Wednesday, June 13, 2012

Apostle Malm: Is He One of the Dogs of Philippians 3:2?

Apostle Malm has been attempting to give his interpretation of Philippians on his blog.  I will quote his interpretation of a verse and then show what well researched and established commentaries have to say about it.  You will see that apostle Malm is full of hot air once again.

He writes:

Phillipians 3:2, Beware of dogs Now in 1611, King James English the word “dog” referred to a homosexual and that is because a dog will try and mount anything, including your leg, if it can get away with it. And because dogs, or many dogs, have an uncontrolled sexual drive, those human beings who have an uncontrolled sexual drive or lust, are referred to as dogs.

This is not a modern saying. It’s not something I invented. It’s the language that was used in 1611. And the term dogs here refer to homosexuals. Beware of dogs. Beware of evil workers. Beware of the concision. That is the circumcision.

For we are the [true spiritually circumcised] circumcision which worship God in the spirit and rejoice in Christ Jesus and have no confidence in the flesh, [who have no confidence in the things of man, who have no confidence in carnal things or physical things. Our confidence is in God. We rejoice in God and we are circumcised in heart.]
Here is what the Matthew Henry Commentary says.  You can see why apostle Malm conveniently ignores these interpretations since it blatantly calls him a "dog" because of his false teaching and false prophecies.

      I. He exhorts them to rejoice in the Lord (Philippians 3:1), to rest satisfied in the interest they had in him and the benefit they hoped for by him. It is the character and temper of sincere Christians to rejoice in Christ Jesus. The more we take of the comfort of our religion the more closely we shall cleave to it: the more we rejoice in Christ the more willing we shall be to do and suffer for him, and the less danger we shalt be in of being drawn away from him. The joy of the Lord is our strength, Nehemiah 8:10.
      II. He cautions them to take heed of those false teachers: To write the same thing to you to me indeed is not grievous, but for you it is safe; that is, the same things which I have already preached to you; as if he had said, "What has been presented to your ears shall be presented to your eyes: what I have spoken formerly shall now be written; to show that I am still of the same mind." To me indeed is not grievous. Observe, 1. Ministers must not think any thing grievous to themselves which they have reason to believe is safe and edifying to the people. 2. It is good for us often to hear the same truths, to revive the remembrance and strengthen the impression of things of importance. It is a wanton curiosity to desire always to hear some new thing. It is a needful caution he here gives: Beware of dogs, Philippians 3:2. The prophet calls the false prophets dumb dogs (Isaiah 56:10), to which the apostle here seems to refer. Dogs, for their malice against the faithful professors of the gospel of Christ, barking at them and biting them. They cried up good works in opposition to the faith of Christ; but Paul calls them evil workers: they boasted themselves to be of the circumcision; but he calls them the concision: they rent and tore the church of Christ, and cut it to pieces; or contended for an abolished rite, a mere insignificant cutting of the flesh.
The Bible Gateway has this to add about the "dogs"

First, watch out for those dogs. This metaphor is full of "bite," since dogs were zoological low life, scavengers that were generally detested by Greco-Roman society and considered unclean by Jews, who sometimes used "dog" to designate Gentiles. Paul thus reverses the epithet; by trying to make Gentiles "clean" through circumcision, the Judaizers are unclean dogs.

Second, they are evildoers. The clue to this usage lies in its position between "dogs" and "the mutilation." Since both of these terms express reversals, it is arguable that this one does as well. If so, then the irony derives from the Psalter's repeated designation of the wicked as "those who work iniquity." In trying to make Gentiles submit to Torah observance, Judaizers (and their contemporary counterparts, the legalists) do not work "righteousness" at all but evil, just as those in the Psalter work iniquity because they have rejected God's righteousness.

Third, and changing from the masculine plural to a pejorative description of the Judaizers' activity, Paul warns, "Beware the mutilation," an ironic reference to Gentile circumcision. The Greek word for circumcision is peritome ( "to cut around"); katatome, used here, denotes "cutting to pieces," hence "mutilate." This wordplay, especially the emphatic For it is we who are the circumcision (v. 3), makes it certain this is the primary issue between Paul and them. This is the most "cutting" epithet of all, the ultimate derogation of circumcision, since the cognate verb occurs in Leviticus 21:5 (LXX) prohibiting priests (who serve God) from cutting their flesh as pagan priests did (cf. 1 Kings 18:28).
 Then there is this from the Allen Turner Commentary:

2. Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers, beware of the mutilation!. These are very strong words addressed toward the Judaizers. The Jews referred to the Gentiles as “dogs” and Paul hurls this name back at them. As evil workers, their motives and actions are base. They are the kind of people who “suppress the truth in unrighteousness” (Romans 1:18). Furthermore, their circumcision (peritome), something the Judaizers took great pride in and were trying to bind on the Gentiles, was nothing other than mutilation (katatome). Changing the prefix of their favorite word, Paul stigmatized these people as the “mutilation party.” They were not the true circumcision at all!
The Easy English Bible Version Commentary states:

3          What he will say next. He is now going to warn them about *Jewish Christians who were a danger to the truth of the *gospel. This seems the most likely explanation. Those *Jews denied that *salvation came only from God’s *grace. They said that *Gentiles would not receive *salvation unless they first became *Jews by *circumcision. *Gentiles must also obey all the *Jewish laws. Paul had spoken against these ideas when the *Judaisers had first come to Antioch (Acts 15:1). He had written to the Christians in Galatia. In that letter, he emphasised how wrong this *doctrine was. Philippi had few *Jews. But it was on a major *Roman road, the Egnatian Way. So these *Jews could easily travel from church to church. They were enemies of the true *faith.

Verse 2 Paul warns the Christians at Philippi three times. He describes the *Judaisers in three ways. He uses three *Greek words that begin with the letter ‘k’. These words show the depth of Paul’s feelings. And the three initial letters would help Christians at Philippi to remember them.

1          ‘dogs’. These were not family pets but wild dirty animals. The name ‘dogs’ described everyone who was miserable and without value. It was the name by which *Jews spoke about *Gentiles. Paul gave the name back to the *Jews in order to describe them and their *doctrine as dirty and dangerous.
 The John Gill Commentary states;

Philippians 3:2
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 ( Matthew 15:26 Matthew 15:27 ) ; nor should they think it too severe, since the Jews themselves say F16,

``the face of that generation (in which the Messiah shall come) shall he, (blkh ynpk) , "as the face of a dog".''
The apostle calls them so, because they returned to Judaism, as the dog to its vomit, ( 2 Peter 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 ( Isaiah 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, ( Philippians 3:19 ) . Moreover, because they were without, as dogs are, ( Revelation 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.

And finally, the Clarke Commentary that Armstrongism holds as authoritative

Clarke's Commentary on the Bible
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 endeavored 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 honorable 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.

All of these are only on the first page  of a Google search that apparently apostle Malm failed to do.  Instead he opened his mouth and made another inaccurate teaching making a total ass of himself again. Is he running from the fact that he has been labeled a "dog" by the very Bible he claims to follow?


Byker Bob said...

If we were to categorize religious teachers according to generally accepted measurements utilized by the public school system, Malm would fall into the classification of "Special Ed" in terms of his competence and abilities.


Douglas Becker said...

Cast not your pearls before swine nor give that which is holy to the dogs.

You know, Armstrongism reminds me of the 1970's Disney Movie, "The Black Hole": It has impressive looking sets but the story makes no sense, there are bad actors, the science is bad, those in it seem to have been made into brain dead zombies, the leader is nuts, the best suggestion in the whole movie is "let's get out of here" and the ending makes no sense at all and people still wonder about what it all meant. And the music is sort of an aquired taste.

Roll credits.

And it is all weird and creepy in ways that are like an itch you can't scratch.

Never mind though, no matter what you say and the experts' opinions, the sychophantic supporters cannot be swayed in their opinions how good it is.

And now that it's been produced, it keeps coming back and coming back, in all it's cringe worthy glory.

Armstrongism is in itself a dog.


Where did the pearls go? Maybe Laura has them.

Anonymous said...

Very strange, although, I suppose not so strange for the dear little apostle.

He says right there he is inferring an interpretation to the translators in 1611. Nowhere does he claim that Paul meant a homosexual when he wrote the Greek word, "kuon." Who cares what Paul meant? Malm obviously wants to talk about homosexuality instead, and he'll go out on a limb to insert it into his rambling, capricious, off-the-cuff, and totally unscholarly commentaries that he's taking pains to compile.

Once he's written something and published it, within his own enfeebled mind, it carries the weight of the bible itself, because if anyone questions something, if he's already written something on the topic (usually something absurd) he won't answer the question, he'll just tell people to dig through his site to find what he's already written at some unspecified time in the past.

Don't try to correct the apostle. He's already published it. It's now the official position of Malm's god on Phl 3:2.

Douglas Becker said...



We don't need to worry about dogs when we are surrounded by...


Painful Truth said...

Malm's fascination with homosexuals is much appreciated for it allows me to tell a tale of truth.

In the days of my WCG experience, I was informed from the pulpit that man was the only animal on earth that had sex with his own gender.

I would recall the dogs I had from my youth and how they used to hump each other in a rather aggressive way. My bullshit detector went off. WARNING JAMES, BULLSHIT!!!

It seems our ultra conservative right wing religious nut jobs were wrong again! But what the hell, it would take a few more years of these idiot assaults on my limited intellectual ability to make the connection. It was bullshit! It was about creating a class of enemies.

Read about the "dogs" in nature and realize that these fucks who call themselves ministers of Christ are not only full of shit, but willfully ignorant of reality. But that you know already.

Retired Prof said...

Anonymous 12:10 pm is absolutely right that it is totally anachronistic to attribute a 1611 meaning of English "dog" to the Greek word "kuon' in a text written in the first Century.

Even worse, "dog" did not mean "homosexual" in 1611. Malm must have pulled this definition out of his ass. I have done a fair amount of reading in 16th-17th century English texts without ever running across this usage.

In fact, the concept of a homosexual identity had not even been formed yet. Certainly people committed sodomy, and no doubt some (then as now) preferred homosexual relationships. However, such people were not placed in a separate class defined by their sexual behavior. As best I can tell from my reading, people just thought of them as belonging on the wild end of the spectrum. Only in the second half of the 19th century did a defined homosexual identity develop. And even then, I have found no evidence that anybody used "dog" to refer to that identity.

Anonymous said...

Many Christians hate gays, but thankfully, the tide is turning.

It reminds me a bit of the "Women in the pulpit" controversy in the COG's, which I was reading about in the Journal.

Some progressives recognize that it's time to move forward and let women take their deserved place, while others revel in their misogyny.
In one fellow's particularly nutty Journal article, there were headings including "Women are not qualified", "Women need guidance", "Adam was a wimp", and "Women grasp for superiority"


John said...

Now in 1611, King James English the word "dog" referred to a homosexual

If only Malm would've bothered taking a couple minutes to consult the Oxford English Dictionary he would've discovered that "dog" was not used in such a context as he asserts. In fact, during the time of Elizabethan and Jacobian England "dog" was used figuratively to denote:

(1b) "a person or personified thing...esp. in being vicious, watchful, subservient, or ravening" e.g. In 1667 Milton's Paradise Lost: "See with what heat these Dogs of Hell advance"; or

(5a) a "person or thing (with varying degrees of contempt or admiration) a term of reproach or abuse: a worthless or contemptible person; a wretch, a cur" e.g. In 1616 Shakespeare's 1 Henry VI: "What men have I? Dogs, Cowards, Dastards."

And worse still Paul wrote in first century Greek not in seventeenth century English. Shows how much Malm obviously respects the NT writings of the apostle Paul to take his words so much out of context to support his own pet theory.

Byker Bob said...

Malm is just such a legalist that if he found out that his son had lost his virginity to some homosexual, he'd probably fret over whether the guy was circumcised, or whether the event happened on the sabbath.