Philippians 3:2

2. Beware of] Lit., “see.” For this use of the verb, cp. Col_4:17; 2Jn_1:8.

dogs] Lit. and better, the dogs. He refers to a known and defined class; and these evidently were those Judaistic teachers within the pale of the Church to whom he has referred already (Php_1:15) in another connexion and in a different tone. These Pharisee-Christians very probably called the uncircumcised, and (from their point of view) non-conforming, converts, “dogs,” as the Pharisees-proper called all Gentiles; cp. Mat_15:26-27, for words alluding to this use of the term. The habits and instincts of the dog suggest ideas of uncleanness and wantonness; and its half-wild condition in Eastern towns adds the idea of a thing outcast. Thus everywhere in Scripture the word “dog” is used in connexions of contempt, reproach or dread: see e.g. 1Sa_24:14; 2Sa_16:9; 2Ki_8:13; Psa_22:16; Psa_22:20; Psa_59:6; Ecc_9:4; Mat_7:6; Rev_22:15.—The Apostle “here turns the tables” on the Judaist, and pronounces him to be the real defiled outcast from Messiah’s covenant, rather than the simple believer, who comes to Messiah not by way of Judaism, but direct. The same view is expressed more fully Gal_5:2-4.—It is just possible that the word “dog” refers also to positive immorality underlying, in many cases, a rigid ceremonialism. But this is at most secondary here. See below Php_3:18-19, and notes, for another “school” more open to such charges.

evil workers] Better, the bad work-men. He refers to the same faction under another aspect. Very probably, by a play on the word “worker,” he censures them as teaching a salvation by “works,” not by faith. (See e.g. Rom_3:27; Rom_4:2; Rom_4:6; Rom_11:6; Gal_2:16; Gal_3:2; Eph_2:9; 2Ti_1:9; Tit_3:5.) As if to say, “They are all for working, with a view to merit; but they are bungling workmen all the while, adjusting wrongly the fabric of the Gospel, and working not rightly even what in itself is right.” Cp. 2Co_11:13 for a passage where the same double meaning seems to attach to this word.—For the other side of the truth of “working” see Php_2:12, and notes.

the concision] “The gashing, the mutilation.” By this harsh kindred word he satirizes, as it were, the rigid zeal of the Judaist for bodily circumcision. In the light of the Gospel, the demand for the continuance of circumcision in the Church, as a saving ordinance, was in fact a demand for a maltreatment of the body, akin only to heathen practices; cp. e.g. 1Ki_18:28.

Cp. Gal_5:12, with Lightfoot’s notes, for a somewhat similar use of words in a kindred connexion. Lightfoot here remarks on the frequent occurrence in the N.T. of verbal play. See e.g. the Greek of Act_8:30; Rom_12:3; 2Th_3:11.

Wyclif curiously, and without any support in the Latin, renders this clause, “se ye dyuysioun”; Tyndale and Cranmer, “Beware of dissencion (dissensyon).”

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Php 3:2. Beware of dogs — Unclean, unholy, rapacious men, who, though they fawn and flatter, would devour you as dogs. He probably gave them this appellation also, because they barked against the doctrines of the gospel, and against its faithful teachers, and were ready to bite and tear all who opposed their errors. Our Lord used the word dogs in the same sense, when he commanded his apostles not to give that which is holy to dogs. Perhaps, by calling them dogs, the apostle might intend to signify likewise, that, in the sight of God, they were now become as abominable, for crucifying Christ, and persecuting his apostles, as the idolatrous heathen were in the eyes of the Jews; who, to express their detestation of them, gave them the name of dogs; a title which the apostle therefore here returns upon themselves. Rev 22:15, the wicked are called dogs: without are dogs. Beware of evil workers — Of those Judaizing teachers, who, while they cry up the law, and pretend to be strenuous advocates for good works, are, in fact, evil workers; sowing the seeds of discord, strife, contention, and division, among the simple, humble, and formerly united members of Christ, and acting in direct opposition, not only to the gospel, the true nature of which they do not understand, but even to the most important precepts and grand design of the law itself, for the honour of which they appear to be so zealous. Macknight renders the expression, evil labourers, in opposition to the appellation of fellow-labourers, with which the apostle honoured those who faithfully assisted him in preaching the gospel. The same false teachers he calls false apostles, and deceitful workers, or labourers, 2Co 11:13; because, instead of building, they undermined the Church of Christ, by removing its foundation; beware of the concision — Circumcision being now no longer a rite of entering into covenant with God, the apostle will not call those who used it the circumcision; but coins a term on purpose, taken from a Greek word used by the LXX., Lev 21:5, for such a cutting of the flesh as God had forbidden. Dr. Macknight renders the word the excision: an appellation, says he, “finely contrived to express the pernicious influence of their doctrine; and perhaps also to signify the destruction which was coming on them as a nation.” He adds, “the account given of these wicked men, Rom 16:18; Gal 6:12; Tit 1:11, shows that they deserved all the harsh names given them in this place.”

Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

3:2-11 Paul warns the believers against being influenced by Jewish Christians who argued that circumcision is necessary for salvation. He then talks about his own conversion from Judaism to Christ.

3:2 those dogs, . . . those mutilators: Here Paul reverses the traditional Jewish practice of referring to Gentiles as dogs (cp. Mark 7:27-28). Paul’s strongest insults are directed against Jews who preached that Gentiles must be circumcised in order to be saved (cp. 2 Cor 11:13-15; Gal 1:6-9; 5:1-6, 12).

Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Php 3:2. Βλέπετε, see) A vehement Anaphora,[29] See, and you will avoid; a metonymy of the antecedent for the consequent.[30] The antithesis is σκοπεῖτε, observe, mark,[31] Php 3:17; for Php 3:17 returns to this topic, wonderfully tempered by reproof and exhortation.—τοὺς κύνας, the dogs) Undoubtedly he used this appellation often in their presence, Php 3:18, and he now brought it to the recollection of the Philippians; and hence they would more easily understand it than we. Comp. 2Th 2:5. The three members of the following verse correspond, by a retrograde gradation (descending climax), to the three clauses of this verse; so that the dogs are the false apostles and carnal men, who do not trust in Christ, but in the flesh, and are slaves to foul lusts [utter strangers to true holiness, although exulting in the name of Jews.—V. g.], Php 3:19. So the term dogs is applied to ἐβδελυγμένοις, those to be abominated, Rev 22:15; comp. Rev 21:8; or in other words, the abominable, impure (βδελυκτοὶ, ΜΕΜΙΑΜΜΈΝΟΙς), Tit 1:16; Tit 1:15, strangers to holiness, Mat 7:6; quite different from Paul, living and dying; for in life they abound to overflowing in the vices of dogs, in filthiness, unchastity, snarling, 2Pe 2:22; Deu 23:19 (18); Psa 59:7; Psa 59:16; and they are most of all the enemies of the cross of Christ, Php 3:18; comp. Psa 22:17; Psa 22:21: and in death they are dead dogs (by which proverb something of the vilest sort is denoted): comp. Php 3:19. That saying is applicable to these, which is commonly used, Take care of the dog.[32] The Jews considered the Gentiles as dogs; see at Mat 15:26; they are now called dogs, who are unwilling to be the Israel of God.—τοὺς κακοὺς ἐργάτας, evil workers) who do not serve God; comp. 2Co 11:13.—τὴν κατατομὴν, the concision) A Paranomasia [See Append.]; for he claims for Christians the glorious name of the circumcision (περιτομῆς) in the following verse. The circumcision of the body was now useless, nay hurtful. See κατατέμνω on the prohibition of cutting the flesh, Lev 21:5; 1Ki 18:28. He speaks not without indignation.

[29] Repetition of the same word at the beginnings of several clauses.—ED.

[30] See, instead of avoid, which is its consequence.—ED.

[31] So as to follow; not as here, See so as to avoid.—ED.

[32] Εὐλαβοῦ τὴν κύνα, cave canem, used to be written near the door of ancient houses to guard strangers against the dog kept in the ostium or janua. At Pompeii, “in the house of the tragic poet,” there is wrought in the Mosaic pavement, “Cave canem,” and the figure of a fierce dog. See Gell’s Pomp.—ED

Bengel's Gnomon of the New Testament — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1860) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Php_3:2. This is now the τὰ αὐτά which he had previously written, and probably in the very same words. At least this seems to be indicated by the peculiar expressions in themselves; and not only so, but it serves also to explain the relation of contrast, which this vehement fervor pii zeli (Calvin) presents to the tender and cordial tone of our epistle. That lost epistle had probably expressed the apostles mind at length, and with all the warmth of controversy, for the warning of his readers as to the Judaizing false teachers. How entirely different is the tone in which, in the present epistle, he speaks (Php_1:15 ff.) of teachers likewise of an anti-Pauline type, and labouring, indeed, at that time in his immediate neighbourhood! Comp., moreover, the remark after Php_1:18. Those who refer τὰ αὐτά to the χαίρετε ἐν κυρίῳ, labour in very different ways to establish a connection of thought with βλέπετε κ.τ.λ.; as, for instance, Wiesinger: that Paul wished to suggest, as a ground for the reiterated summons to joy in the Lord, the danger which was threatening them from the men described; Weiss: that the readers were to learn e contrario, on what the true Christian joy was, and on what it was not, based.

βλέπετε] not: be on your guard against, etc. (which would be βλ. ἀπό, Mar_8:15; Mar_12:38), but as a calling attention to: behold! (1Co_1:26; 1Co_10:18), with a view, however, to warn the readers against these men as pernicious, by pointing to the forbidding shape in which they present themselves.

τοὺς κύνας] a term of reproach among the Jews and the Greeks (frequently in Homer, who, however, also uses it without any dishonourable reference; see Duncan, Lex. ed. Rost. p. 674); used by the latter specially to denote impudence, furious boldness (Hom. Il. 8:289; Od. 17:248; Anth. Pal. 9:302), snappishness (Pollux, On. 5:65), low vulgarity (Lucian, Nigr. 22), malice and cunning (Jacobs, ad Anthol. VI. p. 18), and the like, see generally Wetstein; used also among the Jews in similar special references (Isa_56:10 f.; Deu_23:18; Rev_22:15, et al.), and, because dogs were unclean animals, generally to denote the profane, impure, unholy (Mat_7:6; Psa_22:17; Rev_22:15; Schoettgen, Hor. I. p. 1145); hence the Gentiles were so designated (see on Mat_15:26). In this passage also the profane nature and demeanour of the false teachers, as contrasted with the holy character of true Christianity, is to be adhered to as the point of comparison (Chrysostom: οὐκέτι τέκνα Ἰουδαῖοι … ὥσπερ οἱ ἐθνικοὶ καὶ τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ τοῦ Χριστοῦ ἀλλότριοι ἦσαν, οὕτω καὶ οὗτοι γεγόνασι νῦν). Any more special reference of the termas to shamelessness (Chrysostom and many others, including Matthies, Baumgarten-Crusius, Ewald), covetousness (both combined by Grotius), snappishness (Rilliet, and older expositors, following Ambrosiaster, Augustine, and Pelagius), envy, and the like; or to the disorderly wandering about in selfishness and animosity towards those who were living peaceably in their Christian calling (Hofmann), to which Lange fancifully adds a loud howling against Paul,is not furnished by the context, which, on the contrary, follows it up with yet another general designation, subjoining, namely, to that of the low, unholy character (κύνας) that of the evil working: τοὺς κακοὺς ἐργάτ. Comp. 2Co_11:13. The opposite: 2Ti_2:15; Xen. Mem. i. 2. 57. Ἐργάζονται μέν, φησιν, ἀλλʼ ἐπὶ κακῷ, καὶ ἀργίας πολλῷ χεῖρον ἔργον, ἀνασπῶντες τὰ καλᾶς κείμενα, Chrysostom; comp. Theodoret, Oecumenius, Theophylact. They, in fact, laboured in opposition to the fundamental doctrine of justification by faith.

τὴν κατατομήν] the cutting in pieces (Theophr. H. pl. iv. 8. 12), a word formed after the analogy of περιτομή, and, like the latter in Php_3:3, used in a concrete sense: those who are cut in pieces! A bitter paronomasia, because these men were circumcised merely as regards the body, and placed their confidence in this fleshly circumcision, but were wanting in the inner, spiritual circumcision, which that of the body typified (see Php_3:3; Rom_2:28 f.; Col_2:11; Eph_2:11; Act_7:51). Comp. Gal_5:11 f. In the absence of this, their characteristic consisted simply in the bodily mutilation, and that, from the ideal point of view which Paul here occupies, was not circumcision, but concision; whilst, on the other hand, circumcision, as respected its moral idea, was entirely independent of the corporeal operation, Php_3:3. Comp. Weiss, bibl. Theol. p. 439, ed. 2. This qualitative distinction between περιτ. and κατατ. has been misunderstood by Baur, who takes the climax as quantitative, and hence sees in it a warped and unnatural antithesis, which is only concocted to give the apostle an opportunity of speaking of his own person. Chrysostom, Oecumenius, and Theophylact justly lay stress on the abolition of the legal circumcision as such brought about through Christ (the end of the law, Rom_10:4),a presupposition which gives to this antinomistic sarcasm its warrant.[150] A description of idolatry, with allusion to Lev_21:5, 1Ki_18:28, et al. (Storr, Flatt, J. B. Lightfoot; comp. Beza), is quite foreign to the context. It is erroneous also to discover here any indication of a cutting off of hearts from the faith (Luthers gloss), or a cutting in pieces of the church (Theodoret, Calvin, Beza, Grotius, Hammond, Clericus, Michaelis, Zachariae, and others), against which the necessary (comp. Php_3:3) passive signification of the word (not cutters in pieces, but cut in pieces) is decisive.

The thrice repeated βλέπετε belongs simply to the ἘΠΙΜΟΝῊ of earnest emotion (Dissen, ad Dem. de cor. p. 315; Buttmann, Neut. Gr. p. 341 [E. T. 398]), so that it points to the same dangerous men, and does not, as van Hengel misconceives, denote three different classes of Jewish opponents, viz. the apostate, the heretical, and the directly inimical. The passage quoted by him from Philostr., Vit. Soph. Php_2:1, does not bear upon the point, because in it the three repetitions of ἔβλεψε are divided by ΜῈΝ … ΔΈ. Weiss also refers the three designations to three different categories, namely: (1) the unconverted heathen, with their immoral life; (2) the self-seeking Christian teachers, Php_1:15-17; and (3) the unbelieving Jews, with their carnal conceit. But the first and third categories introduce alien elements, and the third cannot be identified with those mentioned at Php_1:15-17, but must mean persons much more dangerous. In opposition to the whole misinterpretation, see Huther in the Mecklenb. Zeitschr. p. 626 ff. All the three terms must characterize one class of men as in three aspects deserving of detestation, namely the Judaizing false teachers. As is evident from τ. κατατομήν and Php_3:3 ff., they belonged to the same fundamentally hostile party against which Paul contends in the Epistle to the Galatians. At the same time, since the threefold repetition of the article pointing them out may be founded upon the very notoriety of these men, and yet does not of necessity presuppose a personal acquaintance with them, it must be left an open question, whether they had already come to Philippi itself, or merely threatened danger from some place in its vicinity. It is certain, however, though Baur still regards it as doubtful, that Paul did not refer to his opponents in Rome mentioned in Php_1:15 ff. (Heinrichs), because in the passage before us a line of teaching must be thought of which was expressly and in principle anti-Pauline, leading back into Judaism and to legal righteousness; and also because the earnest, demonstrative βλέπετε, as well as ἈΣΦΑΛΈς (Php_3:2), can only indicate a danger which was visibly and closely threatening the readers. It is also certain that these opponents could not as yet have succeeded in finding adherents among the Philippians; for if this had been the case, Paul would not have omitted to censure the readers themselves (as in the Epistle to the Galatians and Second Corinthians), and he would have given a very different shape generally to his epistle, which betrays nothing but a church as yet undivided in doctrine. His language directed against the false teachers is therefore merely warning and precautionary, as is also shown in Php_3:3.

[150] Luthers works abound in sarcastic paronomasiae. Thus, for instance, in the preface to his works, instead of De cret and De cretal, he has written Drecket and Drecketal [Germ. Dreck=dregs, filth]; the Legenden he calls Lügenden, the Jurisperitos he terms Jurisperditos; also in proper names, such as Schwenkfeld, whom he called Stenkfeld. In ancient authors, comp. what Diog. L. vi. 2, 4 relates of Diogenes: τὴν Εὐκλείδου σχολὴν ἔλεγε χολήν, τὴν δὲ Πλάτωνος διατριβήν κατατριβήν. Thuc. vi. 76. 4 : οὐκ ἀξυνετωτέρου, κακοξυνετωτέρου δέ. See also Ast, ad Plat. Phaedr. p. 276; Jacobs, Delect. epigr. p. 188. For the Latin, see Kühner, ad Cic. Tusc. p. 291, ed. 3.

Meyer — Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament — English translation by Peter Christie, edited by Frederick Crombie (T&T Clark, 1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Phi 3:2 . It is difficult to understand how anyone could find three different classes in these words ( e.g. , Ws [22] . , who divides them into ( a ) unconverted heathens, ( b ) self-seeking Christian teachers, ( c ) unbelieving Jews. See also his remarks in A. J. Th. , i., 2, pp. 389 391). The words are a precise parallel to Paul’s denunciations of Judaising teachers in Galatians and 2 Corinthians. Cf. Gal 1:7 ; Gal 1:9 ; Gal 5:12 , 2Co 11:13 ; 2Co 2:17 . The persistent and malicious opposition which they maintained against him sufficiently accounts for the fiery vehemence of his language. To surrender to their teaching was really to renounce the most precious gift of the Gospel, namely, “the glorious liberty of the sons of God”. For, in Paul’s view, he who possesses the Spirit is raised above all law. Cf. 2Co 3:17 , and see Gunkcl, Wirkungen 2 , etc., pp. 96 98. βλέπετε . Thrice repeated in the intense energy of his invective. Literally = “look at” them, in the sense of “beware of” them. It is not so used in classical Greek. Apparently some such significance as this is found in 2Ch 10:16 , βλέπε τὸν οἶκόν σου , Δαυείδ . Frequent in N.T. (see Blass, Gram. , p. 87, n. 1). He would have used a stronger word than βλ . had the Judaisers already made some progress at Philippi. There is nothing to suggest this in the Epistle. But all the Pauline Churches were exposed to their inroads. At any moment their emissaries might appear. τοὺς κύνας . Only here in Paul. Commentators have tried to single out the point of comparison intended, some emphasising the shamelessness of dogs, others their impurity , others their roaming tendencies , others still their insolence and cunning . Most probably the Apostle had no definite characteristic in his mind. κύων was a term of reproach in Greek from the earliest to the latest times. E.g. , Hom., Il. , xiii., 623. Often in O.T. So here. τ . κακ . ἐργ . Cf. 2Co 11:13 , ἐργάται δόλιοι . We have here clear evidence that the persons alluded to were within the Christian Church. They did professedly carry on the work of the Gospel, but with a false aim. This invalidates the arguments of Lips [23] . , Hltzm [24] . and M‘Giffert ( Apost. Age , pp. 389 390), who imagine that the Apostle refers to unbelieving Jews, probably at Philippi. τ . κατατομήν . A scornful parody of their much-vaunted περιτομή . W-M [25] . (pp. 794 796) gives numerous exx. of a similar paronomasia, e.g. , Diog. Laert., 6, 24, τὴν μὲν Εὐκλείδου σχολήν ἔλεγε χολήν , τὴν δὲ Πλάτωνος διατριβὴν κατατριβήν . Lit. = “the mutilation”. Their mechanical, unspiritual view of the ancient rite reduces it to a mere laceration of the body. The word occurs in CIG. , 160, 27; Theophr., Hist. Plant. , 4, 8, 10; Symm. on Jerem. , xlviii., 37 = notch, cutting, incision. It is only found here with any reference to circumcision.

[22] . Weiss.

[23] Lipsius.

[24] tzm. Holtzmann.

[25] Moulton’s Ed. of Winer’s Grammar .

The Expositor's Greek Testament, edited by W. Robertson Nicoll (1897–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

2. βλέπετε. “Comp. Mar 4:24, βλέπετε τί ἀκούετε: 2Jn 1:8, βλέπετε ἑαυτούς: so frequently βλέπετε ἀπὸ (e.g. Mar 8:15) and βλέπετε μὴ (e.g. Luk 21:8)” (Lightfoot).—Latin Versions, videte.

τοὺς κύνας. “The dogs”; a known class or party; evidently the Judaistic teachers within the Church, to whom he has referred already in another tone and connexion (Php 1:15) as active at Rome. These Pharisee-Christians perhaps called the uncircumcised converts κύνες, as the Pharisees proper called all Gentiles. See e.g. Joh. Lightfoot (Hor. Hebr. on Mat 15:26): “By this title the Jews disgraced the Gentiles … אומות עולם נמשלו ככלבים. The nations of the world [that is the heathen] are likened to dogs [Midr. Tillin, fol. 6. 3].” The habits of the dog suggest ideas of uncleanness; and its half-wild condition in Eastern towns makes it a simile for an outcast. In Scripture, the “dog” appears in connexions almost always of either contempt or dread; e.g. 1Sa 24:14; 2Ki 8:13; Psa 22:16; Psa 22:20; Mat 7:6; Rev 22:15. St Paul here “turns the tables” on the Judaistic rigorist. The Judaist, and not the simple believer who comes direct from paganism to Messiah, is the real outcast from Messiah’s covenant. The same view is expressed more fully, Gal 5:2-4: κατηργήθητε ἀπὸ Χριστοῦ, οἵτινες ἐν νόμῳ δικαιοῦσθε.

τοὺς κακοὺς ἐργάτας. “The evil workers” (R.V.). Or possibly, “the bad,” i.e. unskilful, “workmen.” These are the same persons under another view. Possibly, by a sort of verbal play, he alludes to their doctrine of salvation by “works,” ἔργα, not by faith (see e.g. Rom 3:27; Rom 11:6; Gal 2:16; Gal 3:2); as if to say, “They are all for working, to win merit. But they are bungling workmen, spoiling the fabric of the Gospel.” See 2Co 11:13 for the same apparent double meaning of this word; ψευδαπόστολοι, ἐργάται δόλιοι.

See Php 2:12 above for the precept to work in the right sense and direction.

τὴν κατατομήν. Latin Versions, concisionem. “The mutilation”; i.e. the persons who teach it. By this harsh word, kindred to περιτομή, he condemns the Judaist’s rigid zeal for bodily circumcision. In the light of the Gospel, to demand circumcision as a saving ordinance was to demand a mere maltreatment of the body, no better than that of the Baal-priests (1Ki 18:28, κατετέμνοντο κατὰ τὸν ἐθισμὸν αὐτῶν, LXX.).

See Lightfoot on Gal 5:12 (ὄφελον καὶ ἀποκόψονται) for a somewhat similar use of words in a kindred connexion. Lightfoot’s interesting note here gives other instances of St Paul’s play on words; e.g. 2Th 3:11, ἐργαζόμενος, περιεργαζομένους; Rom 12:3, φρονεῖν, ὑπερφρονεῖν, σωφρονεῖν. Cp. Act 8:30, γινώσκεις ἃ ἀναγινώσκεις;

Wyclif curiously renders, “se ye dyuysioun”; Tindale and ‘Cranmer,’ “Beware of dissencion (dissensyon).”

Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge University Press, 1896; 21 vols, various authors incl. Carr, Maclear, Plummer, Farrar, Lumby, Moule, M. R. James, Simcox) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

He alludeth to Circumcision, of the name whereof while they boasted, they cut asunder the Church.

Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain. Text via Bolls.life.

Beware--Greek, "Have your eye on" so as to beware of. Contrast "mark," or "observe," namely, so as to follow Phi 3:17.

dogs--Greek, "the dogs," namely, those impure persons "of whom I have told you often" (Phi 3:18-19); "the abominable" (compare Rev 21:8, with Rev 22:15; Mat 7:6; Tit 1:15-16): "dogs" in filthiness, unchastity, and snarling (Deu 23:18; Psa 59:6, Psa 59:14-15; Pe2 2:22): especially "enemies of the cross of Christ" (Phi 3:18; Psa 22:16, Psa 22:20). The Jews regarded the Gentiles as "dogs" (Mat 15:26); but by their own unbelief they have ceased to be the true Israel, and are become "dogs" (compare Isa 56:10-11).

evil workers-- (Co2 11:13), "deceitful workers." Not simply "evildoers" are meant, but men who "worked," indeed, ostensibly for the Gospel, but worked for evil: "serving not our Lord, but their own belly" (Phi 3:19; compare Rom 16:18). Translate, "The evil workmen," that is, bad teachers (compare Ti2 2:15).

concision--Circumcision had now lost its spiritual significance, and was now become to those who rested on it as any ground of justification, a senseless mutilation. Christians have the only true circumcision, namely, that of the heart; legalists have only "concision," that is, the cutting off of the flesh. To make "cuttings in the flesh" was expressly prohibited by the law (Lev 21:5): it was a Gentile-heathenish practice (Kg1 18:28); yet this, writes Paul indignantly, is what these legalists are virtually doing in violation of the law. There is a remarkable gradation, says BIRKS [Horæ Apostolicæ] in Paul's language as to circumcision. In his first recorded discourse (Act 13:39), circumcision is not named, but implied as included in the law of Moses which cannot justify. Six or seven years later, in the Epistle to Galatians (Gal 3:3), the first Epistle in which it is named, its spiritual inefficiency is maintained against those Gentiles who, beginning in the Spirit, thought to be perfected in the flesh. Later, in Epistle to Romans (Rom 2:28-29), he goes farther, and claims the substance of it for every believer, assigning the shadow only of it to the unbelieving Jew. In Epistle to Colossians (Col 2:11; Col 3:11), still later, he expounds more fully the true circumcision as the exclusive privilege of the believer. Last of all here, the very name is denied to the legalist, and a term of reproach is substituted, "concision," or flesh-cutting. Once obligatory on all the covenant-people, then reduced to a mere national distinction, it was more and more associated in the apostle's experience with the open hostility of the Jews, and the perverse teaching of false brethren.

Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Verse 2. Beware of dogs] The Jews, who have here the same appellative which they formerly gave to the Gentiles: because the Gentiles were not included in the covenant, they called them DOGS; and themselves, the children of the Most High. Now, they are cast out of the covenant and the Gentiles taken in; therefore they are the dogs, and the Gentiles the children.

Evil workers] Judaizing teachers, who endeavoured to pervert the Gospel.

The concision.] κατατομην. The cutting or excision; not περιτομην, the circumcision: the word is used by the apostle to degrade the pretensions which the Jews made to sanctity by the cutting in their flesh. Circumcision was an honourable thing, for it was a sign of the covenant; but as they now had rejected the new covenant, their circumcision was rendered uncircumcision, and is termed a cutting, by way of degradation.

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

(2) Beware of (the) dogs.—In Rev_22:15 “the dogs” excluded from the heavenly Jerusalem seem to be those who are impure. In that sense the Jews applied the word to the heathen, as our Lord, for a moment appearing to follow the Jewish usage, does to the Syro-Phœnician woman in Mat_15:26. But here the context appropriates the word to the Judaising party, who claimed special purity, ceremonial and moral, and who probably were not characterised by peculiar impurity—such as, indeed, below (Php_3:17-21) would seem rather to attach to the Antinomian party, probably the extreme on the other side. Chrysostom’s hint that the Apostle means to retort the name upon them, as now by their own wilful apostasy occupying the place outside the spiritual Israel which once belonged to the despised Gentiles, is probably right. Yet perhaps there may be some allusion to the dogs, not as unclean, but as, especially in their half-wild state in the East, snarling and savage, driving off as interlopers all who approach what they consider their ground. Nothing could better describe the narrow Judaising spirit.

Of evil workers.—Comp. 2Co_11:13, describing the Judaisers as “deceitful workers.” Here the idea is of their energy in work, but work for evil.

The concision.—By an ironical play upon words St. Paul declares his refusal to call the circumcision, on which the Judaisers prided themselves, by that time-honoured name; for “we,” he says, “are the true circumcision,” the true Israel of the new covenant. In Eph_2:11 (where see Note) he had denoted it as the “so-called circumcision in the flesh made by hands.” Here he speaks more strongly, and calls it a “concision,” a mere outward mutilation, no longer, as it had been, a “seal” of the covenant (Rom_4:11). There is a still more startling attack on the advocates of circumcision in Gal_5:12 (where see Note).

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Beware of dogs,.... By whom are meant the "judaizing" teachers, who were for imposing the works and ceremonies of the law upon the Gentiles, as necessary to salvation; and they have the name retorted on them they used to give to the Gentiles; see Mat 15:26; nor should they think it too severe, since the Jews themselves say (p),

"the face of that generation (in which the Messiah shall come) shall he, , "as the face of a dog".

The apostle calls them so, because they returned to Judaism, as the dog to its vomit, Pe2 2:22; and because of the uncleanness in which many of them lived, and the impudence they were guilty of in transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ, and putting themselves upon an equal foot with them; as also for their calumny and detraction, their wrangling with the apostles, snarling at their doctrines, and biting them with the devouring words of reproach and scandal: likewise, they may be styled dogs for their covetousness, being such greedy ones as in Isa 56:10, with feigned words making merchandise of men; and for their love of their, bellies, which they served, and not Christ, and made a god of, Phi 3:19. Moreover, because they were without, as dogs are, Rev 22:15; having gone out from the communion of the saints, because they were not of them; or if among them, yet not true members of Christ, nor of his mystical body; all which are so many arguments why the saints should beware of them, and why their persons, conversation, and doctrine should be avoided,

Beware of evil workers: meaning the same persons, who were deceitful workers, did the work of the Lord unfaithfully, walked in craftiness, and handled the word of God deceitfully, endeavoured to subvert the Gospel of Christ, and the faith of men in it; who worked from bad principles, and with evil views; and notwithstanding their large pretensions to good works, teaching that justification and salvation were by them, which notion the apostle tacitly refers to in this character; yet were of bad a character, and such as Christ will reject another day as workers of iniquity; a character they deservedly bear, if there was no other reason for it than their preaching the doctrine of salvation by men's own works of righteousness, and who, and their ministry, are by all means to be shunned,

Beware of the concision; the men of the circumcision, as the Arabic version renders it; they chose to be called so, but the apostle would not give them that name, but calls them the "concision"; or "the concision of the flesh", as the Syriac version renders it; referring either to the cuttings in the flesh, forbidden Lev 21:5; or to the circumcision of the flesh rather, which they valued themselves upon, and were for introducing among the Gentiles, whereby they made sad divisions, and cutting work among the churches; and were some of them at least "cut" off, as the Ethiopic version renders it, from the churches; and who, as much as in them lay, cut themselves off from Christ, and rendered him unprofitable to them; see Gal 5:2.

(p) Misn. Sota, c. 9. sect. 15.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

2 Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers, beware of the concision.

Ver. 2. Beware of dogs] That is, seducers and sectarians, who though dead dogs, yet will be barking at godly ministers. And though the dogs of Egypt would not move their tongues against Israel, Exo 11:7, yet these greedy dogs, Isa 56:11, can both bark and bite better men than themselves, being set on by the devil. Homines perfrictae frontis, impudent as dogs. Ravenous also when they get among the flocks, Eze 22:25. Farther, they are crouching, colloguing creatures, 2Ti 3:4: but believe them not; receive them not; for like dirty dogs they will but bemire you with fawning; yea, like cur-dogs, they will suck your blood with licking, and in the end kill you, and cut your throats without biting. Beware of them, therefore, beware, saith the apostle here.

Beware of evil workers] Deceitful workers, 2Co 11:13, that seem to build staircases for heaven, when indeed they dig descents down to hell, taking great pains to very evil purpose.

Beware of the concision] For circumcision; as Diogenes called Zeno’s διατριβην κατατριβην and Euclid’s αχολην χολην. (Laert.) The Holy Scriptures have many such elegant and pleasant passages, as Pro 25:27; Hos 4:15; Gal 5:12; Isa 5:7, &c. There is one that senseth it thus, Beware of the concision, that is, of those that make divisions and out the Church into little pieces, and sacking congregations, making separation. So Piscator, Qui conantur vos ab ecclesia Dei rescindere, who seek to sunder you from the Church. The Donatists affirmed that there were no true Churches but theirs, and were also divided among themselves, in minutula frustula, into small factions, as Austin saith.

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Beware of dogs - Dogs in the east are mostly without masters; they wander at large in the streets and fields, and feed upon offals, and even upon corpses; compare 1Ki 14:11; 1Ki 16:4; 1Ki 21:19. They are held as unclean, and to call one a dog is a much stronger expression of contempt there than with us; 1Sa 17:43; 2Ki 8:13. The Jews called the pagan dogs, and the Muslims call Jews and Christians by the same name. The term dog also is used to denote a person that is shameless, impudent, malignant, snarling, dissatisfied, and contentious, and is evidently so employed here. It is possible that the language used here may have been derived from some custom of affixing a caution, on a house that was guarded by a dog, to persons approaching it. Lenfant remarks that at Rome it was common for a dog to lie chained before the door of a house, and that a notice was placed in sight, “Beware of the dog.” The same notice I have seen in this city affixed to the kennel of dogs in front of a bank, that were appointed to guard it. The reference here is, doubtless, to Judaizing teachers, and the idea is, that they were contentious, troublesome, dissatisfied, and would produce disturbance. The strong language which the apostle uses here, shows the sense which he had of the danger arising from their influence. It may be observed, however, that the term dogs is used in ancient writings with great frequency, and even by the most grave speakers. It is employed by the most dignified characters in the Iliad (Boomfield), and the name was given to a whole class of Greek philosophers - the Cynics. It is used in one instance by the Saviour; Mat 7:6. By the use of the term here, there can be no doubt that the apostle meant to express strong disapprobation of the character and course of the persons referred to, and to warn the Philippians in the most solemn manner against them.

Beware of evil workers - Referring, doubtless, to the same persons that he had characterized as dogs The reference is to Jewish teachers, whose doctrines and influence he regarded only as evil We do not know what was the nature of their teaching, but we may presume that it consisted much in urging the obligations of the Jewish rites and ceremonies; in speaking of the advantage of having been born Jews: and in urging a compliance with the law in order to justification before God. In this way their teachings tended to set aside the great doctrine of salvation by the merits of the Redeemer.

Beware of the concision - Referring, doubtless, also to the Jewish teachers. The word rendered “concision” - κατατομή katatomē - means properly a cutting off, a mutilation. It is used here contemptuously for the Jewish circumcision in contrast with the true circumcision. Robinson, Lexicon. It is not to be understood that Paul meant to throw contempt on circumcision as enjoined by God, and as practiced by the pious Jews of other times (compare Act 16:3), but only as it was held by the false Judaizing teachers. As they held it, it was not the true circumcision. They made salvation to depend on it, instead of its being only a sign of the covenant with God. Such a doctrine, as they held it, was a mere cutting off of the flesh, without understanding anything of the true nature of the rite, and, hence, the unusual term by which he designates it. Perhaps, also, there may be included the idea that a doctrine so held would be in fact a cutting off of the soul; that is, that it tended to destruction. Their cutting and mangling the flesh might be regarded as an emblem of the manner in which their doctrine would cut and mangle the church - Doddridge. The meaning of the whole is, that they did not understand the true nature of the doctrine of circumcision, but that with them it was a mere cutting of the flesh, and tended to destroy the church.

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

Beware of dogs.[1] The Jews called so the Gentiles; and St. Paul now applies it to those among the Jews who spread false doctrine, who privately snarled and publicly barked against the true apostles. None deserve sharp reprehension more than heretical preachers. --- Beware of the concision, or as some French translations, of false circumcision. St. Paul by derision makes use of this word, which signifies a cutting to pieces, or destruction. (Witham)

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

[BIBLIOGRAPHY]

Videte canes....Videte Concisionem, Greek: Blepete tous kunas....ton katatomen. The Jewish circumcision at this time, says St. John Chrysostom (Greek: log. 1.) was merely a cutting off of the flesh: Greek: ouden allo e sarkos tome esti, kai katatome.

George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).

Beware; he cautions all, both officers and people: and though the original word doth signify to look with mind and eye, yet it is also frequently rendered, to take heed, Mar 8:15; 12:38; 8:9,23,33; 1Co 16:10; 2Jo 1:8.

Of dogs; of those dogs, (with the article emphatically proposed), a metaphor borrowed from those voracious, fierce, impure animals, whose price was not brought into the Lord’s house, Deu 23:18; Pro 26:11; Isa 66:3; 2Pe 2:22; to connote the false apostles, who endeavoured to corrupt the gospel with Judaism and profaneness, even antichristianism; compare Psa 22:16,20; Mt 7:6; 15:26; Rev 22:15. Some think the apostle may allude unto the proverbial speech: Take heed of a mad dog, forasmuch as false teachers, being acted as with a certain madness, would bite Christ and his apostles, and tear his body; and these mad dogs were the more dangerous, in that they did not bark so much as bite. Hence they say, Take heed of a dumb dog and still watcher. There were of several sorts, enemies to the cross of Christ, Gal 5:12; 1Th 2:14,15; some more secret, as Absalom against Amnon, 2Sa 13:22, pretending contrary to their practice, 2Ki 8:13; 13:22. Our Saviour bade his disciples beware of such, Mat 10:17, which he found to be of this temper, Psa 22:16,20; 55:15; though some of them were but dumb dogs, Isa 56:10; some such there were amongst the Philipplans, who, notwithstanding their fair pretext, were enemies to the cross of Christ, did secretly disparage his true apostle, and tear his flock: see Phi 3:18, with Phi 1:15,16.

Beware of evil workers; such as pretended to labour in promoting the gospel of Christ, but secretly were doing mischief amongst Christians, not serving the glory of Christ but their own bellies, Phi 3:18,19; being, as he elsewhere calls them, deceitful workers, 2Co 11:13, glorying in the flesh, Gal 6:13.

Beware of the concision; by an elegant allusion to the name circumcision, which rite the Jews did glory in, and some false teachers of Christianity, after the time of reformation, did urge as necessary to salvation, and require it from others, Act 15:1; Gal 5:2,4; Ga 6:12. These Paul here, in a holy sarcasm, charges the Philippians to take heed of, under the contemptible name of the concision, or cutting off, intimating that the exterior part of that typical work, which was done in the cutting off the foreskin, was now, from the coming of Christ, altogether made a mere cutting off the skin, condemned by God in the heathens, as a profane incision, Lev 19:28; 21:5, where the LXX. use the same preposition in the compound word, the apostle here doth in contempt of the thing; which could now bring nothing of profit, nothing of holiness, nothing of honour to any Christian, could no more avail or advantage a man now, than if it were conferred on a beast, being no seal of the covenant now, but a stickling for that rite (when abolished by Christ) which was a mere rending of the church, and in that effect a cutting off from it, Gal 5:10,12. And the apostle doth three times significantly repeat this word,

beware of these enemies to Christian purity and unity, to show how necessary it was to avoid their insinuations, against which he is more sharp in his Epistle to the Galatians.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

2. Beware of dogs—Look to the dogs. Keep them in view, in order to learn their true character. Note, Mat_7:6. The epithet implies religious impurity; and to this day dogs is the Moslem term for Christians. The evil workers—The same persons, agitators for mischief.

The concision—The word means an excision, or cutting off. Note, Gal_5:12. The term defines the opponents of whom they were to beware, as Judaizing teachers who sought to enforce the Mosaic law on Gentile Christians, beginning with circumcision as necessary to salvation. They do not appear to have made, as yet, any inroads upon the Philippian Church, but the caution here given implies danger from that quarter. The contemptuous name here employed, plain in the Greek with the play on words, implies that having lost sight of the spiritual import of the rite, they were mere outward manglers of the flesh.

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers, beware of the concision. The connection is, as given in ver. 3, Rejoice in the Lord, not in the flesh; have confidence in him, not in the ceremonies of the Jewish Law. Compare the same contrast in Gal_6:13, Gal_6:14. There is certainly something abrupt in the sudden introduction of this polemic against Judaizing, especially in writing to Philippi, where there were not many Jews. But there may have been circumstances, unknown to us, which made the warning necessary; or, as some think, the apostle may have written this under excitement caused by the violent opposition of the Jewish faction at Rome. Beware; literally, mark, observe them, to be on your guard against them. The dogs. The article must be retained in the translation. The Jews called the Gentiles "dogs", (comp. Mat_15:26, 27 Rev_22:15) i.e. unclean, mainly because of their disregard of the distinction between clean and unclean food. St. Paul retorts the epithet: they are the dogs, who have confidence in the flesh, not in spiritual religion. Evil workers; so 2Co_11:13, where he calls them "deceitful workers." The Judaizers were active enough, like the Pharisees who "compassed sea and land to make one proselyte;" but their activity sprang from bad motives they were evil workers, though their work was sometimes overruled for good. (comp. Php_1:15-18) The concision (katatomh , cutting, mutilation); a contemptuous word for "circumcision" (peritomh). Compare the Jewish contemptuous use of Isbosheth, man of shame, for Eshbaal, man of Baal, etc. Their circumcision is no better than a mutilation. Observe the paronomasia, the combination of like-sounding words, which is common in St. Paul"s Epistles. Winer gives many examples in sect. lxviii.

Vers. 2, 3. Serious warning against errorists.

The apostle, after counselling the Philippians to rejoice in the Lord, somewhat abruptly recalls the case of errorists of the Judaistic type, who, though not at Philippi, were not far from its boundaries. He deems it "safe" to give timely warning: "Beware of the dogs, of the evil-workers, of the concision.

I THE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE JUDAIST ERRORISTS.

1. They were dogs" in the Jewish sense, that is, impure and antichristian enemies of the truth. It would be a surprise for Jews to be descried by the epithet they themselves always applied so scornfully to Gentiles.

2. They were "evil-workers." There was no want of religious activity among them, but it had a selfish and evil root. The apostle elsewhere speaks of "false apostles, deceitful workers". (2Co_11:13) The Pharisees "compassed sea and land to make one proselyte". (Mat_23:15) But their zeal was essentially evil.

3. They were the concision the mutilation who rejoiced in a mere manual, outward mutilation of the flesh, forgetful of the significance of the true circumcision.

II FUNDAMENTAL DISTINCTION BETWEEN SUCH ERRORISTS AND THE TRUE CIRCUMCISION. "For we are the circumcision, who worship by the Spirit of God, and glory in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh." There are three characteristic points involved in the circumcision of heart which belongs to all true believers, whether Jews or Gentiles.

1. Their worship is essentially spiritual. They "worship by the Spirit of God." It was not a worship by mere external rites, as if all its merit consisted in rigid ritualistic conformities, but the true worship of God, which is only possible through the influence of his Holy Spirit, (Rom_8:26) who "helps our infirmities" of supplication. It is the characteristic of saints that they "pray in the Holy Ghost" (Jud_1:20).

2. Their entire dependence is in Christ Jesus. "Who glory in Christ Jesus." This is the essential distinction of the Christian. "Let him that glorieth glory in the Lord". (1Co_1:31) He does not glory in rites or ordinances, but in a personal Redeemer, who saves him from his sins.

3. They have no confidence in mere external privileges. "And have no confidence in the flesh." The primary allusion here may be to circumcision, but the clause points to the merely outward and earthly in religious form. The Judaists gloried in the flesh. "Seeing that many glory after the flesh, I will glory also". T.C. (2Co_11:18 Gal_6:13, Gal_6:14)

Vers. 2, 3. Identity not to be found in continuity of form, but in harmony of the inner spirit.

I USELESSNESS OF OUTWARD FORMS WHEN THEIR SPIRIT HAS PASSED OUT or THEM. The Judaizing party clung to their circumcision as if it were their title to acceptance with God. St. Paul shows that, since the substance, of which circumcision was the shadow, has been bestowed upon men, to insist upon the outward form was to forfeit the reality of which it was the forecast. The truly circumcised were such as, with or without the form, worshipped God in spirit and in truth. All forms have a tendency to lose their informing spirit and to become empty husks. If this takes place through the lukewarmness of those who use them, the true remedy is to seek to breathe in them once again the spirit which is their life. If that which was formerly their life now finds truer expression in newer forms, it may be a sign that the old has accomplished its purpose and should now cease to be.

II OBSOLETE FORMS MAY BE HARMFUL AS WELL AS USELESS. They become so as soon as they are regarded as essential, apart from the inner spirit which makes them live. They then become loss instead of gain, and actual hindrances to the promotion of that which they were designed to promote.

III SEEK TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN MEANS AND END. This is necessary, not only in the cultivation of spiritual life, but in the promotion of any purpose. Not unfrequently means are so multiplied that the end is obscured rather than forwarded. See that the means used are actually means to the desired end and are not tacitly usurping its place. Even the means of grace may cease to be means of grace. VW.H.

"Dogs.

Jews regarded the Gentiles as dogs. (Mat_15:22, et seq. ) The unclean feeding of these animals the scavengers of Eastern cities was supposed to be analogous to the Gentile freedom in eating all kinds of meats. St. Paul turns the tables, and calls the Judaizers who feed upon carnal ordinances dogs in comparison with Christians who live on the higher spiritual food.

I CONTEMPTUOUS LANGUAGE MAY BE OCCASIONALLY PERMITTED IN CONTROVERSY. It is a most dangerous weapon. Rarely is it called for. Only they who have great kindness of heart can use it safely, and these people are the most loth to employ it at all. Still, even Christ called Herod a fox and spoke of casting pearls before swine. Contempt should only be for the baseness of a character, never for the human soul in which that baseness dwells. But there are some habits and thoughts which we should heartily despise, and which can be best condemned by contempt.

II OPPROBRIOUS EPITHETS ARE APT TO REVERT ON THE HEAD OF THOSE WHO COIN THEM Jews who regard the Gentiles as dogs merit the same name when they cling to lower thinking and living than is consistent with Christianity. In despising others we may be preparing the way for contempt to fall on ourselves.

III LACK OF SPIRITUALITY IS THE ROOT OF UNCLEANNESS. The Judaizers are dogs because they cling to carnal ordinances. The unspiritual is carnal, and the carnal in its unrestrained exercise is the unclean. Therefore the remedy for impurity of thought and action is not the observance of rigorous ritual, but the cultivation of a spiritual tone of mind.

IV AS CHRISTIANS WE ARE REQUIRED TO SHUN THE FIRST APPROACH TO WHAT IS UNHOLY. The carnal ordinance must be avoided because it is the first step towards the carnal sin. We ought not to ask how far we can go safely in the direction of evil, but rather to strive to keep as far as possible away from it. Even the company of those who are unholy must be shunned. We are not only not to behave like the dogs; we are to beware of the dogs. W.F.A.

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Beware of dogs - Unclean, unholy, rapacious men. The title which the Jews usually gave the gentiles, he returns upon themselves. The concision - Circumcision being now ceased, the apostle will not call them the circumcision, but coins a term on purpose, taken from a Greek word used by the LXX, Lev. xxi, 5, for such a cutting as God had forbidden.

John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.

Observe here, 1. The cautionary directions given the Philippians to beware of false teachers, who adulterated and corrupted the doctrine of Christ, by joining the works and observances of the law with the doctrine of the gospel, in point of justification, making them at least the partial ground of their confidence and rejoicing: beware of such, says our apostle.

Observe, 2.The cutting reproof given to these judaizing teachers in that odious character he gives of them, and in that brand of infamy which he claps upon them.

1. He calls them dogs; a term not of dimunution only, but of the utmost disgrace: Is thy servant a dog? 2Ki 8:13 supposing that nothing could be thought more vile and base. The Jews called all the Gentiles dogs, because unclean. St. Paul here calls the false teachers dogs fitly, because, as dogs, they did rend and tear the simplicity of the gospel, and divide the glory of man’s salvation betwixt faith and works; because, as dogs, they did bark out reproaches against the apostles and their doctrine, delivered in its purity and simplicity; because, as dogs, they did take a great deal of pains to compass abundance of ground to gain their game; or, in our Saviour’s words, They compass sea and land to make prostlytes.

2. Evil-workers, because, pretending to labour in the gospel, they did subvert and overthrow the great design of the gospel; pretending to be fellow-workers with the apostles, but pulling down what they had built up.

3.The concision: so in contempt he calls circumcision, which these judaizing teachers pleaded the necessity of; as Hezekiah called the brazen serpent Nehushtan: because circumcision, being no longer an ordinance of God, was no better than a cutting off the flesh; and they that made it necessary to justification, cut themselves off from Christ, and from the church of Christ: by urging the necessity of circumcision, they cut and rend asunder the church of God.

Note here, 1. How different the temper of this apostle was in different cases; in things of an indifferent nature, and less necessary, who more mild, indulgent, and complying, breathing forth the spirit of the meek Jesus? But when opinions were broached, which tend to pervert souls, and to subvert the gospel, then he speaks fire and thunder, and no terms are bad enough for such seducers. Let us follow St. Paul as he followed Christ, and learn when to be mild and when to be zealous.

Note, 2. With what an excess of care he cautions the Philippians against these false teachers, saying, Beware, beware, beware, three times together in one short verse; thereby instructing the ministers of Christ, that their utmost zeal and diligence is necessary in warning their people to guard against seducers.

William Burkitt's Expository Notes on the New Testament (1700–1703) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

ARGUMENT 3

COUNTERFEIT RELIGION

2. “Beware of dogs;” not quadruped, but biped dogs. The dog, a most unclean animal, symbolizes impurity. Holiness is purity. If you are not for holiness, you are for impurity. Hence, we here have the solemn warning, “Beware of dogs;” i.e., anti-holiness people, as all such are the advocates, if not the servitors of impurity. “Beware of the concision.” In Judaism the physical birth emblematizes regeneration; and the circumcision, eight days subsequently, signifies sanctification. (Deu 30:6.) “Concision is counterfeit circumcision;” i.e., a spurious sanctification. Satan is the great counterfeiter; he spares none of God’s work, but counterfeits all of it. Passing himself for God, and his spurious work for God’s genuine, he has long ago monopolized the religions of the world, filling up Churches with his own votaries, vainly dreaming that they are worshipping God. A counterfeit sanctification is the meanest thing in the world, as counterfeit gold is so much greater loss than silver. How shall we detect this counterfeit? The next verse gives the answer.

3. “For we are the circumcision, who worship the Spirit of God, truly rejoicing in Christ Jesus, and having no confidence in carnality.”

Hence, we see that the true sanctification is a pure spiritual experience characterized by purely spiritual services, rejoicing in Christ alone, and perfectly free from carnality. O what a contrast with the carnal worship of popular religion, burdened to death with human institutions, and grossly ignorant of the pure spirituality characterizing the worshipers of God!

William B. Godbey, Commentary on the New Testament (1896–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

2, 3. Beware of dogs. Those snarling and snapping like dogs. The Judaizing teachers, who so troubled the early churches, are meant. See Galatians, chapter 1. Evil workers. So called because by their false teaching about the necessity of circumcision they wrought evil. Of the concision. Applied to those who called themselves the circumcision. It means simply a “cutting,” the class who were mutilated. It is contemptuous.

B. W. Johnson's The People's New Testament with Notes (1889–1891) — public domain. Electronic text from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL) ThML edition.

2.] βλέπετε, not, ‘beware of,’ as E. V. (βλ. ἀπό, Mar 8:15 reff.), but as in reff., observe, with a view to avoid: cf. σκοπεῖν, Rom 16:17.

τοὺς κύνας] profane, impure persons. The appellation occurs in various references; but in the Jewish usage of it, uncleanness was the prominent idea: see, besides reff., Deu 23:18; Isa 56:10, Isa 56:11; Mat 15:26, Mat 15:27. The remark of Chrys. is worth noting in connexion with what follows: οὐκέτι τέκνα Ἰουδαῖοι. ποτὲ οἱ ἐθνικοὶ τοῦτο ἐκαλοῦντο, νῦν δὲ ἐκεῖνοι. But I would not confine it entirely to them, as the next clause certainly generalizes further.

τοὺς κακοὺς ἐργάτας] cf. δόλιοι ἐργάται, 2Co 11:13,—ἐργάτην ἀνεπαίσχυντον, 2Ti 2:15,—ἐργάζονται μὲν γὰρ, φησιν, ἀλλʼ ἑπὶ κακῷ. By ἐργάτας, he seems to point out persons who actually wrought, and professedly for the Gospel, but who were ‘evil workmen,’ not mere ‘evil-doers.’

τ. κατατομήν] ‘gloriosam appellationem περιτομῆς, circumcisionis, vindicat Christianis.’ Beng.

Observe the (I will not say, circumcision, but mere) concision (‘amputation:’ who have no true circumcision of heart, but merely the cutting off of the flesh. Mey. quotes from Diog. Laert. vi. 24, of Diogenes the Cynic, τὴν Εὐκλείδου σχολὴν ἔλεγε χολήν, τὴν δὲ Πλάτωνος διατριβὴν κατατριβήν. Cf. Gal 5:12 note. On the thrice repeated article, Erasmus says, ‘indicat, eum de certis quibusdam loqui, quos illi noverint’):

Henry Alford, The Greek Testament (1849–1861) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

2. βλέπετε τοὺς κύνας: ‘behold the dogs.’ Βλέπετε, not ‘beware of,’ which would be βλέπ. ἀπὸ; but as 1Co 10:18. A caution, however, is implied, ‘look to’; ‘look out for.’ The article with κύν. indicates a well-known class. ‘Dog’ was a term of contempt and loathing with both Jews and Gentiles. The dog was an unclean animal according to the Levitical law. The price of a dog and the hire of a courtesan were placed in the same category, and an Israelite was forbidden to bring either into the house of God in fulfilment of a vow (Deu 23:18). Gentiles were termed ‘dogs’ by Jews (Mat 15:27). Comp. Rev 22:15, of those whose impurity excludes them from the heavenly city. In Hom. often of the audacious or shameless, especially women. The emphasis here is upon the impurity, the profane character of the false teachers contrasted with true Christians. There is no subordinate reference to shamelessness, greediness, snappishness, disorderly wandering or howling. So some earlier expositors, as Chr., Aug., Calov., Calv., Croc., etc.

τοὺς κακοὺς ἐργάτας: ‘the evil workers.’ The same persons regarded on the side of their activity and its moral quality; as proselytisers; as ‘huckstering’ (καπηλεύοντες) the word of God (2Co 2:17); as opposing the doctrine of justification by faith. (Comp. Mat 23:15; 2Co 11:3, 2Co 11:13.)

τὴν κατατομήν: ‘the concision.’ Not elsewhere in Bib. The word directs attention to the fact that these persons had no right to claim circumcision in the true sense. Unaccompanied by faith, love, and obedience, it was nothing more than physical mutilation. Thus they belonged in the category of those against whom the legal prohibition of mutilation was directed (Lev 21:5). Comp. Paul’s bitter sarcasm in Gal 5:12.

Reasons have been given for not identifying the persons characterised here with those referred to in 1:15-17. (See note on 1:15.) The reference here is to Judaising Christians. In view of their habit of keeping an eye on the Pauline churches and of introducing their emissaries into them, it is not likely that they had overlooked Philippi; and it is quite probable that Paul had previously found it necessary to warn the church against their designs. Some fresh intelligence of their operations may have prompted him to repeat those cautions.

Against the reference to Jews it may be said that Paul’s dealing with the Jews in 1Th 2:14-16 would lead us to expect something similar here if the parties had been Jews, since their proceedings against the Christians would probably have been marked by the open violence which they practised against the other Macedonian churches. Here Paul’s warning is directed at the misleading of his converts by false teaching, which was quite according to the Judaising method. Moreover his expressions here are similar to those in 2 Cor. and Gal. as respects the motive, object, and methods of these agitators, and the way in which he meets them. That the Judaisers were referred to in those epistles is not questioned. Their object was the overthrow of Paul’s form of Christian doctrine and the establishment of a Christianity in which the Mosaic law should continue in full force, especially in the matter of circumcision. The Messiah was regarded by them solely in his relation to the Jewish law. The attempt of Croc. to show that Paul here designates three classes,—κύνας, Libertine Christians or backsliders to Judaism; κακ. ἐργ., those who would combine Christianity with Gentile wisdom or Jewish superstition; κατατ., unbelieving Jews,—is one of the curiosities of exegesis. Weiss also thinks that three classes are intended: κύν., heathen; κακ. ἐργ., those mentioned in 1:15; κατατ., Jews.

2. Justification by faith and mystical union with Christ form one conception—righteousness of God by faith and being found in Christ (vs. 9).

International Critical Commentary — older volumes (1896–1929), various authors — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Beware [βλεπετε] . Lit., look to. Compare Mr 4:24; Mr 8:15; Luk 21:8. Dogs. Rev., correctly, the dogs, referring to a well - known party - the Judaizers. These were nominally Christians who accepted Jesus as the Messiah, but as the Savior of Israel only. They insisted that Christ 's kingdom could be entered only through the gate of Judaism. Only circumcised converts were fully accepted by God. They appeared quite early in the history of the Church, and are those referred to in Act 14:1. Paul was the object of their special hatred and abuse. They challenged his birth, his authority, and his motives. "'Paul must be destroyed, ' was as truly their watchword as the cry for the destruction of Carthage had been of old to the Roman senator" (Stanley, "Sermons and Lectures on the Apostolic Age "). These are referred to in ch. 1 16; and the whole passage in the present chapter, from ver. 3 to ver. 11, is worthy of study, being full of incidental hints lurking in single words, and not always apparent in our versions; hints which, while they illustrate the main point of the discussion, are also aimed at the assertions of the Judaizers. Dogs was a term of reproach among both Greeks and Jews. Homer uses it of both women and men, implying shamelessness in the one, and recklessness in the other. Thus Helen :" Brother - in - law of me, a mischief devising dog "(" Iliad," 6, 344). Teucer of Hector : "I cannot hit this raging dog" (" Iliad, "8, 298). Dr. Thomson says of the dogs in oriental towns :" They lie about the streets in such numbers as to render it difficult and often dangerous to pick one's way over and amongst them - a lean, hungry, and sinister brood. They have no owners, but upon some principle known only to themselves, they combine into gangs, each of which assumes jurisdiction over a particular street; and they attack with the utmost ferocity all canine intruders into their territory. In those contests, and especially during the night, they keep up an incessant barking and howling, such as is rarely heard in any European city. The imprecations of David upon his enemies derive their significance, therefore, from this reference to one of the most odious of oriental annoyances "(" Land and Book," Central palestine and Phoenicia, 593). See Psa 59:6; Psa 22:16. Being unclean animals, dogs were used to denote what was unholy or profane. So Mt 7:6; Rev 22:15. The Israelites are forbidden in Deuteronomy to bring the price of a dog into the house of God for any vow : Deu 23:18. The Gentiles of the Christian era were denominated "dogs" by the Jews, see Mt 14:26. Paul here retorts upon them their own epithet.

Evil workers. Compare deceitful workers, 2Co 11:13.

Concision [κατατομην] . Only here in the New Testament. The kindred verb occurs in the Septuagint only, of mutilations forbidden by the Mosaic law. See Lev 21:5. The noun here is a play upon peritomh circumcision. It means mutilation. Paul bitterly characterizes those who were not of the true circumcision (Rom 2:28, 29; Col 2:11; Eph 2:11) as merely mutilated. Compare Gal 5:12, where he uses ajpokoptein to cut off, of those who would impose circumcision upon the Christian converts : "I would they would cut themselves off who trouble you;" that is, not merely circumcise, but mutilate themselves like the priests of Cybele.

Marvin R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament (1887–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.