Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Philippians 3:4
Though I might also have confidence in the flesh. If any other man thinketh that he hath whereof he might trust in the flesh, I more:
4 11. His own experience as a converted Pharisee: Justification by Faith: its spiritual and eternal issues
4. Though I might also &c.] The Greek seems to assert that he not only might have, but has, such confidence. But the whole context, and St Paul’s whole presentation of the Gospel, alike assure us that this is but a “way of speaking.” What he means is to assert, in the most concrete form, his claim, if any one could have such a claim, to rely on privilege and observance for his acceptance. Render accordingly with R.V., Though I myself might have confidence even in the flesh. So the Latin versions; Quanquam ego habeam &c.
thinketh ] R.V. margin, “ seemeth.” But A.V., and text R.V., are certainly right. The “seeming” or “appearing” is to the man’s self; he thinks it to be so. Cp. for this (frequent) use of the Greek verb ( doken) e.g. Luk 24:37; Act 12:9. And see esp. Mat 3:9, “ Do not think (seem) to say in yourselves &c.”; where common sense gives the paraphrase, “ Do not think that you may say.” So here, “ thinketh that he may have confidence &c.”
I more ] “I, from his point of view, think that I may have it more.” Cp. 2Co 11:21-22, a passage closely akin to this.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Though I might also have confidence in the flesh – That is, though I had uncommon advantages of this kind; and if anyone could have trusted in them, I could have done it. The object of the apostle is to show that he did not despise those things because he did not possess them, but because he now saw that they were of no value in the great matter of salvation. Once he had confided in them, and if anyone could find any ground of reliance on them, he could have found more than any of them. But he had seen that all these things were valueless in regard to the salvation of the soul. We may remark here, that Christians do not despise or disregard advantages of birth, or amiableness of manners, or external morality, because they do not possess them – but because they regard them as insufficient to secure their salvation. They who have been most amiable and moral before their conversion will speak in the most decided manner of the insufficiency of these things for salvation, and of the danger of relying on them. They have once tried it, and they now see that their feet were standing on a slippery rock. The Greek here is, literally: although I (was) having confidence in the flesh. The meaning is, that he had every ground of confidence in the flesh which anyone could have, and that if there was any advantage for salvation to be derived from birth, and blood, and external conformity to the law, he possessed it. He had more to rely on than most other people had; nay, he could have boasted of advantages of this sort which could not be found united in any other individual. What those advantages were, he proceeds to specify.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Php 3:4-10
Though I might also have confidence in the flesh–Observe
I.
Pauls advantages–Superior to those which men generally put confidence in–respecting his birth and religious training, his rigid profession and orthodoxy, his zeal and blameless conduct.
II. The insufficiency of them as a ground of confidence–they could not confer peace, secure the favour of God–supersede the necessity of an inward change.
III. His renunciation of thee was necessary, complete, wise, and intelligent. (J. Lyth, D. D.)
The faith of St. Paul
St. Paul is here speaking of himself. Generally this is not wise, but circumstances may sometimes justify it,
1. The man who has been healed has a right to speak of the remedy, and ought to do so. St. Paul had been changed; the selfish man had become unselfish; the wild persecutor had been tamed.
2. The experience of St. Paul was very profitable. If you can do good by telling your experience, tell it. It is a delicate thing to speak of ones self; people who have little experience are often the greatest speakers; but there is a false delicacy which must be overcome.
3. Pauls purpose was also to glorify his Master. These verses resemble a tree with many branches, but they have but one root. The central thought is–
I. Faith.
1. It was of the right nature. There is a faith which never goes deeper than the intellect. It is like the smile of some people who do not know how to smile, and which only touches certain places on the face. There is another faith that breaks right through the soul, and moves the man to his very centre. Such was Pauls; it took possession of heart, soul, and mind.
2. It was a mighty faith. There is a faith right enough in its way, but very feeble. It resembles a man who is walking in a path about which he has some doubt. He looks to the right, to the left; behind and before; he proceeds slowly, hesitatingly, but he does proceed. But Paul received Christ with open arms, without caution or reserve.
II. The working of this faith and what it did in Paul. On faith taking possession of the heart two things are sure to follow.
1. Self-renunciation. If your faith has not made you cast anything away, you ought to look into it. Now Paul had three things of which he was very proud.
(1) Jewish extraction. Men in all ages have been proud of their ancestors. The Jews had many things of which they could boast. They were the chosen people. They had Divine revelation. The worship of the true God was established among them. They had a great history. Angels walked their valleys; wondrous things were done on their mountain tops. They have had greater influence over the world than any other nation. It is a great thing to belong to such a stock, and to belong to it was regarded as being safe forever. St. Paul, however, cast it aside as loss for Christ.
(2) Legal righteousness. Paul was a Pharisee, and as such–
(a) He knew the laws of Moses well. He had a most correct creed.
(b) He practised the religion of the Pharisees. There was a two-fold righteousness; real as before God, love to God and man; apparent as before man, the observance of rites and public duties. Paul had little of the former; he had the latter to perfection, but he cast it out.
(3) Religious zeal. Zeal is about the strongest word you can use to express a warm state of mind, and if there is anything of which a man is proud it is this. It is one of the noblest of virtues, but do not seek to display it as Jehu–it will come out of itself. Better do with your zeal what Paul did. I count it loss for Christ; I will not hope for salvation from it.
2. Reception of Jesus Christ. Observe–
(1) His estimate of the knowledge of Christ. There are three things in this which make all other knowledge dim, and all other possessions worthless; the Fatherhood of God, the mediation of Christ, and immortality with Christ in heaven. These destroy mans three great enemies.
(a) The mediation of Christ–sin;
(b) immortality–death;
(c) the Fatherhood of God–fear.
(2) He desired to be united to Christ. How can a person be united to another? You have friends in Australia, but you are as near them as ever, by confidence, sympathy, and the deepest feelings of your nature. To be united to Christ is for you to love Him, and for Him to send forth His sympathy towards you. In the one case you are found in Him, in the other He is in you.
(3) He believed that there was an infinite fulness of blessing in Christ, and that by union with Christ this would become His. The soul that is united to Christ shall not want.
(a) It shall have full and free pardon.
(b) It shall be justified before God through the sacrifice of Christ.
(c) Be quickened with the life that is in Christ.
(d) Have a true rightness which is produced by God in and on the soul, that will bear the test of judgment, and be beautiful in the light of heaven.
(e) End its journey by sitting with Christ, and enjoying His glory. (T. Jones, D. D.)
Privileges no ground of trust
The list sounds much as if you or I were to say something of this kind: I am of a good Presbyterian stock. One of my ancestors fought at Bothwell Bridge for Christs crown and covenant, and another died as a martyr in the same cause in the Grassmarket of Edinburgh. There have been several ministers in my line, and many elders. I was baptized in a Presbyterian church, attended the Sabbath school, and became a communicant when I was eighteen. I have always attended the church regularly, kept up family worship, and lived a decorous life. I am well read in sound theology; hold rigidly in my opinions by the Westminster Confession; and have now and again taken a part in controversies about election, or the extent of the atonement. This is all well, very well, so far as it goes. But if you or I be in any degree looking to these things–to any of them, or to all of them taken together–as a ground of hope for eternity, we are, in so far, occupying a religious position corresponding very exactly with that of Paul before his conversion to Christ. (R. Johnstone, LL. D.)
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell
Verse 4. Though I might also have confidence] If any of them have any cause to boast in outward rites and privileges, I have as much; yea, more.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
Though I might also have confidence in the flesh: to prevent any cavil about what he said, as if he did magnify Christ, and forbear glorying in those external privileges they did so much bear themselves upon, out of envy to them for what they had; he here argues upon supposition, (as elsewhere, to cut off occasion from boasters, 2Co 11:12,18,21,22), that, if it were lawful, and would turn to any good account, to confide in the flesh, he had the same ground the impostors had, and might build up that in himself which he had destroyed in others, Gal 2:18.
If any other man thinketh that he hath whereof he might trust in the flesh, I more: yea, and to compare things by a just balance, if any of those he had justly taxed, or any other in conceit might hold his head higher in that way, he could produce not only as much, but much more ground of trust in those external rites, &c. as he that was most excellent; only that it was in vain, and of no value, Phi 3:7.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
4. “Although I (emphatical)might have confidence even in the flesh.” Literally, “Ihaving,” but not using, “confidence in the flesh.”
I morehave more”whereof I might have confidence in the flesh.”
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
Though I might also have confidence in the flesh,…. This he says, lest it should be objected to him, that the reason why he had no confidence in the flesh, and did not boast of it, was, because he could not; he had nothing to glory of, and put his confidence in, and therefore acted the common part of such persons, who despise what either they have not, or are ignorant of: but this was not the apostle’s case, he had as much reason, and as good a foundation for trust in himself, his privileges and attainments, as any man had, and more; and his meaning here is not, that he might lawfully have confidence in the flesh, for that is criminal in every one, but that he had as good pretensions to it; and were it lawful, might with greater appearance of truth do it than some other persons, or indeed any other:
if any other man thinketh that he hath whereof he might trust in the flesh, I more: the sense is, if there were any other person besides the false teachers he speaks of in Php 3:2; that were of the judaizing sect, or any whatever of the Jewish nation, be he who he will, who thought within himself he had, or seemed to others to have (for all such confidence, and the grounds of it, are only in show and appearance, and in imagination, not in reality), reasons for boasting and trusting in himself and in his carnal privileges and performances, the apostle had more, and which he enumerates in Php 3:5; not but that he might be exceeded by some in some one particular or another; as for instance, he was not of the tribe of Levi: nor of Judah; he was neither of the house of Aaron, nor of David; neither of the priestly line, nor of the blood royal; but taking all together, there was not a man in whom so many reasons met, for boasting and confidence in the flesh, as in himself.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
| False Confidence Renounced. | A. D. 62. |
4 Though I might also have confidence in the flesh. If any other man thinketh that he hath whereof he might trust in the flesh, I more: 5 Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee; 6 Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless. 7 But what things were gain to me, those I counted loss for Christ. 8 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,
The apostle here proposes himself for an example of trusting in Christ only, and not in his privileges as an Israelite.
I. He shows what he had to boast of as a Jew and a Pharisee. Let none think that the apostle despised these things (as men commonly do) because he had them not himself to glory in. No, if he would have gloried and trusted in the flesh, he had as much cause to do so as any man: If any other man thinketh that he hath whereof to trust in the flesh, I more, v. 4. He had as much to boast of as any Jew of them all. 1. His birth-right privileges. He was not a proselyte, but a native Israelite: of the stock of Israel. And he was of the tribe of Benjamin, in which tribe the temple stood, and which adhered to Judah when all the other tribes revolted. Benjamin was the father’s darling, and this was a favourite tribe. A Hebrew of the Hebrews, an Israelite on both sides, by father and mother, and from one generation to another; none of his ancestors had matched with Gentiles. 2. He could boast of his relations to the church and the covenant, for he was circumcised the eighth day; he had the token of God’s covenant in his flesh, and was circumcised the very day which God had appointed. 3. For learning, he was a Pharisee, brought up at the feet of Gamaliel, an eminent doctor of the law: and was a scholar learned in all the learning of the Jews, taught according to the perfect manner of the laws of the fathers, Acts xxii. 3. He was a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee (Acts xxiii. 6), and after the most strict sect of his religion lived a Pharisee, Acts xxvi. 5. 4. He had a blameless conversation: Toughing the righteousness which is of the law, blameless: as far as the Pharisees’ exposition of the law went, and as to the mere letter of the law and outward observance of it, he could acquit himself from the breach of it and could not be accused by any. 5. He had been an active man for his religion. As he made a strict profession of it, under the title and character of a Pharisee, so he persecuted those whom he looked upon as enemies to it. Concerning zeal, persecuting the church. 6. He showed that he was in good earnest, though he had a zeal without knowledge to direct and govern the exercise of it: I was zealous towards God, as you all are this day, and I persecuted this way unto the death,Act 22:3; Act 22:4. All this was enough to have made a proud Jew confident, and was stock sufficient to set up with for his justification. But,
II. The apostle tells us here how little account he made of these, in comparison of his interest in Christ and his expectations from him: But what things were gain to me those have I counted loss for Christ (v. 7); that is, those things which he had counted gain while he was a Pharisee, and which he had before reckoned up, these he counted loss for Christ. “I should have reckoned myself an unspeakable loser of, to adhere to them, I had lost my interest in Jesus Christ.” He counted them loss; not only insufficient to enrich him, but what would certainly impoverish and ruin him, if he trusted to them, in opposition to Christ. Observe, The apostle did not persuade them to do any thing but what he had himself did, to quit any thing but what he had himself quitted, nor venture on any bottom but what he himself had ventured his immortal soul upon.–Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord, v. 8. Here the apostle explains himself. 1. He tells us what it was that he was ambitious of and reached after: it was the knowledge of Christ Jesus his Lord, a believing experimental acquaintance with Christ as Lord; not a merely notional and speculative, but a practical and efficacious knowledge of him. So knowledge is sometimes put for faith: By his knowledge, or the knowledge of him, shall my righteous servant justify many, Isa. liii. 11. And it is the excellency of knowledge. There is an abundant and transcendent excellency in the doctrine of Christ, or the Christian religion above all the knowledge of nature, and improvements of human wisdom; for it is suited to the case of fallen sinners, and furnishes them with all they need and all they can desire and hope for, with all saving wisdom and saving grace. 2. He shows how he had quitted his privileges as a Jew and a Pharisee: Yea doubtless; his expression rises with a holy triumph and elevation, alla men oun ge kai. There are five particles in the original: But indeed even also do I count all things but loss. He had spoken before of those things, his Jewish privileges: here he speaks of all things, all worldly enjoyments and mere outward privileges whatsoever, things of a like kind or any other kind which could stand in competition with Christ for the throne in his heart, or pretend to merit and desert. There he had said that he did count them but loss; but it might be asked, “Did he continue still in the same mind, did he not repent his renouncing them?” No, now he speaks in the present tense: Yea doubtless, I do count them but loss. But it may be said, “It is easy to say so; but what would he do when he came to the trial?” Why he tells us that he had himself practised according to this estimate of the case: For whom I have suffered the loss of all things. He had quitted all his honours and advantages, as a Jew and a Pharisee, and submitted to all the disgrace and suffering which attended the profession and preaching of the gospel. When he embarked in the bottom of the Christian religion, he ventured all in it, and suffered the loss of all for the privileges of a Christian. Nay, he not only counted them loss, but dung, skybala—offals thrown to dogs; they are not only less valuable than Christ, but in the highest degree contemptible, when they come in competition with him. Note, The New Testament never speaks of saving grace in any terms of diminution, but on the contrary represents it as the fruits of the divine Spirit and the image of God in the soul of man; as a divine nature, and the seed of God: and faith is called precious faith; and meekness is in the sight of God of great price,1Pe 3:4; 2Pe 1:1, &c.
Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary
Might have (). Rather, “even though myself having.”
Confidence (). Late word, condemned by the Atticists, from (just used). See 2Cor 1:15; 2Cor 3:4.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
Though I might also have confidence [ ] . Lit., even though myself having confidence. Also should be joined with the flesh and rendered even. Rev., though I myself might have confidence even in the flesh. The sense of the translation might have is correct; but Paul puts it that he actually has confidence in the flesh, placing himself at the Jews ‘ stand – point.
Thinketh that he hath whereof he might trust [ ] . The A. V. is needlessly verbose. Rev., much better, thinketh to have confidence.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
WARNING AGAINST TRUST IN LAW RIGHTEOUSNESS
1) Though I might also have confidence in the flesh” (kaiper ego echon pepoithesin) “Even though I might have or hold trust in the natural man,” the flesh, a common depraved ground for fleshly rejoicing or boasting.
2) “If any other man thinketh” (ei tis dokei allos) “if anyone else thinks or presumed to trust in the flesh,” Rom 3:1-3; Rom 4:9-12.
3) “That he hath whereof he might trust in the flesh” (pepoithenai en sarki) “to trust in (the) flesh,” 2Co 11:18-22.
4) “I more” (ego mallon) “I (even) more”; 2Co 11:5; Gal 5:6. Men have always been saved through faith in the Messiah, Jesus Christ; without circumcision in the flesh, and without ceremonies or deeds of the law as means or methods for acquiring righteousness with and justification before God, Rom 4:1-4; Rom 11:6.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
4 Though I might also He does not speak of the disposition exercised by him, but he intimates, that he has also ground of glorying, if he were inclined to imitate their folly. The meaning therefore is, “My glorying, indeed, is placed in Christ, but, were it warrantable to glory in the flesh, I have also no want of materials.” And from this we learn in what manner to reprove the arrogance of those who glory in something apart from Christ. If we are ourselves in possession of those very things in which they glory, let us not allow them to triumph over Christ by an unseemly boasting, without retorting upon them also our grounds of glorying, that they may understand that it is not through envy that we reckon of no value, nay, even voluntarily renounce those things on which they set the highest value. Let, however, the conclusion be always of this nature — that all confidence in the flesh is vain and preposterous.
If any one has confidence in the flesh, I more Not satisfied with putting himself on a level with any one of them, he even gives himself the preference to them. Hence he cannot on this account be suspected, as though he were envious of their excellence, and extolled Christ with the view of making his own deficiencies appear the less inconsiderable. He says, therefore, that, if it were coming to be matter of dispute, he would be superior to others. For they had nothing (as we shall see erelong) that he had not on his part equally with them, while in some things he greatly excelled them. He says, not using the term in its strict sense, that he has confidence in the flesh, on the ground that, while not placing confidence in them, he was furnished with those grounds of fleshly glorying, on account of which they were puffed up.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
CRITICAL AND EXPLANATORY NOTES
Php. 3:4. Though I might also have confidence in the flesh.They will never be able to say he speaks evil of that which he knows not. If there is any profit in that direction, he might say, I will set my foot as far as who goes farthest. An argumentum ad hominem.
Php. 3:5. Circumcised the eighth day.Beginning with this he works his way, through this and the following verses, to the climax of the straitest sect. The items of this verse have to do with the birth and education of the apostle.
Php. 3:6. Concerning zeal.An expression of intense irony, condemning while he seems to exalt his former self (Lightfoot). Righteousness which is in the law.Legal righteousness. Exact attention to all its manifold commands and prohibitions.
Php. 3:7. What things were gain.The various points in which I had considered myself fortunate, giving me an advantage over others. Those I counted loss for Christ.The tense of the verb counted denotes an action the result of which continues. It leaves no place for after-regrets, like those of the woman who stopped to look back on Sodom. St. Paul counts his Judaism, with its emoluments, well lost. Having found one pearl of great price, he went and sold all that he had and bought it (Mat. 13:46).
Php. 3:8. Yea, doubtless, and I count, etc.A more explicit statement of the abiding satisfaction with the chosen lot. I still do count. All things.Whatever they may benot simply those named above. For the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus.The eminent quality of a possession attained is the ground for estimating other possessions according to their relation to that one (Meyer). For whom I have suffered the loss of all things.The words gain and loss are the same in these verses as in our Lords memorable saying, What doth it profit a man if he gain the whole world and forfeit his life? (Mar. 8:36). And do count them but dung.So R.V. text, refuse, margin. If we accept the meaning that which is thrown to the dogs, we have an apt interpretation, but we need to guard against attributing to the apostle subtleties of expression born in a lexicographers brain.
MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH.Php. 3:4-8
External Religionism incomparable with the True Knowledge of Christ.
I. The highest example of external religionism affords no ground for confident boasting (Php. 3:4-6).External religionism had its most complete embodiment in Paul. He was its most zealous devotee, its ablest champion. These verses describe the best eulogy that can be given of the observer of external rites. By birth, lineage, training, ability, consistency of character, and sincerity of aim, Paul was an ideal Jew, a model all his countrymen might aspire to copy. If there was ground for boasting, no one had a greater right than he. He needed no Christ, no Saviour; he was well able to look after himself. But one day the discovery came that all this glorying was vain; instead of gaining salvation he was farther from it than ever, and in danger of losing everything. Religious progress is often more apparent than real. When Captain Parry and his party were in search of the North Pole, after travelling several days with sledges over a vast field of ice, on taking a careful observation of the pole-star, the painful discovery was made that, while they were apparently advancing towards the pole, the ice-field on which they were travelling was drifting to the south, and bringing them nearer to the verge, not of the pole, but of destruction.
II. The supposed gains of external religionism are for Christs sake esteemed as loss.But what things were gain to me, those I counted loss for Christ (Php. 3:7). Not losses, compared with the plural of gains; but all the supposed gains are treated as one great loss, and this after the most careful scrutiny and calculation. I counted loss. The swelling sum of fancied virtues, painfully gathered and fondly and proudly contemplated, vanishes into nothing at one stroke of the discriminating pen. All that was prized as valuable, and as the all of personal possession, is regarded as dross, because of Christ. They did not help him to win Christ, but to lose Him; the more he gained in self-righteousness the more he lost of Christ. It was not only profitless, but productive of positive loss.
III. The surpassing excellency of the knowledge of Christ renders external religionism utterly worthless.I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord; and do count them but dung [refuse], that I may win Christ (Php. 3:8). The gains were: circumcision performed without any deviation from legal time or method; membership in the house of Israel, and connection with one of its most honoured tribes; descent from a long line of pure-blood ancestry; adherence to a sect whose prominent distinction was the observance of the old statutes; earnest and uncompromising hostility to a community accused of undermining the authority of the Mosaic code, and a merit based on blameless obedience to the law. These once gloried and confided in were counted as a loss, for the sake of a superior gain in the excellency of the knowledge of Christ. He was no loser by the loss he had willingly made, for the object of knowledge was the divine Saviour. Is it not super-eminent knowledge to know Him as the Christ; to know Him as Jesus, not because He wears our nature, but because we feel His human heart throbbing in unison with ours under trial and sorrow; to know Him as Lord, not simply because He wears a crown and wields a sceptre, but because we bow to His loving rule and gather the spoils of the victory which He has won and secured? The apostle made a just calculation, for neither ritualism, nor Israelitism, nor Pharisaism, nor zealotism, nor legalism could bring him those blessings with which the knowledge of Christ was connected; nay, until they were held as loss this gain of gains could not be acquired (Eadie). As with the two scales of a balance, writes Rieger, when one rises the other falls, and what I add to one diminishes the relative weight of the other; so as one adds to himself he takes away from the pre-eminence which the knowledge of Christ should have. What he concedes to Christ makes him willing to abase himself, to resign all confidence in His own works. Therefore the sharp expressions, to count as loss, as dung, become in experience not too severe; for to reject the grace of Christ, to regard the great plan of God in sending His Son as fruitless, were indeed far more terrible.
Lessons.
1. The highest kind and supreme end of all knowledge is the knowledge of Christ.
2. True religion is the spiritual knowledge of Christ.
3. Religion without Christ is an empty form.
GERM NOTES ON THE VERSES
Php. 3:4-7. Formalism tested and found wanting
I. The best that formalism can do for man, in religious lineage, reputation, zeal, and strictest outward observances, has been experimentally exemplified (Php. 3:5-6).
II. The most distinguished champion of formalism has confessed its utter inadequacy to satisfy the soul (Php. 3:4).
III. The highest advantages of formalism are worthless compared with Christ (Php. 3:7).
Php. 3:8. The Excellent Knowledge of Christ
I. Is extensive.Apprehends Him in all those notions and respects wherein the gospel principally discovers Him.
II. AppropriatingChrist Jesus my Lord.
III. Effectual.Has a powerful efficacy both upon heart and life, both upon judgment, affection, and practice.
IV. Fiducial.It brings the soul to rest upon Christ and His righteousness alone for pardon, acceptance, salvation.
V. Useful.He that has it studies to improve Christ, to make use of Him for those blessed and glorious purposes for which he knows Christ is given.
VI. Christ Himself is most excellent.
1. There is nothing in Him but what is excellent.
2. All excellencies in the creatures are eminently to be found in Christ.
3. All these excellencies are in Him in a more excellent manner; perfectly, without any shadow of imperfection; infinitely, without any bounds or limits; eternally and unchangeably, they ebb not, they wane not, they are always there in the full, they alter not, they decay not.
4. Not only all that are in the creatures, but innumerable more excellencies than are in all the creatures together, are in Christ alone.
VI. Those that have attained the excellent knowledge of Christ will not think much to lose all things to gain Christ.
1. All outward enjoyments and earthly possessions.
2. Personal righteousness as a means of justification.David Clarkson.
The Excellency of the Knowledge of Christ.
I. To know Christ in the divinity of His person is excellent knowledge.
II. To know Christ in the glory of His redemption is excellent knowledge.
III. The comparative worthlessness of all else.
1. Wealth.
2. Worldly honour.
3. Human learning.
4. Mere morality.
The Excellency of the Knowledge of Christ.
I. Its pre-eminent excellence is to be found in its certainty.Proved by
1. Prophecy.
2. Miracles.
3. Experience.
II. In its majesty and grandeur.
III. In its suitableness and adaptation.
IV. In its comprehensiveness.
V. The knowledge of Christ is sanctifying.R. Watson.
Christ the Only Gain.
I.
To count Him gain.
II.
To covet and seek Him as gain.
III.
To appropriate Him as gain.
IV.
To enjoy Him as gain.R. S. Candlish.
Fuente: The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary Edited by Joseph S. Exell
4. though I myself might have confidence even in the flesh: if any other man thinketh to have confidence in the flesh, I yet more: 5. circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee; 6. as touching zeal, persecuting the church; as touching the righteousness which is in the law, found blameless.
Translation and Paraphrase
4. although I myself could have confidence in the flesh (if that were the source of confidence). (Indeed) if any other man thinks he has grounds for confidence in the flesh, I (have even) more (than he has).
5. (I was) circumcised when I was eight days old. (I was not some Ishmaelite or off-branch from Abraham.) (I am) of the race of Israel (not a proselyte). (I am) of the (distinguished!) tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews (so completely Hebrew that I speak the Hebrew tongue). With regard to the law (I was) a Pharisee (holding their strict ideas about the law, and not the compromising position of many Hellenistic Jews).
6. With regard to zeal (I was) persecuting the church (of Christ); with regard to (the) righteousness (which) is (revealed) in the law, (I was) blameless.
Notes
1.
Php. 2:4 introduces a second argument as to why we must beware of the law-keepers (those Judaizers who try to make Christians keep the law of Moses): These people had less grounds for confidence in their physical distinctions than Paul had, and yet he placed no confidence in such things. Paul could denounce the Jewish view, for he once shared it to the fullest.
2.
To emphasize that he had more grounds for confidence in Jewish ancestry and Jewish honors than other people who gloried in such things, Paul itemized his own distinctions:
(1) He had been circumcised the eighth day of his life. (Cf. Luk. 1:59). This distinguished him from Gentiles, or proselytes, or Ishmaelites (who performed circumcision at age thirteen). Paul had lived all of his previous life in the Jewish faith.
(2) He was of the stock of Israel, of pure racial ancestry. See 2Co. 11:22.
(3) He was of the tribe of Benjamin (Rom. 11:1). This tribe was famous for its military prowess (Gen. 49:27; Jdg. 20:1-48), and for such honored names as King Saul and Mordecai (the cousin of Queen Esther). Paul was not from one of the ten renegade tribes.
(4) Paul was a Pharisee, as far as the law was concerned (Act. 23:6; Act. 26:5). The Pharisees were a strict denomination of Jews. Their very name means Separated. There were never more than 6000 of them. In spite of the hypocrisy of many of them, they were basically a strict, God-fearing group, accepting the entire Old Testament, and also the traditions which had developed around it. They refused to take part in the compromising life of many Jews of their time. Paul was not an apostate Hellenistic Jew (favorable to Greek culture) but a Pharisee.
(5) Paul was a persecutor as far as zeal was concerned. Details of Pauls (Sauls) persecutions of the church may be read in Act. 8:1; Act. 8:3; Act. 9:1-2; Act. 9:13-14; Act. 22:3-5; Act. 22:19-20; Act. 26:9-11.
Zeal for a correct cause is good. Phinehas the priest was commended for his zeal. (Num. 25:11-13). Christ had such zeal that he drove the money changers from the temple. (Psa. 69:9; Joh. 2:17). However, zeal for a false cause is useless, perhaps even deadly. See Rom. 10:2. Sauls zeal was like that.
(6) Paul was a blameless man, as far as the righteousness of the law was concerned. He had kept all the ceremonies and rituals of the law so faithfully that no one could find fault with his performance.
Strangely enough, however, Paul looked back upon this time when he was blameless according to the law as being a time when he was the chief of sinners. See 2Ti. 1:13-15. This shows that people can be self-deceived about their standing before God. Also it shows that the law really made no one righteous (Heb. 10:1-4).
3.
These six descriptions of Pauls life and attainments were written to show that he could have claimed, if he had so desired, more honors from the Jewish point of view, than any of those who did place their confidence in Jewish background and attainments.
Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series
4. I might also Having disavowed all actual trust in external advantages, the apostle now, in order to guard against the supposition that he has no right to these claims, affirms that he has a right to confidence in the flesh, but does not use it, as it is of no real value; and in such right he claims to have all that any of the Judaizers could boast himself to have, and more, as he proceeds to show.
Trust Better, have confidence, as it is the same Greek word already twice used.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘Though I myself might have confidence even in the flesh. If any other man thinks to have confidence in the flesh, I yet more,’
Paul then points out that if it came to ‘works of self-righteousness’, then when he was a Jew he had had far more to rely on as making him acceptable to God than their present visitors, for he had been a Jew from his earliest days, and circumcised as such, had been of pure descent and training, and as a Pharisee had been as zealous after works of righteousness as it was possible to be. And the implication is that yet it had been insufficient. By this he is cutting the ground from underneath anyone who might suggest that they had some kind of superiority that others should follow. He had had that superiority, but it had failed him, and having come face to face with the risen Christ he had counted all his self-effort as worthless in contrast with knowing Christ, which he had discovered to be all that he needed.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Paul Boasts in His Credentials as a Jew After warning the Philippians to beware of Judaizers who sneak into their congregations with false pretenses, Paul takes a minute to boast in his fleshly Jewish credentials. If anyone had a right to boast in his accomplishments as a Jew, Paul certainly had this right.
Php 3:4 Though I might also have confidence in the flesh. If any other man thinketh that he hath whereof he might trust in the flesh, I more:
Php 3:5 Php 3:5
Gen 21:4, “And Abraham circumcised his son Isaac being eight days old , as God had commanded him.”
Lev 12:2-3, “Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a woman have conceived seed, and born a man child: then she shall be unclean seven days; according to the days of the separation for her infirmity shall she be unclean. And in the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised .”
Exo 22:30, “Likewise shalt thou do with thine oxen, and with thy sheep: seven days it shall be with his dam; on the eighth day thou shalt give it me .”
Lev 14:10-11, “And on the eighth day he shall take two he lambs without blemish, and one ewe lamb of the first year without blemish, and three tenth deals of fine flour for a meat offering, mingled with oil, and one log of oil. And the priest that maketh him clean shall present the man that is to be made clean, and those things, before the LORD , at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation:”
Php 3:5 “of the tribe of Benjamin” Comments – The fact that a Jew could trace his ancestry back to a particular tribe of Israel often became a source of pride. It caused a Jew to look at himself as being better than a Gentile.
Php 3:5 “an Hebrew of the Hebrews” – Comments – This type of word construction is typical Hebrew. This word structure intensifies the word “Hebrew.” Other examples in the New Testament are “Lord of Lords” or “King of Kings.” Also, note:
Php 2:27, “For indeed he was sick nigh unto death: but God had mercy on him; and not on him only, but on me also, lest I should have sorrow upon sorrow .”
Within the Jewish community, there was a difference between being a Jew and calling oneself a Hebrew. J. B. Lightfoot says a Jew was one who could trace his heritage back to Abraham, while a Hebrew was one who spoke the Hebrew tongue and followed the Hebrew customs. [72] Paul did both (Act 21:40; Acts 22, 2, 3).
[72] J. B. Lightfoot, Paul’s Epistle to the Philippians (London: MacMillan and Co., c1868, 1903), 147.
Act 21:40, “And when he had given him licence, Paul stood on the stairs, and beckoned with the hand unto the people. And when there was made a great silence, he spake unto them in the Hebrew tongue , saying,”
Act 22:2, “(And when they heard that he spake in the Hebrew tongue to them, they kept the more silence: and he saith,)”
Act 22:3, “I am verily a man which am a Jew, born in Tarsus, a city in Cilicia, yet brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, and taught according to the perfect manner of the law of the fathers, and was zealous toward God, as ye all are this day .”
Php 3:6 Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless.
Php 3:6
Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures
Paul’s right to boast:
v. 4. Though I might also have confidence in the flesh. If any other man thinketh that he hath whereof he might trust in the flesh, I more:
v. 5. circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the Law, a Pharisee;
v. 6. concerning zeal, persecuting the Church; touching the righteousness which is in the Law, blameless. Somewhat after the manner in which he had spoken 2Co 11:21-30, Paul here offers evidence why he might boast with reason, if he should choose to argue from the standpoint of the Judaizing teachers: Although I also might have confidence in the flesh. If anyone else thinks he may have reliance on flesh, I more. The apostle would have reason to bring forward certain external advantages if he so chose, if there were any real benefit in so doing. He can meet the false teachers also in this field, on their own ground. If they were laboring under the perverted impression that everything depended upon these external things, then Paul has a much greater right to boast.
This he now proceeds to show: Eight days old as regards my circumcision: of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of the Hebrews; according to the Law, a Pharisee; concerning zeal, persecuting the Church; concerning the righteousness in the Law, blameless. The apostle was not merely a Jewish proselyte, he had been born in Judaism and had been brought up under its rites from the outset. The Judaizing teachers whom Paul had in mind at this time may have been mere proselytes of the gate and unable to point back to such a record. Paul was by birth an Israelite, of the original stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin. His pedigree was unquestioned; whereas many Jews could no longer trace their descent exactly, Paul had proofs for his lineal descent from Benjamin. He was a true Hebrew according to the flesh, he could hold up his head with the best of them. And as for the Law, so far as the external zeal for the Law was concerned, he was a Pharisee, a member of the strictest sect among the Jews. There could be no doubt that Paul had been perfectly sincere, absolutely conscientious as a keeper of the Law, that he had a clean record before the Jews, though he had acted in moral blindness. Yea, more, in zeal he had been far above the average Jew; so zealous had he been before his conversion that he had been a persecutor of the Church, having attempted to eradicate the “new sect. ” As for the righteousness, finally, which rests upon the Law, which gets its validity by the Law, he was blameless; he proved himself so earnest that no accusation on that score could be brought and sustained against him. So far as the external fulfillment of the Law was concerned, no one could have been more earnest or more successful. So he could easily challenge any one of the Judaizing opponents on any of the points upon which they usually harped, and overcome them.
Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann
Php 3:4. If any other man thinketh, &c. It can scarcely be supposed, that there were absolutely none who could pretend to the same grounds of confidence in the flesh, which St. Paul here mentions. His expression, therefore, is to be limited to such as he had in view. If there was but one person in Philippi, who was endeavouring to seduce them, no doubt he here speaks of him; but if there were more, he may be thought to aim at the principal man among them, for he seems here to speak only of a single person. His meaning therefore is, “If the person who attempts to draw you into Judaism, thinks he has grounds for confidence in the flesh, I am able to go beyond him in all his pretences.” It is usual with the Apostle to speak in such a covert delicate way of this kind of men. See 1Co 3:10. 2Co 7:11; 2Co 11:4; 2Co 12:16-21.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Phi 3:4 . By the ., which he had just used, Paul finds himself led to his own personal position; for he was, in fact, the proper organ of the anti-Judaizing tendency expressed in Phi 3:3 , and the real object against which the whole conflict with it was ultimately directed. Hence, by the words . he by no means intends to concede that he is destitute of that which was founded on externals; [153] no, in this respect also he has more to show than others, down to Phi 3:6 . [154] So no one might say that he was despising what he himself did not possess .
The classical with the participle (only used here by Paul; and elsewhere in the N.T. only in Heb 5:8 , et al.; 2Pe 1:12 ), adds to the adversative sentence a limiting concessive clause (Baeumlein, Partik . p. 201 f.), and that in such a way, that from the collective subject of the former the apostle now with emphasis singles out partitively his own person ( ). [155] If, following the Homeric usage, he had separated the two particles, he would have written: .; if he had expressed himself negatively , he would have said: .
The confidence also in flesh, i.e . in such circumstances as belong to the sphere of the materially human, is in (comp. 2Co 3:4 ) conceived as a possession; he has this confidence, namely, from his personal position as an Israelite a standpoint which, laying out of view for the moment his Christian transformation, he boldly adopts, in order to measure himself with his Judaistic opponents on their own ground of proud confidence, and thereupon in Phi 3:7 ff. yet again to abandon this standpoint and to make those Israelitish advantages vanish into nothing before the light of his vital position as a Christian. Hence the , his possession of which he in the first instance urges, is not fiduciae argumentum (Beza, Calvin, Grotius, Estius, and others, including Flatt, Hoelemann, and Weiss); nor is the possession of it to be viewed as something which he might have (Storr, Rilliet, Matthies, Ewald); nor is it to be referred to the pre-Christian period of the apostle’s life (van Hengel). The latter is also the view of Hofmann, who holds (and then also) as the imperfect participle, and gives to the whole passage the involved misinterpretation: that introduces a protasis, the apodosis of which follows with in Phi 3:7 . In accordance with this view, Phi 3:4 is supposed to mean: “ Although I possessed a confidence, and that, indeed, based on such matters as are flesh, if any other ventures to trust in such things, I for my part possessed confidence in a higher degree ”. This is erroneous; first, because the familiar of the apodosis is used indeed after (with finite tense; Stallbaum, ad Plat. Phaed . p. 68 E; Parm . p. 128 C), but not after the common with participle, attaching itself to a governing verb; secondly, because before means nothing else than also , which does not suit the interpretation of Hofmann, who desires to force upon it the here inappropriate sense, and that indeed; thirdly, because the present presupposes the present sense for also; and lastly, because with the present (in accordance with the preceding ), and not the imperfect, again suggests itself as to be supplied. And how awkward would be the whole form of expression for the, after all, very simple idea!
] quite generally: any other person , but the intended application to the above-mentioned Judaizers was obvious to the reader. See the sequel. The separation by lays all the stronger stress on the .
] not: “ thinks to be able to confide” (de Wette and many others); nor yet: “si quis alius videtur ” (Vulgate), since it is a matter depending not upon the judgment of others, but upon his own fancy , according to the connection. Hence: if any one allows himself to think , if he presumes . Just in the same way, as in the passage parallel also in substance, Mat 3:9 . Comp. 1Co 11:16 .
] sc . . , I for my part presume it still more. This mode of expression implies a certain boldness, defiance; comp. 2Co 11:21 .
[153] , namely, in addition to the higher Christian relations, on which I place my confidence.
[154] Only a comma is to be placed after in ver. 3; but after in ver. 4 a full stop; and after in ver. 6 another full stop. So also Lachmann and Tischendorf. In opposition to Hofmann’s confusing construction of the sentence, see below.
[155] Comp. Khner, II. 1, p. 246. 8.
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
XV
PAUL’S EARLY LIFE BEFORE HE ENTERS THE NEW TESTAMENT STORY
Act 21:39
This discussion does not make much headway in the text book, but it covers an immense amount of territory in its facts and significance. This section is found in Goodwin’s Harmony of the Life of Paul, pages 15-17, and the theme is Paul’s history up to the time that he enters the New Testament story. Saul, now called Paul, a Jew, of the tribe of Benjamin, of the sect of the Pharisees, yet a freeborn Roman citizen, by occupation a tentmaker, by office a rabbi, and a member of the Sanhedrin, was born in the city of Tarsus, in the province of Cilicia, about the time of our Lord’s birth. Tarsus was situated on the narrow coast line of the eastern part of the Mediterranean, just under the great Taurus range of mountains, and on the beautiful river Cydnus, which has a cataract just before it reaches the city, and a fall, beautiful then and beautiful now, coming down into that fertile plain where the city goes into a fine harbor, which opens the city to the commerce of the world through the Mediterranean Sea. It was on the great Roman thoroughfare, which was one of the best roads in the world. There were two of these mountain ranges, one of them right up above the city through the Taurus range into the coast of Asia Minor, the other following the coast line, which leads into Syria. This is the way that the mountains came down close to the sea, making a certain point very precipitous, and there was a typical beach between those mountains and the sea. That road into Syria was called the Oriental way. Over the Roman thoroughfare passed the land traffic, travel and marching armies for centuries. It was in that pass that Alexander fought his first great battle against the Persians, and thus obtained an entrance into the East. It was through that pass that, marching westward, and before Alexander’s time, Xerxes the Great, the husband of Esther (mentioned in the Bible), marched his 5,000,000 men to invade Greece. I could mention perhaps fifty decisive battles in ancient history that were set and were successful conquests by preoccupation of that pass. That shows the strategical position of this city that it commanded the passes of the Taurus into Asia Minor, and the pass into Syria, and through its fine harbor came in touch with the commerce of the world on the Mediterranean Sea.
Paul says that it was “no mean city,” in size or in population. It was notable, (1) for its manufacture, that of weaving, particularly goat’s hair, for on that Taurus range lived goats with very long hair, and this was woven into ropes, tents, and things of that kind; (2) because it was the capital of the province of Cilicia; (3) because, under Rome, it was a free city, i.e., it had the management of its own internal affairs, which constituted a city a free city, like the free city of Bremer in the early history of Germany. Other cities would be under the feudal lords, but there were a number of cities free, and these elected their own burghers, and governed their own municipal matters a tremendous advantage.
Tarsus received from the Roman Emperor the privilege of being a free city. Keep these facts well in mind, especially and particularly as regards the land and sea commerce. (4) Because it possessed one of the three great world-famous universities. There were just three of them at that time: One at Tarsus; one at Alexandria, at the mouth of the Nile; and one at Athens. It was not like some other cities, remarkable for its great buildings, its public games and its works of art. You could see more fine buildings in Athens or in Ephesus or in Corinth than you had any right to look for in Tarsus. It celebrated no such games as were celebrated in the May festivals at Ephesus, and in the great Greek amphitheater in that city, or in such games as the Isthmian, celebrated in Corinth. It was not remarkable for any of these. Its popular religion was a low and mixed order of Oriental paganism. There is this difference between the Oriental and Occidental heathen the former in the East, and the latter at Rome, and the West. Ephesus had an Oriental religion, though it was a Greek city. Tarsus, too, was a Greek city, but was partly Phoenician and partly Syrian. There were more arts and intellectuality in western paganism than in the Oriental, which was low, bestial, sensual, in every way brutal, shameful, immodest, and outrageous. The Phoenicians, who had a great deal to do with establishing the city of Tarsus, had that brutal, low form of paganism. That infamous emperor, Sargon, celebrated in the Bible, the Oriental king of the original Nineveh, was worshiped in that city. There never lived a man that devoted himself more than he to luxury in its fine dress, gorgeous festivals, its gluttony, its drunkenness, its beastiality. Paul was born in that city, and he could look out any day and see the heathen that he has so well described in chapter 1 of the letter to the Romans.
Citizenship in a free city under Rome did not make one a Roman citizen, as did citizenship in Philippi, a colony. To be born in a free city did not make one a Roman citizen. It conferred upon its members, its own citizens, the right to manage their own municipal affairs. To be born in Philippi would make one a Roman citizen, because Philippi was a colony. The name of its citizens were still retained on the muster roll in the city of Rome. They had all the privileges of Roman citizenship. Their officers were Roman officers. They had processions, with the magistrates, and the lictors and with the bundles of rods. But there was nothing like that in Tarsus. The question came up in Paul’s lifetime, when the commander of a legion heard Paul claiming that be was a Roman citizen. This commander says that with a great sum of money he did purchase his citizenship in Rome. Paul says, “But I was freeborn.” If freeborn, how then could he have obtained it? In one of two ways: Before Christ was born, Pompey invaded Jerusalem, and took it. He was one of the first great triumvirate, with Julius Caesar and Marcus L. Crassus. Pompey’s field of labor was in the East, Caesar’s was in the West, and he (Pompey) took Jerusalem and led into slavery many Jews of the best families. When these slaves were brought to Rome, if they showed culture, social position, educational advantages, they were promoted to a high rank or office, among slaves; and if they particularly pleased their owners they were manumitted, either during the lifetime of their owner, or by will after his death. In this way many noble captives from all parts of the world were carried as slaves to Rome. They were first set free and then had conferred upon them the rights of Roman citizenship. It could have been that Cassius, who with Brutus, after the killing of Julius Caesar, combined against Mark Anthony, and Octavius (Augustus), who became the emperor and was reigning when Christ was born, captured this city of Tarsus and led many of its citizens into Rome as slaves. Paul’s grandfather, therefore, or his father, might have been led away captive to Rome, and through his high social position and culture may have been manumitted, and then received as a citizen. Necessarily it occurred before this boy’s time, because when he was born, he was born a Roman citizen. It could be transmitted, but he had not acquired it.
There is a difference between the terms Jew, Hebrew, Israelite, Hellenist, and a “Hebrew of the Hebrews.” All these are used by Paul and Luke in Acts. We get our word, “Hebrew” from Heber, an ancestor of Abraham. Literature shows that the descendants of Heber were Hebrews, and in the Old Testament Abraham is called “the Hebrew.” That was not the meaning of the word in New Testament times. We come to the New Testament meaning in Act 6 , which speaks of the ordination of deacons, and uses the word “Hebrew” in distinction from “Hellenist.” They both, of course, mean Jews. While a Hebrew in the New Testament usually lived in Palestine, but not necessarily, he was one who still spoke or was able to read the original Hebrew language and who practiced the strict Hebrew cult. A “Hellenist” was a Jew who had either been led into exile, or who, for the sake of trade, had gone into other nations, and settled among those people and had become liberalized, lost the use of the Hebrew tongue entirely, and neither spoke nor wrote the Hebrew language, but who spoke and wrote mainly in Greek. “Hellenist” is simply another term for “Greek.” Whether used in the New Testament Greek or the Hellenistic Greek, it means Jews living among Greek people, and who had acquired the language, and in the many respects had followed more liberal Greek customs. Then a Hebrew living in Palestine would not allow himself to be liberalized.
Paul lived out of Judea. He, his father, and indeed his grandfather, adhered strictly to all the distinguishing characteristics of the Hebrews. The “Israelite” and the “Jew” mean anybody descended from Jacob. “Israelite” commenced lower down in the descent. “Hebrew” gets its name from the ancestor of Abraham, but an Israelite was a descendant of Jacob. The distinction of “Jew” came a little later to those descendants of Jacob living in Judea. The “Hebrew of the Hebrews” means a Jew-who went to the greatest possible extreme in following the Hebrew language, cult, habits, training, and religion. He was an extremist among them.
Some people would suppose from Paul’s occupation tentmaking (he worked at that occupation, making tents with Aquila and Priscilla) that from this unskilled labor his family were low in the social position, and poor. The inference is wholly untenable. In the first place, every Jew had to have a trade, even though he were a millionaire, and Paul’s old teacher, Gamaliel, used this language: “Any kind of learning without a useful trade leads to sin.” Paul took up this trade because he lived at Tarsus. There anybody could go out and learn the trade of weaving ropes and check-cloth made out of the long hair of Mount Taurus goats. The trade would not simply satisfy the Jewish requirement, but a man could make his living by it. We see Paul a little later making his living just that way. Well for Paul that he knew something besides books.
I am more and more inclined to follow an industrial idea in systems of education. We have our schools and universities where the boys and girls learn a great deal about books, and the girl goes home and does not know how to make bread. She does not know how to rear a brood of chickens; she does not know how a house is to be kept clean, nor how to keep windows clean. The floors in the corners and in places under the beds and sofas are unswept. Boys come home that cannot make a hoe handle. They have no mechanical sense, no trade. They can neither make a pair of shoes nor a hat nor a pair of socks, nor anything they wear. And thus graduates of universities stand with their fingers in their mouths in the great byways of the world practically beggars not knowing how to do anything.
The Jews guarded against that. Let Paul fall on his feet anywhere, and withdraw from him every outside source of financial support, and he would say, “With these hands did I minister to my necessities.” He could go out and get a piece of work. He knew how to do it. All this is bearing on the social and financial position of Paul’s family. Everything indicates the high social position of his family, and that it occupied a high financial position. They did not take the children of the lowest abode and give them such an ecclesiastical training as Paul had. They did not educate them for the position of rabbi, nor let them take a degree in the highest theological seminary in the world. Paul’s family, then, was a good one.
Paul’s religious and educational advantages were on two distinct lines: Purely ecclesiastical or religious, and I can tell just exactly what it was. A little Hebrew boy five years old had to learn the Ten Commandments, and the hallelujah psalms. When six, he advanced to other things which could be specified particularly. His education commenced in the home and went on until he entered the synagogue, which trained him in all the rudiments of biblical education. When he was twelve or thirteen years old he was called “a son of the commandments.” Just like the occasion suggests when Jesus was twelve years old he had them take him to Jerusalem, and he was allowed to go into the Temple and to be with the great doctors there.
When Paul was twelve or thirteen his influential father sent him to the great theological seminary. There were two of these seminaries. One had a greater influence than the other in the city of Jerusalem. Therefore, he says, “I was brought up in this city. I was born in Tarsus, but brought up in the city of Jerusalem, at the feet of Gamaliel.” He was a very noble character. The opposite seminary differed from this one. It was the Shammai Seminary, differing from the other on this point: The Shammai Seminary was very narrow; did not allow its pupils to know anything about literature whatsoever except religious literature. But the aged Gamaliel said to Paul and to all his other students, “There are certain classical lines along which you may study and learn.” This is the kind which Paul attended, the school of Gamaliel, graduating there and becoming a doctor of divinity, or a rabbi. He studied profoundly. This religious part of his education he got in the original Hebrew. When he and Jesus met at the time of his conversion, they spoke in the Hebrew tongue to each other. “There came a voice which said in the Hebrew [the old Hebrew tongue], Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?” And he answered in the Hebrew. Then, of course, he spoke and wrote in the Aramaic, which was the common dialect in Judea, and different from the Hebrew, since the Hebrew had gone altogether out of use in the ordinary speech, and almost in the ordinary reading.
The New Testament abounds in evidence of Paul’s general educational advantages. The city of Tarsus possessed one of the three great universities of the world. Did Paul take a course in that? There is no evidence that he did, and no probability that he did. For the universities in that day did not mean as much as they do today in a certain line, though I am sorry to say that the great universities of the present day are dropping back and adopting the old utterly worthless studies of the universities of that day; that is, speculative philosophy about the origin of things, and they do not know anything more when they get through than when they began. Also the Epicurean philosophy, which we now call “Darwinism,” making a speculative study of biology, botany, geology, etc., trying to prove that everything came from a primordial germ, and that man not only developed from a monkey, but from a jellyfish, and that the jellyfish developed from some vegetable, and that the vegetable is a development of some inorganic and lifeless matter.
There never was at any time in the world one particle of truth in the whole business. None of it can ever be a science. It does not belong to the realm of science.
Saul never had a moment’s time to spend in a heathen university, listening to their sophistries, and to these philosophical speculations, or vagaries. If he were living now he would be made president of some university. We learn from the Syrians that one of these universities, the one in Tarsus, had a professor who once stole something, and was put in “limbo.” Their university professors were also intensely jealous. They had all sorts of squabbles, one part in a row with another part; so that after all there was not much to be learned in the universities of those times, and after a while there will not be much in ours, if we go on as we are now going. I am not referring to any university, particularly, but I am referring to any and all, where philosophical speculations are made thee basis of botany, zoology, natural history of any kind, geology, or any kindred thing. Paul struck it in the city of Athens, its birthplace, and smote it hip and thigh.
I do not suppose at all that Paul was a student in the university of Tarsus, but that while he was at Jerusalem, and under the teaching of Gamaliel, he did study such classics as would be permitted to a Jewish mind. Hence we find in his letters expressions like this: “One of themselves, a prophet of their own said, Cretans are always liars,” and when at Athena he says, “Certain, even of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.” How could he become acquainted with those classical allusions if he had never studied such things? That chiliarch, who commanded a thousand men a legion said to Paul, “Do you speak Greek?” He had heard him speaking Greek. Of course he spoke Greek, and wrote Greek, All of his letters were written in Greek. He had learned that Greek language somewhere. He had not learned it in that university at Tarsus, but in the Seminary at Jerusalem. Take his letters and see his profound acquaintance with the Greek games of every kind. Some of them he may have attended, but he certainly knew all about them as though he had witnessed them. He may have seen only an occasional game. So he must have learned it from the literature, for he discusses every phase of it, especially the foot-racing, the combats in the arena between the gladiators, and the wrestling with the lions in the arena. His letters are full of allusions that indicate his acquaintance with the Greek literature. At Alexandria there was one of the other universities, a much greater one in its Greek literature than the university of Tarsus. Alexandria was founded by a Greek, Alexander the Great. One of the Ptolemies had a great library, the greatest library in the world, which was destroyed by the Saracens. But notice also how Paul puts his finger right upon the very center and heart of every heathen philosophy, like that of Epicureanism our Darwinism; that he debated in Athens; and note the Stoics whom he met while there, and the Platonians, or the Peripatetics. You will find that that one little speech of his, which he delivered in the city of Athens, contains an allusion which showed that he was thoroughly and profoundly acquainted with every run and sweep of the philosophic thought of the day, and anybody not thus acquainted could not have delivered that address. This is to show the general culture of his mind.
Take the mountain torrent of his passion in the rapid letter to the Galatians. Take the keen logic, the irresistibility of its reasoning, which appears in the letter to the Romans, or take that sweetest language that ever came from the lips or pen of mortal man, that eulogy on love in 1Co 13 . Then take the letter to Philemon, which all the world has considered a masterpiece in epistolary correspondence. It implies that he was scholarly. Look at these varieties of Saul’s education. He was a man whose range of information swept the world. He was the one scholar in the whole number of the apostles the great scholar and I do not see how any man can read the different varieties of style or delicacy of touch, the analysis of his logic or reasoning, which appear in Paul’s letters, and doubt that he had a broad, a deep, a high, and a grand general education.
As to Paul’s family the New Testament tells us in Act 23:16 that he had a married sister living in Jerusalem, and that that sister had a son, Paul’s nephew, who intervened very heroically to help Paul in a certain crisis of his life. And in Rom 16:7-11 are some other things that give light as to his family: “Salute Andronicus and Junias, my kinsmen, and my fellow-prisoners . . . who also have been in Christ before me.” Here are a man and a woman, Andronicus and Junias, Paul’s kinsfolk, well known to the apostles in Jerusalem, for he says, “Who are of note among the apostles.” They were influential people, and they had become Christians before Paul was a Christian. Take Rom 16:11 : “Salute Herodion my kinsman,” and Rom 16:21 : “Timothy, my fellow worker saluteth you; and Lucius and Jason and Sosipater, my kinsmen.” So here we have found six individuals who are kinspeople to Paul, and who were all members of the church at Rome. We know that much of his family, anyhow.
The things which distinguished a Pharisee from a Sadducee were of several kinds: (1) The latter were materialists, whom we would call atheists. They believed in no spirit; that there was nothing but matter; that when a man died it was the last of him. (2) There were Epicureans: “Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die,” they said. (3) Also in their political views they differed from the Pharisees. The Pharisees were patriotic, and wanted the freedom of their nation. The Sadducees were inclined to the Roman government, and wanted to keep up the servitude to the Romans. (4) The Pharisees also cared more about a ritualistic religion. They were Puritans stern, and knew no compromise, adhering strictly to the letter of the law, in every respect. If they tithed, they would go into the garden and tithe the cummin and the anise. The phrase, “Pharisee of the Pharisees,” means one who would whittle all that down to a very fine point, or an extremist on that subject. He said (Gal 1:14 ), “I advanced in the Jews’ religion beyond many of mine own age among my countrymen, being more exceedingly zealous for the traditions of my fathers.” They were just Pharisees he was a Pharisee of the Pharisees. He went all the lengths that they would go, and he topped them. It meant something like this: “I am a son of Abraham; I am freeborn; I have never sinned; I need no vicarious expiation for me; I need no Holy Spirit; I was never in that bunch; you need not talk or present regeneration to me; I am just as white as snow.” It followed that they were not drunkards, they were not immoral; they were chaste, and did not have any of the brutal vices.
Paul had perhaps never met Jesus. They were about the same age. Paul went to Jerusalem when he was thirteen years old, and stayed there until he graduated in the same city. Some contend from certain expressions, as, “I have known Christ after the flesh; henceforth I will know him . . . no more,” that he had known Jesus in the flesh. It will be remembered that in the public ministry of Christ he was very seldom in Jerusalem. He stayed there a very short time when he did go. His ministry was mainly in Galilee. Even in that last mighty work of his in Jerusalem there is a big account of it but it just lasted a week. And Saul may have been absent at Tarsus during that time. I think when he saw Jesus the fact that he did not recognize him is proof enough, for if he had known him in the flesh he would have recognized him. But he said, “Who art thou?” when he saw him after he arose from the dead.
Paul, before conversion, was intensely conscientious in whatever he did free from all low vice, drunkenness and luxurious gluttony and sensuality of every kind. He was a very chaste man, a very honest man, a very sincere man, a very truthful man, and all this before conversion. I take it for granted that he was a married man. An orthodox Jew would not have passed the age of twenty unmarried. He could not be a member of the Sanhedrin without marrying; and in that famous passage in Corinthians he seems to intimate clearly that he was a married man. Speaking to virgins (that means unmarried men and women and includes both of them that had never married) he says so and so; and to widows and widowers, “I wish they would remain such as I am.” It seems to me that the language very clearly shows that at that time he was a widower. Luther says that no man could write about the married state like Paul writes if he was an old bachelor. I think Luther is right; his judgment is very sound. Paul did not marry again; he remained a widower, and in the stress of the times advised other widowers and widows to remain in that state; but if they wanted to marry again to go ahead and do so; that it was no sin; but the stress of the times made it unwise; and he boldly took the position that he had a right to lead about a wife as much as Peter had, and Peter had a wife.
QUESTIONS
1. What the theme of this section?
2. What Saul’s name, nation, tribe, sect, citizenship, occupation, office, birthplace, and date of birth?
3. Give an account of Tarsus as to its political, strategical, commercial, manufacturing, educational advantages, and its popular religion.
4. Did citizenship in a free city under Rome make one a Roman citizen as did citizenship in Philippi, a colony?
5. How, then, could one obtain it?
6. Distinguish the difference between these terms: Jew, Hebrew, Israelite, Hellinist, and a “Hebrew of the Hebrews.”
7. What the social and financial position of Paul’s family, particularly in view of his occupation?
8. What Paul’s religious and educational advantages?
9. What New Testament evidences are there of Paul’s general educational advantages?
10. What do we know about Paul’s family as seen in the New Testament?
11. Was Paul a rabbi? If so, where did he probably exercise his functions as a rabbi?
12. What is the meaning of the phrase, “Pharisee of the Pharisees?”
13. Did Paul ever meet Jesus before his death? If not, how account for it in view of the interest and publicity of the last week of our Lord’s life?
14. What was Paul’s character before conversion?
15. Was he a married man, and what the proof?
Fuente: B.H. Carroll’s An Interpretation of the English Bible
4 Though I might also have confidence in the flesh. If any other man thinketh that he hath whereof he might trust in the flesh, I more:
Ver. 4. Confidence in the flesh ] That is, in external privileges, which yet profit not those that rest in them. An empty title yields but an empty comfort at last. God cares for no retainers, that only wear his livery but serve themselves. A man may go to hell with baptismal water on his face; yea, the sooner for his abused privileges.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
4 .] Although (see Hartung, Partik. i. 340: , , , sch. Theb. 709: , , , Xen. Anab. i. 6. 10) I (emphatic. There is no ellipsis, but the construction is regular, , as in the above examples, having a participle after it: had it been , this would have been universally seen: now, only one of the , viz. , is made the exception; but the construction is the same) have (not, ‘ might have ,’ as E. V. I have it, but do not choose to make use of it: I have it, in the flesh, but I am still of the number of the , in spirit) confidence (not, ‘ ground of confidence ,’ as Beza, Calv., Grot., &c.: there is no need to soften the assertion, see above: nor, with Van Hengel, to understand it of the unconverted state of the Apostle) also (over and above) in the flesh. If any other man thinks ( is certainly, as De W., Wiesinger, al., and reff., of his own judgment of himself , not of other men’s judgment of him, as Meyer, al.: for how can other men’s judging of the fact of his having confidence be in place here? But it is his own judgment of the existence of the which is here in comparison) he has confidence in the flesh, I more :
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Phi 3:4-6 . PAUL’S CONFIDENCE IN THE FLESH.
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
Phi 3:4 . A very close parallel to the thought is found in 2Co 11:18-23 . . A rare construction in N.T. Three exx. occur in Hebrews. Viteau (who regards it as a survival of the literary language, see Le Verbe , p. 189) would resolve the clause and its context into , (p. 117), which seems a reasonable explanation. . The Apostle realised to the full what was involved in being a Jew. He felt the high prerogatives of the chosen people of God. Cf. Rom 3:1-2 . They were the heirs of the promises in a unique manner. But these remarkable privileges ought to have produced in them willing submission to God’s universal purpose of mercy instead of being incentives to mere self-complacency and bitter prejudice. . Zahn (see crit. note supr. ) omits with some good authorities, assigning its origin to a false exegesis which believed that Paul had some fleshly trust besides his Christian boasting. But seems quite in place, as Paul is simply, for the moment, regarding himself from a purely Jewish standpoint. . . “If anyone else presumes to trust.” A complete parallel is Mat 3:9 , . cf. 1Co 11:16 . Akin to this use of is such a passage as Aristoph., Ran. , 564, , “Pretending to be mad”. We cannot help thinking that the usage is based on the impersonal use of the verb. In later Greek frequently means “think,” e.g. , Act 27:13 ; Acta Philip. , 95, 1; Plut., Timol. , viii., 3. In official Greek it is the regular equivalent of Latin censere , the technical term to denote the opinion of the Senate (see Viereck, Sermo Graecus , etc., p. 72). Holst, acutely notes that “ puts the . . subjectively, and denies that there is a reality corresponding to this false opinion. In this subjectivity there is irony.”
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
Philippians
THE LOSS OF ALL
Php 3:4-8 R.V..
We have already noted that in the previous verses the Apostle is beginning to prepare for closing his letter, but is carried away into the long digression of which our text forms the beginning. The last words of the former verse open a thought of which his mind is always full. It is as when an excavator strikes his pickaxe unwittingly into a hidden reservoir and the blow is followed by a rush of water, which carries away workmen and tools. Paul has struck into the very deepest thoughts which he has of the Gospel and out they pour. That one antithesis, ‘the loss of all, the gain of Christ,’ carried in it to him the whole truth of the Christian message. We may well ask ourselves what are the subjects which lie so near our hearts, and so fill our thoughts, that a chance word sets us off on them, and we cannot help talking of them when once we begin.
The text exemplifies another characteristic of Paul’s, his constant habit of quoting his own experience as illustrating the truth. His theology is the generalisation of his own experience, and yet that continual autobiographical reference is not egotism, for the light in which he delights to present himself is as the recipient of the great grace of God in pardoning sinners. It is a result of the complete saturation of himself with the Gospel. It was to him no mere body of principles or thoughts, it was the very food and life of his life. And so this characteristic reveals not only his natural fervour of character, but the profound and penetrating hold which the Gospel had on his whole being.
In our text he presents his own experience as the type to which ours must on the whole be conformed. He had gone through an earthquake which had shattered the very foundations of his life. He had come to despise all that he had counted most precious, and to clasp as the only true treasures all that he had despised. With him the revolution had turned his whole life upside down. Though the change cannot be so subversive and violent with us, the forsaking of self-confidence must be as real, and the clinging to Jesus must be as close, if our Christianity is to be fervid and dominant in our lives.
I. The treasures that were discovered to be worthless.
We have already had occasion in the previous sermon to refer to Paul’s catalogue of ‘things that were gain’ to him, but we must consider it a little more closely here. We may repeat that it is important for understanding Paul’s point of view to note that by ‘flesh’ he means the whole self considered as independent of God. The antithesis to it is ‘spirit,’ that is humanity regenerated and vitalised by Divine influence. ‘Flesh,’ then, is humanity not so vitalised. That is to say, it is ‘self,’ including both body and emotions, affections, thoughts, and will.
As to the points enumerated, they are those which made the ideal to a Jew, including purity of race, punctilious orthodoxy, flaming zeal, pugnacious antagonism, and blameless morality. With reference to race, the Jewish pride was in ‘circumcision on the eighth day,’ which was the exclusive privilege of one of pure blood. Proselytes might be circumcised in later life, but one of the ‘stock of Israel’ only on the ‘eighth day.’ Saul of Tarsus had in earlier days been proud of his tribal genealogy, which had apparently been carefully preserved in the Gentile home, and had shared ancestral pride in belonging to the once royal tribe, and perhaps in thinking that the blood of the king after whom he was named flowed in his veins. He was a ‘Hebrew of the Hebrews,’ which does not mean, as it is usually taken to do, intensely, superlatively Hebrew, but simply is equivalent to ‘myself a Hebrew, and come from pure Hebrew ancestors on both sides.’ Possibly also the phrase may have reference to purity of language and customs as well as blood. These four items make the first group. Paul still remembers the time when, in the blindness which he shared with his race, he believed that these wholly irrelevant points had to do with a man’s acceptance before God. He had once agreed with the Judaisers that ‘circumcision’ admitted Gentiles into the Jewish community, and so gave them a right to participate in the blessings of the Covenant.
Then follow the items of his more properly religious character, which seem in their three clauses to make a climax. ‘As touching the law a Pharisee,’ he was of the ‘straitest sect,’ the champions and representatives of the law. ‘As touching zeal persecuting the Church,’ it was not only in Judaism that the mark of zeal for a cause has been harassing its opponents. We can almost hear a tone of sad irony as Paul recalls that past, remembering how eagerly he had taken charge of the clothes trusted to his care by the witnesses who stoned Stephen, and how he had ‘breathed threatening and slaughter’ against the disciples. ‘As touching the righteousness which is in the law found blameless,’ he is evidently speaking of the obedience of outward actions and of blamelessness in the judgment of men.
So we get a living picture of Paul and of his confidence before he was a Christian. All these grounds for pride and self-satisfaction were like triple armour round the heart of the young Pharisee, who rode out of Jerusalem on the road to Damascus. How little he thought that they would all have been pierced and have dropped from him before he got there! The grounds of his confidence are antiquated in form, but in substance are modern. At bottom the things in which Paul’s ‘flesh’ trusted are exactly the same as those in which many of us trust. Even his pride of race continues to influence some of us. We have got the length of separating between our nationality and our acceptance with God, but we have still a kind of feeling that ‘God’s Englishmen,’ as Milton called them, have a place of their own, which is, if not a ground of confidence before God, at any rate a ground for carrying ourselves with very considerable complacency before men. It is not unheard of that people should rely, if not on ‘circumcision on the eighth day,’ on an outward rite which seems to connect them with a visible Church. Strict orthodoxy takes the place among us which Pharisaism held in Paul’s mind before he was a Christian, and it is easier to prove our zeal by pugnacity against heretics, than by fervour of devotion. The modern analogue of Paul’s, ‘touching the righteousness which is in the law blameless,’ is ‘I have done my best, I have lived a decent life. My religion is to do good to other people.’ All such talk, which used to be a vague sentiment or excuse, is now put forward in definite theoretical substitution for the Christian Truth, and finds numerous teachers and acceptors. But how short a way all such grounds of confidence go to satisfy a soul that has once seen the vision that blazed in on Paul’s mind on the road to Damascus!
II. The discovery of their worthlessness.
‘These have I counted loss for Christ.’ There is a possibility of exaggeration in interpreting Paul’s words. The things that were ‘gain’ to him were in themselves better than their opposites. It is better to to be ‘blameless’ than to have a life all stained with foulness and reeking with sins. But these ‘gains’ were ‘losses,’ disadvantages, in so far as they led him to build upon them, and trust in them as solid wealth. The earthquake that shattered his life had two shocks: the first turned upside down his estimate of the value of his gains, the second robbed him of them. He first saw them to be worthless, and then, so far as others’ judgment went, he was stripped of them. Actively he ‘counted them loss,’ passively he ‘suffered the loss of all things.’ His estimate came, and was followed by the practical outcome of his brethren’s excommunication.
What changed his estimate? In our text he answers the question in two forms: first he gives the simple, all-sufficient monosyllabic reason for his whole life–’for Christ,’ and then he enlarges that motive into ‘the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord.’ The former carries us back straight to the vision which revolutionised Paul’s life, and made him abjure all which he had trusted, and adore what he had abhorred. The latter dwells a little more upon the subjective process which followed on the vision, but the two are substantially the same, and we need only note the solemn fulness of the name of ‘Jesus Christ,’ and the intense motion of submission and of personal appropriation contained in the designation, ‘my Lord.’ It was not when he found his way blinded into Damascus that he had learned that knowledge, or could apprehend its ‘excellency.’ The words are enriched and enlarged by later experiences. The sacrifice of his earlier ‘gains’ had been made before the ‘excellency of the knowledge’ had been discerned. It was no mere intellectual perception which could be imparted in words, or by eyesight, but here as always Paul by ‘knowledge’ means experience which comes from possession and acquaintance, and which therefore gleams ever before us as we move, and is capable of endless increase, in the measure in which we are true to the estimate of ‘gains’ and ‘losses’ to which our initial vision of Him has led us. At first we may not know that that knowledge excels all others, but as we grow in acquaintance with Jesus, and in experience of Him, we shall be sure that it transcends all others, because He does and we possess Him.
The revolutionising motive may be conceived of in two ways. We have to abandon the lower ‘gains’ in order to gain Christ, or to abandon these because we have gained Him. Both are true. The discernment of Christ as the one ground of confidence is ever followed by the casting away of all others. Self-distrust is a part of faith. When we feel our feet upon the rock, the crumbling sands on which we stood are left to be broken up by the sea. They who have seen the Apollo Belvedere will set little store by plaster of Paris casts. In all our lives there come times when the glimpse of some loftier ideal shows up our ordinary as hollow and poor and low. And when once Christ is seen, as Scripture shows Him, our former self appears poor and crumbles away.
We are not to suppose that the act of renunciation must be completed before a second act of possession is begun. That is the error of many ascetic books. The two go together, and abandonment in order to win merges into abandonment because we have won. The strongest power to make renunciation possible is ‘the expulsive power of a new affection.’ When the heart is filled with love to Christ there is no sense of ‘loss,’ but only of ‘exceeding gain,’ in casting away all things for Him.
III. The continuous repetition of the discovery.
Paul compares his present self with his former Christian self, and with a vehement ‘Yea, verily,’ affirms his former judgment, and reiterates it in still more emphatic terms. It is often easy to depreciate the treasures which we possess. They sometimes grow in value as they slip from our hands. It is not usual for a man who has ‘suffered the loss of all things’ to follow their disappearance by counting them ‘but dung.’ The constant repetition through the whole Christian course of the depreciatory estimate of grounds of confidence is plainly necessary. There are subtle temptations to the opposite course. It is hard to keep perfectly clear of all building on our own blamelessness or on our connection with the Christian Church, and we have need ever to renew the estimate which was once so epoch-making, and which ‘cast down all our imaginations and high things.’ If we do not carefully watch ourselves, the whispering tempter that was silenced will recover his breath again, and be once more ready to drop into our ears his poisonous suggestions. We have to take pains and ‘give earnest heed’ to the initial, revolutionary estimate, and to see that it is worked out habitually in our daily lives. It is a good exchange when we count ‘all but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus our Lord.’
Fuente: Expositions Of Holy Scripture by Alexander MacLaren
I might, &c. = having myself confidence (App-150.) in the flesh also. Here Paul takes the Judaizers on their own ground.
If. App-118.
any other man = any (App-123.) other (App-124.)
that . . . trust. Literally to have confidence.
trust. App-150.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
4.] Although (see Hartung, Partik. i. 340: , , , sch. Theb. 709: , , , Xen. Anab. i. 6. 10) I (emphatic. There is no ellipsis, but the construction is regular, , as in the above examples, having a participle after it: had it been , this would have been universally seen: now, only one of the , viz. , is made the exception; but the construction is the same) have (not, might have, as E. V. I have it, but do not choose to make use of it: I have it, in the flesh, but I am still of the number of the , in spirit) confidence (not, ground of confidence, as Beza, Calv., Grot., &c.: there is no need to soften the assertion, see above: nor, with Van Hengel, to understand it of the unconverted state of the Apostle) also (over and above) in the flesh. If any other man thinks ( is certainly, as De W., Wiesinger, al., and reff., of his own judgment of himself, not of other mens judgment of him, as Meyer, al.: for how can other mens judging of the fact of his having confidence be in place here? But it is his own judgment of the existence of the which is here in comparison) he has confidence in the flesh, I more:
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Php 3:4. , although I) The singular is included in the preceding plural: we glory, and I glory, although I, etc.; but because the discourse proceeds from the plural to the singular, I is interposed and is added, because the Philippians had been Gentiles. Paul was of the circumcision. Comp. Rev 17:8, note.-, having) for the construction depends on those things which go before[34]: Having, not using.- , if any other) a word of universal comprehension: other is sweetly redundant; comp. note ad Gregorii Neocaes. Paneg. p. 195.- , I more) i.e. , I have more ground for being confident. He speaks of his former feeling with a Mimesis[35] of those who gloried in such outward carnalities; see the following verse.
[34] being included in the –, constructed with the verb .-ED.
[35] An allusion, in the way of imitation, to his opponents mode of stating their grounds of confidence.-ED.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
Php 3:4
Php 3:4
though I myself might have confidence even in the flesh: if any other man thinketh to have confidence in the flesh, I yet more:-He here shows that he is not condemning a trust in the fleshly line of Abraham because he is deficient in this respect, for if any man had ground for trusting in his fleshly descent, he was the man. [Paul gives here his spiritual biography. The repetition of the pronoun I which occurs fifteen times in this passage shows the strong personal element running through it. He begins by a description of himself as Saul the Pharisee and gives a catalogue of the privileges and advantages which were the pride and glory of vain Pharisees and so proves that even from his opponents own point of view, which assumes all through this passage, that he had a better claim to boast than any of them, if he were so inclined.]
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
2Co 11:18-22
Reciprocal: Neh 8:10 – the joy Isa 55:2 – do ye Luk 8:18 – seemeth to have Luk 15:29 – Lo Luk 18:9 – which 2Co 10:5 – and every Gal 1:14 – being Phi 3:3 – have Phi 3:7 – General
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
(Php 3:4.) – Though I am in the possession of confidence too in the flesh. The apostle has just classed himself with those who had no trust in the flesh, and now he affirms that he too has trust in the flesh. It seems, but only seems to be a paradox. The conjunction , used only here by Paul, qualifies the previous assertion. Devarius, Klotz, 2.723. Instead of using the simple participle , he says- . Had he used the simple participle, there might have been a direct contradiction. He could not have it, and yet not have it at the same time. But he says- -he has it in possession, but not in use; as one may have a staff, though he does not lean upon it; may have money, though he does not spend it. Such is the plain meaning of the words, and thus literally understood, they present no difficulty.
Various attempts have been made to get rid of the supposed difficulty. Our translators have a rendering which the words do not justify-though I might also have confidence in the flesh-a translation similar to that of Storr, Rilliet, Matthies, Schinz, and virtually Rheinwald, who resolve it by . Neither is there any reason, with Beza, Calvin, Am Ende, and Hoelemann, to take by any metonymy for ground or reason of confidence; nor yet, with van Hengel, to refer the language to the past periods of Paul’s unconverted life. The apostle had declared of himself, that he belonged to those who have no confidence in the flesh; and lest his opponents should imagine that his want of confidence in the flesh was simply the absence of all foundation for it, and that he was making a virtue of necessity, he adds, that he had all the warrant any man ever had-nay, more warrant than most men ever had-to trust in the flesh. And therefore he subjoins-
, -if any other man thinketh that he has confidence in the flesh, I more. Our translators again follow such as make the verb fiducioe materiam habere-that he hath whereof he might trust in the flesh. The verb may denote either to think or to seem,-if any man thinketh in himself, or if any man appear to others, etc. Both meanings are found in the New Testament, and Meyer need scarcely have appealed to Ast’s Lexicon Platonicum in favour of the latter signification. With Wiesinger and De Wette we prefer the first meaning given- 1Co 3:18; 1Co 8:2 -as being apt and natural, for the apostle refers to such actual possession as he is about to describe.
As his manner is, the apostle goes off in an allusion to his own history and experience. As he proceeds, the emotion deepens into vehemence, and while he muses for a moment on his own inner life, the thoughts welling out of the abundance of his heart arrange themselves into a lyrical modulation. He boasts of being a true son of Israel, not sprung from one of the tribes which had so early apostatized, but from the honoured tribe of Benjamin. He was also of untainted descent-an adherent of the most straitest sect -ardent in his profession, as evinced by his persecution of the church-performing with scrupulous exactness every rite of fasting, tithing, or sacrifice, so that had salvation been awarded to the fervent and punctual devotions of the chamber or the sanctuary, he might have died in confidence and peace. Therefore he now proceeds to enumerate the advantages which he possessed, in which he might have trusted, and in some of which he did once trust. The Judaizing fanatics could not say, that he made light of these privileges because he had none of them; for he had more than most of them, and yet he felt their utter insignificance. The persons whom the apostle had in his eye were in some respects behind him: at least he says-I more. Some of them might be proselytes circumcised in manhood; others might be of mixed blood; others may have been originally of Sadducean creed: while few of them had manifested that uniform obedience to the law which had distinguished him, and that downright devotedness to Judaism which had led him to seek the extirpation of its young and vigorous rival by violence and blood.
Fuente: Commentary on the Greek Text of Galatians, Ephesians, Colossians and Phillipians
Seven Pairs of Things
A Message of Contrasts
Php 3:4-14
INTRODUCTORY WORDS
There is much said in the Bible by way of contrast. Heaven is contrasted with hell; life is contrasted with death; right is contrasted with wrong; light with darkness, truth with error.
Our Scripture circumscribes certain Bible contrasts with a word common to us all-the word, “Things.”
There are the things before, contrasted with the things behind; there are the things which are spiritual, contrasted with the things which are carnal. There are things visible, contrasted with things invisible. The things which are old are set over against the things which are new; the things of the flesh, against the things of the Spirit; the things of a man, against the things of God. Finally, we have the things which can be shaken, placed over against the things which cannot be shaken.
As the message progresses we will discern how wide a gulf lies between the highest ideals which govern the word, and work, and walk of man, and those which govern the Most High.
It is eminently true that when one becomes a new creature in Christ Jesus, old things pass away and all things become new. The regenerate life moves in a sphere which is unknown to the man of the world. The things he once loved, he hates; and the things once hated, are loved.
As high as the heavens are above the earth so high are the conceptions of the new life above the old. Once we loved earthly things, now we love the Heavenly; once we lived for self, now we live for God; once we were citizens in an earthly realm, with our treasures laid up down here; now we are citizens of a Heavenly sphere, and we are laying up our treasures far above terrestrial spheres.
When Jesus Christ was walking among men, He said, “No man hath ascended up to Heaven, but He that came down from Heaven, even the Son of man which is in Heaven.” Thus while Christ was down here, He was up there. Everything in the life of the Lord Jesus Christ was a contrast to the lives of those with whom He mingled.
Men sought the applause of men; He received not the honor which is from beneath. Men sought their own things, He sought the things of others, and of God. Men doted upon riches, and honor, and human scholarship: He had no where to lay His head; He was despised and rejected of men; He was without “letters,” having never learned.
There ought to be always these same contrasts between the saved and the unsaved. We are in the world, but we are not of it. The whole life of the believer in its aims, its conceptions, its loves, should stand forth in bold relief against the aims, the conceptions and the loves of the unbeliever. When both love the same things, live the same way, do the same deeds, hold to the same ideals, walk the same paths, something is radically wrong.
We are called to be a peculiar people; a people who are in the world, but not of it; a people who mind not earthly things.
I. THE OLD THINGS AND THE NEW (2Co 5:17)
When the sinner comes to the Saviour there is a definite work of grace done in his heart. He is born from above; he is created of God after the image of Him who created him; he is made a partaker of the Divine nature; he puts on a new man, which, after God, is created in righteousness and true holiness.
How great is the change! It is as one taking leave of home and country to dwell in a new land and a new sphere.
The old life is left behind; it is reckoned dead; it is made powerless; it is left in the tomb. The new life is regnant; it is a blessed, pulsing, throbbing, energizing reality.
1. What are the old things which pass away? In Ephesians we read of what we were before grace met us. We were dead-thank God, that is one “old thing” that has passed away! We shall never know eternal death, for we have passed out of death into life.
We walked in time past according to the course of the world-that has passed away-for, if any man love the world the love of the Father is not in him.
We walked according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit who still energizes the sons of disobedience; we rejoice that Satan’s power has passed away and that God has led us in the train of His triumph. In fact, we are seated with Him far above all principalities and powers.
We once had our conversation in the lusts of the flesh-praise God, that has passed away! Our conversation now is of Him and His grace and glory.
We once fulfilled the desire of the flesh and of the mind. That, too, has passed-now we walk in the Spirit, and mind the things of the Spirit.
We were children of wrath, now we are sons of delight and of blessing.
We were afar off, now we are made nigh by the Blood of Christ; we were aliens, now we are fellow-citizens with the saints and members of the household of God; we were strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world; now we are children; now we dwell under the new covenant; now we are living, looking for that Blessed Hope, and we are sons of God.
2. What are some of the “all things” which have become new? We have a new and abiding fellowship with the Father and with His Son, our Lord Jesus Christ. We have a new Paraclete, the blessed Holy Spirit to walk at our side, to comfort and guide, to teach and endue us. We have a new walk, in a new way, with a new group of comrades.
“Out of my bondage, sorrow, and night,
Jesus, I come! Jesus, I come!
Into Thy freedom, gladness, and light,
Jesus, I come to Thee!
Out of my sickness into Thy health,
Out of my want and into Thy wealth,
Out of my sin and into Thyself,
Jesus, I come to Thee!”
II. THE THINGS BEHIND AND THE THINGS BEFORE (Php 3:13)
Paul had many things before him when he was known as Saul of Tarsus, the persecutor of the Christians. He had human praise and plaudits before him. He had in view, a seat in the Sanhedrin, with recognition as a leader and a scholar. He had world honor and preferment, with power and prestige as the goal of his ambitions.
When Paul met Christ on the Damascus road, all of these things, which had been the goal of life, the things before, were reckoned as refuse, fit only for the garbage pile, and they became the things behind.
In lieu of the cast-off things “before,” Paul placed other things in their stead. The things he now sought were abiding things, spiritual things, Heavenly things. He now wanted to know Christ and the power of His resurrection. He now wanted fellowship with Christ in His sufferings, and desired to be conformed unto His death.
Paul had one great supreme ambition and that was to win Christ, and to stand approved before Him at the end of his earthly journey. The things which once were so cherished and so dear, now were not only placed behind him, but they were forgotten.
Paul was in no sense as “Lot’s wife.” turning and looking back at what he had lost; he was in no sense as Israel, longing to return to Egypt and her fleshpots seasoned with garlic and onions.
Paul forgot the things that once were counted gain as he moved toward the things which were before. In fact, Paul pressed, stretched his neck, put all the vigor of his whole being into his reaching for the things before.
God make us likeminded!
Moses left Egypt with its riches and pleasures, as he saw the things before, and pressed toward them. David always lived with the Lord before his face. Let us walk, making the coming things the big things, the enduring and eternal things.
“Lord lift me up, and let me stand,
By faith on heaven’s border land,
A higher plane than I have found,
Lord, plant my feet on higher ground.”
III. THE THINGS OF THE FLESH, AND THE THINGS OF THE SPIRIT (Rom 8:5)
1. The things of the flesh. Here is a contrast that it is well worth our while to consider. The flesh stands for the self-life; the old man, the man of Adam’s line; the carnal, fleshly man. Paul wrote: “I know that in me, (that is, in my flesh.) dwelleth no good thing.” The flesh then, stands for that part of the man which is called “me.” The flesh then, is “meism”; it is the “ego,” the “I.”
The flesh has no good thing in it. “Self,” the natural man, is that part of which David wrote, “In sin did my mother conceive me.” The works of the flesh are manifest. They include such things as, “uncleanness, lasciviousness, * * hatred, * * wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like,”
The thing’s of the flesh are those things which belong to the flesh, emanate from the flesh, adorn the flesh.
The flesh cannot give life, because it is altogether corrupted; it is not subject to the Law of God, “neither indeed can be.” Those who live after the flesh cannot please God.
2. The things of the Spirit. We, who are Christ’s have crucified the flesh with the affection and lusts thereof. We, who are after the Spirit, do mind the things of the Spirit. We, who are after the Spirit, do mortify the deeds of the body. God has said, “Walk in the Spirit and ye shall not fulfill the lusts of the flesh.”
Here is a vital matter. Let each one examine himself to discover the real motive power of his life. If we are the children of God, the Spirit dwells within us; the Spirit leads us, teaches us, strengthens us, and through Him we cry, “Abba, Father.”
“If any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of His.”
“And His that gentle voice we hear,
Soft as the breath of even,
That checks each fault, that calms each fear,
And speaks of Heaven.
And every virtue we possess,
And every victory won,
And every thought of holiness,
Are His alone.
Spirit of purity and grace,
Our weakness pitying see;
Oh, make our hearts Thy dwelling-place,
And worthier of Thee.”
IV. THE THINGS OF A MAN, AND THE THINGS OF GOD (1Co 2:11)
1. The things of a man. These are the things which a man is, in himself. They include everything contained in the genius and wisdom of man. Under this heading comes the wisdom of this world, but this is foolishness with God. Again we place here the things that are mighty in the world; yet we read that, “the weakness of God is stronger than men.” And “God hath chosen the foolish thing’s of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; and the base things of the world, and the things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought the things that are.”
The things of man are those things on which men rely; the things upon which men build-their boasted, trusted things.
2. The things of God-These are the things which no man knoweth. They lie in a realm above the human and the natural.
For instance, a man may know the things of a man; but no man can, in the flesh, know the things of God. This is needed truth. Too many men have, by searching, tried to find out God. Too many men have thought by wisdom, to know God; whereas, “the world by wisdom, knew not God,” It was the wisdom of this world, with all of its boasted scholarship, and glory, that crucified the Lord of Glory.
The things of God cannot be known save by the Spirit of God. The man of mind, the natural man cannot understand God, for “Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love Him.” However, God hath revealed these things unto us by His Spirit, for the Spirit knoweth all things, yea, the deep things of God.
Those who know God, know Him not by the spirit of the world, for, “we have received, * * the Spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.”
Let the students remember that they cannot be taught God’s things by men, be they ever so wise, who are not themselves, taught of the Spirit of God, for “the natural man (the carnal man) receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.”
“Come, Holy Ghost, for, moved by Thee,
The prophets wrote and spoke;
Unlock the truth, Thyself the Key,
Unseal the Sacred Book,”
V. THE THINGS ABOVE AND THE THINGS ON THE EARTH (Col 3:2)
1. The things on the earth. Man is an uplooker. God put his head on the top of him, and not on the bottom of him. To Cain, God said, “Why is thy countenance fallen?”
The men of the world are world-centered. Their whole being revolves around the earthly and the temporal. Their treasures are down here; their loves are here, their hearts are here.
The rich fool was a typical man of the world. He said, “I will say to my soul, Soul, thou hast much goods laid up for many years; take thine ease, eat, drink, and be merry.”
The man under the sun in Ecclesiastes is another typical man of the world. This man tried out many things; sought to know everything that was good for a man under the sun; all the days of his vain life, which he spent as a shadow. The book carries but one wail, the result of setting the affections on the things on the earth.
2. The things above the earth. The “heavenlies” is the only proper sphere for the believer’s abode. Our conversation is in Heaven. Our citizenship is there; our treasures are there; our loves are there; our hopes center there.
God hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in the Heavenly places. We are quickened with Christ; raised with Him, and made to sit with Him, far above all things.
No marvel that our text calls upon us to set our affection on the things above and not on the things which are on the earth. The things down here are vanishing things, fading things; the things above are the things that shall outlast the sun and abide for evermore.
“The home beyond the shadows,
Where all is calm and still;
Where holy joy and gladness
The troubled heart shall fill:
I’m longing for the Home land,
With golden gates so fair,
That ever stand wide open
To welcome pilgrims there.”
VI. THE THINGS SHAKEN, AND THE THINGS THAT CANNOT BE SHAKEN (Heb 12:27)
We wish to urge more fully, the fact that there are things which can be shaken. The Prophet said, “I saw a great white throne, * * from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them.”
Not alone will the earth pass away with a great noise, but everything connected with it must pass. “The world passeth away, and the lust thereof.” Every thing mundane is destined to decay and destruction. The world of Noah’s day was destroyed with a flood; and “the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.”
How foolish men are to build on a foundation that must fall; to lay up their treasures where rust will decay; to place their treasures where treasures will fail.
The things that cannot be shaken are those which God builds. Mark the words: “Wherefore we, receiving a Kingdom which cannot be moved.” Daniel saw in Nebuchadnezzar’s dream the complete overthrow and disintegration of the kingdoms of men. He saw also the stone which smote those kingdoms becoming a great mountain and filling the whole earth. Then Daniel spoke these words, “In the days of these kings shall the God of Heaven set up a Kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: * * it shall stand for ever.”
Thank God, that there is something sure and steadfast, that entereth into that within the veil. Let us not refuse this message from God. Let us begin today to live for the unshaken and unshakable things.
God’s things unshaken last,
And evermore stand fast;
Though winds of hell have blown,
God is not overthrown,
He’s faithful to His own,
Praise God His things stand fast.
VII. THE FORMER THINGS AND ALL THINGS NEW (Rev 21:4-5)
1. The former things that shall pass away. For the first time in the Bible we face the passing of certain former things to which all men, saints and sinners were subjected. What are those things? Here they are, “tears,” “sorrow,” “pain,” “crying,” “death.”
The Cross of Christ holds in it all the blessed fruition of deliverance for each trusting soul, from all of these things. However, we see not yet deliverance. Some times good men, untaught in the truth on this matter, prophesy that saints should never be sick, and never have pain, and never cry; and some even go so far as to say that they should never die. God does not say so.
These are “former things” which relate to a greater or less extent to all earth-dwellers. This in no wise means that Christ cannot nor that He does not heal. Neither does it mean that He is not a God of consolation and of comfort. It does mean, that the bitter cup must be tasted until the New Jerusalem is set up and all things are made new.
Saints die; good saints die; all saints die; and their death is prefaced by sorrow and sighing and pain. These things do not pass away when we are born again. They pass away when the present order passes. They pass only when Satan and all sin is for ever put away.
2. The all things new. How wonderful they will be! The new city; the new environment; the walls of precious stones; the gates of pearl; the river, and the trees, and the fruit! Think of the vastness of the New Jerusalem. Consider that the city hath no need of the sun nor of the moon nor of the stars to give it light, for the Lord God giveth it light and the Lamb is the light thereof.
All things new! All things having the glory of God! Think of the nations that walk in the light of the city. Behold; the leaves of the tree which are for the “health” of the nations.
All things new. No unclean thing shall enter therein; nothing that maketh abomination nor a lie. Bless God for all things new!
“I have read of a beautiful City,
Far away in the Kingdom of God;
I have read how its walls are of jasper,
How its streets are all golden and broad.
In the midst of the street is life’s river,
Clear as crystal, and pure to behold;
But not half of that City’s bright glory
To mortals has ever been told.
Not half has ever been told,
Not half has ever been told;
Not half of that City’s bright glory
To mortals has ever been told.”
AN ILLUSTRATION
We give for illustration, a poem which strikingly describes two attitudes toward Christ and grace.
I wake in the morning with thoughts of His love
Who is living for me in the Glory above.
Every minute expecting He’ll call me away,
And that keeps me bright all the rest of the day;
But the moments speed forward and on comes the noon,
Yet still I am singing, “He’ll come very soon”:
And thus I am watching from morning to night,
And pluming my wings to be ready for flight!
There’s a Man in the Glory I know very well,
I have known Him for years, and His goodness can tell;
One day in His mercy He knocked at my door,
And, seeking admission, knocked many times o’er;
But when I went to Him, and stood face to face,
And listened awhile to His story of grace,
How He suffered for sinners, and put away sin,
I heartily, thankfully welcomed Him in.
We have lived on together a number of years,
And that’s why I have neither doubtings nor fears,
For my sins are all hid in the depths of the sea,
They were carried down there by the Man on the tree.
I am often surprised why the lip should be curled,
When I speak of my Lord to the man of the world,
And notice with sorrow his look of disdain,
When I tell him that Jesus is coming again.
He seems so content with his houses and gold,
While despising the Ark like the people of old;
And yet, at His Coming, I’m sure he would flee
Like the man in the garden, who ate of the tree.
I cannot but think it is foolish of souls
To put all their money in “bags which have holes,”
To find, in the day that is corning apace,
How lightly they valued the “riches of grace.”
As fond as I am of His work in the field,
I would leave go the plow, I would lay down the shield;
The weapons of service I would put on the shelf,
And the sword in its scabbard, to be with Himself.
But I’ll work on with pleasure while keeping ray eyes
On the end of the field where standeth the prize.
I would work for His glory, that when we shall meet,
I may have a large sheaf to lay down at His feet,
That He, too, with pleasure, His fruit may review.
Is the Man in Glory a stranger to you?
A stranger to Jesus? What? do you not know
He is washing poor sinners much whiter than snow?
Have you lived in a land where the Bible’s unknown,
That you don’t know the Man who is now on the throne?
Ah! did you but know half His beauty and power,
You would not be a stranger another half-hour;
I have known Him so long that I’m able to say,
The very worst sinner He’ll not turn away:
The question of sin, I adoringly see,
The Man in the Glory has settled for me!
And as to my footsteps, whatever the scene,
The Man in the Glory is keeping me clean;
And therefore I’m singing, from morning to night,
The Man in the Glory is all my delight.-G. G.
Fuente: Neighbour’s Wells of Living Water
Php 3:4. Confidence in the flesh. This phrase occurs in the preceding verse as well as the present one. Such an expression usually refers to the evil desires of the carnal mind. However, such desires have been regarded as wrong all through the Bible. But Paul is using the phrase in a special application, based on the fleshly relation the Jews bear to Abraham, which is indicated by the rite of circumcision, a fleshly performance. The Jews laid much stress on this relationship and even felt such a “confidence” in the time of John the Baptist (Mat 3:9). The Judaizers might say that Paul’s attitude against them was from envy, or prompted by the feeling that is familiarly expressed by the figure, “sour grapes.” He asserts that such is not the case, but that instead, he could truthfully boast of greater accomplishments while professing the religion that included this fleshly rite, than others; he then proceeds in two verses to enumerate them. (See also the comments at Gal 1:13-14.)
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Php 3:4. Though I myself might have confidence even in the flesh. If those things on which the Judaizers lay such stress were of any account, I could glory as largely as any. He mentions this that he may bring out into stronger contrast the small value (or rather no-value) which he sets on outward position and observances. He had stood in a prominent place among those who could call themselves Abrahams seed. Few could number so many distinctive marks of Jewish purity and observance. How thoroughly, then, must he have seen the unimportance of all this, who could cast all away and count it worthless for Christ!
if any other man thinketh to have confidence in the flesh, I yet more. That is, I have a right to think so still more than he. He does not mean that he does so think, though in words he says so. He is only meeting for a moment the Judaizers on their own ground.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
As if our apostle had said, “Let no man think that I undervalue the Jewish privileges, because I want them; show me ever a judaizing teacher of them all that can pretend to more, or so many of them, as myself; so that, were this a ground of confidence, I can vie with any one of them in carnal privileges, Jewish prerogatives, and outward performances; yea, I can boast of as much self-righteousness as the best of them, and beyond them all: for I was circumcised, and had the seal of the covenant applied to me, yea, I was circumcised the eighth day, the very day prescribed by the law; the Jews maintaining that circumcision before the eighth day was no circumcision, and after the eighth day was of less value.
Of the stock of Israel; one of that nation which God set apart for himself, when he rejected all the nations of the earth beside.
Of the tribe of Benjamin; of a noble tribe, as well as descended of an honourable people; a tribe which kept close to God, when other tribes revolted to the worship of Jeroboam’s calves; a tribe honoured with the first of Israel’s kings, king Saul. An Hebrew of the Hebrews; that is, born a Jew both by father’s side and mother’s side.
As touching the law, a Pharisee; that is, as touching the interpretation and observation of the law, a Pharisee, or one of the strictest sects among the Jews for the profession of religion.
Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; that is, as touching zeal for the Jewish religion, I have showed that above others, in my fury and furious pesecution of the church of Christ; I was active, according as my judgment and conscience directed me.
And as touching the righteousness which was in and by the law, (that is, as to my personal obedience unto the law,) I was blameless, without spot, as the original word signifies; that is, in my own account, and in man’s esteem, my conversation not stained with any gross sin, but very exact in my deportment and behaviour, living up to my knowledge, my practice corresponding with my profession.”
Behold here a man that had a large stock of Jewish privileges and prerogatives; all these grounds of confidence the apostle had before his conversion; and he might have rested there, and have gloried and confided therein, as well as the judiazing doctors did, who gloried in their external privileges; but how far St. Paul was from this spirit and temper, the next verses inform us.
Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament
Paul’s Fleshly Accomplishments Paul was not putting down Judaism because he had a low place in it. Here was a man who truly could have, if anyone could, placed confidence in fleshly accomplishments. Paul’s list of credentials show he was a Jew in high standing. Lipscomb tells us the Ishmaelite was circumcised at the age of 13 and the proselyte in mature life when he accepted Judaism. The apostle to the Gentiles was born a Jew and circumcised on the eighth day, in accord with the law. He was born an Israelite, one of God’s people.
Paul says he was of the tribe of Benjamin. Wiersbe reminds us that Benjamin and Joseph were Jacob’s favorites. Saul, the king, came from Benjamin and that tribe remained loyal during the rebellion of Absolom. The apostle was also a Hebrew born of Hebrew parents. He was a Pharisee, which was a sect that set up strict rules to live by ( Act 23:6-9 ; Act 7:54-60 ; Act 8:1-3 ; Act 9:1-2 ). His reputation for trying to keep every detail of this legalistic, outer rightousness was blameless ( Php 3:4-6 ; Gal 1:13-14 ).
Fuente: Gary Hampton Commentary on Selected Books
Php 3:4-5. Though I Above many others; might have confidence in the flesh That is, I have such pretences for that confidence as many, even Jews, have not. He says I, in the singular number, because the Philippian believers, being of Gentile race, could not speak in that manner. If any other man Gentile or Jew, private Christian or public teacher; thinketh that he hath whereof he might trust in the flesh That he has cause for so doing; I more I have more reason to think so than he. See 2Co 11:18-22. Circumcised the eighth day Not at ripe age, as a proselyte, but born among Gods peculiar people, and dedicated to him from my infancy, being solemnly admitted into the visible church, according to his ordinance, in the most regular and pure way. It is certain the Jews did not only lay a great deal of stress on the ceremony of circumcision, but on the time of performing it; affirming, that circumcision before the eighth day was no circumcision; and after that time of less value. Hence they thought it necessary to circumcise a child on the sabbath day, when that day was the eighth from its birth, (though all manner of work was forbidden on that day,) rather than defer performing the rite to a day beyond that time, Joh 7:22; and made it a rule that the rest of the sabbath must give place to circumcision. And this opinion, as it agrees with the text, Gen 17:12, so it seems to have obtained long before our Lords time; for the Septuagint and the Samaritan version read Gen 17:14 thus: The uncircumcised male, who is not circumcised the eighth day, shall be cut off: he hath broken my covenant. Of the stock of Israel Not the son of a proselyte, nor of the race of the Ishmaelites or Edomites; of the tribe of Benjamin In which Jerusalem and the temple stood, and who kept close to God and his worship when the ten tribes revolted, and fell off to idolatry; a tribe descended from the wife of the patriarch Jacob; and on that account, as Theodoret has observed, more honourable than the four tribes descended from Bilhah and Zilpah, the handmaids; a Hebrew of the Hebrews Descended, by both father and mother, from Abrahams race, without any mixture of foreign blood. The Jews who lived among the Greeks, and who spake their language, were called Hellenists, Act 6:1; Act 9:29; Act 11:20. Many of these were descended from parents, one of whom only was a Jew. Of this sort was Timothy, Act 16:1. But those who were born in Judea, of parents rightly descended from Abraham, and who, receiving their education in Judea, spake the language of their forefathers, and were thoroughly instructed in the laws and learning of the Jews, were reckoned more honourable than the Hellenists; and to mark the excellence of their lineage, education, and language, they were called Hebrews; a name the most ancient, and therefore the most honourable, of all names borne by Abrahams descendants. A Hebrew, therefore, possessing the character and qualifications above described, was a more honourable appellation than an Israelite, as that name marked no more but ones being a member of the commonwealth of Israel; which a Jew might be, though born and bred in a foreign country. Macknight. As touching the law, a Pharisee One of that sect who most accurately observe it, and maintain many of those great truths of religion which the Sadducees and some others reject.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Php 3:4-9. Privilege and Renunciation.The contrast between Jew and Christian leads Paul to refer to himself in a striking autobiographical passage, which, though brief, may be compared for spirit and tone to Augustines Confessions. He begins with his origin and early experience. A Jew punctually circumcised, of the royal tribe of Benjamin, a rigorous Pharisee and persecutor of the Church, he had better claims for boasting on these lines than the wretched denizens of the ghetto at Philippi. Yet he treated all these claims with contempt in exchange for the knowledge of Christ, content to be excommunicated from Judaism in order to gain Christ and the God-given righteousness obtained through faith, all instead of his own righteousness got through the Law.
Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible
3:4 {4} Though I might also have confidence in the flesh. If any other man thinketh that he hath whereof he might trust in the flesh, I more:
(4) He does not doubt to prefer himself even according to the flesh, before those perverse zealous urgers of the Law, that all men may know that he does with good judgment of mind, consider of little worth all of those outward things. For he who has Christ lacks nothing, and confidence in our works cannot stand with the free justification in Christ by faith.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
Paul’s privileged position 3:4b-6
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)
Paul proceeded to explain to the Philippians why he had spoken so harshly against the Jews (Php 3:4-11). The apostle rejected confidence in the flesh because it cannot provide the righteousness that God requires (Php 3:9). He possessed what the Judaizers claimed was essential, namely, circumcision, but he did not trust in it for salvation.
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)
For the sake of the argument Paul adopted the Judaizers’ attitude of confidence in the flesh. He did this to show that his rejection of Jewish advantages was not because he lacked them. Paul used the same approach in 2Co 11:26 to 2Co 12:12. He cited seven advantages, the first four being things he inherited and the last three things he chose by conviction.