Philippians 3:1–8

He shows the concern that he feels for their faith walk. He repeats to them what is necessary for their benefit.

Dejection and care, whenever they strain the soul beyond due measure, bereave it of its native force. And therefore Paul relieves the Philippians, who were in great despondency, and they were in despondency because they did not know how matters were with Paul; they were in despondency because they thought that it was already over with him, because of the preaching, because of Epaphroditus. It is in giving them assurance on all these points that he introduces the words, "Finally, my brethren, rejoice." "You no longer have," he says, "cause for despondency. You have Epaphroditus, for whose sake you were grieved; you have Timothy; I am myself coming to you; the Gospel is gaining ground. What is henceforth wanting to you? Rejoice!"

Now he calls the Galatians indeed "children" (Gal. iv. 19), but these "brethren." For when he aims either to correct anything or to show his fondness, he calls them "children"; but when he addresses them with greater honor, "brethren" is the title. "Finally, my brethren," he says, "rejoice in the Lord." He said rightly "in the Lord," not "after the world." for this is no rejoicing. These tribulations, he says, which are according to Christ bring joy. "To write the same things to you, to me indeed is not irksome, but for you it is safe. Beware of the dogs." Dost thou mark how he forbears to bring in the exhortation at the beginning? But after he had given them much commendation, after he had shown his admiration of them, then he does this, and again repeats his commendation. For this mode of speech seems to bear somewhat hard upon them. Wherefore he overshadows it on every side.

Whence we understand that the coming cessation of the former circumcision l then given, and the coming procession of a new law (not such as He had already given to the fathers), are announced: just as Isaiah foretold, saying that in the last days the mount of the Lord and the house of God were to be manifest above the tops of the mounts: "And it shall be exalted," he says, "above the hills; and there shall come over it all nations; and many shall walk, and say, Come, ascend we unto the mount of the Lord, and unto the house of the God of Jacob," -not of Esau, the former son, but of Jacob, the second; that is, of our "people," whose "mount" is Christ, "prµcised without concisors' hands, filling every land," shown in the book of Daniel.

Since the Philippians were in sorrow, not knowing what situation Paul's affairs were in, how the matter of preaching was going, what the condition of Epaphroditus' illness was, and he resolved all of this by saying that the preaching is advancing, and I am coming to you, and Epaphroditus has already been sent, the Apostle Paul says: "finally, rejoice," because there is no longer any reason not to rejoice. He calls the Galatians children, since they needed correction, but the Philippians he calls brothers, since he treats them with respect. He said well: "in the Lord," since worldly joy is not true joy, but in the Lord even sorrows bring joy. Or, since the Lord has eased our affairs, rejoice.

Having prefaced many praises, he begins to make his exhortation, so as not to appear burdensome from the very start.

Above, he proposed the example they should follow; here he shows whose example they should avoid. In regard to this he does three things: first, he mentions whom they should avoid; secondly, the examples the saints gave of avoiding (3:3); thirdly, he urges them to avoid those whom they considered worthy of imitation. The first is divided into three parts: first, he mentions the purpose of his doctrine; secondly, why he must write (3:1); thirdly, the reason it is necessary (3:2).

The aim of the admonition is to keep the Gentile believers from the ceremonies of the Law, to which certain persons were persuading them; hence he says finally, i.e., after my warnings, my brethren, namely, in the faith, rejoice in the Lord only, and not in the ceremonies of the Law: "I will rejoice in the Lord, I will joy in the God of my salvation" (Hab. 3:18). And this because it is not irksome to me to write in my absence the same things I said when I was present. For words soon pass away, but writings endure: "The wisdom of the scribe depends on the opportunity of leisure; and he who has little business may become wise" (Si. 38:24); "Beloved, being very eager to write to you of our common salvation, I found it necessary to write" (Jude 1:3); "But on some points I have written to you very boldly by way of reminder" (Rom. 15:15).

He uses this name for those who, in envy of the Gentiles, have overthrown them by their evil conversation and persuaded them to be circumcised. These he says should be absolutely avoided and rejected. They are like dogs that first bark and then mutilate the flesh with savage bites.

Divine Scripture speaks of dogs which are of use and are defenders of the church, as David teaches in Psalm 68, saying that these dogs are sated with the blood of enemies in the temple of God. And here he speaks of the opposite kind of dogs, who are obviously the Jews, because they are "workers" and "evil workers." For works are the sole exercise of their lives, without any knowledge of God, and from their works they hope for salvation.

Finally, hear Paul as he speaks boldly, and mark how clearly he discovers these: "Beware of evil workers, beware of the concision. Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit. See that ye walk circumspectly, because the days are evil." In fine then, what man shall have any excuse who hears these things in the Church from prophets and apostles, and from the Lord Himself, and yet will give no heed to the care of his soul, and to the time of the consummation, and to that approaching hour when we shall have to stand at the judgment-seat of Christ?

But whom does he style "dogs"? There were at this place some of those, whom he hints at in all his Epistles, base and contemptible Jews, greedy of vile lucre and fond of power, who, desiring to draw aside many of the faithful, preached both Christianity and Judaism at the same time, corrupting the Gospel. As then they were not easily discernible, therefore he says, "beware of the dogs": the Jews are no longer children; once the Gentiles were called dogs, but now the Jews. Wherefore? because as the Gentiles were strangers both to God and to Christ, even so are these become this now. And he shows forth their shamelessness and violence, and their infinite distance from the relation of children, for that the Gentiles were once called "dogs," hear what the Canaanitish woman says, "Yea, Lord: for even the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters' table." (Matt. xv. 27.) But that they might not have this advantage, since even dogs are at the table, he adds that, whereby he makes them aliens also, saying, "Beware of the evil workers"; he admirably expressed himself, "beware of the evil workers"; they work, he means, but for a bad end, and a work that is much worse than idleness, plucking up what is laid in goodly order.

"Beware," he says, "of the concision." The rite of circumcision was venerable in the Jews' account, forasmuch as the Law itself gave way thereto, and the Sabbath was less esteemed than circumcision. For that circumcision might be performed the Sabbath was broken; but that the Sabbath might be kept, circumcision was never broken; and mark, I pray, the dispensation of God. This is found to be even more solemn than the Sabbath, as not being omitted at certain times. When then it is done away, much more is the Sabbath. Wherefore Paul makes a concision of the name, and says, "Beware of the concision"; and he did not say "that circumcision is evil, that it is superfluous," lest he should strike the men with dismay, but he manages it more wisely, withdrawing them from the thing, but gratifying them with the word, nay, rather with the thing too, in a more serious way. But not so in the case of the Galatians, for since in that case the disease was great, he forthwith adopts the remedy of amputation with open front and with all boldness; but in this case, as they had done nothing of the sort, he vouchsafes them the gratification of the title, he casts out the others, and says, "Beware of the concision; for we are the circumcision"-how?-"who worship God in spirit, and have no confidence in the flesh." He said not that "we test the one circumcision and the other, which is the better of the two"; but he would not even allow it a share in the name; but what does he say? That that circumcision is "concision." Why? Because they do nothing but cut the flesh up. For when what is done is not of the law, it is nothing else than a concision and cutting up of the flesh; it was then either for this reason that he called it so, or because they were trying to cut the Church in twain; and we call the thing "cutting up" in those who do this at random, without aim and without skill. Now if you must seek circumcision, he says, you will find it among us, "who worship God in spirit," i.e. who worship spiritually.

There were certain Jews who, distorting Christianity, preached the Gospel while mixing Jewish views into it. Since they could not easily be recognized, the apostle says: look out, beware, pay attention so that there are none of them among you. Previously it was the Gentiles who were called dogs, but now such Jews are, because they are shameless, insolent toward the light of truth, and slandered everyone.

Here he deprives them even of the name "dog"; because many dogs, he says, are close to the table, and also guard the houses of their masters. But these, although they do act, act for evil, and their action is far worse than inaction itself, since they destroy what has been well ordered.

That is, those who have circumcision. Circumcision was once considered great and precious among the Jews, since for its sake even the Sabbath was broken. But since it has now been abolished, it has remained nothing other than simply a cutting off of flesh, for when this action ceased to be lawful, it is nothing other than a cutting off of flesh. Or: "beware of the circumcision," that is, the Jews who were trying to divide the Church.

The need for this admonition is that certain seducers are busy; therefore, he must be busier in writing to them; hence he says, look out for the dogs, look out for the evil-workers. He mentions three things about them: first, the unreasoning cruelty of their hearts; hence he says dogs: "It is the nature of a dog to bark from anger, not from reason but from habit" (Gloss). These people do the same: "The dogs have a mighty appetite; they never have enough. The shepherds also have no understanding; they have all turned to their own way" (Is. 56:11); "Outside are the dogs and sorcerers" (Rev. 22:15). Secondly, the perverse doctrine they sow: evil-workers, because they do not labor faithfully in the Lord's vineyard or sow good seed in the soil: "An enemy has done this" (Mt. 13:28); "Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth" (2 Tim. 2:15). Thirdly, he mentions their error: those who mutilate the flesh. He uses this word to describe their mark, for they preach circumcision, which seeks to rival Christ's grace: "If you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you" (Gal. 5:2). Hence playing on the word, he says concision, as though they had not circumcision, but a cut.

It is evident that those who are faithful are circumcised in their own hearts. By cutting away the cloud of error, they see and recognize the Lord of creation. This is what it means to "serve in the Spirit" and "glory in the Lord Jesus Christ."

The word spirit signifies above all a deeper and mystic meaning in the holy Scriptures. … This construction is supported by [the verse] "We are the circumcision, who serve the Spirit of God and do not trust in the flesh."

"For we are the circumcision"--how?--"who worship God in spirit, and have no confidence in the flesh." He said not that "we test the one circumcision and the other, which is the better of the two"; but he would not even allow it a share in the name; but what does he say? That that circumcision is "concision." Why? Because they do nothing but cut the flesh up. For when what is done is not of the law, it is nothing else than a concision and cutting up of the flesh; it was then either for this reason that he called it so, or because they were trying to cut the Church in twain; and we call the thing "cutting up" in those who do this at random, without aim and without skill. Now if you must seek circumcision, he says, you will find it among us, "who worship God in spirit," i.e. who worship spiritually.

For answer me, which is superior, the soul or the body? Evidently the former. Therefore that circumcision is also superior, or rather, no longer superior, but this is the only circumcision; for while the type stood, He rightly brought it forward in conjunction, writing, "For ye shall circumcise the foreskins of your hearts." (Jerem. iv. 4.) In the same way in the Epistle to the Romans he does away with it, saying, "for he is not a Jew which is one outwardly, neither is that circumcision which is outward in the flesh; but he is a Jew which is one inwardly, and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, not in the letter." (Rom. ii. 28, Rom. ii. 29.) And lastly, he takes from it the very name, "neither is it circumcision," he maintains; for the type while the reality is yet to come, is called this, but when the reality has come, it no longer retains the title. As in delineation, a man has drawn a king in outline; so long as the colors are not put on we say, Lo, there is the king, but when they are added, the type is lost in the reality, and ceases to show. And he said not, "for the circumcision is in us," but "we are the circumcision," and justly; for this is the Man, the circumcision in virtue, this is really the Man. And he did not say, "For among them is the concision"; for they themselves are henceforth in a condition of ruin and of wickedness. But no longer, says he, is circumcision performed in the body, but in the heart.

Plainly, a Christian will "glory" even in the flesh; but (it will be) when it has endured laceration for Christ's sake, in order that the spirit may be crowned in it, not in order that it may draw the eyes and sighs of youths after it.

We are the circumcision -spiritual and carnal-of all things; for both in the spirit and in the flesh we circumcise worldly principles.

And so to the Law presently had to succeed the Word of God introducing the spiritual circumcision. Therefore, by means of the wide licence of those days, materials for subsequent emendations were furnished beforehand, of which materials the Lord by His Gospel, and then the apostle in the last days of the (Jewish) age, either cut off the redundancies or regulated the disorders.

If, he says, one must seek circumcision, then you will find it among us, who spiritually, that is, with soul and mind, serve God. Those circumcised in soul and serving God with it — these are the ones who have the true circumcision, as much higher as the soul is higher than the body. He did not say: we have circumcision, but: we, for man himself is circumcision united with virtues. And again he did not say: in them there is circumcision, but they themselves are perdition and evil.

So then, which is better: to boast in Christ, who circumcises our hearts and through baptism raises us to the dignity of sons of God, or to boast in the flesh, that is, to take pride in fleshly circumcision only because they are children of Abraham?

Then when he says, for we are the true circumcision, he shows how they should be avoided by the saints: first, how they are avoided by others; secondly, by himself (3:4).

He says, therefore: I say that they are those who mutilate the flesh, but we who worship God are the true circumcision. For circumcision is of two kinds, namely, bodily and spiritual: "For he is not a real Jew who is one outwardly, nor is true circumcision something external and physical. He is a Jew who is one inwardly, and real circumcision is a matter of the heart, spiritual and not literal" (Rom. 2:28). For the circumcision of the flesh cuts off superfluous flesh; but the circumcision of the spirit is that by which the Holy Spirit cuts away superfluous internal concupiscences. Therefore, he says: We are the true circumcision, who worship God in spirit, i.e., who circumcises us inwardly to God. "For God is my witness, whom I serve with my spirit in the gospel of his Son" (Rom. 1:9); "I will sing with the spirit and I will sing with the mind also" (1 Cor. 14:15). But circumcision is given as a sign of Abraham's faith, to show that his faith, which believed in an offspring to come, was true: "The promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring" (Gal. 3:16). Therefore, circumcision is a sign of Abraham's faith in Christ. Consequently, he is circumcised who by the Holy Spirit is renewed inwardly in Christ, who is the truth of the circumcision: "In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands" (Col. 2:11). We put no confidence in the flesh, i.e., in the circumcision of the flesh, because, as it is stated in John (6:63): "It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail."

"And have no confidence," says he, "in the flesh; though I myself might have confidence even in the flesh." What does he call "confidence" here, and "in the flesh"? Boasting, boldness, a high tone. And he did well to add this; for if he had been of the Gentiles, and had condemned circumcision, and not only circumcision, but all those that adopted it out of place, it would have seemed that he was running it down, because he lacked the high ancestry of Judaism, as being a stranger to its solemn rites, and having no part therein. But as it is, he, who, though a sharer, yet blames them, will not therefore blame them as having no share in them, but as disowning them; not from ignorance, but most especially from acquaintance with them. Accordingly observe what he says in his Epistle to the Galatians also; having been brought into a necessity of saying great things about himself, how even in these circumstances does he manifest nought but humility. "For ye have heard, of my manner of life in time past," he says, "in the Jews' religion" (Gal. i. 13); and again here; "if any other man thinketh to have confidence in the flesh, I more." And he immediately added, "a Hebrew of Hebrews." But "if any other man," says he, showing the necessity, showing that it was on their account that he spoke. "If ye have confidence," he says, I also say so, since I am silent. And observe the absence of all ungraciousness in the reproofs; by forbearing to do it by name, he gave even them the opportunity of retracing their steps. "If any one thinketh to have confidence"; and it was well to say "thinketh," either inasmuch as they really had no such confidence, or as that confidence was no real confidence, for all was by necessity, and not of choice.

But "those things which he had once accounted gain," and which he enumerates in the preceding verse-"trust in the flesh," the sign of "circumcision," his origin as "an Hebrew of the Hebrews," his descent from "the tribe of Benjamin," his dignity in the honours of the Pharisee -he now reckons to be only "loss" to himself; (in other words, ) it was not the God of the Jews, but their stupid obduracy, which he repudiates.

If I, he says, came from the Gentiles, then someone might say that I condemn circumcision because I supposedly do not have noble Jewish descent. But now I myself, he says, have the very same thing in which you boast—hope and boasting in fleshly circumcision. So then, it is evident that I condemn circumcision not because I lack, as you say, your nobility, but for the sake of the truth itself.

Pay attention to his wisdom: he named no one by name, so as not to arouse hatred by such speech; and by the expression "if anyone else thinks" he shows that others compelled him to such words. He said well: "thinks" – either because the Jews could not place as much hope in circumcision as he could; or because hope in circumcision is not true, but only seems so.

Then when he says, though I myself have reason for confidence in the flesh also, he gives his own example: first, he mentions the prestige he had under the Law; secondly, he shows how he scorned it (3:7). In regard to the first he does two things: first, he makes a general statement; secondly, he explains it part by part (3:5).

In regard to the first he does two things: first, he shows the confidence he could have had in the things of the Law, saying: We must not put our confidence in the things of the Law, though I myself have reason for confidence in the flesh also, i.e., I could have, if I desired, because "Whatever anyone dares to boast of—I am speaking as a fool—I also dare to boast of that," as he says in 2 Corinthians (11:21). And I can do this with more reason, because I have done more: "I am talking like a madman" (2 Cor. 11:23). He mentions all these things in order more effectively to destroy the observances of the Law. For many scorn things they do not know or do not have; and this is not right, but only when a person has something and then scorns it and does not glory in it. Thus, if the Apostle had no prestige during the time of the Law, this could be cited as the reason why he went over to the gospel. Therefore, he shows the prestige he had under the Law.

"Circumcised on the eighth day"; and he sets down the first that wherein they chiefly boasted, viz. the ordinance of circumcision. "Of the stock of Israel." He pointed out both these circumstances, that he was neither a proselyte, nor born of proselytes; for from his being circumcised on the eighth day, it follows that he was not a proselyte, and from his being of the stock of Israel, that he was not of proselyte parents. But that you may not imagine that he was of the stock of Israel as coming of the ten tribes, he says, "of the tribe of Benjamin." So that he was of the more approved portion, for the place of the priests was in the lot of this tribe. "An Hebrew of Hebrews." Because he was not a proselyte, but from of old, of distinguished Jews; for he might have been of Israel, and yet not "an Hebrew of Hebrews," for many were already corrupting the matter, and were strangers to the language, being encircled by other nations; it is either this then, or the great superiority of his birth, that he shows. "According to the law a Pharisee." He is coming now to the circumstances dependent on his own will; for all those things were apart from the will, for his being circumcised was not of himself, nor that he was of the stock of Israel, nor that he was of the tribe of Benjamin. So that, even among these he has a larger share, even though there were really many who partook with him. Where then are we to place the "rather"? Particularly herein that he was not a proselyte; for to be of the most distinguished tribe and sect, and this from his ancestors of old, was a thing which belonged not to many.

"But who are you, most excellent man?" So I replied to him in jest.

Then he told me frankly both his name and his family. "Trypho," says he, "I am called; and I am a Hebrew of the circumcision, and having escaped from the war lately carried on there I am spending my days in Greece, and chiefly at Corinth."

"And in what," said I, "would you be profited by philosophy so much as by your own lawgiver and the prophets?"

For the occasion, indeed, of claiming Divine grace even for the Gentiles derived a pre-eminent fitness from this fact, that the man who set up to vindicate CoWs Law as his own was of the Gentiles, and not a Jew "of the stock of the Israelites." For this fact-that Gentiles are admissible to God's Law-is enough to prevent Israel from priding himself on the notion that "the Gentiles are accounted as a little drop of a bucket," or else as "dust out of a threshing-floor: " although we have God Himself as an adequate engager and faithful promiser, in that He promised to Abraham that "in his seed should be blest all nations of the earth; " and that out of the womb of Rebecca "two peoples and two nations were about to proceed," -of course those of the Jews, that is, of Israel; and of the Gentiles, that is ours.

"My Jewish identity," he says, "is in no way ambiguous. I do not come from a family that was only partially Jewish. I am a plant of freedom, a son of Rachel the beloved, on whose behalf the patriarch himself endured slavery."

That which they especially boasted of, namely circumcision, he places first. By the expression "on the eighth day" he showed that he was not a proselyte.

That is, not from parents who were proselytes, but from the race of the Israelites themselves.

That is, from the more illustrious part of the lineage; for everything pertaining to the priesthood belonged to the lot of this tribe.

As for my ancestors, I am, he says, descended from noble Jews. It was possible to be of the race of Israel but not a Hebrew of Hebrews. For with many the matter was spoiled by the fact that they did not even know the Hebrew language, living in dispersion among the Gentiles, and did not precisely observe the Scriptures. But I, he says, am a Hebrew, that is, I preserve this character. Or the apostle is pointing by this to his especially noble origin.

What the apostle spoke of above, namely: circumcision, descent from the race of Israel, and so on — all of this did not depend on his own power. Now, however, he speaks of a matter that was accomplished by his own choice: "according to the teaching," he says, "a Pharisee," that is, according to the study of the law. The Pharisees were the most renowned sect among the Jews.

He shows the prestige he had under the Law: first, in general, and secondly, according to the life he led: as to the Law a Pharisee. As to the first, in three ways: first, in regard to the sacrament of his race, because he was circumcised on the eighth day: "It shall be a sign of the covenant between me and you" (Gen. 17:11). He says on the eighth day because this was the difference between proselytes and the descendants of Abraham: the former were not circumcised on the eighth day, but as adults, when they were converted; but the latter on the eighth day according to the Law: "He that is eight days old among you shall be circumcised" (Gen. 17:12). Thus it was not as a proselyte but as a true Israelite that he was circumcised. Secondly, in regard to his race when he says, of the people of Israel. For two races descended from Abraham: one through Isaac, and the other through Ishmael. From Isaac also two races descended: one through Esau and one through Jacob. But the one from Esau and the one from Ishmael were not included in the inheritance, but only Jacob who is also called Israel; hence he says, of the people of Israel: "Are they Israelites? So am I" (2 Cor. 11:22).

Then in regard to his tribe, because in the tribe of Israel some were descended from bondwomen, i.e., from Bilhah and Zilpah, and some from free women, namely, Leah and Rachel. Among these some persevered in the worship of God, namely, the tribes of Levi, Judah and Benjamin, but the others turned to idols during the time of Jeroboam. Therefore, the tribe of Benjamin was privileged, because it continued in the faith and worship of God, and the temple was built in it: "The beloved of the Lord, he dwells in safety by him; he encompasses him all the day long, and makes his dwelling between his shoulders" (Deut. 33:12); "Benjamin is a ravenous wolf, in the morning devouring the prey, and at evening dividing the spoil" (Gen. 49:27). He prefigured Paul who in his early days persecuted the Church. Thirdly, in regard to his name and tongue when he says, a Hebrew. Some say that the word "Hebrew" comes from Abraham, as Augustine did, but later retracted. But it is taken from Eber (Gen. 11:16). That it does not come from Abraham is evident, because Abraham himself is called a Hebrew: "Then one who had escaped came, and told Abram the Hebrew" (Gen. 14:13). A gloss on Genesis (11) says that in the time of Eber the languages of all nations were separated, but the primitive language remained in the family of Eber and in the worship of the one God and among all the Hebrews. He was also born of Hebrew parents; hence he says, born of Hebrews.

Before his conversion Paul fulfilled the law conspicuously, either through fear of the people or of God himself, even if he may have offended the law in his internal affections. But he was fulfilling the law through fear of punishment, not through love of righteousness.

But he comes to the things which are matters of choice, wherein we have the "rather." "As touching the law, a Pharisee; as touching zeal, persecuting the Church." But this is not sufficient; for it is possible to be a Pharisee even, and yet not very zealous. But this also he adds; behold the "rather." "According to righteousness." It is possible, however, to be adventurous, or to act thus from ambition, and not out of zeal for the law, as the chief priests did. Yet neither was this the case, but, "according to the righteousness which is in the law, found blameless." If then both for purity of descent, and earnestness, and habits, and mode of life, I surpassed all, why have I renounced all those dignities, he asks, but because I found that the things of Christ are better, and better far?

"When I was harrying the church," he says, "I was not driven by love of honor or vainglory or jealousy, like the rulers of the Jews. I was burning with zeal for the law."

Since some of the Pharisees were not particularly zealous for the law, the apostle says that he was so zealous that he persecuted the disciples of Christ.

Since many were zealots out of love of power and for other motives, and not for the sake of the law, the apostle says that, being blameless according to the righteousness of the law, how could I have been a persecutor for the sake of anything human, and not out of divine zeal.

Then he shows the prestige he had in his manner of life: first of all, in regard to his sect when he says, as to the law a Pharisee. For there were three sects among the Jews, namely, the Pharisees, the Sadducees, and the Essenes. But the Pharisees were closer to the truth, because the Sadducees denied the resurrection and did not believe in angels or spirits, while the Pharisees believed both, as it is stated in Acts (23). For this reason the sect of the Pharisees was more commendable. That he was a Pharisee is stated in Acts (26:5): "According to the strictest party of our religion I have lived as a Pharisee." Secondly, in regard to the zeal which the Jews had, although not according to knowledge, in persecuting Christians; hence he says, a persecutor of the church. "He who once persecuted us is now preaching the faith he once tried to destroy" (Gal. 1:23); "I myself was convinced that I ought to do many things in opposing the name of Jesus of Nazareth. And I did so in Jerusalem" (Acts 26:9); "I am unfit to be called an Apostle because I persecuted the church of God" (1 Cor. 15:9).

Thirdly, in regard to the innocence of his manner of life; hence he says, as to righteousness under the Law blameless. This justice consists in externals, but the justice of faith is of the heart: "God who knows the heart... cleansed their hearts by faith" (Acts 15:8-9). As to external justice the Apostle lived innocently; hence he says, blameless. He does not say "without sin," because blame is concerned with a sin of scandal against one's neighbor in matters that are external: "And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless" (Lk. 1:6). Therefore, he does not contradict what he says in Ephesians (2:3). "Among these we all once lived," because he did not then have the true justice of faith, which makes a man pure, but only the justice of the Law.

Wherefore he added; "howbeit what things were gain to me, these have I counted loss for Christ."

Such a course of life, so strictly regulated, and entered upon from earliest childhood, such unblemished extraction, such dangers, plots, labors, forwardness, did Paul renounce, "counting them but loss," which before were "gain," that he might "win Christ." But we do not even contemn money, that we may "win Christ," but prefer to fail of the life to come rather than of the good things of the present life. And yet this is nothing else than loss; for tell me now, let us examine in detail the conditions of riches, and see whether it be not loss accompanied with trouble, and without any gain.

But these very words are favorable to the Law, and how they are so, shall be hence manifest. Let us attend accurately to his very words. He said not, The Law is loss: but "I counted it loss." But when he spake of gain, he said not, I counted them, but "they were gain." But when he spake of loss he said, "I counted": and this rightly; for the former was naturally so, but the latter became so, from my opinion. "What then? Is it not so?" says he. It is loss for Christ.

And how has the law become gain? And it was not counted gain, but was so. For consider how great a thing it was, to bring men, brutalized in their nature, to the shape of men. If the law had not been, grace would not have been given. Wherefore? Because it became a sort of bridge; for when it was impossible to mount on high from a state of great abasement, a ladder was formed. But he who has ascended has no longer need of the ladder; yet he does not despise it, but is even grateful to it. For it has placed him in such a position, as no longer to require it. And yet for this very reason, that he doth not require it, it is just that he should acknowledge his obligation, for he could not fly up. And thus is it with the Law, it hath led us up on high; wherefore it was gain, but for the future we esteem it loss. How? Not because it is loss, but because grace is far greater. For as a poor man, that was in hunger, as long as he has silver, escapes hunger, but when he finds gold, and it is not allowable to keep both, considers it loss to retain the former, and having thrown it away, takes the gold coin; so also here; not because the silver is loss, for it is not; but because it is impossible to take both at once, but it is necessary to leave one. Not the Law then is loss, but for a man to cleave to the Law, and desert Christ. Wherefore it is then loss when it leads us away from Christ. But if it sends us on to Him, it is no longer so. For this cause he saith "loss for Christ"; if for Christ, it is not so naturally.

But "those things which he had once accounted gain," and which he enumerates in the preceding verse-"trust in the flesh," the sign of "circumcision," his origin as "an Hebrew of the Hebrews," his descent from "the tribe of Benjamin," his dignity in the honours of the Pharisee -he now reckons to be only "loss" to himself; (in other words, ) it was not the God of the Jews, but their stupid obduracy, which he repudiates.

Here the heretics who condemn the law say: behold, Paul calls it "loss" — how then could it have been given by God? But first of all, let us be grateful that the Holy Spirit so arranged it that they accept these words as if speaking in their favor. If this were not so, they would simply have destroyed these words, as they did many others. Then, pay attention: the apostle did not say directly that the law is loss, but "I count" it "as loss," since the law in itself is not loss. Otherwise, how could it lead to Christ, when understood correctly? Before, understanding it falsely, I did not turn to Christ; but afterwards, having learned the truth, I turned to Christ, and the law then showed me that it was loss at the time when I, understanding it falsely, did not turn to Christ. But in itself the law is gain. Listen further: he did not say "what I considered an advantage," but "what was," since the law is truly an "advantage," because, freeing people from savagery and superstition and becoming a ladder, it leads us to life in Christ. Just as one who ascends a ladder does not despise the steps — on the contrary, he remains grateful, because without them he could not have ascended. So also the law was gain, but now we count it as loss and harm, not because it is such in reality, but because there is a greater grace. Or as a man possessing silver, if he finds gold and cannot possess both, counts it a harm to hold on to the silver and keeps the gold — so also the law becomes a harm if it leads away from Christ, but if it were to lead to Him, it would not be a harm. Therefore, he says, I not only formerly counted the law as loss, but even now I count it as such. Why then? Because of the surpassing excellence of grace. Do you see, he makes a comparison. But only things of the same kind are compared, and therefore what surpasses, surpasses something of its own kind. The law too is knowledge, but a lesser one; just as a lamp is light, but not such light as the light of the sun, although it is still light.

For Christ's sake, he says, I renounced everything, that is, I counted all things as loss, or I rejected everything. Do you see after this that the law is not loss in itself, but for Christ's sake? Whether the word "refuse" refers to the law is not clear. It is more plausible that here he is speaking generally about worldly affairs, for he said above: "for His sake I renounced everything," that is, everything worldly. But if what was said is applied to the law as well, there will be no dishonor to it. For "refuse" is the chaff or stalk of wheat; but the stalk serves as the protection and support of the wheat, so that if there were no stalk, there would be no wheat either. But when the latter has ripened and been gathered, then the stalk becomes unnecessary. In exactly the same way, the law is the confirmation and witness of grace; when the latter appeared, one should no longer remain with the letter of the law.

Then when he says, but whatever gain I had, he shows his contempt for the prestige he had under the Law: first, he shows in general why he scorned the things of the Law; secondly, in detail (3:8).

He says, therefore: Whatever gain I had, i.e., prestige, namely, to be a Pharisee and so on, I counted as loss for the sake of Christ, i.e., I came to regard them as hindrances. For the observances of the Law, which were effective during the time of the Law, became harmful after Christ; hence he says, loss. And the reason for abandoning them was Christ; hence he says, for the sake of Christ.

And the Apostle teaches us how to dung it, saying: "I count all things but dung, that I may gain Christ," and he, through evil report and good report, attained to pleasing Christ. For he had read that Abraham, when confessing himself to be but dust and ashes, in his deep humility found favour with God. He had read how Job, sitting among the ashes, regained all that he had lost. He had heard in the utterance of David, how God "raiseth the poor out of the dust, and lifteth the needy out of the dunghill."

"Yea verily, and I have counted all things but loss." Why, he means, do I say this of the Law? Is not the world good? Is not the present life good? but if they draw me away from Christ, I count these things loss. Why? "for the excellency of the knowledge of Jesus Christ my Lord." For when the sun hath appeared, it is loss to sit by a candle: so that the loss comes by comparison, by the superiority of the other. You see that Paul makes a comparison from superiority, not from diversity of kind; for that which is superior, is superior to somewhat of like nature to itself. So that he shows the connection of that knowledge by the same means, by which he draws the superiority from the comparison.

"For whom I suffered the loss of all things, and do count them dung, that I may gain Christ." It is not yet manifest, whether he speaks of the Law, for it is likely that he applies it to the things of this world. For when he says, "the things which were gain to me, those I have counted loss for Christ; yea verily," he adds, "I count all things loss." Although he said all things, yet it is things present; and if you wish it to be the Law too, not even so is it insulted. For dung comes from wheat, and the strength of the wheat is the dung, I mean, the chaff. But as the dung was useful in its former state, so that we gather it together with the wheat, and had there been no dung, there would have been no wheat, thus too is it with the Law.

Seest thou, how everywhere he calls it "loss," not in itself, but for Christ. "Yea verily, and I count all things but loss." Wherefore again? "For the excellency of the knowledge (of Him), for whom I suffered the loss of all things." Again, "wherefore too I count all things to be loss, that I may gain Christ."

But "those things which he had once accounted gain," and which he enumerates in the preceding verse-"trust in the flesh," the sign of "circumcision," his origin as "an Hebrew of the Hebrews," his descent from "the tribe of Benjamin," his dignity in the honours of the Pharisee -he now reckons to be only "loss" to himself; (in other words, ) it was not the God of the Jews, but their stupid obduracy, which he repudiates. These are also the things "which he counts but dung for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ" (but by no means for the rejection of God the Creator); "whilst he has not his own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through Him," i.e. Christ, "the righteousness which is of God.

Thus far, finally, of patience simple and uniform, and as it exists merely in the mind: though in many forms likewise I labour after it in body, for the purpose of "winning the Lord; " inasmuch as it is a quality which has been exhibited by the Lord Himself in bodily virtue as well; if it is true that the ruling mind easily communicates the gifts of the Spirit with its bodily habitation.

Accordingly he subjoins withal a reason, that "we are called in peace unto the Lord God; "and that "the unbeliever may, through the use of matrimony, be gained by the believer." The very closing sentence of the period confirms (the supposition) that this is thus to be understood.

It is not that I flee them as base things but that I prefer what is superior. Having tasted the grain, I throw away the refuse. For refuse means the denser and harder part of the chaff. It carries the grain but is discarded once the grain has been collected.

He explains this: first, that he acted thus in order to know Christ, and secondly to obtain Him. In regard to the first he says, Indeed I count everything as loss. This is true, if he had continued to depend on them. What I did formerly, I now regard a loss on account of my desire for a correct understanding of Christ, my Lord: "For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified" (1 Cor. 2:2). Because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, since this transcends all knowledge. For there is nothing better to be known than the Word of God "in whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge" (Col. 2:3).

In regard to the second he says, for his sake I have suffered the loss of all things. First, he shows that he scorned the observance of the Law in order to obtain Christ; secondly, how he could obtain Christ: not having a righteousness of my own, based on Law. He says, therefore: I have suffered the loss of all things by regarding them as vile and contemptible, that I may gain Christ, i.e., obtain Him and be united to Him by charity.