Charles Ellicott Commentary Philippians 3

Finally.—The same word is used in 2 Corinthians 13:11; Ephesians 6:10; 2 Thessalonians 3:1 (as also in this Epistle, Philippians 4:8), to usher in the conclusion. Here, on the contrary, it stands nearly in the middle of the Epistle. Moreover, the commendation above of Timothy and Epaphroditus is exactly that which, according to St. Paul’s custom, would mark the final sentences of the whole.

Again, the words “rejoice in the Lord” may, according to the common usage of the time (although certainly that usage is not adopted in other Letters of St. Paul), not improbably signify farewell in the Lord; and even if not used in this formal and conventional sense, yet certainly hold the position of final good wishes, which that sense implies. The resumption of them in Philippians 4:4, where the actual conclusion now begins, is striking.

It seems, therefore, highly probable, that in this place the Letter was originally drawing to an end, and that some news was at that moment brought which induced the Apostle to add a second part, couched in language of equal affection, but of greater anxiety and more emphatic warning. Of such a break, and resumption with a far more complete change of style, we have a notable instance at the beginning of 2 Corinthians 10; as also of the addition of postscript after postscript in the last chapter of the Epistle to the Romans.

On verses 1-21:

1. AGAINST THE JUDAISERS.

   • Warning against confidence “in the flesh,” illustrated by his own renunciation of all Jewish privileges and hopes, in order to have “the righteousness of Christ” (Philippians 3:1–9).

   • Warning against confidence in perfection as already attained, again illustrated by his own sense of imperfection and hope of continual progress (Philippians 3:10–16).

2. AGAINST THE ANTINOMIAN PARTY.

   • Contrast of the sensual and corrupt life of the flesh with the spirituality and hope of future perfection which become citizens of heaven (Philippians 3:17–21).

3. AGAINST ALL TENDENCY TO SCHISM (Philippians 4:1–3).

To write the same things to you.—These words may refer to what goes before, in which case the reference must be to “rejoice in the Lord.” Now, it is true that this is the burden of the Epistle; but this interpretation fits poorly with the following words, “for you it is safe,” which obviously refer to some warning against danger or temptation. Hence it is far better to refer them to the abrupt and incisive warnings that follow.

These, then, are said to be a repetition; but of what? Hardly of the former part of this Epistle, for it is difficult there to find anything corresponding to them. If not, then it must be of St. Paul’s previous teaching, by word or by letter. For the use here of the word “to write,” though it suits better the idea of former communication by writing, cannot exclude oral teaching.

That there was more than one Epistle to Philippi has been inferred (probably, but not certainly) from an expression in Polycarp’s letter to the Philippians (section 3), speaking of “the Epistles” of St. Paul to them. It is not in itself unlikely that another Epistle should have been written; nor have we any right to argue decisively against it, on the ground that no such Epistle is found in the canon of Scripture.

But however this may be, it seems natural to refer to St. Paul’s former teaching as a whole. Now, when St. Paul first preached at Philippi, he had not long before carried to Antioch the decree of the council against the contention of “them of the circumcision;” and, as it was addressed to the churches “of Syria and Cilicia,” he can hardly have failed to communicate it, when he passed through both regions confirming the churches (Acts 15:41).

At Thessalonica, not long after, the jealousy of the Jews at his preaching the freedom of the gospel drove him from the city (Acts 17:5). When he came to Macedonia on his next journey, the Second Epistle to the Corinthians, written there and probably at Philippi, marks the first outburst of the Judaising controversy; and when he returned to Philippi, on his way back, he had just written the Epistles to the Galatians and Romans, which deal exhaustively with the whole question. Nothing is more likely than that his teaching at Philippi had largely dealt with the warning against the Judaisers.

What, then, more natural than to introduce a new warning on the subject—shown to be necessary by news received—with the courteous half-apology, To write the same things to you, to me is not grievous (or, tedious) but for you it is safe, making assurance doubly sure?

Beware of (the) dogs.—In Revelation 22:15, “the dogs” excluded from the heavenly Jerusalem seem to be those who are impure. In that sense, the Jews applied the word to the heathen, as our Lord, for a moment appearing to follow Jewish usage, does to the Syro-Phoenician woman in Matthew 15:26.

But here the context applies the word to the Judaising party, who claimed special purity (ceremonial and moral) and who probably were not characterised by peculiar impurity—an impurity that, as indeed noted below (Philippians 3:17–21), seems rather to be associated with the Antinomian party, probably the extreme on the other side.

Chrysostom’s suggestion that the Apostle means to turn the name back on them is likely correct: by their own wilful apostasy, they now occupy the place outside the spiritual Israel that once belonged to the despised Gentiles.

Yet perhaps there is also an allusion to dogs, not merely as unclean, but as snarling and savage—especially in their half-wild state in the East—driving off as interlopers anyone who approaches what they consider their ground. Nothing could better describe the narrow Judaising spirit.

Of evil workers.—Compare 2 Corinthians 11:13, which describes the Judaisers as deceitful workers. Here the idea is of their energy in their work, but it is work for evil.

The concision.—By an ironical play on words, St. Paul declares his refusal to call the circumcision, on which the Judaisers prided themselves, by that time-honoured name; for, as he says, we are the true circumcision, the true Israel of the new covenant.

In Ephesians 2:11 (see Note), he had described it as the “so-called circumcision in the flesh made by hands.” Here, he speaks more strongly and calls it concision—a mere outward mutilation, no longer, as it had been, a seal of the covenant (Romans 4:11). There is an even more startling attack on the advocates of circumcision in Galatians 5:12 (see Note).

We are the circumcision.—So in Colossians 2:11-12, evidently alluding to baptism as the spiritual circumcision, he says, “In whom you were circumcised with the circumcision made without hands.” Compare to Romans 2:20, “Circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter;” and passages of a similar character in the Old Testament, such as Deuteronomy 10:16, “Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your hearts;”Deuteronomy 30:6, “The Lord God will circumcise your heart.” Hence the spirit of St. Stephen’s reproach, “You uncircumcised in heart and ears” (Acts 7:51).

Which worship God in the spirit . . .—The true reading here is, who worship by the Spirit of God. This refers to “worship,” or service, a term almost technically applied to the worship of the Israelites as God’s chosen people (Acts 26:7; Romans 9:4; Hebrews 9:1; Hebrews 9:6). This same term, with the addition of the epithet “reasonable,” is also claimed for Christian devotion to God in Christ . St. Paul describes such “worship by the Spirit of God” in detail in Romans 8:0, especially in Romans 8:26-27.

And rejoice (or rather, glory) in Christ Jesus.—Compare to Romans 15:17, “I have therefore whereof I may glory in the Lord Jesus Christ,” and the Old Testament quotation twice applied to our Lord, “He that glories, let him glory in the Lord” (1 Corinthians 1:31; 2 Corinthians 10:17). In Galatians 6:14 we have a still more distinctive expression, “God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ.” To glory in Christ is something more than even to believe and to trust in Him; it expresses a deep sense of privilege, both in present thankfulness and in future hope.

In the flesh.—The phrase is used here, as not infrequently, for the present and visible world, to which we are linked by our flesh (see John 8:15, “to judge after the flesh; ” 2 Corinthians 5:16, “to know Christ after the flesh,” etc.). We have an equivalent phrase in an earlier passage, which is throughout parallel to this (2 Corinthians 11:18), “Many glory after the flesh.” The particular form of expression is probably suggested by the constant reference to the circumcision, which is literally “in the flesh.”

Circumcised the eighth day—that is, a Jew born, not a proselyte.

Of the stock of Israel—that is, emphatically, a true descendant of the covenanted stock, the royal race of the “Prince of God.”

Of the tribe of Benjamin—that is, the tribe of the first king, whose name the Apostle bore; the tribe to which belonged the holy city; the one tribe faithful to the house of Judah in the apostasy of the rest.

An Hebrew of the Hebrews.—Properly, a Hebrew descended from Hebrews. The Hebrew Jew, who retained, wherever born, the ancestral language, education, and customs of his fathers, considered himself superior to the Grecian or Hellenist, who had to assimilate himself to the language, as well as to the thoughts and habits, of the pagans around him. St. Paul united the advantages of both the true Hebrew, brought up at the feet of Gamaliel, and the Hellenist of Tarsus, familiar with Greek language, literature, and thought.

Compare his own words to his countrymen from the steps of the Temple, which illustrate the whole passage: “I verily am a Jew, born in Tarsus, a city in Cilicia, yet brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, and taught according to the perfect manner of the law of the fathers, and was zealous before God . . . and I persecuted this way unto the death” (Acts 22:3–4).

Concerning the law, a Pharisee.—Compare Acts 23:6, “I am a Pharisee, and the son of Pharisees;” and Acts 26:5, “according to the straitest sect of our religion I lived a Pharisee.” In these words St. Paul passes from his inherited Judaic privileges to the intense Judaism of his own personal life.

On verses 5-6:

The comparison with the celebrated passage in 2 Corinthians 11:18–23 is striking, not only in its similarity of substance but also in the change of tone from the indignant and impassioned abruptness of the earlier Epistle to the calm impressiveness of this one. The first belongs to the crisis of the struggle, the other to its close. We also have a parallel, though less complete, in Romans 11:1, “I also am an Israelite, of the stock of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.”

Concerning zeal, persecuting the church.—The word “zeal” is probably used almost technically to describe his adherence to the principles of the “Zealots,” who, following the example of Phinehas, were for executing judgment at once on all heathens as traitors, ready alike to slay or to be slain for the Law. He shows how in this he departed from the teaching of Gamaliel, when he was exceedingly mad against the Christians, and persecuted them even unto strange cities.

Touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless.—The “righteousness in Law,” which our Lord called the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees (Matthew 5:20), is the righteousness according to rule, in which a man, like the rich young ruler, might think himself blameless, and even hope to go beyond it in 'counsels of perfection'—not the righteousness according to principle, which can never fulfil or satisfy itself. While St. Paul confined himself to the lower form of righteousness, he could feel himself blameless; but when he began to discern this higher righteousness in the Law, then, he felt the terrible condemnation of the Law, on which he dwells so emphatically in Romans 7:7-12.