John Calvin Commentary Philippians 3

Rejoice in the Lord. This is a conclusion from what has preceded; for as Satan never ceased to distress them with daily rumors, he urges them to rid themselves of anxiety and be of good courage. In this way, he exhorts them to steadfastness, that they may not fall back from the doctrine which they have once received. The phrase henceforth denotes a continued course, so that, in the midst of many hindrances, they may not cease to exercise holy joy.

It is a rare excellence, when Satan tries to embitter us through the bitterness of the cross, making God’s name unpleasant to us, to find such satisfaction in the simple experience of God’s grace that all annoyances, sorrows, anxieties, and griefs are sweetened.

To write the same thing to you. Here he begins to speak of the false apostles, with whom, however, he does not contend directly, as in the Epistle to the Galatians, but in a few words severely exposes them, as much as was necessary. For as they had simply attempted to influence the Philippians, and had not gained a foothold among them, it was not so necessary to enter into any regular disputation for the purpose of refuting errors to which they had paid no attention. Therefore, he simply admonishes them to be diligent and attentive in identifying impostors and guarding against them.

He then specifies the names by which they should be called:

1. In the first place, however, he calls them dogs; the metaphor is based on this: that, for the sake of satisfying their appetites, they attacked true doctrine with their impure barking. Therefore, it is as if he had said, “impure or profane persons”; for I do not agree with those who think that they are so called because they envied others or bit them.

2. In the second place, he calls them evil workers, meaning that, under the pretense of building up the Church, they did nothing but ruin and destroy everything. Many are busily occupied who would do better to remain idle. As the public crier, on being asked by Gracchus in mockery because he was sitting idle, what he was doing, had his answer ready, “Indeed, but what are you doing?” for Gracchus was the ringleader of a ruinous sedition. Therefore, Paul wants a distinction to be made among workers, so that believers may be on their guard against those that are evil.

3. In the third term employed, there is an elegant (προσωνομασία) play on words. They boasted that they were the circumcision; he counters this boasting by calling them the concision, because they tore apart the unity of the Church.

   In this, we have an instance showing that the Holy Spirit, through His spokespersons, has not in every case avoided wit and humor, yet at the same time keeping a distance from humor that would be unworthy of His majesty. There are innumerable examples in the Prophets, especially in Isaiah, so that no secular author abounds more in agreeable plays on words and figurative forms of expression.

   However, we should still more carefully observe the vehemence with which Paul denounces the false apostles, a vehemence that will certainly erupt wherever there is the fervor of pious zeal. But in the meantime, we must be on our guard lest any excessive warmth or bitterness should creep in under the pretense of zeal.

When he says that to write the same things is not burdensome to him, he seems to suggest that he had already written on another occasion to the Philippians. However, there would be no inconsistency in understanding him to mean that he now, through his writings, reminds them of the same things they had frequently heard him say when he was with them.

For there can be no doubt that he had often communicated to them verbally, when he was with them, how much they needed to be on their guard against such pests; yet he is not reluctant to repeat these things, because the Philippians would have incurred danger if he remained silent.

And, undoubtedly, it is the role of a good pastor not merely to supply the flock with pasture and to rule the sheep by his guidance, but also to drive away the wolves when they threaten to attack the fold—and not just on one occasion, but to be constantly watchful and tireless.

For as thieves and robbers (John 10:8) are constantly on the watch for the destruction of the Church, what excuse will the pastor have if, after courageously repelling them several times, he gives way during the ninth or tenth attack?

He also says that a repetition of this nature is beneficial to the Philippians, lest they should be—as sometimes happens—excessively particular and despise it as something superfluous.

For many are so difficult to please that they cannot bear for the same thing to be said to them a second time; meanwhile, they do not consider that what is impressed upon them daily is retained in their memory with difficulty even ten years later.

But if it was beneficial for the Philippians to listen to this exhortation of Paul—to be on their guard against wolves—what do Papists mean who will not allow that any judgment should be formed as to their doctrine? For to whom, I ask you, did Paul address himself when he said, Beware (Philippians 3:2)? Was it not to those whom they do not allow to possess any right to judge? And Christ says likewise of the same persons:

My sheep hear my voice, and they follow me; they flee from a stranger, and they hear not his voice (John 10:5, 27).

For we are the circumcision—that is, we are the true seed of Abraham, and heirs of the testament which was confirmed by the sign of circumcision. For the true circumcision is of the spirit and not of the letter, inward, and situated in the heart, not visible according to the flesh (Romans 2:29).

By spiritual worship he means that which is recommended to us in the gospel, and consists of confidence in God, and invocation of him, self-renunciation, and a pure conscience. We must supply an antithesis, for he censures, on the other hand, legal worship, which was exclusively pressed upon them by the false Apostles.

“They command that God should be worshipped with outward observances, and because they observe the ceremonies of the law, they boast on false grounds that they are the people of God; but we are the truly circumcised, who worship God in spirit and in truth” (John 4:23).

But here someone will ask, whether truth excludes the sacraments, for the same thing might be said as to Baptism and the Lord’s Supper. I answer, that this principle must always be kept in view, that figures were abolished by the advent of Christ, and that circumcision gave way to baptism. It follows, also, from this principle, that the pure and genuine worship of God is free from the legal ceremonies, and that believers have the true circumcision without any figure.

And we glory in Christ. We must always keep in view the antithesis: “We have to do with the reality, while they rest in the symbols; we have to do with the substance, while they look to the shadows.” This suits sufficiently well with the corresponding clause, which he adds by way of contrast—We have no confidence in the flesh. For under the term flesh he includes everything of an external kind in which an individual is prepared to glory, as will appear from the context, or, to express it in fewer words, he gives the name of flesh to everything that is apart from Christ.

He thus reproves, and in no slight manner, the perverse zealots of the law, because, not satisfied with Christ, they have recourse to grounds of glorying apart from him. He has employed the terms glorying, and having confidence, to denote the same thing. For confidence lifts up a man, so that he ventures even to glory, and thus the two things are connected.

Though I might also—He is not speaking of the disposition he actually showed, but he suggests that he also has grounds for boasting, if he were inclined to imitate their foolishness. The meaning, therefore, is: "My boasting, indeed, is in Christ, but if it were permissible to boast in the flesh, I also do not lack material."

From this we learn how to rebuke the arrogance of those who boast in something apart from Christ. If we ourselves possess those very things in which they boast, let us not allow them to triumph over Christ by unseemly boasting, without also retorting with our own grounds for boasting, so that they may understand that it is not through envy that we consider worthless—indeed, even voluntarily renounce—those things they value most highly.

However, let the conclusion always be this: all confidence in the flesh is futile and absurd.

If any one has confidence in the flesh, I more—Not satisfied with placing himself on the same level as any of them, he even claims superiority over them. Therefore, he cannot, for this reason, be suspected as if he were envious of their excellence and praised Christ in order to make his own shortcomings seem less significant.

He says, therefore, that if it came to a dispute, he would be superior to others. For they had nothing (as we shall see soon) that he did not also possess equally with them, while in some things he greatly excelled them.

He says—not using the term in its strict sense—that he has confidence in the flesh, because, although he did not actually place confidence in these things, he possessed those grounds for fleshly boasting which made them arrogant.

Circumcised on the eighth day It is literally— “The circumcision of the eighth day.” There is no difference, however, in the sense, for the meaning is, that he was circumcised in the proper manner, and according to the appointment of the law . Now this customary circumcision was reckoned of superior value; and, besides, it was a token of the race to which he belonged; on which he touches immediately afterwards.

For the case was not the same as to foreigners, for after they had become proselytes they were circumcised in youth, or when grown up to manhood, and sometimes even in old age. He says, accordingly, that he is of the race of Israel He names the tribe , — not, in my opinion, on the ground that the tribe of Benjamin had a superiorityof excellence above others, but for shewing more fully that he belonged to the race of Israel, as it was the custom that every one was numbered according to his particular tribe.

With the same view he adds still farther, that he is an Hebrew of the Hebrews For this name was the most ancient, as being that by which Abraham himself is designated by Moses. (Genesis 14:13.) The sum, therefore, is this — that Paul was descended from the seed of Jacob from the most ancient date, so that he could reckon up grandfathers and great-grandfathers, and could even go still farther back.

According to the law, a Pharisee Having spoken of the nobility of his descent, he now proceeds to speak of special endowments of persons, as they are called. It is very generally known, that the sect of the Pharisees was celebrated above the others for the renown in which it was held for sanctity and for doctrine. He states, that he belonged to that sect. The common opinion is, that the Pharisees were so called from a term signifying separation ; but I approve rather of what I learned at one time from Capito, a man of sacred memory , that it was because they boasted that they were endowed with the gift of interpreting Scripture, for פרש (parash,) among the Hebrews, conveys the idea of interpretation. While others declared themselves to be literals , they preferred to be regarded as Pharisees , as being in possession of the interpretations of the ancients. And assuredly it is manifest that, under the pretext of antiquity, they corrupted the whole of Scripture by their inventions; but as they, at the same time, retained some sound interpretations, handed down by the ancients, they were held in the highest esteem.

But what is meant by the clause, according to the law? For unquestionably nothing is more opposed to the law of God than sects, for in it is communicated the truth of God, which is the bond of unity. Besides this, Josephus tells us in the 13th book of his Antiquities, that all the sects took their rise during the high priesthood of Jonathan.

Paul employs the term law, not in its strict sense, to denote the doctrine of religion, however much corrupted it was at that time, as Christianity is at this day in the Papacy. As, however, there were many that were in the rank of teachers, who were less skillful, and exercised he makes mention also of his zeal. It was, indeed, a very heinous sin on the part of Paul to persecute the Church, but as he had to dispute with unprincipled persons, who, by mixing up Christ with Moses, pretended zeal for the law, he mentions, on the other hand, that he was so keen a zealot of the law, that on that ground he persecuted the Church

As to the righteousness which is in the law, there can be no doubt he means by this the entire righteousness of the law, for it would be too narrow an understanding to interpret it exclusively as referring to the ceremonies. The meaning, therefore, is more general: that he cultivated an integrity of life, such as might be required from a man who was devoted to the law.

To this, again, it is objected that the righteousness of the law is perfect in the sight of God. For the sum of it is this—that men should be fully devoted to God, and what beyond this can be desired for the attainment of perfection? I answer that Paul speaks here of that righteousness which would satisfy the common opinion of mankind.

For he separates the law from Christ. Now, what is the law without Christ but a dead letter?

To make the matter plainer, I observe that there are two righteousnesses of the law. The one is spiritual—perfect love to God and our neighbors; it is contained in doctrine and never had an existence in the life of any person. The other is literal—such as appears in the view of men, while, meanwhile, hypocrisy reigns in the heart, and in the sight of God there is nothing but iniquity.

Thus, the law has two aspects; the one has an eye to God, the other to men. Paul, then, was in the judgment of men holy and free from all censure—a rare commendation, certainly, and almost unrivaled; yet let us observe in what esteem he held it.