Does Paul Reject His Jewish Heritage in Philippians 3:2-11?

Introduction

In Paul’s letter to the Philippians he states the following:

2 “ Beware of the dogs, beware of the evil workers, beware of the false circumcision; 3 for we are the true circumcision, who worship in the Spirit of God and glory in Christ Jesus and put no confidence in the flesh, 4 although I myself might have confidence even in the flesh. If anyone else has a mind to put confidence in the flesh, I far more:5 circumcised the eighth day, of the nation of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the Law, a Pharisee; 6 as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to the righteousness which is in the Law, found blameless.” 7 “ But whatever things were gain to me, those things I have counted as loss for the sake of Christ. 8 More than that, I count all things to be loss in view of the surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them but rubbish so that I may gain Christ, 9 and may be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own derived from the Law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which comes from God on the basis of faith, 10 that I may know Him and the power of His resurrection and the fellowship of His sufferings, being conformed to His death; 11 in order that I may attain to the resurrection from the dead.” Philippians 3:2-11 (NASB; bolding added)

I have heard preachers proclaim on the basis of this passage that Paul has come to reject his Jewish heritage and practices because he has become a “Christian”. After the revelation of Jesus on the road to Damascus, Paul supposedly realized that his life in Judaism was a legalistic striving for perfection and righteousness which was impossible to attain, so he dumped it all as worthless garbage.

In view of the fact that Paul nowhere in the NT teaches that Jewish Jesus-followers are to renounce circumcision and Torah-observance, it seems appropriate to ask some questions about the validity of the above interpretation.

    • Is that what Paul really says in this passage?
    • Is that consistent with how Paul speaks elsewhere about his Jewish heritage (let’s call it Jewishness for convenience)?
    • And how does the book of Acts portray Paul’s attitude to Jewishness?

First – What Does Paul Really Say In This Passage?

In this passage Paul is warning the Philippian congregation against those who preached a false gospel which involved putting “confidence in the flesh” – apparently based on adherence to at least some of the requirements of Jewish law, of which circumcision was a key component.  Those false preachers appear to have been circumcised Gentile converts to Judaism who had subsequently become Jesus-followers, and who now advocated that new Gentile Jesus-followers also needed to be circumcised to be acceptable to God. Paul counters their argument at several levels, first by implying that their circumcision was not done in accordance with the Torah, and second that such external credentials have no bearing on the righteousness that God has made available in and through Christ. He then lists his own Jewish credentials, and then devalues those credentials in comparison to “gaining” Christ and obtaining the righteousness of God through faith in him.

A careful reading of the cited passage shows that Paul is not making an absolute statement about the value of Jewishness; rather he makes a comparison between the value of his Jewish heritage (which he describes in verse 7 as “gain”) and the value of knowing Christ. In other words he rates knowing Jesus as so much higher than Jewishness that the latter by comparison is described as worthless. The force of this type of comparison depends on the “devalued” item actually being very valuable; but by comparison with something having an even higher value, the former is counted as “rubbish”. Note that Paul goes even further than devaluing his Jewishness, he broadens the scope of his comparison by claiming that he counts “all things” – i.e. everything he values – as loss compared to gaining Christ.

Paul’s use of this type of comparison is also found in 1 Corinthians 3:5-10:

5 “ What then is Apollos? And what is Paul? Servants through whom you believed, even as the Lord gave opportunity to each one. 6 I planted, Apollos watered, but God was causing the growth. 7 So then neither the one who plants nor the one who waters is anything, but God who causes the growth. 8 Now he who plants and he who waters are one; but each will receive his own reward according to his own labor. 9 For we are God’s fellow workers; you are God’s field, God’s building. 10 According to the grace of God which was given to me, like a wise master builder I laid a foundation, and another is building on it.” 

Although Paul states that he is a wise master builder who laid a foundation, yet by comparison with God, he (and Apollos) are nothing.

This type of hyperbolic speech occurs elsewhere in the New Testament, in which two important things are compared and the thing of lesser value or importance is described in excessively negative terms. For example Jesus states in Luke 14:26:

26 “If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple.”

It is clear that Jesus is NOT teaching that to be his disciple you must break the fifth commandment. So Paul likewise is NOT teaching that Jewishness is worthless.

Second – What Does Paul Say Elsewhere About Jewishness?

There are at least three instances in the NT where Paul speaks positively about being a Jew and Jewishness, two in Romans and one in 1 Corinthians.

Romans 3:1-2   “1 Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the benefit of circumcision? 2 Great in every respect. First of all, that they were entrusted with the oracles of God….”

Romans 9:1-5   “1 I am telling the truth in Christ, I am not lying, my conscience testifies with me in the Holy Spirit, 2 that I have great sorrow and unceasing grief in my heart. 3 For I could wish that I myself were accursed, separated from Christ for the sake of my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh, 4 who are Israelites, to whom belongs the adoption as sons, and the glory and the covenants and the giving of the Law and the temple service and the promises, 5 whose are the fathers, and from whom is the Christ according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen.”

In Romans 3:1-2 Paul speaks positively about Jewishness and circumcision, and even assigns “great” advantage and benefit to the same. That assessment is reinforced in Romans 9:4-5 where key Jewish privileges are listed in the present tense and thus must be understood as continuing in the present gospel age; i.e. those privileges have not been taken away from physical Israel (Romans 11:28-19).    

1 Corinthians 7:17-20       “17 Only, as the Lord has assigned to each one, as God has called each, in this manner let him walk. And so I direct in all the churches. 18 Was any man called when he was already circumcised? He is not to become uncircumcised. Has anyone been called in uncircumcision? He is not to be circumcised. 19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but what matters is the keeping of the commandments of God. 20 Each man must remain in that condition in which he was called.”

Paul’s meaning in verse 18 becomes clearer when the NASB-supplied words in italics are elided and the two phrase are placed in parallel:

    • “Was any man called …circumcised? He is not to become uncircumcised.”
    • “Has anyone been called in uncircumcision? He is not to be circumcised.”

In verse 18 Paul uses the common pars pro toto terms “circumcised” and “uncircumcised” to designate “Jew” and “Gentile”, respectively. Thus a Jew who becomes a Jesus-follower is to remain circumcised – i.e. to remain an observant Jew. And the Gentile who becomes a Jesus-follower is to remain uncircumcised and not to seek to become a Jew by undergoing circumcision and becoming Torah-observant. This is Paul’s rule for all the churches!

In verse 19 Paul clarifies that what ultimately counts is not being either a Jew or a Gentile, but to keep the commandments of God applicable to each. Thus the Jewish believer is to keep Torah and the Gentile believer is to keep those commandments applicable to him i.e. those imposed specifically on Gentile believers by the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15, plus any others that Paul as the Apostle to the Gentiles imposed on his congregations.  

A similar teaching is given by Paul in Galatians 3:28:

Galatians 3:28:  “28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”

Clearly the God-ordained distinctions between men and women remain valid. Similarly the God-ordained distinctions between Jews and Gentiles remain valid. Paul’s point is that such distinctions – important as they may be – have no bearing with reference to the basis of salvation and right standing with God.

Note that the issue in Acts 15 was whether Gentile believers ought to be circumcised, which would obligate them to become fully Torah-observant. The question as to whether Jewish believers ought to continue to practice circumcision was not on the agenda. However, it seems obvious that IF Jewish believers, by virtue of their faith in Christ, were no longer to practice circumcision, then the question as to whether Gentile believers should be circumcised would never have arisen. It is therefore abundantly clear that, since the Gentile circumcision question did arise, that Jewish believers had continued (and were expected to continue) to practice circumcision and Torah observance.

For Reformed readers, please note that IF Jesus had replaced circumcision by baptism, as claimed by e.g. the Belgic Confession Article 34: “…He has abolished circumcision, which involved blood, and has instituted in its place the sacrament of baptism…”, then why did the question of Gentile circumcision even arise in the Apostolic Church and require such serious and extended deliberation?        

Third – How Does The Book Of Acts Portray Paul’s Attitude To Jewishness?

The book of Acts is important because, although written later than Paul’s letters, it occupies a canonical position ahead of Paul’s letters, which suggests that it was intended to provide guidance for the proper interpretation of Paul’s letters. It is possible that the material in Acts was intended (at least in part) to counter incipient Marcionite tendencies which may already have been evident when Acts was composed. Thus, the second half of the book of Acts – after the Jerusalem Council deliberation and decision in Acts 15 that Gentile believers should not be circumcised – appears to be structured to demonstrate that Paul did not teach Jewish Jesus-followers to abandon circumcision or Torah-observance (Acts 16:3: 18:18; 20:6,16; 21:17-26; 24:17-18). The key passage is Acts 21:17-26:

17 “ After we arrived in Jerusalem, the brethren received us gladly. 18 And the following day Paul went in with us to James, and all the elders were present. 19 After he had greeted them, he began to relate one by one the things which God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry. 20And when they heard it they began glorifying God; and they said to him, “You see, brother, how many thousands there are among the Jews of those who have believed, and they are all zealous for the Law; 21 and they have been told about you, that you are teaching all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children nor to walk according to the customs. 22 What, then, is to be done? They will certainly hear that you have come. 23 Therefore do this that we tell you. We have four men who are under a vow; 24 take them and purify yourself along with them, and pay their expenses so that they may shave their heads; and all will know that there is nothing to the things which they have been told about you, but that you yourself also walk orderly, keeping the Law. 25 But concerning the Gentiles who have believed, we wrote, having decided that they should abstain from meat sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from fornication.” 26  Then Paul took the men, and the next day, purifying himself along with them, went into the temple giving notice of the completion of the days of purification, until the sacrifice was offered for each one of them.”

The second half of verse 20 reports two facts about Jewish believers in Jerusalem/Israel: (1) there are many thousands of Jewish believers, and (2) the Jewish believers are all zealous for the Law. The lack of comment on the latter fact implies that such zeal for the Law is appropriate and acceptable.

Verse 21 reports that accusations were being made that Paul was teaching the Jews living among the Gentiles (1) to forsake Moses, (2) to not circumcise their children, and (3) to abandon Jewish customs. The following verses indicate that the Jerusalem elders consider the reported accusations to be false, and they direct Paul to publicly prove them false by carrying out certain Jewish rites in the Temple. Paul immediately undertakes to do so, and so demonstrates that he himself “…also walk(s) orderly, keeping the Law.”

The repetition, in this passage, of the decision in Acts 15 regarding what is required of Gentile believers, signals that this passage is intended to serve as a counterpart to that decision, by teaching what is required of Jewish believers – that they are to remain Torah-observant and keep the Jewish food laws, circumcision and Sabbath laws.   

In the final chapters of Acts Paul confirms his own ongoing commitment to Moses, circumcision, and Jewish practices no less than four times:

Acts 23:6                6 ”… Paul began crying out in the Council, “Brethren, I am a Pharisee, a son of Pharisees…”

Acts 24:11-17          11 ”… since you can take note of the fact that no more than twelve days ago I went up to Jerusalem to worship…. 14 But this I admit to you, that according to the Way which they call a sect I do serve the God of our fathers, believing everything that is in accordance with the Law and that is written in the Prophets;….17 Now after several years I came to bring alms to my nation and to present offerings; 18 in which they found me occupied in the temple, having been purified,…” 

Acts 25:7-8:            7 “ After Paul arrived, the Jews who had come down from Jerusalem stood around him, bringing many and serious charges against him which they could not prove, 8 while Paul said in his own defense, “I have committed no offense either against the Law of the Jews or against the temple or against Caesar.”

Acts 28:17:             17 “ After three days Paul called together those who were the leading men of the Jews, and when they came together, he began saying to them, “Brethren, though I had done nothing against our people or the customs of our fathers, yet I was delivered as a prisoner from Jerusalem into the hands of the Romans.”

=======================================

The question may be asked as to how it happened that significant segments of the Christian Church have continued – to the present day – to construe Paul as teaching what he was falsely accused of in Acts 21, and what Paul is shown to specifically deny in Acts 23, 24, 25 and 28?

Pro Sola Scriptura