Thursday, April 10, 2008

Explanatory Notes: Philippians 3:7-16

I am writing some curriculum for a course in IWU's new online Associates degree in ministerial studies. It's an Inductive Bible Study course. Anyway, today I was designing some assignments in the interpretation of Philippians 3 and thought I would indulge my dream some day, perhaps, to have compiled brief Explanatory Notes on the entire New Testament. I thought I would jot down some thoughts on this part of Philippians.

3:7 Whatever was to my advantage, these things I have considered a loss because of the Christ.
It is significant that Paul does not consider the items of his resume a matter of sin. Indeed, almost everything he has mentioned in the first six verses of the chapter were of great advantage to him as a Jew and remained such. He had good credentials as a Jew.

But none of them was significant when it came to his justification, his right standing before God in the people of God, as we will see in 3:9. Indeed, in many respects he had chosen a different path now because of the Christ. To be sure, he remained circumcised and an Israelite who was fluent in Aramaic (cf. 2 Cor. 11:22).

But it is doubtful that Paul himself would now refer to himself by choice as a Pharisee (despite Acts 23:6), and he certainly did not persecute the church any longer. As far as his keeping of the distinctly Jewish particulars of the law, Paul would now say that "to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain Jews, to those under Law as under Law (although I am not myself under Law), in order that I might gain those under Law" (1 Cor. 9:20). But in the case of his Gentile mission, he became "as without the Law, although I am not without the law of God but am under Christ's law" (1 Cor. 9:21).

To some extent Paul thereby distanced himself from being a Jew, although it is perhaps important to say that he never distances himself from being an Israelite.

3:8 But indeed I even consider all things to be loss because of the superiority of the knowledge of Christ Jesus, my Lord, because of whom I have written off all things as loss...
Up to this point Paul has been speaking of his privileged status as a Jew--after all, the chapter began as an implicit comparison of himself with those Jewish believers who would force Gentiles to get circumcised if they wished to be accepted by God and included within the people of God. Accordingly, Paul shows the Philippians his impressive Jewish resume. In 3:7 Paul shows that he has written off these badges of ethnic boasting in the light of relying on Christ for right standing with God.

3:8 then broadens Paul's "write off." There is nothing that he would consider worthy of comparing with the value of knowing Christ. Paul has given up everything for Christ. If he ever had property, he no longer enjoys it. As he writes Philippians, he potentially faces death because of Christ. Certainly, martyrdom represents the abandonment of everything in this world, and Paul is willing to do it for the sake of Christ.

3:9 ...and I consider [all things] dung in order that I might gain Christ and be found in him, not having my own righteousness on the basis of Law but the righteousness through the faith of Christ, the righteousness from God on the basis of faith.
Paul now looks to what he hopes to gain as he turns his back on his earthly credentials. Such statements are not merely a testimonial but what he wishes the Philippians to do as well.

Certainly Paul would consider himself to be in Christ currently (e.g., Rom. 8:1), but the next few verses also look to the future, after death at the point of resurrection. At that time Paul hopes to be found in Christ. This verse thus applies both to what is true now and what Paul hopes to be true at the point of resurrection.

When Paul speaks of "having righteousness," he is speaking the language of justification. To be justified is to be deemed righteous, to have right standing before God in the people of God. It implies that one is a child of God and part of the seed of Abraham (Gal. 3:26-29), a Jew and member of Israel (Rom. 2:29; 9:6). We know from elsewhere that Paul did not believe a person could have such right standing because one kept the Jewish Law (Gal. 2:16). Such right standing in the people of God could come solely through Christ.

Of course Jews did not believe they could merit or earn God's favor by keeping the Law either. They also saw their justification on the basis of God's grace and election. Additionally, Christian Jews like James saw appropriation of Jesus' atoning death essential for their justification (cf. Gal. 2:15-16)--in addition to faithful observance of the ethnic particulars of the Law.

But Paul did not believe the Jewish Law gave any advantage to a Jew in justification over a Gentile whatsoever. A Jew had no basis to boast simply because he was circumcised or because he or she observed food laws. Did they keep the Law, and that to where they need not rely on the atonement provided through Christ?

Paul thus does not want to be found on the day of resurrection with a righteousness based on such "works" of the Jewish Law. Such works were not bad; they simply had no impact on justification before God--especially for a Gentile. The righteousness that counts on that day is justification "through the faith of Christ." Next to the faith of Christ, works of Law looked silly as a means of justification.

Paul could simply mean "through faith in Christ" here, and this is certainly part of the equation (cf. Rom. 10:11), especially having faith in what God has done through Jesus Christ. But we think it likely Paul is thinking first here of the faith of Jesus Christ (cf. Rom. 3:22; Gal. 2:16), Jesus' obedience to death resulting in justification (Rom. 5:19; cf. Phil. 2:9), his exemplary trust in the One who raises the dead (Heb. 5:7; 2 Cor. 4:13-14).

So right standing in the people of God comes from God. It is not something we can earn or merit on our own. And it is a justification that is on the basis of our faith, our trust in God and His plan. Non-Christian Jews would also believe that justification requires faith in God, a faith they believed demonstrated itself in keeping the particulars of the Jewish law.

But Christian Jews believed God had chosen to reconcile the world through Christ and his atoning death (cf. 2 Cor. 5:19). Trust or faith in this plan, trust in the God who raises the dead (cf. Rom. 4:17) and raised Jesus, is what is essential for justification. And for Paul, such trust was all that counted for justification.

3:10-11 ... in order to know him and the power of his resurrection and the fellowship of his sufferings, being conformed to his death, if somehow I will attain to the resurrection from the dead.
Paul linked baptism into Christ's death with a future resurrection like Christ's (e.g., Rom. 6:4; 8:11). Our destinies are linked. We have been crucified with Christ and Christ lives in us; we live in the "faith of Jesus Christ" (Gal. 2:20). We will rise with a glorious resurrection body like his (1 Cor. 15:49; Phil. 2:21).

In the meantime, however, Paul also identified with the sufferings of Jesus. "We are always carrying around the dying of Jesus in the body so that the life of Jesus might become apparent in our body" (2 Cor. 4:10). If Philippians was written during an Ephesian imprisonment, then during this time he "despaired even of life" (2 Cor. 1:8), and the verse we just mentioned was a reflection on what he was feeling when he wrote Philippians.

Paul apparently saw this as a time of joining in the sufferings of Christ, being conformed to his death. The goal of this test was to attain to the resurrection, and Paul expresses this thought in a way that at least implies that it would be possible for him not to attain to it. It may simply be an expression of humility rather than genuine doubt.

Nevertheless, we cannot dodge two aspects of this statement that cause problems for some Christian traditions 1) the sense that Paul's performance in this time of suffering had a bearing on his eventual fate and 2) the sense that it was possible for Paul not to be resurrected, even near the end of his ministry.

The idea that "works" are necessary for final justification before God is found elsewhere in Paul, especially Romans 2:5-6 and 2 Corinthians 5:10. Several key shifts in our thinking help explain this notion:

1) Faith is not opposed to works for Paul. Indeed, faith for Paul implies a certain set of behaviors, including law keeping of an essential sort (e.g., Rom. 2:14; 3:31). Having faith and being faithful were not always sharply distinguishable.

2) The particular faith that Paul has in mind is a) the faith of Jesus Christ, his obedience to death and b) our trust in what God has done through Christ and thus, faith that Jesus is the Lord (Rom. 10:9). Faith in Jesus as Lord requires submission to our Messiah and King, and thus certain behaviors.

3) The works Paul primarily has in mind are works of the Jewish Law, especially those that distinguish Jew from Gentile.

4) Grace, a category of ancient patronage, expected an appropriate response from the one to whom it was dispensed. Failure to "keep faith" with the Patron might easily end the gracious relationship (cf. Matt. 18:32-35).

This last comment explains how it could be possible to be "justified" and in the people of God at one point and yet not attain to resurrection in the end. Grace in the ancient world was not absolute and not necessarily unconditional.

A number of other questions arise. Does this mean that Paul did not picture everyone being resurrected, only those in Christ who attained to the resurrection of the dead? And when did Paul picture this resurrection taking place? At the second coming, as in 1 Thessalonians 4 and 1 Corinthians 15? At death, if in fact 2 Corinthians 5 pictures such a shift?

3:12 Not that I have already received [this] or have already been perfected,
The context pushes us to understand Paul still to be speaking of final justification and resurrection. The verses that follow will only confirm this impression. Paul is not yet guaranteed resurrection and has not yet been finally justified in God's eternal court.

This is the only place that Paul uses the verb "to perfect." Nevertheless, 1 Corinthians 13:10 uses the adjective "perfect" in a way that perhaps helps us to sense what Paul is saying here: "Whenever the perfect should come, that which is in part will be abolished." It is quite conceivable, therefore, that Paul equated perfection of this sort here as the kind of completion that can only occur with resurrection.

... but I am pursuing [it] if also I might take hold of that for which I was taken hold of by Christ. Brothers, I do not reckon myself to have taken hold [of it]...
We will see in a moment clearly that in this comment Paul still has resurrection and final justification in view. He is "pursuing the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus" (3:14). As in 3:11, his attaining to resurrection from the dead is an "if." So here also it is "if" I might take hold of it.

Christ has taken hold of Paul so that he might be saved from God's wrath (Rom. 5:9) and so that his body of humiliation might be transformed to be like Christ's glorious body (Phil. 3:21). Paul cannot speak of such things in the perfect tense, as things of which he "has taken hold" and thus already possesses. His ultimate attainment of them is still conditional on continued training and finishing the race (1 Cor. 9:26-27).

3:13 But one thing: forgetting the things behind and reaching out to the things ahead, in accordance with the goal I am pursuing for the prize of the upward calling of God in Christ Jesus.
The "upward calling" is clearly another reference to resurrection. The fact that Paul repeats the statement, "I am pursuing," shows that this is the same goal Paul had in mind in 3:12 where he said "is pursuing if also I also might take hold."

Although people regularly take "forgetting the things behind" as a reference to Paul moving beyond his past moral failure, nothing in the context points to anything of this sort. Nor is he forgetting Judaism for Christianity, as if anyone could have distinguished these as separate religions at this point in time.

But Paul is leaving behind his boasts of righteousness because of his excellence at keeping the particulars of the Jewish Law, especially the ones that distinguished Jew from Gentile, "works of law." He is reaching forward toward attaining to resurrection from the dead. He is reaching forward to be found in Christ, having the righteousness that is on the basis of faith, the faith of Christ and the believer's faith in God.

3:15 Therefore, let as many of us as are mature think this way, and if you are thinking something differently, God also will reveal this to you.
The word mature here is the word "perfect," so there is some play on the fact that Paul is at the same time "perfect" in the sense of maturity and yet not yet perfected in the sense of ultimate completion. His attitude of living in view of the resurrection and of justification in Christ is one that he urges his audience to adopt as well.

We remember that this chapter began with mention of Christian Jews who would require Gentile believers to keep the ethnic particulars of the Jewish Law. By urging the Philippians to adopt Paul's values, Paul is innoculating from this sort of influence if it should come to them. Paul has been there and done that, and has set such things aside as "dung" in comparison to the righteousness on the basis of faith.

Paul is optimistic that God will reveal any instance of "immaturity" in relation to pressing toward the goal of resurrection and final justification. It is only at this point that the idea of "progressive sanctification" really begins to come into play. Paul has had his eyes on the final goal in the verses that precede and only in a general way toward that goal. Only now in application Paul turns to potential deficiencies that a person might need to overcome in order to make it.

3:16 However, to the point we have reached, let us walk in the same.
3:15 mentioned the possibility that a person might need adjustments in their thinking as they move toward the goal. In this verse Paul urges the Philippians not to lose ground that they have already gained toward the goal.

7 comments:

Kyle said...

Ken,

You are a great expositor. I enjoy your entries! I have a question for you:

"But Paul is leaving behind his boasts of righteousness because of his excellence at keeping the particulars of the Jewish Law, especially the ones that distinguished Jew from Gentile, "works of law."

Do you think Paul ever broadens out his polemics against "works of law" to include any kind of "work" by which we may merit salvation? For instance, in Rom 4, Paul seems to contrast grace with "earning wages." Do you think the more fundamental problem was the idea of "earning" the favor of God (a kind of "legalism"), and that the issue of Jewish particularities is just one specific instance of that? I am reminded of Rom 9:12 where Paul seems to broaden it to all human working, or Eph 2:8-10 (A passage that offers a very good balance on the faith/works issue, I think).

Apart from that question, I totally agree with your view of grace/faith/works here. After receiving grace and getting into relationship with God by grace through faith, the law and good works are right back in the picture. It defines that relationship, and is enabled by grace.

Kyle

Ken Schenck said...

I think I would put it the other way around (which is how I understand Dunn to put it in his most recent comment). Paul primarily has boundary issues in mind when he speaks of works of law, but he sometimes abstracts from this argument a more general effort versus faith.

The problem with putting it the other way around, in my opinion, is that any Jew would agree with the generic works versus faith distinction. Paul comes off looking no different from those he is arguing against. If the argument goes the other way around, then he can support the ethnic works argument with the commonly agreed works in general argument.

Kyle said...

But if Paul and his interlocutors share the common ground of a generic effort/works versus faith understanding, then what exactly is the problem with keeping ethnic laws if they aren't being used as a kind of "merit" through which some Jews were trying to "establish their own righteousness?" (Rom 10:13). Do you see what I'm getting at? I'm confused as to what the issue is if the Jews Paul are arguing against fundamentally agree with the effort/merit vs. grace issue.

Or is your point that true, faithful Jews would understand the effort/works vs. faith issue? I would certainly agree with this against mischaracterizations of faithful Judaism, but again it seems that Paul is arguing against certain Jews who do not seem to understand this fundamental point since they are relying upon ethnic laws for their justification.

Ken Schenck said...

I agree that 9:30ff is contrasting a faith approach with a works approach. The question in my mind is what the precise connotations these words have (I'm still working on what I think the precise coctail is).

1. I don't think it is an absolute distinction for Paul--no works at all versus a faith completely dispensed by God.

2. I think one of the reasons the argument is expected to be persuasive is because it plays on common ground--in practice Jews and Christians often come to think their actions are more significant in the equation than they are. But when asked directly, almost all of us back off and say, "Well of course it is only because of God's grace that any of us can be accepted."

3. What appears in the bubble above Paul's head when he says the words "Israel pursuing a law of righteousness." I'm thinking he is seeing the aspects of the Jewish Law that Jews most prided themselves in distinction from Gentiles.

I may review the next chapter in Dunn's book today which is on "works of law." Maybe you and me will have further thoughts then...

Kyle said...

Thanks, Ken. I guess I have a hard time with the idea that "works of law" are referring primarily to ethnic rules because Paul says "through the Law comes the knowledge of sin" (Rom 3:20). Paul even says that the Gentiles do the "things of the Law" with the Law written on their heart (Rom. 2:14). Wouldn't it make more sense here if Paul was talking about the moral law that counts all guilty? Maybe Paul could be highlighting things like the ethnic laws when he speaks to the Jews, but the gist seems to be the same: the Jewish law as a whole (which includes ethic, 10 commandments) brings sin.

I agree that Paul doesn't dichotomize faith and the good works that flow out of that faith (which include keeping the moral Law), but he does seem to be speaking about how the law, which seems to include the moral law, sends us to Christ, who then Christ sends us back to the law so we may keep it (we establish the law) - we keep the law of love, the law of Christ, which is a deeper kind of morality.

Let me know what you find out! I'm new to this issue.

Angie Van De Merwe said...

Just as Jesus was killed because of political aspirations, Paul used his "gifts" to redefine Christ's death and to set it up as an example of virtue. But, the "works" which follows "faith" must be the response of the individual to "faith"...and "in faith"...

In your previous post, evolution was resisted because of the political, social and economic implications of such a theory...Because, we all react, respond or behave according to our greatest conviction. "Selfish needs" can only be evaluated, just as the previous post suggested about conservative and liberals, in relationship to "what" standard....and where does an "absolute standard" exist? It certainly isn't Scripture, for Scripture itself was within its own cultural context...and we often unreflectively impose upon the text and others our own standards (cultural) of measurement...

Angie Van De Merwe said...

for political interests....which the Church, I unreflectively had thought, was not a "political" entity....how naive....