Describing Diogenes of Sinope (404–323 B.C.) Diogenes Laertius (Lives of Eminent Philosophers 6.24) said:

He was great at pouring scorn on his contemporaries. The school of Euclides he called bilious, and Plato’s lectures waste of time, the performances at the Dionysia great peep-shows for fools, and the demagogues the mob’s lackeys. He used also to say that when he saw physicians, philosophers and pilots at their work, he deemed man the most intelligent of all animals; but when again he saw interpreters of dreams and diviners and those who attended to them, or those who were puffed up with conceit of wealth, he thought no animal more silly. He would continually say that for the conduct of life we need right reason or a halter.

Lives in a barrel? Surrounded by dogs? Pouring scorn on the popular philosophers of his day? Yep, that’s a blogger.

Paul develops an accounting metaphor in verse 7. All of his achievements count for nothing when it comes to his position in Jesus Christ.  On one side of the ledger is his human achievement, on the other is the sake of Christ. He writes them off as a loss in comparison to known Christ Jesus as his Lord.

Human achievement is “loss” or “rubbish.” Loss (ζημία) can refer to a financial loss, as in Acts 27:10 (Paul predicts the shipwreck and “much injury and loss.”) In LXX 2 Kings 23:33 the word refers to a heavy tribute imposed on Judah by the Pharaoh Neco when he took Jehoahaz captive. The word can refer to a financial penalty (a heavy fine, for example). In this context, Paul is saying that all of human achievement was a huge loss when it came to knowing Jesus and the power of the resurrection.

money_down_toiletImagine someone who buys an antique at an estate sale, investing a significant amount of money because they were certain it was worth far more (maybe a Civil War Rifle or a colonial document). They take the antique to the Antiques Roadshow and have it examined by an expert and it turns out to be a worthless fake. The person would take a huge loss since they cannot resale the item and recoup their investment. It is still a nice antique and might look nice good hanging over the mantel. It can still be enjoyed and valued. But it is really a total financial loss.

In a similar way, Paul’s “heavy investment” in training as a Pharisee and his dedicated practice of Judaism as a Pharisee have turned out to be a loss if the return on the investment was “righteousness before God.” He still has the value of a thorough knowledge of the Scripture and the satisfaction of a life well lived, good moral values and work ethic, etc. But with respect to being right with God, that investment is a total loss.

RubbishThe second word Paul uses here is more picturesque. Rubbish (σκύβαλον) refers to refuse or garbage, the sort of thing the dogs would scavenge. Often refers to excrement (Josephus, JW 5.571, “sewers and cattle dung,”); Sib.Or. 7.58, “the mournful refuse of war;” the word appears in the medical work of Aretæus the Cappadocian, Causes and Symptoms of Acute Disease (SD 2.9), in a section entitled “On Dysentery;” BDAG glosses “It’s all crap.” It is no coincidence Paul is more or less saying the opponents as “dogs” who they are still rooting around in their own skubalon!

It is important to understand Paul correctly here: he is not saying Judaism is bad, or that Jews keeping the Law is bad, or that Torah is “garbage.” He is saying that keeping the Law does not make one right with God, only faith in Jesus Christ will do that. In Galatians he will address the reasons why a Gentile is not under the Law, but here his point is only that human achievement (whether good or bad) counts for nothing with respect to being right with God, knowing the “power of the resurrection” or obtaining salvation at the resurrection of the dead.

The righteousness that counts is “through faith of Christ” (v.9). There is a serious interpretive issue here in verse nine. The ESV and the NIV both translate the line as “through faith in Christ Jesus” although “in” is not the natural way to read the text. “through the faith of Christ” is a better rendering of the  Greek (τὴν διὰ πίστεως ΧριστοØ), but what does this mean? (Yes, this is the classic pistis christou debate!)

There are two options here. Paul might mean “the faith that I have in Jesus’ sacrifice saves me from sin.” On the other hand, “the faithful act of Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross saves me from my sin (through the faithful obedience of Christ on the cross).” Since both of these options are taught in Scripture (you do place your faith in Jesus, Eph 2:8-9) and Jesus was faithful when he humbly submitted to death of the cross (Phil 2:5-11), it is possible most people do not catch Paul’s subtle teaching here. In the context of Philippians, Jesus is the one who humbly submitted himself to the Father and was obedient to death, Paul has submitted to the Father and suffers in prison at the moment; Epaphroditus humble serves the church at Philippi at the very moment even though he has suffered.


So Called ChristiansTurner, Jim. So-Called Christians: Healing Spiritual Wounds Left By The Church. Greenville, South Carolina: Ambassador International, 2014.157 pages, pb., $11.99   Link

Jim Turner is a pastor with more than 25 years of experience in a variety of church settings. He works with ChurchOneNow, a ministry focusing on “rebuilding unity and restoring relationships” for people who have been hurt and spiritually damaged by their experience in the church. Turner claims that more people have been hurt by the church than World War Two; as many as 37% of un-churched Americans say they do not attend church because of a negative experience.

The goal of So-Called Christians is to meet the suffering caused by the church head-on and offer some healing to people who have genuinely been damaged by Christians. The first two chapters of the book describe the problem of the church as an “autoimmune disease.” By this Turner means the Church is destroying itself. He uses to 1 Cor 1:10-13 and argues the Church today destroying itself with schisms. He jokingly “translates” 1 Cor 1:13 as “Is Christ divided? Was Charles Stanley crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of John Piper?” (34). Later in the book he calls this “doctrinal snobbery.”

In contrast to the divisive nature of the Church today, Jesus’ prayer for the Church is unity (John 17). In chapters 3-5 Turner describes the biblical idea for the church. Paul’s ideal for the Church is having one mind, unified around the idea of Jesus. Turner therefore examines the virtues in Col 3:12-14 as traits of Christ that would promote unity in the church if they were consistently practiced. He also examines the unity resulting from having the “mind of Christ” (Phil 2) and draws several applications to relationships within the church.

In Chapters 6-7 Turner begins to deal with the boundaries defining “Christian.” He makes a distinction between a “matter of conscience” (drinking a beer or smoking a pipe), a “doctrinal distinctive” (local church government, sign gifts, day of worship), and “essential Christian doctrine” (clear moral absolutes and defining doctrines of the faith). Anyone reading this book will likely fill in their own issues in each of those categories, but the idea that there are some things a Christian must reject and must accept is clear. It is the middle category (“matters of conscience”) where judgment and division happen.  He uses the example of contemporary worship here and advises we not “argue over opinions” (citing Roman 13). It is important, however, to accept the fact that my liberty might be a stumbling block to another Christian. A person who “exercises their liberty” in a matter may need to limit themselves so that they do not cause a brother or sister to stumble (85). This is an excellent point, but I wonder how far Turner is willing to push his principle of not judging in “matters of conscience.” The examples he gives are fairly straightforward, but there are other issues that are much more difficult and culturally sensitive.

Chapters 8-10 discuss the doctrinal lines defining Christianity. For the most part, Turner is a conservative evangelical and includes a twenty-four page article from Norman Geisler on the essential doctrines of Christianity. He has a summary of “essentials” drawn from the classic Christian creeds. Following Geisler, he divides these between items necessary to be saved (Trinity, human depravity, deity and humanity of Christ, necessity of grace and faith, Christ’s atoning death and his resurrection) and items that are not necessary (virgin birth, ascension, Christ’s present service and his second coming). Lest you think he is some sort of Rob Bell, Turner is clear that Geisler’s list is correct, but he would not separate from a brother in Christ for misunderstanding the virgin birth or the second coming. His point in this section is that a “loving defense of the truth maintains unity” (122).

There are several things missing from this book. First, I would have liked Turner to be even more forthright about the real problem facing the church today.  Like the church at Corinth, the real heart of our divisive spirit is sin and pride. Since he is writing to people who have been hurt, I suspect that he avoids calling disunity a sin, but that seems to be what Paul would have said to Corinth.

Second, and more perhaps critically, the book does a great job dealing with the solution, but Turner does not deal with any specific, controversial issues. For example, I agree many people stop attending church because they were “judged” by people in a local church. But in my experience, doctrinal issues are rarely the problem. In the modern American church it is very easy to find out what a church believes, simply check their website and you will likely get all the mission statements and doctrinal affiliation information you need. The people I meet who have been wounded by the church are people who have a lifestyle that just does not work in the typical evangelical church. The teenager with several tattoos and piercings who attends a typical church wearing his Slayer t-shirt and a dog-collar is going to be judged by the homeschool kids in youth group. I know of several situations where parents did not want their kids attending youth group because “those kids” were in the group, so this scenario is not far-fetched at all.

Third, sometimes hurt Christians have deep personal sins resulting in a harsh attack by the local church. The book does not address the hurt people have when they are attacked by a well-meaning (or just mean) person over a sinful lifestyle. For example, there are homosexual Christians who are in fact judged harshly by some churches and made to feel so uncomfortable they walk away from the church entirely. How can a church “love the sinner” while “hating the sin”? This is a real problem in contemporary American churches, but this goes beyond Turner’s stated goals for this book. Nevertheless, the harsh attitude towards sinners from the more conservative branches of the American Church need to be addressed and there was opportunity for Turner’s book to do just that.

Conclusion. Turner’s book was written from his personal experience in the Church and his commitment to being the Church as it is described in the New Testament. This is not a scholarly book filled with detailed exegesis; it is a heartfelt reflection on the Word of God as he observes the destructive power of divisions in the church.

NB: Thanks to Jim Turner for kindly providing me with a review copy of this book. This did not influence my thoughts regarding the work.

Paul’s opponents may have claimed to be better qualified to explain the role of the Law for Gentiles because of their heritage and training. This is more or less equivalent to someone who claims to be an expert because they graduated with a PhD from Harvard (as opposed to a certificate from DeVry Institute? Fill-in your own institutions here…) Paul therefore takes a moment to boast about his personal heritage and achievements. Paul claims in Philippians is that he is a proper Jew who exceled in the practice of Second Temple Judaism more than anyone else of his generation.

First, he was circumcised on the eighth day. This indicates he comes from a family that is keeping the Jewish traditions despite living in Tarsus.  It is possible that there were Diaspora Jews who did not keep this tradition or even did not circumcise their boys.

Mudbloods-and-How-to-Spot-themSecond, he is a member of Israel connects Paul to the covenant as a member of Abraham’s family.  Paul was not a Hellenistic Jew from Tarsus pretending to be a Greek, but rather a Jew who was well aware of his heritage as a child of Abraham.

Third, he is from the tribe of Benjamin is significant since not every Jew in the first century could claim to know they were from a particular tribe.  Paul’s Jewish name “Saul” is taken from the first king of Israel, from the tribe of Benjamin, and Paul’s teacher in Jerusalem, Gamaliel, was also from the tribe of Benjamin.

Fourth, the phrase “Hebrew of the Hebrews” can be taken in several ways.  This phrase may mean that Paul was born of true Jewish blood, that there is no Gentile in his linage. It is sometimes suggested that Paul is referring to his ability to speak and read Hebrew. Not all Jews spoke the language, especially in the home.  If there is an increasing specificity in the list of descriptions, then perhaps Polhill is right and Paul is saying that he is from an extremely Jewish family, one that still speaks the language at home (Paul and his Letters, 26).

Fifth, with respect to religion, he is a Pharisee.  Second Temple Judaism had a number of sub-divisions, not exactly like modern denominations but that is a fair way to think about them. Sadducees and Pharisees are the two most well known in the New Testament, but there were several others. There are many ways to define the groups, but Paul’s emphasis might be on faithfulness to the Law and loyalty to Israel. Pharisees were not simply observant of the Law; they thought deeply about the Law and guarded themselves against breaking the Law unknowingly. They really could claim to be “blameless” with respect to law

Last, with respect to zeal, Paul says he was a persecutor of the church. Zeal has become a Christian virtue in modern Church-talk, usually equivalent to strong emotional response in worship. But that is not at all Paul’s point here. He is zealous for the Law and the traditions of his people in the same way the Maccabean Revolt was zealous for the Law. In that case, they fought the Greeks for the right to keep the Law. More important, they were willing to enforce the Law for Jews, including circumcision. Paul’s zeal was not a warm feeling of love for God, he was violently opposed to Jews who claimed the Messiah was crucified by the Temple authorities; he was willing to use physical abuse to convince people this Messiah did not rise from the dead.

Paul is, in the words of J. B. Lightfoot, making a progressive argument.  A convert to Judaism may be circumcised, someone with some Gentile in his linage might claim a tribal affiliation, but Paul is a pure-bred true Jew!  If anyone in the Second Temple period could boast about their heritage it was Paul!



tyndale-ministry-collectionLogos is giving away a copy of their nine-volume  Tyndale Ministry Collection.  The book collects a number of books by Greg Laurie (Harvest Christian Fellowship in Riverside, California), but all nine books are designed to help with discipleship and church growth.

  • How to Live Forever by Greg Laurie
  • Jesus Up Close: Meet Him. . . . Like Never Before by Skip Heitzig
  • New Believer’s Guide to Effective Christian Living: First Steps for New Christians by Greg Laurie
  • New Believer’s Guide to How to Share Your Faith: First Steps for New Christians by Greg Laurie
  • New Believer’s Guide to Prayer: First Steps for New Christians by Greg Laurie
  • Psychology, Theology, and Spirituality in Christian Counseling by Mark R. McMinn
  • Revolution by George Barna
  • The Upside Down Church by Greg Laurie
  • Why Believe?: Exploring the Honest Questions of Seekers by Greg Laurie

The winner will be chosen at random on August 19th and the collection will be sent to the winner’s Logos account. If you don’t have a Logos account, you can sign up for free here and download free apps to read your books on any device here.

How to Enter. Go to Steve K. McCoy’s site and enter the contest up to 13 times.  Each prompted action you follow will earn you additional entries. You can always come back and share a link to the giveaway with your friends for additional entries.

Disclaimer: By entering this giveaway you consent to being signed up to Logos’ “Product Reviews” email list. You’ll receive emails featuring content written by me and other Christian bloggers!


In this section of the letter, Paul shifts from his encouragement to serve one another humbly in order to be unified against an unspecified persecution to a second major issue, a potential attack by people from inside the church. Since the Philippian church was a tiny, diverse community of Christ followers in an otherwise pagan/Roman city, it is likely they faced pressure to participate in civic activities dedicated to various gods. This pressure may have come from families or civil authorities who would interpret the Christian refusal to participate in these events as scandalous and shameful.

The Jewish community, however, was already established and well-known for their legal permission not to participate in events violating their religious convictions. Lynn Cohick suggests, therefore, that some early Christians sought the legal sanction of the synagogue as a way to avoid participation in these events (Philippians, 163). This is likely the the situation behind the the book of Hebrews (perhaps the opposite is true in Corinth). It is not completely clear the Philippian church was doing this, but there may have been an attraction to the synagogue as a place of worship and to Judaism as an old, established religion as opposed to the new, innovative Christianity meeting in homes with no sacrifice or priesthood, etc.

Beware of the DogPaul’s description of his opponents is harsh by modern standards, but not unlike the type of rhetoric one would expect in the Greco-Roman world. To call someone a dog was a particularly vivid insult. Dogs were scavengers in the ancient world, something you might drive away with a stick: 1 Sam 17:23, Goliath says “am I a dog that you come to me with a stick?” In 1 Kings 14:11 dogs will scavenge the destroyed city of Samaria. From a Jewish perspective, a “dog” was an unclean Gentile. In 2 Kings 8:1 the Gentile Hazael calls himself a dog to demonstrate his humility, for example.

“Evil doers” is a generic way to describe an opponent. If the opponents are the same as Galatians, then they are probably not “evil” in the sense of worshiping false gods and indulging in sinful practices. Like 2 Cor 11:31 (where a similar phrase is used), they appear to have wrong theological presuppositions which lead to practice Paul cannot condone. Perhaps Paul is alluding to Psalm 22:16 in this verse.  LXX Psa 22:17 uses the noun κύων (dog) as well as a participle of πονηρεύομαι, evildoers. Paul uses a phrase that means essentially the same thing (τοὺς κακοὺς ἐργάτας). This Psalm was understood as referring to the crucifixion very early in Christian preaching, so it is possible Paul wants to keep the cross at the center of this section of the letter. Just as Jesus was crucified by dogs and evildoers, these opponents have the potential to be just as dangerous.

“Mutilators” of the flesh obviously refers to circumcision. Paul uses an unusual word (κατατομή) because it sounds like the Greek word for circumcision (περιτομή). Paul may have in mind the principle in the Law barring people who have been mutilated from participating in worship. In LXX Lev 21:15 the cognate verb appears in list of types of cuttings (shaved head) or mutilations (carved flesh) resulting in defilement. Since a person who had been mutilated in some way was barred from worship at the Temple, Paul is describing these opponents as people who cannot approach God in worship. They are not just Gentile dogs; they are mutilated Gentile dogs who are unable to approach God!

Paul’s point in raising the issue of the opponents is to give a counter-example to the unity and humility of Jesus, Paul, Timothy and Epaphroditus. It is possible the Philippian Church is not directly threatened by same opponents of Paul as Galatians, but (ongoing) conflict with them would have been known to the church. The opponents have confidence in the flesh rather than in Christ. They are destroying the unity of the church by not seeking to have the same mind as Jesus. In fact, they may very well have the “same mind” as the dogs and evildoers who crucified the Lord!

Paul’s polemic against the “dogs” is remarkable because it is aimed at an opponent presenting itself as the correct (perhaps only) interpretation of what Jesus’ death on the cross means for Gentiles in the present age. The opponents are not evil pagan outsiders, but rather righteous insiders. There is a strong warning here to beware those within the church who appear to be righteous, but have intentions which hinder the Gospel.

Creation and FallLogos Bible Software has another nice selection for their “Free Book of the Month” promotion. This month they are partnering with Fortress Press to offer volume three of the Works of Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Creation and Fall. This volume is a new translation by Douglas Stephen Bax based on the German edition edited by Renate Bethge And Ilse Tödt. The 224 pages hardback edition retails at $40, although a paperback and Kindle edition is available.

Creation and Fall was originally a series of lectures on Genesis 1-4 given by Bonhoeffer at the University of Berlin (Winter, 1932-33). The series editor John W. De Gruchy comments ” It was a winter of profound discontent in Germany; it was also a time of confusion, anxiety, and, for many, false hope, as social and political upheavals led to the demise of the Weimar Republic and the birth of the Third Reich. In the midst of these events Bonhoeffer called his students to focus their attention on the word of God as the word of truth in a time of turmoil” (1).

Logos is also offering an “almost free” book: volume seven of the Bonhoeffer collection, Fiction from Tegel Prison, translated by Nancy Lukens and edited by Clifford J. Green. Bonhoeffer spent eighteen months at the Tegel Prison before being moved to the Gestapo prison on Prinz-Albrecht-Strasse in October, 1944.  The text of this collection is drawn from Bonhoeffer’s own handwritten manuscripts of an incomplete drama and novel. This material may be unfamiliar to readers of more popular works such as Ethics or The Cost of Discipleship. The short story was not published until 1970 and the drama and novel not until 1978. Of these stories, Bonhoeffer said “There is a good deal of autobiography mixed with it.” Since these incomplete stories were written in his final years in prison, they offer an insight into Bonhoeffer’s heart in those difficult years. This book is a great value at 99 cents for the month of August.

As always, Logos is offering a chance to win the complete 16 volume collection of  Works of Dietrich Bonhoeffer, valued at well over $400 in the Logos library. Actually, since the giveaway uses PunchTab, you get 24 chances at the collection. The free/almost free book deal runs through the month of August.

Use your voiceJonathan Homrighausen posted his July Biblical Studies Carnival at Linguae Antiquitatum. Go and check it out, it is a good one this month. Jonathan usually does some good work on linguistics and patristics on his blog, so it is good to highlight Linguae Antiquitatum this month. Jim West has an all-book collection at Zwinglius Redivivus, ending with a poem. Brian Small’s Hebrews Highlights only has a single entry for July.

Rob Bradshaw will host the August Carnival, followed by Mike Skinner at cataclysmic and then Brian Renshaw at his new eponymous blog. I would love to get a few more voluneeers to finish out the year strong, or you can volunteer for a 2015 month. Carnivals are a great way to get some good exposure for your blog.



July CarnivalThe July 2014 Biblical Studies Carnival will be hosted by Jonathan Homrighausen at his fine blog Linguae Antiquitatum. Consider this your official encouragement to send Jonathan links to blogs of interest published in July. Send him an email (jdhomrighausen at or leave a comment on Linguae Antiquitatum with a link. July is always a slow month for BiblioBlogs, so I am sure Jonathan would appreciate your suggestions. What are the blogs you read this month which contributed to the discussion of biblical literature  theology, and culture?  What posts made you think more deeply?

I am always looking for volunteers to hose the Biblical Studies Carnival.  I need someone for November 2014 (December 1) and December 2014 (January 1), and any month in 2015. So e-mail me (plong42 and and pick your month!  Carnivals are a great way to attract attention to your site if you are new blogger, but more importantly it gives you a chance to highlight the best and the brightest in the world of BiblioBlogs.

EpaphroditusUnlike Timothy, Epaphroditus is only known from this letter. Paul praises him highly as a valuable co-worker. We know virtually nothing about him from Acts other letters. His name was common in the first century and is related to the goddess Aphrodite.

Paul calls him “brother” and “fellow-worker.”  To refer to a believer as brother is not unusual, Paul describes the body of Christ as a new family in many places. Epaphroditus is more than family, he is a co-laborer with Paul in the service of the Gospel.

He also calls him a “fellow soldier” (συστρατιώτης, cf. Phlm 2 to describe fellow ministers). Paul occasionally uses military metaphors to describe ministry, in this case the Philippian church would have understood the honor implied by this term since some in the church would have been retired soldiers. A soldier could be honored with this term, to be a fellow-soldier with a commander for example (Polyaenus 8, 23, 22).

Epaphroditus was a “messenger and minister” from the church at Philippi sent to help Paul during his imprisonment.  “Messenger” is an apostle (ἀπόστολος). Does this mean Epaphroditus was an Apostle like Paul and the Twelve? It is unlikely he received a commission from Jesus as did the Twelve, Paul or perhaps James. Anyone who was sent as a representative of a group could be called “an apostle,” which simply means “someone who is sent,” a delegate or envoy. In Acts 11, Barnabas is sent from Jerusalem to Antioch in order to “represent” the apostolic community when the Hellenistic Jews begin expanding into the Diaspora. To avoid this confusion, the ESV translates the word “messenger,” which might imply a much lower status in English than Paul intended. The church heard Paul was under house arrest in Rome and in need of assistance, so Epaphroditus was sent from the church to Paul as their representative.

The second title Paul uses is minister, a word with certain connotations in American English that may not be helpful here. The word (λειτουργός) is not used for a Pastor, but for a civil servant or administrator, often in the service of a cultic center or temple (BDAG). Perhaps the term was used in order to give Epaphroditus more honor, since the word is used of Greco-Roman officials (cf. Rom 13:6). It is also likely the word was chosen to highlight what Epaphroditus did for Paul, he delivered a gift and at least intended to serve alongside him in Rome for some time.

Since Paul cannot return to the city and Timothy will be delayed for some time, Paul sends Epaphroditus back to the church. Why was Epaphroditus sent back to Philippi? The text says Epaphroditus was very ill and may not have recovered to full strength. He was “sick near to death,” although the nature of his illness is not specified. Travel from Philippi to Rome was dangerous, not only from brigands but also from all sorts of illness one would not encounter at home. This could be dysentery, for example, would be life threatening on the road to Rome!

Paul asks the church to receive him with joy, possibly a hint that his mission to assist Paul was not successful. We cannot know the terms of Epaphroditus’s original mission to Paul, but his return might be suspicious to some in the church (“we paid you to go help Paul and you failed.”) Contemporary Christianity may over-emphasize spectacular stories of missionaries who physically destroy themselves to serve God. Sometimes circumstances are such that a person cannot serve in that way, but this is not a “failure” at all!

Epaphroditus is another example of humble service, but in his case the service was cut short by physical shortcomings. Paul does not consider this a failure, Epaphroditus is serving others humbly to the best of his ability.


Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 2,040 other followers

My book Jesus the Bridegroom is now available from Amazon in paperback or Kindle

Christian Theology

Religion Blogs
Religion blogs

 Twylah Fan Page

About Me

Phillip J. Long

Phillip J. Long

I am a college professor who enjoys reading, listening to music and drinking fine coffee. Often at the same time.

Flickr Photos

29 Mount of Olives 10

29 Mount of Olives 09

29 Mount of Olives 08

29 Mount of Olives 07

29 Mount of Olives 06

More Photos

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,040 other followers

%d bloggers like this: