BIG IDEA:
REJOICING IN CHRIST INVOLVES TURNING OUR BACK ON EVERYTHING THAT WOULD EXALT OUR FLESH
INTRODUCTION:
Charles Swindoll: Our world honors and rewards high achievement. Trophies, medals, plaques, and awards are given to those who stand out among the crowd. Though there’s nothing inherently wrong with appreciating and applauding great accomplishments, these accolades can be very deceptive, leading many to believe that their earthly successes and temporal earnings can somehow translate into heavenly merits or eternal rewards.
Among the many worldly messages we’re tempted to believe, the one that emphasizes self-promotion —that is, finding confidence in our own pedigrees and achievements —can be the most alluring. In such a world, how desperately we need God’s truth! If for no other reason than to counteract society’s lies, we need His principles and precepts to guide us aright. Again and again in the Bible we discover a perspective that stands in stark contrast with the rubbish on the street. In our fight-back, get-even world it’s so easy to embrace the philosophy espoused there and to adopt its methods.
If anyone ever had the opportunity to boast of their accomplishments, Saul of Tarsus was that person. In fact, that’s exactly what he did throughout his adult life —until he met and bowed before Jesus as Lord. That encounter changed everything. From then on he considered all things outside of Christ and His righteousness as mere “rubbish” (3:8).
Grant Osborne: Building on this view of the opponents’ identity [as Judaizers], a second line of interpretation becomes available with respect to the transition from 3:1 to 3:2. I believe that these Judaizers had recently arrived in Philippi and had started making inroads into the church there, so that Paul had just received word of their influence at this point in composing his letter. Immediately he stopped writing his conclusion and switched to a diatribe against his enemies of the recent past. To me this makes better sense of the change in tone between verse 1 and verse 2. This then introduces a third problem area Paul needed to address in the letter—a Judaizing false teaching (3:1 – 4:1), following the earlier discussions of persecution (1:27–30) and dissension (2:1–18). Paul proceeds to argue against these dangerous heretics based on themes he had taught the Philippians on a previous occasion (“the same things to you again,” 3:1), presenting himself as a further paradigm for the believers (“follow my example,” v. 17) in addition to the models he describes in chapter 2 (Christ, Timothy, and Epaphroditus). . .
Note the contrast: “to me” it is not “irksome” or burdensome to say what needs to be said, but “for you” it is a “safeguard” (that is, “for your safety”). The Philippian believers were in grave danger from these heretics and needed a serious warning, lest they fall prey to them (as the Galatians had done). The Greek word for “safeguard” (asphales) also speaks of spiritual stability, so Paul is indicating that these warnings were needed in order to stabilize the congregation and avert the kind of theological chaos that could result from following the Judaizers’ heresy.
Gerald Hawthorne: As ][Paul] saw it, God has brought into being a new relationship through Jesus Christ, based not on our bid to please him but on what we have received, and issuing in how we are to live in grateful response. So in Paul’s memorable words, in a modern key, we are his people. We worship as the Holy Spirit moves in us; we place our only hope in Christ, and in that act we renounce all claim to being accepted by God on the basis of ethnic or cultural superiority. Here, then, is a thumbnail sketch of what Paul’s gospel is all about as far as human relationship to God is concerned.
Moises Silva: This doctrinal section [Chap. 3] admits of a threefold division.
- Verses 1–6 set the context for the polemics by pointing out the Judaizing threat.
- Over against this heresy, Paul summarizes the distinctives of his theology in verses 7–11.
- The rest of the chapter may be viewed as Paul’s attempt to apply these theological concerns to the Philippian situation.
I. (:1) REMEMBER THE COMMAND = REJOICE IN THE LORD
A. Point of Emphasis
“Finally, my brethren“
R. Kent Hughes: a phrase that has occasioned a lot of humor at the expense of preachers, as, for example when the little boy whispered to his father, “What does the preacher mean when he says ‘finally’?” To which his father muttered, “Absolutely nothing, son.” Of course, we preachers could argue that we have apostolic precedent for this because right here, as the Apostle Paul concludes, he says “Finally” and then goes on for two more chapters!
Actually, however, most of our translations have made this more difficult than it is because there is evidence in postclassical Greek that the word functions as a transitional particle to introduce a fresh point in the progress of thought and could well be translated, “Well then, my brothers, rejoice” or “And so, my brothers, rejoice” or “Moreover, my brothers, rejoice.” This fits well with the fact that the occurrences of “rejoice” in the book of Philippians function like a hinge at the beginning or the end of the sections in which it appears. . .
So as Paul begins a new section that outlines the doctrinal troubles the Philippians might soon face, he writes, “Finally, my brothers, rejoice in the Lord.” And when he transitions to the following section in 4:4 he will hinge it with the command, “Rejoice in the Lord always; again I will say, rejoice.”
George Hunsinger: By addressing his readers as “brothers and sisters,” Paul is not resorting to pious rhetoric. These brothers and sisters have forfeited other social bonds. Their new kinship in Christ comes at a cost. For those who have turned to Christ, family ties could be frayed, old religious connections terminated, and former loyalties diminished. With their countercultural profile, Christians were not always welcomed with favor, not least by existing authorities concerned about social cohesion. Suspicion and ostracism could be acute, even if falling short of persecution. Unlike other citizens in Roman-administered Philippi, Christians would not always take part in ceremonies sanctioned by civil religion. As brothers and sisters in Christ, they have embarked on a way of life that relativizes everything else. Their community in Christ is a refuge in an unfriendly world.
B. Point of the Command
“rejoice in the Lord“
Start with the most basic of things; fundamental
D. A. Carson: What Paul is doing is picking up the theme of rejoicing he introduced in 2:17-18.
Robert Gromacki: Designates an abrupt change in subject matter.
James Boice: What is joy? Joy is a supernatural delight in God and God’s goodness. And it is a very different thing from happiness… Happiness is circumstantial, but not joy. Joy is an inner quality of delight in God, or gladness, and it is meant to spring up within the Christian in a way totally unrelated to the adversities or circumstantial blessings of this life.
Gordon Zerbe: The stress here is not on rejoicing by itself as a spiritual exercise, important as that is. Rather, the point is for the community to do their joyful celebration in Messiah, rather than via some other instrumentality or in some other sphere (as will become most clear by 3:18–21). Only in Messiah is there cause for true joy. This exhortation has real consequences for life in Philippi, including the readers’ necessary avoidance of celebratory civic festivals, which are filled with rejoicing in the salvation brought by Caesar as his subjects celebrate his and the empire’s virtuous military exploits that have brought “peace and security” and the wealth of its citizens.
Steven Lawson: “Rejoice” (3:1) is in the present tense. The means that the Philippian Christians, and we, are always to be rejoicing in the Lord. They were to rejoice not only on Sunday morning in their church gathering, but throughout the week in their homes and workplaces. They were to be always rejoicing in every circumstance of life. They should rejoice in good times, as well as bad times. They should be glad not only in prosperity, but in adversity. Rejoicing was to be their habitual emotion as Christians.
Moreover, this verb “rejoice” is in the active voice. This means Christians must take action to rejoice. We are to take charge in this matter. We have this obligation to direct our minds and hearts to rejoice in the Lord. We are the only ones who can fulfill this. God will not do this independently of our making this choice to rejoice in the Lord. When Paul states this in the active voice, this could be translated, I command you to be always making every effort to be rejoicing in the Lord.
In addition, “rejoice” is in the imperative mood. “Rejoice” is a command to be obeyed. It is an act of the will in choosing to obey God. To rejoice in the Lord is the responsibility of every Christian to choose to obey. Paul is commanding his readers to rejoice. They may not have felt like rejoicing, but that did not give them an excuse to mope around. That would be living in disobedience to this command. Believers are always to rejoice in the Lord. There are reasons why we become discouraged, some of them significant. But there are always greater reasons to rejoice. God does not command what he does not make possible.
Also, “rejoice” is a second person plural verb. This is to say, this command is directed to all the believers in Philippi. No matter where they find themselves in life, they must choose to rejoice.
C. Point to Remember — We need to be reminded
“To write the same things again is no trouble to me,
and it is a safeguard for you.”
2 Pet. 1:12; Acts 20:29-31
G. Walter Hansen: To write the same things to you again, to repeat his imperatives to rejoice, is not a cause of hesitation for Paul and is a basis of stability for them. The stability or firmness of believers in the midst of suffering is one of Paul’s primary goals: repeatedly he calls for them to stand firm (1:27; 4:1). Now he asserts that his appeals to rejoice in the Lord are designed to give them stability. When believers rejoice in the Lord, they are strengthened to stand firm even in the midst of sacrifice (2:17-18) and sorrow (2:27-29). Paul could easily have demonstrated that building stability on rejoicing in the Lord is a scriptural theme:
- “The joy of the LORD is your strength” (Neh 8:10);
- “Sing for joy to God our strength” (Ps 81:1);
- “O LORD, the king rejoices in your strength” (Ps 21:1);
- “I will rejoice in the LORD, I will be joyful in God my Savior. The Sovereign Lord is my strength” (Hab 3:18-19).
Although Paul does not offer these texts, he does give the example of his own consistent practice as convincing proof of this scriptural principle that rejoicing in the Lord is the foundation for stability.
II. (:2) WATCH OUT FOR JOY STEALERS = FLESH PROMOTERS (CHARLATANS)
Brian Racer: Pernicious enemies of grace and truth.
Probably 3 designations of the same troublesome group (Judaizers), rather than 3 different groups; unbelieving Jews; former colleagues of Paul
Ben Witherington: Notice the threefold repetition of blepete here. The sense has to be “watch” in the sense of “watch out for,” as this is a clear threefold warning, changing the epithets used to describe the singular adversary warned about — an example of rhetorical “amplification.” The warning is rhetorically strengthened by each of the objects of the term beginning with the Greek letter kappa — kynas, kakous, katatomēn. “Since Paul repeats the imperative watch out three times and each time attaches dangerous direct objects … to the verb, the direct objects color the verb with the meaning of a warning to be aware of or watch out for something hazardous … harmful adversaries.” This is why the translation “beware” is perfectly appropriate here.
G. Walter Hansen: Paul is not calmly advising his readers to do some academic analysis of possible alternatives; he is urgently warning them to watch out for harmful adversaries.
Frank Thielman: The first step in Paul’s warning is to compare the Judaizers with authentic believers. The force of his language is lost in most English translations, both because Paul’s rhetoric is almost impossible to duplicate in intelligible English and because the stridency with which he speaks is startling. We can almost capture both the rhetoric and the urgency of the original with the translation, “Beware the curs! Beware the criminals! Beware the cutters!”
A. Their Character
“Beware of the dogs“
Paul turns the tables on the legalistic Jews who would have used this derogatory term (filthy scavengers roaming the streets) as one of contempt for the Gentiles.
Brian Racer: Scoundrels; keep nipping at your heels; chased Paul from town to town.
John MacArthur: What is startling here is that Paul, a Jew, calls Jews dogs. That’s turning the table. That is a serious statement. You wonder sometimes why Paul was not popular. That statement would not make him popular…not popular. He is saying, in effect, beware of those people who self-righteously call other dogs but they’re the dogs. They accuse others of shamelessly attacking the truth and they are shamelessly attacking the truth. Are dogs unclean and filthy? So are they. Are dogs snarling and howling and vicious? So are they. Are dogs dangerous and able to wound and even kill? So are they. Stay away from them. Stay away from those dangerous filthy snarling howling wild attacking false teachers who parade themselves as if they are the virtuous ones, but they are deadly, they are dangerous, they are dirty. And he’s talking about people who are religious. He’s talking about people who say we must obey the law of God.
Moises Silva: The pejorative sense of the English dog is normally applied insultingly to people considered worthless and vulgar. For the Jews, however, the term had a distinctly religious sense: it referred to the Gentiles, those people who, being outside the covenant community, were considered ritually unclean. When Jesus drew a comparison between the Syro-Phoenician woman and dogs (Mark 7:27), the woman recognized the analogy not as a vulgar insult but as a religious statement. Paul, therefore, is making a startling point: the great reversal brought in by Christ means that it is the Judaizers who must be regarded as Gentiles.
B. Their Conduct
“beware of the evil workers;“
Brian Racer: They undermine grace; they undermine the experience of the gospel after salvation for others… Grace is meant to bring freedom to every area of our life in a way that does not lead to licentiousness on the other end of the spectrum… Diminishing the work of Christ in other people’s lives… taking something that is good and distorting it.
Robert Gromacki: This warning describes their conduct. They were “workers” in that they aggressively promoted their beliefs. They were working for their own salvation, and they attempted to influence others to accept legalism as an additional requirement with faith as the grounds for divine acceptance. They were like the hypocritical Pharisees who travelled anywhere just to make one proselyte (Matt. 23:15).
Charles Swindoll: Ironically, the Judaizers were claiming to be the promoters of good works —works so good, in fact, that they could merit a right standing before God. However, Paul says they were actually workers of evil. They sowed a corrupt, twisted non-gospel, teaching that people could be saved only by faith plus works of the Law. However, the good news of Jesus Christ is that salvation is by grace alone (it’s a gift!), through faith alone (not by works!), in Christ alone (not by any means other than the person and work of Christ!). We are to rejoice in the Lord and what He has done for us, not in any human means of trying to gain favor with God.
Nijay Gupta: They come under the guise of trying to help fellow believers, but in reality they doom them. They are not unlike Satan who masquerades as an angel of light (2 Cor 11:4).
C. Their Creed
“beware of the false circumcision.“
John MacArthur: By describing them as the false circumcision, Paul clearly identified these false teachers as his perennial opponents, the Judaizers. Those Jewish legalists denied the gospel of grace, teaching that circumcision and keeping the Law of Moses were necessary for salvation (Acts 15:1). The Jerusalem Council condemned their heretical teachings (Acts 15:1–29), as did Paul (e.g., Gal. 1:6–9; 2:16–21; 3:2–14, 22–25; 5:1–4, 11–14). Salvation is by grace alone through faith alone.
Brian Racer: Provided physical evidence that you have submitted to the gospel … figuratively speaking: mutilating the freedom of the gospel, not meant to be about externalism anymore but about the heart and spiritual circumcision … the heart should not remain hard and calloused but be repentant and broken.
Robert Gromacki: The term “concision” (katatomen) refers to severe mutilation, a thorough cutting. This descriptive title must be seen in contrast to genuine circumcision (peritome) which is based upon the same verb stem. The Judaizers were literally cutting down (kata), whereas circumcision involved a cutting around (peri). Physical mutilations, practiced in pagan idolatry, were prohibited by God through Moses (Lev. 21:5; I Kings 18:28).
Grant Osborne: These Judaizers had a mission that was the direct opposite of Paul’s, for they went forth spreading the “gospel” of Torah observance, not the gospel of Christ and the cross. Their stance constituted true heresy, since they were replacing the cross with the Torah.
This is exactly what Paul means by “mutilators of the flesh.” He is using the imagery of circumcision—the primary Jewish sign of membership in God’s covenant—against these pro-circumcision teachers. The Greek word for circumcision is peritomē, and the word for mutilation is katatomē. Since the Judaizers had replaced the cross with circumcision as the means of salvation, they had, in Paul’s view, changed the rite of circumcision into an act of mutilation, for their covenant ceremony actually “cut off” people from salvation. This is the most serious of Paul’s charges against these opponents, for circumcision is at the heart of the Jewish conception of covenant, encompassing the whole idea of Torah-observance and covenant faithfulness. In effect, those who promoted circumcision rejected the new covenant established by Christ through the cross; in trying to return to the old covenant, they ended up with no covenant at all. Such people, Paul insisted, were entirely cut off from God and from his grace and mercy in Christ.
Gerald Hawthorne: Thus, for Israel to insist on a purely physical and external rite as the means of securing salvation, now that the Christ had come, was not only mistaken; it was lethal in the sense of Gal 5:2. Paul therefore attacks these champions of circumcision by using a pun filled with bitter irony: they are the κατατομή, “mutilation” (used to describe “the cutters,” “those who mutilate the body”; cf. 1 Kgs 18:28 on the priests of Melkart, but it was also a common practice in the Greek mysteries.
III. (:3) REMEMBER WHO YOU ARE = CHRIST EXALTERS
A. Christian Identity (vs. Imposters)
“For we are the true circumcision“
Grant Osborne: Still continuing his contrast between true circumcision and the Judaizers’ mutilation, Paul asserts, “For it is we who are the circumcision”—referring to Christians as the real people of God. The people of Israel could no longer be called “the circumcision,” for they had rejected their Messiah, the Son of God, and as a result no longer had the Spirit. As in Romans 2:29, “a person is a Jew who is one inwardly, and circumcision is circumcision of the heart by the Spirit, not by the written code.” It is the heart, not external appearance, that determines the true Israel, and that now consists entirely of Christ-followers. Jews and Gentiles alike who follow Christ are joint members of God’s family, not by ancestral pedigree or physical circumcision as the covenant sign but via heart-belief by way of the cross.
Paul follows this up with three clauses that define the new Israel, the people of the new covenant. It is clear that human status, inheritance, and achievement avail nothing, and that salvation comes entirely via the unmerited grace and mercy of God. . .
The message of Philippians 3:1–3 is clear: Any attempt to place our confidence in our earthly relationships or human achievements is doomed to fail. All non-Christian religions, including that of the Judaizers here, are in the end nothing more that pride-filled attempts to earn our own salvation by our works. We can become a part of the new Israel, the true people of God, only when our boasting is centered in Christ and our action involves faith in him and his work on the cross. The unmerited grace of God is the basis of our salvation. We can purchase nothing; rather, we have been purchased by Christ for God.
B. Christian Identifiers
- Christian Activity
“who worship in the Spirit of God“
Moises Silva: First, Paul identifies God’s people as those “who worship by [or in] the Spirit of God.” Whatever the differences between Pauline and Johannine theology, one can hardly deny that this phrase is conceptually equivalent to John 4:23–24 (true worshipers worship God “in the Spirit and in truth”). In neither passage, however, is the point being made that true worship is inner rather than external (so Hawthorne et al.). The reference is surely to the eschatological significance of the Holy Spirit’s outpouring. The coming of Christ, in other words, has ushered in the new age of salvation, and the Holy Spirit is the sign of this redemption (cf. Ridderbos 1975: §§11–12, 38, and passim). Those who belong to Christ are part of the new order (2 Cor. 5:17); they have the Spirit and are thus able to offer worship that is pleasing to God (Rom. 8:8–9; 12:1).
John MacArthur: Latreu (worship) might best be translated “to render respectful spiritual service.” True worship goes beyond praising God, singing hymns, or participating in a worship service. The essence of worship is living a life of obedient service to God. “Do not neglect doing good and sharing,” exhorts the writer of Hebrews, “for with such sacrifices God is pleased” (Heb. 13:16). True worship involves every aspect of life.
Gerald Hawthorne: Christians are those whose actions, including worship of God, are directed not by some external law that they must strive to live up to or external ritual they can perform and about which they can boast, but by the impulse of the Spirit of God within them (for the phrase “Spirit of God” in Paul, cf. Rom 8:9, 14; 1 Cor 7:40; 12:3; 2 Cor 3:3; see Scott, Spirit in the New Testament; Lampe, God as Spirit). The Spirit promised by the prophets (Ezek 36:25–27), dwelling within Christians, gives life, power, and love, so that they can offer to God true and acceptable worship from the heart (John 4:23–24; Rom 12:1; 1 Pet 2:5). But yet there is more involved here in Paul’s words than a simple contrast between external and internal religion (Michael, J. J. Müller). The apostle’s choice of the verb λατρεύειν, “to worship,” modified as it is by πνεύματι θεοῦ, “by the Spirit of God,” stresses that the Spirit of God is the divine initiator at work in the depths of human nature, profoundly transforming a person’s life so as to promote a life of love and service, and generate a life for others; for “such a life is the only worship (“latreuō’) acceptable to God” (Collange, 125). “Christians worship through the Holy Spirit” (Bockmuehl, 192).
- Christian Focus
“and glory in Christ Jesus”
Moises Silva: In the second place, God’s people “glory in Christ Jesus” (Fee 1995: 302 rightly sees an “implicit Trinitarianism” in this verse). The real force of this phrase can best be appreciated by contrasting it with the third descriptive clause, “put no confidence in the flesh.” Although the verbs “to glory” (καυχάομαι, kauchaomai) and “to have confidence” (πέποιθα, pepoitha) are not precisely synonymous, they may nevertheless be said to occupy the same semantic field when Paul uses them to point out the object of faith. To believe in Jesus Christ is to put one’s confidence in him; but if Jesus Christ is our grounds for confidence, he is therefore also our grounds for joyful pride and for exultant boasting (similarly Calvin).
R. Kent Hughes: We boast because it is not even our faith that saves us—it is Christ. Christ becomes the Divine Obsession of the real circumcision. Christ becomes the singular concern and focus of his people. The evidence of the fullness of the Spirit is a one-track mind and a one-theme tongue that speaks perpetually of Christ. Christ becomes the source of all satisfaction.
3. Christian Confidence
“and put no confidence in the flesh“
F. F. Bruce: External ceremonies are henceforth irrelevant. Physical circumcision has been replaced by the circumcision of the heart which “is the work of God’s Spirit, not of the written Law” (Rom. 2:29). The word rendered external ceremonies is literally translated “flesh” (Gk. sarx); Paul uses this word not only in its ordinary sense but also to denote unregenerate human nature and sometimes to include practically everything, apart from God, in which people mistakenly put their trust.
Gordon Zerbe: This threefold depiction of the community of Messiah will soon find a contrasting parallel with the threefold depiction of the many enemies of the cross of Messiah (3:18-19):
Frank Thielman: It shows that Paul regards confidence in the flesh and confidence in Christ as mutually exclusive. From his perspective, it is impossible to place one spiritual foot on the foundation of the flesh and one spiritual foot on the foundation of Christ. Both feet must be firmly planted on either one foundation or the other.
G. Walter Hansen: The person who puts confidence in the flesh says, “Belonging to my tribe and observing my ritual make me secure in my relationship with God.” In contrast to those who put such confidence in the flesh, the true people of God, the circumcision, put no confidence in national status and religious ceremony. Boasting in Christ Jesus excludes putting confidence in the flesh. Although national identities and sacred ceremonies are not viewed as bad in themselves, they are rejected as the foundation for one’s relationship with God or with fellow believers.
IV. (:4-6) EXPOSE THE FUTILITY OF CONFIDENCE IN THE FLESH
A. (:4) Poster Boy for Confidence in the Flesh
“although I myself might have confidence even in the flesh.
If anyone else has a mind to put confidence in the flesh, I far more.”
Paul is the best person to expose the futility of confidence in the flesh. He enjoyed more fleshly advantages than anybody.
Frank Thielman: He lists two types of advantages: those that were his by birth and those he attained. In both categories, he excelled. His parents supplied him with impeccable credentials as a member of God’s people: circumcision, racial identity with Israel, membership in the Israelite tribe that gave Israel its first king, and the ability to speak the language of his people. Paul supplemented these advantages by observing the law after the manner of the Pharisees and by devoting himself to the law so completely that his zeal led him to persecute the church.
Tony Merida: The Judaizers appealed to their impressive Jewish credentials, so Paul now flashes his own credentials, which were unparalleled. He effectively says, “If you want to brag, I can brag even more!” His point in doing this is to show the Philippians the emptiness of fleshly confidence. He will contrast this salvation by human achievement with a salvation by Christ’s achievement and call his former life of Judaism “filth.”
B. (:5-6) Futility of Confidence in the Flesh
G. Walter Hansen: The seven features of Paul’s self-portrait of his Jewish perfections give an impressive display of his privileges by birth and his personal accomplishments.
- Futility of Trusting in Religious Rites
“circumcised the eighth day“
Grant Osborne: This tells the reader that Paul was legitimately Jewish from birth (eighth-day circumcision was the expected covenant rite; Gen 17:12; Lev 12:3). According to the fleshly way of thinking, this fact made him superior to Gentile converts to Judaism (proselytes), who likely had not been circumcised until adulthood.
- Futility of Trusting in Religious Pedigree
a. Race
“of the nation of Israel“
Grant Osborne: By virtue of his birth to Jewish parents, he possessed all the status and privileges of the covenant people, as enumerated in Romans 9:4–5: “adoption to sonship, the divine glory, the covenants, the receiving of the law, the temple worship, and the promises.”
b. Tribe
“of the tribe of Benjamin“
Grant Osborne: After the presumed death of Joseph, Benjamin had become Jacob’s favorite son (Gen 42:38). The tribe that descended from Benjamin was the origin of Israel’s first king, Saul (1 Sam 9:1–2), the namesake of Saul/Paul. This tribe had joined with Judah in remaining faithful to the house of David when the others had rebelled, and its territory included the city of Jerusalem (Judg 1:21). Paul was justly proud of his tribal heritage (compare Rom 11:1).
Tony Merida: Paul didn’t come from a disrespected Israelite tribe, but from this distinguished tribe. When the promised land was divided among the 12 tribes, Jerusalem, the holy city, was in Benjamin’s territory. When the kingdom split, Judah and Benjamin remained loyal to the Davidic dynasty. Yet Paul says, as proud as that could make a Jew, it was of no ultimate value for granting anyone salvation.
c. Culture / Tradition
“a Hebrew of the Hebrews“
Grant Osborne: This may have implied that Paul’s family spoke Aramaic at home and was especially careful to maintain the dietary laws and other Jewish customs even though they lived in Tarsus, outside the Jewish homeland. In other words, Paul’s family was among those who adamantly refused to be adopt a Greco-Roman lifestyle.
John MacArthur: The apostle’s claim to be a Hebrew of Hebrews is best understood as a declaration that as he grew to manhood Paul strictly maintained his family’s traditional Jewish heritage. He was born in Tarsus, a city in Asia Minor, not in Israel. But unlike many Jews in the Diaspora (dispersion), Paul remained firmly committed to the language (Acts 21:40), orthodox traditions, and customs of his ancestors. He did not become a Hellenized Jew (cf. Acts 6:1; 9:29), one who had been assimilated into the Greco-Roman culture. Instead, he left Tarsus for Jerusalem to study under the famous rabbi Gamaliel (Acts 22:3; 26:4). So tightly did Paul cling to his Jewish heritage that he could confidently declare, “So then, all Jews know my manner of life from my youth up, which from the beginning was spent among my own nation and at Jerusalem” (Acts 26:4). Paul’s zealous devotion to his Jewish heritage was widely known. Yet after he saw the glory of Christ, it became merely one more item transferred from the gain to the loss column.
Warren Wiersbe: He was born into a pure Hebrew family and entered into a covenantal relationship when he was circumcised. He was not a proselyte, nor was he descended from Ishmael (Abraham’s other son) or Esau (Isaac’s other son). The Judaizers would understand Paul’s reference to the tribe of Benjamin, because Benjamin and Joseph were Jacob’s favorite sons. They were born to Rachel, Jacob’s favorite wife. Israel’s first king came from Benjamin, and this little tribe was faithful to David during the rebellion under Absalom. Paul’s human heritage was something to be proud of! When measured by this standard, he passed with flying colors.
- Futility of Trusting in Religious Rule Keeping (Orthodoxy)
“as to the Law, a Pharisee“
John MacArthur: To be a Pharisee was to be a member of an elite, influential, and highly respected group of men who fastidiously lived to know, interpret, guard, and obey the Law.
Tony Merida: Don’t put your confidence in your rule keeping. Paul says regarding the law he was a “Pharisee” (v. 5). They loved their rules. Their name comes from an Aramaic term denoting “the separated ones” (Hanson, Letter, 226). They even added to the commands of the Old Testament—so much so, that it was hard to know what the actual biblical commands were. That’s who Paul was. He adopted a Pharisaical lifestyle. He belonged to a morally superior group of Jews.
- Futility of Trusting in Religious Zeal (Commitment)
“as to zeal, a persecutor of the church“
John MacArthur: In terms of zeal, Paul went the Judaizers one better. They only proselytized the church; he had persecuted it. His zeal for God led him to relentlessly, unsparingly, and mercilessly try to stamp out Christianity. Paul was sincere, but wrong. The world is full of people who, like him, are sincere in their religious beliefs. They will make any effort, pay any price, and sacrifice anything in their attempts to please God. They may be devout, orthodox Jews, loyal Roman Catholics who attend Mass regularly, or even Protestants who are involved in church services and ceremonies. They may pray, fast, or live in poverty, and seek to do human good. But religious zeal guarantees nothing. Those people can be absolutely wrong. When Paul faced the reality of Jesus Christ, the zealous persecutor of the church realized that his misguided zeal was a spiritual killer and belonged in the spiritual loss column.
- Summary Futility: Futility of Trusting in Legalistic Self-Righteousness
“as to the righteousness which is in the Law, found blameless”
Warren Wiersbe: Like most ‘religious’ people today, Paul had enough morality to keep him out of trouble, but not enough righteousness to get him into heaven! It was not bad things that kept Paul away from Jesus — it was good things! He had to lose his “religion” to find salvation.
Richard Melick: These seven characteristics of heredity and achievement reveal that Paul’s accepting Christ did not occur because he was marginally Jewish. He had not failed in his own religion. He had seen a better way and had chosen to follow it.
Steven Lawson: Paul had a high standard of morality. . . Had we been there, we would have stood back and looked at the life of before-conversion Paul, and concluded that here was a straight arrow if there ever was one. He sought to live by the standard of God’s law. He was outwardly moral. He was extremely upright. And perhaps you are like this, too. You are well known as a good man or woman. You take following the Bible’s commands very seriously. But this too will not save you.