a purer conversation...

Exegesis on Philippians 3:1-12

The following is a paper I recently submitted for a hermeneutics class. I made an 84% on it. Not real pleased with that, but it will do....

Introduction
The letter written to the church at Philippi is one of personal intimacy between the author and its recipients. Philippi holds its own unique status among the early believing assemblies in the eyes of its author. 2 Corinthians 8:1-9 discloses that the church in Philippi gave abundantly to Paul and his companions out of “overflowing joy.” Therefore, it is obvious that they shared a copious familiarity with Paul. An exegetical walk-thru of this letter, more specifically this passage, displays such understanding and provides insight into the relationship between the person behind the letter and its recipient; it also displays the author’s passion and expectation for a close fellowship with the risen Lord Jesus Christ.
In order to see this clearly, it is essential to explore the background of the church and city to which the letter was sent, the authorship of the letter, and the date and setting in which it was composed. Engaging in this material then provides the necessary tools to exegetically understand the exposition of the selected passage of scripture within the context of the letter as a whole. Gordon Fee put it as straightforward as possible when he wrote “God’s Word to us was first of all his Word to them.” Therefore, a passage of scripture, not to mention an entire letter, in the Bible is simply too much to grasp without the background context in which it lies.
The Church at Philippi and Its City
The city of Philippi was the leading city of the Macedonian district, and a Roman colony. That Thessalonica was the actual capital of the Roman province means that Philippi would be in essence similar to what we in America now might call the “county seat” of any such county. A mere ten miles by foot from the port city of Neapolis, this city found its origin at the hand of the powerful and energized father of Alexander the Great, Philip II. The city of Philippi was one of political and commercial significance. Commercially Philippi was known for its industry in selling purple garments. Paul and his companions met a woman of means named Lydia, a maker of purple garments. It is apparent that the Philippian church became that of great giving and understandably so, again they were in a suitable position to do so. Politically, the citizenship of the city was naturally Roman as they were colonized as such in order that they would be able to vote and govern themselves, underwritten by the authority of the Roman Empire of course. Philippi’s geographical significance was in relation to the continents in which it is found. It was the “highway” of passage from the Europe to Asia, and vice-versa.
The city of Philippi, as well as the Macedonian region, had strong sense of female leadership and prominence. It becomes no surprise, in contrast to the modern day conservative evangelical churches, that women had a prominent role in the establishment of the original house church in this city. Luke’s account in Acts 16:11-15 indicates that Paul and his associates began to speak to the women who had gathered in the place they sought out for prayer. The result of their conversation was the beginning nucleus of the church at Philippi. Again, this was at the commencement of the women there in the city, interestingly enough.
It is also beneficial to note the use of first person in Paul’s letter to the Philippians. In only four short chapters there are more than one-hundred occurrences of first person usages (Gromacki, Philippians and Colossians, 7). The church at Philippi had an obvious intimate relationship with Paul, possibly more so than any other churches of which he graced with his presence.
The Author of Philippians
The authorship of this letter is almost inarguably the great apostle Paul; the majority of scholars take this viewpoint. Beyond the claim made in chapter one and verse one as to the addresser of this text, the early Church Fathers Clement, Ignatius, Hermas, Justin Martyr, Theophilus and Polycarp all echo the Philippians’ letter as Paul’s words to them and not anyone else’s. Further, Polycarp, a second century Bishop of Smyrna, penned a letter to the Philippians and explicitly mentioned that Paul wrote a certain letter to the church at Philippi. The widely held opinion is that this is the letter understood to be The Epistle to the Philippians. Moreover, within the letter Paul described his own present situation (1:12-13), his personal feelings (1:18-24), and his own autobiographical information (3:5-6) giving more persuasion to the understanding that Paul is the credited author of this letter. None have successfully disproved Paul as the author, though in the eighteenth century F.C. Baur sought to do so. Baur’s argument was determined to be inconvincible and frail.
Paul, as the author of this text, is obviously in close relation to the believers at Philippi as his discourse with them is rather personal. As mentioned above, he reveals his personal thoughts and feelings to them (1:7-8, 18, 22-26). It is apparent that he drew a close-knit comfort from his fellowship with the Philippians while he was away and imprisoned. In other words, their belief and faith in the message of the Gospels seems to have brought a sensible peace to him. Imprisoned as he was, the circumstance gives the reader more context as to the setting in which Paul wrote the letter. He was not a man of emotions that were swayed to and fro by the wind. He was impassioned by the Holy Spirit to assure sound teaching and practice by those of whom he had influenced.
The Date and Setting of Authorship
There is a traditional position held that Paul wrote this letter while imprisoned in Rome. This traditional view is attested to the second century Marcionite prologue. It was this viewpoint that many, if not most, held up until modern times. It has held the longest credibility as it was accepted and unchallenged from the second century all the way up into the nineteenth century. Gerald Hawthorne notes several fundamental factors for reasoning such a position (Hawthorne, Word, xxxvii). One particular and worthy note pointed out is that Paul made use of the term to praitorion, the term for headquarters , or even imperial guard. The phrase within the letter itself is “o to praitorion” indicating the entirety of the imperial guard. Arguably, because Paul does not address a specific quadrant of the Empire, it could be sought after that he is implying that portion of the Empire which encompassed all of such power, Rome. This would indicate that Paul was under the control of the governing authority. This coupled with the other “fundamental facts” that are mentioned, Rome satisfactorily fulfils these facts as noted by Hawthorne. Deissmann objected this, for one, due to the “enormous journeys” that are mentioned in the letter; sufficient time would not have been available to fit this into Roman Hypothesis.
In the early nineteenth century, Lisco led several serious scholars in arguing for an Ephesian setting, named the Ephesian Hypothesis. They argued, for one, that Paul’s use of “t& praitwri&” didn’t hold sufficient evidence to support the Roman Hypothesis. The argument states that this term could mean any governing residence, not Rome alone. Other hypotheses have arisen in regards to the setting such as the Corinthian Hypothesis and the Caesarean Hypothesis first proposed by S. Dockx and H.E.G. Paulus of Jena, respectively. Though due to these arguments being speculated conjecture at best, it is fairly determinable that the traditional second century Roman Hypothesis wins out as the lead view on the setting and date of the letter to the Philippians.
Exegesis of Philippians 3:1-11
Philippians 3:1-2
The introduction to this portion of Paul’s letter to the Philippians displays a powerful insight into his own personal feelings of the given situation. It is senseless to mention this without noting his exhortation to “rejoice in the Lord!” at the top of the chapter. This apparent joy sets up his concern and for this portion of his letter. It is understood that Paul is in great joy to write such encouragement and warning to the church. The employment of the term “to loipon”, most often meaning “finally” or “in conclusion,” can, at times, simply signal a change in the content of a letter. That this letter is understood to be holding to the integrity and validity of the New Testament Canon implies that, here, Paul is simply continuing the body of his letter. Though, some have gone as far to say that this is an insertion from an entirely different letter. They do not rest without difficulty in the mindset that Paul intended this to be a part of the original letter. It is worthy to note, at this point, that the NIV, NKJV, NASB all translate the word as “finally” while the REB translates the term as “to repeat.”
Also, Paul indicates that he has no trouble in writing the “same things” to the Philippians again. This tells the reader that these issues must have arisen or been prevalent in the brief history of the church. Paul is aware of this and he issues his stern word of warning as support before he seemingly berates his opponents. He calls it a “safeguard” to the church. This designates the fact that Paul has knowledge of the Philippian church’s situation deeper than jus the surface level and has deep concern to issue such a warning. There must have been some kind of “evil” dissensions in the church as Paul would have understood how to address the church there in Philippi. Lightfoot speaks to the fact that it was the customary practice of the Apostle to close the letter with some type of warning dealing with the given circumstance. Martin notes that “such repeated warnings are necessary for their well-being.”
Philippians 3:2-3
Paul’s emotions appear to be running wild, yet still in control and on target, as he employs the repetition of certain words to emphasize his certain point; that of a warning to watch for false teachers. Gerald Hawthorne points out that in verse two, he repeatedly used the term blepete. The device employed here is termed anaphora, the repetition of a word or words at the beginning of two or more successive verses, clauses, or sentences, which colors Paul’s descriptive introduction. This goes even further beyond the obviously vivid terminology of “dogs,” “workers of evil,” and “mutilators” in regards to his opponents seen in verse two.
These “dogs” that Paul mentioned are widely held to be Jews who fit into one of two categories: those Jews not respondent to the Christian message or those who had accepted Christ as Messiah but were seeking to impose their own ritualistic traditions of the Jewish faith on those who were not formerly Jewish. Michael makes an interesting notion in which it is possible that Paul is speaking in regards to Jews who where antagonistic to Christianity because of Paul’s use of listing his biographical information. He, Paul, even reminds them of his own persecution of the Way before his conversion (3:4-6). This, according to Michael, who is noting Adeney’s point, might indicate that Paul is speaking in reference to those Jews not submitting to Christ as their Lord.
Paul is drawing a connection from those he mentioned earlier in his letter. In Philippians 1:15-18 Paul mentions those who preach Christ out of selfish ambition and do so insincerely somehow hoping to cause Paul more strife while he was imprisoned. This quite possibly concludes who it is of which he is speaking of in Philippians 3:2; that is Jewish Christians upsetting the peace of new Christians in their demands for following Jewish rites. In Philippians 1:18-19 he appears to dismiss this issue peacefully stating “the important thing is that in every way, whether false motives or true, Christ is preached.” Why then, is Paul’s attitude much different toward these opponents in Philippians 3:2. He uses the term “kunas” to refer these adversaries of the Gospel. This term was often used by the Jews to refer to the gentiles in an extremely crude and offensive manner. In the Levitical law, the dog was seen as an unclean animal. The fact that this term was used by the Jews towards the Gentiles so commonly and that Paul now used it against them is an acute reversal of insult made by Paul towards the ritualistic Jewish believers. Moreover, Paul uses the term katatomein place of peritome; katatomh< is a noun defined as mutilation whereas peritome is a noun defined as circumcision. This term for circumcision was the term used for the religious rite of the Jewish religion referring back to the Abrahamic Covenant in Genesis 17:11. Paul employs a word play in using “mutilation” instead of “circumcision. He is pointing out that they have misunderstood the true circumcision, the circumcision of the heart (Romans 2:29). Paul is implying that their circumcision, the Jewish believers’, was only a mutilation of the flesh! The point of this is to argue that Paul was not speaking to the Jews who rejected the Way, rather he was exhorting a warning to the Philippians against those who teach falsely the need for a ritual circumcision. To support this notion, Fee discusses the use of Paul’s emphatic “we are the circumcision” (Fee, Philippians, 134). Paul so explicitly distinguishes who the true circumcision is and who is not. If he was talking about those who rejected the message behind the Christ, there would be little reason to use such harsh reversal of concepts, let alone display his ample reasons for placing any confidence in the “flesh” (3:4-6). Paul is surely warning against those who wished to impose the Jewish rites upon new Gentile believers. Paul assures the Philippians that it was they, he and the Philippians, that shared the true communion with God in the Spirit. In Philippians 3:3 he is concluding his warning against the Judaisers in saying that the proper circumcision, or the proper communion with God came not in the flesh, but in Spirit of God who enables them to worship.
Philippians 3:4-6
It appears at the surface that Paul offered his impressive biographical information as a means to boast. He is not, though, at all. Paul is offering the notion that if there truly was any merit to place confidence in the flesh, he would certainly meet such expectation. Melick points out a pattern of relationship between the qualities Paul mentioned in his personal story. He points out that Paul exceedingly matched his opponents in attributes. Paul specifies that he was a true Israelite, a Hebrew of Hebrews in pedigree, a zealous Pharisee in persecuting the church pre-conversion, and faultless in regards to legalistic righteousness. This impressive list displayed that there was no one who could deem him refutable in his teaching. In doing this, he rules out those who have seemingly opposed the true understanding of belief in Jesus out of faith and not obedience to the law. Vincent states that the sense of this certain translation should translate as “though I myself might have confidence in the flesh.” Paul clearly puts it that he actually has reason for such confidence in the flesh. This again places him above equality with the Judaisers who opposed him.
More specifically, in regards to Paul’s listed credentials, he claims to be of an eighth-day circumcision. That Paul specified this is a direct reference to the fact that he was pure Israelite (Gen 17:12). In contrast, an Ishmaelite was circumcised while in his thirteenth year (Vincent, Philippians, 96). His mention of the tribe of Benjamin indicates his excellent heritage as this tribe was held as a greatly honorable tribe of Israel. They gave Israel its first king (1 Sam 4:1-2) and were faithful to Judah (1 Kings 7:21). Paul is not merely boasting in his rich heritage, rather he is proving the necessary status in order to prove his point in verse four. In stating he was a “Hebrew of Hebrews” most likely gives light to the fact that he had no heathen blood in his bloodline. He fulfills a pure, for lack of a more conceptually accurate term, Israelite bloodline.
In verse 6a, Paul digressed from detailing the rich heritage of which he had no control and moved towards the decisions he had a direct effect on. The Law, zeal for the nation, and righteousness were at the core of a Jewish boy’s standard for living (Melick, Philippians, 130). The fact that he attained the level of Pharisee demonstrates his abilities and prosperous decisions along his path. Opposition to foreign religion and law acted as the barometer for how well a Jewish man matched the standard of commitment to God. Paul is claiming, because of his extreme methods in persecution the Christian church pre-conversion (Acts 8:1); he easily matched the expected rejection of what was foreign to the Jewish religion. As for his mention of his righteousness in the law, it is apparent that Paul does not mean he was a faultless being. As it is read here, Paul’s “perfection in the law” would be equivalent to one who has never been issued any type of citation for any kind of legality whatsoever. Paul is exclaiming his devotion to right living. This section is only a set up for what Paul writes in verses seven through eleven.
Philippians 3:7-11
Paul summed up all it was to live properly with confidence only in the flesh in the first portion of this passage (Phil 3:1-6). To any reader’s amazement and especially the Philippians, Paul led on to say that all of which he had gained was worth nothing in comparison to the greatness of knowing Christ. In order that the depths of this concept take root, the Philippians were provided Paul’s incredible “gains.” This was intentional by Paul so that he could readily state that knowing Christ was far greater and much more trustworthy than anything that comes in the flesh. Martin notes that this is the section of the letter where Paul states clearly the reassessment of his spiritual endeavors (Martin, Philippians, 144). Again, it is necessary to note here Paul’s intimate language used with the Philippians, much like conversational communication. Paul employed this use of intimate language in order that the Philippians grasp his appeal (Phil 3:1).
In verse nine, Paul sources righteousness as coming from faith in God alone and not from righteousness in the Law. A clear contrast is made between what is owed to God and what is owed to him. Paul admits the fact that having righteousness in the law is unfulfilling and incomplete in relationship with the Christ (v8). Bockmuehl supports this claim. He noticed that Paul’s contrast was between Paul’s own righteousness and the type that finds its origin in God alone through faith. In completion of this portion of his letter, Paul states his overall desire built on the righteousness of God alone. This desire is to travel to the depths of relationship with Christ. Moreover, he claims he wishes to do this by knowing the power of his resurrection. Paul is not surrendering the hope in his future resurrection when Christ comes to reap the harvest of believing souls. He still very much has his hope in the future of the coming Lord. He though, at this given moment, wishes for God to bring him understanding in his present situation, in prison that is, of the saving resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ (vv10-11).
Word Study of peritomh< (Circumcision)
The term peritomh< is translated as circumcision. Literally it means “to cut around.” The origin of this word is found in the second century B.C. Its appearance seems to have always been used for the technical term of circumcision. The Old Testament origin of this term is debatable in the scholarly world. There are plausible suggestions that this term was related to the ceremonies of marriage or puberty trials. This connection was related to the West-Semitic peoples found in the Malaysian and Polynesian tribes. In the traditional Jewish setting the circumcision practice was obligatory and was a symbol of membership into the Jewish Community.
The similar term to this and used by Paul in this Philippians passage is katatomh<. In contrast to peritomh<, this term implies a mutilation of the flesh. This was also known as the “Concision.” It was understood to be a “cutting off” or even just a “cutting” as opposed to cutting around as related to the circumcision term. Either way, the relationship of these two terms is inseparable in the context of this passage. This is because Paul makes such an important word play with these two terms. Lastly, it is important to note that katatomh< appears a total of one time where peritomh< appears thirty six times, according to Swanson, Kohlenberger III, and Goodrick.



Conclusion
The question begging an answer after engaging in the historical and cultural aspects of the letter sent to the church at Philippi is, “What place does the content of this letter have in the modern believer’s life today?” This answer comes in understanding the key theological point of this text. The point is that Paul greatly desired to know Christ and gain the righteousness of His resurrection by means of faith in the Lord Jesus Christ and God the Father. What is gleaned from this passage is that this comes not from being naïve to all those who speak and teach Christ. Philippians 1:17 exemplifies that the message will be preached out of many motives, not all being justified motives. This explains that believers must be on guard at all times looking beyond the “credentials” of the flesh; Paul referred to this as being aware of the “dogs.” Paul’s denying of his past “credentials” gives testimony to this fact. He gained all there was to gain, though, his confidence in the flesh was not enough to get him entrance into that which he wanted more than anything else: knowledge in Christ to the point of being resurrected with him.
Today, believers ought to desire such a relationship with Christ as Paul did. He gave warnings to the Philippians that are employable to Christians today just as they were to the believers at Philippi. The exhortation in this text is for all who engage themselves with it to plunge deep into riches of Christ and to abandon the rituals of life that stack upon themselves owning only senseless meaning. Christians can, and should, have the same passionate desire for the resurrection of Christ as Paul did. Eloquence, status, rituals, and confidence in the flesh lead to death; death without a cross. Faith alone, too, leads to death, but death in the resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ.


BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bockmuehl, Markus. The Epistle to the Philippians. Black's New Testament Commentaries, ed. Chadwick, Henry. London: A & C Black Publishers, 1998.
Brown, Colin. The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology. Edited by Lothar Coenen, Erich Beyreuther and Hans Bietenhard. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1973.
Fee, Gordon and Douglas Stuart. How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth. 3rd ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2003.
Fee, Gordon. The IVP New Testament Commentary Series. Philippians, ed. Grant Osborn, vol. 11. Downers Grove: Intervarsity Press, 1999.
________. Paul's Letter to the Philippians. Edited by Ned Stonehouse, F.F. Bruce, and Gordon Fee. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1995.
Gromacki, Robert. Twenty-First Century Biblical Commentary Series. Edited by Mal Couch and Ed Hindson. The Books of Philippians and Colossians. Chattanooga: AMG Publishers, 2003.
Hawthorne, Gerald. Word Biblical Commentary. Edited by David Hubbard, Glenn Barker, John Watts and Ralph Martin. Philippians. Waco: Word Books, 1983.
Hendriksen, William. New Testament Commentary. Exposition on Philippians. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1977.
Kohlenberger, John, Edward Goodrick, and James Swanson, comps. The Exhaustive Concordance to the Greek New Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995.
Kubo, Sakac. Andrews University Monographs. A Reader's Greek-English Lexicon to the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Andrews University Press and Zondervan, 1975.
Lightfoot, J.B. Saint Paul's Epistle to the Philippians. London: MacMillan and Co, 1885.
________.B. Saints Paul's Epistle to the Philippians. London: Macmillan and Company, 1913. Reprint, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1956.
Martin, Ralph. The Epistle of Paul to the Philippians. The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries. ed. Tasker, R.V.G. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1959.
Melick, Richard R. Jr. The New American Commentary. Edited by David Dockery. Philippians Colossians Philemon. Nashville: Broadman Press, 1991.
Michael, J. Hugh. The Epistle of Paul to the Philippians. The Moffatt New Testament Commentary, vol. 4. New York and London: Harper and Brothers Publishers, 1878.
Morton, A.Q. and James McLeman. Christianity in the Computer Age. New York: Harper and Row, 1964.
Nestle, Erwin and Kurt Aland, trans. Novum Testamentum Graece, by Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1979.
Vincent, Marvin. The International Critical Commentary. Edited by Samuel Rolles Driver, Alfred Plummer, and Charles Augustus Briggs. The Epistles to the Philippians and to Philemon. Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1976.
________. Word Studies in the New Testament: The Epistles of Paul. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1901.
Zondervan NIV Study Bible. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2002.

posted by Bryan Laramore @ 12:32 PM