A Hymn of Christ Philippians 2:6-11 (original) (raw)
Related papers
The so-called 'Christ hymn' of Phil. 2.5-11 has maintained great scholarly interest for over a century, with monographs and articles continuing to appear that seek to address important critical issues. Questions including the pre-existence of Christ and 'kenotic theology' have digressed and been revived with the invocation of numerous methodologies and the influence of major philosophical trends external to New Testament studies proper. This article tracks the major trends in research of Phil. 2.5-11, with a view to three central topics of interest: the authorship and origin of the passage, its plausible hymnic structure and form, and its function and theology within the letter itself, including its ancient audience.
PHILIPPIANS 2:6-11 AS SUBVERSIVE HYMNOS: A STUDY IN THE LIGHT OF ANCIENT RHETORICAL THEORY
This study addresses the unsettled question concerning the genre of Philippians 2:6-11, long considered a poetic 'Christ-hymn', but more recently classified under a number of alternative genre headings: exalted prose, encomion, epainos, early Christian confession, didactic poem, and prose hymn. The study examines the text in the light of ancient rhetorical theory of hymnos and notes the essential features of the genre identified by ancient rhetoricians on a descriptive basis. The study then shows the presence of these same features in Philippians 2:6-11, albeit with one key innovation: conventional, Greco-Roman notions of honour and shame that typically shaped the hymnos genre are turned on their end, with the result that the god of the 'Christ-Hymn' is praised for taking up conventionally shameful stations in humility and service to others.
An Exposition of Philippians 2:5-11
This paper deals with exegetical issues concerning the well-known kenosis passage in Philippians. It covers textual variants and other textual issues, includes exegetical commentary, as well as a basic homiletical outline built in to the paper. It is by no means exhaustive, but should give the reader a good survey of the exegetical matters in this passage.
Further Reflections on Philippians 2:5-11
A bare list of the main books and articles on this passage would occupy many pages -and, indeed, does so in R. P. Martin's excellent monograph 1 (and some more have appeared even in the short time since that was published 2 ). It is none of my intention to go over the ground again. Instead, at the risk of seeming arrogant, I plunge straight in with a proposed interpretation which swims against the prevailing current of exegesis, although nearly, if not all, its suggestions have been anticipated. What I offer, therefore, constitutes an attempt to rehabilitate certain more or less neglected ideas, rather than anything original. It is offered respectfully to a colleague whose honesty and sterling scholarship have for many years been an incentive to me in my work; and, although it sets a question-mark against one small section of Dr Martin's book, it is offered with deep regard also to him, and in gratitude to him and his fellow-editor for inviting me to contribute to this volume. 3
'Obedient to Death': Revisiting the Rhetorical Function of Philippians 2.6–11
2015
Despite its significance for the study of the development of early christology, Philippians 2.6–11 sits uneasily in its epistolary context. Recent scholarship shows a welcome reluctance to separate the section from the parenetic material in 2:1–5 and 2:12–18, but has underestimated the extent to which this surrounding material deals with apparently conflicting themes. 2:1–4 appears to be an exhortation to ecclesial unity marked by humility and other regard. 2:5 is best read as a call for the Philippians' participation in what Michael Gorman has called the pattern of 'cruciformity'. 2:12– 18 is an appeal for continued obedience to and support of Paul. For which of these motifs does the poetic material of 2:6–11 provide exemplary support? In this paper I argue that scholars have misunderstood the nature of 2:1–5 and have thereby underestimated the function of the text as a call for humility in the service of obedience. Just as Christ is obedient to God in such a way as to receive vindication, so the Philippians are to be obedient to Paul as Christ's emissary, thus making possible Paul's and their own vindication on the day of Christ. Paul is to be the focus of the Philippians' other regard and this rhetorical concern is consistent with the overall purpose of Philippians.
A Missional and Liturgical Reading of the Christ-Hymn Kerygmatic and Ethical Perspectives on the Hymn, 2021
Traditionally the Christ-hymn is interpreted kerygmatically (as a proclamation of the gospel) or ethically. I have never been satisfied with such readings. In this paper I argue that the Christ-hymn should be understood missionally. I also argue that as it is either formed from a pre-existing hymn or itself became a hymn that Paul wrote, it should be read liturgically. I hope future Philippians scholars will break away from the kerygmatic/ethical duality into a more nuanced reading.
Jesus Christ is Lord: The Divine Name of God and the Identity of Jesus in Philippians 2:9-11
One of the most famous Christian hymns in the New Testament (NT) is the Christ-hymn of Philippians 2:5-11 in which Paul calls on the Philippians to imitate the mindset of Christ Jesus in his humiliation and subsequent exaltation. In the final section of the hymn, God grants Jesus the "name which is above every name" at his exaltation. However, scholars have not come to a consensus as to what name is given to Jesus. In this paper, I will defend the view that the name given to Jesus is the divine name κύριος which I equate with YHWH. To defend this, I offer critiques of opposing views while offering additional evidence from Old Testament (OT) praise literature that scholars have not considered when discussing this passage.
Jesus Christ as Humble Lord : Karl Barth and N.T. Wright on the Philippians “Christ Hymn"
N.T. Wright famously has claimed that historical study of Christian origins should be a vital, even constitutive resource for contemporary theology; consequently, the Bishop of Durham has criticized Karl Barth and other 20th century theologians for divorcing doctrinal theology from historical scholarship. Interpreting the theology of Paul, however, is another matter; both Barth and Wright have offered creative and provocative readings of the Apostle’s thought. Spanning the divide between the two thinkers in methodology, specialization, and situation, one finds striking parallels between their respective interpretations of Paul. In particular, both Wright and Barth read the Apostle as reinterpreting traditional ‘monotheistic’ notions of God in light of the incarnation, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. In what follows, I will illustrate some similarities and differences between Barth’s and Wright’s views on Paul, specifically by comparing their respective exegeses of the “Christ hymn” in Phil. 2:5-11. I will not evaluate their exegeses per se, but instead will focus on how they draw strikingly similar conclusions about the character of Jesus’ divinity and his salvific vocation. I will focus primarily on the first half of the Christ hymn, which depicts Jesus as the one who was and is eternally equal with God the Father but, in a radical movement of condescension and humility, assumes the form (morphē) of the fallen human servant (doulos) and carries out his vocation to his obedient suffering of death on the cross. I will only secondarily refer to the second movement of the Christ hymn (vv. 9-11) in which the crucified and risen Servant is exalted as the Lord (kyrios) over the cosmic powers. Wright, as I will show, preserves key Christological and soteriological motifs from Barth’s exposition while proposing a helpful correction of the latter’s interpretation of the Philippians passage. Both interpreters find in Paul’s appropriation (or composition) of the Christ hymn the following theological claims: 1) The atonement between God and humanity occurs when, in the person of Jesus, God takes on human flesh in a free self-emptying (kenosis); 2) this descent of the Son into human flesh reaches a climax in Jesus’ obedience in facing death on the cross; 3) this occurs without detriment to Christ’s essential deity (as this is vindicated in his exaltation to the right hand of God). (Follow the link below to navigate to the compete article at the Princeton Theological Review website.)