The Surpassing Worth of Knowing Christ
INTRODUCTION
MAJOR IDEAS
#1: Paul’s Past Rubbish (vv. 5-7).
Notice the phrase “circumcised on the eighth day” in v. 5.
Notice the phrase “of the people of Israel” in v. 5.
Notice the phrase “of the tribe of Benjamin” in v. 5.
Look at the phrase “a Hebrew of Hebrews” in v. 5.
Look at the phrase “as to the law, a Pharisee” also in v. 5.
Look at the phrase “as to zeal, a persecutor of the church” in v. 6.
Finally, notice the phrase “as to righteousness under the law, blameless” in v. 6.
But all this pride in all this past rubbish is what makes Paul’s words in v. 7 so shocking...
#2: Paul’s Present Rubbish (v. 8).
Well, first, he saw the risen Christ
Conclusion
#3: The Surpassing Worth of Knowing Christ Jesus the Lord (v. 8a).
CONCLUSION
Of course these seven facts did not prevent the Israelites from perverting obedience to the law into a condition for blessing and a condition for salvation. The prophets constantly railed against their people for substituting external rituals prescribed by the law for true piety, which is demonstrated first in moral obedience (Isa. 1:10–17; Hos. 6:6; Amos 5:21–24; Mic. 6:6–8). In every age Israelites misused the law, thinking that performance of rituals obligated God to receive them favorably. This did not prevent the Israelites from perverting the privilege of possessing the law into a divine right and unconditional guarantee of God’s protection (Jer. 7:1–10, 21–26; 8:8–12). Israel persistently perverted the law by placing great stock in rituals while disregarding God’s ethical and communal demands. They imagined that God looked upon their hearts through the lenses of their sacrifices. They persisted in violating the moral laws even while they continued to observe the ceremonial regulations (Isa. 1; Jer. 7). In the end, Moses’ predictions of disaster in Deut. 4 and 29–30 proved true in the exile of Judah in 586 B.C. The story of Israel as a nation was largely one of failure—not by God but by those whom He had called to be His people.
Accordingly, when Jesus and Paul appear to be critical of the law, we should always ask whether their struggle was with the law itself or with misuse of the law.
Jesus and the Law Jesus’ own attitude toward the law is expressed fundamentally in two texts, Matt. 5:17–20 and 22:34–40 (cp. Mark 10:17–27; 12:28–31; Luke 10:25–37). In the first He declares that He came not to abolish (kataluein) the law or the prophets but to fulfill (plerosai) [them].” Here “law” refers not only to covenant obligations revealed at Sinai but to the entire Pentateuch. Here “fulfill” means to bring the OT revelation to its intended goal. Jesus goes on to declare the enduring validity and authority of every detail of the law until it is fulfilled. With Christ’s first coming many aspects of the law are brought to complete fruition. As the eschatological fulfillment of the old covenant, in His person Jesus brings to an end the ceremonial shadows (sacrifices and festivals) and transforms old covenant customs into new covenant realities (baptism, the sign of the covenant made with the church, appears to replace circumcision, the sign of the covenant made with physical Israel); the Lord’s Supper both replaces the Passover meal (Matt. 26:17–29; Mark 14:12–26; Luke 22:13–20) and anticipates the eschatological covenant meal (Rev. 19:6–10), of which the meal eaten on Sinai (Exod. 24:9–11; cp. Luke 22:20; 1 Cor. 11:25) was but a foretaste. However, other aspects of the law were to remain in force until Christ’s return. When we read the OT law, we should always be open to both continuities and discontinuities with NT demands.
Paul and the Law The writings of Paul are the source of most of the confusion on the NT’s view of the law. He spoke of the law as a way of death, in contrast to the Spirit that gives life (Rom. 7:10) and the law as a curse from which Christ has redeemed us (Gal. 3:13). He contrasted the letter (of the old covenant), which kills, with the Spirit (of the new covenant), that delivers life (2 Cor. 3:6). Such statements are difficult to reconcile with Moses’ and the psalmists’ celebration of the law as the supreme gift of grace and the way of life for God’s people.
In resolving this apparent discrepancy we should recognize, first of all, that the unity of divine revelation precludes later inspired utterances contradicting earlier revelation. When we understand Paul correctly, we will discover his perspective to be in line with that of Moses.
Second, we recognize that Paul agrees with Moses in affirming the law, declaring that without it we would not know what sin was (Rom. 7:7; cp. Deut. 4:6–8), evaluating it as holy, just, and good (Rom. 7:12–14; 1 Tim. 1:8; cp. Ps. 119), and rooting his understanding of the ethical implications of the gospel firmly in the Torah (Rom. 13:8–10; 2 Cor. 6:14–18; cp. Exod. 20:1–17). Furthermore, Paul, like Jesus, captures the spirit of the OT law by reducing its demands to love God and one’s neighbor (Rom. 13:8–10; Gal. 5:13).
Third, we recognize that many of Paul’s negative statements concerning the law occur in contexts where he is debating with Judaizers the way of salvation for Gentiles. His frustrations are less with the law of Moses itself than with himself (Rom. 7:7–25) and with those who argue that in order for Gentiles to become Christians they must first submit to the ritual of circumcision. If one looks to the law as a way of salvation, this also leads to death, for salvation comes only by grace through faith, which is precisely the way the Torah presents Israel’s experience. Furthermore, his comment that apart from the Spirit it is impossible to satisfy the demands of the law is not contrary to Moses but a clarification of what Moses had meant by the circumcision of the heart.
In short, the problem is not with the law but with me because the law of sin inside me constantly wages war against the law of God. The glorious news of the Gospel is that in Christ God lifts the curse of sin, which the law proves we deserve. But this does not mean that the law has been suspended as a fundamental statement of God’s moral will. The law served as a reflection of God’s very nature. Since His nature does not change, neither does His moral will. Accordingly, those who fulfill the “Law of Christ,” and those who love God with all their hearts and their neighbors as themselves will fulfill the essence of the law.
Since Paul’s contrast of Sinai and Jerusalem in Gal. 4:21–31 is allegorical (allegoroumena, v. 24), we should not interpret him as categorically rejecting the Israelite covenant or as affirming a fundamental rift between the Davidic covenant (Jerusalem) and the Israelite covenant. Ishmael, the son of Hagar the maidservant of Sarah, was rejected as the son of promise. Ishmael provided Paul a convenient link to the covenant made with Israel at Sinai. But in associating Sinai with slavery, Paul adapts the material to his rhetorical needs. The consistent witness of the OT declares that the covenant God established with Israel at Sinai was a symbol of freedom, made with a privileged people whom he had rescued from the bondage of Egypt (see Exod. 19:4–6; Deut. 4:1–40). In Galatians Paul argued that his detractors have put the cart before the horse and in so doing reversed the true course of history. By demanding that Gentile Christians adhere to the Jewish law, specifically circumcision, they are putting Sinai before the exodus.
Conclusion In Deut. 10:21 Moses declared that the God who redeemed Israel from Egypt and revealed to them his will is Israel’s praise (tehilla). Yahweh, their God, is not a cruel taskmaster, who replaced the burdens of Egypt with the burdens of the law. Throughout Deuteronomy Moses presents the law as a glorious gift, and for one who observes it within the context of the covenant, it is the way to life and blessing. Into the dark world of human sin and alienation the Torah of Moses shone like a beacon of glory and grace. In the Torah Israel’s God revealed Himself, declared the boundaries of acceptable and unacceptable conduct, and provided a way of forgiveness. No wonder the psalmists could celebrate the life to be found in the Torah with such enthusiasm (Ps. 119).
In the NT this Torah is fulfilled in Jesus Christ, and the apostles continue this tradition. There is no wedge between the law of the OT and the grace of the NT. The old covenant and its laws were grace. Having redeemed His people and having called them into covenant relationship, God could have left them to devise ceremonial and ethical responses to please Him, as did the nations whose gods neither hear, see, nor speak. At the same time the glorious grace proclaimed by the NT calls for response. Jesus, the divine Lord of both old and new covenants, declared that obedience to His commandments would be the inevitable and requisite proof of love for Him (John 14:15, 21, 23–24).
Obviously not all the laws associated with the old covenant continue under the new. With the shift from ethnic Israel to the transnational covenant community as the agent of divine blessing, the external demands intended to identify the nation of Israel as the covenant people are suspended. But what about the remainder? Theologians who divide the laws under the old covenant into civil, ceremonial, and moral requirements answer the question by declaring that the moral laws, especially as embodied in the Decalogue, continue in force. However, the OT refuses to draw such distinctions either between the three kinds of laws (all of life is equally holy) or between the Decalogue and the rest of the laws involved in God’s covenant with Israel. Therefore a more careful approach is required, considering all aspects of the old covenant in the light of their fulfillment in Christ. Whatever else we may say about the relationship between the law of the old covenant and the law of the new, as grafted-in heirs of the covenant God made with Abraham and Israel, Christians are to give evidence of their faith and their privileged position through holy living. The Scriptures speak with a single voice in calling on all the redeemed to respond to God’s grace with unreserved love for Him and self-sacrificing love for others. See Pentateuch; Ten Commandments; Torah.
Daniel I. Block
Add now to this list of natural advantages the personal additions which Paul claims to have made (verses 5b–6). He speaks of an attitude, an activity and an achievement. Towards the law of God he adopted the most respectful and responsive attitude possible. He was a Pharisee, ‘the strictest party of our religion’. His overriding concern was to live in conformity to what he believed were God’s regulations down to every smallest detail of daily life. So firm was his belief that this alone was the way and will of God that he was zealously active in opposition to every apparent challenge to the dignity of his religion, even to an extent which later so pained him, being ‘a persecutor of the church’. But he achieved his goal, for he saw himself as to righteousness under the law blameless.
There is no point in our saying, ‘Ah, but it was only a legalistic and limited attainment in righteousness.’ This is undoubtedly true, but what an attainment it was! Again, there is little point in saying that Paul was assessing his achievement through unregenerate eyes and that his standards were not high enough. This again is true, but what standards they were! Nevertheless it was all ‘flesh’, for ‘flesh’ defines the whole life of any and every man, woman and child who is without living, personal acquaintance with Jesus Christ. It suits those who have sunk lowest in sin, and those who have risen highest in moral, religious and spiritual rank. Of all alike, Jesus himself said, ‘That which is born of the flesh is flesh … Do not marvel that I said to you, “You must be born anew.” ’
Whatever gain I had, I counted as loss for the sake of Christ (verse 7). The word gain is plural in the Greek; that is to say, Paul has taken his advantages on the credit side item by item, forgetting nothing, omitting nothing, excluding nothing. All that could be put to his good account is there, his ‘gains’ each and every one. But when the accountant’s eye travels down the list, and the sum total is reckoned, and the line is drawn beneath the completed sum, the answer is an uncompromising singular word, loss. After all has been said, there is nothing and less than nothing for his efforts, and, for certain, no ground of confidence in the sight of God.
We learn that Christ does not become ours by effort but by rejection of effort.
He cannot have Christ until he has totted up all his works of righteousness and admitted the answer to be loss.
The great missionary John G. Paton, struggling to find a local word which would translate ‘faith’ and failing to find one, was interrupted by someone in great trouble and needing help. ‘Please, may I come and lean heavily upon you?’ he said. Faith is leaning heavily upon Christ: not labour but cessation of labour, not doing but ceasing to do; simply leaning the whole weight of our needs upon him, and finding in him acceptance before the presence of God, and a righteousness which could never be ours by our own works.
So Paul came to the end of all his costly striving after acceptance before God through simply believing in Christ. But at the moment of writing, that experience was long past. It belonged to a far-off day on the road to Damascus. Has Paul no fresh testimony to offer? We notice that present tenses appear in verse 8. Verse 7 records that I counted; verse 8 affirms that I count. It is really here, in fact, that Paul turns to explain what it means to ‘glory in Christ Jesus’. He has by now cleared every other potential subject of glory out of the way. All personal merit, all acquired virtue, all efforts to attain righteousness, all that would be to the glory of man is gone. Christ stands alone on the stage, the exclusive (i.e. that which excludes all others) object of praise.
the bare mention of Christ has been filled out over years of experience of him, so that it is now the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. Glorying in Christ Jesus is not a static thing. Joy in the Lord keeps company with progress in the Lord.
as to the righteousness which is in the Law, found blameless. (3:6b)
Before his conversion Paul outwardly conformed to the righteousness which is in the Law. Again, Paul uses Law in the broad sense of the Jewish tradition, not just the Old Testament. Those who observed his life would have found his behavior blameless. He was not, of course, denying that he sinned. That would contradict both Jewish theology and his testimony in Romans 7:7–11:
What shall we say then? Is the Law sin? May it never be! On the contrary, I would not have come to know sin except through the Law; for I would not have known about coveting if the Law had not said, “You shall not covet.” But sin, taking opportunity through the commandment, produced in me coveting of every kind; for apart from the Law sin is dead. I was once alive apart from the Law; but when the commandment came, sin became alive and I died; and this commandment, which was to result in life, proved to result in death for me; for sin, taking an opportunity through the commandment, deceived me and through it killed me.
But by all outward appearances, Paul was to the people who knew him a model Jew who lived by Jewish law. He was not, however, like Zacharias and Elizabeth, who “were both righteous in the sight of God, walking blamelessly in all the commandments and requirements of the Lord” (Luke 1:6).
Paul seemingly had it all. He had undergone the proper rituals, he was a member of God’s chosen people, he was from a favored tribe in Israel, he had scrupulously maintained his orthodox heritage, he was one of the most devout legalists in Judaism, he was zealous to the point that he persecuted Christians, and he rigidly conformed to the outward requirements of Judaism. Yet he saw that as useless for salvation, and the reality of salvation by grace through faith in Jesus Christ was revealed to him. The apostle did not come to believe that those things were good, but Christ was better; instead, he viewed all of them as bad. They were deadly, because they deceived him into thinking that he was right with God. False religion deceives the mind and consequently damns the soul.
If anyone could be said to be blameless in following the law, it was Paul. But before God it was no righteousness at all, for though Paul thought he was pleasing God, in persecuting the church he had shown himself to be the “foremost” of sinners (1 Tim. 1:15).
In verse 7, Paul counted the religious credits in verses 5 and 6 as loss; here he expands that conviction and declares all things to be loss in view of the surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus. The verb translated “I have counted” in verse 7 is in the perfect tense; the same verb translated here I count is in the present tense. That indicates that all the meritorious works that Paul had counted on to earn God’s favor, and any that he might do in the present or future, are but loss.
Paul abandoned his past religious achievements in view of the surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus. The participle huperchon (the surpassing value) refers to something of incomparable worth.
The participle huperchon (the surpassing value) refers to something of incomparable worth. The word knowing in the Greek text is not a verb, but a form of the noun gnōsis, from the verb ginōskō, which means to know experimentally or experientially by personal involvement. The surpassing knowledge of Christ that Paul describes here is far more than mere intellectual knowledge of the facts about Him.
The New Testament frequently describes Christians as those who know Christ. In John 10:14 Jesus said, “I am the good shepherd, and I know My own and My own know Me.” In John 17:3 He defined eternal life as knowing Him: “This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.” To the Corinthians Paul wrote, “For God, who said, ‘Light shall shine out of darkness,’ is the One who has shone in our hearts to give the Light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ” (2 Cor. 4:6), while in Ephesians 1:17 he prayed “that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give to you a spirit of wisdom and of revelation in the knowledge of Him.” In his first epistle John declared, “And we know that the Son of God has come, and has given us understanding so that we may know Him who is true; and we are in Him who is true, in His Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life” (1 John 5:20). Salvation involves a personal, relational knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ.
Adding personal warmth to the rich theological concept of knowing Christ Jesus, Paul describes Him as my Lord. That threefold description encompasses Christ’s three offices of prophet, priest, and king. Christ views Him as the Messiah, the messenger or prophet of God. Jesus views Him as Savior, emphasizing His role as believers’ great High Priest. Lord views Him as sovereign King over all creation.
For the inestimable privilege of knowing Jesus Christ, Paul gladly suffered the loss of all things by which he might have sought to earn salvation apart from Christ. The apostle went so far as to count them but rubbish so that he might gain (personally appropriate) Christ. All efforts to obtain salvation through human achievement are as much rubbish as the worst vice. Skubalon (rubbish) is a very strong word that could also be rendered “waste,” “dung,” “manure,” or even “excrement.” Paul expresses in the strongest possible language his utter disdain for all the religious credits with which he had sought to impress man and God.
lit. “with respect to circumcision an eighth-day-er.”
Pharisee for Paul was not a term of reproach but a title of honor, a claim to “the highest degree of faithfulness and sincerity in the fulfillment of duty to God as prescribed by the divine Torah” (Beare).