1. There Is No Future to the Past (3:4b-6)
B. THE EXAMPLE OF PAUL (3:4b-14)
What follows the warning and affirmation of vv. 2-3, though untypical of the Paul we meet in his earlier letters, fits the present letter well: he offers his personal story as a paradigm for them to follow.1 In the process many of his basic theological convictions find expression in terms of his own experience of them. This unusual form of "argumentation" is predicated altogether on the secure relationship that exists between him and them.2 It also further indicates that this section is not an interruption or digression, but a purposeful part of the letter, and that v. 1 intentionally introduces it. These are Paul's close friends, who know his gospel well from years of association with him. Such sharing of the gospel would undoubtedly have included warnings against those who might come to them with a "different gospel," insisting on Torah observance. Since Paul has gone over this ground with them often before, his own example is sufficient here: "I've been there," he reminds them, "and it is a dead end, offering neither life nor fellowship with Christ. Indeed, it has no future at all; whereas 'knowing Christ' means to 'be found'; it means fellowship with him now and being with him forever." Fellowship with Christ now, of course, also means participation in his sufferings, made possible through the power of his resurrection.
The narrative can be easily traced. It begins with his former "advantages" within Judaism, which in his case far outstrip any that could be exhibited by those who might come to them (4-6); but this "gain" turns out to be total "loss," mere "refuse," in comparison with the ultimate "gain," that of being found in Christ, possessing God's righteousness made available through Christ — now and at the end — and thus knowing him (7-9). But the sentence concludes on a surprising note, reminding them that such life in Christ includes present suffering as well as future glory (10-11), which leads to the conclusion of the story, that the future, which has come present in Christ and the Spirit, is also still future and is fully worthy of vigorous pursuit (12-14)3
The "why" of all this is more difficult, since both vv. 12-14 and the transitional vv. 10-11 seem so poorly related to vv. 4-9. The first part (vv. 4-9) clearly flows out of, and seems intended to respond to, the warning and affirmation of vv. 2-3. The transitional clause (vv. 10-11), which reiterates the theme of "knowing Christ" from v. 8, moves in an unexpected direction, returning to the theme of present suffering ("being conformed to his death") while awaiting future resurrection. Picking up on "the resurrection," the second part (vv. 12-14) focuses on a second recurring theme, steadfast "pressing on" so as to realize the certain future. At issue is how these various parts relate to each other, and to the letter as a whole; especially so since the application that follows, including the appeal to imitate him (vv. 15-4:1), climaxes explicitly on the theme of vv. 12-14 — their "standing fast" (4:1) in light of their guaranteed future, when they will be transformed into (by "being conformed to") Christ's present glorified existence (3:21).
Most likely the reason for this narrative is twofold: (1) to reiterate his gospel, which they know well, but now by way of his own personal history and in light of the warning in v. 2 — apparently a theological "diagnostic"; and (2) using that same story to return to twin urgencies that recur throughout: (a) that they "hang in there" in the midst of present suffering, indeed that they see their suffering for what it is — God's way of "conforming" them to Christ's death — and (b) that they not lose their grip on their certain future. In view of how the passage concludes (3: I7—4:1 ), the latter two issues seem to be the primary concern, for which the first part of the story serves as the theological ground. This is what it means to "know Christ": it means not to look elsewhere for "advantages" of any kind, but to be found in him, and thus to participate in his sufferings in the present, in the full light of our certain eschatological future in which we will be finally "conformed" to his present glory.
1. There Is No Future to the Past (3:4b-6)
4bIf others think they have reasons to put confidence in the flesh, I have more: 5circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; in regard to the law, a Pharisee; 6as for zeal, persecuting the church; as for legalistic righteousness, faultless.
With this opening paragraph Paul sets forth his former advantages, what was at one time on the "gain" side of the ledger. After an opening sentence that insists on the superior quality of his "status" as a Jew, he illustrates that superiority with a list of seven items, six of which indicate different ways in which he "excelled." Not surprisingly, given vv. 2-3, he begins with circumcision, then moves on to his membership in the ancient people of God, including his tribal origins; he is "a Hebrew of Hebrews," which can be demonstrated in three observable ways, concluding with the declaration, "blameless, according to the righteousness found in the law."
Little is new here.4 What is surprising — for this list — is the inclusion of "persecuting the church," plus the final assertion of blamelessness as to the Law. From a sociological point of view, what is reiterated here are items that indicate "status." But the final two (and very likely, therefore, his being a Pharisee as well) indicate "achievement"; so the interest is not simply in what was given to him by birth, but in what he himself did so as rightly to be designated "a Hebrew of Hebrews." All of this, he will go on, amounts to nothing more than "refuse" in comparison with knowing Christ, which by implication means "no Torah observance." The future, therefore, is not to be found in taking on Jewish identity; in other words, the future does not lie in his religious past.
4b This sentence basically reiterates the preceding addendum to v. 3. It is at once ironical and theological. Even if they did not intend it to be so, putting "confidence in the flesh" is what the Judaizers are all about; not only can Paul play that game — as he has just asserted (v. 4a) — but now, he goes on, "I can play it better than they can."5 My credentials with regard to Jewish identity are impeccable; indeed, in comparison with their grounds for confidence in the flesh, "I have more."6
Some have seen the protasis of this sentence as indicating the presence of Judaizers among them.7 But that is not a necessary inference; more likely, even though Judaizers serve as immediate background, this is Paul's way of giving perspective to any in Philippi who, because of present suffering, might be tempted to lean this way. After all, in several of the following items, the Judaizers could also boast; Paul's concern in offering his personal testimony is to warn the Philippians against them (= "to write the same things again is for your safety," v. lb).
5-6 What follows is a catalogue of seven items that illustrate the foregoing assertion:
(1) "Circumcised on the eighth day."8 Paul leads with this particular item, not with the next two, for obvious contextual reasons. The Judaizers insist on Gentile circumcision, so that in keeping with Gen 17:3-14 Gentile believers in Christ can also identify with God's ancient people in keeping with the Abrahamic covenant. Thus Paul, who through Christ and the Spirit belongs now to the circumcision, begins here: as a Jewish boy, born into a Jewish home, I was "circumcised on the eighth day" ; that is, "I received circumcision long before any of you in Philippi had even heard about Christ and the gospel."9
(2) "Of the people10 of Israel."11 Here is the crucial item. What the Judaizers hope to achieve by Gentile circumcision is to bring them into the privileges of belonging to God's ancient people, "Israel's race." Paul had been given this privilege by birth.
(3) "Of the tribe of Benjamin." The reason for this one is almost certainly for effect. Gentiles could become members only of Israel; his membership was of a kind whereby he could trace his family origins. He belonged to the tribe of Benjamin, that favored tribe from whom came his namesake Saul, Israel's first king, the tribe blessed by Moses as "the beloved of the Lord . . . whom the Lord loves [and who] rest between his shoulders" (Deut 33:12), in whose territory sat the Holy City itself. They were also notable because they alone joined Judah in loyalty to the Davidic covenant.12 It is not difficult to hear a ring of pride in this little reminder,13 which then calls for the next designation.
(4) "A Hebrew of Hebrews." This is the "swing" term, summing up the preceding three, and setting the stage for the final three. He was in every way a "Hebrew, born of pure Hebrew stock." The appellation "Hebrews" appears to be a term Jews used of themselves, especially in the Diaspora in contrast to Gentiles.14 That the two terms ("Hebrews, Israelites") occur together in 2 Cor 11:22 in reference to Jewish Christian opponents (probably Judaizers) supports the contention that those warned about in v. 2 are Judaizers as well.
(5) "In regard to the Law, a Pharisee." This is in keeping with the data recorded in Acts 23:6-9 and 26:5 and with Paul's own word in Gal 1:14, that he had advanced in Judaism far beyond his contemporaries, being "extremely zealous for the traditions of his ancestors." Again, as the reminiscence in Gal 1:14 makes clear, this was another area of personal pride for him. The reason for mentioning this feature of his history is at least threefold: (a) It defines his relationship to the Law in a very specific way, as belonging to the Jewish sect who had given themselves to its study and codification, (b) The combined evidence of Matt 23:15 and Acts 15:5 suggests that any Jewish Christians who came to Philippi to promote Torah observance on the part of Gentiles would most likely also belong to this sect, (c) It gives the framework for understanding the next two items.
(6) "As for zeal, persecuting the church."15 Whereas for us this may sound like a strange matter to include as "grounds for confidence in the flesh," for Paul it regularly served to heighten the contrast between his present "enslavement" to Christ and his former zeal against him.16 He was not just your everyday, run-of-the-mill Pharisee; his zeal for the Law17 was demonstrated most surely by his untiring dedication to stamping out the nascent Christian movement, probably related to his conviction that God had especially cursed Jesus by having him hanged (Gal 3:13; Deut 21:23). In their own way, his Judaizing opponents are also persecuting the church; but Paul surpasses them even here. Is this also a way of emphasizing for the Philippians' hearing, and in light of his and their present suffering, that he himself once stood on the other side on this issue? If so, there is a bit of irony in this usage as well.
(7) "As to righteousness in the Law, blameless." This final item brings the catalogue to its climax; everything else is pointing here.18 But it is also the item that has generated long debates among later readers, since it seems to contradict what Paul says elsewhere about one's ability to keep the Law. The key to the present usage lies at three points — the term "righteousness," the qualifier "in the Law," and the word "faultless"19 — which together indicate that he is referring to Torah observance understood as observable conduct.
To begin with the final item, the key to "faultless" lies with the cultic overtones of this word (cf. 2:15). Paul has no "blemishes" on his record, as far as Torah observance is concerned,20 which means that he scrupulously adhered to the pharisaic interpretation of the Law, with its finely honed regulations for sabbath observance, food laws, and ritual cleanliness. His former blamelessness in these matters makes his Christian pronouncements on these items all the more telling.21
This means that "righteousness" in this context does not refer to God's character or to the gift of right standing with God, but precisely as he qualifies it, that "righteousness" which is "in the Law." Although "the Law" cannot always be so narrowly defined in Paul, here he is probably referring to matters of "food and drink" and "the observance of days," since, along with circumcision, these are the two items regularly singled out whenever discussion of Torah observance emerges in his letters.22 Both the narrative that follows (vv. 8-9) and Rom 14:17 make it clear that for Paul true "righteousness" goes infinitely beyond these matters; indeed, the Kingdom of God has nothing at all to do with "food and drink" but with righteousness (!), peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit. What makes the present kind of righteousness so worthless is that it generates "confidence in the flesh"·, it is "my own righteousness — my own achievement — predicated on Torah observance" (v. 9), which stands in stark contrast to the "righteousness that comes from God predicated on faith." But the present usage also indicates, as argued in 1:11, that the concern for "righteousness" in this passage is not ultimately with "right standing," but with "right living."
Paul's present point, of course, is not his sinlessness, but his being without fault in the kind of righteousness that Judaizers would bring one to, by insisting on Torah observance. But what has that to do with righteousness at all, is his point. He has excelled here, he says, and found it empty and meaningless; hence he insists for the Philippians' benefit that there is "no future in it."
A passage like this one, especially in light of Paul's language of renunciation in vv. 7-8, should perhaps call into question both the confusion of Christian faith with pride in nation and the various brands of "religiousness" and legalism that variously abound. Confusion of being Christian with being a member of a given nation has a long history in the church; it is one of the pernicious bequests of the conversion of Constantine, which plagues not only officially "Christian" states, but perhaps even more insidiously a country like the United States, where the American flag often holds pride of place in Christian sanctuaries and where patriotic holidays are sometimes the more significant days in the American church calendar.
Equally pernicious is the pride of those who have defined godliness in terms of "food and drink and the observance of days," who still maintain distinctions between "clean and unclean," although variously defined. To be able to claim that one does not indulge in such "sins" is a badge of honor in many circles. Likewise for those who define righteousness in terms of "church" — rites, sacraments, forms — rather than in terms of "knowing Christ." Paul has not given up his heritage, nor is he against "form" of various kinds. What for him is "refuse" is to "put confidence in them," as if righteousness had anything to do with such. And if that seems too strong for some readers, at least that gives one an opportunity to sense the passion fellow Israelites would have felt toward Paul. Our problem in hearing this text lies with our ability to distance ourselves too easily from their passions, which Paul is treading on in this passage with characteristic single-mindedness. None of these things has anything at all to do with "knowing Christ," he will go on to say.
_________________
1. Cf. Collange (129): "So the interest of the apostle does not lie primarily in autobiography but in parenesis;... he is simply striving to instruct." Martin (123) suggests otherwise, that this is "self-defence," in which Paul "goes to [great] length to defend himself from the implied criticism of his opponents"; cf. Pfitzner (Agon, 142). But (a) that takes the concept of "opponents" to lengths not found in the passage itself (cf. nn. 19, 38, and 60 on the preceding paragraph); (b) there is nothing in the language itself that implies "defense" (the έγώ μάλλον simply sets Paul in contrast to the Judaizers in v. 2, but not in terms of "self-defense"); and (c) Paul himself urges that what he says here is to serve as a paradigm for the Philippians (vv. 15-17), which does not fit well the theme of "apology." It is the paradigmatic nature of the present narrative that marks it off from all previous autobiographical moments in his letters (e.g., 1 Thess 2:1-12; Gal 1:13-2:14; 2 Cor 11:23- 12:12), which are decidedly "apologetic" in function and tone (contra G. Lyon, Pauline Autobiography) — although even there Paul reminds converts of his example when among them, so as to reinforce some point of paraenesis (as in 2 Thess 3:7-10).
2. Yet another indication of friendship (see the Introduction, pp. 2-7). Indeed, the present appeal functions similarly to that in 2:1-2, where he urges on the basis of their long-time relationship in Christ and the Spirit that they "complete his joy" by being of one mind regarding the gospel.
3. Some would also see a correspondence with the narrative about Christ in 2:6-11 (e.g., Moule, Wright); but Paul himself makes no point of it, and the parallels are inexact, especially since the paradigmatic point of the present narrative seems to differ considerably from the former one, although the linguistic echoes suggest that Christ's story serves as the premise for this one.
4. The first item is everywhere presupposed. His belonging to "Israel's race" is specifically mentioned in 2 Cor 11:22; Rom 9:3; 11:1. He mentions his tribe in Rom 11:1, his being a "Hebrew" in 2 Cor 11:22. His pharisaism is implied in Gal 1:13-14; he mentions his "persecuting the church" in Gal 1:13, 23; 1 Cor 15:9, and 1 Tim 1:13. Only his "faultlessness" in observing Torah is not mentioned elsewhere in his letters, although it is no surprise in light of Gal 1:14.
5. For this emphasis on his "superiority" in Judaism see Gal 1:13-14 and 2 Cor 11:21-23.
6. Gk. έγώ μάλλον; for this usage of μάλλον, see S. R. Llewelyn, New Docs 6.69-70, who notes that in an elliptical apodosis like this, it is not merely contrastive ("rather"), but intensive (= "all the more").
7. Cf. Gnilka (189), followed by Martin, who emphasizes the anonymity of a supposed "debater." This same formula, however, occurs at key points in 1 Corinthians (3:18; 8:2; 14:37), where it points not to outsiders but to people within the Corinthian congregation who have taken the stance proposed in the protasis. In light of the rest of Philippians, it is extremely doubtful that outsiders are being addressed here. On the larger question of Judaizers present in Philippi, see the discussion on v. 2 (esp. nn. 18 and 39).
8. Gk. περιτομή οκταήμερος. The dative is "reference" (= with reference to circumcision).
9. Meyer (151) suggests that the mention of "the eighth day" implies that some of the Judaizers were themselves proselytes, hence Paul's superiority. Although possible, this seems doubtful. Paul is aiming at "the righteousness contained in the law." His "I more" — and what he counts as "filthy street garbage" — has to do with his "achievements," not his status as such. After all, in Rom 11:1-2, he argues that his own "status" (an Israelite of the tribe of Benjamin) is the clear evidence that God has not in fact cast off his ancient people.
10. Gk. γένους, here meaning "race."
11. Georgi (Opponents, 46-49) has demonstrated that this term featured prominently in the propaganda of hellenistic Judaism to emphasize their special religious heritage. He has been followed by many (Martin, Bruce, Hawthorne, O'Brien).
12. Hendriksen (156-58) rightly calls into question some of the lavish praise of the tribe of Benjamin that is found in many of the commentaries.
13. Evidenced also by the way it is recalled in a more off-handed way in Rom 11:1.
14. As is evidenced by the inscription from the synagogue in Corinth, "Synagogue
of the Hebrews." In recent years it has become common to emphasize the
linguistic features of this term (see, e.g., C. F. D. Moule, "Once More"; cf. Martin,
Bruce, Hawthorne, O'Brien; Gutbrod, TDNT, 3.390; Gunther, Opponents, 75), thus to
suggest that he intended "Hebrew Palestinian parentage" ; but this looks like strapping
Paul into a Lukan straitjacket. This usage can be found throughout Jewish literature to
distinguish themselves from Gentiles, almost certainly in contrast to the more pejorative
term "Jew" which the Gentiles used. Besides, Paul's Greek is such that even if he had learned Aramaic in his home (which he very likely did), Greek is his first language. See
further J. Wanke, EDNT, 1.369-70.
15. Contra O'Brien (376-78), this usage indicates that "church," which primarily referred to the gathered assembly in any given community, could also carry the more universalizing connotation of the people of God in general. Had Paul intended the former, he most likely would have said "churches," as he does elsewhere.
16. In this regard see Gal 1:13-14 (where his zeal in persecuting the church and his zeal for the Law are the only two items mentioned; cf. 1:23, where it is mentioned again) and 1 Tim 1:13; cf. 1 Cor 15:9. Acts faithfully represents this dimension of his zeal for God (9:1-2; 22:4-5; 26:9-11).
17. That "zeal for the Law" is in view is made clear not only from the parallel in Gal 1:14, but from its place in this context between "as to the Law, a Pharisee" and "as to the righteousness found in the Law, faultless." See further the discussion in O'Brien, 375-76.
18. Some (e.g., Gunther, Opponents, 130) read into this phrase presumed "opponents" who "were eager to be blameless (v. 6)," viewing vv. 12-15 as reflecting their alleged emphasis on perfectionism. Martin and Pfitzner (cf. Schmithals, Paul, 73), on the other hand, mirror read the same evidence as "presuppos[ing] an attack of Paul's claims to apostolicity" (see n. 1). The implausibility of these reconstructions, besides being methodologically questionable mirror reading (see Introduction, p. 7 n. 24), is found in the preceding phrase, "as to zeal [for the law], persecuting the church," which all such reconstructions conveniently ignore. Pfitzner, e.g., lists all the other items in this list, and then says that "all these claims, on which they seek to base their authority, Paul for his part now considers loss" (emphasis mine). One wonders how "all these claims" can so easily circumvent "persecuting the church"; and if the latter is not part of their "claims" to "authority" (which is understandably not argued for since it borders on nonsense), then how can one be so sure that the surrounding items reflect the "claims" of "opponents"? The point to note, of course, is that Paul himself elsewhere refers to this matter in his past without hint of "opponents."
19. Gk. άμεμπτος; see above on 2:15 (and n. 16).
20. Some see Paul's word here as in conflict with the testimony in 1 Tim 1:13-16; but as with Rom 7:7-25, that testimony is expressed in terms of his now Christian backward look at his life before Christ. Here the perspective is within the framework of Judaism. Cf. the witness of the rich young man in the Gospel records, who claims regarding Torah observance that he had "kept these from my youth."
21. It is clear that Paul lacks a "convert's mentality" on these matters, since he never argues that Jewish believers in Christ should abandon such identity markers. He comes out fighting only when they are given theological significance, as they invariably are when imposed on Gentiles. In this regard, see esp. the argument in Rom 14:1-15:13, where all three of these past "achievements" are argued for as acceptable for Jewish believers, but as totally outside the purview of the Kingdom of God.
22. Otherwise Kennedy, who thinks it includes "the ordinary moral precepts of the law as well." But that seems to run counter to Rom 7:7-12.