Partners in the Gospel (XV)

In the Fall of 1992, I had just finished about a year working as an Associate Editor of the Life Recovery Bible (Tyndale House).  Because of my work on that project, one of the general editors, Dr. David Stoop, had recommended me to his agent, Rick Christian, who negotiated a book deal for me with NavPress.  That book, my first, released in mid-1993, was entitled Looking Back, Moving On (which is based loosely on Philippians 3:13).

In the book, as odd as this sounds today, I developed a practical exposition of Daniel 9 in its first half.  The second half was an applicationally-oriented exposition of Philippians 3:1-16.  The book was one of the last written in the tidal wave-like frenzy of evangelical Christians embracing (at least partly, as with me) the recovery counseling perspective.  The book market suddenly became saturated and my book ended up coming out, but having been heavily edited from its original purpose, for fear of selling almost no books.

The book did fine, but it was a strange experience for me–the only time in which what I have written was edited much at all.  However, it was still a very good learning experience, including what I learned in my study of Philippians 3.

Actually, though, that was not my first published work on Philippians.  I had written a shorter commentary on the letter for the one-volume, whole Bible  Evangelical Commentary on the Bible, which was released by Baker Book House in 1989.  So, it just required some more in-depth study on my part to prepare to write the book.

Now, to briefly overview 3:1-11, with a few key applicational comments along the way:

“Rejoice in the Lord” in 3:1 picks up the same theme in 2:17-18.  In my mind, this is proof that 2:19-30 is the spotlighted center of the book, with the “joy” theme bracketing that centerpiece on the front and rear.

The references to “dogs” and “evil workers” could, of course, be referring to Gentiles, but the wording “multilate the flesh” (i.e., horribly botching circumcision) makes it clear that Paul is talking about people from Jewish backgrounds.  Related to that, it is highly likely that the opponents in view are Judaizers: those who believed Jesus is the Messiah, but that it was necessary to keep the Mosaic Law, particularly circumcision, in order to be a Christian.

Paul’s contrast is set up as a face-off with the descriptions just articulated in verse 2.  Christians being called “the circumcision” is clearly very close to what Paul says in Romans 2:28-29 about the circumcision of the heart.  Similarly, since the word which is translated as either service or worship in 3:3 (Gk. latreuo) is also the idea of our reasonable service of worship in Romans 12:1.  Finally, the idea of not putting confidence in the flesh sets things up for vv. 4-6 (in which Paul describes his previous almost total confidence in the flesh [v. 4a]).

Verses 4-6 are Paul’s pre-Christian resume, which certainly would have qualified him for inclusion in any “Who’s Who among the Hebrews” listing in all of history.  The first three elements speak to the fact that he was a normal, card-carrying Jew. 

Paul had been circumcised on the eighth day, as the Lord required.  His roots in the tribe of Benjamin were clear–and he was named for Benjamin’s most famous native son, King Saul.  When it says that Paul was “a Hebrew of the Hebrews,” it apparently means that he was born of strictly observant Jews, even though it was in Gentile territory (in Tarsus).  It is possible, but hardly necessary, to take this wording as meaning some sort of semi-fanatical perspective, over and above what other beliefs and actions other devout Jews might be involved in.

The final three phrases do, however, tell us how far Paul’s religious commitments went beyond that of the average Jew.  The Pharisees were the strictest mainline religious group (i.e., the Essenes, the fringe group whose remains were found in the Dead Dea Scrolls caves, were probably even stricter) among the Jews.  He also feely admits his misguided zeal, which was demonstrated by his persecution of the church.  But, he not only was zealous religiously.  He was also blind.  His sense that, in regard to the Law of Moses, he was found “blameless” is amazing from a Christian standpoint.  However, for a person who was confident that he could work his way to heaven (but see Eph. 2:8-9), it made sense…

… Until the unsaved Saul met the risen Lord on the Damascus Road.  That was the time–or, at least, began the time–when the complete reorientation of v. 7-9 took place.  Everything in vv. 4-6 that Paul had counted dear in his pre-Christian life now was discarded as exactly the opposite–in fact, as negative as if it was “filth” (HCSB) or “dung.”  Replacing that misguided lost perspective was the true area of spiritual “gain”: knowing Jesus Christ by faith (v. 9).

In vv. 10-11, Paul picks up the idea of “knowing Christ Jesus my Lord” (v. and defines more how that is done.  Simply put, the meaning of these verses is that the resurrection power of Christ is only available to those who have fully identified with the suffering and death of Christ.  The way he does that is by the use of inverted parallelism:

A (10a) “the power of His resurrection”

B (10b) “the fellowship of His sufferings”

B’ (10c) “being conformed to His death”

A’ (11) “reach the resurrection of the dead”

In the overall movement of Philippians, it becomes clear from this passage that Paul’s humility after his conversion, as well as his comments on the necessity of dying to self before gaining resurrection power is an intentional parallel to Christ’s humbling, death, resurrection and eventual exaltation in 2:5-11.  Christ was humbled and greatly used by God.  Paul was humbled and greatly used by God.  The Philippians, if they were to humble themselves in the midst of theit current ego-based internal controversy (see 2:3-4; 4:2-3), could also be greatly used by the Lord.

Coming Tuesday: Philippians 3:12-21