Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.comJamieson Fausset Brown Commentary - Philippians 3:2 - 3:2
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Beware - Greek, “Have your eye on” so as to beware of. Contrast “mark,” or “observe,” namely, so as to follow Phi 3:17.
dogs - Greek, “the dogs,” namely, those impure persons “of whom I have told you often” (Phi 3:18, Phi 3:19); “the abominable” (compare Rev 21:8, with Rev 22:15; Mat 7:6; Tit 1:15, Tit 1:16): “dogs” in filthiness, 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” (Mat 15:26); but by their own unbelief they have ceased to be the true Israel, and are become “dogs” (compare Isa 56:10, Isa 56:11).
evil workers - (2Co 11:13), “deceitful workers.” Not simply “evildoers” are meant, but men who “worked,” indeed, ostensibly for the Gospel, but worked for evil: “serving not our Lord, but their own belly” (Phi 3:19; compare Rom 16:18). Translate, “The evil workmen,” that is, bad teachers (compare 2Ti 2:15).
concision - Circumcision had now lost its spiritual significance, and was now become to those who rested on it as any ground of justification, a senseless mutilation. 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 “cuttings in the flesh” was expressly prohibited by the law (Lev 21:5): it was a Gentile-heathenish practice (1Ki 18:28); yet this, writes Paul indignantly, is what these legalists are virtually doing in violation of the law. There is a remarkable gradation, says Birks [Horae Apostolicae] in Paul’s language as to circumcision. In his first recorded discourse (Act 13:39), circumcision is not named, but implied as included in the law of Moses which cannot justify. Six or seven years later, in the Epistle to Galatians (Gal 3:3), the first Epistle in which it is named, its spiritual inefficiency is maintained 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 to Colossians (Col 2:11; Col 3:11), still later, he expounds more fully the true circumcision as the exclusive privilege of the believer. Last of all here, the very name is denied to the legalist, and a term of reproach is substituted, “concision,” or flesh-cutting. Once obligatory on all the covenant-people, then reduced to a mere national distinction, it was more and more associated in the apostle’s experience with the open hostility of the Jews, and the perverse teaching of false brethren.