Philippians - Verse-by-Verse Biblical Exegesis
Philippians - Verse-by-Verse Biblical Exegesis Philippians - Verse-by-Verse Biblical Exegesis
falling into reversionism). WHO Philippians 3:1 To. loipo,n avdelfoi, mou cai,rete evn kuri,w| ta. auvta. gra,fein u`mi/n evmoi. me.n ouvk ovknhro,n u`mi/n de. avsfale,j VUL Philippians 3:1 de cetero fratres mei gaudete in Domino eadem vobis scribere mihi quidem non pigrum vobis autem necessarium LWB Philp. 3:2 Beware of those dogs [their nature as reversionistic believers], beware of those evil workers [their practice of opposing Paul’s ministry], beware of the mutilations [their legalistic & ritualistic message], KW Philp. 3:2 Keep a watchful eye ever upon the dogs. Keep a watchful eye ever upon the evilworkers. Keep a watchful eye ever upon those who are mutilated, doing this for the purpose of bewaring of and avoiding the same. KJV Philippians 3:2 Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers, beware of the concision. TRANSLATION HIGHLIGHTS Paul issues three commands (Imperative mood) to the Philippian believers using the same Greek verb: beware. They are all in the iterative present tense, which means keep on paying close attention to these individuals and stay away from them at all costs. He uses three different terms to describe them, each referring to a different aspect of their modus operandi. Dogs refers to their “nature” as reversionstic believers, evil workers refers to their “practice” of opposing Paul’s ministry, and “mutilations” refers to their legalistic and ritualistic message. As we have studied before, these are Christians Paul is warning them about, not unbelievers. Paul also uses a tongue-in-cheek word for “mutilations” (katatomen) which is derived from “peritomen;” the latter refers to circumcision, the former refers to castration. Their legalistic and ritualistic emphasis was in effect “castrating” their spiritual life. REVELANT OPINIONS "Dogs denotes the wild, vicious, homeless animals that roamed the streets and attacked passersby. (H.A. Kent) Paul calls them evil workers, not because they do what is morally wrong, nor because they act out of malice, but, as the sequel shows, because their reliance on "works" [human good] is in the end harmful both to themselves and to others ... it is precisely their emphasis on good works that makes them bad. (G.B. Caird) In a strong outburst Paul employs three different epithets to depict the same group of people, against whom the Philippians are to be on guard ... Dogs were well known for feeding on carrion, filth and garbage. The term was an apt description of those who did not submit to Jewish dietary laws and thus were regarded as unholy. Dogs and Gentiles in some contexts were almost synonymous. (P. O’Brien) The dogs here were the mangy, flea-bitten, vicious, starved scavengers of the oriental streets, while the dogs our Lord referred to in Matt. 15:26 were the well-cared for little house pets of an oriental household. (K. Wuest) They were evil workers, though
their work was sometimes overruled for good. (B. Caffin) Workers Paul calls them. Yes, church-workers are they. Right inside the church they themselves, as church members, recognized as such somewhere, are carrying on their work ... They draw the attention away from Christ and His accomplished redemption, and fix it upon an outworn ritual, and upon human worth and attainment. Here is Satan's demolition crew. (W. Hendriksen) Evil-doers designates Judaizing Christian missionaries who in the apostle’s eyes had evil designs on the congregation in Philippi. (P. O’Brien) Reverse-process reversionists are cutting up their souls (mutilation). The first system of legalism was created by Judaizers and is being carried forward to this very day by Fundamentalists. (R.B. Thieme, Jr.) These Judaizers established no congregations of their own, they bored into sound congregations that had been built up by others … Dogs was the Jewish designation for all Gentiles; Paul hurls it back at the Judaizers: they were the dogs in the true sense of the word. In the Orient the dogs were ownerless, roamed the streets and acted as scavengers, and were filthy in this sense. (R. Lenski) Paul uses an alliteration - three nouns which begin with a "κ" (kunas, kakous, katatomen). He also uses asyndeton - the triple repetition of βλεπω without a connection between words or clauses. (A.T. Robertson) Clearly, those whom the apostle has in view when he uses this scathing description “mutilation” must have insisted on circumcision as a special sign of belonging to the people of God; otherwise the word play (paronomasia) does not really make sense. The boast of these opponents is overturned by using a word that links literal circumcision with those pagan cuttings of the body which were forbidden by the law of Israel. (P. O’Brien) “Katatomen” refers to severe mutilation, a thorough cutting ... In their zeal to physically circumcise their converts, the Judaizers were spiritually castrating themselves. They harmed people by their false teaching. (R. Gromacki) The same derision is applied to the Judaizers in Galatians 5:12, where “to cut off” is a reference to their concern with the physical act of circumcision, and ironically means also “to castrate.” (R. Martin) These false teachers have come to the Philippians and are telling them they are responsible for their sanctification - that it depends on their efforts in keeping the Law. Paul condemns them, saying they have introduced a system that gives a man something he can glory in. These Judaizers are glorying in the flesh. For a man to glory in the flesh is to take the place that rightly belongs to Jesus Christ and give it to the individual. (J. Pentecost) Paul characterizes those who were not of the true circumcision as merely mutilated. Heathen priests mutilated their own bodies. The Judaizers mutilated the message of the gospel by adding law to grace, and thus their own spiritual lives and those of their converts. (K. Wuest) Compare this verse to Galatians 5:12 where he uses “apokoptein” 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. (M. Vincent) To go back to ordinances, and to this ordinance, after having been made free in Christ, is mutilation, not true circumcision. (E.W. Bullinger) The dogs in oriental towns 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
- Page 83 and 84: conditional clause is a protasis of
- Page 85 and 86: is always room for more! If the Phi
- Page 87 and 88: KJV Philippians 2:3 Let nothing be
- Page 89 and 90: affairs. It is the selfish, preoccu
- Page 91 and 92: KW Philp. 2:6 Who has always been a
- Page 93 and 94: VUL Philippians 2:6 qui cum in form
- Page 95 and 96: He laid aside the form of God. In s
- Page 97 and 98: conversation. (P. O’Brien) Philp.
- Page 99 and 100: REVELANT OPINIONS It is not at the
- Page 101 and 102: continue their experiential sanctif
- Page 103 and 104: Paul gives the Philippians their "e
- Page 105 and 106: long as we are in fellowship with H
- Page 107 and 108: undertaken in the strength that the
- Page 109 and 110: to be disputed. This greatly adorns
- Page 111 and 112: jaws of (the sin unto) death ... Un
- Page 113 and 114: But as you might guess by the posit
- Page 115 and 116: REVELANT OPINIONS Paul's privilege
- Page 117 and 118: things concerning you [your status
- Page 119 and 120: with him), who (Subj. Nom., qualita
- Page 121 and 122: togetherness in our day. There can
- Page 123 and 124: It might not be an immediate or a p
- Page 125 and 126: KJV Philippians 2:26 For he longed
- Page 127 and 128: Philp. 2:27 For (explanatory) truly
- Page 129 and 130: appreciated him when he was there,
- Page 131 and 132: Poss.) lack (Acc. Dir. Obj.; unfini
- Page 133: diverted from that which God intend
- Page 137 and 138: dispensation of the Church Age is r
- Page 139 and 140: and still do not have confidence (p
- Page 141 and 142: WHO Philippians 3:4 kai,per evgw. e
- Page 143 and 144: KJV Philippians 3:6 Concerning zeal
- Page 145 and 146: using the figure of a balance-sheet
- Page 147 and 148: what it cost him. There is a price
- Page 149 and 150: following God’s mandates, not by
- Page 151 and 152: get our words “dynamite” and
- Page 153 and 154: fellowship of His sufferings (Latin
- Page 155 and 156: experientially is not all or nothin
- Page 157 and 158: is referring to some particular kin
- Page 159 and 160: not an end result as we understand
- Page 161 and 162: training and education, and I am go
- Page 163 and 164: cumulative experience of God’s gr
- Page 165 and 166: (J. Pentecost) Spiritual self-satis
- Page 167 and 168: KJV Philippians 3:14 I press toward
- Page 169 and 170: Philp. 3:14 I keep on advancing (di
- Page 171 and 172: teaching sinless perfection. Paul t
- Page 173 and 174: We may attain the objective (Consta
- Page 175 and 176: eferring to the USG). WHO Philippia
- Page 177 and 178: Christian life has been compared to
- Page 179 and 180: is pleasing to them. They have beco
- Page 181 and 182: Some of them may be famous and have
- Page 183 and 184: Obj.) are (ellipsis) earthly (Acc.
falling into reversionism).<br />
WHO<br />
<strong>Philippians</strong> 3:1 To. loipo,n avdelfoi, mou cai,rete evn kuri,w| ta. auvta. gra,fein u`mi/n evmoi. me.n<br />
ouvk ovknhro,n u`mi/n de. avsfale,j<br />
VUL<br />
<strong>Philippians</strong> 3:1 de cetero fratres mei gaudete in Domino eadem vobis scribere mihi quidem<br />
non pigrum vobis autem necessarium<br />
LWB Philp. 3:2 Beware of those dogs [their nature as reversionistic believers], beware of<br />
those evil workers [their practice of opposing Paul’s ministry], beware of the mutilations<br />
[their legalistic & ritualistic message],<br />
KW Philp. 3:2 Keep a watchful eye ever upon the dogs. Keep a watchful eye ever upon the evilworkers.<br />
Keep a watchful eye ever upon those who are mutilated, doing this for the purpose of<br />
bewaring of and avoiding the same.<br />
KJV <strong>Philippians</strong> 3:2 Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers, beware of the concision.<br />
TRANSLATION HIGHLIGHTS<br />
Paul issues three commands (Imperative mood) to the Philippian believers using the same Greek<br />
verb: beware. They are all in the iterative present tense, which means keep on paying close<br />
attention to these individuals and stay away from them at all costs. He uses three different terms<br />
to describe them, each referring to a different aspect of their modus operandi. Dogs refers to<br />
their “nature” as reversionstic believers, evil workers refers to their “practice” of opposing<br />
Paul’s ministry, and “mutilations” refers to their legalistic and ritualistic message. As we have<br />
studied before, these are Christians Paul is warning them about, not unbelievers. Paul also uses a<br />
tongue-in-cheek word for “mutilations” (katatomen) which is derived from “peritomen;” the<br />
latter refers to circumcision, the former refers to castration. Their legalistic and ritualistic<br />
emphasis was in effect “castrating” their spiritual life.<br />
REVELANT OPINIONS<br />
"Dogs denotes the wild, vicious, homeless animals that roamed the streets and attacked passers<strong>by</strong>.<br />
(H.A. Kent) Paul calls them evil workers, not because they do what is morally wrong, nor because<br />
they act out of malice, but, as the sequel shows, because their reliance on "works" [human good] is<br />
in the end harmful both to themselves and to others ... it is precisely their emphasis on good works<br />
that makes them bad. (G.B. Caird) In a strong outburst Paul employs three different epithets to<br />
depict the same group of people, against whom the <strong>Philippians</strong> are to be on guard ... Dogs were well<br />
known for feeding on carrion, filth and garbage. The term was an apt description of those who did<br />
not submit to Jewish dietary laws and thus were regarded as unholy. Dogs and Gentiles in some<br />
contexts were almost synonymous. (P. O’Brien) The dogs here were the mangy, flea-bitten, vicious,<br />
starved scavengers of the oriental streets, while the dogs our Lord referred to in Matt. 15:26 were the<br />
well-cared for little house pets of an oriental household. (K. Wuest) They were evil workers, though
Change language