Home
If you are in the Frames view of this article, just close the window when you're finished. If not, then just press the "Back" button until you get where you want, or use the relevant link at the very bottom of this page.
Paul makes the following statements:
(14) And many of the brothers in the Lord, being confident by my fetters, are more bold to speak the word without fear. (15) Some indeed preach even because of envy and strife; and others also because of good will. (16) The ones preaching the Christ out of self-promotion [includes tones of trickery and "low arts" to get popular applause], not with sincerity, thinking to add affliction to my fetters. (17) But others out of love, knowing that I am set for the defence of the gospel. (18) What then? Notwithstanding, every way, whether with pretence, whether with truth, Christ is preached and in this I rejoice, but I shall rejoice. (Philippians 1:14-18)
Just a small note: in different versions of the new testament, verse 16 and 17 are swapped. I don't think anyone has any idea which is the true version, although I'm sure many have their beliefs and persuasions. So much for the honourable new testament, well preserved!
Anyway, after we get through all the methods by which Paul's "gospel" is proclaimed to all, we get Paul's conclusion: it doesn't matter how "christ" is proclaimed, whether truthfully, or with pretence (just an outward show wit no real true core), as long as it's proclaimed! It don't matter how the job gets done, as long as it gets done! Is there some significance to this? Paul doesn't mind if fakery is used to promote his message. At the very least, that puts some questions in my mind about Paul and his own sincerity. But I won't prolong this one. I won't give my full conclusions.
I'll leave that up to you.
Paul says:
(5) Because, have this in mind which was in Jesus Christ. (6) Who, being in the form of Deity, did not consider to be like Deity *robbery/a prize to be grasped* [contentious phrase]. (7) But he emptied himself taking the form of a slave being in the likeness of men. (8) And being found externally like a man, he abased himself being obedient to the point of death, and death of the cross. (9) Because of this even the Deity highly exalted him and bestowed [on] him a name, the higher-than-everything name, (10) so that in the name of Jesus every knee shall bend heavenly and earthly and subterranean, (11) and every tongue shall confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to [the] glory of Father God. (Philippians 2:5-11)
One of the most controversial passages in christianity! Parts of it are so ambiguous, such as verse 6b. Is it saying that Jesus thought equality with God was not something to be snatched at or grasped, like the American Standard Version or the World English Bible translates it? Or is it saying that Jesus didn't see anything wrong with being equal to Deity, like the translations of the King James Version and Young's [supposedly] Literal Translation? We can leave that for christians to battle over.
But we do have some facts that we can judge in light of the Jewish Bible.
"Jesus, being in the form of Deity" - What does this mean? Jesus had God's form. The simple understanding of this is that Jesus, before "becoming human", had God's form, namely, his attributes. Christian [generally, trinitarian] commentators generally assume this to mean that Jesus was of a divine nature, not like the angels who are spiritual creatures, but as Deity himself. Knowing that there is a distinction between Jesus (the "son") and his divine Father, we are confronted with a statement of idolatry in the new testament, the writings of Paul, if understood in this light. The Creator of the universe has no equal, someone similar to him, and no superior or father; he exists alone as one (Deuteronomy 4:35,39; 11:14,17; 32:39; Isaiah 43:10-11; 44:6). [And just to clarify for trinitarians who may struggle with what I mean by "one", I do mean absolute one, not a one that can be two or three.] Who can have the form of Deity apart from Deity himself? No one! And Deity makes it clear that he doesn't share his attributes/glory with others (Isaiah 42:8).
Just to note: I do know that there are christians that believe that Jesus was not God. They may have a different interpretation of this verse, but the ones I've seen aren't too convincing for me personally. So I deal mainly with the view that accepts Jesus as "God".
"at the name of Jesus, all shall bow and confess Jesus' lordship to the Father's glory" - This is more or less the usurping of God's glory when compared with Isaiah 45:21-25 which says:
(21) Make it conspicuous, and bring [them] near; yea, let them take counsel together: Who has caused this to be heard from ancient? told it from then? is it not I, HaShem [The LORD]? and there is no other god except me, a just god and a saviour; there is none beside me. (22) Turn to me, be helped, all ye ends of the earth; for I am God, and there is no one else. (23) I have sworn by myself, a word has gone out of my mouth - righteousness - and it shall not return, that every knee shall bend to me, every tongue shall swear. (24) Only in the Lord, - shall men say of me, - [there are] righteousness and strength. To Him shall come and be ashamed all that are incensed against him. (25) In HaShem [the LORD], all the seed of Israel shall be declared righteous and shall boast.
In Isaiah's vision, there is nothing between a worshipper and the Deity, no intermediary, no group of three, just one alone. This is clear by the fact that Isaiah uses the singular term "el" to refer to God. Every knee bows and every tongue vows to Deity alone, straight and simple. But Paul adds a foreign component which Isaiah didn't even include: the man Jesus.
Again, we are not looking at exposition (exposing the meaning from the text) but rather imposition (imposing meaning into the text) from Paul. The prophet had already spoken of the future Davidic king in Isaiah 11. If he wanted to if the Lord had wanted to, he would have added the Davidic king to this universal acknowledgement of the truth of the Creator. But as the context of Isaiah 45 shows, the emphasis is HaShem, the one true God, alone, and not the messiah, a figure which has no place in this passage or its intention.
See the dogs! See the evil works! See the κατατομην [katatomen]! (Philippians 3:2)
I've left a certain term untranslated. We'll get back to that.
Here we see the "grace" and "beneficence" in Paul's describing those who believe differently about the role and circumcision. He calls them "dogs", which is a plain insult. I'm surprised how christians either take on Paul's manner or do the exact opposite. How comes? Well, either they are just like him and unafraid to insult and demonize those with a different point of view. So their holistic imitation of Paul is their downfall. Or they take this teachings but not his manner, and thus it seems like a pick-and-mix discipleship, even though Paul himself says "imitate [Paul] as you imitate [Jesus]" (1 Corinthians 11:1).
Anyway, Paul adopts tit-for-tat tactics, lashing out with words as he himself may have been scalded for his beliefs. He calls them "evil-workers". There's little point in arguing with Paul there, since his interpretation of their acts depends on what you think of Paul. No, what really catches the eye is his description of those who adopt the circumcision of Abraham and Moses and Israel. He calls them the κατατομη, katatome, which has a really interesting meaning. A form of this word is used in the Septuagint, the LXX. I'll quote the verses both in Greek and English.
LXX: και φαλακρωμα ου ξυρηθησεσθε την κεφαλην επι νεκρω και την οψιν του πωγωνος ου ξυρησονται &kai;αι επι τας σακρας αυτων ου κατατεμουσιν εντομιδας
TRANSLATION: And you shall not shave your heads for the dead with a bald spot at the top, neither shall they shave off the corners of their beards, neither shall they make gashes on their flesh. (Leviticus 21:5, LXX English Versions)
Can you see the word in question, a form of which Paul makes use of to describe his opponents? Can you see it? No, it's not "shave" or "beard. No, the verbal form of the word κατατομη, katatome, is translated as "they shall not make gashes". This is the notion that comes across from Paul's word. Greek dictionaries translate the word Paul uses as "mutilation". He is saying "Beware the mutilation!" Thus, Paul calls those who choose to get circumcised according to the law "the mutilation", or those that preach it. Apparently he has cast off his own circumcision heritage/background, as shall be confirmed with a later verse of his I shall quote.
Just to note, it is clear that Paul is talking about those circumcised because he stresses in the next verse that he and his group of gentile followers are the real "circumcision".
So what point am I trying to make here? Paul goes too far in his attempt to denounce his oppponents by degrading a practice commanded by God himself, the circumcision, the sign of the covenant of Abraham. He takes this sign and tramples it underfoot in order to show himself and his point righteous by calling it "the mutilation".
Please ignore weak "translations" like the World English Bible which glosses over this word with the english phrase "false circumcision" which totally misses Paul's purposeful insult.
Now some may think that Paul is justified making his statements. To them, he is attacking the people who preach what he disagrees with as opposed to the circumcision they have. Now if this was a statement in isolation, where there is no other place where Paul discredits the law and its role and its purpose, then we could give this theory some credit. But, as we've seen so far in Paul's escapades, he only gives lip service to respecting the law and paints it as if he is drawing horrible two-dimensional caricatures, we'll see lower down in this article that he is ok with and will promote regarding the righteousness in it as trash. So let's not put it too far from Paul to regard circumcision of the flesh as mutilation. If he didn't see it as useful as a badge in front of other Jews who opposed him, one wonders if he would have had an operation to reverse the circumcision that he claimed was in his own flesh.
Paul continues:
For we are the circumcision, the ones worshipping God spiritually and boast in Jesus Chrsit, and have no confidence in flesh. (Philippians 3:3)
What confusion Paul creates! Seeing that Paul was speaking of his gentile Philippians, he only causes a mess-up in what was divinely ordered. In Paul's world, the circumcised are uncircumcised (or mutilated) and vice versa. Once everything is spiritualized and allegorized, and not reality, then black becomes white, and white becomes black; the righteous become sinners, and the sinners are imputed with righteousness.
What a confused and messed-up world!
And the painful song plays on ...
(4) And, indeed, I'm having confidence, even in flesh: if any other [man] thinks that he has confidence in flesh, I more: (5) Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; concerning the law, a Pharisee; (6) Concerning zeal, persecuting the assembly ["church", in some translations]; concerning the righteousness which is in the law, faultless. (7) But what things were gain to me, those I counted loss because of Christ. (8) Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Jesus Christ my lord: because of whom I have experienced loss of all things, and deem them as dung, that I may win Christ ...
Paul is willing to count everything as loss to gain Jesus; he regards them as "dung". What connotations does the greek word translated "dung" have? It has meanings of excrement, faeces (the sort you flush in the toilet), and refuse (what you would throw out to the wild dogs). Amongst those things that he would regard in this scummy position, as the most vile garbage is the "righteousness of the law". It's important to understand the implications of what Paul says. Moses, the greatest prophet, a man who God actually spoke to, said:
And it shall be righteousness for his when we are careful to do all this commandment before HaShem (the LORD) our God, as He commanded us. (Deuteronomy 6:25)
The righteousness of the law that God commanded Israel is what Paul sees as the vilest piece of garbage to throw to wild dogs!!! And some christians would have the nerve to say that Paul was pro-law???
The interesting thing is that although no one can keep the law perfectly, it seems that one person has managed to escape the condemnation and blame the law is supposed to give: Paul himself! He considers himself blameless, faultless, and irreproachible with regards to its righteousness. What humility!
To some, I may seem a bit harsh. They may think that it is possible that Paul is just saying that he was highly respected and led a publicly decent life. Thinking about the implications of Paul's words, it's difficult to imagine he only had that meaning in mind, especially when we see he is willing to call circumcision, "mutilation"!
What is clear is that Paul's respect for God's law is terribly low, if not non-existent!
If you are in the Frames view of this article, just close the window when you're finished. If not, then just press the "Back" button until you get where you want, or use the relevant link at the very bottom of this page.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 2.0 UK: England & Wales License.