A. The Appeal — Against Circumcision (3:L-4A)

A. The Appeal — Against Circumcision (3:L-4A)

V. THEIR "AFFAIRS" — AGAIN (3:1-4:3)

The letter now takes an especially intriguing turn — so much so that the majority have despaired of finding any "logic" to its present order, and some see the break as so severe as to posit the presence here of a "fragment" from another letter altogether.¹ Some of the difficulties should be obvious to any reader: the sudden denunciation of false teachers in v. 2 after apparently starting to wrap things up ("finally, rejoice in the Lord"), returning to "finally" and "rejoice" at the end (4:8, 4); how the second part of Paul's testimony, about his not having "arrived" but still pressing on toward the eschatological goal (vv. 12-14), is related to the first part, where he contrasts his former life in Judaism with present righteousness based on faith (vv. 4a-9); how those described in vv. 18-19, over whom Paul weeps, are related to those flailed in v. 2 for promoting circumcision.² At first blush one wonders whether something new has happened between 3:1a and lb that has caused a sudden outburst of warning, followed by a series of new appeals.

On the other hand, all of the basic concerns that have preceded are echoed here: first, in Paul's testimony (vv. 4-14), with (a) its thoroughgoing christocentricity, including the language "gain Christ" (v. 8, which recalls 1:21, "for me to live is Christ; to die is gain"), (b) its emphasis on "participation in Christ's sufferings" (vv. 10-11), which recalls 1:29-30 and 2:17, and (c) the eschatological orientation of its conclusion (vv. 11-14, 20-21), which recalls a primary motif from chaps. 1-2 (see on 1:6). Second, in the final application and appeal of 4:1-3, Paul repeats (a) the exhortation from 1:27 to "stand fast in the Lord" (4:1), (b) the appeal in 2:2 that they "have the same mindset in the Lord" (4:2), and (c) the language "contending together for the gospel" from 1:27. Furthermore, the whole continues to be written in the first person singular and second person plural (with occasional moments of first person plural when Paul includes himself and them together). All of these together suggest, first, that despite appearances there is a genuine relationship between this material and what has preceded, and, second, that the repeated "finally" and "rejoice in the Lord," rather than indicating an interruption or digression, more likely function as a framing device for the appeal contained in 3:1 to 4:9, while the repetition of "stand fast" and "have the same mindset" in 4:1-2 functions in the same way as an inclusio for 1:27-4:3. Finally, it should be noted that all of the material in this section fits the genre of a hortatory letter of friendship.³

What this suggests further is that the warning in 3:2 with its follow-up response in vv. 4-9 and the contrast between "those whose minds are set on earthly things" and "us with our heavenly citizenship" (vv. 17-21) are in some way related to the preceding concerns — even if the precise nature of that relationship may forever allude us. This seems the more certain in light of two other phenomena that are crucial to the present passage: first, that Paul twice reminds the Philippians that he is currently writing something he has told them over and again (3:1b and 18), and that the largest single block of material is Paul's personal testimony (3:4-14), which is followed by no less than three different appeals to "imitate me" (3:15, 17; 4:9).

Very likely, therefore, this section continues the "chronological" dimension of the letter, as Paul returns once more to "their affairs" and their "progress and joy in the faith" (1:25). The whole letter is dictated from the perspective of its being read aloud in the assembly. Thus the first appeal regarding "their affairs" (1:27-2:18) was written in light of his current "absence" from them (1:27; 2:12), and reflects what he had learned from Epaphroditus. Now, in light of Epaphroditus's return and with his assumed presence in the congregation in mind,⁴ Paul returns to their circumstances: their need to "progress in the faith" (1:25), to have "joy" renewed⁵ and to find that joy "in the Lord, " and thus not fall prey to the kind of teaching he has repeatedly warned them about in the past⁶ —which is perhaps related to the present tensions among them, as well as to the abatement of eschatological focus on the part of some.

They are therefore urged: (1) to recall prior warnings (against those who would entice them to submit to Jewish "boundary markers" and thus be identified with Israel's former covenant while they also identify with Christ), (2) to find their joy in the Lord — alone — including present participation in his sufferings as they await the final glory, (3) to hold fast to — indeed eagerly look forward to — their sure hope of Christ's coming, of thus obtaining the final prize of their "upward calling in Christ Jesus," and (4) specifically to those who are the source of current unrest, to do all this with a single mindset, living together in joy, peace, and patience.

Paul begins in 3:l-4a with the primary imperative, "rejoice in the Lord," and the oft-repeated warning and contrast between "Judaizers" and believers in Christ. That is followed by his personal story (vv. 4-14),⁷ which begins by setting himself forth as living evidence of the failure of righteousness based on Torah observance (4-9), and concludes by emphasizing participation in Christ's sufferings and thus being conformed to his death (10-11) while striving for the final eschatological goal (12-14). This is then applied to the Philippian situation (vv. 15-21): first urging them to imitate him in these matters (15-17), then contrasting himself to others who as enemies of the cross (= a cruciform lifestyle) have also lost their future orientation (18-19), and concluding on the high note of their "already/not yet" existence in Christ — present heavenly "citizenship" as they await the return of Christ and their glorious transformation into his likeness (20-21).

He then wraps up all the preceding exhortations (1:27-2:18; 3:1-21) by applying the preceding warning and appeal directly to the concern over standing firm as one person for the gospel (4:1-3). This in turn leads naturally to further concluding exhortations, first (4-7) in the form of a typical series of "staccato" imperatives, designed with their circumstances in mind; and second (8-9), as a final appeal to give themselves to "higher things" and to follow his example. All of which leads to a final word about his "affairs" in light of their recent gift (vv. 10-20), in which he once more emphasizes their long-standing partnership with him in the gospel, the note on which the letter began (1:3-8).

If the passage itself is not as tidy as some would count tidy, and if some of the details and relationships between the parts remain something of a mystery, the whole is nonetheless explicable as it stands and does not need the radical dismemberment some would apply to it.

A. THE APPEAL — AGAINST CIRCUMCISION (3:l-4a)

1Finally, my brothers [and sisters],⁸ rejoice in the Lord! It is no trouble for me to write the same things to you again, and it is a safeguard for you.

2Watch out for those dogs, those [evil doers],⁹ those mutilators of the flesh. 3For it is we who are the circumcision, we who worship by the Spirit of God,¹⁰ who glory in Christ Jesus, and who put no confidence in the flesh — 4 though I myself have reasons for such confidence.

The difficulty with this paragraph is reflected in the way various English translations offer paragraph breaks in vv. 1-2,¹¹ which are based on the assumption that Paul here begins to wrap things up (la), only to shift suddenly and inexplicably to a severe denunciation of some opponents.¹² But there are good reasons to read vv. 1 -2 as they stand and as intentionally dictated in precisely this way. First, the adverb translated "finally" is best understood as transitional toward the final matter to be taken up. Thus Paul does not intend finally, but "as for the rest [of what needs to be spoken to]." Second, the five sentences that constitute our vv. 1-2 are asyndetic (lacking the standard nuancing particle), which in Paul is usually for effect, indicating the closest kind of relationship between them.¹³ Third, one can make sense of this relationship,¹⁴ without resorting to hypothetical sudden shifts in Paul's circumstances.¹⁵

After the transitional adverb, "as for the rest," Paul begins his final appeal by picking up the imperative "rejoice" from 2:18, to which he now adds "in the Lord." Not only is this a major concern in the letter, but this reminder is also the framework in which they are to hear the final warning and appeal. That means the next sentence (v. lb), not the threefold "watch out for" (v. 2), is the beginning of this appeal. What he is about to write, he begins, is something they have heard from him often before; to repeat it in this letter is not onerous for him, rather, it is precisely for their security. And with that he warns them one more time, with strikingly emotive language, against those who might try to come into their community and urge Gentile believers to submit to circumcision. The reason they must not give heed to such persuasions, he goes on, rests on the fact that "we" who have received the Spirit and boast in Christ are God's Israel, the "true circumcision." It is the difference between "serving" by the Spirit and trusting in "the flesh," which language serves as the springboard for his personal testimony — Exhibit A regarding the validity of vv. 2-3.

Given the frequency with which Paul speaks to this issue in his letters,¹⁶ one must assume that the arguments of the Judaizing faction had a surface attractiveness to many, despite the (literally) painful consequences if Gentiles were to submit. But Paul appeals not to the physical pain, but to historical and theological realities. Why the Philippians should need to be warned again against such "rubbish" (v. 8), and whether it is related to teachings espoused by either of the women in 4:2, are matters of conjecture. Among the better guesses is that which sees a relationship between the attractiveness of "becoming Jewish" (a religio licita) and the Philippians' present suffering at the hands of fellow Roman citizens, because they were followers of a Kyrios who had been executed as a state criminal. Perhaps by embracing the outward expressions of Jewish identity, they could still belong to Christ but ward off some of the opposition.¹⁷

In any case, and despite the emotive language of v. 2, there is little hint either here or elsewhere in the letter that such people are actually present in Philippi at the time of this writing or that a serious threat is at hand.¹⁸ After all, Paul's primary response takes the form of personal narrative, not argumentation as such;¹⁹ and not once does he threaten them with the consequences of such action. His main thrust is altogether positive, setting life in Christ in stark contrast to what he had formerly known as a Torah observant Jew.²⁰ This suggests that the emotive language is more a reflection of Paul's own distaste for such people, after so many years of struggle against them,²¹ than it is a direct attack against anyone currently in Philippi.

1  The word translated "finally" by the NIV²² marks a transition to the final matters to be taken up in the letter, not its conclusion. Hence "finally" is a purely gratuitous translation, as though Paul were about to begin what he finally gets to in 4:4 and 8 or that this is the actual conclusion of one of three alleged letters. What it means here is exactly what it meant in 1 Thess 4:1 and 2 Thess 3:1, "as for the rest," meaning "as for what remains to be said." As in previous cases, Paul adds the vocative, "my brothers and sisters," which in this letter appears most frequently at transitional points.²³

However, as Paul moves toward "what remains," he does not begin with the primary subject matter, but with its essential theological — and experiential — framework:²⁴ "Rejoice in the Lord."²⁵ This serves as Paul's first antidote to their being taken in by the possible attractiveness of the Judaizing option.²⁶ The imperative recalls 2:18 (and 1:25), where the Philippians have been encouraged to rejoice with him in the midst of suffering for Christ's sake, a joy he trusts will be renewed at the coming of Epaphroditus (2:28). But now, as in the framing imperative in 4:4, their joy is to be found "in the Lord. " As with the Psalmists whose language Paul is using,²⁷ the Lord who saves is both the basis and focus of joy, which in this imperative does not refer to a feeling but an activity. It means to verbalize with praise and singing. The reason for such "rejoicing in the Lord" has to do with knowing him by being found in him (3:8-9). Knowing Christ far surpasses even blameless Torah observance; it is unthinkable that under the pressure of present sufferings they should lose their joy in belonging to Christ by yielding to such observance. As in 2:19 and 24 above, the phrase "in the Lord" refers to the grounds (or sphere) of their present existence, and thus points to their basic relationship with Christ which should eliminate all attraction to mere religion or religious identity symbols that have no future in them at all.²⁸

With that Paul moves toward his second major concern with regard to their present circumstances,²⁹ introduced by the reminder that he is repeating himself, and is doing so out of concern for them. Both the existence of this introductory sentence and its form indicate the degree of Paul's concern over what follows. He begins with the object, "the same things,"³⁰ in the emphatic first position, followed by a contrastive "on the one hand (regarding me)" and "on the other hand (regarding you)," with the word "safety"³¹ coming in the emphatic final position. Perhaps anxious lest they take adumbrage over this repetition, he also with a masterful stroke shifts the possibility that such repetition could be "burdensome"³² from them to himself. Such rhetoric is for their benefit, that in their present suffering they not allow Jewish identity markers to become attractive and thus lose their strong grip on future realities already present in Christ and the Spirit.

To be sure, some have seen this sentence as referring to "rejoice in the Lord,"³³ but that seems nearly impossible, since (1) "the same things" is plural, not singular, which would be the natural expression if he intended to point to the preceding imperative, (2) this view disregards the asyndeton (see n. 13), which is especially unusual if this were Paul's intent, and (3) one can imagine any number of adjectives that might serve as reasons for him to repeat the imperative to rejoice, but "for you security" is not one of them, whereas it fits perfectly with the warning and exhortation that follows.³⁴ The view suggested here seems confirmed by the repetition of this idea in v. 18 ("about whom I have told you many times before"). Thus, this sentence sets them up for the warning that follows.³⁵

2  What Paul is about to repeat for their "safety" begins with the threefold warning, "look out for,"³⁶ expressed with powerful rhetoric,³⁷ full of invective and sarcasm against (apparently) Jewish Christians who promote circumcision among Gentile believers.³⁸ It is this sudden outburst of invective, following so closely the imperative to "rejoice in the Lord," that has caused many to read this as an interruption of some kind. But that is an unnecessary inference, as is the common assumption that these people were actually present in Philippi (see n. 18). In fact, this is warning, pure and simple, which does not require their presence in order to carry weight. That Paul does not mention them again³⁹ would seem to indicate that they are not present — although they surely will have tried their wares in Philippi in times past — and that a present threat of "Judaizing" does not seriously exist.⁴⁰ The reason for the invective lies with Paul. Such people have been "dogging" him for over a decade,⁴¹ and as the strong language of Gal 5:12 and 2 Cor 11:13-15 makes clear,⁴² he has long ago had it to the bellyful with these "servants of Satan" who think of themselves as "servants of Christ" (2 Cor 11:15, 23).

On the other hand, we miss too much if we think of this language as merely expressing a personal pique. At issue for Paul is Christian existence itself. The concerns are therefore expressed ultimately in experiential and theological language, as the alleged "opponents" fade into the background rather quickly. As with the exhortations in 1:27-2:18, living the gospel in Philippi is what is at stake. This is why he speaks of such repetition as not "burdensome" for him, even though being reminded again of the Judaizers' activities appears to be irksome.

Thus, as in Galatians and 2 Corinthians, Paul uses epithets that "turn the tables" on them, as to what they think themselves to be about in contrast to what he thinks. First, "look out for the dogs."⁴³ This metaphor is full of "bite," since dogs were zoological "low life," scavengers that were generally detested by Greco-Roman society and considered unclean by Jews, who sometimes used "dog" to designate Gentiles.⁴⁴ Paul thus reverses the epithet; by trying to make Gentiles "clean" through circumcision, the Judaizers are unclean "dogs."⁴⁵

Second, they are "evil doers."⁴⁶ The clue to this usage lies in its position between "dogs" and "the mutilation." Since both of these terms express reversals, it is arguable that this one does as well. If so, then the irony derives from the Psalter's repeated designation of the wicked as "those who work iniquity."⁴⁷ The reason for changing the noun from "iniquity" to "evil" is for the sake of the assonance noted above (n. 37). Such people, Paul proffers, in trying to make Gentiles submit to Torah do not work "righteousness" at all, but evil, just as those in the Psalter work iniquity because they have rejected God's righteousness, in the sense of showing their relationship to him by walking in his ways.

Third, and changing from the masculine plural to a pejorative description of their activity, Paul warns, "beware the mutilation," an ironic reference to Gentile circumcision.⁴⁸ The Greek word for circumcision is peri tome (= to cut around); katafomë, used here, denotes "cutting to pieces," hence "mutilate." This word play,⁴⁹ especially the emphatic "for we are the circumcision" (v. 3), not to mention that Paul begins his testimony with this word — ahead of tribe and people — makes it certain that circumcision is the primary issue between Paul and them. Along with the play on "cutting" in Gal 5:12, where he urges them to "castrate" themselves, this is the ultimate derogation of circumcision, the most "cutting" epithet of all. The cognate verb occurs in Lev 21:5 (LXX), which prohibits priests (who "serve" God) from "cutting" their flesh as pagan priests did (cf. 1 Kgs 18:28). The shift from the people ("dogs, evil workers") to the activity ("mutilation") is probably first of all to keep the rhetoric crisp, but in effect it also highlights the activity, which leads directly to the response in v. 3.

This final epithet also serves as evidence that the issue has to do with "righteousness based on Law" (v. 9), which in Paul invariably refers to Torah observance both as a "means to" and "gauge of" righteousness — i.e., being observant is seen as an attempt to secure one's relationship with God, while at the same time Torah serves as the yardstick to measure performance, and thus that relationship. What is less clear is what these "dogs" expected of Gentile converts. Traditionally, on the basis of centuries of Protestant theology, it has been assumed that they were putting forward Torah observance as a way of getting right with God.⁵⁰ But there is serious doubt as to whether that would have been their primary intent; after all, these Gentiles are already believers in Christ, as are all those upon whom the Judaizers urge circumcision. Most likely, therefore, at issue for them is Torah observance as evidence of Gentiles' truly belonging to God's people and therefore of their genuine obedience to Christ.⁵¹ Nonetheless, even though their first interest is in making Jews out of Gentiles, in the sense of securing their place within the Abrahamic covenant, Paul clearly sees through to the ultimate theological consequences for those who would capitulate — that it has the effect of adding a plus factor to grace, and thus of eliminating grace altogether by exchanging it for boasting in "one's flesh." This in turn explains why the following argument and illustration from Paul's personal history takes the form it does.

3  As immediate response to the ironic "mutilation," Paul asserts: "For⁵² we [in contrast to what they are trying to get Gentiles to do] are the circumcision [hence you do not need literal circumcision], who serve by the Spirit of God and 'boast' in Christ Jesus and put no confidence in the flesh." Here is a sentence at once full of rhetorical power and theological grist.⁵³ The rhetorical power lies partly in the paronomasia (see n. 49 above) and partly in his choice of a verb from the temple cultus⁵⁴ to describe what "we" do (see "c" below). The theological grist is to be found in every phrase. This verse, not v. 2, is the principal sentence in the present appeal, whose theology is going to be explicated by means of Paul's own story in vv. 4-14.

a. The emphatic "we" — not they — by which the sentence begins is the first occurrence of this theological phenomenon in the letter. It is Paul's regular habit in the middle of an argument to shift from the second or third person to the inclusive first person plural whenever the point shifts to some soteriological reality that includes him as well as his readers.⁵⁵ Thus, rather than "you" Philippians are the true circumcision, it is "we" —you and us, Gentiles and Jews together — who are such. In this case, of course, the shift in person paves the way toward the "I" of vv. 4-14; but the recurrence of this phenomenon in vv. 15-16 and (especially) vv. 20-21 indicates that it is not simply preparatory here.

b. In saying that "we," both Jews and Gentiles together who have put our trust in Christ, "are the circumcision," Paul indicates that the primary issue is not the Philippians' salvation, but rather the identification of the people of God under the new covenant.⁵⁶ Lying behind this usage is the theology and intertextuality of a passage like Rom 2:28-29,⁵⁷ where Paul takes up the promise of Deut 30:6 and turns "Jew" and "Gentile" end for end — in terms of "circumcision of the heart" by the Spirit.⁵⁸ Now the reason for the rich imagery in Phil 2:14-16 comes into focus, where by a similar reversal the Philippians are seen as "the blameless children of God." Paul, it needs to be emphasized, knows nothing of a "new" Israel; for him there is only one people of God, who are now newly constituted — quite in keeping with OT promises — on the basis of Christ and the Spirit; and it is by the Spirit in particular that Gentiles have entered into their inheritance of the blessings promised to Abraham (Gal 3:14).

c. Paul first describes the true circumcision as "we who 'minister'⁵⁹ by the Spirit of God."⁶⁰ The crucial term here is the verb rendered "worship,"which rendering in this case can be quite misleading. Paul's usage is determined by the LXX, where it is used almost exclusively to denote the Levitical "service" in the temple cultus. Here it stands in ironical contrast to v. 2. "Mutilation" is what those who "served" in the temple cultus were forbidden to do. Now, in contrast to the "workers of iniquity" who are engaged in such illegitimate "service," Paul says we are the true circumcision, who "serve" by the Spirit, over against serving by the flesh. The verb, therefore, is not the one for "worship" in the sense of what the congregation does together as a gathered people, but represents the "service" of God's people in terms of their devotion to him as evidenced in the way they live before him. Rather than offer such service by "cutting away the flesh," so as to be identified with the people of God under the former covenant, the true circumcision live (= "serve") in Christ by the power of the Spirit. Thus Paul has in view not external rite over against internal "spiritual"⁶¹ service, but two ways of existing — in the "flesh," which he understands as life centered in the creature as over against God, or as the eschatological people of God, evidenced to be so by the Spirit of God, through whom all life in the present is now service and devotion to God.⁶²

Thus, "serve" has to do with "righteousness" — the real thing, which reflects God's likeness and character in Christian behavior (e.g., looking out for the interests of others, 2:3-4, as modeled by him who revealed God-likeness in emptying himself by taking on the form of a slave, 2:5-7); and such "service," which is effected in the life of the believer and believing community by God's own indwelling Spirit, is a million miles removed from "service" in the form of Torah observance. In turning Torah into "laws to be observed" God's people thus turned them into merely human regulations, missing their intent as revelation of God's likeness to be lived out among God's people; hence the need for a circumcision of the heart, effected by the Spirit, to replace that of the "flesh."

Significantly, Paul qualifies "Spirit" by the genitive "of God."⁶³ This designation occurs often enough that one should perhaps not make too much of it here — this is who the Spirit is, after all. Nonetheless, since Paul does not often use this qualifier in this construction,⁶⁴ there is probably more emphasis here than at first meets the eye. Very likely this is a pointed contrast to those who think of themselves as rendering service to the one God both by their own circumcision and by insisting that believing Gentiles offer themselves to God in the same way. True service to God is that which has been engendered by the Spirit of God, where through life in the Spirit the believer thus "boasts in Christ," who has brought an end to the time of "the flesh."

d. But if one begins Christian life as an experienced reality of the Spirit, the basis of that life is Christ himself, which in this sentence is expressed in terms recalling Jer 9:23-24:⁶⁵ "who boast/glory in Christ Jesus." On the meaning of this word see on 1:26 above. Here again it carries the nuance of "boasting" in the sense of putting one's full trust and confidence in, and thus to "glory" in. Although the presence of the Spirit functions as Paul's primary contrast both to "works of Law" and to "the flesh," in this letter in particular he can scarcely bring himself to speak of Christian existence without mentioning Christ. In the personal word that follows, this is the theme to which he returns in grand style.

God's new covenant people, therefore, do not need to become Torah observant, precisely because they "boast in Christ Jesus"; they have put their trust in him who has effected God's true righteousness for them. Thus, Christ Jesus, by death on the cross, has brought them into relationship with God through sheer grace; and the goal of Torah is realized not in their becoming observant but in their walking by God's Spirit who now indwells them.

e. Finally, and now in contrast both to "boasting in Christ Jesus" and to "serving by the Spirit of God," he adds the telling blow: "and who put no confidence in the flesh." This clause is full of irony, Paul's way of moving from their specific expression of Torah observance (the circumcision of the flesh) to what he recognizes to be the theological implications of Gentiles' yielding to circumcision. It reflects the similar argument in Gal 3:2-3, where Paul uses "flesh" exactly as here, referring first to the actual "flesh" cut away in circumcision,⁶⁶ but at the same time as the primary descriptive word of life before and outside of Christ. Thus, as in that passage, "Spirit" and "flesh" stand juxtaposed as eschatological realities that describe existence in the overlap of the ages.⁶⁷ One lives either "according to the Spirit" or "according to the flesh." These are mutually incompatible kinds of existence; to be in the one and then to revert to the former is spiritual suicide from Paul's point of view. And this is where the Judaizers have gone astray; they reject "boasting in the Lord" for "confidence in the flesh."

Thus with this full description of those who belong to the Israel of God as newly constituted by Christ and the Spirit, Paul sets the Philippians in sharp contrast to what the "mutilation" would do for them. As he will go on to argue by way of personal narrative, there is absolutely no future of any kind in reverting to what is now past, which Christ and the Spirit have brought to an end.

We should note finally the implicit Trinitarianism of this sentence. The true circumcision, thus true righteousness (both one's relationship with God and behavior that reflects his character), comes from God (v. 9), by whose indwelling Spirit believers now serve him in "righteousness," who have first of all put their trust in Christ Jesus, who has effected "righteousness" for them. "Righteousness," of course, is not mentioned in this opening theological sentence; but it is implied in the first clause, "we are the circumcision," as is evidenced by vv. 6 and 9. The key to that righteousness is here set forth by means of its primary new covenant components — Christ and the Spirit.

4a  As a final addendum to the description in v. 3, but also as a lead-in to the personal word that follows, Paul appends: "though⁶⁸ I myself have reasons for such confidence" — although he actually says it a little more starkly: "though I myself have confidence even⁶⁹ in the flesh." What this means will be clarified in the following sentence (vv. 4b-6). We who serve by the Spirit, Paul says, who "boast" in Christ Jesus, have thus abandoned altogether "putting confidence in the flesh" — which by implication is what the Judaizers are bringing Gentiles to by urging circumcision. But, he now concedes, if they want to play that game, then I win there as well, since I excel on their turf, "having [grounds for] confidence even in the flesh."⁷⁰ As before, "in the flesh" refers first to the rite of circumcision, but now carries all the theological overtones of trying to have grounds for boasting before God on the basis of human achievement, the ultimate "self-centered" expression of life. And with that he turns to offer, first, the evidence for such a bold statement (vv. 4b-6) and, second, the zero net worth of such "achievement" in light of having come to know Christ and being found in him.

____________________

¹. On this question, see the Introduction, pp. 21-23. The present discussion proceeds on the basis that one must make sense of the text as it now stands, as in keeping with a "hortatory letter of friendship" — all the more so since there are so many words and themes that presuppose what has preceded.

². On the larger question of "opponents" in Philippi, generated in part by these two passages, see the Introduction, pp. 7-10; see also the introduction to vv. l-4a below and the discussion of vv. 2 and 17-19. Note especially the matter of "mirror reading" (p. 7, esp. n. 24), since how one reads this material is determined in large measure by one's presuppositions — whether it is basically polemical and apologetic (thus assuming a "three-way conversation" between Paul, the Philippians, and some alleged opponents) or a hortatory letter of friendship (thus a two-way conversation between Paul and the Philippians in a context that also, typically, includes the recognition of "enemies").

³. On this matter, see the Introduction, pp. 2-14; cf. Stowers, "Friends," 113-17.

⁴. Cf. Furnish ("Place," 88): "Here he deals with certain matters he knows Epaphroditus . . . will discuss with the Philippians in person when [he comes]."

⁵. See on 1:25; 2:18, 28, 29.

⁶. Cf. Garland ("Composition," 165): "In chap. 3 Paul is not giving the readers new information nor trying to convince them of something about which they disagreed. He writes of things they already know and with which they concur."

⁷. Martin (123) and Pfitzner (Agon, 139-53) consider this to be "self-defence"; on the unlikelihood of such, see the discussion in η. 1 on 3:4b-6.

⁸. See n. 9 on 1:12.

⁹. NIV, "men who do evil."

¹⁰. The original text reads either oi πνεύματι θεοũ λατρεύοντες ("who serve by the Spirit of God"; N* A B C D² F G 1739 Byz pler) or oi πνεύματι θεώ λατρεύοντες ("who serve God in spirit" [Moffatt]; N² D* Ρ J 365 1175 pc lat sy) or οί πνεύματι λατρεύοντες ("who serve by the Spirit" ; P⁴⁶). Both the supporting witnesses and transcriptional probability favor the first option (the phrase seems so unnatural and the concept of "serving God" so normal [cf. Rom 1:9], it is difficult to imagine scribes deliberately changing from either of the latter to the former). Cf. Metzger, Textual Commentary, 614. Otherwise Kennedy (449; cf. Moffatt; Michael is open to it), who prefers the dative on the mistaken notion that it provides a better parallel with σαρκί ("flesh") at the end of the sentence. See the discussion.

¹¹. The NIV (cf. NAB, RSV, Phillips) apparently understands lb to refer to the repeated imperative to "rejoice" (Phillips is explicit; not only does he make a major break after v. 1, but he translates lb, "it doesn't bore me to repeat a piece of advice like this"). But since that view is so unlikely (see discussion on v. 1), others (NRSV, REB, NJB) correctly recognize that lb introduces what follows, but cannot believe it follows "finally, rejoice in the Lord," so they offer a major break at lb, including a section title, so as radically to dismember Paul's argument.

¹². Kee (CASB, 188) is typical: "In the middle of this verse there is an abrupt change in tone." Cf. inter alia, Lightfoot, Meyer, Jones, Barth, Bruce, Hawthorne.

¹³. A stylistic feature rarely noted in the literature on this passage, O'Brien (147) being a notable exception. For this stylistic feature in Paul, see N. Turner, M HT, 4.85; cf. vv. 4b-6 that follow.

¹⁴. So also Meyer, Vincent, Kennedy, Caird, Silva, O'Brien — although not all in the same way.

¹⁵. This is the traditional understanding; more recently many have suggested the (much less likely) hypothetical stitching together of two or more independent letters by someone at a later time in Philippi. On this matter, see the Introduction, pp. 21-23.

¹⁶. See Galatians, which is given wholly to this issue, where the "agitators" (Paul's language for those commonly called "Judaizers") are present and totally disruptive, and Romans, where the tension apparently exists within the various house churches in Rome; see also 1 Cor 7:18-19; 2 Cor 2:17^1:6 (which argument makes most sense if again the "peddlers" are pressing Gentiles to accept Jewish identity symbols, especially circumcision; cf. 11:4-22); Col 2:11, 16-23; Tit 1:14-16.

¹⁷. See in this regard, M. Tellbe, "Sociological Factors." It should be noted here that the question of "why" is seldom raised, as though it would be a very natural thing for Gentile Christians to be so attracted. For a quite different answer, based on several moments of dubious mirror reading, see Jewett, "Conflicting Movements," 386-87.

¹⁸. Recognized as early as Calvin (267): "For as they had merely made an attempt on the Philippians and had not overcome them, it was not so necessary to enter into a full-scale disputation and refute errors to which they had never lent an ear. Hence he simply warns them to be diligent and attentive in detecting and guarding against imposters" (cf. Meyer, 147; Bruce, 107; Furnish, "Place," 81; Jewett, "Conflicting Movements," 373, 382-83; W. D. Thomas, "Place," 117 n. 1; Perkins, "Philippians," 90-91; de Silva, "No Confidence," 29-33). This question is often not spoken to at all, in most cases because their presence in Philippi is simply assumed, as, e.g., Pfitzner (Agon, 142): "his opponents who ... in Philippi threaten to destroy his work." That Paul has repeatedly warned them about such itinerants assumes not their presence in Philippi, but Paul's expectation that sooner or later they would make their way to Philippi as they have to other Pauline centers.

¹⁹. As noted in the Introduction, pp. 6-7, 11-14, the considerably different way that people read texts based on their presuppositions about genre is especially evident here. The difficulty with reading this section as polemical is that apart from v. 2 nothing else takes a polemical mode. That Paul offers his own testimony in response and that he concludes by urging them to follow his example is not the stuff of polemics or self-defense. In fact apart from the invective of v. 2 and the pathos of vv. 18-19 over some enemies of the cross, there is nothing else in the text that signals "opposition" or polemics.

²⁰. Some "mirror read" this testimony as presupposing "an attack on Paul's apostleship" (Pfitzner, Agon, 142); but apostleship is not so much as hinted at in this passage, nor is it mentioned elsewhere in the letter — even in the salutation (1:1, q.v.). This is to read into the text what is simply not there.

²¹. Koester ("Purpose," 320) rightly observes that Paul's intent here is "not to describe the opponents, but to insult them."

²². Gk. το λοιπόν (lit. = "the rest"; the neuter acc. sing, used adverbially), which occurs in 2 Cor 13:11 without the article and in that context clearly means "finally," as it probably does in 4:8 below (but to conclude the series of exhortations, not the letter). Elsewhere in Paul it either = "henceforth, in the future" (1 Cor 7:19; 2 Tim 4:8) or, as in 1 Thess 4:1; 2 Thess 3:1, and here, marks a transition to the final matters to be taken up in the letter; cf. Meyer (139), "it introduces what is still to be done by the readers in addition to what has been hitherto communicated" (cf. Vincent, Hendriksen, Hawthorne, Silva, O'Brien; Swift, "Theme," 247; Garland, "Composition," 149). All three uses are illustrated in the papyri (for the present usage, see M-M, 380). See the discussion in Thrall, Greek Particles, 25-30.

²³. See n. 12 on 1:12. It should be noted that the vocative occurs in every instance of (τό) λοιπόν used as a transitional (or concluding) adverb; cf. 4:8 below and 2 Cor 13:11.

²⁴. Cf. Caird, 130-32, who argues that the whole passage offers "theological justification for rejoicing in the Lord" (132).

²⁵. It needs also to be noted that Goodspeed's translation of this imperative ("goodbye"; cf. NEB, "farewell," corrected by REB) is in fact impossible (pace Lightfoot, Beare; Bruce is sympathetic). Nothing is in its favor, and everything against it: (1) it is predicated on the faulty assumption that this imperative concludes 1:1-2:30; (2) the (alleged) resumptive use in 4:4 makes such a view nonsense (how could one imagine Paul to say something as strange as "farewell in the Lord always, again I say, farewell"?); even Goodspeed tries, without lexical warrant, to get around this one (Problems, 174-75); (3) it makes the imperative χαίρετε mean something radically different from what it means elsewhere in the letter; and (4), conclusively, there is no lexical justification for it; when this verb does appear in the papyri, it never occurs as an imperative at the end of a letter (see the numerous examples in Exler, Form, 35-36, 69-77; cf. the critique by L. Alexander, "Structure," 97).

²⁶. O'Brien (349) observes with insight that in most cases in this letter the theme

of joy occurs in the context of "adverse circumstances."

²⁷. See Ps 32:11 [31:11 ]; 33:21 [32:21]; 35:9[34:9]; 40:16[39:17]; and many others. The LXX translators consistently avoided χαίρω for this idiom (but see Zech 10:7), using either άγαλλιάω or ευφραίνω. Paul, on the other hand, uses the latter words only once (2 Cor 2:2), not counting LXX citations, preferring χαίρω and its cognates. Given the flexible way this idiom is handled in the LXX and given Paul's linguistic preferences, χαίρετε έν xυρίω is best understood as Paul's own rendering of this OT idiom.

²⁸. In Paul, of course, the resource for such joy is the Holy Spirit, as in 1 Thess 1:6; Gal 5:22; Rom 14:17 (on these texts, see Fee, Presence).

²⁹. The first being his concern that they stand fast as one person for the sake of the gospel in the face of opposition in Philippi (1:27-2:18).

³⁰. Gk. τά αύτά, followed by γράφειν; the accent clearly falls on "the same things," not on "to write," thus making the debate as to whether Paul had written these things before somewhat irrelevant (pace Lightfoot, Meyer, Vincent, Collange). As Calvin (268; cf. Gnilka, Silva; Garland, "Composition," 164) recognized early on, and as v. 18 confirms, Paul is referring to the many times he had previously told them about such things — although it is possible that he is also referring to what Epaphroditus will have communicated (as suggested by Furnish, "Place," 86; followed by Jewett, "Conflicting Movements," 383 n. 1; and Martin, 124). It is pedantic to think this emphasis must include former communications by letter, and to translate it accordingly has little warrant (e.g., GNB, "I don't mind repeating what I've written before"; one would expect a πάλιν if this were the case) — although neither can one rule out that Paul had written before; it is simply that this phrase offers nothing by way of support. See further on n. 34 below.

³¹. Gk. άσφαλες, the only occurrence of this word group in Paul, having to do with "security" rather than "salvation" as such; cf. Heb 6:19 ("a sure and steadfast anchor"); Acts 21:34; 22:30; 25:26. Furnish ("Place," 83-86) has argued at some length for the meaning "certain, dependable knowledge," but that seems unlikely; to my knowledge, he has found no supporters.

³². Gk. όκνηρόν, the adjective of δκνος ("hesitation, shrinking"), which is used in that way in Rom 12:11; but here it refers to something "arousing dislike or displeasure" (Hauck, TDNT 5.167), hence "onerous" or "troublesome."

³³. See n. 11 above; cf. Alford, Weiss, Dibelius, Lohmeyer, Caird, Bruce, Hawthorne. Lightfoot (126) clearly recognizes the unlikelihood of this view, but in keeping with his radical disjunction between vv. 1 and 2, neither can it point forward; hence he suggests it refers to the "dissensions" in 1:27-2:18 (cf. Hendriksen).

³⁴. Cf. Mackay ("Further Thoughts," 164): "It is altogether reasonable to suppose that he had repeatedly warned the Philippians against the 'Judaizers', and that he is apologizing in iii.l for giving this warning again." So most interpreters (e.g., Meyer, Vincent, Kennedy, Jones. Bonnard, Müller, Kent, Loh-Nida, Silva, O'Brien).

³⁵. Rahtjen ("Three Letters," 172) claims that those who hold to the integrity of Philippians have as much difficulty with this sentence as do those who hold to partition theories. But that seems to be an overstatement, since he admittedly cannot make sense of it at all, whereas the proposed interpretation seems to make perfectly good sense as setting up the warning that follows.

³⁶. Gk. βλέπετε; part of the rhetoric lies in the repetition of this warning imperative with its asyndeton: "look out for the dogs; look out for the evil workers; look out for the mutilation." G. D. Kilpatrick ("ΒΛΕΠΕΤΕ," followed by Caird, Hawthorne; Garland, "Composition," 166; Stowers, "Friends," 116) argued for a weakened sense here ("regard, look at, consider") on the grounds that when it serves as a warning it is followed either by a μή πως or an άπό; thus it is not admonitory but setting forth the Judaizers (Jews, in the case of Caird and Hawthorne) as "a cautionary example" (Caird). But this makes very little sense of the rhetoric (why the threefold repetition of an indicative, one wonders) or the context (esp. vv. 3-4, which follow very strangely if this is not warning); nor is it an altogether accurate syntactical observation about usage. When followed by a μή πως, the warning still lies in the verb, not in what follows; and, as Silva and O'Brien correctly point out, in this case the μή πως seems clearly implied by the context; furthermore, as evidenced

by Caird's discussion, this view has considerable difficulty with the γάρ in v. 3.

³⁷. The rhetoric is threefold: the repetition itself; the use of epithets that "turn the tables" on his opponents; and the assonance with which it is expressed:

βλέπετε τοùς κύνας,

βλέπετε τους κακούς έργάτας,

βλέπετε τήν xατατομήν.

To see three different groups here (as some earlier interpreters noted by Meyer, 146)

displays insensitivity both to the context and the rhetoric.

³⁸. Some have argued for Jews as such (so Lohmeyer, Rahtjen, Klijn, Pollard, Caird, Hawthorne, et al.), but that view carries little persuasion in light of Pauline usage elsewhere, esp. 2 Cor 11:1-23, where Paul's language can only refer to people who are Christians (they preach "another gospel," to be sure, but it is a "gospel" that speaks of Christ). It is hard to imagine the circumstances whereby Gentiles who had come to follow Christ could possibly be attracted to becoming Jewish proselytes, since that is what most of them avoided as God-fearers. Even less likely are suggestions that the "missionaries" are Jewish "gnostics" (Schmithals) or "gnostics" who "claim special Spirit endowment" (Koester, Martin, Loh-Nida, Polhill, Lincoln); on the latter see n. 60 below.

³⁹. At least not in vv. 3-9; it is moot whether he is referring specifically to them in the generalizing word in vv. 18-19, where he speaks of "many" who "walk" differently from himself. "Judaizers" could easily be included in the phrase "enemies of the cross of Christ," but the verb "walk" in Paul always has to do with how one lives, not with theological aberration, and the context indicates that Paul is there referring to people who are no longer "pressing on toward the prize," who have set their minds on "earthly things" vis-á-vis "us whose citizenship is in heaven." On the improbability that they were currently present in Philippi, see n. 18 above.

⁴⁰. Cf. Mackay (163): "the change in tone . .. must not be exaggerated" (so also O'Brien, 347). All the more so if one takes seriously the role of "enmity" in letters of friendship (see Introduction, pp. 6-7).

⁴¹. This is my own play on words; it is altogether doubtful that the epithet in the Greek carried this word play.

⁴². In one of the most biting bits of sarcasm to be found in his letters, Paul urges in Gal 5:12 that if they must use the knife, they do so by castrating themselves rather than circumcising his Gentile converts; in 2 Cor 11:13-14, he calls them Satan's dupes, masquerading as apostles of Christ. Rahtjen's assertion ("Three Letters," 170) that "the bitterness of the tone of the first two verses is even greater than the anger shown in Galatians," makes one wonder by what criteria we should measure degrees of emotion. In any case, "bitterness" and "anger" would not be the first words to come to my mind when reading the present text, which has no comparable follow-up in the rest of the letter and nothing comparable to the ringing "anathema" of Gal 1:6 and accusation of being "false apostles" who are servants of Satan "masquerading as servants of righteousness" in 2 Cor 11:15. The latter are categorically stronger denunciations than the present passage, which takes the form of insult but not pronouncements of eternal judgment or of calling their character into question.

⁴³. As always with such striking metaphors, one can find numerous suggestions in the literature as to what it points to. Some suggest "those who 'dog' his footsteps" (although there is no known use of such a metaphor in Greek literature); others that he regarded these people as "scavengers" on his congregations, a suggestion that seems to have possibilities. More fancifully, some have pointed to 2 Kgs 9:36, where the "dogs" eat the flesh of Jezebel, thus pointing toward the final epithet, "the mutilation." For still more fanciful suggestions see Meyer (145), who notes "shamelessness," "snappishness," "envy," "disorderly wandering about," and "a loud howling against Paul"!

⁴⁴. A culture that spends millions of dollars on dogs as pets can scarcely appreciate the basic contempt that ancient society had for dogs, who were both scavengers (eating whatever street garbage they could find) and vicious (attacking the weak and helpless). They get nearly universally bad press in the Bible and thus are metaphorically applied to humans only pejoratively (see, e.g., 1 Sam 17:43; 24:14; 2 Sam 9:8; 16:9; 2 Kgs 8:13; Matt 7:6; 2 Pet 2:22). For Jewish attitudes toward Gentiles, see R. Aqiba, who named his two dogs Rufus and Rufina, because the Gentiles are like dogs in their manner of life (Tanch 107b; cited in Str-B 1.725).

⁴⁵. Grayston ("Opponents") thinks otherwise, that the "dogs" are Gentiles, who are "promoting circumcision as an initiatory rite . . . out of semi-magical belief in ritual blood-shedding" (171). But this fails altogether in light of vv. 3-6.

⁴⁶. Gk. τους κακούς έργάτας; cf. 2 Cor 11:13, έργάτοι δόλιοι ("deceitful workers"). έργάτης occurs in Paul elsewhere only in 1 Tim 5:18 (where he is citing a piece of Jesus tradition) and 2 Tim 2:15 (metaphorically of Timothy). Some understand the present usage as "ironic" over against their alleged "harping on the necessity of 'works' to secure salvation" (Martin [1959], 137; cf. Barth, Caird, Hawthorne, Silva). But that seems altogether unlikely, since it is doubtful that the Judaizers ever saw themselves as promoting "works." H. Koester ("Purpose"), on the basis of usage in Matt 9:37-38; 10:10; Did 13:2, sees the epithet as a self-designation denoting missionary activity (cf. Georgi, Opponents, 40; Lincoln, Paradise, 90; O'Brien), which cannot be proven one way or the other. Paul himself never so uses it at any rate.

⁴⁷. Gk. oi έργαζόμενοι τήν άνομίαν; see Ps 5:5; 6:8; 13:4; 35:12; 52:4; 58:2, 5; 91:7, 9; 93:4, 16; 118:3; 124:5; 144:4, 9. The noun έργάται occurs with this idiom in 1 Macc 3:6 (so also in Symmachus's translation of Ps 93:16). So also Bruce, 104.

⁴⁸. Rahtjen ("Three Letters," 170) considers this to refer to their own ("the dogs' ") circumcision; but that would be against all analogy in Paul, who never derogates circumcision as such, and especially not that of Jews.

⁴⁹. The technical term for which is paronomasia, a deliberate use of words with similar sounds for rhetorical effect, another form of which is the assonance of the three clauses (see n. 37 above).

⁵⁰. Except for an occasional demurrer, this view has held almost total sway until it was challenged by E. P. Sanders in Paul and Palestinian Judaism (1977), who coined the term "covenantal nomism" to describe a view of the Law that thought of law-keeping as an expression of covenantal relationship vis-à-vis obeying the law to gain God's favor. This point of view, which might be called "religious-sociological" (over against the traditional "theological-religious" perspective), has been advanced by many others, esp. Dunn (see essays collected in Jesus, Paul and the Law). See the discussion in Fee, Presence, 813-16, for the perspective suggested here, which would embrace both the religious-sociological and theological dimensions of this issue. On the one hand, Dunn is quite right in pointing out that the language "works of the Law" in Paul does not include ethics, but invariably denotes the three "identity markers" (circumcision, Sabbath observance, food laws) which distinguished the people of the covenant from the Gentiles among whom they lived. This is undoubtedly the driving concern of the Judaizers themselves, to bring Gentiles within the "blessings" of the Abrahamic covenant, which was predicated on their becoming circumcised. On the other hand, Paul ultimately argues on a more theological plane, moving the issue to the "means to righteousness" itself, i.e., how one is rightly related to God. At stake for him is whether one's identity with God and his people is predicated on "faith" in God's grace as expressed in Christ's death and resurrection, or on the "doing" of "Torah observance." Cf. D. Hagner, "Jewish Matrix."

⁵¹. Paul's own position on circumcision is found in the thrice repeated "neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for a thing" (1 Cor 7:19; Gal 5:6; 6:15), precisely because it has no significance with God whatsoever. This further suggests, in keeping with his dictum in 1 Cor 9:20, that he has no difficulty if Jewish parents continue to circumcise their boys. Where he comes out fighting is when Torah observance is given significance, so that Gentiles must conform in order to belong fully to the people of God. At that point, Torah observance takes on theological significance, implying that one's relationship with God in itself is predicated on "works of law."

⁵². Gk. γάρ, in this case offering the "cause, or reason" why they should heed the admonition of v. 2. On the difficulties this raises for the softened view of βλέπετε see n. 36

⁵³. That this sentence represents some kind of prior catechetical teaching (so Collange, Martin) is pure speculation; the context is so precise and the content so Pauline that such speculation is as unnecessary as it is unprovable.

⁵⁴. See n. 59 below.

⁵⁵. See, among many examples, 1 Thess 1:9-10 ("you turned from idols to the living God . . . and await his Son from heaven, Jesus who delivers us from the coming wrath"); Gal 4:5 ("in order that he might redeem those under Law, in order that we might receive adoption"); Rom 8:15 ("you received the Spirit of adoption, by whom we cry 'Abba, Father' "); cf. 1 Thess 5:9; 1 Cor 1:18, 30; 5:7; 15:3; Rom 5:1-5; 8:3; et passim. Some think otherwise regarding the present passage: e.g., H. Koester, "Purpose," who thinks that the emphatic "we" refers to Paul's Spirit-endowed apostleship as over against that of his opponents, but this is related to his unique view of the passage as a whole; D. W. B. Robinson, "Circumcision," who takes the unlikely view (given vv. 15-16 and 20-21) that it refers to himself and other Jews-turned-Christians; others think it refers to Paul and Timothy. See the discussion in O'Brien, 358-59.

⁵⁶. For the covenantal emphasis of this language, see Motyer, 148.

⁵⁷. For a full discussion of this text, see Fee, Presence, 489-93; cf. on 2 Cor 3:6 and Rom 7:5-6 as well (pp. 304-7, 503-8).

⁵⁸. Cf. also Jer 9:23-25, from which Paul derives his understanding of "boasting in the Lord," which in v. 25 of that passage also reflects on merely outward circumcision.

⁵⁹. Gk. λατρεύοντες (NIV, "worship"), which is very difficult to render into English (see the discussion; cf. H. Balz, EDNT, 2.344-45); cf. Rom 1:9 and 2 Tim 1:3 (of Paul's "service" to God) and Rom 1:25 (of idolatrous "service"). Pauline usage is determined by the LXX; the use of the cognate noun in Rom 9:4 and 12:1 tells the story. To Israel belongs, among other things, the λατρεία (= the temple cultus); now believers, in contrast to idolaters (Rom 1:25, those of "senseless minds," v. 20), offer "service" to God that "makes sense" of their present existence in Christ (for this understanding of λογίκην see Fee, Presence, 599-602). In order to support his mirror reading of this text as polemical against "Spirit enthusiasts" (next n.), Koester ("Purpose," 320-21) argues against a cultic background here — despite the context — and offers the unlikely translation, "[we are those] who work as missionaries in the Spirit of God."

⁶⁰. Many (e.g., Koester, Gnilka. Martin, Polhill, Lincoln, O'Brien), picking up on some "parallels" in 2 Cor 11-12, see this phrase as reflecting the position of "the propagandists," who "claim . . . special possession of the Spirit in their activities" (Lincoln, Paradise, 90-91). This is then read into a variety of further moments in the passage (the emphasis on suffering, the mention of the resurrection, the alleged "perfectionism," those who have made a "god of their bellies"). This kind of "mirror reading" (see the Introduction, p. 7 n. 24) represents a clear case of falling into "pitfalls" 2 and 4 of Barclay's guidelines ("over-interpretation" and "latching onto particular words and phrases as direct echoes of the opponents' vocabulary and then hanging a whole thesis on those flimsy pegs"). Besides the plain fact that the Spirit is neither mentioned nor alluded to throughout the rest of this passage, this view does not take Paul's own theology seriously enough, especially his presupposition, expressed throughout his letters in a variety of forms, that Christian life is predicated on the saving work of Christ (hence, "boasting in Christ Jesus") and the appropriating work of the Spirit (hence, "who 'serve' by the Spirit of God"). See further, Fee, Presence (13, 78, et passim). When Paul speaks in a very Pauline way, as he does here, one is especially hard pressed to discover the "theology" of alleged "opponents" in what he says, all the more so when we also lack the kind of direct evidence provided by explicit statements about their point of view.

⁶¹. As, e.g., the NEB (corrected in the REB), "we whose worship is spiritual"; cf. Calvin, 269; Lightfoot, 145; Beare, 105; Hawthorne 126-27, a view often tied to John 4:24. But Pauline usage and theology stand totally against it; indeed, such a view misses the genuinely radical nature of life in the Spirit as Paul elsewhere articulates it (see Fee,

Presence, passim).

⁶². This suggests further that this dative, as usual in Paul, is probably not locative, as the NRSV makes it ("who worship in the Spirit of God"; cf. NASB, NAB), as though we render proper service to God as we live in the Spirit. While one could scarcely argue against that theologically, Pauline usage seems determinative here. In most instances, arguably in all, this dative (πνεύματι; έν πνεύματι) is instrumental (see the full discussion in Fee, Presence, 21-24). We offer such service by means of the Spirit, which in this case probably has little to do with "doing" anything, but rather with simply living and walking by the Spirit as over against putting confidence "in the flesh."

⁶³. On the textual question see n. 10.

⁶⁴. That is, with the dative πνεύματι; Rom 8:9 is the one exception.

⁶⁵. For the crucial nature of this text in Paul see 1 Cor 1:31 and 2 Cor 10:17. As noted above on 1:26, Paul's use of this word (xαυχάομαι) has been largely determined by the Jeremiah passage, which already uses the preposition έν with this verb and means to "put one's confidence in and thus to glory in [the Lord]." This OT usage calls into serious question all other suggestions as to the meaning of "in Christ Jesus" in the present passage (e.g., GNB [Loh-Nida], "rejoice in our life in union with Christ Jesus," which sounds far more like Deissmann and Bousset than it does like Paul).

⁶⁶. W. D. Davies ("Flesh and Spirit"; cf. GNB, Loh-Nida) would limit it to this usage; but that seems altogether unlikely (cf. Moehring, "Some Remarks").

⁶⁷. For this emphasis on "flesh" and "Spirit" as primarily eschatological realities, see Fee, Presence, 816-22; cf. Silva 170-71.

⁶⁸. Gk. xαί περ. used with the participle to express concession; found only here in Paul. There seems neither need nor warrant for Hawthorne's taking the clause as the protasis of an elliptical sentence.

⁶⁹. The Western witnesses (D* E* F G it pc) omit this xαί, but in so doing they deflect Paul's emphasis.

⁷⁰. Lightfoot (145) correctly argues that "the proper force of εχων πεποίθησιν may not be explained away." After all, Paul speaks here of having indeed that which he will renounce in vv. 7-9. Contra such translations as GNB: ("I could, of course, put my trust in such things").

↑ Back to top