Citizens of God's Kingdom: The Source of Life

At Philippians 3:2 there is a very definite break in the letter with Paul switching gears very deliberately. The Philippian church was a very good church, a church dedicated to the fellowship of the gospel where people lived as citizens of God's kingdom. In the first chapter, Paul is largely commending them for their dedication and in the second chapter, he is urging them to work out dedication by working with unity and humility, following the example of Timothy, Epaphroditus, and, most importantly, Jesus Christ. In chapter 3 and 4, Paul takes a step back and speaks in more general terms, shoring up the foundations of their Christian life. We can only be dedicated to the gospel if we know the gospel; we can only live as citizens of God's kingdom if we are alive. That is why Paul moves to speak more in general about the Christian life--about where it comes from and how we live it. That is the theme in the passage we find in Philippians 3:2-11.

We saw at the end of chapter 1 that the Philippian church was experiencing some degree of persecution. From this passage, we learn that there was also a danger of false teaching infiltrating the church--coming from Jewish sources who would revert Christianity to a kind of Judaism. (These teachers are referred to as Judaizers--Jews who wanted to combine Christianity and Judaism. Specifically, they wanted Gentile converts to follow all the aspects of the Mosaic Law and, especially, circumcision in order to become Christians. Some of them seemed to have viewed following the Mosaic Law as being the means of salvation.) Were they also responsible for the persecution? That would certainly fit the general pattern of the New Testament churches, though, from the description in Acts, it doesn't seem that Philippi had a large or powerful Jewish presence. In any case, there were Jewish teachers around the church who were trying to alter the gospel. This was a reoccurring problem throughout the New Testament Church and often came from inside the church as well as without.

Verses 2 and 3 stand as contrasts, placing the Christian church on one side and the Judaizers on the other. Speaking of the false teachers, Paul warns: “Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers, beware of the concision.” I don't think I need to explain to you that to call someone either a dog or an evil worker is an insult. But this is not merely random name calling. There is a reason for what Paul says here.

As you know, the Jews tended to look down on all those who were not Jews. One of the sayings of the Rabbis was: “The nations of the world are like dogs.” (Barclay, The Letter to the Philippians, Colossians, and Thessalonians: Revised Edition, 54) The term “dog” was a common one the Jews used to refer to the Gentiles. But here Paul turns it around it an applies to these Jewish teachers who were attempting to undermine the church--they viewed the Gentiles as unclean and dangerous, but in reality, they were the unclean and dangerous ones. Again, he calls them workers of evil. There are people who do wrong consciously and deliberately because it is wrong. There are people who do wrong without caring at all about whether its right or wrong. But these false teachers didn't fit into either of these categories. They wanted to convince other people (and possible had convinced themselves) that they were doing the right thing; that they were the good guys; that they were workers of righteousness. But again, Paul turns it around and very bluntly calls them workers of evil. And then there is this word “concision.”

Circumcision was a rite given to Abraham and stood for the covenant between God and His people. It stood for their separation from the rest of the world and had a very important part in their history. Seemingly, these Jewish teachers, as the other Judaizers in New Testament times, made a big deal out of circumcision and referred to themselves as the circumcision. But Paul deliberately refers to them using a Greek word which is similar to the word for circumcision but different. Does anyone remember the story of Elijah and the Prophets of Baal and how in order to make their prayers come true they cut themselves? The word used for that in the Greek Old Testament is the same word which Paul uses here. It is also the word used in the Law when such self-mutilation is expressly forbidden. (See Robertson's New Testament Word Pictures, Philippians 3:2) These false teachers made a big deal out of their adherence to God's law, but Paul is saying that in reality, they are no better than pagans following an empty rite which has no power or meaning. Just as baptism, without faith, is merely a lot of water, so circumcision, without faith, is merely concision.

These Jewish teachers made a big deal out of being circumcised and looked down on the primarily Gentile church at Philippi as uncircumcised. But Paul, having already denied the Jewish privilege in verse 2, turns around the other side in verse 3 with the words “we are the circumcision.” The word “we” includes both Paul and the Philippians. Paul was Jewish. Philippi seems to have been a predominantly Gentile city and a primarily Gentile church. But Paul includes them all in the general rubric of “the circumcision” or the true circumcision. There are three identifying facts of this true circumcision.

(1) “Which worship God in the spirit” or, as some translations give it “by the Spirit.” Far from thinking some external ritual like circumcision is sufficient worship, we realize that we can only offer true worship to God by the aid of the Spirit of God at work in us. In Romans, Paul speaks of the Spirit helping us in prayer, by speaking the things we cannot utter. The same seems to apply to all of our worship and ultimately to our whole life as Christians--it cannot be lived and offered to God by our own efforts but only by the aid of the Spirit of God.

(2) “Which... rejoice in Christ Jesus.” We've seen before that Philippians has a lot to say about rejoicing, but this is a different word in Greek than the one used elsewhere in the book. Strong defines this word as: “to vaunt (in a good or a bad sense):--(make) boast, glory, joy, rejoice.” (#2744) Some other translations (DBY, MNT, WNT) use the word “boast.” In general, what does it mean to boast? It means to be proud of something and to shove it down other people's throats. That of which you boast is that which you consider a big deal and make a point of telling other people that you think it is a big deal. That is how it connects to the word “rejoice” since the thing we boast about it usually the thing that makes us happy. Usually to boast means to boast about something we have done, some accomplishment or ability we have. But as Christians, the thing we boast about, the thing we make a big deal about, the thing we rejoice and glory in, isn't something we have done--but Jesus. Our boast is not what we have done but what has been done for us and who has done it.

(3) “Which... have no confidence in the flesh.” Paul uses this word “flesh” throughout his writings to mean, not just literal flesh, but human nature and human accomplishments. Usually, he uses it in a bad sense, meaning unregenerate human nature, humanity when cut off from God. So in Galatians, he speaks of the works of the flesh as opposed to the fruit of the Spirit. But here he seems to mean simply human ability and human accomplishments. And we have no confidence in them. These things are not what we trust in, not what we boast of. Instead, we boast of Jesus, the source of our life and our salvation.

We have to get this picture in our minds. Based on what we see in Acts, Philippi was a primarily Gentile church. There was seemingly not even a synagogue in Philippi and the first convert was Lydia who seems to have been a Gentile, though one who had become a Jewish proselyte. The other converts we know from Acts--the jailer and his family--were saved straight from heathenism. But they were saved into Christianity, a religion which was obviously steeped and deeply rooted in Judaism. And then these Jewish teachers show up and start parading their credentials as Jews, boasting in them. If any of the Gentile Christians objected to their pretensions, saying that as Christians we do not put our confidence in such things but instead boast in Jesus, the Judaizers would probably have responded: “You don't understand, because you aren't a Jew. You say these things don't matter because you don't have them.” We call this attitude “sour grapes”--criticizing or denigrating something because we don't have it. So it is usually those who lose who make a point of saying winning doesn't matter and those who lack physical beauty who make a point of saying that beauty is only skin deep.

And that's why Paul goes through this testimonial beginning in verse 4: “Though I might also have confidence in the flesh.” Paul knew what he was talking about. All the advantages these Judaizing teachers could boast, Paul also could boast. If Paul chose not to boast of them, it wasn't because he didn't have them. In verses 5-6 he goes through the specific things he had to his credit as a Jew.

“Circumcised the eighth day.” The law commanded that male children be circumcised the eighth day after they were born, and that's what happened to Paul. It was exactly as the law commanded. This is specifically saying, “I am not a proselyte who was circumcised and entered Judaism as an adult. I was born into the Jewish covenant.”

He carries this through in his next point, saying that he was “of the stock of Israel.” That is, a descendant of Israel, who we remember better as Jacob. Barnes: “[Paul] was thus distinguished from the Edomites and others who practiced circumcision; from the Samaritans, who were made up of a mixture of people; and from many, even among the Jews, whose ancestors had been once heathen, and who had become proselytes.” (Commentary, Php 3:5)

But he wasn't just a pure-blooded Israelite, but “of the tribe of Benjamin.” The commentators seem a little unsure about what specifically Paul means by mentioning this as an advantage. It could simply be that he is saying that he was able to trace his genealogy and knew what tribe he belonged to. After the captivity, there were many Jews who had lost such record. But there were also some special things about Benjamin. Benjamin was the son of one of Jacob's wives, not his concubines, and specifically the son of Rachel, Jacob's true and only love. Benjamin was definitely a dear child to Jacob and may have been his favorite. From Benjamin's descendants came heroes such as the judge Ehud and Israel's first king, after whom Paul may have been named. The temple itself was located on the border of Benjamin's land and it, along with Judah, was the only tribes to remain faithful when Israel was divided under Rehoboam. Basically, Paul is saying that not only is he a pure-blooded Israelite, but part of the crème-de-la-creme of Isreal.

In short, he was “an Hebrew of the Hebrews.” Paul was from Tarsus which was a Gentile city. But his parents were Hebrews. This means more than that they were of Jewish descent. It means that, even in the middle of a Greek city, they had deliberately retained a Jewish identity and, specifically, a knowledge of the Hebrew language. There were many Jews in the Greek word who had lost this knowledge and spoke only Greek and who had become partly assimilated into Greek culture. Not so with Paul and his parents.

That was Paul's background and genealogy. He was a direct descendant of Israel himself, a member of a special tribe, born and raised in Jewish culture and religion. That was all impressive, but, of course, none of it was Paul's doing. That was just how he was born. But his list doesn't end there. Not only had he been born as a Jew, but he had been a zealous, conscientious Jew in his life.

“As touching the law, a Pharisee.” We remember the Pharisees largely from their interactions with Jesus and Jesus' condemnation of them. To us, the word “Pharisee” has become an insult. But in the view of the people of Paul's day, the Pharisees were the good guys; they were the religious elite. They were the ones who most closely adhered to the law of God and were most scrupulous in trying to follow it. Because the Pharisees play such a major part in the Gospels, we may get the idea that they were a large group. But that wasn't the case. According to Barclay, there were never more than 6000 Pharisees out of all the Jews in the world. They were a small group, thoroughly dedicated (in theory) to God and his law. The Judaizers at Philippi might make a parade of their dedication of the law, but they couldn't possibly have been more dedicated to it than Paul the Pharisee.

“Concerning zeal, persecuting the church.” He wasn't just somewhat religious; he did take his religion as just a casual, incidental thing. He was so dedicated and zealous in his religion that he was driven to stamp out those he saw as its opponents, even at great personal inconvenience. When we read of Paul persecuting the church in Acts, we have to remember that no one was forcing him to do that and there were other things he could have been doing. So far as we know, he received no remuneration for doing. And there is nothing to suggest that he enjoyed it. He did it because of his zeal for Judaism. To the Jews, zeal for religion was a very important quality, and it was one which Paul possessed even to the extreme.

“Touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless.” There were a lot of commandments in the law, but Paul, in so far as was humanly possible, had kept them all. He had made that his business. He had dedicated his life to obeying the law. And to the best of his ability, he had done it. So far as his fellow Jews were concerned, he was a perfect man, completely following the law.

This was Paul's list of accomplishments, his “human credentials” (as the NET Bible puts it). And if you look at it from a Jewish point of view, it was very impressive. His family and ancestry were as a pure as could be, he had been born into the Jewish covenant and had been not only faithful but zealous and scrupulous in following it. He had everything a Jew could have, religiously speaking. When he talked about Judaism and its requirements, he wasn't talking about something he didn't know. Everything these Judaizers could boast of, he could boast of as well and in most cases probably better.

He fully knew all the advantages of the Jews. Everything a Jew could have, he had. And verses 7-8 tell what he did with those advantages. “But what things were gain to me, those I counted loss for Christ. Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ.” Everything that Paul had, everything that he could have looked to as a credit in his account with God, he looked at as a loss, as refuse, as something worthless and useless.

Pins and needles are both good things. They have their purpose and function in the world and there is certainly nothing evil or sinful about them. But if London Bridge were falling down, it would be foolish to try to build it up with pins and needles because pins and needles break and bend. In the same way, most of what Paul mentions here is good. The Israelites were a special people and to be a member of them was nothing to be ashamed of. Following the law wasn't wrong--God had given the law for a reason. Paul didn't renounce his Jewish heritage and go around trying to break the law when he became a Christian. Throughout the New Testament, we get glimpses which show that Paul remained very much a Jew after he became a Christian. Other than persecuting the church, none of these things were wrong. But they were useless when it came to procuring salvation. Circumcision wasn't a bad thing--but thinking you could find salvation through performing a simple ritual would be as silly as trying to build up London Bridge with pins and needles.

And because they could not bring salvation, Paul was willing to sacrifice them. At the beginning of verse 8, Paul says that he counted all things--everything he had and could have had--as a loss, then, later on, he says that for Jesus “I have suffered the loss of all things.” Paul never lost his Jewish heritage and identity but he did lose all the benefits, humanly speaking, that could have come from it. By becoming a Christian, he had been cut off from his former companions who spent the rest of his life persecuting him. It was because of the wrath of the Jews that he had been arrested and was in jail in the first place. Very possibly he had been cut off from his own family, who may have been among his persecutors. He seemingly had bright prospects for a career as a Pharisee, and that had all been lost.

The Judaizers were telling the people of Philippi, “You need to be circumcised and follow the Jewish law and become a Jew if you are going to be accepted with God.” But Paul is saying, “I had all that and I was willing to give it all up and be cut off from the Jews in order to gain Christ.” All that fits under the rubric of “mine own righteousness, which is of the law.” And that Paul had realized was not sufficient and so he was willing to give it up that he might have the righteousness “which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which of God by faith.” (V. 9)

Paul says that the righteousness he sought was through the “Faith of Christ.” Paul makes it quite clear other places that true righteousness is a gift of God which we can receive only by placing our faith in Christ. And that may be what he means here by the faith of Christ. But there are those who believe the phrase means rather “Christ's faithfulness” (See NET Bible) Paul had once relied on his own attainments and qualifications as a means of salvation. But now he realized that these were all vain and empty--they were like a bridge that could not support his weight. Their promise to save him was a promise they could not keep. So he counted them as lost so that he could receive the gift of righteous from one that WAS faithful to keep his promise, one who could be relied upon. He counted all his human accomplishments and attainments as lost and, in many cases, actually sacrificed them, because he now had found a true means of salvation, a true life through Christ's faithfulness to him and his faith in Christ. And he is urging the Philippians to have the same decision--not to listen to the false teachers but remain as they were, worshiping God in the spirit and making their boast in Christ Jesus rather than putting confidence in the flesh.

The main thrust of this passage is that Paul put his reliance on Christ rather than on any works of the flesh and encouraged the Philippians to do the same. He counted all the flesh could do or boast as lost so that he might win Christ. Those things, though not bad in themselves, weren't what was really important. We should note, then, what Paul did see as important--what it was he was willing to count all things as loss for.

(1) To “Be found in him... [having the righteousness] which is through the faith of Christ.” When the time came to settle up accounts, Paul's desire was that he would be found, not with his own righteousness (which would count for nothing) but the righteousness of Christ, which is the only hope of salvation.

(2) “The excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord.” Knowing Christ was something far more excellent, far more valuable than all the attainments of Paul's religious life. The knowledge here is not just a knowledge ABOUT Christ--knowing who the truth about who He is and what He has done--though that is probably included; it is a personal, experiential knowledge of Him. This becomes more clear in verse 10, where Paul repeats this desire but with some additions.

(3) “That I may know... the power of his resurrection.” We saw when studying Ephesians that we can see the power of God by looking at the resurrection of Jesus. Seeing the difference between Jesus in His death and in His resurrection and glorification shows us just how far God's power can go. That is the power that Paul wanted to know, to experience, to have operating in his life.

(4) “That I may know... the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death.” It is not that Paul merely desired to know suffering or death. There's no need to desire that. We will find out about suffering naturally enough. Death is the one lesson everyone learns in the end. But it was the fellowship of Christ's suffering and death. Remember that this is written by a man in prison waiting for a trial that might lead to execution. And in the midst of his sufferings and death what he wanted to know was the fellowship of Christ's suffering, being made conformable unto his death. Because Christ suffered, whenever we suffer we have the possibility of knowing the fellowship of his suffering, of sharing with Him in some small measure the bitter cup He drank. Paul was already in a deep valley--what he wanted was to be able to find Jesus there. And he knew that was possible because Jesus also passed through the deep valley.

(5) “If by any means I might attain unto the resurrection of the dead.” The great hope of the New Testament was that of resurrection. Paul pictured this moment in 1 Corinthians, saying that the corruptible would put on incorruption and the mortal put on immortality. That was Paul's hope, that he might have a part in the resurrection of life, receiving a new and glorious body so that he might be an inhabitant on God's new heaven and new earth. Many people connect this thought with the end of verse 10. As Paul makes clear elsewhere, we have a hope of resurrection only because Jesus was raised from the dead. And if we are to share in that glorious resurrection, we must be willing to share in His death.

It should be mentioned that Paul uses a different word here for resurrection than the one used elsewhere in the NT, though it is connected. Most commentators think that Paul uses this word to emphasize which resurrection he is talking about. The Bible teaches that all people, good or bad, will be resurrected and will face in the body the judgment for their sins. Daniel speaks of this resurrection and says: “And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.” (Daniel 12:2) Paul speaks of this as part of the body of Jewish beliefs which he, as a Christian, still believed: “And have hope toward God, which they themselves also allow, that there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust.” (Acts 24:15) Jesus makes this point more explicit and connects Himself to this resurrection in John 5:26-29. “For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself; and hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man. Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.” This may be connected to the two resurrections which John describes in Revelation 20:5-6. This idea was deeply embedded in Biblical thought. God who first made for man a body and then made it a living soul will one reunite body and soul again and it will be in that identity, as body and soul, that man will face the final judgment for his life. All of this has a sharp sense of division. There will be two kinds of resurrection, not just in point of time, but in point of quality--one, which Jesus in Luke 14:14 calls “the resurrection of the just,” will be a resurrection of glory and life, while the other will be a resurrection to contempt and damnation. Paul's burning desire was to be part of the first, to attain to the resurrection of life out of death.