Philippians

Paul’s opponents may have claimed to be better qualified to explain the role of the Law for Gentiles because of their heritage and training. This is more or less equivalent to someone who claims to be an expert because they graduated with a PhD from Harvard as opposed to a certificate from DeVry Institute (Fill-in your own institutions here.) Paul therefore takes a moment to boast about his personal heritage and achievements. Paul claims in Philippians is that he is a proper Jew who excelled in the practice of Second Temple Judaism more than anyone else of his generation. To use a phrase from the Harry Potter universe, Paul is claiming to be a proper Jew rather than some Mudblood.

First, he was circumcised on the eighth day. This indicates he comes from a family that is keeping the Jewish traditions despite living in Tarsus. It is possible that there were Diaspora Jews who did not keep this tradition or even did not circumcise their boys.

Second, he is a member of Israel. This connects Paul to the covenant as a member of Abraham’s family. Paul was not a Hellenistic Jew from Tarsus pretending to be a Greek, but rather a Jew who was well aware of his heritage as a child of Abraham.

Third, he is from the tribe of Benjamin. This is significant because not every Jew in the first century could claim to know they were from a particular tribe. Paul’s Jewish name “Saul” is taken from the first king of Israel, from the tribe of Benjamin, and Paul’s teacher in Jerusalem, Gamaliel, was also from the tribe of Benjamin.

Fourth, the phrase “Hebrew of the Hebrews” can be taken in several ways. This phrase may mean that Paul was born of true Jewish blood, that there is no Gentile in his linage. It is sometimes suggested that Paul is referring to his ability to speak and read Hebrew. Not all Jews spoke the language, especially in the home. If there is an increasing specificity in the list of descriptions, then perhaps Polhill is right and Paul is saying he is from an extremely Jewish family, one that still speaks the language at home (Paul and his Letters, 26).

Fifth, with respect to religion, he is a Pharisee. Second Temple Judaism had a number of sub-divisions, not exactly like modern denominations but that is a fair way to think about them. Sadducees and Pharisees are the two most well known in the New Testament, but there were several others. There are many ways to define the groups, but Paul’s emphasis might be on faithfulness to the Law and loyalty to Israel. Pharisees were not simply observant of the Law; they thought deeply about the Law and guarded themselves against breaking the Law unknowingly. They really could claim to be “blameless” with respect to law

Last, with respect to zeal, Paul says he was a persecutor of the church. Zeal has become a Christian virtue in modern Church-talk, usually equivalent to strong emotional response in worship. But that is not at all Paul’s point here. He is zealous for the Law and the traditions of his people in the same way the Maccabean Revolt was zealous for the Law. In that case, they fought the Greeks for the right to keep the Law. More important, they were willing to enforce the Law for Jews, including circumcision. Paul’s zeal was not a warm feeling of love for God, he was violently opposed to Jews who claimed the Messiah was crucified by the Temple authorities; he was willing to use physical abuse to convince people this Messiah did not rise from the dead.

Paul is, in the words of J. B. Lightfoot, making a progressive argument. A convert to Judaism may be circumcised, someone with some Gentile in his linage might claim a tribal affiliation, but Paul is a pure-bred true Jew! If anyone in the Second Temple period could boast about their heritage it was Paul.

These achievements are important since they contribute to who Paul is in Christ. His education and training in the Hebrew Bible are the foundation for this evangelism and all of his writings. He is just a zealous serving Christ as he was pursuing the church of God. Yet (like Jesus) he sets these achievements aside in order to be called a servant of God.

In this section of the letter, Paul shifts from his encouragement to serve one another humbly in order to be unified against an unspecified persecution to a second major issue, a potential attack by people from inside the church. Since the Philippian church was a tiny, diverse community of Christ followers in an otherwise pagan/Roman city, it is likely they faced pressure to participate in civic activities dedicated to various gods. This pressure may have come from families or civil authorities who would interpret the Christian refusal to participate in these events as scandalous and shameful.

The Jewish community, however, was already established and well-known for their legal permission not to participate in events violating their religious convictions. Lynn Cohick suggests, therefore, some early Christians sought the legal sanction of the synagogue as a way to avoid participation in these events (Philippians, 163). This is likely the the situation behind the the book of Hebrews (perhaps the opposite is true in Corinth). It is not completely clear the Philippian church was doing this, but there may have been an attraction to the synagogue as a place of worship and to Judaism as an old, established religion as opposed to the new, innovative Christianity meeting in homes with no sacrifice or priesthood, etc.

Paul’s description of his opponents is harsh by modern standards, but not unlike the type of rhetoric one would expect in the Greco-Roman world. To call someone a dog was a particularly vivid insult. Dogs were scavengers in the ancient world, something you might drive away with a stick: 1 Sam 17:23, Goliath says “am I a dog that you come to me with a stick?” In 1 Kings 14:11 dogs will scavenge the destroyed city of Samaria. From a Jewish perspective, a “dog” was an unclean Gentile. In 2 Kings 8:1 the Gentile Hazael calls himself a dog to demonstrate his humility, for example.

“Evil doers” is a generic way to describe an opponent. If the opponents are the same as Galatians, then they are probably not “evil” in the sense of worshiping false gods and indulging in sinful practices. Like 2 Cor 11:31 (where a similar phrase is used), they appear to have wrong theological presuppositions which lead to practice Paul cannot condone. Perhaps Paul is alluding to Psalm 22:16 in this verse. In the Septuagint, Psalm 22:17 uses the noun κύων (dog) as well as a participle of πονηρεύομαι, evildoers. Paul uses a phrase that means essentially the same thing (τοὺς κακοὺς ἐργάτας). This Psalm was understood as referring to the crucifixion very early in Christian preaching, so it is possible Paul wants to keep the cross at the center of this section of the letter. Just as Jesus was crucified by dogs and evildoers, these opponents have the potential to be just as dangerous.

“Mutilators” of the flesh obviously refers to circumcision. Paul uses an unusual word (κατατομή) because it sounds like the Greek word for circumcision (περιτομή). Paul may have in mind the principle in the Law barring people who have been mutilated from participating in worship. In the Septuagint, Leviticus 21:15 the cognate verb appears in list of types of cuttings (shaved head) or mutilations (carved flesh) resulting in defilement. Since a person who had been mutilated in some way was barred from worship at the Temple, Paul is describing these opponents as people who cannot approach God in worship. They are not just Gentile dogs; they are mutilated Gentile dogs who are unable to approach God!

Paul’s point in raising the issue of the opponents is to give a counter-example to the unity and humility of Jesus, Paul, Timothy and Epaphroditus. It is possible the Philippian Church is not directly threatened by same opponents of Paul as Galatians, but (ongoing) conflict with them would have been known to the church. The opponents have confidence in the flesh rather than in Christ. They are destroying the unity of the church by not seeking to have the same mind as Jesus. In fact, they may very well have the “same mind” as the dogs and evildoers who crucified the Lord!

Paul’s polemic against the “dogs” is remarkable because it is aimed at an opponent presenting itself as the correct (perhaps only) interpretation of what Jesus’ death on the cross means for Gentiles in the present age. The opponents are not evil pagan outsiders, but rather righteous insiders. There is a strong warning here to beware those within the church who appear to be righteous, but have intentions which hinder the Gospel.

Unlike Timothy, Epaphroditus is only known from this letter. Paul praises him highly as a valuable co-worker. We know virtually nothing about him from Acts other letters. His name was common in the first century and is related to the goddess Aphrodite.

Paul calls him “brother” and “fellow-worker.” To refer to a believer as brother is not unusual, Paul describes the body of Christ as a new family in many places. Epaphroditus is more than family, he is a co-laborer with Paul in the service of the Gospel.

He also calls him a “fellow soldier” (συστρατιώτης, cf. Phlm 2 to describe fellow ministers). Paul occasionally uses military metaphors to describe ministry, in this case the Philippian church would have understood the honor implied by this term since some in the church would have been retired soldiers. A soldier could be honored with this term, to be a fellow-soldier with a commander for example (Polyaenus 8, 23, 22).

Epaphroditus was a “messenger and minister” from the church at Philippi sent to help Paul during his imprisonment. “Messenger” is an apostle (ἀπόστολος). Does this mean Epaphroditus was an Apostle like Paul and the Twelve? It is unlikely he received a commission from Jesus as did the Twelve, Paul or perhaps James. Anyone who was sent as a representative of a group could be called “an apostle,” which simply means “someone who is sent,” a delegate or envoy. In Acts 11, Barnabas is sent from Jerusalem to Antioch in order to “represent” the apostolic community when the Hellenistic Jews begin expanding into the Diaspora. To avoid this confusion, the ESV translates the word “messenger,” which might imply a much lower status in English than Paul intended. The church heard Paul was under house arrest in Rome and in need of assistance, so Epaphroditus was sent from the church to Paul as their representative.

The second title Paul uses is minister, a word with certain connotations in American English that may not be helpful here. The word (λειτουργός) is not used for a Pastor, but for a civil servant or administrator, often in the service of a cultic center or temple (BDAG). Perhaps the term was used in order to give Epaphroditus more honor, since the word is used of Greco-Roman officials (cf. Rom 13:6). It is also likely the word was chosen to highlight what Epaphroditus did for Paul, he delivered a gift and at least intended to serve alongside him in Rome for some time.

Since Paul cannot return to the city and Timothy will be delayed for some time, Paul sends Epaphroditus back to the church. Why was Epaphroditus sent back to Philippi? The text says Epaphroditus was very ill and may not have recovered to full strength. He was “sick near to death,” although the nature of his illness is not specified. Travel from Philippi to Rome was dangerous, not only from brigands but also from all sorts of illness one would not encounter at home. This could be dysentery, for example, would be life threatening on the road to Rome!

Paul asks the church to receive him with joy, possibly a hint that his mission to assist Paul was not successful. We cannot know the terms of Epaphroditus’s original mission to Paul, but his return might be suspicious to some in the church (“we paid you to go help Paul and you failed.”) Contemporary Christianity may over-emphasize spectacular stories of missionaries who physically destroy themselves to serve God. Sometimes circumstances are such that a person cannot serve in that way, but this is not a “failure” at all!

Epaphroditus is another example of humble service, but in his case the service was cut short by physical shortcomings. Paul does not consider this a failure, Epaphroditus is serving others humbly to the best of his ability. Paul therefore offers both Timothy and Epaphroditus as examples of the attitude of service demonstrated by Jesus in Philippians 2:5-11.

The first command Paul gives in order to “work out your salvation,” is not do things without grumbling. This seems odd, since for most modern Evangelicals there are far worse sins than grumbling! Paul is, however, making an allusion to the wilderness Tradition and the grumbling of Israel.

Every Sunday School kid knows Israel grumbled in the wilderness (or, if you are old enough, “they murmured,” cf. 1 Cor 10:10). The noun (γογγυσμός) refers to under-the-breath complaining, “an utterance made in a low tone of voice,” whispers and secret talk (BDAG), always with a negative connotation. Imagine trying to get a bunch of Junior High students (who are all about looking cool) to play a particularly dumb looking game. When they are in Junior High, you can actually hear the rolling of the eyes. The muttering and whispering complaints start right away.

“Disputing” can refer to a rational exchange of ideas, offering of various opinions in order to discuss an issue. This sounds nice, but in the New Testament the word is usually synonymous with quarreling. In the context of the wilderness generation, the command they are disputing is God’s commands as revealed through Moses at Sinai!  In the wilderness God told the people to go and take the land, but they complained and disputed that command (let’s go back to Egypt, let’s camp here, etc.)  Again, think of that pack of Junior High kids, all offering reasons why they are not going to do what you told them to, offering excuses and alternatives. Chaos will ensue!

Because of their grumbling and complaining, the wilderness generation is usually called a “crooked and twisted generation.” The first noun (σκολιός) refers to being twisted, usually morally. Peter used the word in Acts 2:40 to refer to Israel in their rejection of the Messiah, Jesus called that generation “wicked and adulterous.”  The second noun (διαστρέφω) is another vivid metaphor for the present world, it refers to something that is deformed or distorted, perhaps misleading. Paul used the word in Acts 13:10 to describe Israel’s on-going resistance to the Holy Spirit.

By setting aside the distorted attitude of the Wilderness generation, the believer will be acceptable on the day of Christ.

• Blameless (ἄμεμπτος) is used in Gen 17:1 to describe Abraham, 12 times describing Job. In both cases, the men can be described as having moral character, but they are not perfect or sinless. There is nothing in their character or behavior that might be considered “worthy of judgment” before the Lord.
• Innocent (ἀκέραιος), a word used to describe something that is not mixed with some other substance, “pure.” Gold, silver, and platinum are often extracted from the same ore, but they are more valuable if they are separated. If the right process is used, the extracted gold is more pure and therefore more valuable.
• Without blemish (ἄμωμος) is a close synonym for blameless (translated as such in Eph 1:4, “holy and blameless”). The word is used for a lamb brought to be sacrificed (Num 6:14, for example).

The one who is blameless on the Day of Christ is a child of God! Paul does not say here “if you achieve a 75% rating on your holiness score, you get to go to heaven.” He says you will please your Father on the Day of Christ because you are his loved child! Therefore there is no place in the Christian life for grumbling and complaining.

If this is the case, why do most Christians complain so much?