they “were” but are that no longer (significant tense). Ἅτινα = what things of this kind (Paul has not mentioned all of them) and because they are of such a kind. “These,” because they are what they are, “I have considered” for a long time and continue to do so (extensive perfect) “loss” or damage. They were, as Paul at last discovered, fallacious gains, gains which robbed him and only damaged his soul. No Judaizers can make him think otherwise at this late day. He had invested in absolutely worthless stock; nobody could ever sell him any more of this kind. Why? “Because of Christ,” which sums up the great reason in briefest form: “because he is the one and only gain.”

Philippians 3:8

8 Yea, also I still consider everything to be loss because of the surpassingness of the knowledge of Christ Jesus, my Lord, because of whom I suffered the loss of all these things (and still consider them dung) that I might get to gain Christ and get to be found in connection with him as not having any righteousness of my own, that (derived) out of law, but the one (obtained) by means of faith in Christ, the righteousness (derived) from God on the basis of this faith: (namely) to get to know him and the power of his resurrection and fellowship of his sufferings in being conformed to his death, if somehow I may get to arrive at the rising up from the dead.

This second ἀλλά is climacteric (R. 1186): “Yea.” This is enhanced by the following participles, a sample of the old witchery of the Greek particles (R. 1143), five of them being combined: “yea, indeed, therefore, at least, even” (R., W. P.), a combination that is impossible to our cold English which has never had such delicate touches and knows nothing of such exquisite shading of thought.

Paul repeats with emphasis the thought expressed in v. 7 and brings out the vital points. No one can persuade us that Paul intends to convey no difference between the perfect tense ἥγημαι, “I have considered” (v. 7), and the two presents ἡγοῦμαι, which emphasize and mean: “I still continue to consider.” When different tenses of the same verb occur side by side, the difference is intentional. Here this difference even obtrudes itself: what Paul has done (ἥγημαι, v. 7) he emphatically “also” (καί) continues to do (ἡγοῦμαι), and no Judaizer shall ever change him. In v. 7 he says “such things” (ἅτινα), now he says “everything” (πάντα) he considers to be loss and nothing but loss for the reason assigned. But now he expands this reason from “because of Christ” to the full, emphatic “because of the surpassingness of the knowledge of Christ Jesus, my Lord.”

The substantivized neuter participle τὸὑπερέχον is equivalent to an abstract noun. At one time Paul surpassed all the young men of his age in Pharisaic zeal and false Jewish merit, Gal. 1:14; now he has found a far different “surpassingness,” the true one, one that bestows upon him “the surpassingness of the knowledge of Christ Jesus, my Lord.” He now uses the full confessional name and not merely the terse “Christ” which he used in v. 7. He now writes “the knowledge,” γυῶσις (the verb occurs in v. 10; both words indicate, not the mere relation of the object to the subject as in intellectual knowing, but of the subject to the blessed object as in heart knowledge, C.-K. 388). “Everything” fades into worthlessness before this knowledge which makes “Christ Jesus, my Lord,” Paul’s inward possession, Christ’s person and his work, his Lordship full of grace and glory. John 17:3: “This is life eternal that they may know … Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.”

Now he states the loss and the gain, but the loss that is the surpassing gain. Διʼ ὅν is emphatic: “he the one because of whom I was made to lose all these things” that in my folly I at one time considered such great gain, τὰπάντα, the article of previous mention (πάντα). The passive is significant. Paul did not of himself give up his Jewish excellencies, somebody made him lose them; we need not ask who. Ever since that time (Acts 9:4, etc.) Paul has considered these things as loss (perfect tense, v. 7) “and still goes on considering them (now he uses a still stronger term) as manure.” We let the linguists debate the derivation of σκύβαλον and the meaning as to whether this is dung, manure, or just rubbish that is swept out. See M.-M. 579, the singular being found in a papyrus with the meaning “rotten hay,” the whole of it being decayed and no better than “dung” (manure). The connotation is that all Paul’s Jewish excellencies were for him made and are now by him ever considered a stinking mess.

In the purpose clause: “in order that I may gain Christ and be found in connection with him,” etc., some puzzle about the aorist subjunctives. They seem to be future to “I still consider.” On that supposition various explanations are offered, all of which in some way operate with a future gaining of Christ, etc., and think that this must ever be renewed (but these are aorists), that the final gaining has not yet been attained, etc. The construction is plainly ad sensum with the ἵνα clause being dependent on the divine act by which Paul was made to suffer the blessed loss.

One ought to note that these strong final aorists cannot depend on Paul’s subjective considering. Moreover, through to v. 10 all the aorists are ingressive. The little insertion “and still consider dung” is merely thrown in to repeat “and still consider everything to be loss,” the only new point being “dung.” So we have this: “I was made to suffer loss of all these things (and still consider them dung) in order that (by that loss) I should get to gain Christ and get to be found in connection with him,” etc. Instanter with this loss (historical aorist of fact) the purpose was accomplished: Paul got the gain, was found, etc. That is why he ever since considered as he had, and why he declares he still so considers.

“Get to gain Christ” is again terse and concentrated like “loss because of Christ” (v. 7); in fact, they go together. As the latter is expanded and expounded in v. 8, so the former is elucidated in v. 9, καί being epexegetical.

Philippians 3:9

9 One gets to gain Christ, not as one acquires those Jewish and Judaistic gains, by natural birth and by personal zeal and work, but by divine agency, “without any merit or worthiness of our own” (Luther). Hence we have another aorist passive: “and get to be found in connection with him.” We gain Christ when by his grace God connects us with him, and when you and I are found thus connected by God. “In him” is the same phrase that is used scores of times; ἐν = “in connection with,” it is neither mystical, mysterious, nor anything that is beyond the ordinary reader. The connection is ever and always made by faith.

Here it is fully elucidated: “found in connection with him as (or by) not having any righteousness of my own,” having been made to suffer the loss of any such righteousness as v. 8 states. Note the strong ἐμήν and not μού, and the absence of the article. “Any righteousness of my own” would be “that (derived) out of law” of some kind (again no article) whether Jewish or some other. Ἐκ indicates source. To get any righteousness of one’s own out of anything in the way of law would have to be done by perfectly fulfilling such law, a thing that is impossible for born sinners. The Jews and the Judaizers had only an imaginary righteousness out of their law, the one God took from Paul by this very law in Acts 9:5 and stripped him clean. This is the negative part of having gotten to be found (ingressive) in Christ.

The positive is the very opposite: “but (as or by having) the one (obtained) by means of faith in Christ (objective genitive), the righteousness (derived) out of (or from) God (himself) on the basis of faith.” The commentary is found in Rom. 1:17: “God’s righteousness” as revealed by him in the gospel, “out of faith,” “for faith”; in Rom. 3:21: published and attested by the Old Testament: “God’s righteousness through faith in Jesus Christ for all the believers.” As in these passages in Romans “faith” is mentioned twice, so here in Philippians.

This is the genuine righteousness—Paul emphatically repeats the word—for it is “out of God” and not “my own.” We get to have it as ours “by means of faith,” add through the gospel, the opposite of any law. “Gratis, by his grace” (Rom. 1:23), hence by means of faith alone. It is the quality of righteousness that is produced by the divine verdict which pronounces the sinner righteous “on the basis of his faith,” this very “faith in Christ” who expiated our curse on the cross (2:8; Gal. 3:13). This verdict is pronounced on believers only (Rom. 3:22), the verdict pronounced on all others is damnation (Mark 16:16; John 3:18b). It is pronounced in the instant of faith and recorded everywhere in Scripture (Rom. 3:21). This faith which is so essential as the means for having God’s righteousness and as the basis for the verdict involved in it is kindled by God himself and is never without its contents, “Christ.”

Philippians 3:10

10 The infinitive with τοῦ is epexegetical whether it is considered final (continuing the idea of ἵνα in v. 8) or consecutive to the ἵνα clause: “in order to—or so as to get to know him,” etc. In either case it is ingressive. The construction is: “I suffered the loss of all things … in order to gain Christ and to be found in him … (namely) to know him and the power of his resurrection and fellowship of his suffering in being conformed to his death.” Τοῦγνῶναι does not express a further purpose, one beyond that expressed by ἵνα. Paul would then have used a second ἵνα. He would have written in the same way if he had intended to have two parallel purposes. Here the infinitive expounds what the ἵνα clause contains.

The great purpose of the loss that snatched everything away from Paul was in that very instant to make him gain Christ and in that instant to be found in him as having the true righteousness; and this means that then and there, in that very instant, Paul got to know Christ, the power of his resurrection, etc. Mark the four aorists and do not make the last one (“get to know”) a durative, continuous, progressive present.

This answers those who have the infinitive depend on this or that intervening subordinate point. We need not refute them in detail.

“To get to know him” = “the surpassingness of the knowledge of Christ Jesus, my Lord,” in v. 8. What we have said on the latter regarding γνῶσις and γνῶναι applies also here: Paul got to know, not merely intellectually (relation of the object “Christ” to the subject, οἶδα), but in a personal, saving way (relation of the subject to the object, γινώσκω), cum affectu et effectu. Paul is restating God’s great purpose as it was actually accomplished at the time of his conversion as recorded in Acts 9. Jesus appeared to him; that is how Paul “got to know him.” Jesus appeared to him in the blinding glory of heaven; that is how Paul “got to know his resurrection and the power of it.” Jesus said: “I will show him how great things he must suffer for my name’s sake” (Acts 9:16); that is how Paul “got to know the fellowship of his sufferings.” So much strained interpretation fades away when this connection with Acts 9 is seen.

There, on the road to Damascus, at one blow went everything that Paul had built up in the way of a righteousness of his own; there (and through Ananias) he was put into connection with Christ and with the righteousness from God through faith in Christ, on the basis of this faith, ἐπὶτῇπίστει, v. 9. And all this means that there Paul truly got to know Christ. The infinitive is clearly epexegetical. The aorist designates the purpose achieved by God so that we may also call it result; it makes no difference as long as we let it remain epexegetical.

We now see that “him” (“get to know him”) is expounded by the double addition: “and (epexegetical) the power of his resurrection and fellowship of his sufferings.” This is what Paul got to know near Damascus regarding Christ. He himself saw the risen Lord, saw him in all the power of his resurrection. This is “the surpassingness” of the knowledge Paul there got (v. 8). This power of Christ’s resurrection became Paul’s personal, blessed gnosis. He was made to know Christ Jesus as “his Lord” (v. 8), for Jesus appeared to Paul to bring him to contrition and to faith, not to damn him with his omnipotence.

“The power of his resurrection” means that by the resurrection he was made both Lord and Christ (Acts 2:36), exalted as Prince and Savior to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins (Acts 5:31), made unto us wisdom and righteousness and sanctification and ransoming (1 Cor. 1:30). “The power of his resurrection” is the seal of his redemption. God accepted his ransom by raising Christ and by glorifying him so that all who by faith embrace this Christ who died and rose again for our justification (Rom. 4:24, 25) are justified by God, have “the righteousness from God on the basis of faith” (v. 9). This is “the surpassingness of the knowledge of Christ Jesus, my Lord.”

There is only one article: “the power—and fellowship.” Some texts have two. Some commentators desire two because they find “power” and “fellowship” too diverse to be combined under one article. Some even divide into three objects: “get to know 1) him, 2) the power of his resurrection, 3) the fellowship of his sufferings.” We have only one object: “him.” This one is unfolded by epexegetical καί and means: him according to his power as Savior and our fellowship with his sufferings. Paul’s confession: “Christ Jesus, my Lord,” sums it up. Acts 9:16 applies to Paul as regards these sufferings. Read Matt. 5:11, 12; 20:22; John 15:19–21; Rom. 8:17; 2 Cor. 1:5; 4:10; Col. 1:24; Phil. 1:29; 1 Pet. 4:13.

These passages and others are the Scripture’s commentary. Also Paul’s own addition “in being conformed to his death.” The fact that Paul expected eventually to die a martyr’s death we have noted in 2:17. He was not certain; but he certainly lived with death at his elbow many a time.

This participation in Christ’s sufferings is not a participation in their expiatory quality as all the passages show. It is due to the world’s hate, due to its hate of our Lord which is extended to us because of our connection with him. The plural refers to all the sufferings of Christ and not only to the final ones; they climaxed in his death. The present durative passive participle is construed like the one in v. 9 (“as or by not having”): “as or by being conformed.”

The participle contains μορφή (see 2:6). We are not merely receiving the σχῆμα or outward fashion but the real form that fits the essence, so closely are we connected with Christ who is “formed” in us (Gal. 4:19). Outward resemblance is not referred to but something inward and far deeper. It should now be clear that “the power of Christ’s resurrection” and “fellowship with his sufferings, conforming to his death,” are not diverse, each to have its own article on that account, but a unit that is properly placed under one article. Christ’s resurrection, sufferings, and death ever go together, and thus Paul got to know as a joint thing the power of his resurrection and fellowship of his sufferings: his power as justifying and saving us, Paul’s fellowship in being conformed to this Christ.

Philippians 3:11

11 The durative participle is in distinct contrast to the preceding aorists (four of them). Being made to conform runs through Paul’s entire life to his very death (whether he suffers martyrdom or not). It is essential to note this in order to understand what follows. The four aorists place us at Damascus, at the time of Paul’s conversion, the durative participle carries us to Paul’s death. Paul thinks of that death: “if somehow (in any way) I may get to arrive at the rising up, the one from the dead.” He has combined Christ’s resurrection, sufferings, and death; he has spoken of his participation in Christ’s sufferings and of conformation with Christ’s death. So now, as is done in other passages (Rom. 8:17; 1 Pet. 4:13), he adds the coming glory of his resurrection.

We have εἴπως with the subjunctive which is akin to an indirect question and hence is used with the subjunctive and expresses expectation (see B.-D. 375). The verb might be the future indicative, but we do not think that it is so here, for in v. 12 we have the same εἰ with a subjunctive. The subjunctive is still more certain because this “if” is a part of God’s purpose in getting Paul to gain Christ and to be found in him, etc. (v. 8, etc.), in getting him to know Christ, etc., and in more and more conforming him to Christ’s death (v. 10). The expected end of all this realized purpose is: “if somehow I may get to arrive,” etc. The aorist “get to arrive” at last also conveys the proper sense. Neither εἰ nor its addition intends to express doubt; B.-D. is right, it expresses expectation. Paul confidently expects that “somehow” the conformation God is working out will attain its goal and make him arrive at last at the blessed resurrection from the dead.

The only uncertainty is in the “somehow.” Will it be by a martyr’s death, his blood being poured out in a libation (2:17) or by a non-violent death (such as John suffered)? Will Paul, who had been a prisoner for four long years, at last die in prison or die in free apostolic activity? Some say that Paul speaks with modesty, that he still distrusts his sinful nature, and the like. These ideas are well meant, but they misunderstand the Greek εἴπως and overlook the divine agent in “was made to suffer loss” (v. 8), this agent appearing again in “being made conform.” These passives are genuine in the sense of 1:6: “He who began in you a good work will bring it to its goal up to Christ’s day.” In 1:6 Paul says, “I am confident of it”; here his “if” says, “I am expecting it.”

Only here the word ἐξανάστασις is used, and the question is asked why Paul does not write the common ἀνάστασις as he does in v. 10. Some fanciful answers are given on the basis of ἐκ and on misconceptions of the resurrection. Paul apparently uses the double compound regarding his own resurrection from the dead because this is not identical with Christ’s resurrection. In v. 10 we have: “the power of his resurrection,” Christ arose by his own power. Paul’s is “a rising up” that is effected by Christ. Remember how often Jesus said: “I will raise him up at the last day!” (John 6:39, 40, 44, 54) and not: “He will arise.” Of the temple of his own body Jesus said: “I will raise it up” (John 2:19). “From the dead” (ἐκνεκρῶν) means: “from death.” Paul will arrive at this blessed goal when he dies. His body will sleep in peace until Christ awakes it from sleep at the last day.

Paul is not speaking of a spiritual resurrection. Misinterpretation of Rev. 20:5 posits two physical resurrections with a great interval between them and introduces this thought into our passage. John 5:28, 29: “the hour is coming” is divided into two widely separated hours. The questions: “Did Paul expect to die before the Parousia? Did he not expect to live until the Parousia?” are answered in 1 Thess. 4:13–17. How could he know? No more than you can. If he had either experience, the expectation here expressed would be fulfilled.

Philippians 3:12

12 God is still at work conforming Paul to Christ’s death, and Paul is yet to get to arrive at the resurrection from the dead. So Paul writes: Not that I did already get hold of or have already been made complete. No, I am continuing pursuit if also I may get to capture, since also I got captured by Christ Jesus. Brethren, I on my part am not yet reckoning myself to have captured. One thing, yes,—forgetting the things behind and stretching out goalward to those in front, I continue pursuit for the prize of the lofty calling of God in Christ Jesus.

We supply nothing; “not that” is common also in English. Paul is not warding off a misunderstanding, he has written nothing that needs what follows as a correction. He is simply elaborating his blessed condition now that he has gotten rid of the false Jewish righteousness and has been put into possession of God’s true righteousness.

Here we have another study in tenses. Robertson has said well that there are sermons in Greek tenses. Paul’s meaning is expressed by the verbs plus their tenses. “Not that I did already get hold of,” aorist: that I have already gotten to that point. Paul has been a Christian for years; yet at no point during those years, not even in the recent past, could he say, “I am done!” Some ask, “Got hold of what?” and then supply some object, perhaps reaching down even into v. 14, “the prize.” But the aorist past act as such is the whole point. This is strictly punctiliar and not a constative, summary aorist as R., W. P., states.

“Or” is conjunctive and not disjunctive. It presents the same thought with a different word, yes, and with a different voice: “or have already been made complete.” “To get hold of” is an act of Paul’s, and he has to take, grasp, get hold of. The Christian is filled with life, with a new will, with spiritual power and ability. He must not only use it constantly, but the great moment comes when the final grasp must be made. Yet ever and always activity and passivity are combined. That is also the case in this final act of which Paul speaks.

God will do the act of completing (1:6). Hence the passive: “Not that—I have already been made complete,” i. e., by God. Now the tense is the perfect: “have been made complete” so that I stand as such, so that God is through and can look at me like a contractor who has finished a building. God’s task regarding Paul is not yet finished.

Take the two verbs together also as to their tenses. The time will come when Paul can say, Ἔλαβον, “I did get hold!” and when God can say, Τετέλεσται (as in John 19:30), “It has been finished!” or Paul, Τετελείωμαι, “I have been finished!” namely by God and his grace.

But “no” (δέ), not yet can either be said by Paul. He must still say: “I am continuing pursuit!” I am still chasing, a durative present. The verbs are so diverse that no one object can be supplied, Paul himself prevents it by the diversity. “I am continuing pursuit if also I may get to capture, since also I got captured by Christ Jesus,” “if also,” as in 2:17 (R. 1026). leaving no doubt worth considering. The relative phrase = “because” or “since,” see the discussion of it in Rom. 5:12; 2 Cor. 5:4. Ἔλαβον is now turned into the stronger καταλάβω, and this is joined to the passive κατελήφθην, simplex and compounds, which it is difficult to reproduce in English, it is something like: “I did not already get hold of—if I may get to hold down—since also I got held down by Christ Jesus.”

Εἰ has the subjunctive just as in v. 11 and with the same expectancy. Paul is steadily pursuing in expectation of making the capture with finality (aorist), and this rests on the fact that at Damascus he got captured by Christ. Again there is the significant combination of active and passive, but now “got captured” by Christ is the historical aorist and lies in the far past (Damascus), and “may get to capture” lies in the future (as a subjunctive). Both are strictly punctiliar and indicate momentary acts: all in an instant Paul got captured; all in an instant, when the time comes, he will get to capture. Our versions misunderstand the relative phrase and make it: “that for which.” Pursuing and capturing match; but see the paradox: the one who got captured does steady pursuing so that he may eventually also get to capture.

Philippians 3:13

13 Paul repeats and elucidates by doing so. Some think that Paul is referring to the Philippians and is aiming at them by his pointed ἐγὼἐμαυτόν and is implying that in Philippi some imagined that they were through and could rest on their oars. We do not agree. This strong “I on my part—my own self,” which is even placed side by side for the purpose of greater emphasis, is opposed to a wrong estimate of Paul. Was he not the revered apostle of Christ, who had suffered so exceedingly much in his apostleship, who had borne four long years of imprisonment? Surely, the Philippian brethren might think him a saint who was entirely finished and complete, who might well admonish others but no longer himself needed admonition.

Paul cuts off such thoughts. It is well that, like John, the other saintly apostle (1 John 1:8–10), he has done so. Lesser men have persuaded themselves that they have attained perfection in this life, have strenuously preached their perfectionism with great damage to themselves and to others. Here is the antidote, another is offered in Rom. 7:14–25. The first of Luther’s famous 95 Theses is true: “The whole Christian life is a continuous repentance.”

“Brethren” sounds as if Paul means: “Please, brethren, do not think of me that I have such a high opinion about myself.” “I am not (some texts: not yet) reckoning myself to have captured,” I could not dream of doing such a thing; nor must any one of you think of me as already having made the capture. The perfect active κατειληφέναι implies that, having made the capture, Paul may sit at ease since he has made it, sit so now.

“One thing, yes (δέ)—forgetting the things behind and stretching out goalward (κατὰσκοπόν, this goal being in sight) for those in front, I continue pursuit toward the prize of the lofty calling of God in connection with Christ Jesus.” We supply nothing with ἓνδέ, not even a copula, much less: “but one thing I do” (our versions). What this “one thing” is Paul states directly and balances the participles with μέν—δέ. It is asked what “the things behind” are which he forgets, whether they are those enumerated in v. 4–6, his old Jewish prerogatives and attainments, or all that lies behind him in his Christian life. Undoubtedly the former. This is not an absolute forgetting, for he has just recalled these things once more; the participle is the durative present. This is the forgetting of constant discarding.

The other things, namely that he had been captured by Christ, had been set on the road toward the blessed resurrection from the dead to travel along the path of fellowship with Christ’s suffering in conformity with his death, Paul could in no way “forget” or dismiss from his heart. These were ever the moving power in his life. In fact, forgetting the Jewish ideas of righteousness is only the negative for ever remembering the Christian reality of righteousness by faith in Christ. “Stretching out goalward to those (things) in front” = eager to meet these things. The things in front are not yet “the prize” itself but all that lies goalward in Paul’s life until his death. He has mentioned “fellowship with the sufferings of Christ by being conformed to his death” (v. 10). Like a runner on a race track Paul rushes into each one of the sufferings that lie before him on that track, ever stretching out goalward, goalward.

Philippians 3:14

14 Thus he continues pursuit “for the prize of the lofty calling of God in connection with Christ Jesus.” He has already named this βραβεῖον or “prize” in v. 11: “may arrive at the raising up from the dead.” This is, of course, eternal blessedness, but the whole of it, pertaining to the body as well as to the soul. “Prize” is derived from the Greek word for umpire, the βραβεύς who bestows the prize at the end of the race, who is here Jesus who promised: “I will raise him up at the last day.”

The genitive “of the lofty calling” is stated objectively, for this is “the calling” of every believer. “Of my lofty calling” might be understood with reference to Paul’s exceptional apostolic calling. “The calling” (κλῆσις) is active, “of God” states who called. In the epistles this is always the successful gospel call which is actually followed by the power of grace in faith. The adverb “above” is used as an adjective. The purpose in adding this is not to indicate that this calling comes from on high, i. e., is divine, for this thought lies in the genitive “of God,” who certainly is “above.” This call is “high or lofty” because of the goal, the heavenly blessedness to which it calls us. It is improper to add inadequate ideas such as that “the goal ever moves forward as we press on yet is never out of sight.” Who ever heard of a goal doing that? The goal is always stationary and fixed; σκοπός names it as a mark that is seen, toward which the runner stretches with all his might.

We do not understand how anyone can say “in Christ Jesus” is to be construed with the distant verb “I continue pursuit”; it belongs where Paul placed it: “the calling of God in Christ Jesus,” God’s calling is in connection with Christ. To say that this is self-evident and need not be said forgets the fact that it is just as self-evident that our pursuing is in connection with Christ. Some self-evident things, nevertheless, need be said. The true Christian’s high calling comes to him “in connection with Christ Jesus,” and because of that it is the very opposite of all Judaism and Judaistic schemes of life that are based on law and works. Our call connects with him who died and rose again, who is the fount of gospel grace, the opposite of works of law.

And right here is the place to touch that most vital and distinctive point in our calling. We did not set up the prize; we did not even call ourselves to run for it. All this is of God and of Christ. Nor does our running create the prize or even earn it. The prize is pure grace, even our call is nothing but pure grace like the new life by which we are able to run and the running itself to which grace moves us. Paul reached the prize when he died. Then he arrived at the resurrection. His body fell asleep in order to be awakened by Christ as his sure promise states.

Philippians 3:15

15 In v. 2 we have the sharp warning against the Judaizers. In v. 3 Paul and the Philippians are described as being the very opposite of the Judaizers. In v. 4–8 Paul, more than any Judaizer, had discarded it all for Christ. In v. 9–14 Paul who has the divine righteousness runs for the goal of eternal blessedness in the resurrection. Thus Paul has used his own striking case, he being a former wonderful Jew, to substantiate and fully elucidate his warning. Paul had had far more than any Judaizers could even pretend to have.

Had he tried to combine it or any part of it with the gospel and with Christ as the Judaizers demanded wherever they appeared? God himself had destroyed all of it for Paul when he called him in Christ, had shown Paul that it was all stinking dung, that Christ was everything, namely righteousness by faith in Christ alone, a life in conformity with Christ’s suffering, the goal the resurrection granted by Christ. Now Paul reverts to the “we” of v. 3 in a brief exhortation that includes himself.

Accordingly, let us, as many as are mature, keep minding this thing; and if on some point you are differently minded, this, too, God will reveal to you. Only to what you have attained, with the same keep in line!

Τέλειοι is the predicate to ὅσοι, the copula being omitted, and states who “we” in the verb suffix are. The word means “mature,” those who have reached an end, here, as in passages like 1 Cor. 4:12; 14:20; Eph. 4:13, spiritual growth and maturity. A glance at M.-M. 629 shows how common the word is in this sense, and how a technical meaning like that found in the pagan mystery cults certainly did not influence Paul in his use of this adjective. Masonry uses various terms in its rituals, but this certainly does not mean that, when Christian preachers use these words, they are drawing them from such rituals.

It is fancy when we are told that “mature” should be put between quotation marks because the Philippians used the word regarding a certain class of their own number, who claimed a sort of perfection, Paul referring to this peculiar use. Even a certain irony is supposed to lurk in this quoting of the term. Paul uses the word in the same way in which he uses it elsewhere: “mature Christians” who are no longer “babes” that need to be nursed. Paul places himself among the mature.

No play on words is intended between τέλειοι and τετελείωμαι in v. 12 although they are derived from the same root. They are placed too far apart from each other for this. The verb denies regarding Paul that God has brought him to a certain finished stage (the one indicated in the context) while the adjective asserts that Paul and most of his readers have attained a finished stage (a different one from that mentioned in v. 12). That this is the stage of perfect holiness, as the perfectionists claim, is excluded already by the double denial in v. 12. Paul plus many Philippians had, indeed, reached spiritual maturity. To be sure, like every congregation, they had among them children, young people, and new, immature converts, all needing the mature members to guide and to help them. Paul is now addressing the mature.

Τοῦτο is not adverbial as we see also in 2:6; not: “Let us be thus minded!” but: “This thing let us keep minding!” The hortative subjunctive means more than “keep thinking” as does the imperative in 2:6; it includes thought plus conduct. But what is “this thing” that Paul and all the mature Christians must ever keep minding? To say it is the “one thing” mentioned in v. 13 is well enough; but if this is understood so as to exclude the rest of Paul’s exposition in v. 2–14, the idea is mistaken, for by “one thing” in v. 13, as Paul describes it in v. 13, 14, he includes all that he says in v. 2–14. No one can forget the things behind, stretch out goalward to those in front, and keep in pursuit of the prize of the lofty calling unless he heeds all that Paul has said. Οὖν reverts to all of it, and the whole of it, Paul says, let us keep minding. That is why he wrote all of it down for his readers. To be sure, they had not all been Jews like Paul, their life’s history had run a different course; but the same danger (v. 2) threatened them, and in order to keep safe they had ever to mind “this thing” that Paul so clearly sets forth on the basis of his own soul’s history.

We decline to make καί a kind of apodosis: “This let us keep minding, and then (or: and so), if on some point you are differently minded, this, too, God will reveal to you.” This creates confusion in wording as well as in thought. Καὶεἰ regards the supposition as improbable, as an unlikely, extreme case (R. 1026, where the difference between this expression and εἰκαί is shown): “and if” as I really have no reason to suppose, as is barely possible. Why is this so unlikely? Because all these are “mature” Christians. Yet suppose that it should after all happen that “on some point (adverbial τί because an adverb follows) you are differently minded,” what then? Why, “also this God will reveal to you,” i. e., in due time he will correct the slight mistake. “With καὶεἰ the truth of the principle sentence is stoutly affirmed in the face of this one objection” (R. 1026).

What is this point of some kind or “some respect” (τί) in which the mature Philippians might be differently minded than Paul? It is evidently some minor matter or respect. Paul himself does not specify, for he himself cannot guess. If we care to guess we might think of the ugly titles Paul bestows on the Judaizers in v. 2, or of some of the Jewish prerogatives Paul lists as having been his own. The Philippians had as yet had no personal experience with such Judaizers as Paul has had it, they might thus judge them less severely although Paul scarcely thinks so. So also the Philippians, the greater number of whom were former Gentiles, had never had so violent an experience as Paul had had when all his Jewish glory was turned into dung for him. They might thus be differently minded in one or the other respect regarding Paul’s experience and its exact meaning for them although Paul scarcely thinks so.

When Paul says, “This, too (even this), God will reveal to you,” he is not turning them over to God because he himself does not know what else to do. Nor may we think of an immediate revelation. καί, “even” or “also” implies that God had revealed to these mature Christians all that had brought them to their maturity, all their knowledge of Christ and his righteousness, and all their earnest, zealous Christian life; and God had done this by the Spirit who works through the Scripture Word (the Old Testament in this case) and through Christ’s apostles (John 16:13, 14), the doctrine and the instruction which spread all the truth and make it a power in the hearts of Christians. Paul says that God will thus enlighten the Philippians on even any minor point that may yet be left and that is not fully clear to them either in itself or in its value for them. In fact, in this very epistle Paul is presenting anew to the Philippians a good deal of God’s revelation which ever penetrates our hearts more deeply. Our constant experience is that even we mature Christians see many a point more clearly as time and our own personal experience go on.

Philippians 3:16

16 The conjunction πλήν concludes by lifting out the essential point (R. 1187) of this matter: “Only to what you have attained” in having become mature (the Greek uses the aorist “did attain”). “With the same,” Paul says, “(ever) keep in line,” that is all you have to do. This is the imperative use of the infinitive (R. 1092, 944; B.-D. 389) which is frequently found in the inscriptions and in the papyri and needs no further explanation except that the infinitive leaves the command impersonal. The thought is the same as that expressed in Gal. 6:16: “as many as are keeping in line with this canon” or rule (the one stated in Gal. 6:15). Στοιχεῖν = to stand and march like a soldier, each in his place in rank and file.

Paul by no means says that being minded differently in some respect is a matter of indifference just so we keep to the main thing, faith in Christ. He is not an indifferentist regarding even the least point. He is the soundest unionist that ever lived, who united in the completest inner union of heart and life all whom he taught. The Philippians, lined up and ever keeping in line with all that by God’s grace and revelation they have thus far attained, will by this very means attain also one mind in any minor matter that may still need one-mindedness. Perfect oneness in the Word (revelation), with one heart and one spirit, is the prayer of Jesus (John 17:17–21) and the preachment of all his apostles. Paul’s effort is a completely united front against the errorists of his day.

Paul Impresses his Warning with a Personal Appeal and with the Resurrection Glory

Philippians 3:17

17 The terse exhortation consisting of only two words found in v. 15a: “this thing let us keep minding,” is certainly not the entire exhortation that corresponds to the long elaboration regarding himself which Paul presents in v. 4–14. He completes the exhortation in v. 17. Thus he also reverts to the Judaizers and their following, who were mentioned briefly in v. 2 (v. 18, 19), and once more, as in v. 3, contrasts himself and the Philippians with these enemies of the gospel (v. 20, 21), but now, not, as in v. 3, according to their present Christian character and life but, as in v. 11–14 (where he speaks only of himself), according to their coming resurrection glory. So closely is this paragraph connected with the contents of the one preceding (v. 1–15) that it is impossible to separate the two and to make the one deal with Judaizers and the other deal with pagan libertinists.

Be joint imitators of me, brethren, and watch those walking so as you have us as an example! “Be,” not “become.” The sense is “ever be” as you now are, and not, “get to be” as you have not yet been hitherto. The word Paul uses is “joint imitators,” i. e., all of you joined together in imitating me (σύν associative). The idea is that they are to aid and support each other in imitating Paul. In what respect they are to imitate him need not be stated after all that Paul has said about himself in the preceding. Such a statement would be necessary if Paul were now turning to pagan libertinism. “Brethren” not only aids the appeal, it also conveys the idea that the Philippians are to imitate him as being a brother jointly with them.

The idea of self-exaltation when Paul asks the Philippians to imitate him personally disappears when he adds: “And watch those walking so as you have us as an example.” Paul does not say, “And watch those who walk so as I walk,” and make himself the only example, one for these persons as well as for the Philippians. No; Paul is only one of the whole number who are to serve as an example. It is incorrect to say that “do you keep watching” includes all the Philippians, and that “those walking” are an entirely different group. This idea overlooks “joint imitators.” In Philippi there were many who walked so as to serve as an example together with Paul. All these imitate each other and are to keep on doing this, Paul himself being one of them. They are not to be imitated merely by those who are not yet fit to be imitated.

They are not to serve as dummy models. Themselves active imitators, their very imitating is to be imitated, by each one of themselves as well as by all others. The Philippians have a most intensive and stimulating model. “Joint imitators” is found only here, Plato has the verb. In Rom. 16:17, because of the context, σκοπεῖν has the meaning “to watch” so as to beware of; here the context indicates “to watch” so as to copy, cf., σκοπόν in v. 14. Τύπον, “type,” is the impression left by a blow as when a die is struck, metaphorically “an example.”

Philippians 3:18

18 For many are walking, of whom I told you often and now tell you even weeping, the enemies of the cross of Christ, whose end (is) perdition, whose god the belly, and (whose) glory in their shame—they minding the earthly things.

This is the special reason for the admonition given in v. 17. These “many” are the horrible example over against which Paul places the perfect one. Paul says he has kept telling the Philippians about these enemies of the cross of Christ, which he says also in v. 1 when he writes “the same things” to them. The accusative “the enemies of the cross” is in this case merely by attraction to the relative οὕς; the nominative οἱφρονοῦντες at the end of the statement in v. 19 escapes the attraction because of the intervening genitive of the relatives. The Greek is perfectly regular.

Who are these “many”? Whom does Paul’s description fit? Some answer: Epicurean antinomian libertinists and not Judaizers and their following. This answer is based chiefly on the statement that the god of these errorists is “their belly.” Rom. 16:18 is cited in support because “belly” is also found there. But Romans 16 is thereby misinterpreted (see this passage in extenso.) This interpretation ignores all the points interspersed throughout this paragraph and in v. 1–15. If with v. 17 Paul turns to an entirely opposite class of errorists, how is it to be explained that he does not indicate this change? Why look only at “the belly” and ignore the rest?

When Paul first came to Philippi he had every reason even at that time to warn against Judaizers, for such errorists had brought about the convention in Jerusalem (Acts 15), and this convention itself had sent its resolution to all the Gentile churches. When the congregation at Philippi was founded, no libertinists had appeared. Much is made of being strictly historical. History excludes “many” libertinists. The few times that Paul was at Philippi are ample to justify the imperfect ἔλεγον and the adverb “often” as pertaining to the Judaistic danger; historically considered, libertinism could not have been Paul’s subject of constant warning.

The view that Judaizers dealt with doctrine and not with life is as untenable as that libertinists dealt with life and not with doctrine. All living is the outcome of the teaching one believes. Paul says: “Many are walking,” but this includes the doctrine that produced this conduct. Paul does not locate these “many” or any of them in Philippi. Thus far Philippi had escaped direct contact with such men as we have already noted; but the danger was that also Philippi might be invaded, the very word “many” involves such a danger.

It breaks Paul’s heart to know that many of these errorists are abroad, disturbing the church; tears come to his eyes as he now characterizes them anew. Verse 2 is full of indignation, v. 18 is full of pain. “The enemies of the cross of Christ” is exact, for the Judaizers claimed to believe in Christ Jesus (Acts 15:5) and also in his cross; but their legalism nullified the atoning and the justifying effects of the cross (Gal. 5:2, 4). The worst enemies of “the cross” are not those who object to a crucified Savior but those who deny that the cross and the sacrifice of Christ alone justify and save the sinner. These Judaizers made Jesus himself a Judaizer. Had Jesus not been circumcised; had he not kept the Mosaic law; had he not died on the cross for that; must we not follow this example of his to be saved? So they probably argued.

The cross is still nullified. It is used to make Jesus a noble martyr, an example for us.

Philippians 3:19

19 “The end of whom—perdition” states the plain, terrible fact. “Perdition” = everlasting ruin. Mark 16:16b. The Judaistic faith in Christ failed to trust in the very thing which gives us the σωτηρία, eternal salvation. In this connection read Matt. 7:22, 23; Paul merely repeats its substance. “Whose god—their belly” = Rom. 16:18: “Such are not serving as slaves our Lord Jesus Christ but their own belly.” They emancipate themselves from absolute obedience to Christ and his will and his Word, he is no longer their God although they shout: “Lord, Lord!” (Matt. 7:22); they obey their “belly” as their “god.” In both passages Paul states it drastically, for “belly” is figurative for their lower and their lowest nature. In Rom. 16:19 Paul defines “belly” by τὸκακόν, “that which is base”; here he adds “their shame (disgrace)” and “the earthly things.” These items go together.

This reference to “belly” makes some sure that libertinists are referred to. They draw on First Corinthians for illustrations of laxity in morals. Libertinists serve their belly and the appetites of the belly. In Romans, however, this thought would call for διακονέω whereas Paul writes δουλεύω even as he here writes ὁθεός, “the god” before whom one bows as a slave. Every error is false emancipation from Christ and his Word and his will, the Judaistic error eminently so; every error thus enslaves us to our own lower nature, lets that dictate as “god.” Error is not merely intellectual. The intellect is only its tool.

Its source is “the flesh,” the depravity in us. Its coarsest part is “the belly.” Even in its physical sense the word applies to these Judaizers who made the belly their god by demanding only kosher food. Read Matt. 15:17; Col. 2:20–23. Paul does not confine “the belly” to this narrow, physical sphere even as this is only a part of the larger one which is indicated by what precedes and what follows.

For he adds, not as a third feature with another ὦν, but as being a part of the second: whose god the belly “and (thus) their glory in their shame.” The things their fleshly belly nature dictates to them, in obedience to which they see “their glory,” are in reality nothing but their shame and disgrace. Ewald makes αἰσχύνη their Schamteil, the circumcised membrum vile; but we hesitate to make the abstract “shame” so concrete.

Paul’s great glory is the cross (Gal. 6:14). Everything Judaistic is to him dung (v. 8), yea, everything else in the world is crucified for him, and he for it (Gal. 6:14). To Christ and to his cross alone he looked up in obedience as a slave, there he found his glory. Simpler, and thus the final elucidation is: “they (ever) minding the earthly things,” all these are by “the belly” summarized as being basely earthly. So the spiritual things might be called “the spirit.” We have Rom. 8:5 constrasting the two mindings, the word referring both to what our thought demands and our conduct carries out.

Philippians 3:20

20 In v. 18 “for” supports the admonition given in v. 17 by pointing to what the Judaizers and their following are; in v. 20 “for” does this by pointing to what “we” are in contrast with them. It is the same contrast as that indicated in v. 2 and 3 and not one between an entirely different class of errorists and us.

For our commonwealth exists in (the) heavens from which also we expect as a Savior the Lord Jesus Christ who will change the fashion of the body of our lowliness conform to the body of his glory in accord with the working of his being able also to subject to himself all the things (that exist).

The contrast with the Judaizers and their following does not present a list of opposite items which match those stated in v. 18, 19. Paul’s contrast is summarized in the vital one of the vast difference obtaining between “those minding the earthly things” over against whom we stand whose “commonwealth exists in heaven.” This enables him to bring in the resurrection, at which he in v. 11 says he wants to arrive and in v. 14 calls “the prize of the lofty calling of God in Christ Jesus.” For the Judaizers “the end is perdition,” for true believers the Savior who will transform our bodies. So plainly does Paul link together v. 11–14 with v. 20, 21 that we cannot think of two sets of errorists. What v. 11–14 contain is also most grandly elaborated in these two closing verses. The whole chapter is a perfect unit.

The note on πολιτεύεσθε given in 1:27 and the reason for this verb may serve for πολίτευμα, the noun, which is used for the same reason. A “commonwealth” stands against those who do not belong to it, especially against those who would invade it. This commonwealth stands against “the enemies of the cross of Christ,” for its very head is Christ, and all who are his ἐχθροί or Personal enemies must be regarded as such by Christ’s true believers. The suffix -μα does not fit the abstract idea “citizenship” (R. V.); it fits rather the idea of result, “a commonwealth” which is actually constituted of citizens. Among the examples collected by M.-M. 525, etc., we find one that is useful: the Phrygians had set up a “commonwealth” in Alexandria.

But this example only helps, for the true Christians set up no commonwealth here on earth, their great commonwealth exists in heaven, they are strangers and pilgrims here. Their great business is never to mind the earthly things but to mind the heavenly.

That has nothing to do with Epicurean libertinism, sensual, fleshly pleasures, but, as the context shows (v. 4–6), with religious earthly things. Get Paul’s full blast against the errorists and the errors they seek to spread in the church. His is no high intellectualism. Paul sees vile dogs (v. 2), a belly god (v. 19), stinking dung (v. 8), utter shame (v. 19) and thus perdition. Not only do the true Christians shun and abhor all of it, their whole “commonwealth” to which they belong, into which they yearn to enter, is in heaven. M.-M rightly object to the rendering: “We are a colony of heaven”; but the reason should not be that this reverses the relation between the colony and the mother city, we are not a bit of heaven here on earth, heaven has not colonized earth with a few angels.

The whole state (πολίτευμα) to which we belong is “in heaven” and not on earth. John 18:36 is not a parallel passage.

“From which” is best referred to the commonwealth (singular) and not to the heavens (plural) although our versions translate “whence,” and R. 714 accepts the clash in number. In the sentence, “We are expecting as Savior (predicative) the Lord Jesus Christ,” the word “Savior” is scarcely used in the way in which this title was accorded the Roman emperors. In this connection nothing points to a contrast with men who were called “saviors.” C.-K. 1035 notes that the imperial title “Savior” had no more than the pale meaning of Nothelfer, who was not much of a helper at that. We must go to the Old Testament for the idea of the Greek Σωτήρ, “divine Deliverer.” Nor is this title derived from the mystery cults which flowered in the pagan world at a rather later time.

Philippians 3:21

21 The relative clause states in what sense “Savior” is here used: he who brings us the final salvation by raising our bodies from the dead and glorifying them, “who will change the fashion of the body of our lowliness conform to the body of his glory.” This will occur at the Parousia. The statement is so worded as to include also those who are alive at the time of Christ’s coming (1 Thess. 4:15–17).

Paul uses both terms, the one derived from σχῆμα and the one derived from μορφή, as he does in 2:7, 8: “form of a slave—fashion as man,” but he now has them in reverse order: “change the fashion—conform.” Σχῆμα is the fashion or appearance, μορφή the form corresponding to the very being itself. In v. 10 Paul describes our body as “the body of our lowliness” (qualifying genitive); it is the body in the “fellowship of his sufferings being conformed to his death.” Conformed to his death, it shall at last be “conform (predicate adjective) to the body of his glory” (qualifying genitive). So completely shall its fashion be changed that its very form shall be like Christ’s glorified body.

“Body—body,” and yet in the face of this passage and of many others the resurrection of the body is denied. Rom. 8:17, 18 is restated here save that the double mention of “body” places the main point beyond question. Add 1 Cor. 15:52–54, “corruption” shall be turned into “incorruption,” “mortality” into “immortality.” But Paul now adds the conformity with “the body of his glory,” our body shall have glory that is similar to the glory of Christ’s body. His body shines as the sun in divine glory and effulgence, our bodies shall shine as the stars in created glory. This expectation and this hope the Judaizers give up by clinging to “the earthly things,” their glory being their shame, their god the belly. Paul is in pursuit of this heavenly prize, stretching to arrive at the raising up from the dead, the dung of all his Jewish earthly prerogatives and attainments being left behind and forgotten, and the Philippians are to keep imitating him and all others that are like him.

Does anyone ask how the Lord Jesus Christ as Savior shall do all this with the body of our lowliness? The answer is: “in accord with the working of his being able also (or: even) to subdue to himself all the things,” τὰπάντα, all that exist (definite). Whether we make αὐτῷ the simple pronoun “to him” or give it the rough breathing αὑτῷ and make it reflexive “to himself,” makes no difference, either is correct, the grammarians vary. The infinitive is the qualifying or descriptive genitive used as a noun, B.-D. 400, 2 finds consecutive force in it: Kraft, dass er kann, “energy so that he is able.” He who is able, who has the power to subdue all the universe to himself, he will with his omnipotence raise up our dead body in glory. This will be the final miracle.

Ask all you please how our body whose dust has perhaps been scattered far and wide as they threw the ashes of John Huss into the river, or which has been devoured by wild animals or by fish in the sea, how this body can possibly be restored again—omnipotence will restore it. Philosophizing tries to make it easier for the omnipotent Lord and Savior by letting him conserve only a germ and bring that forth; or by dispensing even with the germ and letting the Lord create another entire body so that he does not need to restore “the body of this lowliness,” or by letting him dispense altogether with the body and leaving the souls of the blessed bodiless like the angels. But all these ideas are untenable.

4:1) And so, my brethren beloved and longed for, joy and crown of mine, thus keep standing firm in the Lord, beloved!

This is the concluding appeal of the entire third chapter, which forms a unit, and not only of 3:17–21. Ὥστε is like 2:12. No other congregation does Paul address as he does the Philippians in this verse. He repeats “beloved,” he adds “longed for” and then unarticulated and with predicative force: “joy and crown of mine.” Paul lets all his love, all his joy in the Philippians, all his pride in them, speak out at once. They had never been anything but joy for him, hence joy, joy runs through this epistle.

“Crown of mine” recalls 2:16. He had not run in vain, they had been given him as the victor’s crown. 1 Thess. 2:19, 20 is similar to this. “Thus keep standing” = thus as chapter 3 sets forth, the verb is used also in 3:27. “In the Lord,” in union with him, is especially effective after v. 20: “the Lord Jesus Christ as Savior” who will do all that v. 20, 21 say. “Stand” or “stand firmly” includes all of it. Let no errorists move you in the slightest degree! It is the one thing we all need. Some even drift of their own accord; some are swayed by every new wind of doctrine. The Lord help us to stand!

R A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, by A. T. Robertson, fourth edition.

C.-K Biblisch-theologisches Woerterbuch der Neutestamentlichen Graezitaet von D. Dr. Hermann Cremer, zehnte, etc., Auflage, herausgegeben von D. Dr. Julius Koegel.

M.-M. The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament, Illustrated from the Papyri and other Non-Literary Sources, by James Hope Moulton and George Milligan.

B.-D Friedrich Blass’ Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch, vierte, voellig neu-gearbeitete Auflage besorgt von Albert Debrunner.