Albert Barnes Commentary Philippians 3:2

"Beware of the dogs, beware of the evil workers, beware of the concision:" — Philippians 3:2 (ASV)

Beware of dogs. Dogs in the East are mostly without masters; they wander at large in the streets and fields, and feed upon refuse, and even upon corpses. (Compare 1 Kings 14:11; 16:4; 21:19).

They are held as unclean, and to call someone a dog is a much stronger expression of contempt there than with us (1 Samuel 17:43; 2 Kings 8:13). The Jews called the Gentiles dogs, and Muslims call Jews and Christians by the same name. The term dog also is used to denote a person who is shameless, impudent, malignant, snarling, dissatisfied, and contentious, and is evidently so employed here.

It is possible that the language used here may have been derived from a custom of posting a warning on a house guarded by a dog for people approaching it. L'Enfant remarks that in Rome it was common for a dog to lie chained before the door of a house, and for a notice to be placed in sight, "Beware of the dog." I have seen the same notice in this city affixed to dog kennels in front of a bank, which were appointed to guard it.

The reference here is, doubtless, to Judaizing teachers; and the idea is that they were contentious, troublesome, dissatisfied, and would produce disturbance. The strong language the apostle uses here shows the sense he had of the danger arising from their influence. It may be observed, however, that the term dogs is used in ancient writings with great frequency, and even by the most serious speakers.

It is employed by the most dignified characters in the Iliad (Bloomfield; ), and the name was given to a whole class of Greek philosophers—the Cynics. It is used in one instance by the Savior (Matthew 7:6). By the use of the term here, there can be no doubt that the apostle meant to express strong disapproval of the character and course of the persons referred to, and to warn the Philippians in the most solemn manner against them.

Beware of evil workers. This doubtless refers to the same persons he had characterized as dogs. The reference is to Jewish teachers, whose doctrines and influence he regarded as only evil.

We do not know the exact nature of their teaching. However, we may presume that it consisted largely in urging the obligations of the Jewish rites and ceremonies, speaking of the advantage of having been born Jews, and urging compliance with the law for justification before God. In this way, their teachings tended to set aside the great doctrine of salvation by the merits of the Redeemer.

Beware of the concision. This doubtless refers also to the Jewish teachers. The word translated concision—katatomh—properly means a cutting off, a mutilation. It is used here contemptuously for the Jewish circumcision, in contrast with the true circumcision (Robinson, Lexicon).

It is not to be understood that Paul meant to show contempt for circumcision as commanded by God and as practiced by devout Jews of other times (Acts 16:3), but only as it was held by the false Judaizing teachers.

As they held it, it was not the true circumcision. They made salvation depend on it, instead of its being only a sign of the covenant with God. Such a doctrine, as they held it, was a mere cutting off of the flesh, without understanding anything of the true nature of the rite, and hence the unusual term by which he designates it.

Perhaps, also, the idea may be included that a doctrine so held would be, in fact, a cutting off of the soul; that is, that it tended to destruction. Their cutting and mangling the flesh might be regarded as an emblem of the manner in which their doctrine would cut and mangle the church (Doddridge). The meaning of the whole is that they did not understand the true nature of the doctrine of circumcision, but that with them it was a mere cutting of the flesh and tended to destroy the church.

Compare Psalm 119:115 (for "beware of"); Galatians 5:1–3 (for "concision").