Exegesis of Philippians 2:1-11 (original) (raw)
Related papers
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.
Philippians 2:6–11: Incarnation as Mimetic Participation
Journal for the Study of Paul and His Letters
Passion Play nicely sets the stage for this articles exploration of Phil 2:6-11, widely known as the "Christ-hymn": [5. Have this mindset (xouxo (ppoveTis) among yourselves, which is in Christ Jesus,] 6. Who, being in the form of God, did not consider equality with God as something to be exploited, 7a. but made himself as nothing, 7b. taking the form of a slave (nopcpf)v Soi'Aou), 7c. being born in the likeness of human beings (ev 6noic6(jan av0pc67t®v); 7d. and being found in the trappings of a singular human being (icon axtNiati eup£0£i<; ax; av0pamo<;), 3 8. he became obedient to the point of death, death on a cross. 9. For this reason (8io) God highly exalted (uTtepinj/cooev) him, Hooker called the language of Phil 2:7 "shadowy."19
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
In 2018, I came across a copy of R. P. Martin’s Carmen Christi (1967 edition) in a second-hand bookshop that had been in C. F. D. Moule’s personal library, a gift to him from the author; it had his extensive marginal comments in pencil throughout, which was the main reason for making the purchase. This led me to revisit my 2016 paper on Phil 2:5-11 (published in the EJournal) and enlarge it with extra remarks here and there as well as make a clearer distinction between typological and literal intertextual usage of the Jewish Scriptures. No changes have been made to the exegesis or the philology; rather, the paper has just been expanded making it a more complete exegesis and a fuller engagement with scholarship on more points of dispute. It has gained about 6000 words in the process. So, this paper now supersedes the 2016 paper.
Incarnation, Ruler Cult and Divine Desire in Philippians 2:6-11
Paper delivered at Cambridge NT Seminar, Nov 2017
As many have now seen, Phil 2:6–11 (along with 3:20–11) is a traditional hymnic piece that uses Greco-Roman language for divine rulers to express a kind of “imperial Christology.” Whilst the second half (vv. 9–11) cites biblical prophecy (Isa 45:23), the first half lacks scriptural language. Instead it employs Greco-Roman language, especially the conventional terminology for the gods’ self-transformations; stories of gods taking on a new "form (μορφή)" to visit human communities in disguise. Besides the shared language that has been noted especially by German scholars (D. Zeller, U. B. Müller and S. Vollenweider, cf. A. Y. Collins), there are other ways in which verses 7–8 employ the distinctive terminology of divine self-transformations that have hitherto escaped commentators' notice. Together, Phil 2:6–11 and 3:20–11 also echo distinctive themes of those stories, for example in the combination of divine self-transformation (2:6–8) and the gods' transformation of human beings (3:21). Christ is a divine ruler who comes to earth in a way that is comparable to the poetic vision of Octavian as a self-transforming God who comes to earth as Rome’s saviour in Horace Odes 1:2 (lines 42ff). However, in other ways Christ’s divine self-transformation is like no other: he empties himself and lives a whole human life, dying on a cross (see vv. 7a, 8a–c), things that the pagan gods never do. All this points to a fresh approach to the much-discussed problem of the harpagmos clause in Phil 2:6. The use of the rare word ἁρπαγμός is not satisfactorily explained by the theory of Roy Hoover that, in this context (ἡγέομαι + a double accusative), it means “something to take advantage of”. Also, v. 6c means “being in a manner equal (ἴσα) with God”. It does not mean “equality with God”. Following David Fredrickson's recent and stimulating discussion of the language of desire in Philippians Eros and the Christ: Longing and Envy in Paul's Christology (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2013[/easyazon_link]), I present a three-layered interpretation of 2:6ff that takes seriously the consistent lexicographical evidence (of Plutarch On the Education of Children 15; Vettius Valens Anthology 2.38 and Ms Va of Pausanias Description of Greece 1.20.3) that ἁρπαγμός means “abduction for marriage”. First, Christ reckons that the divine identity is not constituted by the kind of aggressive and deceptive erotic pursuits ascribed to Zeus and the other gods. Secondly, he reckons that “being in a manner equal with God” does not mean, as Caligula (and perhaps other kings and emperors) claimed (Cassius Dio Roman History 59.26.5), that as a divine ruler one is entitled to imitate the immortal gods by seizing and raping whoever turns you on. Thirdly, by this contrast with the gods and with soidisant divine rulers, the hymn sets forth the life of Christ as a revelation of the true character of God’s desire (ἐπιπόθησις—cf. Phil 1:8; 2:26; 4:1) for humanity; a desire focused on humanity’s, not Christ’s, interests (cf. 1:4).