Philippians 3:5–6

Certain men had come to Philippi. They were telling the believers they must be circumcised and keep the law of Moses to be saved. These men had confidence in the flesh — just what the true circumcision did not have. Now Paul is about to take his place, so to speak, alongside these men, and compare his own credentials with theirs… These evil teachers seem to have pressed circumcision more than anything else, so Paul begins with it. Someone converting to Judaism from outside could be circumcised at any age, but the law required a Jew to be circumcised on the eighth day. Paul had met every requirement of the law, as far as circumcision went.

Paul begins with what he inherited, and so with what did not depend on his own choice or will. He was not a convert to Judaism from outside, but a Jew both born and bred. His descent as an Israelite of the tribe of Benjamin was faultless, and he had entered the covenant of circumcision in the flesh just as the law required… He then turns to what was properly his own, and what he was responsible for: "as to the law, a Pharisee." He joined that party in its strictest form when he came of age. He took in the teaching of Gamaliel and held on to it, like good soil.

Benjamin was a very favoured tribe. Benjamin was one of the two sons of Jacob's favourite wife. He was the only child of Jacob born in the Promised Land. The first king of Israel came from the tribe of Benjamin, and Saul of Tarsus bore his name. The holy city, Jerusalem, was in the land of Benjamin. When the other tribes revolted, Benjamin was the only tribe that stayed loyal to Judah and the house of David.

He was a pure Jew. Timothy's father was a Greek; not so Saul of Tarsus — he was pure Hebrew. A man was a Jew if he traced his descent from Jacob and followed the religion of his fathers. But he was not counted a Hebrew unless he spoke the Hebrew language. And Paul would not have described himself this way unless his father had these qualifications too. So he probably spoke Hebrew from earliest childhood, and we know he spoke it fluently.

This is the only reference to flesh in this letter, as far as I know. But it is flesh in its religious form, not a source of evil desires and passions. It is all judged by Christ, and its religious form not least. … And what did the apostle do with this whole roll of fleshly advantages? It was seen laid in the grave of Christ.

Here the apostle sets out the recommendations that were his as a religious man, and in some cases they were his by birth… None of these qualities were evil in themselves, except the persecution of the church. Even that was perhaps not evil in his own eyes in his unconverted days, for he did not then know it to be so. Yet so it was.

It is striking, the way Paul takes it up. It is not as sin, but as something completely worthless — legal righteousness, and true religion as man can see it. … All it does is credit self. That is the mischief and the evil. Who would keep filthy rags when he could have Christ for his righteousness? … The deceitful desires are bad enough, but this religious flesh is worse. It was not real righteousness; it was self puffed up, not self judged — self patched out and painted over.

amemptos comes from a, meaning "not," and memphomai, "to blame." So it means "without blame." In his former life Paul had nothing to accuse himself of as to the righteousness of the law. Philippians 3:6. Zacharias and his wife were beyond blame, Luke 1:6. The saints too should be beyond blame, Philippians 2:15; 1 Thessalonians 3:13. And if the first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no place for a second. Hebrews 8:7.

Paul could say of himself, "as to righteousness under the law, blameless" (Philippians 3:6). But the moment the law said, "You shall not covet," it might as well have said, "You shall not be a man." If I take the law, you see it is most useful; it probes the heart, and brings the awareness that we have not kept it... It is true that unless something probes us, we all tend to think well of ourselves. We all tend to be Pharisees.

"As to zeal, a persecutor of the church," was Paul's own account afterwards of the state in which divine grace found him (Philippians 3:6). It did not alter his conviction that he was the chief of sinners. "The least of the apostles," he says elsewhere, and "unworthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God" (1 Corinthians 15:9). A man's religion may be the worst thing about him. His sincerity in it will not soften that effect. It makes the effect all the more certain.

Take Paul before his conversion. He could say that he had lived in all good conscience before God. Yet he had been dragging men and women to prison because they were Christians. No doubt he did it with an untroubled conscience. The Lord had said: "whoever kills you will think he is offering service to God." John 16:2. Paul's zeal for Judaism blinded him. In his conscience he could not recognise the God who gave the law and had also sent His Son... it was an unenlightened conscience, a zeal without knowledge, by which even the Christian may be led astray.

Paul persecuted the Church (1 Corinthians 15:9; Galatians 1:13; Philippians 3:6). He attacked not just the saints at Jerusalem, but through them the whole Church. Indeed, he heard a voice asking, "Why are you persecuting me?" (Acts 9:4-5.)

So Saul as an earnest Jew could not be anything but a zealous persecutor of the church of God. It was part of his religion. In that religion he outdid many of his equals in his own nation, and in it he was "exceedingly zealous." Whatever religion had to offer, Saul would have it. Whatever height there was to reach, he would reach it. He would leave no stone unturned to build up the structure of his own righteousness — righteousness in the flesh, righteousness in the old creation. He was allowed to gain every attraction of legal righteousness. The purpose was that he might fling them away before the brighter glories of a righteousness that is divine.