The most common interpretation of Philippians 3 is
that it is a polemic against either ‘the circumcision’ (Jewish people) or, even
more commonly, against ‘Judaizers’ (a term used to define those arguing that
gentile ‘Christ-followers’ need to take on all the markers of Jewishness, that
is, that they need to be circumcised, etc).
Given the very common Hellenistic mindset, that most
uncritically approach this text with, it is not at all surprisingly how it is
then understood in this way. In fact, I suspect it would be very difficult for
any Gentile believer attending a typical (Hellenistic) church in today’s world
to see this text in any other way.
The traditional view is also both anti-Semitic and
supportive of Replacement Theology. In case this is not clear consider two
quotes by Gerald F. Hawthorne, in the Word Biblical Commentary (1983) on
Philippians 3:2. His comments are typical of Christian commentaries on this passage.
He states:
“The Jews were in the
habit of referring contemptuously to Gentiles as dogs—unclean animals with whom
they would not associate if such association could be avoided…. Paul now hurls
this term of contempt back "on the heads of its authors."
And
“to Paul the Jews were the
real pariahs that defile the holy community, the Christian church, with their erroneous teaching.”
To try to give pause for some serious reflection and
reconsideration then, let us assume for a moment that the Apostle Paul is
attacking ‘Judaizers’ here (remembering that these were people who had accepted
Jesus/Yeshua as the Christ/Messiah but were arguing for circumcision, etc). In
verses 18-19 Paul goes on to say of these ‘Judaizers’:
18 “For many, of whom I have often told you and now tell you even with tears, walk as enemies of the cross of Christ. 19 Their end is destruction … “
18 “For many, of whom I have often told you and now tell you even with tears, walk as enemies of the cross of Christ. 19 Their end is destruction … “
Is Paul really saying that these ‘Christ-followers’
are ‘enemies of the cross of Christ’ and that ‘their end is destruction’!
Surely not! Surely, there must be something wrong here with this traditional
interpretation.
Hopefully, this shocking statement (within this
contextual understanding) will give you the impetuous to look a little deeper
here.
Consider the context again. Paul's letter was sent to
a Romanized city, populated by many Romans and peoples from many other lands;
with very strong social stratification. They were very much an agricultural and
thus highly interdependent city where many cults were practiced and many gods,
including Egyptian gods, were worshiped.
Into this pagan mix, consider that the Apostle Paul
was a Torah observant Jew (as I argue in a number of other articles in some
depth), had arrived to establish and support groups practicing Judaism with a
belief that Yeshua was the Messiah (though the Gentiles within these groups
were encouraged by Paul and the Jerusalem Council of Acts 15 to remain Gentiles
and not become proselytized Jews). Here though Paul is communicating with these
groups by letter.
In this context then, Paul is declaring opposition to
and revulsion toward the idolatrous cults that abounded here. He is also trying
to encourage the Gentile believers to no longer have their worldview and
behaviour shaped by the Roman social world in which they have grown up; but
that, this now marginalized group, acquire the worldview and behaviour of those
who follow the ‘divine instructions’ (Torah) of the One God.
With this perspective let us look at a few of the
terms used by Paul. For example, consider v2 “Look out for the dogs,
look out for the evildoers, look out
for those who mutilate the flesh.”
For a start there is no literary evidence from the
Second Temple Period or afterwards that in expressing ethnic prejudice, Jews
called non-Jews ‘dogs’. Thus the common argument that Paul is reversing this
expression cannot be valid. Rather, there was in Phillipi a cult or
philosophical group, called in English the ‘Cynics’, which is based on the
Greek word for dogs. As a means to demonstrate what they saw as the errors of
the society of their day they tried to outdo all others in "doggish"
type behavior.
Consider also the story of Elijah and the prophets of
Baal. These prophets were clearly ‘evil doers’ and also mutilators of the flesh
(see 1 Kings 18). Isn’t it more likely
then that Paul was comparing the local pagans and cults as similar to the
prophets of Baal? In fact, Paul does compare himself with Elijah and invoke
these very images of ‘evil workers’ and ‘mutilators’ in Romans 11:1-5. Remember
also that the Torah makes it clear that mutilation of the flesh is not to be
practiced by the Jews. See for example Lev 19:28 “You shall not make any cuts on your body for the dead
or tattoo yourselves: I am the LORD. “ and therefore that there is no way
that Judaism considered circumcision as a form of ‘mutilation’ of the flesh.
Let us look at v18-19 again: “For many, of whom I
have often told you and now tell you even with tears, walk as enemies of the
cross of Christ. Their end is
destruction, their god is their belly,
and they glory in their shame, with minds set on earthly things.” and in particular the terms ‘their god is their belly’ and ‘they glory in their shame’, which are
used to identify the people, behaviour and cults that Paul is condemning.
Consider the events described by Luke in Acts
16:12-40:
“12 and from
there to Philippi, which is a leading city of the district of Macedonia and a
Roman colony. …
16 As we were
going to the place of prayer, we were met by a slave girl who had a spirit of
divination and brought her owners much gain by fortune-telling….
19 But when her
owners saw that their hope of gain was gone, they seized Paul and Silas and
dragged them into the marketplace before the rulers.
20 And when
they had brought them to the magistrates, they said, These men are Jews, and
they are disturbing our city.
21 They
advocate customs that are not lawful for us as Romans to accept or practice.
The slave girl is said to have a spirit of python (see
‘pneuma pyhona’ at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unclean_spirit) from the cult of Apollo (the
special god for Augustus, who won the battle for him at Philippi). This
divination was also called ‘belly talking’, and could thus be described as a ‘god in their belly’. The Cynics doggish
behaviour involved behaving in the most animal and shameful manner to expose
what they saw as the hypocrisy of their society. Thus this group of local
pagans could be described as ‘glorifying
in their shame’.
Now we are ready to look again at verse 3-17. In Phil
3:3 it now appears that Paul is contrasting these local pagan practices and
beliefs with the Way (Ps 119) of the Jews (note also in the story from Acts 16
above that he was accused of pushing Jewish customs), which involved ‘serving God by spirit’ instead of
putting their faithfulness in the flesh as these pagan cults do.
It is also important to remember that when Paul speaks
favourably of the Abrahamic covenant, that it was a covenant that enshrined
male circumcision as an eternal marker of Jewishness.
Now, I think a re-reading of the whole chapter should
indicate that in speaking of his historical high standing within the Judaism of
his day, Paul is including his addressees, the Gentile ‘Christ-followers’ of
Philippi, into the Jewish community, but then even further elevating his and
their status because they have recognized and embraced the Messiah of Israel
and are endeavouring to live with the same faithfulness as Yeshua to the One
True God.
Let us turn specifically to verse 3-7:
“3 For we are
the circumcision, who worship God in the Spirit[1], rejoice
in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh,
4 though I also
might have confidence in the flesh. If anyone else thinks he may have
confidence in the flesh, I more so:
5 circumcised
the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of the
Hebrews; concerning the law, a Pharisee;
6 concerning
zeal, persecuting the church; concerning the righteousness which is in the law,
blameless.
7 But what things were gain to me, these I have counted loss for Christ.”
7 But what things were gain to me, these I have counted loss for Christ.”
So now hopefully it should be clear than when Paul
states ‘we are the circumcision’ (note he does not say ‘we are the spiritual
circumcision’ or ‘the true circumcision’ or the circumcision of the heart’), he
is NOT stating that the Church of God is now the circumcision and has replaced the
people of Israel as ‘the circumcision’.
I believe when he states ‘we are the circumcision’ he
is speaking to his Gentile audience and identifying himself with his fellow Jewish
followers of Yeshua, who could all boast in their heritage but no longer do so
because they have seen the Messiah, the King of Israel and instead boast in
him.
He is thus encouraging his Gentile audience that they
now may also have great confidence that through the Messiah, the Christ, they
have now been grafted into the ‘circumcision’, the chosen people of God.
With this understanding of this chapter, it is no
longer seen as seriously anti-Semitic.
Also, it can no longer be used as an argument for
Replacement Theology, which is exactly what is normally promoted through the
traditional understanding and perspective.
This is only a very short introduction and overview to
a more consistent and less contradictory view of this whole chapter.
For a more in-depth presentation I recommend "Judaizers"? "Pagan"
Cults? Cynics?: Reconceptualizing the Concerns of Paul's Audience from the
Polemics in Philippians 3:2, 18-19” by Prof Mark Nanos – see http://www.marknanos.com/Cynics-In-Phil3-May11.pdf as well
as “Paul's Reversal of Jews Calling Gentiles
'Dogs' (Philippians 3:2): 1600 Years of an Ideological Tale Wagging an
Exegetical Dog” – see http://www.marknanos.com/Phil3Dogs-Reverse-1-17-08.pdf
from which I am indebted to for much of the argument
here.
No comments:
Post a Comment