Bible Study

In order to reach the goal to which he has been called, Paul does not look back at any of his achievements but keeps his attention fixed on the goal God has placed before him. Forgetting what lies behind. To “forget” (ἐπιλανθάνομαι) is fairly clear, although this word can mean “do not think about it” or “do not concern yourself with it.” When someone thanks you for a simple favor, the response is often “forget about it.” What we mean is, “don’t be concerned about it, whatever I did is not that big of a deal.”

Paul may refer to his persecution of the followers of Jesus after the resurrection, since he likely had a great deal of guilt and remorse for his attacks on the earliest church. This is very preachable since most people have some guilt over the things they have done in the past. Pastors can use this as an opportunity to encourage people to forgive themselves as Christ forgave them and not dwell on the past.

In the context of Philippians, however, he may refer here to his heritage as a well-trained and highly respected Jewish leader, someone who could claim to be “blameless” with respect to righteousness according to the Law. He has just described his “boast” (vv 4-6) even though he now considers it a loss compared to what he has in Christ.

But there is another factor in “forgetting what lies behind.” Paul was called to be the “light to the Gentiles” by the risen Lord Jesus himself.  Jesus gave to Paul a unique commission and revelation and has directly guided him on a number of occasions. He has already planted many churches and is responsible for spreading the Gospel throughout Roman Empire, he has already written letters which will eventually become a major component of the canon of the New Testament. Paul could review his life in Christ and conclude he has made a spectacular contribution and served God better than anyone else in the first century. These “good things” have to be set aside as well, “forgetting what is behind” must include everything including these things that might be counted as bearing much fruit for God.

Second, Paul is “straining forward” to what lies ahead. This word (ἐπεκτείνομαι) only appears here in the New Testament, although it is the compound form of the more common word (τείνω) for stretching something or pulling tight on something (like reins, a helmet strap, both from Homer).  Since this is a compound form, the meaning is probably intensified, stretching for something that is just out of your reach, so far that you pull a muscle in your shoulder.

There might be a hint of an athletic metaphor here, since a runner “strains forward” to cross the finish line first, often making a final push to win the race. In 2012  U.S. Olympic trials, Allyson Felix and Jenebah Tarmoh “both crossed the finish line in 11.068 seconds.” Neither of the cameras shooting 3,000 frames per second clearly showed a winner. If either runner had been distracted just a little, or looked to the side a fraction of a second would be lost and the other runner would have clearly won the race.

This is the kind of focus Paul is talking about in Philippians. If one is straining for what is ahead of them, their focus is not on what is behind them, or even what is around them at the moment. They are completely focused on the goal, crossing the finish line and winning the prize. A runner cannot think about who is behind them or running alongside them, they can only focus on the future goal of finishing the race and winning the prize. For Paul, this means the terrible things he had done as well as his admirable service for the cause of Christ. This also means he cannot focus on his opponents who are also running the race (even if they are not completing as properly as Paul is).

It is important understand what Paul is saying here. He forgets whatever is in his past, both good and bad, so that he can run the race set out for him unhindered. This means the one who is in Christ must set aside both negative baggage as well as positive achievements. Paul does this as best he can, considering his former life as an advancing young Pharisee to be rubbish, but also all of his achievements since meeting Christ on the road to Damascus. He has planted churches and developed leaders who will carry his ministry on well after his death. One could argue without Paul, the church would have never spread out into the western Roman Empire as it did. Yet that huge accomplishment is also rubbish to Paul!

Paul develops an accounting metaphor in Philippians 3:7. All of his achievements listed in the previous verses count for nothing when it comes to his position in Jesus Christ. On one side of the ledger is his human achievement, on the other is the sake of Christ. He writes them off as a loss in comparison to knowing Christ Jesus as his Lord.

Human achievement is “loss” or “rubbish.” Loss (ζημία) can refer to a financial loss, as in Acts 27:10 (Paul predicts the shipwreck and “much injury and loss”). In the Septuagint, 2 Kings 23:33 used the word to refer a heavy tribute imposed on Judah by Pharaoh Neco when he took Jehoahaz captive. The word can refer to a financial penalty (a heavy fine, for example). In this context, Paul is saying that all of human achievement was a huge loss when it came to knowing Jesus and the power of the resurrection.

Imagine someone who buys an antique at an estate sale, investing a significant amount of money because they were certain it was worth far more (maybe a Civil War Rifle or a colonial document). They take the antique to the Antiques Roadshow and have it examined by an expert and it turns out to be a worthless fake. The person would take a huge loss since they cannot resale the item and recoup their investment. It is still a nice antique and might look nice good hanging over the mantel. It can still be enjoyed and valued. But it is really a total financial loss.

In a similar way, Paul’s “heavy investment” in training as a Pharisee and his dedicated practice of Judaism as a Pharisee have turned out to be a loss if the return on the investment was “righteousness before God.” He still has the value of a thorough knowledge of the Scripture and the satisfaction of a life well lived, good moral values and work ethic, etc. But with respect to being right with God, that investment is a total loss.

The second word Paul uses here is more picturesque. Rubbish (σκύβαλον) refers to refuse or garbage, the sort of thing the dogs would scavenge. Often refers to excrement (Josephus, JW 5.571, “sewers and cattle dung”; Sib.Or. 7.58, “the mournful refuse of war”). The word appears in the medical work of Aretæus the Cappadocian, Causes and Symptoms of Acute Disease (SD 2.9), in a section entitled “On Dysentery.” The third edition of Bauer’s Lexicon (BDAG) glosses the word in this context as “It’s all crap.” It is no coincidence Paul is more or less saying the opponents as “dogs” who they are still rooting around in their own skubalon!

It is important to understand Paul correctly here: Paul is not saying Judaism is bad, or that Jews keeping the Law is bad, or that Torah is “garbage.” He is saying that keeping the Law does not make one right with God, only faith in Jesus Christ will do that. In Galatians he will address the reasons why a Gentile is not under the Law, but here his point is only that human achievement (whether good or bad) counts for nothing with respect to being right with God, knowing the “power of the resurrection” or obtaining salvation at the resurrection of the dead.

The righteousness that counts is the righteousness that comes “through faith of Christ” (v.9). There is a serious interpretive issue here in verse nine. The ESV and the NIV both translate the line as “through faith in Christ Jesus” although “in” is not the natural way to read the text. “through the faith of Christ” is a better rendering of the Greek, but what does this mean? (Yes, this is the classic pistis christou debate!)

There are two options here. Paul might mean “the faith that I have in Jesus’ sacrifice saves me from sin.” On the other hand, “the faithful act of Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross saves me from my sin (through the faithful obedience of Christ on the cross).” Since both of these options are taught in Scripture (you do place your faith in Jesus, Eph 2:8-9) and Jesus was faithful when he humbly submitted to death of the cross (Phil 2:5-11), it is possible most people do not catch Paul’s subtle teaching here. In the context of Philippians, Jesus is the one who humbly submitted himself to the Father and was obedient to death, Paul has submitted to the Father and suffers in prison at the moment; Epaphroditus humble serves the church at Philippi at the very moment even though he has suffered.

It is difficult to have Paul’s attitude toward personal achievement. In the Roman world, one would naturally boast of their achievements and claim honors for themselves. In contemporary American culture, humility is a virtue, but we still like to boast about our achievements. University professors put their PhD up on their office walls, athletes have personal trophy cases, pastors humble-brag about attendance in their church. How would our ersonal lives be transformed if we really had the attitude of Christ Jesus and set aside our honor in order to serve others? Do we really need to consider all our achievement to be “crap”?

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.