Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Philippians 3:2
Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers, beware of the concision.
2. Beware of ] Lit., “ see.” For this use of the verb, cp. Col 4:17; 2Jn 1:8.
dogs ] Lit. and better, the dogs. He refers to a known and defined class; and these evidently were those Judaistic teachers within the pale of the Church to whom he has referred already (Php 1:15) in another connexion and in a different tone. These Pharisee-Christians very probably called the uncircumcised, and (from their point of view) non-conforming, converts, “dogs,” as the Pharisees-proper called all Gentiles; cp. Mat 15:26-27, for words alluding to this use of the term. The habits and instincts of the dog suggest ideas of uncleanness and wantonness; and its half-wild condition in Eastern towns adds the idea of a thing outcast. Thus everywhere in Scripture the word “dog” is used in connexions of contempt, reproach or dread: see e.g. 1Sa 24:14; 2Sa 16:9; 2Ki 8:13; Psa 22:16; Psa 22:20; Psa 59:6; Ecc 9:4; Mat 7:6; Rev 22:15. The Apostle “here turns the tables” on the Judaist, and pronounces him to be the real defiled outcast from Messiah’s covenant, rather than the simple believer, who comes to Messiah not by way of Judaism, but direct. The same view is expressed more fully Gal 5:2-4. It is just possible that the word “dog” refers also to positive immorality underlying, in many cases, a rigid ceremonialism. But this is at most secondary here. See below Php 3:18-19, and notes, for another “school” more open to such charges.
evil workers ] Better, the bad work-men. He refers to the same faction under another aspect. Very probably, by a play on the word “worker,” he censures them as teaching a salvation by “works,” not by faith. (See e.g. Rom 3:27; Rom 4:2; Rom 4:6; Rom 11:6; Gal 2:16; Gal 3:2; Eph 2:9; 2Ti 1:9; Tit 3:5.) As if to say, “They are all for working, with a view to merit; but they are bungling workmen all the while, adjusting wrongly the fabric of the Gospel, and working not rightly even what in itself is right.” Cp. 2Co 11:13 for a passage where the same double meaning seems to attach to this word. For the other side of the truth of “working” see Php 2:12, and notes.
the concision ] “ The gashing, the mutilation.” By this harsh kindred word he satirizes, as it were, the rigid zeal of the Judaist for bodily circumcision. In the light of the Gospel, the demand for the continuance of circumcision in the Church, as a saving ordinance, was in fact a demand for a maltreatment of the body, akin only to heathen practices; cp. e.g. 1Ki 18:28.
Cp. Gal 5:12, with Lightfoot’s notes, for a somewhat similar use of words in a kindred connexion. Lightfoot here remarks on the frequent occurrence in the N.T. of verbal play. See e.g. the Greek of Act 8:30; Rom 12:3; 2Th 3:11.
Wyclif curiously, and without any support in the Latin, renders this clause, “se ye dyuysioun”; Tyndale and Cranmer, “Beware of dissencion (dissensyon).”
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Beware of dogs – Dogs in the east are mostly without masters; they wander at large in the streets and fields, and feed upon offals, and even upon corpses; compare 1Ki 14:11; 1Ki 16:4; 1Ki 21:19. They are held as unclean, and to call one a dog is a much stronger expression of contempt there than with us; 1Sa 17:43; 2Ki 8:13. The Jews called the pagan dogs, and the Muslims call Jews and Christians by the same name. The term dog also is used to denote a person that is shameless, impudent, malignant, snarling, dissatisfied, and contentious, and is evidently so employed here. It is possible that the language used here may have been derived from some custom of affixing a caution, on a house that was guarded by a dog, to persons approaching it. Lenfant remarks that at Rome it was common for a dog to lie chained before the door of a house, and that a notice was placed in sight, Beware of the dog. The same notice I have seen in this city affixed to the kennel of dogs in front of a bank, that were appointed to guard it. The reference here is, doubtless, to Judaizing teachers, and the idea is, that they were contentious, troublesome, dissatisfied, and would produce disturbance. The strong language which the apostle uses here, shows the sense which he had of the danger arising from their influence. It may be observed, however, that the term dogs is used in ancient writings with great frequency, and even by the most grave speakers. It is employed by the most dignified characters in the Iliad (Boomfield), and the name was given to a whole class of Greek philosophers – the Cynics. It is used in one instance by the Saviour; Mat 7:6. By the use of the term here, there can be no doubt that the apostle meant to express strong disapprobation of the character and course of the persons referred to, and to warn the Philippians in the most solemn manner against them.
Beware of evil workers – Referring, doubtless, to the same persons that he had characterized as dogs The reference is to Jewish teachers, whose doctrines and influence he regarded only as evil We do not know what was the nature of their teaching, but we may presume that it consisted much in urging the obligations of the Jewish rites and ceremonies; in speaking of the advantage of having been born Jews: and in urging a compliance with the law in order to justification before God. In this way their teachings tended to set aside the great doctrine of salvation by the merits of the Redeemer.
Beware of the concision – Referring, doubtless, also to the Jewish teachers. The word rendered concision – katatome – means properly a cutting off, a mutilation. It is used here contemptuously for the Jewish circumcision in contrast with the true circumcision. Robinson, Lexicon. It is not to be understood that Paul meant to throw contempt on circumcision as enjoined by God, and as practiced by the pious Jews of other times (compare Act 16:3), but only as it was held by the false Judaizing teachers. As they held it, it was not the true circumcision. They made salvation to depend on it, instead of its being only a sign of the covenant with God. Such a doctrine, as they held it, was a mere cutting off of the flesh, without understanding anything of the true nature of the rite, and, hence, the unusual term by which he designates it. Perhaps, also, there may be included the idea that a doctrine so held would be in fact a cutting off of the soul; that is, that it tended to destruction. Their cutting and mangling the flesh might be regarded as an emblem of the manner in which their doctrine would cut and mangle the church – Doddridge. The meaning of the whole is, that they did not understand the true nature of the doctrine of circumcision, but that with them it was a mere cutting of the flesh, and tended to destroy the church.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 2. Beware of dogs] The Jews, who have here the same appellative which they formerly gave to the Gentiles: because the Gentiles were not included in the covenant, they called them DOGS; and themselves, the children of the Most High. Now, they are cast out of the covenant and the Gentiles taken in; therefore they are the dogs, and the Gentiles the children.
Evil workers] Judaizing teachers, who endeavoured to pervert the Gospel.
The concision.] . The cutting or excision; not , the circumcision: the word is used by the apostle to degrade the pretensions which the Jews made to sanctity by the cutting in their flesh. Circumcision was an honourable thing, for it was a sign of the covenant; but as they now had rejected the new covenant, their circumcision was rendered uncircumcision, and is termed a cutting, by way of degradation.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
Beware; he cautions all, both officers and people: and though the original word doth signify to look with mind and eye, yet it is also frequently rendered, to take heed, Mar 8:15; 12:38; 8:9,23,33; 1Co 16:10; 2Jo 1:8.
Of dogs; of those dogs, (with the article emphatically proposed), a metaphor borrowed from those voracious, fierce, impure animals, whose price was not brought into the Lords house, Deu 23:18; Pro 26:11; Isa 66:3; 2Pe 2:22; to connote the false apostles, who endeavoured to corrupt the gospel with Judaism and profaneness, even antichristianism; compare Psa 22:16,20; Mt 7:6; 15:26; Rev 22:15. Some think the apostle may allude unto the proverbial speech: Take heed of a mad dog, forasmuch as false teachers, being acted as with a certain madness, would bite Christ and his apostles, and tear his body; and these mad dogs were the more dangerous, in that they did not bark so much as bite. Hence they say, Take heed of a dumb dog and still watcher. There were of several sorts, enemies to the cross of Christ, Gal 5:12; 1Th 2:14,15; some more secret, as Absalom against Amnon, 2Sa 13:22, pretending contrary to their practice, 2Ki 8:13; 13:22. Our Saviour bade his disciples beware of such, Mat 10:17, which he found to be of this temper, Psa 22:16,20; 55:15; though some of them were but dumb dogs, Isa 56:10; some such there were amongst the Philipplans, who, notwithstanding their fair pretext, were enemies to the cross of Christ, did secretly disparage his true apostle, and tear his flock: see Phi 3:18, with Phi 1:15,16.
Beware of evil workers; such as pretended to labour in promoting the gospel of Christ, but secretly were doing mischief amongst Christians, not serving the glory of Christ but their own bellies, Phi 3:18,19; being, as he elsewhere calls them, deceitful workers, 2Co 11:13, glorying in the flesh, Gal 6:13.
Beware of the concision; by an elegant allusion to the name circumcision, which rite the Jews did glory in, and some false teachers of Christianity, after the time of reformation, did urge as necessary to salvation, and require it from others, Act 15:1; Gal 5:2,4; Ga 6:12. These Paul here, in a holy sarcasm, charges the Philippians to take heed of, under the contemptible name of the concision, or cutting off, intimating that the exterior part of that typical work, which was done in the cutting off the foreskin, was now, from the coming of Christ, altogether made a mere cutting off the skin, condemned by God in the heathens, as a profane incision, Lev 19:28; 21:5, where the LXX. use the same preposition in the compound word, the apostle here doth in contempt of the thing; which could now bring nothing of profit, nothing of holiness, nothing of honour to any Christian, could no more avail or advantage a man now, than if it were conferred on a beast, being no seal of the covenant now, but a stickling for that rite (when abolished by Christ) which was a mere rending of the church, and in that effect a cutting off from it, Gal 5:10,12. And the apostle doth three times significantly repeat this word,
beware of these enemies to Christian purity and unity, to show how necessary it was to avoid their insinuations, against which he is more sharp in his Epistle to the Galatians.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
2. BewareGreek, “Haveyour eye on” so as to beware of. Contrast “mark,” or”observe,” namely, so as to follow Php3:17.
dogsGreek, “thedogs,” namely, those impure persons “of whom I have toldyou often” (Phi 3:18;Phi 3:19); “the abominable”(compare Rev 21:8; Rev 22:15;Mat 7:6; Tit 1:15;Tit 1:16): “dogs” infilthiness, unchastity, and snarling (Deu 23:18;Psa 59:6; Psa 59:14;Psa 59:15; 2Pe 2:22):especially “enemies of the cross of Christ” (Phi 3:18;Psa 22:16; Psa 22:20).The Jews regarded the Gentiles as “dogs” (Mt15:26); but by their own unbelief they have ceased to be the trueIsrael, and are become “dogs” (compare Isa 56:10;Isa 56:11).
evil workers (2Co11:13), “deceitful workers.” Not simply “evildoers”are meant, but men who “worked,” indeed, ostensibly for theGospel, but worked for evil: “serving not our Lord, but theirown belly” (Php 3:19;compare Ro 16:18). Translate,”The evil workmen,” that is, bad teachers(compare 2Ti 2:15).
concisionCircumcisionhad now lost its spiritual significance, and was now become to thosewho rested on it as any ground of justification, a senselessmutilation. Christians have the only true circumcision,namely, that of the heart; legalists have only “concision,”that is, the cutting off of the flesh. To make “cuttingsin the flesh” was expressly prohibited by the law (Le21:5): it was a Gentile-heathenish practice (1Ki18:28); yet this, writes Paul indignantly, is what theselegalists are virtually doing in violation of the law. Thereis a remarkable gradation, says BIRKS[Hor Apostolic] in Paul’s language as to circumcision. Inhis first recorded discourse (Ac13:39), circumcision is not named, but implied as included in thelaw of Moses which cannot justify. Six or seven years later, in theEpistle to Galatians (Ga 3:3),the first Epistle in which it is named, its spiritual inefficiency ismaintained against those Gentiles who, beginning in the Spirit,thought to be perfected in the flesh. Later, in Epistle to Romans(Rom 2:28; Rom 2:29),he goes farther, and claims the substance of it for every believer,assigning the shadow only of it to the unbelieving Jew. In Epistle toColossians (Col 2:11; Col 3:11),still later, he expounds more fully the true circumcision as theexclusive privilege of the believer. Last of all here, the very nameis denied to the legalist, and a term of reproach is substituted,”concision,” or flesh-cutting. Once obligatory onall the covenant-people, then reduced to a mere national distinction,it was more and more associated in the apostle’s experience with theopen hostility of the Jews, and the perverse teaching of falsebrethren.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
Beware of dogs,…. By whom are meant the “judaizing” teachers, who were for imposing the works and ceremonies of the law upon the Gentiles, as necessary to salvation; and they have the name retorted on them they used to give to the Gentiles; see Mt 15:26; nor should they think it too severe, since the Jews themselves say p,
“the face of that generation (in which the Messiah shall come) shall he, , “as the face of a dog”.”
The apostle calls them so, because they returned to Judaism, as the dog to its vomit, 2Pe 2:22; and because of the uncleanness in which many of them lived, and the impudence they were guilty of in transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ, and putting themselves upon an equal foot with them; as also for their calumny and detraction, their wrangling with the apostles, snarling at their doctrines, and biting them with the devouring words of reproach and scandal: likewise, they may be styled dogs for their covetousness, being such greedy ones as in Isa 56:10, with feigned words making merchandise of men; and for their love of their, bellies, which they served, and not Christ, and made a god of, Php 3:19. Moreover, because they were without, as dogs are, Re 22:15; having gone out from the communion of the saints, because they were not of them; or if among them, yet not true members of Christ, nor of his mystical body; all which are so many arguments why the saints should beware of them, and why their persons, conversation, and doctrine should be avoided.
Beware of evil workers: meaning the same persons, who were deceitful workers, did the work of the Lord unfaithfully, walked in craftiness, and handled the word of God deceitfully, endeavoured to subvert the Gospel of Christ, and the faith of men in it; who worked from bad principles, and with evil views; and notwithstanding their large pretensions to good works, teaching that justification and salvation were by them, which notion the apostle tacitly refers to in this character; yet were of bad a character, and such as Christ will reject another day as workers of iniquity; a character they deservedly bear, if there was no other reason for it than their preaching the doctrine of salvation by men’s own works of righteousness, and who, and their ministry, are by all means to be shunned.
Beware of the concision; the men of the circumcision, as the Arabic version renders it; they chose to be called so, but the apostle would not give them that name, but calls them the “concision”; or “the concision of the flesh”, as the Syriac version renders it; referring either to the cuttings in the flesh, forbidden Le 21:5; or to the circumcision of the flesh rather, which they valued themselves upon, and were for introducing among the Gentiles, whereby they made sad divisions, and cutting work among the churches; and were some of them at least “cut” off, as the Ethiopic version renders it, from the churches; and who, as much as in them lay, cut themselves off from Christ, and rendered him unprofitable to them; see Ga 5:2.
p Misn. Sota, c. 9. sect. 15.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Beware (). Three times for urgency and with different epithet for the Judaizers each time.
The dogs ( ). The Jews so termed the Gentiles which Jesus uses in a playful mood (, little dogs) to the Syro-Phoenician woman (Mt 15:26). Paul here turns the phrase on the Judaizers themselves.
The evil workers ( ). He had already called the Judaizers “deceitful workers” ( ) in 2Co 11:13.
The concision ( ). Late word for incision, mutilation (in contrast with , circumcision). In Symmachus and an inscription. The verb is used in the LXX only of mutilations (Lev 21:5; 1Kgs 18:28).
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
Beware [] . Lit., look to. Compare Mr 4:24; Mr 8:15; Luk 21:8. Dogs. Rev., correctly, the dogs, referring to a well – known party – the Judaizers. These were nominally Christians who accepted Jesus as the Messiah, but as the Savior of Israel only. They insisted that Christ ‘s kingdom could be entered only through the gate of Judaism. Only circumcised converts were fully accepted by God. They appeared quite early in the history of the Church, and are those referred to in Act 14:1. Paul was the object of their special hatred and abuse. They challenged his birth, his authority, and his motives. “‘Paul must be destroyed, ‘ was as truly their watchword as the cry for the destruction of Carthage had been of old to the Roman senator” (Stanley, “Sermons and Lectures on the Apostolic Age “). These are referred to in ch. 1 16; and the whole passage in the present chapter, from ver. 3 to ver. 11, is worthy of study, being full of incidental hints lurking in single words, and not always apparent in our versions; hints which, while they illustrate the main point of the discussion, are also aimed at the assertions of the Judaizers. Dogs was a term of reproach among both Greeks and Jews. Homer uses it of both women and men, implying shamelessness in the one, and recklessness in the other. Thus Helen :” Brother – in – law of me, a mischief devising dog “(” Iliad,” 6, 344). Teucer of Hector : “I cannot hit this raging dog” (” Iliad, “8, 298). Dr. Thomson says of the dogs in oriental towns :” They lie about the streets in such numbers as to render it difficult and often dangerous to pick one’s way over and amongst them – a lean, hungry, and sinister brood. They have no owners, but upon some principle known only to themselves, they combine into gangs, each of which assumes jurisdiction over a particular street; and they attack with the utmost ferocity all canine intruders into their territory. In those contests, and especially during the night, they keep up an incessant barking and howling, such as is rarely heard in any European city. The imprecations of David upon his enemies derive their significance, therefore, from this reference to one of the most odious of oriental annoyances “(” Land and Book,” Central palestine and Phoenicia, 593). See Psa 59:6; Psa 22:16. Being unclean animals, dogs were used to denote what was unholy or profane. So Mt 7:6; Rev 22:15. The Israelites are forbidden in Deuteronomy to bring the price of a dog into the house of God for any vow : Deu 23:18. The Gentiles of the Christian era were denominated “dogs” by the Jews, see Mt 14:26. Paul here retorts upon them their own epithet.
Evil workers. Compare deceitful workers, 2Co 11:13.
Concision [] . Only here in the New Testament. The kindred verb occurs in the Septuagint only, of mutilations forbidden by the Mosaic law. See Lev 21:5. The noun here is a play upon peritomh circumcision. It means mutilation. Paul bitterly characterizes those who were not of the true circumcision (Rom 2:28, 29; Col 2:11; Eph 2:11) as merely mutilated. Compare Gal 5:12, where he uses ajpokoptein to cut off, of those who would impose circumcision upon the Christian converts : “I would they would cut themselves off who trouble you;” that is, not merely circumcise, but mutilate themselves like the priests of Cybele.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1) “Beware of dogs,” (blepete tous kunas) “Look to or toward, keep your eyes on the dogs,” the two-legged-kind, human jackals, Isa 56:10-11; Gal 5:15; Mat 7:6.
2) “Beware of evil workers,” (blepete tous kakous ergatas) ‘Keep your eyes on or open toward evil workmen,” 2Co 11:13-15; Mat 7:15-17.
3) “Beware of the concision” (blepete ten katatomen) “Look to or toward, beware of the concision;” the formal, ceremonial, self-righteous lawkeepers, Gal 5:1-3. These of the concision thought erroneously that one could be saved through outward circumcision. Gal 6:12-13.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
2. Beware of the dogs, beware of the evil workers, beware of the concision.
Translation and Paraphrase
2. (Now, my brothers,) Beware of the dogs! Beware of the evil workers! Beware of the (flesh-) cutting, the slashing-cision!
Notes
1.
Beware of the dogs; beware of the evil workers; beware of the concision. The dogs referred to here were the Judaizers, those who insisted that Christians must keep the law of Moses, with its laws about circumcision, not eating meats, etc.
2.
The word dog had a very ugly connotation to ancient Jews. They did not think of dogs as we think of our prized household pets. To them the word dog brought to mind the unclean, half-wild, roaming, pack-running, scavenging pariah dogs of that part of the world.
Dog stands for a homosexual in Deu. 23:18. Dogs are outside of heaven. (Rev. 22:15). Give not what is holy to dogs. (Mat. 7:5). Gentiles are called dogs (Mat. 15:27).
3.
Why should Paul call these Judaizers evil workers and dogs? They taught that people were saved by doing ceremonial works like circumcision, and by keeping the law, and fulfilling the works of the law. By doing this they placed themselves completely at odds with Gods will as revealed through Christ. Of course they would have denied this, but Pauls evaluation of them must be accepted as true. Therefore in our own time anyone who insists that we must keep the law of Moses, wholly or in part, must be included in Pauls condemnation.
4.
The word concision (Gr. katatome) is a play on the word circumcision (Gr. peritome). In Old Testament times circumcision was a sign of Gods covenant with Abraham and his descendants, and was absolutely necessary. Under our Christian dispensation circumcision is of no importance at all. (Gal. 6:15) Paul uses the rather derisive name concision to refer to compulsory circumcision in our times. Concision means a cutting, a slashing, a pagan mutilation of the flesh which served no purpose. That which the Judaizers called circumcisiona mark of honorwas to Paul on a concisiona meaningless mutilation of the flesh. Compare Gal. 5:12 for a similar thought.
5.
Concision is used in the Greek Old Testament (LXX) in several very unflattering connections;
Lev. 21:5Make not cuttings in their (the priests)flesh.
1Ki. 18:28The prophets of Baal slashed themselves as they prayed for Baal to send down fire upon his altar.
Isa. 15:2The Moabites cut their beards in grief.
6.
How could Paul refer to these Judaizers as evil workers? Basically because they insisted upon forcing their false doctrine upon Gentile converts to Christ, and would not listen to Pauls message of truth. Paul truly loved his fleshly kinsmen the Jews (Rom. 9:1-2); nonetheless they fiercely and fanatically opposed him everywhere he went. Even the Christian Jews showed antagonism toward Paul. In doing such actions they made themselves evil workers.
7.
3:2 begins a new section in our outline, which we entitle False Teachers contrasted with Pauls example (Php. 3:2-21). The first subtopic in this section is Php. 3:2-17, which deals with the topic Why beware of the law-keepers. Two reasons are developed for this: (1) Law-keepers are not the true people of God; and (2) Paul had more to place confidence in than they had, but he sought Christ only.
Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series
(2) Beware of (the) dogs.In Rev. 22:15 the dogs excluded from the heavenly Jerusalem seem to be those who are impure. In that sense the Jews applied the word to the heathen, as our Lord, for a moment appearing to follow the Jewish usage, does to the Syro-Phnician woman in Mat. 15:26. But here the context appropriates the word to the Judaising party, who claimed special purity, ceremonial and moral, and who probably were not characterised by peculiar impuritysuch as, indeed, below (Php. 3:17-21) would seem rather to attach to the Antinomian party, probably the extreme on the other side. Chrysostoms hint that the Apostle means to retort the name upon them, as now by their own wilful apostasy occupying the place outside the spiritual Israel which once belonged to the despised Gentiles, is probably right. Yet perhaps there may be some allusion to the dogs, not as unclean, but as, especially in their half-wild state in the East, snarling and savage, driving off as interlopers all who approach what they consider their ground. Nothing could better describe the narrow Judaising spirit.
Of evil workers.Comp. 2Co. 11:13, describing the Judaisers as deceitful workers. Here the idea is of their energy in work, but work for evil.
The concision.By an ironical play upon words St. Paul declares his refusal to call the circumcision, on which the Judaisers prided themselves, by that time-honoured name; for we, he says, are the true circumcision, the true Israel of the new covenant. In Eph. 2:11 (where see Note) he had denoted it as the so-called circumcision in the flesh made by hands. Here he speaks more strongly, and calls it a concision, a mere outward mutilation, no longer, as it had been, a seal of the covenant (Rom. 4:11). There is a still more startling attack on the advocates of circumcision in Gal. 5:12 (where see Note).
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
2. Beware of dogs Look to the dogs. Keep them in view, in order to learn their true character. Note, Mat 7:6. The epithet implies religious impurity; and to this day dogs is the Moslem term for Christians. The evil workers The same persons, agitators for mischief.
The concision The word means an excision, or cutting off. Note, Gal 5:12. The term defines the opponents of whom they were to beware, as Judaizing teachers who sought to enforce the Mosaic law on Gentile Christians, beginning with circumcision as necessary to salvation. They do not appear to have made, as yet, any inroads upon the Philippian Church, but the caution here given implies danger from that quarter. The contemptuous name here employed, plain in the Greek with the play on words, implies that having lost sight of the spiritual import of the rite, they were mere outward manglers of the flesh.
‘Beware of the dogs, beware of the evil workers, beware of the concision,’
The rapid change of subject without introduction was probably designed to wake up those who were hearing his words read out, as they were listening, and may possibly have begun to flag. It was a warning against the activities, either of the Jews, or of the Judaisers. The Jews may well have been seeking to win over the Philippian church on the grounds that Paul was a Jew, (although a little misguided), and that they were therefore bound to follow all Jewish customs, including circumcision. They probably saw the chance of making proselytes, as well as obtaining the ‘re-conversion’ of people like Lydia. The Judaisers were those who, while believing that Christ was the Messiah, still sought to bind people to the full requirements of the ritual Law, seeing them as necessary for salvation.
It is an open question whether these were Jews who did not believe in Jesus as the Messiah, or whether they were Jews who did, but still considered that all the requirements of Judaism, including physical circumcision, still had to be followed. Either way the Philippians are warned to beware of them. They are to be seen as unfit to mix with (dogs were seen as unclean by Jews), their deeds (which were the foundation of their claim righteousness) were in fact evil (not springing from true faith in God), and their circumcision was now no longer valid, but was simply a bodily mutilation. The Jewish position was to be seen as no longer valid.
We should especially note the contrast between ‘the mutilated’ in Php 3:2 and ‘the Circumcision’ in Php 3:3. The Jews are no longer the Circumcision, and thus brought within the covenant. They are rather those who have been ‘cut off’ from the true Israel (compare Rom 11:17-28). They are no longer Israel. They are the mutilated ones.
The description of them as ‘dogs’ was not as offensive then as it is today. In those days dogs tended to gather outside the walls of cities, scavenging on what they could, and were thus seen by the Jews as an apt picture of the Gentiles who were outsiders and not within the Jewish community, and ate what was unclean. It was thus descriptive rather than insulting although certainly indicating that they were despised. Its application to Jews or Judaisers here was basically an indication that they were not truly of Israel (see Rom 9:6).
A Warning To Beware Of The Judaisers, Who Taught That Salvation Was Through the Works Of The Law, Is Backed Up From Paul’s Experience In Which He had Discovered That All Such Efforts Were In Vain ( Php 3:2-9 ).
The passage appears to commence abruptly because Paul moves into his subject without preparation. But we may see this as an intentional way of shocking them into taking notice. In it he warns them against the Jews/Judaisers in no uncertain terms. Having rejected their Messiah they have become dogs of Gentiles, doers of evil, and mutilators of the flesh, their ‘circumcision’ now having become a meaningless mutilation in view of the coming of Christ. For in Christ the true circumcision are the true church of Jesus Christ, and circumcision is that of the heart (Rom 2:29; compare Lev 26:41; Deu 10:16; Jer 4:4). It was the old Israel’s failure to be circumcised in heart that had resulted in their rejection. This recognition that the church are the true continuation of the Israel of old (they ‘are Israel’) is found constantly throughout the New Testament.
Jesus Himself likened His followers to ‘branches of the true Vine’ (Joh 15:1-6) and explained that in the face of His opponents’ intransigence, ‘the Kingly Rule of God will be taken away from you (the unbelieving Jews), and will be given to a nation producing its fruits’ (Mat 21:43). In Mat 16:18 He had confirmed the building of the new congregation of Israel on Peter’s statement of His Messiahship. Acts 1-12 clearly demonstrates the foundation of that true Israel and in Act 4:25-27 the Gentile peoples of Psalms 2 have become the cast off people of Israel, confirming that the latter were no longer to be seen as Israel. That Gentile proselytes were then grafted in (Acts 10-11) is seen to be the work of God (compare Rom 11:17-28), which consequently led to the great debate as to whether they should be circumcised (had they not been seen as becoming a part of the true Israel that question would never have arisen). Paul’s argument against the need for circumcision was not that they were not becoming Israel (indeed he thought that they were), but that physical circumcision has been replaced by ‘the circumcision of Christ’ (Col 2:11), the shadow being replaced by the reality. The gathering at Jerusalem dispensed with the need for circumcision on the basis that Scripture had prophesied the introduction of the Gentiles into Israel without any mention of circumcision (Act 15:16-21).
When writing to the Galatians Paul informs them that they are Abraham’s seed and therefore heirs according to the promise (Gal 3:29), for in Christ there is no distinction between Jew and Greek (Gal 3:28), an idea further dealt with in Eph 2:11-22. All are now part of the true Israel (Eph 2:18-21). That is why in Gal 6:16 he refers to them as ‘the Israel of God’ just as in Gal 4:21-31 they are the new Jerusalem. All the Old Testament promises about Israel and Jerusalem will now therefore find their fulfilment in the church of Jesus Christ, for they are the true Israel. As he says here in Philippians, it is now the church who are ‘the Circumcision’ (in contrast to the Mutilators – Php 3:2-3). Compare also Rom 11:17-28; Rom 9:6; 1Pe 1:1; 1Pe 2:9; Jas 1:1.
Paul then demonstrates the uselessness and invalidity of any hope of seeking to obtain acceptance with God by works of the Law and adherence to the now false Israel, by describing his own attempts at doing so which had proved a devastating failure. It was only when he had counted those as loss having found Christ, that he discovered what he was looking for, full salvation.
Analysis.
a b Though I myself might have confidence even in the flesh. If any other man thinks to have confidence in the flesh, I yet more (Php 3:4).
c Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews, as touching the law, a Pharisee; as touching zeal, persecuting the church; as touching the righteousness which is in the law, found blameless. Howbeit what things were gain to me, these have I counted loss for Christ (Php 3:5-7).
b Yes truly, and I count all things to be loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but refuse, that I may gain Christ (Php 3:8).
a And be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own, even that which is of the law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which is from God by faith (Php 3:9)
Note that in ‘a’ it is not the Jews/Judaisers whose righteousness is unacceptable who are the true circumcision, but those who truly worship God in the Spirit and glory in Christ Jesus, and do not trust in fleshly righteousness, while in the parallel Paul has found his acceptance, not by false righteousness and works of the Law, but through faith in Christ, which has provided him with true righteousness. In ‘b’ he had been such that he could have had the greatest possible confidence in his fleshly make up and activities, and in the parallel he counted them all as loss that he might gain Christ. Centrally in ‘c’ he counts as loss all that he had once prided himself in as hopefully achieving his salvation.
Php 3:2. Beware of dogs, This may very possibly be an allusion to Isa 56:10-12. Comp. Php 3:19. Tit 1:11-12. Rom 16:18. Gal 6:12-13. The Jews used to call the Gentiles dogs, and perhaps St. Paul, directed by the Spirit of God, may use this language, when speaking of their proud bigots, by way of just retaliation. Comp. Rev 22:15. We read of a custom at Rome, to chain their dogs at the doors of their houses, and to put an inscription over them; “Beware of this dog,” to which some think these words refer: but it is more natural to interpret St. Paul’s expression from the comparisons used in the Old Testament, rather than from any proverbial speeches among the heathens. Evil-workers does not so much mean those who lived wickedly, as those who worked fraudulently and deceitfully. By the concision is meant either the excision (see the introduction to the chapter), or “those who rend and divide the church;” see Rom 16:17-18. They gloried in being the , the circumcision; which name and character St. Paul will not allow them; but claims it for Christians, in the next word, and calls them the , or concision; expressing his contempt of their pretences, and censure of their practices. See 2Co 11:13.
Phi 3:2 . This is now the which he had previously written, and probably in the very same words . At least this seems to be indicated by the peculiar expressions in themselves; and not only so, but it serves also to explain the relation of contrast , which this vehement “fervor pii zeli” (Calvin) presents to the tender and cordial tone of our epistle. That lost epistle had probably expressed the apostle’s mind at length, and with all the warmth of controversy, for the warning of his readers as to the Judaizing false teachers. How entirely different is the tone in which, in the present epistle, he speaks (Phi 1:15 ff.) of teachers likewise of an anti-Pauline type, and labouring, indeed, at that time in his immediate neighbourhood! Comp., moreover, the remark after Phi 1:18 . Those who refer to the , labour in very different ways to establish a connection of thought with . . .; as, for instance, Wiesinger: that Paul wished to suggest, as a ground for the reiterated summons to joy in the Lord, the danger which was threatening them from the men described; Weiss: that the readers were to learn e contrario , on what the true Christian joy was, and on what it was not, based.
] not: be on your guard against , etc. (which would be . , Mar 8:15 ; Mar 12:38 ), but as a calling attention to: behold! (1Co 1:26 ; 1Co 10:18 ), with a view, however, to warn the readers against these men as pernicious, by pointing to the forbidding shape in which they present themselves.
] a term of reproach among the Jews and the Greeks (frequently in Homer, who, however, also uses it without any dishonourable reference; see Duncan, Lex. ed. Rost . p. 674); used by the latter specially to denote impudence, furious boldness (Hom. Il . 8:289; Oba 1:17Oba 1:17 :248; Anth. Pal . 9:302), snappishness (Pollux, On . 5:65), low vulgarity (Lucian, Nigr . 22), malice and cunning (Jacobs, ad Anthol . VI. p. 18), and the like, see generally Wetstein; used also among the Jews in similar special references (Isa 56:10 f.; Deu 23:18 ; Rev 22:15 , et al. ), and, because dogs were unclean animals, generally to denote the profane, impure, unholy (Mat 7:6 ; Psa 22:17 ; Rev 22:15 ; Schoettgen, Hor . I. p. 1145); hence the Gentiles were so designated (see on Mat 15:26 ). In this passage also the profane nature and demeanour of the false teachers, as contrasted with the holy character of true Christianity, is to be adhered to as the point of comparison (Chrysostom: , ). Any more special reference of the term as to shamelessness (Chrysostom and many others, including Matthies, Baumgarten-Crusius, Ewald), covetousness (both combined by Grotius), snappishness (Rilliet, and older expositors, following Ambrosiaster, Augustine, and Pelagius), envy , and the like; or to the disorderly wandering about in selfishness and animosity towards those who were living peaceably in their Christian calling (Hofmann), to which Lange fancifully adds a loud howling against Paul, is not furnished by the context, which, on the contrary, follows it up with yet another general designation, subjoining, namely, to that of the low, unholy character ( ) that of the evil working: . Comp. 2Co 11:13 . The opposite: 2Ti 2:15 ; Xen. Mem . i. 2. 57. , , , , , Chrysostom; comp. Theodoret, Oecumenius, Theophylact. They, in fact, laboured in opposition to the fundamental doctrine of justification by faith.
] the cutting in pieces (Theophr. H. pl . iv. 8. 12), a word formed after the analogy of , and, like the latter in Phi 3:3 , used in a concrete sense: those who are cut in pieces! A bitter paronomasia , because these men were circumcised merely as regards the body , and placed their confidence in this fleshly circumcision, but were wanting in the inner, spiritual circumcision, which that of the body typified (see Phi 3:3 ; Rom 2:28 f.; Col 2:11 ; Eph 2:11 ; Act 7:51 ). Comp. Gal 5:11 f. In the absence of this, their characteristic consisted simply in the bodily mutilation, and that, from the ideal point of view which Paul here occupies, was not circum cision, but con cision; whilst, on the other hand, cir cumcision, as respected its moral idea, was entirely independent of the corporeal operation, Phi 3:3 . Comp. Weiss, bibl. Theol . p. 439, Exo 2 . This qualitative distinction between . and . has been misunderstood by Baur, who takes the climax as quantitative , and hence sees in it a warped and unnatural antithesis, which is only concocted to give the apostle an opportunity of speaking of his own person. Chrysostom, Oecumenius, and Theophylact justly lay stress on the abolition of the legal circumcision as such brought about through Christ (the end of the law, Rom 10:4 ), a presupposition which gives to this antinomistic sarcasm its warrant. [150] A description of idolatry , with allusion to Lev 21:5 , 1Ki 18:28 , et al . (Storr, Flatt, J. B. Lightfoot; comp. Beza), is quite foreign to the context. It is erroneous also to discover here any indication of a cutting off of hearts from the faith (Luther’s gloss), or a cutting in pieces of the church (Theodoret, Calvin, Beza, Grotius, Hammond, Clericus, Michaelis, Zachariae, and others), against which the necessary (comp. Phi 3:3 ) passive signification of the word (not cutters in pieces , but cut in pieces ) is decisive.
The thrice repeated belongs simply to the of earnest emotion (Dissen, ad Dem. de cor . p. 315; Buttmann, Neut. Gr . p. 341 [E. T. 398]), so that it points to the same dangerous men, and does not, as van Hengel misconceives, denote three different classes of Jewish opponents, viz. the apostate, the heretical , and the directly inimical . The passage quoted by him from Philostr., Vit. Soph . Phi 2:1 , does not bear upon the point, because in it the three repetitions of are divided by . Weiss also refers the three designations to three different categories, namely: (1) the unconverted heathen , with their immoral life; (2) the self-seeking Christian teachers, Phi 1:15-17 ; and (3) the unbelieving Jews , with their carnal conceit. But the first and third categories introduce alien elements, and the third cannot be identified with those mentioned at Phi 1:15-17 , but must mean persons much more dangerous. In opposition to the whole misinterpretation, see Huther in the Mecklenb. Zeitschr . p. 626 ff. All the three terms must characterize one class of men as in three aspects deserving of detestation, namely the Judaizing false teachers . As is evident from . and Phi 3:3 ff., they belonged to the same fundamentally hostile party against which Paul contends in the Epistle to the Galatians. At the same time, since the threefold repetition of the article pointing them out may be founded upon the very notoriety of these men, and yet does not of necessity presuppose a personal acquaintance with them, it must be left an open question, whether they had already come to Philippi itself, or merely threatened danger from some place in its vicinity. It is certain, however, though Baur still regards it as doubtful, that Paul did not refer to his opponents in Rome mentioned in Phi 1:15 ff. (Heinrichs), because in the passage before us a line of teaching must be thought of which was expressly and in principle anti-Pauline, leading back into Judaism and to legal righteousness; and also because the earnest, demonstrative , as well as (Phi 3:2 ), can only indicate a danger which was visibly and closely threatening the readers. It is also certain that these opponents could not as yet have succeeded in finding adherents among the Philippians; for if this had been the case, Paul would not have omitted to censure the readers themselves (as in the Epistle to the Galatians and Second Corinthians), and he would have given a very different shape generally to his epistle, which betrays nothing but a church as yet undivided in doctrine. His language directed against the false teachers is therefore merely warning and precautionary , as is also shown in Phi 3:3 .
[150] Luther’s works abound in sarcastic paronomasiae. Thus, for instance, in the preface to his works, instead of De cret and De cretal, he has written “ Dre cket” and “ Dre cketal” [Germ. Dreck=dregs, filth]; the Legenden he calls Lgenden, the Jurisperitos he terms Jurisperditos; also in proper names, such as Schwenkfeld, whom he called “ Stenkfeld. ” In ancient authors, comp. what Diog. L. vi. 2, 4 relates of Diogenes: , . Thuc. vi. 76. 4 : , . See also Ast, ad Plat. Phaedr. p. 276; Jacobs, Delect. epigr. p. 188. For the Latin, see Khner, ad Cic. Tusc. p. 291, Exo 3 .
2 Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers, beware of the concision.
Ver. 2. Beware of dogs ] That is, seducers and sectarians, who though dead dogs, yet will be barking at godly ministers. And though the dogs of Egypt would not move their tongues against Israel, Exo 11:7 , yet these greedy dogs, Isa 56:11 , can both bark and bite better men than themselves, being set on by the devil. Homines perfrictae frontis, impudent as dogs. Ravenous also when they get among the flocks, Eze 22:25 . Farther, they are crouching, colloguing creatures, 2Ti 3:4 : but believe them not; receive them not; for like dirty dogs they will but bemire you with fawning; yea, like cur-dogs, they will suck your blood with licking, and in the end kill you, and cut your throats without biting. Beware of them, therefore, beware, saith the apostle here.
Beware of evil workers ] Deceitful workers, 2Co 11:13 , that seem to build staircases for heaven, when indeed they dig descents down to hell, taking great pains to very evil purpose.
Beware of the concision ] For circumcision; as Diogenes called Zeno’s and Euclid’s . (Laert.) The Holy Scriptures have many such elegant and pleasant passages, as Pro 25:27 ; Hos 4:15 ; Gal 5:12 ; Isa 5:7 , &c. There is one that senseth it thus, Beware of the concision, that is, of those that make divisions and out the Church into little pieces, and sacking congregations, making separation. So Piscator, Qui conantur vos ab ecclesia Dei rescindere, who seek to sunder you from the Church. The Donatists affirmed that there were no true Churches but theirs, and were also divided among themselves, in minutula frustula, into small factions, as Austin saith.
2 .] , not, ‘ beware of ,’ as E. V. ( . , Mar 8:15 reff.), but as in reff., observe , with a view to avoid: cf. , Rom 16:17 .
] profane, impure persons. The appellation occurs in various references; but in the Jewish usage of it, uncleanness was the prominent idea: see, besides reff., Deu 23:18 ; Isa 56:10-11 ; Mat 15:26-27 . The remark of Chrys. is worth noting in connexion with what follows: . , . But I would not confine it entirely to them, as the next clause certainly generalizes further.
] cf. , 2Co 11:13 , , 2Ti 2:15 , , , . By , he seems to point out persons who actually wrought , and professedly for the Gospel, but who were ‘evil workmen,’ not mere ‘ evil-doers .’
. ] ‘gloriosam appellationem , circumcisionis, vindicat Christianis .’ Beng.
Observe the (I will not say, circumcision, but mere) CONcision (‘ amputation :’ who have no true circumcision of heart, but merely the cutting off of the flesh. Mey. quotes from Diog. Laert. vi. 24, of Diogenes the Cynic, , . Cf. Gal 5:12 note. On the thrice repeated article, Erasmus says, ‘indicat, eum de certis quibusdam loqui, quos illi noverint’):
Phi 3:2 . It is difficult to understand how anyone could find three different classes in these words ( e.g. , Ws [22] . , who divides them into ( a ) unconverted heathens, ( b ) self-seeking Christian teachers, ( c ) unbelieving Jews. See also his remarks in A. J. Th. , i., 2, pp. 389 391). The words are a precise parallel to Paul’s denunciations of Judaising teachers in Galatians and 2 Corinthians. Cf. Gal 1:7 ; Gal 1:9 ; Gal 5:12 , 2Co 11:13 ; 2Co 2:17 . The persistent and malicious opposition which they maintained against him sufficiently accounts for the fiery vehemence of his language. To surrender to their teaching was really to renounce the most precious gift of the Gospel, namely, “the glorious liberty of the sons of God”. For, in Paul’s view, he who possesses the Spirit is raised above all law. Cf. 2Co 3:17 , and see Gunkcl, Wirkungen 2 , etc., pp. 96 98. . Thrice repeated in the intense energy of his invective. Literally = “look at” them, in the sense of “beware of” them. It is not so used in classical Greek. Apparently some such significance as this is found in 2Ch 10:16 , , . Frequent in N.T. (see Blass, Gram. , p. 87, n. 1). He would have used a stronger word than . had the Judaisers already made some progress at Philippi. There is nothing to suggest this in the Epistle. But all the Pauline Churches were exposed to their inroads. At any moment their emissaries might appear. . Only here in Paul. Commentators have tried to single out the point of comparison intended, some emphasising the shamelessness of dogs, others their impurity , others their roaming tendencies , others still their insolence and cunning . Most probably the Apostle had no definite characteristic in his mind. was a term of reproach in Greek from the earliest to the latest times. E.g. , Hom., Il. , xiii., 623. Often in O.T. So here. . . . Cf. 2Co 11:13 , . We have here clear evidence that the persons alluded to were within the Christian Church. They did professedly carry on the work of the Gospel, but with a false aim. This invalidates the arguments of Lips [23] . , Hltzm [24] . and M‘Giffert ( Apost. Age , pp. 389 390), who imagine that the Apostle refers to unbelieving Jews, probably at Philippi. . . A scornful parody of their much-vaunted . W-M [25] . (pp. 794 796) gives numerous exx. of a similar paronomasia, e.g. , Diog. Laert., 6, 24, , . Lit. = “the mutilation”. Their mechanical, unspiritual view of the ancient rite reduces it to a mere laceration of the body. The word occurs in CIG. , 160, 27; Theophr., Hist. Plant. , 4, 8, 10; Symm. on Jerem. , xlviii., 37 = notch, cutting, incision. It is only found here with any reference to circumcision.
[22] . Weiss.
[23] Lipsius.
[24] tzm. Holtzmann.
[25] Moulton’s Ed. of Winer’s Grammar .
NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: Php 3:2-6
2Beware of the dogs, beware of the evil workers, beware of the false circumcision; 3for we are the true circumcision, who worship in the Spirit of God and glory in Christ Jesus and put no confidence in the flesh, 4although I myself might have confidence even in the flesh. If anyone else has a mind to put confidence in the flesh, I far more: 5circumcised the eighth day, of the nation of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the Law, a Pharisee; 6as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to the righteousness which is in the Law, found blameless.
Php 3:2 “Beware of the dogs” This is a present active imperative of “look out for” (blep), repeated three times for emphasis. The rabbis called the Gentiles “dogs.” Paul changed the phrase to refer to the false teachers. The term “dogs” in the OT referred to (1) male prostitutes (cf. Deu 23:18) or (2) evil people (cf. Psa 22:16; Psa 22:20). Culturally the idiom refers to vicious street mongrels. These false teachers were like ravenous dogs and vicious unbelievers (cf. Mat 7:6; Gal 5:15; Rev 22:15).
NASB”false-circumcision”
NKJV”the mutilation”
NRSV”those who mutilate the flesh”
TEV”who insist on cutting the body”
NJB”self-mutilation”
This is a reference to the Judaizers’ insistence on circumcision (cf. Act 15:1; Act 15:5; Gal 5:2-3; Gal 5:12). They basically taught that one had to be Jewish before he could be Christian. Becoming a proselyte Jew involved being circumcised, baptizing yourself, and offering a sacrifice in the temple. Circumcision became a metaphor for taking on “the yoke” of the Mosaic Law.
Php 3:3
NASB, NKJV,
NRSV”the true circumcision”
TEV”the true circumcision”
NJB”the true people of the circumcision”
This spiritual/faith circumcision is described in Rom 2:28-29 and Gal 3:29. The church in some ways is spiritual Israel (cf. Gal 6:16). In the OT, circumcision was the sign of the Abrahamic Covenant (cf. Gen 17:11; Gen 17:14; Gen 17:23-25). It involved a proper attitude, not just a physical ritual (cf. Lev 26:41; Deu 10:16; and Jer 4:4). True spiritual circumcision is described by three present active participles:
1. the ones worshiping in or by the Spirit of God
2. the ones glorying in Christ
3. the ones not putting confidence in the flesh
NASB”glory in Christ Jesus”
NKJV”rejoice in Christ Jesus”
NRSV”and boast in Christ Jesus”
TEV”rejoice in our life in union with Christ Jesus”
NJB”and make Christ Jesus our boast”
Paul often uses this word (cf. Rom 2:23; Rom 3:27; Rom 4:2; Rom 5:2-3; Rom 5:11; Rom 11:18; Rom 15:17; 1Co 1:31; 1Co 3:21; 1Co 4:7; 1Co 5:6; 1Co 7:14; 1 Cor. 8:24; 1Co 9:2; 1Co 9:4; 1Co 9:11; 1Co 9:15-16; 1Co 10:8; 1Co 10:13; 1Co 10:15-16; 1Co 11:10; 1Co 11:12; 2Co 1:14; 2Co 5:12; 2Co 7:4; 2Co 10:17; 2Co 11:17-18; 2Co 11:30; 2Co 12:1; 2Co 12:5-6; 2Co 12:9; 2Co 12:11; Gal 6:4; Gal 6:13-14; Eph 2:9; Php 1:26; Php 2:16; Php 3:3; 2Th 1:4). It is translated according to the context as “rejoice,” “boast,” “confident pride,” or “exalt.”
NASB”put no confidence in the flesh”
NKJV, NRSV”have no confidence in the flesh”
TEV”we do not put any trust in external ceremonies”
NJB”not relying on physical qualifications”
This term implies a confident boasting in something or someone. This phrase is in contrast to the previous phrase. Paul’s relationship with Christ and his understanding of the gospel gave him confidence.
This may refer to the Jewish pride of lineage from Abraham (cf. Php 3:4-5; Mat 3:9; Joh 8:33; Joh 8:37; Joh 8:39). It surely refers to Jewish rituals like circumcision (cf. Acts 15 and Galatians).
Php 3:4 “if” This is a first class conditional sentence which was assumed to be true from the author’s perspective or for his literary purposes.
“I far more” Paul reluctantly compares his Jewish credentials with those of the Judaizers. They had no racial or religious superiority over him (cf. Php 3:5-6; 2Co 11:22). Paul defended himself because by attacking him, they were attempting to discredit the gospel.
Php 3:5 “circumcised the eighth day” The Jews circumcised on the 8th day after birth (cf. Gen 17:9-14; Lev 12:3). Flavius Josephus tells us that the Arabs circumcised at the age of 13, following Gen 17:23-27.
“of the nation of Israel” For a list of the privileges of the Jewish people, see Rom 9:4-5; Rom 11:1.
“tribe of Benjamin” This was the tribe of Israel’s first king, Saul. It was also part of the southern kingdom, Judah, after the tribes divided in 922 B.C.
“a Hebrew of Hebrews” This idiom refers to either (1) pure racial stock or (2) his speaking the Hebrew (Aramaic) language.
Php 3:6 “as to the Law, a Pharisee” This was the conservative popular sect within Judaism which developed during the Maccabean period (cf. Joh 3:1). They desired to keep the Mosaic Law in every detail (cf. Act 26:4-5). They had detailed regulations for every area of life which had developed over time in the discussion between the two schools of rabbis (Shammai and Hillel). Their oral traditions were later codified into the Babylonian and Palestinian Talmuds. Nicodemas and Joseph of Arimathea were positive examples of their sincerity and dedication.
SPECIAL TOPIC: PHARISEES
“as to zeal” Enthusiasm is not automatically from God (cf. Rom 10:2).
“a persecutor of the church” Saul apparently imprisoned and possibly even killed believers (cf. Act 8:3; Act 9:1; Act 9:13; Act 9:21; 1Co 15:9; Gal 1:13-14; Gal 1:23; 1Ti 1:13). This is an obvious reference to the Church universal (cf. Mat 16:18; Eph 1:22; Eph 3:10; Eph 3:21; Eph 5:23-32). See Special Topic: Church (Ekklesia) at Col 1:18.
“concerning the righteousness which is in the law, blameless” Paul was speaking of his pre-Christian understanding of the Mosaic Law (cf. Mar 10:20) and its interpretation (Talmud). If these false teachers wanted to rejoice in their Jewishness, Paul could also (cf. 2Co 11:16-23). See Special Topic at Eph 4:24.
The term “blameless” was originally used in the OT of sacrificial animals (cf. Php 2:15). It does not mean “sinless” (cf. Gen 6:9; Gen 6:17; Job 1:1), but one who had fulfilled that which he understood of God’s will. See Special Topic: Blameless at Col 1:22.
Beware. App-133.
evil, App-128.
concision. Greek. katatome. Only here. The verb katatemno Occurs in the Septuagint of heathen mutilations. Lev 21:5. 1Ki 18:28. Paul regards the circumcision of the Judaizers as a mere ordinance, no better than a heathen one. Compare Rom 2:26-29. 1Co 7:19, Gal 1:5, Gal 1:6; Gal 6:15.
2.] , not, beware of, as E. V. (. , Mar 8:15 reff.), but as in reff., observe, with a view to avoid: cf. , Rom 16:17.
] profane, impure persons. The appellation occurs in various references; but in the Jewish usage of it, uncleanness was the prominent idea: see, besides reff., Deu 23:18; Isa 56:10-11; Mat 15:26-27. The remark of Chrys. is worth noting in connexion with what follows: . , . But I would not confine it entirely to them, as the next clause certainly generalizes further.
] cf. , 2Co 11:13,- , 2Ti 2:15,- , , . By , he seems to point out persons who actually wrought, and professedly for the Gospel, but who were evil workmen, not mere evil-doers.
. ] gloriosam appellationem , circumcisionis, vindicat Christianis. Beng.
Observe the (I will not say, circumcision, but mere) CONcision (amputation: who have no true circumcision of heart, but merely the cutting off of the flesh. Mey. quotes from Diog. Laert. vi. 24, of Diogenes the Cynic, , . Cf. Gal 5:12 note. On the thrice repeated article, Erasmus says, indicat, eum de certis quibusdam loqui, quos illi noverint):
Php 3:2. , see) A vehement Anaphora,[29] See, and you will avoid; a metonymy of the antecedent for the consequent.[30] The antithesis is , observe, mark,[31] Php 3:17; for Php 3:17 returns to this topic, wonderfully tempered by reproof and exhortation.- , the dogs) Undoubtedly he used this appellation often in their presence, Php 3:18, and he now brought it to the recollection of the Philippians; and hence they would more easily understand it than we. Comp. 2Th 2:5. The three members of the following verse correspond, by a retrograde gradation (descending climax), to the three clauses of this verse; so that the dogs are the false apostles and carnal men, who do not trust in Christ, but in the flesh, and are slaves to foul lusts [utter strangers to true holiness, although exulting in the name of Jews.-V. g.], Php 3:19. So the term dogs is applied to , those to be abominated, Rev 22:15; comp. Rev 21:8; or in other words, the abominable, impure (, ), Tit 1:16; Tit 1:15, strangers to holiness, Mat 7:6; quite different from Paul, living and dying; for in life they abound to overflowing in the vices of dogs, in filthiness, unchastity, snarling, 2Pe 2:22; Deu 23:19 (18); Psa 59:7; Psa 59:16; and they are most of all the enemies of the cross of Christ, Php 3:18; comp. Psa 22:17; Psa 22:21 : and in death they are dead dogs (by which proverb something of the vilest sort is denoted): comp. Php 3:19. That saying is applicable to these, which is commonly used, Take care of the dog.[32] The Jews considered the Gentiles as dogs; see at Mat 15:26; they are now called dogs, who are unwilling to be the Israel of God.- , evil workers) who do not serve God; comp. 2Co 11:13.- , the concision) A Paranomasia [See Append.]; for he claims for Christians the glorious name of the circumcision () in the following verse. The circumcision of the body was now useless, nay hurtful. See on the prohibition of cutting the flesh, Lev 21:5; 1Ki 18:28. He speaks not without indignation.
[29] Repetition of the same word at the beginnings of several clauses.-ED.
[30] See, instead of avoid, which is its consequence.-ED.
[31] So as to follow; not as here, See so as to avoid.-ED.
[32] , cave canem, used to be written near the door of ancient houses to guard strangers against the dog kept in the ostium or janua. At Pompeii, in the house of the tragic poet, there is wrought in the Mosaic pavement, Cave canem, and the figure of a fierce dog. See Gells Pomp.-ED
Php 3:2
Php 3:2
Beware of the dogs,-It was out of harmony with Pauls usual style to apply this term to any one. The Jews called the Gentiles dogs, as a symbol of what was ignoble and mean, now for the same reason he calls them dogs. [Those persons who bark and rail at such as they hate are called dogs. They are inclined to abominable courses; are dumb dogs; they do not faithfully warn and instruct men; are lazy dogs; do not faithfully work; are greedy dogs; they never get enough of worldly things; and are given to bark at and reproach the people of God. (Isa 56:9-11).]
beware of the evil workers,-The evil workers were the Judaizing teachers. They were actively at work, but in the wrong direction. These Judaizers were like the Pharisees before them, of whom the Savior said: Ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte; and when he is become so, ye make him twofold more a son of hell than yourselves. (Mat 23:15).
beware of the concision:-He applies the term concision to those who insisted on the literal act of circumcision, but had lost its true spirit. As the literal, fleshly seed of Abraham had brought them up to, and given way to the circumcision of the heart, the putting off of the body of the flesh, in the circumcision of Christ. (Col 2:11).
of dogs: Pro 26:11, Isa 56:10, Isa 56:11, Mat 7:6, Mat 7:15, Mat 24:10, Gal 5:15, 2Ti 4:14, 2Ti 4:15, 2Pe 2:22, Rev 22:15
evil: Phi 3:19, Psa 119:115, Mat 7:22, Mat 7:23, 2Co 11:13, Gal 5:13, 1Ti 1:19, 2Ti 3:1-6, 2Ti 4:3, 2Ti 4:4, Tit 1:16, 2Pe 2:18-20, Jud 1:4, Jud 1:10 -13; Rev 21:8
the: Phi 3:3, Rom 2:28, Gal 2:3, Gal 2:4, Gal 5:1-3, Gal 5:6, Rev 2:9, Rev 3:9
Reciprocal: Deu 23:18 – dog 2Ki 8:13 – a dog Psa 22:16 – dogs Jer 27:14 – hearken Joe 3:14 – decision Mat 10:17 – beware Mat 15:26 – It is not Act 15:1 – Except Rom 16:17 – cause Col 2:8 – Beware Tit 1:10 – specially 2Pe 3:17 – beware
(Php 3:2.) -Look to the dogs, so as to be warned against them. The article points them out as a well-known class. The verb is here followed by a simple accusative, and not by with the genitive, and has therefore its original signification only rendered more emphatic. Observe them so as to understand them, the inference being that when they are understood, they will be shunned. Winer, 32, 1, b, (). So the Vulgate has observate. This hard expression, , must be judged of by Eastern usage and associations. In very early times the name was applied as an epithet of reproach. In Homer the term is not of so deep a stain, especially as given to women; yet it resembled, in fact, the coarse appellative employed among the outcasts of society. Iris calls Athena, and Hera calls Artemis, by the term ; nay, Helen names herself one. Il. 8.423, 21.481. In the Odyssey, too, the female servants of Ulysses receive the same epithet. Odyss. 18.338, 19:91, 154. In countries to the east of Greece, the term was one of extreme contempt, and that seemingly from the earliest times. The dogs there were wild and masterless animals, prowling in the evening, feeding on garbage, and devouring unburied corpses, as savage generally as they were greedy. Isa 56:11. The fidelity of the dog is recognised in the Odyssey, 17.291, and by AEschylus, Agam. 607. But rapacity and filth (2Pe 2:22) are the scriptural associations. Psa 59:6; Psa 59:14; 1Ki 14:11; 1Ki 16:4; 1Ki 21:19 -compared with 1Sa 17:43; 2Ki 8:13. In Hebrew , H3978 was the epithet of the vilest and foulest sinners. Deu 23:19 (18); Rev 22:15. The term was therefore a strong expression of contempt, and was given by the Jews to the heathen, Mat 15:26, as it is by Mohammedans to a Christian at the present day, when, without often meaning a serious insult, they are in the habit of calling him Giaour. We must suppose the apostle to use the word in its general acceptation, and as indicative of impurity and profanity. To indicate more minute points of comparison, such as those of shamelessness, selfishness, savageness, or malevolence, is merely fanciful. The view of van Hengel is peculiarly far-fetched-apostates from Christianity to Judaism-the dog returning to his vomit. 2Pe 2:22.
Who then are the persons on whom the apostle casts this opprobrious epithet? The general and correct opinion is that they were Judaizers, or, as Chrysostom styles them, base and contemptible Jews, greedy of filthy lucre and fond of power, who, desiring to draw away numbers of believers, preached at the same time both Christianity and Judaism, corrupting the gospel- , . One is apt to infer that the apostle here gives them the name which they themselves flung about so mercilessly against the heathen. As in the last clause he nicknames their boasted circumcision, so here he calls them by a designation which in their contemptuous pride they were wont to lavish on others. They were dogs in relation to the purity and privileges of the Church, without which they were.
-look to the evil-workers. The verb is repeated for the sake of emphasis, and not because a second class of persons is pointed out to their wary inspection. The substantive, applied literally in many places of the New Testament to labourers in the fields and vineyards, is transferred to workers in the church, or with a general signification. Luk 13:27; 2Ti 2:15; 2Co 11:13, where it has the epithet attached to it. The adjective describes their character as base and malicious. If they were dogs, they must work according to their nature. They were not, as Baldwin weakens the force of the epithet, simpliciter errantes, but they were set on evil; theirs was no inoperative speculation; they were not mere opinionists, but restless agitators; they were not dreamy theorists, but busy workers-earnest and indefatigable in the support and propagation of their errors.
-look to the concision. In the contemptuous and alliterative term, the abstract is used for the concrete, as is the case with in the following verse. The term occurs only here, and the apostle, in his indignation, characterizes the class of Judaizers by it. Not that he could speak so satirically of circumcision as a divine institute, but of it only when, as a mere manual mutilation, apart from its spiritual significance, it was insisted on as the only means of admission to the church-as a rite never to be discontinued, but one that was obligatory as well on the Gentile races as on the descendants of Abraham. The term justly designates the men whose creed was, Except ye be circumcised and keep the whole law of Moses, ye cannot be saved. Viewed in this light, and as enforced for this end, it was only a cutting, and so the apostle calls those who made so much of it the slashers. Chrysostom well says of them, that so far from performing a religious rite, -they merely cut their flesh. See our comment on Col 2:11, where the apostle says that Christians have a spiritual circumcision-the offputting not of the foreskin, but of the body of the flesh. Such seems to be the natural meaning of the phrase, as understood in the light of the succeeding context. This play upon words is frequent with the apostle, Winer, 68, 2; though some instances of so-called paronomasia cannot be at all sustained.
Other ideas have, however, been found in the apostle’s expression. Theodoret originated one of these theories, when he says of the Judaists- , , and he is virtually followed by Calvin and Beza, Grotius and Hammond, Elsner and Zachariae, and in the English versions of Tyndale and Cranmer. A similar idea was entertained by Luther, as if the sense or implication were the excision of the heart from faith or from the church. Such a thought does not seem to be in the apostle’s mind, that it is not in contrast with , which besides has a passive, and not an active signification. Beza, again, seems to find an allusion to Lev 19:28; Lev 21:5, to the Hebrew term , H8582, referring to marks or cuttings made in honour of idol-gods. 1Ki 18:28. Storr and Flatt follow this view, as if the apostle meant to say, that such a circumcision as they insisted on and gloried in was on a level with an idolatrous incision. The theory has scarcely the credit of ingenuity. A more extraordinary view still is broached in one of the Ignatian epistles-partum virginis circumcidentes-hominem a Deo dividentes. Heumann supposes the reference to be to the speedy abscission or destruction of Judea.
The repetition of the verb proves the anxiety and stern ardour of the apostle. Winer, 65, 5. For you it is safe, and their safety lay to some extent in being formally and emphatically warned. Like three peals of a trumpet giving a certain blast, do the three clauses sound with the thrice-repeated verb-. That the same classes of persons are referred to, we have no doubt. Van Hengel supposes that three distinct kinds of errorists are pointed out;-first, apostates who have relapsed to Judaism; secondly, actual corrupters of the gospel; and thirdly, men so reliant on circumcision as to despise Christ. This interpretation is more than the words will bear, and there is no conjunction or particle employed so as to indicate different parties. The same men are described in each clause-as impure and profane, as working spiritual mischief, and as taken up with a puerile faith in flesh-cutting. In the first clause you have their character, in the second their conduct, and in the third their destructive creed. The absurd stress they placed on a mere mutilation warranted the satirical epithet of the concision; but their convictions on this point drove them into a course of mischievous agitations, and they became the evil-workers; then from their belief, character, and actings, they stood out as impure and shameless-as dogs. Men who insisted on circumcision as essential to salvation made the rite ridiculous-Judaized ere they Christianized. To circumcise a Gentile was not only to subject him to a rite which God never intended for him, but it was to invest him with a false character. Circumcision to him was a forgery, and he carried a lie in his person. Not a Jew, and yet marked as one-having the token without the lineage-the seal of descent and not a drop of Abraham’s blood in his veins. To hinge salvation, especially in the case of a Gentile, on circumcision, was such a spurious proselytism-such a total misappreciation of the Jewish covenant-such a miserable subversion of the liberty of the gospel-such a perverse and superstitious reliance on a manual rite, that its advocates might be well caricatured and branded as the concision. The rite, so misplaced, was both a fiction and an anachronism; for the benefits of circumcision were to be enjoyed in Palestine, and not in Europe, and enjoyed up to the period of the abolition of the law of commandments contained in ordinances. What these persons were may be seen in the Introduction. They might not have done damage as yet in Philippi, but there was a danger of their doing so. Such a warning, repeated, would put the Philippians on their guard and contribute to their safety.
Php 3:2. Dogs is from KUON, and Thayer defines it at this place, “a man of impure mind, an impudent man.” The editor of Thayer’s lexicon says the word is always used in a reproachful sense when it is used figuratively. Robinson gives the same definition, and says it is used figuratively in Php 3:2, “where it is spoken of Judaizing teachers.” Paul literally calls them evil workers. The original for concision is KATATOME which Thayer defines with the one word “mutilation.” We know Paul is writing about the rite of circumcision, but he designates it by the other word because of the unlawful use that the Judaizers were making of it. Circumcision was given to the descendant of Abraham as a national mark, and later was included in the Jewish system as a religious ordinance. When that was replaced by the Gospel system, the religious feature of circumcision was taken away and the rite was left just where it was in the beginning, namely, a fleshly mark for the Jews only. The Gentiles were never given the rite for any reason, hence it is unlawful to perform it on any of them. When a doctor circumcises a new born infant he violates the law of Christ, and Paul would accuse him of mutilation.
Php 3:2. Beware of the dogs. The word signifies Look out, and would rather seem to imply that these teachers were not yet at Philippi, but might come, and so the apostle bids them watch. To the Eastern mind, nothing could express greater contempt than the name dog, and there can be little doubt that this feeling was in the apostles mind towards such false teachers. But there may also be an allusion to the contentions to which such lessons would give rise. For we see (Gal 5:15) that in another church in which Judaizing opinions prevailed very greatly, the apostle is constrained to warn the members against biting and devouring one another, lest they should be consumed one of another.
beware of the evil workers. Evil workers, because they themselves who are circumcised do not keep the law, and their pains are bestowed only on pulling down the work of the Christian teachers, and giving nothing in its stead but mere ceremonial observance, weak and beggarly elements without any spiritual benefit.
beware of the concision. The thrice repeated beware in reference to the same persons marks the apostles earnestness, and his sense of the peril to those who were again enslaved, after having been made free in Christ. He uses also a word for concision which is found nowhere else in the New Testament. He calls their practice mere cutting, a mutilation of the body for mutilations sake, that, as he says elsewhere, they may glory in your flesh, that they may be proud that men consent to be outwardly marked for Jews. But in this word there may also be an allusion to the severance or cutting asunder in the church which such teachers were sure to cause. They were not only mutilators of the body, but also of the body of Christ, the Church.
Observe here, 1. The cautionary directions given the Philippians to beware of false teachers, who adulterated and corrupted the doctrine of Christ, by joining the works and observances of the law with the doctrine of the gospel, in point of justification, making them at least the partial ground of their confidence and rejoicing: beware of such, says our apostle.
Observe, 2.The cutting reproof given to these judaizing teachers in that odious character he gives of them, and in that brand of infamy which he claps upon them.
1. He calls them dogs; a term not of dimunution only, but of the utmost disgrace: Is thy servant a dog? 2Ki 8:13 supposing that nothing could be thought more vile and base. The Jews called all the Gentiles dogs, because unclean. St. Paul here calls the false teachers dogs fitly, because, as dogs, they did rend and tear the simplicity of the gospel, and divide the glory of man’s salvation betwixt faith and works; because, as dogs, they did bark out reproaches against the apostles and their doctrine, delivered in its purity and simplicity; because, as dogs, they did take a great deal of pains to compass abundance of ground to gain their game; or, in our Saviour’s words, They compass sea and land to make prostlytes.
2. Evil-workers, because, pretending to labour in the gospel, they did subvert and overthrow the great design of the gospel; pretending to be fellow-workers with the apostles, but pulling down what they had built up.
3.The concision: so in contempt he calls circumcision, which these judaizing teachers pleaded the necessity of; as Hezekiah called the brazen serpent Nehushtan: because circumcision, being no longer an ordinance of God, was no better than a cutting off the flesh; and they that made it necessary to justification, cut themselves off from Christ, and from the church of Christ: by urging the necessity of circumcision, they cut and rend asunder the church of God.
Note here, 1. How different the temper of this apostle was in different cases; in things of an indifferent nature, and less necessary, who more mild, indulgent, and complying, breathing forth the spirit of the meek Jesus? But when opinions were broached, which tend to pervert souls, and to subvert the gospel, then he speaks fire and thunder, and no terms are bad enough for such seducers. Let us follow St. Paul as he followed Christ, and learn when to be mild and when to be zealous.
Note, 2. With what an excess of care he cautions the Philippians against these false teachers, saying, Beware, beware, beware, three times together in one short verse; thereby instructing the ministers of Christ, that their utmost zeal and diligence is necessary in warning their people to guard against seducers.
Php 3:2. Beware of dogs Unclean, unholy, rapacious men, who, though they fawn and flatter, would devour you as dogs. He probably gave them this appellation also, because they barked against the doctrines of the gospel, and against its faithful teachers, and were ready to bite and tear all who opposed their errors. Our Lord used the word dogs in the same sense, when he commanded his apostles not to give that which is holy to dogs. Perhaps, by calling them dogs, the apostle might intend to signify likewise, that, in the sight of God, they were now become as abominable, for crucifying Christ, and persecuting his apostles, as the idolatrous heathen were in the eyes of the Jews; who, to express their detestation of them, gave them the name of dogs; a title which the apostle therefore here returns upon themselves. Rev 22:15, the wicked are called dogs: without are dogs. Beware of evil workers Of those Judaizing teachers, who, while they cry up the law, and pretend to be strenuous advocates for good works, are, in fact, evil workers; sowing the seeds of discord, strife, contention, and division, among the simple, humble, and formerly united members of Christ, and acting in direct opposition, not only to the gospel, the true nature of which they do not understand, but even to the most important precepts and grand design of the law itself, for the honour of which they appear to be so zealous. Macknight renders the expression, evil labourers, in opposition to the appellation of fellow-labourers, with which the apostle honoured those who faithfully assisted him in preaching the gospel. The same false teachers he calls false apostles, and deceitful workers, or labourers, 2Co 11:13; because, instead of building, they undermined the Church of Christ, by removing its foundation; beware of the concision Circumcision being now no longer a rite of entering into covenant with God, the apostle will not call those who used it the circumcision; but coins a term on purpose, taken from a Greek word used by the LXX., Lev 21:5, for such a cutting of the flesh as God had forbidden. Dr. Macknight renders the word the excision: an appellation, says he, finely contrived to express the pernicious influence of their doctrine; and perhaps also to signify the destruction which was coming on them as a nation. He adds, the account given of these wicked men, Rom 16:18; Gal 6:12; Tit 1:11, shows that they deserved all the harsh names given them in this place.
ARGUMENT 3
COUNTERFEIT RELIGION
2. Beware of dogs; not quadruped, but biped dogs. The dog, a most unclean animal, symbolizes impurity. Holiness is purity. If you are not for holiness, you are for impurity. Hence, we here have the solemn warning, Beware of dogs; i.e., anti-holiness people, as all such are the advocates, if not the servitors of impurity. Beware of the concision. In Judaism the physical birth emblematizes regeneration; and the circumcision, eight days subsequently, signifies sanctification. (Deu 30:6.) Concision is counterfeit circumcision; i.e., a spurious sanctification. Satan is the great counterfeiter; he spares none of Gods work, but counterfeits all of it. Passing himself for God, and his spurious work for Gods genuine, he has long ago monopolized the religions of the world, filling up Churches with his own votaries, vainly dreaming that they are worshipping God. A counterfeit sanctification is the meanest thing in the world, as counterfeit gold is so much greater loss than silver. How shall we detect this counterfeit? The next verse gives the answer.
3. For we are the circumcision, who worship the Spirit of God, truly rejoicing in Christ Jesus, and having no confidence in carnality.
Hence, we see that the true sanctification is a pure spiritual experience characterized by purely spiritual services, rejoicing in Christ alone, and perfectly free from carnality. O what a contrast with the carnal worship of popular religion, burdened to death with human institutions, and grossly ignorant of the pure spirituality characterizing the worshipers of God!
Verse 2
Dogs; a reproachful term, designating arrogant and dangerous men.–The concision; the spirit which insisted upon the spiritual efficacy of the Jewish rite of circumcision.
3:2 Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers, beware of the {b} concision.
(b) He alludes to circumcision; and while they were boasting in it, they broke apart the Church.
The Judaizing danger 3:2-4a
Paul proceeded to deal with a significant group of antagonists that the Philippians faced.
Jesus and other prophets used the term "dogs" to refer to opponents of God’s truth (Mat 7:6; cf. Deu 23:18; 1Sa 17:43; 1Sa 24:14; Pro 26:11; Isa 56:10-11). The Jews habitually referred to Gentiles contemptuously as dogs (cf. Mat 15:21-28). In ancient times many dogs were unclean, wild, vicious animals that threatened the safety of everyone.
"Paul now hurls this term of contempt back ’on the heads of its authors’ . . ., for to Paul the Jews were the real pariahs that defile the holy community, the Christian church, with their erroneous teaching." [Note: Ibid., p. 125. Cf. R. Jewett, "Conflicting Movements in the Early Church as Reflected in Philippians," Novum Testamentum 12 (1970):386; and Martin, p. 137.]
"This metaphor is full of ’bite,’ . . . Paul thus reverses the epithet; by trying to make Gentiles ’clean’ through circumcision, the Judaizers are unclean ’dogs.’" [Note: Fee, Paul’s Letter . . ., p. 295.]
The phrase "evil workers" (NABS) stresses the evil character of their labors. However "false circumcision" (NASB) or "mutilators of the flesh" (NIV, cf. Gal 5:12) gives us the most insight into exactly whom Paul had in mind. [Note: See René A. López, "A Study of Pauline Passages with Vice Lists," Bibliotheca Sacra 168:671 (July-September 2011):301-16.]
These were evidently the Judaizers that plagued Paul and his converts throughout his ministry. O’Brien gave six options that scholars have suggested concerning the identity of this group, and he defended their being different from the opponents whom Paul mentioned in Php 1:14-17. [Note: P. T. O’Brien, Commentary on Philippians, pp. 101-6.] They taught that people could only enter the church through the vestibule of Judaism, and that once inside they needed to submit to the Mosaic Law. This was the so-called "Galatian heresy" that Paul dealt with extensively in his epistle to the Galatians. They emphasized circumcision because it was the rite that brought a person into Judaism, which they viewed as a prerequisite to justification (cf. Act 15:1). False circumcision refers to circumcision for the wrong reasons, namely, circumcision contrary to the revelation of God in Scripture.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Fuente: Commentary on the Greek Text of Galatians, Ephesians, Colossians and Phillipians
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Fuente: William Godbey’s Commentary on the New Testament
Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)