Untitled Sermon

Philippians: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary Notes

2:5a. among yourselves. en hymin (dat. pl.); see NOTE on 1:6 among you; emphasis on “you all” at Philippi (1:7 bis, 8, 25). Some (Heriban 89–90) urge (1) an individual sense, parallel to “in Christ Jesus” as an individual (Joüon 91–93; Lft. 110 “in your hearts”; Edart 181–83); or (2) a social sense, one to another, reciprocally, Moule 1970:265 “towards one another”; or (3) an ecclesial sense, cf. 5b en Christō[i] Iēsou (the community in Philippi, “saints in Christ” 1:1). Losie: “Set your mind on this confession, in your mutual relations, on which also you set your mind when you came to be ‘in Christ Jesus’ (at your baptism)” (Senses 2 and 3, a community of the baptized). The TRANSLATION agrees with RSV, NABRNT, REB.

2:5b. it is the way you also think “in Christ Jesus.” Neut. sg. rel. pron. (ho), “which” (KJV, RSV) or “that” (NRSV), referring back to touto, “this (mind, attitude).” Since touto = in this way, since 5b introduces a further relationship “in Christ Jesus,” of Philippian Christians with each other (Schenk 175–77, 185), it is has been added, ho rendered as the way, and a parallel vb. to 5a, you … think (phroneite, indic.) supplied (see below). kai = also (KJV, NABRNT); [N]RSV, NIV, REB omit. Silva 107, an intensive, “which indeed”; Caird 118, id est: “the disposition which must govern your common life, i.e., your life in Christ Jesus, because he.…” ZBG 156 omits kai; “in Christ Jesus” = the “mystical body” of Christ (disputed by Fee 200–1 n 32).

Much depends on the vb. supplied in 5b. Traditionally (1) ēn (imperf., eimi, “be”), KJV, the mind “which was also in Christ Jesus” (NRSV-txt); justified from “the narrative that follows” (Fee 200 n 29). Or “is” (Bockmuehl 123–24; RSV 1971; NABRNT). (2) a 2nd pl., as in 5a: “which you have” (RSV 1946–59; NRSV-mg); “what you find” (REB); Loh. Phil. 91. (3) Some form of the vb. in 5a, “which he thought (in himself)” (Lft. 110; Ellicott 54; Plummer 41). (4) Käsemann 1950:83–84: “in the realm of Christ” + “as is fitting” (prepei) (Gnilka 109) or “as you think” (phroneite, Thüsing 1965:50) or “as it is necessary to think” (phronein dei). BDAG phroneō 3, “develop an attitude based on careful thought, be minded/disposed … have the same thoughts among yourselves as you have in your communion with Christ Jesus (so CDodd, The Apost[olic] Preaching ’37, 106f.)”; NEB-txt, “Let your bearing for one another arise out of [phroneisthō] your life in Christ Jesus.” Orientation to Christ determines relations to each other in Christ’s community. Koenig 147: “Have this mind among yourselves … which indeed is your new life in the realm of Christ Jesus.” Final decision depends on overall conclusions (is 2:6–11 about how Christ thought?) and immediate context; see COMMENT B.3.

en Christō[i] Iēsou. See NOTES on 1:1, 13, and 26 in Christ Jesus; 2:1 in Christ. Traditionally here pre-temporal existence (as logos asarkos) and/or earthly life (logos ensarkos); Ewald 103–4 = Wohl. 114–15. For some, the historical Jesus, a model for Christians, “Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus” (NIV); cf. [N]JB, GNB, CEV. Heriban 92–95 lists four senses: (1) Ethical-paraenetic (Hawth. 75, “This way of thinking must be adopted by you … the way of thinking adopted by Christ Jesus”; Moule). (2) “Christological-soteriological” (Käsemann; Bornkamm 1959a:112; Martin 1967:291, “Become … the type of persons who, by that kenosis, death, and exaltation of the Lord of glory, have a place in His body, the Church”). (3) Ecclesial, “in Christ” = his body, the church; (Bultmann 1951 [INTRO. X Bibl.] 311); “as members of His Church” (Grayston 1967:91; “in the company of Christ’s people,” Martin 1967:71; Son 16). (4) Mystical, Deissmann ([1] Bibl. Paul) 1927 ed.:147–57, 193–94, 297–99; Martin 1967:70–71.

Käsemann’s sense has been assailed by those advocating solely an ethical one (O’B 200–1). At 2:5b reference to the story about Jesus Christ in vv 6–11 (inclusio with the Lord is Jesus Christ at 11b, and/or in Christ in 2:1) is difficult to avoid. The communal, ecclesial aspect reflects the persons addressed (among you 5a). No “Christ mysticism” or ethical paradigm need be seen in the phrase itself in 5b. 2:5a continues the impvs. of vv 2–4; 5b recalls the bases in 2:1 for such admonitions and anticipates the narrative in vv 6–11 that grounds these and the impvs. in 2:12–14. 2:5a is about the Philippians’ relations with each other; 5b, the relationship they have “in Christ” under his lordship. They do think this way about Christ, for they wrote vv 6–11 (see COMMENT B.1, 2); hence the kai. Paul applies their message to conduct among themselves.

2:6a. who, while living in the sphere of God.… hos, who (KJV-[N]RSV), “the one who,” Christ Jesus (2:5b), as at Col 1:15, 1 Tim 3:16. hyparchōn, masc. nom. sg. pres. act. ptc., “being” (KJV, NIV), agrees with hos. en morphē[i] theou, “in the form” (KJV-[N]RSV) or “very nature” of God (NIV-txt). The vb. archō (“rule”; m. “begin”) + hypo means (1) exist, be present (3:20); (2) in Hellenistic Gk., for eimi, “be” (BDAG). Does it imply (BDF #414.1) “ ‘exist originally’ ”? “continuity with a previous state” (MM 650)? “ ‘prior existence,’ but not necessarily ‘eternal existence’ ” (Lft. 110)? Connection with archē, “origin,” is sensed by Binder 1987:236; Kuschel 258–59. NEB, “was his from the beginning.” But such a sense “gradually … faded in later Greek” (MM 650). Pres. tense, in contrast to aors. in vv 7–8 (labōn, genomenos (bis), heuretheis), thus “continuing to be” (divine) during actions in the “form of a slave” and death? Collange 98; like an imperf. alongside the aors. (B. Weiss 147 n 1). Is the ptc. concessive (“though,” [N]RSV); GGBB 220, 634–35; or causal (“precisely because he was … he recognized what it meant.…,” Moule, in Wright 1991:83 n 110). To press tense and hyparchōn as causal usually accompanies a traditional view, Christ as “truly God” (CEV, cf. LB), but need not, depending on how morphē theou is taken. hyparchōn en + dat. suggests to some “be wrapped or clothed in” (TDNT 4:751 n 52; cf. Luke 7:25; Nagata 210 and others). Ernst 65, cf. 77, used “living”; so the TRANSLATION, to avoid ontological language of “being” and remain open to varied possible backgrounds.

in the sphere of God. theou, see NOTE on 1:2 God; cf. 2:6c. morphē theou is to be treated with morphē doulou 7b, homoiōmati anthrōpōn 7c, and schēmati … hōs anthrōpos 7d (cf. Lft. 127–33). morphē occurs only here in the NT (+ Mark 16:12). Compounds include symmorphoumai, symmorphos at 3:10, 21. Word studies: J. Behm, TDNT 4:742–59; G. Braumann, NIDNTT 1:703–10, with eidos; W. Pöhlmann, EDNT 2:442–44; TLNT 520–25; Heriban 234–47.

Most church fathers saw the divine nature of the preexistent logos; a few (Ambrosiaster, Pelagius; later, Luther), the incarnate Son in his human nature (B. Weiss 145–46). Lft. 110, 127–33 (cf. below, [14] NOTE on 3:21a will change): “form,” as in the Gk. philosophers, esp. Aristot., means intrinsic, essential, in contrast to schēma (fleeting, changeable “figure, shape”; outward, external accidents). Jowers: = essence, ousia. Contrast EGT 435–36. Lft.’s view persisted (K. Barth 61–63). Behm documented far greater variety in Gk. use (744–46): morphē, external, visible appearance, perceived by the senses; at 2:6, divine glory, “the garment by which His divine nature may be known” (752). Käsemann 1950:59–63 pointed to the Hellenistic world where “essence” was comprehended by “mode of existence” (Daseinsweise), as in the mystery religions. (Behm 756–59 cites texts Käsemann stressed, like Corp. Herm. 1, 12–21, HCNT #794.) Käsemann’s analysis has, in turn, been questioned (e.g., Nagata 1981:179–207). In Plato, morphē suggests external form or appearance; in Aristot., morphē = eidos, “form,” in contrast to “matter” (hylē); in the Hellenistic world, “mode of existence.” Schweizer, Erniedrigung 1955:54 n 234, invoked the OT: morphē = “condition.” But see Jervell’s criticism, 1960:230 n 220. Nagata 208 concluded at 2:6 for “a perceptible divine form by which the divine reality is vividly cognizable.”

If “form,” what aspect of God? Cf. Collange 96–98; Martin 1967:99–120, 1976:94–96; Habermann 110–18; Hawth. 81–84; O’B 206–11. (a) Traditionally “essence, being” (ousia) or nature (physis) (Schumacher; Henry 129; PGL 884–85; Heriban 234–35), reflected in Lft. 110; Hawth. 84; Gdsp., Moffatt, NIV, GNB. Little support among recent exegetes (Silva 116). (b) = eikōn, God’s “image” (Gen 1:26, 27, patristic and modern scholarship), “Adam Christology,” the first man and Christ are parallel; Cullmann 1959 ([1] Bibl. Christ) 176; Bandstra 1966; Talbert 1967:149; Murphy-O’Connor 1976:41; Heriban 236–39; Dunn 1980:115–17; W. Eltester, Eikon im Neuen Testament (BZNW 23; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1958) 81; Jervell 1960:204–5, it came via Gnosticism. Cf. 2 Cor 4:4, 6 (eikōn, doxa “glory”; AB 32A:222, 246–49); Col 1:15 (eikōn tou theou, AB 34B:195, 248–50). But D. H. Wallace 1966 finds the LXX evidence insufficient to equate morphē and dĕmût. Martin 1967:97 rejects it; similarly Habermann 115–16; TLNT 2:523; EDNT 2:443; Steenburg. (c) “Glory” (doxa), in some eikōn texts and depictions of God (Exod 16:1; 24:16; 33:17–23; Isa 6:3; 40:1, 2; 2 Macc 2:8). Cf. Martin 1967:103–5, 109–19; Heriban 235–36, cf. 274–80; O’B 208–9, 210–11; Hellerman 131–33, “in garments of divine majesty.” Isa 52:14 LXX doxa = Aquila morphē (Seeley 1994:50–51). Behm (TDNT 4:746, 751 esp. n 53), “the divine doxa,” the concept Käsemann (1950:60) attacked; Hawth. 82, etc.: “glory” is inadequate.

(d) Daseinsweise (Käsemann, cf. Dib.75), “manner of being present, mode of existence,” can apply to God or human beings, “the sphere in which one stands and which determines one like a field of force” (61, tr. from Kuschel 606 n 46). Cf. Gnilka 112–14; Bornkamm 1959a:115–16; Jervell 1960:276–81; Schenk 195–96, 200, 203, 212. (e) “Condition,” “status” (Bonnard 43; Dupont 1950:502–4; Spicq 1973; Fowl 54; JB “His state was divine”). Schweizer, Erniedrigung 1962: 95–96, something between “visible outward form” and “essence”; OT “form and matter” or “being and appearance” go together. Martin 1967:103–4 approved. Heriban 246–47; I. H. Marshall 50. Collange 97, Nagata 207, and Habermann 117 found the evidence insufficient (cf. Jervell 1960:230 n 220); cf. Pöhlmann, EDNT 2:443; Schimanowski 330. (f) Habermann 111–12, “form of appearance.” Edart 155–57, exterior manifestation of a real identity. (g) Appeal to homoiōma (Gen 1:26); 2:7c, + pl., anthrōpōn, not theou or doulou as with morphē (Habermann 116). J. Schneider (TDNT 5:197), “Christ changed his form,” but “[t]he earthly morphē is also the husk which encloses His unchanging essential existence.” (h) Bockmuehl (1997, Phil. 126–27), “something … perceived by the senses” (J. Behm, TDNT 4:745), “visual characteristics” (Phil. 127). Moses saw in the midst of the flame (Exod 3) a morphē most beautiful (Life of Moses 1.66 = LCL Philo 6:310–11); to safeguard God’s transcendence (cf. Wis 18:1), Philo does not press morphē further. Part of a “Jewish tradition about mystical ascent” (Segal 1990 [(1) Bibl. Paul] 34–71, esp. 62–63; cf. Hammerich)—a category not beyond criticism. Qumran materials (tabnit, 4Q 400; 4QshirShabba) seem remote. Later Jewish mystical texts. The lexical and contextual jumps are not persuasive. (i) Metamorphosis “in secret epiphanies of gods on earth” (Zeller 2001 [(1) Bibl. Lord] 321–24; Zeller 1988:160–63; accepted by Söding 1992b; U. B. Müller 1988:23–27; 1990: 20–26; Phil. 93–94). More Greco-Roman parallels in Vollenweider 1999b: Eur. Bacch. 4–5, 53–54, Dionysus the morphē of a god in human form; Lucian, Philops. 14; Iamblichus Vit. Pyth. 30; Justin Martyr Apol. 1.9. Frenschkowksi 1997. But Phil 2:6–11 implies more than external change or disguise. Instead of self-disclosure at the end of a story, the figure in 2:8 dies. Bockmuehl 1997, cf. Phil. 127, rejects such pagan myths but did not convince Zeller 2001:322; cf. Vollenweider 1999b, “angelomorphic Christology” (EXC.B.II.D.3b).

Given such conflicting views, Spicq cautioned against “a precise theological meaning” for morphē (TLNT 2:525). Fee 204–5 dismisses “image” and “glory”; the metaphor in 2:7b, morphē doulou, “determines the meaning” of 2:6a and “the reality (his being God)”; with Hawth., “a form which truly and fully expresses the being which underlies it” (MM 417; contrast Silva 115). But that statement (from Kennedy!) could take no cognizance of texts injected by Käsemann or by Spicq from the papyri. Habermann 118 settled on Daseinsweise (d, above), cf. Eichholz 1972 (INTRO. X Bibl.)141. As Kuschel 606 n 46 put it, “Anyone who decides … for ‘appearance’ … runs the risk of reading into the text a contrast between changing ‘external appearance’ and a permanent ‘inner being.’ … Anyone arguing that this is a statement about Christ’s nature” runs the danger “that such a statement about Jesus ‘can be misunderstood in physical-real terms.’ ” Anyone for status, position (Schweizer) “will hardly find a parallel in other New Testament writings” (Gnilka 113–14). Anyone for “divine glory” (Schnackenburg 1970:315) overlooks the fact that in the hymn “the obedient one only received this status after the humbling and not before.” Kuschel, Käsemann, and TRANSLATION opt for sphere (realm, place and relationships).

2:6bc. did not consider to be like God something of which to take advantage. hēgēsato, aor. m. act. indic., hēgeomai; see NOTE on 2:3 consider.… Bornhäuser 1938:18–19, “ ‘imperial’ style” (cf. 3 Macc 3:15). Avoid “think” (KJV), used for phronein. Here + double dir. obj. (as at 3:7, 8), “regard not (as) harpagmon the being equal with God (to einai isa theō[i]).” Neg. ouch before harpagmon, not before the vb. (the usual location); few trs. bring this out (KJV does, “not robbery). A “but” cl. follows, with another vb.; 6bc and 7ab go closely together (Grelot 1973, an emphatic negation, followed by a strong “but,” alla). Carmignac made this the starting point for defending the traditional view (Gk. fathers, Vg); it was “not usurpation” for the eternal Word to be equal with God; Carmignac applied it to Jesus’ earthly life.

2:6b. to be like God. KJV “to be equal with God,” often taken to corroborate 6a, Christ “equal with,” and therefore, God (Hawth. 84). Art. infin. (to [neut. acc., sg.] einai [as at 1:23]); see NOTES on 1:21 to live … and to do; 1:23 to depart and to be with Christ; 1:24 to continue to stay on …; 1:29b (chart in ATR 1424). A pred. adj. might be expected, isos = equal + dat.; an adv. (neut. pl. isa) is substituted; BDF #434, an old usage; GNTG 3:21, 226, cf. Habermann 125–26; common in the LXX, esp. Job, e.g. 11:12, “be like” (Lft. 111). But “to be like” (isa) “is not synonymous with isos theō[i] = ‘… equal to God’ (identity of nature)” (TLNT 2:229). Grelot 1972:500, “an enfeebled sense,” cf. TLNT 2:224–25, no special emphasis on equality; “like” (Habermann 126). Grelot 1972:500 cites Nicolaus of Damascus, Augustus Caesar was “honored as a god” (ton … isa kai theon timōmenon; FGrH 90, frg. 130.97; cf. also frg. 130.117). TLNT 2:229–30 cites Aristot. Pol. 3.13.13, “like a god among human beings”; isotheos, “godlike,” of Darius (Aeschyl. Pers 856), Heracles (Diod. Sic. 1.2.4 isotheōn timōn), Pythagoras (Diod. Sic. 10.9.9, “honored equally with the gods”), and a woman from Samos (POxy 39.2891 frg. 3, col. II.4; TLNT 2:229 n 29); kings (Tellbe 2001:256). Caesar appears in hymns alongside the gods (ex isou tois theois); honors given to rulers make them isotheoi (Cass. Dio 51.20). theos is documented for Augustus, Claudius, Titus, and Vespasian (TLNT 2:230 n 30). Germanicus rejected for himself acclamations “addressed to gods (isotheous)”; they apply to the reigning Emperor, Tiberius (edict A.D. 19; Hunt/Edgar, LCL Select Papyri 2 #211). One honored philoi “like (you would honor) a god” (ison theō[i]; FCG 4:347.269, ed. Jaekl, 53.357, tr. in Heen 1997:185). More in BDAG isos, ē, on and Heen 1997:182–87 (terminus technicus is involved).

Stählin (TDNT 3:345–48, 351–52; cf. E. Beyreuther, NIDNTT 2:497–98) treated “equality” as “basic … in Greek political and legal theory” and equality “with God outside the NT”; Phil 2:6, “equal to God by nature” (TDNT 3:345–48, 351–52, 353). Spicq, aware of divine honors paid to humans, saw “equality of treatment, dignity … recognized” (2:229, with P. Benoit, Bibel de Jérusalem 1956:1551; Grelot). Habermann 126–27, gottgleiche Daseins- und Existenzweise, but he also cites “condition,” “position of worth, dignity.” Heen 1997:177–96 treats isa theō[i]/theois, ison theō[i] (neut. pl. and sg. adv.), isos theō[i] (adj.) and isotheos; they “blurred in actual usage.” Examples root “in the honorific tradition of the Greek cities” for heroes and rulers (cf. Meeks 1990:312–14), a “civic tradition” at home in Philippi. The “Judaic tradition” does not let mortals “think that they are equal to God” (2 Macc 9:12; cf. Philo Leg. All. 1.49; Sib. Or. 5.34, 12.86, of Nero, isazōn theō[i]; John 5:18). Thus two traditions; they clashed in A.D. 39–41 when Gaius Caligula attempted to place his statue as Jupiter in the Jerusalem Temple. 2:6 reflects the positive Gk. sense (“like God”) and the OT-Jewish view (Jesus did not treat it as harpagmon). Phil 2:6 reflects and contrasts with Imperial cult (Bornhäuser 1938:17–19, specifically Caligula; Georgi 1991:72–75); 2:10c will offer a hidden critique of the decurions in Philippi who sat under the Emperor (cf. Garnsey 242–45, the local elite = the epigeiōn there; Heen 2004). einai should not be pressed ontologically, nor absence of an art. with theō[i]. Many take to einai isa theō[i] as subject acc. (RSV “did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped.” Others follow the Gk. word order, KJV, “thought it not robbery to be equal with God.”

2:6c. something of which to take advantage. harpagmon (acc. sg.). Rejected textual conjectures include apragmon, “free of business, toil, duty”; pragma, lit. “(no) matter”; and harpagimon, “something he should snatch up” (Habermann 95–97). From harpazō, “steal, snatch” (1 Thess 4:17, “caught up in the clouds”). Nouns in -mos denote the action of the vb. root; those in -ma, the result of the action (BDF #109.1, 2; cf. Vokes). harpagmos “act of robbing,” KJV “robbery,” but BDAG 1 deems this “next to impossible” at 2:6 (Fee 205; TDNT 1:472–73, sense a), though Lat. fathers took it as act., Vg rapina = “robberie” (Rheims NT). Moule 1970:266–68, “act of snatching” (see below); then harpagmos = harpagē (Heb 10:34 “plundering”; Matt 23:25 par. Luke 11:39 “rapacity”). On the “grasping” nature of pagan deities, cf. N. H. Young re Aristoph. Eccl. 777–83: to give is “not our custom but to take (ou … alla), so also the gods,” “that they may get something.”

BDAG 3, “to be like God was no rapture” (cf. 2 Cor 12:2; 1 Thess 4:17; Rev 12:5), for “Christ had it by right” (Hammerlich; Henry 24; D. W. B. Robinson 1969, Jesus rejected “being caught up” to heaven, escaping suffering), has found little support. Habermann 125, “fantasy,” like L. Abramowski’s “raptured” or “was beside himself” (Drei christologische Untersuchungen [BZNW 45; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1981] 1–17).

BDAG 2 takes harpagmos as pass., equal to harpagma, “the thing seized or stolen,” though examples are lacking in non-Christian literature (Heriban 250–65; R. P. Martin 1967:135–53; Habermann 119–25). (Lat. phrases employed as shorthand expressions for each sense have confused even commentators, cf. N. T. Wright 1991:65–69). The pass. meaning developed as [a] booty, (a) grab, TDNT 1:433 sense b. A prize already obtained (Gk. fathers), res rapta (pass. ptc. of rapio; “a thing seized,” in one’s possession; Wright prefers res retinenda, “a prize to be held on to”) or a prize to be sought after (res rapienda, not possessed, to be grasped anew, Wright; cf. Beet 1887:123). So Vollenweider. [b] a piece of good fortune, windfall. TDNT 1:473–74 sense c; Martin’s “third possibility,” 1967:143–48. res rapta (something already possessed, by a preexistent Christ) or res rapienda (something yet to be obtained).

Martin 1967:134–64 traced gyrations in interpretation. Wright 81 charted ten “solutions” for morphē, as divine (so most) or human (e.g, Murphy-O’Connor); to einai isa theō[i] (usually divine equality); and ouch … hēgēsato, “abandoned” (something possessed) or “did not snatch at” something Christ did not possess. Habermann arranges solutions under res rapienda (dominant in Anglo-Saxon and French scholarship) and res rapta (esp. in Ger. scholarship). What he calls “the idiomatic sense” emerges as solution, without reference to Wright. Word studies: W. Foerster, TDNT 1 (1933) 472–74; E. Tiedtke/C. Brown, NIDNTT 3:601–5; W. Trilling, EDNT 1:156–57—indicate how rare examples are of harpagmos.

Verse 2:6b must be approached in light of the entire phrase, “consider to einai isa theō[i] something of which to take advantage.” W. Jaeger 1915, like Lft. 111, called attention to texts (from Wettstein) in the Ethiopian Story by Heliodorus, a 3rd or 4th cent. A.D. Gk. novelist (Aeth. 7.20, etc.). Here harpagma/heurēma hēgeisthai/poieisthai, etc., means “regard something as a stroke of luck, a windfall, a piece of good fortune.” Popular jargon, then a literary topos (Plut., De Alex. fort. 8; EXC. B n 24) or proverbial formula (Schumacher 2:284–85). Not res rapienda (the object already in the person’s possession), nor res retinenda (it doesn’t fit the nonbiblical examples).

Hoover 117–18 distinguished more sharply. (1) harpagma (pred. acc.) + hēgeisthai and other vbs. is “distinguishable from … hermaion and heurēma” (contra Jaeger) (117). Thus not luck or a windfall. (2) “harpagma and harpagmos were used synonymously in the Hellenistic period” (“virtually certain”). (3) Evidence from “harpagma in double accusative constructions … can be a basis for determining the meaning” of harpagmos at 2:6 (117–18). = “take advantage of” an opportunity, “something to use for his own advantage” (118). (2) assumes (107–8) harpagmon is used in the LXX with act. (Isa 61:8) and pass. meaning (Isa 42:2), and that in Eus. they are synonymous (harpagma, H.E. 8.12.2; harpagmos, Comm. in Luc 6, catenae frgs.). Later data are being used to settle NT meanings. All we have, but the data base is slim, esp. when “booty” references are set aside. Hoover concluded, 2:6 “owes nothing to scriptural antecedents” (119).

Hoover’s solution (morphē and to einai isa theō[i] refer to a preexistent Christ already possessing divinity) commended itself to Habermann (121–24), though Murphy-O’Connor 38–39 and Howard 377 n 28 worked it into their view of a human Christ. Wright 1986:76–90 combined Hoover’s findings with Moule 1970 (harpagma signifies an action; Christ “did not regard equality with God as consisting in snatching” [266, his italics]; “not … getting, but paradoxically, giving,” 276). Wright “combines Moule’s theology and Hoover’s philology” (Robuck 106). Actually, Moule “bowed to Hoover” (Hawth. 1998:102). Wright 78: “the attitude one will take towards something which one already has and holds and will continue to have and hold” (“attitude,” not in Hoover, from 2:5?). ouch negates the entire idiom (cf. Carmignac). Thus NRSV, “something to be exploited.” Though Hoover’s study did not of itself rule out the possibility of taking 2:6a and c in a “humanitarian sense,” Wright used his interpretation to establish a preexistent God-figure as the subject. Indeed, “precisely because he was such” (hyparchōn as causative) (82 n 107; 83 n 110). The result “is a new understanding of God”: “one … himself God, and who never during the whole process stopped being God,” embracing incarnation and cross (84). Wright appealed to Eus. H. E. 5.2.2 for support (Phil 2:6 quoted, martyrs did not use martyrdom as “something to take advantage of”); but surely, Dunn objects, they did not already “possess” it, TPTA 285 n 87). 2:9–11 means, That is why honor (that belongs to the one God) was given to Christ. The hymn with its Adam Christology shows us love on God’s part (though agapē is not used). To the objection that an act. sense for harpagmos calls for some obj. (snatched at what?), Wright points to Philippian background: “it refers, intransitively, to a particular way of life, namely, that which characterized pagan rulers and indeed pagan gods and goddesses such as the Philippians might have worshipped in their pre-Christian days” (89).

Wright’s interpretation has dominated many Anglo-Saxon commentaries (Silva 118, Wright “settled” the question); otherwise in Schenk 188, 212; U. B. Müller. But renderings vary. Silva 112: “took no advantage of”; O’B 202–3, “something to be used for his own advantage”; Fee 207, “a matter of seizing upon to his own advantage”; Bockmuehl 114, “needed to take advantage of.” The matter is not settled (Dunn, TPTA 285; O’Neill 1988 raises some valid points but his emendation adding a negative, “not being equal with God.” is a counsel of despair). Wright’s interpretation fits morphē and to einai isa theō[i] into the sense developed for harpagmos. Methodologically, others would prefer to determine the sense of 6a and 6c somewhat differently and then fit harpagmos in. Vollenweider 1999b, the “idiom” (harpagma + vb. of consideration + double acc.) is attested only in the 4th cent., it doesn’t fit an elevated style. Lack of a scriptural background and the presence of a Gk. idiom suggest a phrase known to the Philippians, one they would not have “tied themselves in knots over” as interpreters have done (Bockmuehl 130; 131, a “Philippian tendency to use status and privilege to one’s own advantage,” the opposite of Christ in 6bc). Cf. Vollenweider: usurpation of equality with God by kings, rulers, and tyrants.

2:7a. but himself he emptied. alla (1:18d, 20; 2:4; cf. Grelot 1973; “on the contrary,” Thekkekara) introduces a contrast to v 6: Christ emptied or divested self. heauton (obj.; see NOTES 2:3b … yourselves; 2:4a not your own interests) + kenoō (aor. act. indic. 3rd sg.) are unparalleled in Gk. LSJ lists for kenoō “empty, leave a place, empty out, expend”; pass., “waste away”; Phil 2:7, “make empty.” Adj. kenos “empty” (12x in Pauline corpus; Phil 2:16 bis, “run in vain”). Vb., “make empty, divest, destroy,” rare in the OT (only Jer 14:2 and 15:9), 5x in the NT, all in Paul, a metaphor, usually in a bad sense (1 Cor 1:17; Rom 4:14; 1 Cor 9:15; 2 Cor 9:3); cf. kenodoxia 2:3, “vainglory.” Antonym of pleroō (“make full,” 1:11; 2:2). Word studies: A. Oepke, TDNT 3:659–62, rules out “negated himself” on the basis of context; E. Tiedtke/H. G. Link, NIDNTT 1:546–48, Hellenistic background; M. Lattke, EDNT 2:281–82; TLNT 2: 303–10 defends the Vg exinanivit (“He annihilated himself,” is “reduced to nothing”), even though the preexistent Lord’s “personal identity is immutable.” The term has a more imposing subsequent history (NIDNTT 1:548–49; PGL 743, kenoō II, III, rarely + heauton). Heriban 280–90 notes auto-kenosis and a metaphorical sense, either absolute (nullify; Silva 119–20) or relative (“stripped himself,” Beare; “beggared himself,” from 2 Cor 8:9). K. Petersen, “fixed … associations”; Ruth 1:21 “full (plērēs) … empty (kenēn).… The Lord humiliated (etapeinōse) me”; Luke 1:53, “The Lord has sent the rich away empty (kenous)”; 2 Cor 8:9, though rich, Christ became poor; Phil 2:7 ekenōsen, etapeinōsen; cf. Schenk 205. Fee 210, “poured himself out,” assuming preexistence; cf. Habermann 127–31.

Jeremias (1963:183–84 = Abba 309–10) claimed as background Isa 53:12, the servant “poured out himself to death” (NRSV; cf. TDNT 5:711 n 445; Hofius 1976). Then 2:7a refers to crucifixion, not incarnation. The LXX is, however, “his life was given over to death”; that pais (Isa 53) = doulos (2:7b) has met with resistance. Isa 53, precious to many (Fee 212), has been widely rejected as background (Hunzinger 146; R. P. Martin 1967:165–77, 182–90, xxiii–xxv; C. Brown, NIDNTT 1:548; EDNT 2:282 (M. Lattke); O’B 190, 194, 220, “insufficient to establish with certainty,” 268–71; Gnilka 118; Habermann 129–30). For Bockmuehl, Isa 53:12 is “subliminal.” Hooker does not even mention Isa in connection with 2:8 (NIB 11:508; cf. 503 and Hooker 1959). 2:7 is a general metaphor, in contrast to “enriching” or “making full” oneself.

2:7b. taking on the sphere of a slave. morphē, see NOTE on 6a in the sphere of God; the two uses of morphē interpret each other. doulou, gen. sg., see NOTE on 1:1 slave. Aor. ptc., lambanō, BDAG 1; “taking the form of” ([N]RSV, “assuming” NEB, REB). 7cd are often taken with 7a, defining “he emptied himself”; circumst. ptcs., “by taking the nature of a servant” (TC; Fee 211 “modal”), “being born like other human beings” (O’B 203) and “being found in appearance as a human being”; even aor. ptcs. of simultaneous action (Robuck 113). Then all the v deals with the incarnation. GGBB 630: labōn amplifies “emptied himself,” which should be by “subtraction, not addition,” but here = “emptied his glory by veiling it in humanity.” Many who see a “story” opt for stages (Käsemann 70, “the sequence of occurrences in an event unified in and of itself”). An aor. ptc. can denote action prior to the main vb. (BDF #339); hence, “having taken on a servant’s form, he emptied self (or poured out his life in death).” Hunzinger 156, two phases: (1) in 6–7b, from morphē theou to morphē doulou, abandoning divinity; (2) 7c–8, from human likeness to death, abandoning human existence. Cf. Fowl 54–69: Christ’s exalted position (6a), but a position not taken advantage of (6bc); change of position (7ab); situated in the human realm (7cd); ultimate humiliation (8); a reversal of fortunes (9–11). Others see the ptcs. as simultaneous or identical action (BDF #339.1; Hawth. 86): emptying self was precisely Christ’s taking on a servant’s form, aor. for a particular moment, the incarnation. ATR 1114 invoked the “timelessness” of ptcs.; to find subsequent action in 2:7 is gratuitous. No widely agreed construal of the ptcs. in a story line. The TRANSLATION does not press antecedent action or manner.

slave. Why doulou in 7b before Christ becoming “human” 7cd? Suggestions vary (Martin 1967:169–96). (1) Kenotic Christology: Christ “emptied himself” of “the form of God” (6a) in taking on “the form of a doulos.” Michaelis 37: then Paul should have written, “Having emptied (kenōsas) himself, he took (elaben) the form of a slave.” (2) “Servant of the Lord” (Isa 52:13–53:12, Seeley 1994:51–52, noting douleuonta in Isa 53:11 LXX or 49:7) and (3) the “righteous sufferer” (E. Schweizer) depend on OT backgrounds (see EXC. B, II.D.6, 7). (4) To make prominent a contemporary societal term (cf. Moule 1970:268; Bruce 1983:53; Feinberg; Hellerman 136–42; EXC. B, II.D.13), on social status, “deprivation of rights.” D. B. Martin 1990 ([1] Bibl. slaves) 130–32, Greco-Roman slavery was “multifaceted,” self-abasement and upward mobility. (5) Slavery to fate and cosmic powers (Käsemann 1950:67, 72; EXC. B, II.C). Christ entered the realm where the cosmic, demonic forces rule (cf. Gal 4:1–9, 24–25; 5:1; Rom 8:12–23); 10c, heavenly and subterranean creatures, doulos/kyrios contrast; “enslavement to the evil spiritual forces” said to “rule over the destinies of people in the Greco-Roman world” (O’B 219). Cf. Gnilka 119–20; Walter 60; EDNT 1:352. (6) Hurtado 1984, “slave to God” reads in tō[i] theō[i]. Awkward with a preexistent Christ “like God.” The “Lordly Example” Hurtado wants for ethical purposes stresses obedience (8b; not present in doulos, A. Weiser, EDNT 1:352).

Actual slavery, lowest social status (4), and bondage to the ruling powers of the world (5) were concepts that the Philippians knew well, and are the likely backgrounds.

2:7c. born in humanity’s likeness. Obj. phrase, then ptc. (as in 7a and b); en homoiōmati anthrōpōn (“males” would be ho anēr; cf. O’B 214 n 1), followed by genomenos, aor. ptc., ginomai (infin. at 1:13). BAGD II.4 = eimi, “be like men” (cf. BDAG 5.c). [N]RSV, “being born.…” (BAGD I.1.a; BDAG 1; LSJ gignomai I.1; cf. Gal 4:4; Rom 1:3; 1 Cor 15:37); so Joüon 300; Beare 83, Schenk 202, denied by Habermann 134; U. B. Müller 102 n 177. born, no date or place indicated. Gen. “of men,” better “human beings” (NJB); “in human likeness” (NRSV, NIV, NEB, inclusive language paraphrase) loses the pl. anthrōpōn. Sg. anthropou (P46 some church fathers) is due to Christ-Adam typology or sg. doulou and 7d anthrōpos (TCGNT 613); scribal error common in P46, Silva 126. Pl. suggests “the whole human race” (Fee 213 n 94).

likeness. homoiōma (-ma for the result of an action). Word field: J. Schneider, TDNT 5:186–99; E. Beyreuther, NIDNTT 2:496–508; T. Holtz, EDNT 2:512–13. Likeness, not exact identity. isos, equality in size or value, the external; homoios, likeness in a qualitative sense (TDNT 3:343; NIDNTT 2:496–97), but they can be interchangeable (TDNT 5:186–87). BAGD homoiōma (6x in NT) (1) likeness (BDAG, state of having common experiences; Rom 6:5a, cf. 6:4 and 5b); (2) image, copy (BDAG 2.a, state of being similar in appearance; Rom 1:23); (3) form, appearance (BDAG 2.b); less clear, (4) (BDAG 3) Phil 2:7 and Rom 8:3, God sent “his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh” (NRSV). To nuance Christ’s identity with humanity (less than a full incarnation)? To avoid connecting Jesus with sin(ful flesh), Heb 4:15? BAGD paraphrased J. Weiss (Earliest Christianity [tr. 1937, repr. New York: Harper, 1959] 2:488–91): either “capable of sinning as human bodies are, or … only the form of a man … looked upon as a human being” but “in reality … a Divine Being.” “Paul grazes … ‘Docetism’ ”; “the inner being of the personality of Christ remains untouched by actual earthly humanity and sinfulness” (Weiss 490); BDAG likewise, adding to 1 En. 31.12, as an example, Aesop, Fab. 140H, Hermes homoiōtheis anthrōpō[i].

In classical Gr., homoiōma “seldom” occurred (TDNT 5:191); “common” in papyri (5:187 n 4; MM 449 offers little). POxy 1.124.2, “from the same social rank.” At times synonymous with eikōn (TDNT 2:388; Phdr. 250B); “homoiōma emphasizes the similarity,” but no “inner connection between the original and the copy” (TDNT 5:191). In the LXX, for dĕmût and other Heb. terms, often with morphē, eikōn, eidos, idea, and schēma (Deut 4:12, 15–18, 23, 25; Isa 40:18–20; on Isa 53:3 LXX see Seeley 1994:53; Ezek 1:5, 16, 22; 8:2, 3; more in Loh. 94 n 2); sometimes “copy” or “image” (Ps 106:20), sometimes “form” (Deut 4:12, the “form” of God not seen at Sinai was no “copy”) (5:191). Vanni suggested “perceptible expression” for LXX use. From such data arose various conclusions. Rom 8:3, came “as sinner” (Branick 1985:261–62, with Vanni); J. Fitzmyer (AB 33:485), “proneness of humanity … to sin.” But 2:6–11 is not about sin or “the Son” who is “sent.”

Those assuming a human figure (not preexistent) invoke Wis 2:23–24 (Murphy-O’Connor 1976:43–44). Christ “looked like any other man” (7d) but “was in fact only like them” (7c), “they needed to be reconciled with God … he did not.” This reads reconciliation into 2:6–11; the interpretation of Wis 2:23–24 is dubious (Howard 1978:371–72). homoiōma anthrōpōn can suggest the likeness of the human race both to God and to one another.

Exact sense remains enigmatic (Heriban 295–301). O’B 225 (“full identity with the human race,” but “a secret relationship” with God) sounds like a tertium quid (Nagata 252, “a totally different race”). Fee 213: “full humanity” but “not ‘human’ only.” Bockmuehl 137: “the same conditions of human life as the rest of us” (sinful flesh), not unlike human beings (pace Fee 213). Silva 126, “Whatever distinctions may be posited are subject to contextual adjustments, including semantic neutralization … here.” homoiōma is “a close synonym to … isa in v. 6”; 7d = “Thus, presenting Himself as no more than man” (121, but note the capital “H”).

2:7d. and, in appearance perceived as a human being. Sometimes taken with 7c, sometimes with 8a, depending on theories of hymnic stanzas. The beginning of v 8 in KJV, RSV, etc. (UBSGNT punctuation apparatus; O’B). kai is the first conj. since alla in 7a. In the KJV-[N]RSV tradition the start of a new sentence, “And …” (so O’B 214 n 3). Edart 154–55, kai is logical, not chronological. Michaelis 38 and Gnilka 121, kai connects 7a heauton ekenōsen and 8a etapeinōsen heauton. The TRANSLATION takes kai thus, without committing to stanza divisions.

euretheis. Aor. pass. sg., euriskō, BDAG 2, fig. sense discover intellectually through reflection, observation, examination, or investigation find, discover; pass. be found, appear, prove, be shown (to be) (Rom 7:10; Gal 2:17; 1 Cor 4:2; 15:15; 2 Cor 5:3). 2:7, “when he appeared in human form.” Cf. H. Preisker, TDNT 2:769, sense e. NEB, “revealed in human shape,” but (S. Pedersen, EDNT 2:82–84) no “theology of revelation.” REB “found himself in human circumstances” suggests Jesus’ perception of his lot rather than how others saw him. hōs, “as” (BDAG 3.a.γ) + pred. nom., is almost pleonastic; [N]RSV and other trs. omit. It may nuance Christ’s humanity, like homoiōmati in 7c. anthrōpos = “human being” (BDAG 1.b), not the Son of Man of Dan 7:13 (Loh. 1928:38–42; rightly rejected, O’B 222 n 147, among others); probably not in contrast to God, but possibly a specific person in contrast to the human race in 7c.

in appearance. schēma, esp. since Lft. 127–33, changeable outward shape, contrasted with morphē (6a sphere) inner essential form. Michaelis 38, appearance versus essence. Further study suggested a less sharp contrast and a wider range of meanings for both terms. G. Harder, NIDNTT 1:703–14 treats both under “form”; Braumann 709, avoid such distinctions between outer (shell) and inner (essential character). W. Pöhlmann, EDNT 3:318 lists other contrasts to be avoided (e.g., Loh. 1928, nature and “history”). BDAG schēma 1, the generally recognized state or form in which someth[ing] appears, outward appearance, form, shape. Silva 121, 126: 7d may simply recapitulate 7b and c, the context neutralizing our efforts at semantic distinctions; Hawth. 87–88.

J. Schneider (TDNT 7:954–58): -ma (BDF #109.2) expresses result of the action in the verbal root, here echō (fut. schēsō), “what one has,” Lat. habitus, “appearance, bearing, form, figure,” even “garb.” LXX, only at Isa 3:17 (corrupt in Gk.). The classical sense, also in Philo, “what can be known by observation,” fits at 2:7 with euretheis, “mode of appearance,” seen by anyone, expressing what the person is (Käsemann 1950:69; TDNT 7:956). metaschēmatizō (cf. 3:21, God “will transform the body of our humiliation” at the parousia) is sometimes brought in to suggest transformation at 2:7. But varied NT use (see NOTE on 3:21) and the context in 2:7 (not parousia) exclude that here. Pöhlmann: “the specific appearance unique to one person and unalterably associated with him” (EDNT 3:318, are “unique” and “unalterably” too strong? cf. NIDNTT 1:709, “what anyone could see”). Locative dat. (ATR 523) or dat. of respect (BDF #197; GNTG 3:220, almost an adv.). Schenk 187, with en, like homoiōmati in 7c.

2:8a. he experienced humiliation for himself. etapeinōsen (+ reflexive pron. obj. heauton as in 7a, himself he emptied), see NOTES on 2:3b humiliation (tapeinophrosynē) and 4:12 to be brought low. “He humiliated himself,” “suffered or experienced humiliation on his part” (the social-world sense presented for 2:3) goes against “he humbled himself” in most Eng. Bibles. Loh/Nida 59 put emphasis on the person in 7a, himself he emptied, in 8a on being humiliated. Possibly from rhetoric, for description of a person, habitus of body or mind (Quint. Inst. 5.10.23, 28–29), in epideictic praise (Hermagenes, Prog. 7; Praeexercitamenta by Priscan [ed. Helm] 7; Lausberg #376), part of the evidentia or detail about a person (Quint. Inst. 8.3.63–65; Lausberg #813, cf. #810; schēma in rhetoric, see Index).

Aor. of tapeinoō (BDAG 2.a), cause someone to lose prestige or status, humble, humiliate, abase, “reversal of status.” Within the word field (summarized in the NOTE on 2:3), the vb., “lower, reduce,” included further senses, “lessen, disparage, minimize” (LSJ; “moral” sense, “make lowly, humble,” citing Matt 23:12, along with Phld. Vit. p. 38J). Cf. Xen. An. 6.3.18, God “wills that they … should be brought low (tapeinōsa)” (LCL, An. 4–6, pp. 210–11); Xen. Mem. 3.5.4, “the glory (doxa) of the Athenians is brought low (tapeinōntai)”; Aeschin. 3.235; Plato, Resp. 553C, “humiliated by poverty”; Phdr. 254E; Menander, Frg. 544 (ed. T. Koch); Phld. Rhet. 1.2255; Anon. Oxy. 664.22. The vb. + heauton seems not to occur; post-NT, in patristic authors, only from Phil 2:8 and occasionally a late scholia (PGL 1375; TLG search). Numerous LXX uses, “humble, harass someone; abase oneself”; God humbles someone. On attempts to trace 8a to Isa 53:4, 7, and 8, see Seeley 1994:53. In Paul, 2x besides Phil 4:12 and 2:7: “degrading self” by working with his hands (2 Cor 11:7) and fear that “God may humiliate me before you” (2 Cor 12:21) reflect the generally negative sense in Gk. Philippians were familiar with humiliation by superiors in their social, political, and economic worlds, and knew about Jesus who experienced humiliating abasement to the point of death. Perhaps the climactic action word in their account about Christ, analogous to “he sacrificed himself” in 7a (Loh. 95), 7a connected by and in 7d. Like himself he emptied, 8a is under the alla of 7a, contrasting with 6.

2:8b. becoming obedient to the point of death. Ptc. genomenos, in 7c born, here “become” (KJV-[N]RSV). Can show manner or means, “by submitting” (TC, NLT). Aor. need not imply action prior to etapeinōsen heauton, nor one momentary action; “simultaneous … with the main verb … and … also explanatory” (Loh/Nida 60).

hypēkoos, pred. adj., “obedient,” only here, 2 Cor 2:9, and Acts 7:39, but hypakouō words are common; see NOTE on 2:12 you have always obeyed; G. Kittel, TDNT 1:224–25; W. Mundle, NIDNTT 2:179; TLNT 1:446–52, background in the political arena. Perhaps Paul “introduced hypakoē [Rom 1:5, etc.] into the Greek language and gave it its meaning of strict obedience” (450); “primitive catechesis” likely taught believers “the meaning, and the fullness of Christian obedience” (452; bibl. in n 72; Rom 6:16–17; 10:16; 15:18; 16:19; 2 Cor 10:5–6; Phlm 21). Obedience in Greco-Roman ethics is minimized by Bockmuehl 150, but Philippians knew it in military and civic worlds (Geoffrion 38–42; 139–40; 184–87) and from Paul’s kerygma (Rom 5:19), catechesis, and example. Christ’s obedience to the will of God is implied (from vv 6 and 9; cf. Gal 1:4; Plummer 47; Loh. 95; Caird 122; CEV), but not stated (Heb 10:7–8 = Ps 40:6–8 LXX should not be read in). K. Barth 65, not to whom but that Christ obeyed (Martin 1967: 216–17). Beare 86, “submission to the power of the Elemental Spirits” (v 10c); Käsemann 1950:74, death subjects “men to the servitude of the powers” (Heb 2:14–15), but Jesus overcame anagkē (Fate). Bockmuehl 138–39 tacitly corrects notions of “obedience to demons or to death.” To say “Christ was obedient to the wishes of people as well” as of God (Hawth. 89) is eisegesis (O’B 229; what people?)

to the point of death. mechri (achri in D* F G), prep. + gen., for the degree of Christ’s obedience (BDAG 3, to the point of; cf. also 2:30). KJV “unto death” is well avoided in NRSV; Christ did not obey Death. For thanatos see NOTE on 1:20 whether by life or by death. Here, lit. sense (BDAG 1.b.β), often a penalty inflicted by secular courts; used of Christ at 3:10; 1 Cor 11:26; Rom 5:10; 6:3–5. Jesus’ death became the content of Christian proclamation, significant through baptism and Lord’s Supper. On linking it to Isa 53:7, 8 and 12 LXX, see Seeley 1994:54.

2:8c. yes, death on a cross. death is repeated (BDAG thanatos 1.d), linked to 8b by de (BDF #447.8, explanation or intensification, “and … at that”; BAGD de 2, “transitional,” BDAG 2 linking narrative segments, now, then, and, so, that is). KJV-NRSV, “even,” suggests heightening, indeed shock (NIV adds an exclamation point!). cross = means of execution (BDAG stauros 1). An emphasis of Paul (3:18); cf. 1 Cor 1:18, cf. 17; Christ crucified (1 Cor 1:23; 2:2, 8; cf. Gal 3:1, 5:11, 6:12 and 14; 1 Cor 1:13, Gal 5:24). D. K. Williams 2002:26–40, Paul used it “in conflictual/polemical situations” for “rhetorical aims” (145); “his unique contribution to the traditional articulation of the death of Jesus Christ” (235–36). Paul could tell the Christ-story without using the word “cross,” as in Rom (overly offensive term in the capital city? but cf. AB 33:348–49 on 3:24–25), perhaps in Philippi (cf. Martin 1967:221–22; Fee 217). Word studies: J. Schneider, TDNT 7:572–84; E. Brandenburger/C. Brown) NIDNTT 1:391–405; H.-W. Kuhn, EDNT 3:267–71. On theologia crucis (from Luther, contrast “theology of glory,” D. K. Williams 2002:10–19), cf. A. E. McGrath, DPL 192–97; Dunn, TPTA #9; J. Becker 1993 ([1] Bibl. Paul) 187–239, 399–411; A. M. Madsen, The Theology of the Cross in Historical Perspective (Eugene, OR; Wipf and Stock, Pickwick Publications, 2006); C. B. Cousar, A Theology of the Cross: The Death of Jesus in the Pauline Letters (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990). In M. Hengel, Crucifixion: In the Ancient World and the Folly of the Message of the Cross (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977), crucifixion = “slave’s punishment”; “parallels” involving Prometheus and Dionysus show its “harsh reality” in the world of the day. Hellerman 143–48, the nadir in a cursus of degradations. The gen. may indicate means or place; D. B. Wallace, gen. of “production,” death “produced by … a cross” (GGBB 105).

2:8c links with 8b (O’B 229), 8a, or both, as “the extremity” of humiliation and obedience. The cross is consequence for a life of a certain sort, the purpose of Jesus’ existence (Hofius 1976:60–64). Not a word about the meaning for humans (atonement, reconciliation), or descent at death to the netherworld (Loh. 96 and n 1).

2:9a. Therefore God has indeed exalted him most highly. A “new start … with dio and … change of grammatical subject … ho theos” (Holmstrand 103; God last mentioned 2:6 bis; see NOTE on 1:2). Two vbs., in 9a and 9b, tell what God does for Christ. dia + acc. ho rel. pron., neut. (“on account of which”; “therefore,” BDF #451.5; EDNT 1:336) may show “self-evident” inference (BDAG dio, Rom 4:22 MSS; 15:22; 2 Cor 1:20; 5:9), have ascensive force, or introduce result (BDF #442.12, “even”; Luke 1:35; 11:49). Silva 131–32 cautions against trying for too precise a meaning. “Because of this” (NAB[RNT], cf. Gdsp., GNB) raises the question “because of what?” Christ’s prior divine status? his obedience? death (Hofius 1976:3–17, 63–67)? “total self-humbling” throughout all his life (O’B 233–34)? as reward for humility (Martin 1976:100)? “merit” on Christ’s part (Heriban 323–24; cf. K. Barth 66–67; Martin 1967:231–35; Feinberg 42)? humiliation/exaltation (Gnilka 125; per aspera ad astra, Hawth. 90, critique in Silva 127–28; O’B 235)? “Then” (CEV) implies too little. “Therefore” [N]RSV improves on KJV “wherefore.” For connection with Isa 53:12 LXX, 52:13MT, see Seeley 1994:55. Edart, a (redactional) correctio (cf. 2 Cor 1:20, 4:13). Hellerman 209 n 68, “wholly unexpected,” not (contra Oakes 2001:151–60) a natural expectation. “also” for kai (KJV, NRSV “God also”—someone else too? did God do something previously in the passage?) was dropped by RSV, NIV, etc. ZBG #462 calls it “stereotyped.” Others (Silva 132; Fee 220 n 10) say it enhances dio; indeed (so TRANSLATION). Dir. obj. “him” (auton) in Gk. before the vb., directly after, in juxtaposition with, ho theos.

hyperhypsoō, only here in the NT. hypsoō, “lift, raise up” (20x, in Paul only at 2 Cor 11:7). Word field: G. Bertram, TDNT 8:602–20, esp. 608–9; D. Müller, NIDNTT 2:200–205; G. Lüdemann, EDNT 3:399, 410. Limited Gk. usage (but cf. Plut. Mor. 103F = Letter to Apollonius 103; on elevation of heroes, cf. Bertram, RAC 6:22–43). In the LXX hypsoō occurs 150x for several Heb. vbs.; hyperhypsoō, some 50x, usually no Heb. equivalent, for, e.g., exalting God. Bertram and D. Müller treat Babylonian and Egyptian myth, Hellenistic syncretism, mystery religions, wisdom texts (on the righteous sufferer), and apocalyptic writings. Self-abasement followed with exaltation by God appears in Luke 18:14, etc.; Jas 4:10; 1 Pet 5:6. In John, Jesus was “lifted up” on the cross and so exalted (8:28; 12:32, 34), in light of 3:14 (Num 21:8–9, where LXX does not use hypsoō). Jeremias, TDNT 5:712 n 446, appeals to Isa 52:13. None of these backgrounds or “parallels” need lie behind 2:9a. More pertinent may be sermons at Acts 2:33 and 5:31, God exalted Jesus at his right hand. But Ps 110:1, about God’s right hand, does not use hypsoō. On such exaltation as “resurrection,” cf. W. Thüsing, Erhöhungvorstellung und Parousieerwartung in der ältesten nachösterlichen Christologie (SBS 42; Stuttgart: KBW, 1979) 41–55; TDNT 8:612; Ps 9:13.

What of the hyper-prefix? KJV-NRSV, “highly exalted.” Koine Gk. often added prefixes to weakened vbs. without necessarily any further meaning (BDF #116.1, 4). Most trs. bring out hyper-, often with a superlative (Moule 1970:269 “the highest possible”; Collange 106, with Delling 1969) but avoid a comparative sense, “greater than he was before the incarnation” (Hawth. 91). Elative (Silva 132). Stressed by Cullmann 1959 ([1] Bibl. Christ) 174–81 and others (in Martin 1967:239–40). Cf. Ps 97 (LXX 96):9 (Gnilka 125) as source (Schweizer 1955:66 n 286), “Lord … you have been exalted far above (sphodra hyperhypsōthēs hyper) all the gods,” in a class by yourself. Cf. Synes. Ep. 79.28, hyperhypsōse ton hypsēlon. BDAG hyperhypsoō, “raise … to the loftiest height”; NEB/REB “to the heights”; “the highest place (above)” (Hawth. 75; NIV, GNB, CEB). Cullmann: “more than exalted” him (1959:180, 217, 235). Martin 1967:239–40: “hyper-exalted.” Cf. Hofius 27; O’B 236; Fee 221; U. B. Müller 106–7. The TRANSLATION uses exalted him most highly.

2:9bc. and freely given him the name that is above every name. Word order (kai before theos, not the vb.) and idiom (dio kai) discourage “both exalted and gave.” kai in 9b can be epexegetical (Silva 128–29), in effect “by granting him.” The vbs. are “coincident” aors. (O’B 237 n 26; Lenski 793 spoke of “one act”). echarisato, aor. m., charizomai, BDAG 1, give freely as a favor, give graciously; see NOTE on 1:29 it has been granted by God. RSV, NEB/REB, “bestow.” D. M. Stanley 1961:98–99, “act of grace on the Father’s part, a bold expression, unique in the NT.” A benefaction? Howard 1978; Caird 123, “conferred,” God exalts the man Jesus.

onoma. No art. in D F G, Majority Text, etc. (KJV “a name”), but to in P46 א A B C and most interpreters. BDAG onoma, here not a title (3) but (1) proper name, d. in connection with God and Jesus, δ., the Name, but cf. BAGD I.4.c.β (= BDAG 1.d.γ.ב), in the sense of “title.” In biblical theology, “name” is an important concept, name of God, “in the name of” Jesus, or to express what a person is. Cf. H. Bietenhard, TDNT 5:242–83 (contrast van der Woude, THAT 2:935–62 on the OT), H. Bietenhard, NIDNTT 2:648–55; L. Hartman, EDNT 2:519–22; each agrees kyrios is the name given to Jesus (273, 456, 521, respectively). So, finally, Silva 129; Hawth. 93; O’B 238, though others suggest “Jesus” (Ellicott 60; Caird 123, “Savior,” as in Matt 1:21); “Jesus Christ” (Vincent 62); “Jesus Christ, the Lord” (v 11b, Jones 33); “Son” (church fathers); and theos (Martin 1967:235). kyrios carries authority, status, supreme dignity proper to God (Heriban 334). Hellerman 151, honor discourse. Fee 222–23 (cf. Hawth. 61; Robuck 121) sees intertextuality, “Jesus is Lord,” Isa 45:23, and the Philippians’ Roman setting (“lords many” and “lord Caesar”).

that is above every name. Art. to repeated; prep. phrase in second attrib. position; vb. “is,” supplied. hyper (BDAG B, + acc.) “excelling and surpassing, over and above, beyond, more than.…” On the neut. of pas, see BDAG 1.a and 5; NOTES on 1:3, 4, 7, etc., every, all. A phrase of sweeping nature; hence, “every other name” (NAB[RNT]), “all other names” ([N]JB).

2:10a–c. that at the name of Jesus every knee shall bow—of those in the heavens and those on earth, and those in the world below—. hina + two subjunct. vbs., kampsē[i] (10b “bow”) and exhomologēsētai (11a, “confess”). Parallelism from Isa 45:23 LXX, where God speaks a word (LXX logoi), righteousness (dikaiosynē), that “will not return” unfulfilled: “To me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear” (NRSV; LXX hoti emoi kampsei pan gonu kai exhomologēsetai pasa glōssa tō[i] theō[i], to God; some LXX MSS with MT, “every tongue will swear (an oath to) God,” omeitai … ton theon, fut. of omnymi, not a vb. used in Paul). LXX goes on, differently from MT and [N]RSV, “saying, Righteousness and glory will come to him, and all who separate themselves [cf. Gal 2:12] will be put to shame; from the Lord they shall be justified and in God they will be glorified, all the seed of the children of Israel.” Cf. Martin 1967:255–57; Heriban 338–51; Hofius 1976:41–55. Isa uses hoti, “that” (not hina); the fut. indic. (“will bow, will confess/swear”); and “To me … to God,” but Phil 2:10a “in the name of Jesus” and 11 “that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.”

Classical Gk. hina expressed purpose, aim, or goal in order that, or simply that (BDAG 1; BDF #369; Moule, IB 138; Bockmuehl 146; KJV, RSV), but often result (BDAG 3, so that; BDF #391.5; Moule, IB 142–43; DA 325, cf. 356; Gal 5:17; Rom 3:19, etc.). Hence GNB “And so”; Fee 223: result. Purpose and result blur in NT usage (GGBB 473–74). Is it fut. fulfillment (at the parousia) or an outcome already now realized, at least in part (Martin 1967:266–70; O’B 239)?

kampsē[i]. Aor. subjunct., kamptō, classical Gk. “bend the knee to.” Semitic background, (self-)subjection—“bend” (the knee), “bow” (the neck) (as in prayer) before Baal (Rom 11:4 = 1 Kings 19:18) or Israel’s God (Rom 14:11 = Isa 45:23). H. Schlier TDNT 3:594–95 reports “fairly common” LXX use, “always in connection with prayer,” but “no occurrence of kamptein gonu” in Gk. sources as prayer to “official gods” (but cf. TDNT 1:739). For the papyri, MM 320 cite only POxy 10.1287.4, 16. The phrase here is from the LXX.

knee. gonu (12x in the NT, esp. the Synoptic Gospels, “bend the knee in respect,” cf. gonupeteō; in Paul, 3x, above, under kamptō, + Eph 3:14). H. Schlier (TDNT 1:738–40) and J. M. Nützel (EDNT 1:257–58) trace oriental origins, reverencing a person or deity; LXX and rabbinic usages (Schlier 739). Greco-Roman world, “bow the knee” before various gods; Plut. C. Gracch. 16.5 (I, 482c); Eur. Tro. 1306–8; Aristoph. Av. 501; Soph. frg. 672; Plato Leg. 10.887C; Ael. Arist. 50, 39. In Luke-Acts, a posture for prayer (Luke 22:41 [AB 28A:1441–42]; Acts 7:60 [AB 31:394]; 9:40; 20:36; 21:5). pan at 2:10b (“every”) makes the reference universal.

at the name of Jesus. en + dat. of onoma (see 9bc) + gen. Iēsou (א* 81 etc., “Jesus Christ,” Gnilka 127 n 111). Cf. en Christō[i], DA 319. Moule, IB 78, en shows “accompaniment, attendant circumstances,” i.e., “when the name of Jesus is spoken” (temporal, 76). But his Corrections (2nd ed., 205; cf. liturgical piety, “utterance of the Name” [Jesus] is the signal for genuflecting [Beare 86]) call Iēsou “possessive”; “to the name (as subject of worship),” in light of LXX evidence (Lft. 114–15; Pss 62:5 [Heb. 63:4] 43:9 [Heb. 44:8], etc.). Critique in O’B 237, 240. Moule 1970 went back to his original “instinctive judgment” (IB 78), contrary to the weight of scholarly opinion: “the human name, ‘Jesus,’ is acclaimed as the highest name” (270). “Christ” in 11b is an “extension” of Iēsous, acclaimed as Lord, an “elevation … such that it is no longer customary to call another human child by this formerly common name” (but note Hispanic practice). See further Moule 1977 ([1] Bibl. Christ) 41–46.

en tō[i] onomati Iēsou lacks parallels in secular Gk. Could reflect a Christian formula in exorcisms (Mark 9:38; Acts 3:6; etc.); baptism (Acts 10:48); or prayer (John 15:16; cf. 14:13, etc.). O’B 239–40, the “efficient cause” for submission of all creatures. Or “before the Name of Jesus” (connected directly with “every knee shall bow,” Knox, Moffatt, EÜ). Howard 1978:386 has a speculative course of development for to onoma Iēsou. BDAG onoma 1.d.γ.ג, “at the mention of, when the name of Jesus is mentioned”; ZBG #116; ZG 596. Not “the name, Jesus,” but “the name of Jesus”; as at 9bc, onoma as a title, “Lord,” asserted in 11b (Lft. 114; Michael 96; Martin 1967:249–50; Heriban 335–36; O’B 240; Edart 163). Worship settings make Jesus an object of praise (Lft., cited under Moule, IB, above; Martin 1967:50–52; Bockmuehl 145) or the medium for worshiping God “through Christ” (Thüsing 1965:56; Hawth. 93; Silva 132–33). Such interpretations were brushed aside by Loh. for enthronement where Jesus becomes “Lord of the world” (1928:60; Phil. 97); the universe beholds Christ’s triumph. Hence Käsemann struck the note that it is precisely Jesus who is identified as kyrios (82–83; Martin 1967:254–55).

of those in the heavens and those on earth and those in the world below. Three gen. pls., no art., connected by “and,” epouraniōn kai epigeiōn kai katachthoniōn, inserted into Isa 45:23. Each is a compound adj. used as a noun, ep(i) “at” + ouranios, -on, “heavenly,” from ouranos, 3:20; + geios, -on, “earthly,” from gē; kata “under” + chthonioson, from hē chthōn, “earth,” hence “subterranean,” the three spheres of ancient cosmology (J. Guhrt, NIDNTT 1:522–23; cf. Exod 20:4; Rev. 5:3; Ign. Tr. 9.1; E. Peterson 1926:159–60; Martin 1967:257–65). Each may be neut. (“things in heaven, in earth, under the earth,” KJV, RV; Lft. 115; Carr 1981:86–89; but neut. pls. sometimes refer to persons, BDF #138.1, 263.4; Gal 3:22; Rom 11:32; 1 Cor 1:27–28) or masc.-fem. (“beings in the heavens, on earth, and in the underworld,” [N]JB, GNB; O’B 244; CEV). Possibly creatures of the spirit-world, angels, demons, etc. (Rom 8:38–39). To avoid “things/beings,” many use “in heaven and on earth and under the earth” ([N]RSV, NIV).

Most common of the three in the NT is epouranios (18x, 11x in the Pauline corpus, esp. 1 Cor and Eph). Pl. hoi epouranioi, of the gods (Theocr. 25.5; Lucian, Dial. Deor. 4.3; Moschus 2.21). Hence BDAG 2.b.β, “heavenly beings”; H. Traub, TDNT 5:541–42; H. Bietenhard, NIDNTT 2:196; O. Michel, EDNT 2:46. epigeios (7x in the NT, 5x in the Pauline corpus) = earthly bodies (1 Cor 15:40), “earthly dwelling” (2 Cor 5:1), “earthly things” (Phil 3:19). At 2:10, “not confined to human beings” (BDAG 1.b.β; TDNT 1:680–81, H. Sasse; EDNT 2:24, O. Michel). katachthonios (only here in the NT) in Gk. from Homer on, for chthonic deities (Lat. di manes); Zeus katachthonios (Il. 9.457); Sasse, “always theoi or daimones” (TDNT 3:633–34; but see below). Many see cosmic, spirit powers (Dibelius 1909; Käsemann 1950:78–79; Bornkamm 1959a:116–18; Wengst 1972:132–33, 135, 149–50; Cullmann 1949: 59, 62, 1959:227–28; cf. J. Michl, RAC 5:53–200; Schlier 1958; C. D. Morrison). Others stress human beings (Heriban 342–47; Carr 86–89; Hunzinger 151–54; Hofius 1976:18–55, angels in heaven, persons alive on earth, the dead in the underworld, 53; Silva 133 n 68, “[t]he least objectionable classification”).

Paul elsewhere (Hunzinger 152–54; cf. U. B. Müller 108–9) contrasts epouranios and epigeios (1 Cor 15:40; cf. 2 Cor 5:1; Phil 3:19–20); angeloi and anthrōpoi, who in 1 Cor 4:9 make up “the world”; those “living” and “dead” (Rom 14:9). katachthonioi was a designation for the dead in the underworld (Soph. Ant. 75, cf. 65 and 24–25; Ajax 865; Aeschyl. Cho. 855; Lat. manes = spirits of the dead, OCD3 916–17). In funeral inscriptions theois katachthoniois = dis manibus, abbreviated “D.M.” (in Gk. inscriptions theta kappa; IG index 14, p. 756; even in Jewish inscriptions, CIJ I. 287, 464, 524, etc.; Hunzinger 153 nn 45–50). The meaning is then spirits above, humans on earth, and the dead in Hades, appropriate for “the Roman milieu of Philippi” (Schenk). Cf. (Hofius 1976:25) Prophyry (according to Servius on Virgil, Bucol. [= Ecl.] 5.66), Apollo is the Sun among those above, Liber Pater (an Italian deity) on earth, Apollo among the dead below (superos, in terris, inferos); Apuleius, Metam. 11.5.1 and 25.3; T. Sol. 22.1, “spirits of the air, the earth, and beneath the earth” (OTP 1:983). katachthonioi for the dead lay at hand in Roman Philippi. Paul may have spoken about those in the heavens and those on earth. The full phrase came naturally for Christians there to describe the universe (Schenk 193; U. B. Müller 109). The TRANSLATION opts for the masc.-fem., those in; for epouraniōn (pl.), the heavens (several “layers,” 2 Cor 12:2 “the third heaven”); on earth (1 Cor 8:5; 10:26; 15:47); and in the world below, Sheol or Hades.

2:11a–c. and every language confess that the Lord is Jesus Christ, to the glory of God the Father. Isa 45:23, LXX word order reversed (pasa glōssa after the vb.); parallels 10b (subject, vb.). + “every, all,” as in 10b. glōssa = “tongue, language” (BDAG 2; Acts 2:11; Edart 167), “person” (2nd cent. A.D., Praise of Imouthes [= Imhotep]-Asclepius, “Every Greek glōssa will tell your story, and every Greek man will worship … Imouthes”; PGM 12, 187–88 = tr. ed. Betz 1:160).

2:11a. confess. Aor. subjunct. (parallel with the subjunct. in 10b), exhomologēsētai (P46 א B Fc some cursives; NA27), but fut. indic., exhomologēsetai, in A C D etc. (UBSGNT; [N]JB note, “will acclaim”; Lft. 115). For indic. after hina, see BDF #369.2; Moule, IB 138–39; 1 Cor 9:15, 18; 13:3; Gal 2:4. Kennedy, from Isa 45:23 (after hoti); Fee 218 n 2, Paul’s “original subjunctive” was changed to make v 11 “a final sentence of its own”; similarly O’B 203; Edart 133 n 10.

The three gens. in 10c, of those in the heavens and those on earth and those in the world below, go also with glōssa. Hardly bowing now (v 10, aor. subjunct.) but confessing (v 11, fut. indic.) only at the parousia. Most read both vbs. as subjunct.: present acknowledgment in action and words (Käsemann), or future acknowledgment by knees and voices later (O’B 242–43, 250).

exhomologeō, from homologeō (2x in Rom; homologia at 2 Cor 9:13), 3x in OT quotes—here; Rom 14:11 = Isa 45:23; and Rom 15:9 = Ps 18:49 = 2 Sam 22:50. homologeō in the LXX = “praise,” “thank” God (Heb. yadah), in many instances to confess sins. exhomologeō, even more common in the LXX, in the NT (BDAG 2) means confess sins (Matt 3:6; Acts 19:18); (3) acknowledge, Phil 2:11 (Isa 45:23); and (4) “confess” or praise God, Rom 14:11 (Isa 45:23); Rom 15:9. For those unconvinced or unwilling to believe in Jesus’ lordship, “acknowledge” fits (Gdsp., TC; papyrus evidence, MM 224, legal contexts). O. Michel, TDNT 5:215, treats 2:11 under confession of sins, but adds 2:11 has “the sense of God’s praise.” Hofius (EDNT 2:9), D. Fürst (NIDNTT 1:347) favor “confess” (KJV-[N]RSV; Fee 225). O’B 246–50 notes “make a (personal) confession” (Lft. 115; Hofius) but opts for “openly declare” (250), “acknowledge” (203). “Jesus (Christ) is Lord” (2:11b; 1 Cor 12:3; Rom 10:9) is a “confession,” but does Isa 45:23 present grudging acknowledgment or (Hofius 39) joyful confession (of Yahweh’s sovereignty) by those who “separate themselves” or “were incensed against him” (45:24)? Is exhomologēsētai “open and glad proclamation”? Is Phil 2:11 a summons to do so (cf. Acts 17:30) or divine intention at “the final day”? “Openly declare,” here and now by believers, and at the end by others “against their wills to a power they cannot resist” (250)? Some insert “every intelligent being” for those who will “proclaim openly and gladly” Jesus’ reign, as if a matter of rationality (cf. Hawth. 94, citing Lft.; O’B 249; Martin 1976:101 “consentient tribute”). Bockmuehl 130, author(s) and first hearers did not “get tied up in knots” over such topics.

2:11b. the Lord is Jesus Christ. hoti (= quotation marks, NEB/REB) introduces kyrios Iēsous Christos. Nestle, through the 25th ed., used capital letters, for emphasis (cf. TC), a practice halted by UBSGNT and NA26, 27. The TRANSLATION follows the Gk. order, pred. noun first (definite; sc. “the,” GGBB 270), and supplies estin (KJV and most renderings). On Iēsous, mentioned at 10a, see NOTE on 1:1 Jesus; here, a personal name. Christos, see NOTE on 1:1 Christ; originally a title, by now a name, Jesus’ cognomen. kyrios (BDAG 2.b.γ.ג), see NOTE on 1:2 Lord (acclamation-Kyrios). Identification with Yahweh (Capes 1992 ([1] Bibl. Lord) 123; better, Dunn, TPTA 249–60) is to be avoided. Gods and goddesses of the day (kyrioi) and the Emperor cult (dominus; Dunn 247–48) color the term. On kyrios in a community like Philippi “made up mainly of former pagans,” cf. Zeller 2001 ([1] Bibl. Lord) 316–18. It challenges the Imperial cult (Hellerman 151–52). On development of this confessional formula see COMMENT A.2.

2:11c. to the glory of God the Father. eis + acc. of doxa, + two nouns in the gen., lapidary style, no arts. doxa (BDAG 3, fame, recognition, renown, honor, prestige), see NOTE on 1:11 glory, also at end of a section. theou, obj. gen. (unlike 1:11; Gdsp, “glorify God”). theou patros, see NOTES on 1:2 God (BDAG theos 3.d) and our Father (BDAG patēr 6.e), also anarthrous (BDF #257.3). Since Jesus Christ has been exalted to lordship, “Father” is needed to distinguish the God who grants lordship to Jesus. Philippians knew the phrase from Christian tradition and Greco-Roman usage (Zeus as Hercules’ father whom he must obey, Diod. Sic. 4.11.1; Zeus patēr).

Climactic finality was lost or redirected in the Vg, quia Dominus Iesus Christus in gloria est Dei Patris, “because” (Rheims NT) “our Lord Jesus Christ is in the glory of God the Father” (Martin 1967: 273 n 1; ZBG #108 corrects Vg tendencies to make eis = en). Some (TDNT 3:1089; Hofius 1976:9, 54, with Jeremias; Schenk 191; U. B. Müller 110) connect 11c with 11a, “every tongue proclaim to the glory of God the Father” (NAB) or “to the glory of God the Father everyone will openly agree” (CEV). Others make 11c part of the acclamation, “ ‘the Lord is Jesus Christ, to the glory of God the Father’ ”; then all three groups, the cosmos, acclaim the Father as well as the Lord Christ (E. Peterson 1926:133, 171 n 3; 1941:15–17; Georgi 1964b:275, 291). Usually 11c is set off from 11ab with a comma (so KJV-[N]RSV). 2:6–11 ends with—or Paul has added (Jeremias; Gnilka 130; U. B. Müller 110; Hunzinger 148–49)—a qualifying phrase about God’s glory after asserting Jesus’ lordship. Does it seek to exclude “rivalry in the godhead” (Martin 1967: 275–76)? Or is it “rhetorical proviso” (Dib. 79), a “tail-piece” (Martin 1967:272)? Or climax of the entire narrative (Fee 226; Bockmuehl 148), “revelation of a fatherhood inspiring confidence and love” (Collange 108)? May be a counterpart to Isa 45:23 LXX, “… every tongue shall swear/confess to God.” Not simply “Jesus Christ is Lord” but “to the glory of God …” (Thüsing 1965:59).

For Father, Käsemann 1950:81–82 noted three possibilities: God as father of the world (Loh. 1928:61; cf. 1 Cor 8:6; OT/Jewish usage); added by Paul, who subordinates Christ to the Father at the End (cf. 1 Cor 15:28); third, Christian usage, “father of Christ” (2 Cor 1:3) and of Christians (even without explanatory “our” [“of us,” Phil 1:3], 1 Thess 1:3). Thüsing 1965:46–60 built on Käsemann (1 Cor 3:21–23, 11:3, functional subordination; parallel features in Rom 15:1–13; cf. COMMENT A.5, n 10). That Christ is Lord and rules to the glory of God the Father is typically Pauline. Schenk 191 turned this to support Philippian origins for the v: they learned it from Paul. Hardly a “kenosis of the Father” before Christology, or retreat from the world by God; rather, in conferring Kyrios on Christ,” God “gains the name of Father” (Bornkamm 1959a:118).

COMMENT

A. FORMS, SOURCES, AND TRADITIONS

1. Old Testament. Isa 45:23 LXX (boldface italics) provides structure and content for 2:10–11: every knee shall bow … and every language confess … to the glory of God. Inserted in 10c is a contemporary commonplace, those in the heavens, on earth, and in the world below; in 11b, a Christian creedal slogan (see 2, below). On the LXX or “Old Greek” text of 45:23, see NOTES on 10abc. The Heb. MT is about “Yahweh’s Victory through Israel” (AB 20:80–84); the LXX, more about God’s saving, justifying righteousness, though some are put to shame. Oakes 2001:133–37 sees LXX rewritten in 2:10–11 to present the “triumph of God, in Christ, over the Roman empire.” Paul used Isa 45:23 also at Rom 14:11 to warn that “we will all stand before the judgment seat of God.” At Rom 14:11 the word order is the same as Phil 2:11 (not the LXX) + tō[i] theō[i] from the LXX. The vb. means “confess” sins. If Phil 2:10–11 with its christological sense precedes Rom, 14:11 may be retrogressive or, better, reflect flexibility in using the OT. The Philippians probably heard Paul use Isa. 45:23 in a doxological sense or in Hellenistic-Christian Christology (Koch 1980). Wengst 1972:134–35, used at 2:10–11 to show universal homage.

In 2:9 dio kai some see an OT principle of reversal, “whoever humbles self will be exalted.” Isa 53:12, “Therefore I shall allot him [the Suffering Servant] a portion with the great,” and/or Dan 7:13–14 (the Son of Man, Cerfaux 1959 [(1) Bibl. Christ] 392; Krinetzki, esp. 314–15). But Isa 53:12 LXX reads dia touto; Krinetzki had to posit an independent Gk. rendering. Bruce 72 allows “echoes” of “some OT precedents” (nothing in Hays 1989 [(4) Bibl.]; cf. O’B 235). U. B. Müller 106 sees Synoptic sayings like Matt 23:12, Luke 14:11, 18:14 as more influential.

On broader attempts to find behind 2:6–11 the Son of Man in Dan 7; the Servant in Isa; the righteous sufferer; wisdom; or an Adam-Christ comparison, see, with generally negative conclusions, EXC. B, II.D.4–8. Some speak of a “midrash” here (Nagata 1981:283; Bockmuehl 144–45), but outside of Isa 45:23 at 2:10–11, there is little, perhaps nothing, of direct OT wording. Efforts to equate morphē and doulos in Phil with LXX vocabulary (eikōn at Gen 1:26–27, pais in 2 Isa, respectively) are dubious. Jeremias’ claim for Isa 53:12 behind 2:7a has generally been relegated to a subliminal level or dropped entirely; see NOTE on but himself he emptied. The Adam Christ comparison rests on sensing allusions, not direct OT wordings.

On OT use in Paul’s churches3 Harnack 1928a argued Paul employed it only in argument with Judaizers; or (Ulonska) only when forced to. OT words are woven in at Phil 1:19, 2:15, and 2:10–11. Paul likely instilled some knowledge of the OT among the Philippians (cf. Conzelmann 1969 [INTRO. X Bibl.] 166–70), in oral instruction, not from a written book.4

2. Early Christian Formulas. 2:11b kyrios Iēsous Christos is an older Christian confession, popular and meaningful for Gentiles (1 Cor 12:3; Rom 10:9). Cf. Cullmann 1949; J. D. N. Kelly 1950; Kramer ([1] Bibl. Christ) 127; on acclamations in the Greco-Roman world, Cuss 74–88, esp. 88. Not (Bultmann 1951 [INTRO. X Bibl.] 42–52, 65–72; Bousset 1970 [(1) Bibl. Lord] 119–52) from a “Kyrios-cult originated on Hellenistic soil”; cf. NOTE on 1:2 Lord (1 Cor 16:22, Marana tha, “Our Lord, come!” and DPL 562–63). From the earlier confessions, “Jesus is the Christ” and “Jesus is Lord,” “Christ” developed as “Jesus’ last name,” not a title; kyrios became the decisive affirmation, a fundamental, known to Philippian Christians in, among other places, the salutation of all Paul’s letters (1:2). Pertinent in a world of many kyrioi, including their masters in the pyramid-like system of Roman rule. In 2:10–11, kyrios is affirmed by persons and powers, universally, not just converts (Conzelmann 1969:64; Kümmel 1973 [INTRO. X Bibl.] 157–60). “Jesus is Lord” was connected with the resurrection (Rom 10:9), but for the Philippians more with “apotheosis” to lordship (see on 3:10; Reumann 2002:420–21).

at the name of Jesus is probably not confession or liturgical material (see NOTE on 10a). 11c, “the glory of God the Father,” sometimes taken as pre-Pauline liturgical speech (G. Strecker 1964:69, cf. n 29), is (Hunzinger 149) almost exclusively a Pauline phrase, rare in the LXX (3 Macc 2:9). Phil 1:11; Rom 15:7; 2 Cor 1:20; 4:15; 1 Cor 10:31; Rom 3:7 vary so much that it is difficult to claim a liturgical formula here (Schenk 191).

3. A Hymn? Various analyses of stanzas and strophes were noted in EXC. B, II. A–C, but 2:6–11 fits neither OT/Jewish nor Greco-Roman hymnody (II.E). Not a hymn, it “became a hymn” (Mihoc 123). With the decline of loosely used terms like “hymn,” speculations about antiphonal arrangements and music (e.g., Gamber 1970) exit also, as does liturgical reenactment (A. F. Segal 1998:410–12 and n 21). Claims for epideictic rhetoric or 2:6–11 as an encomion have meet with some positive response (Basevi/Chapa; see 4, below). This fits with authorship by converts in Philippi, an assertion for the Greco-Roman world about Christ and God, used in witnessing to neighbors.

2:6–11 as “story” or “narrative” and its shape (EXC. B, II.B) remain disputed. Perhaps two different Christologies (two “hymns,” Jervell 212–13; Martin 1967:247–48): 2:6–8, a preexistent Heavenly Man, condescension, nothing about ascension; 2:9–11, Jesus exalted to lordship (as in Acts 2:36; 5:31; Rom 1:3–4), subordinate to the Father (cf. 1 Cor 3:21; 11:3; 15:23–28). Few favor two hymns, but we get different glimpses of Jesus. A result of Paul’s converts “putting things together” for themselves? Each fits ideas in the Greco-Roman world: deities appearing on earth; mortals elevated to divinity (apotheosis). We regard 2:6–11 as one composition, but hardly a smooth unity—staccato phrases in two (vv 6–8, 9–11) or three segments (6–7b; 7c–8; 9–11). That 2:6–11 comes from the circle around Euodia and Syntyche—and 3:20–21 from Clement (4:2–3; Schenk, Phil. 322–27, 336–37; ANRW 2.25.4: 3303)—is unverifiable speculation.5

4. Literary Features. Amid numerous proposals for chiastic structure for Phil, 2:6–11 is itself seldom “chiasticized.” Wick 60 sees “chiastic tension” involving “the form of God,” the cross, and “the glory of God the Father.” Chiasm has been claimed in 10–11b by Deichgräber (EXC. B, II.B; so Hofius 1976:5, 108; Schenk 191, and others), differently O’B 248; by Fee 219 n 6 for 2:9–11, omitting 10c. Commentators scent chiasm, but with little agreement. Many literary features can be pointed out (Edart 129–38), some of them discussed in the NOTES. E.g., “every knee, every tongue” = synecdoche, the part for the whole; homoiōmati (7c) and schēmati (7d) = homoeoptoton (Robuck 31, contrast Lausberg ##729–31); 2:5 exhibits asyndeton (no connecting word). Space precludes treating Schenk’s literary observations (185–90).

5. Greco-Roman Factors in the Philippians’ Composition. 2:6–11 sounds Pauline, but not always precisely characteristic of Paul. Hence efforts to mark off “Paul’s additions” to a pre-Pauline piece (Schenk 190–93, five possible phrases: 6c, 8c, 9c, 10c, 11c). Hence a century of discussion over authorship. By Paul or Jewish- or Hellenistic-Christian forebears in the faith? Beare 76–78, “distinctively Christian and Christian against a Hellenistic, non-Jewish background”; not “pre-Pauline” but “composed in Pauline circles, under Pauline influence,” with themes “elaborated independently of Paul”; “best interpreted within the frame of Hellenistic (syncretistic) religious thought.” Hellerman 162, “best interpreted under … Roman cursus ideology.”

Composition by Christians in Philippi was developed by Schenk (173–75, 192–93, 195, 202, 209, 336; ANRW 2.25.4 [1987] 3299–3308) and Reumann 1993 (contrast Walter 59). Perhaps (Deichgräber 132) a psalm such as church members in Corinth with charismatic gifts brought to gatherings (1 Cor 14:26; Schenk 194–95). A tool for missionary outreach, to evangelize in Roman culture by people who lived in it, and so advance the gospel (1:5, 12, 27), reworking what they had learned from Paul in idioms of their own. On OT material in 2:6–11, see A.1, above. The NOTES indicate how words and phrases often have parallels in Paul’s letters (cf. esp. 2 Cor 8:9, perhaps Rom 8:3, and possibly Rom 15:3–6, 7c, and 9a) and also how they differ. In Phil 2:6–11, details fit a Hellenistic syncretistic (so Beare) or more specifically Greco-Roman world; Hellerman 129, 161 emphasizes “the readers’ social context,” honor, rank, status.

For “sources” or analogues that made 2:6–11 effective witness to people in and around Philippi, see EXC. B, II.D.10, Hellenistic world, and II.D.11, Heracles (Hercules), Alexander the Great, and two Roman emperors. A. A. T. Ehrhardt noted parallels between Alexander of Macedon and Christ (II.D.11.a) and conjectured that Stoic texts about Heracles, isa theois (“equal to the gods”) and a model ruler, stood behind both Plutarch’s “On the Fortune or Virtue of Alexander” and Phil 2. Alexander was significant in Philippi, where inscriptional materials indicate Heracles cult. W. L. Knox lifted up Heracles (II.D.11.b) as a model for “ ‘Dying Hero’ Christology” in the NT.13 A “god becoming human” would have been familiar from Eur. Bacch. (Dionysus dishonored and imprisoned; cf. EXC. B, D.10 above); humiliation, in the tasks enjoined on Heracles (OCD3 684–86; Diod. Sic. 4.31–39; Apollod. Bibl. 2.4.12, 2.6.3; Eur. Al., among other references). In Roman times depictions were popular of Heracles leading Alcestis back from the realm of the dead. Cf. Portefaix 110–12, 142–45, 147–49, Christ as slave and as “absolute ruler of the cosmos” would have spoken to people in Philippi.

The Philippians knew stories about gods descending to earth from Olympus, the toils of those born of a god(dess) and a mortal, and apotheosis, the hero elevated to some sort of divinity. What Talbert 1975, 1976 called a “Mediterranean concept of the immortals” and a “katabasis-anabasis” pattern (cf. EXC. B, II.B) was available to apply to (redemptive) figures in Hellenistic Judaism (Moses; Jos. Ant. 4.328–30) and early Christianity (Christ). Absence of any stated soteriological effects in 2:6–11 prompted Talbert to call 2:6–11 “closer to the mythology of the immortals” pattern “than to any other in antiquity,” in particular the myth of Heracles, who went, as son of Zeus, obedient (peithomenos) to clear away wickedness (Epict. 2.16.44); cf. Virgil’s Fourth Eclogue; Hor. Ode 1.2.25–46 (Augustus as an appearance of Mercury); tradition about Romulus, who came from the gods, founded Rome, and became the god Quirinus in heaven (OCD3 1335). Such praise for Roman Emperors became common; cf. Horace, Carm. 2.9 as encomium on Augustus (M. C. J. Putnam in Raaflaub/Toher [INTRO. I. Bibl.] 212–38); later, the Panegyricus by Pliny for Trajan (Showalter [INTRO. I. Bibl.]). For this “pattern,” cf. also the encomion from the 1st cent. B.C. about the physician Hippocrates (HCNT #793; ed. Hercher, Epistolographi, p. 289) “with divine nature,” “from both sides of his family.”

On 2:6–11 as encomion form (Lat. encomium), see Berger 1984a: #99, cf. pp. 367–68; ANRW 2.25.2:1173–95, 1232–39; WDNTECLR 145–47. Malina/Neyrey 19–63 place the form within topics in the progymnasmata or “how to” handbooks in composition. Such “speech of praise” was an “ancient native model” for describing “personhood” (23, cf. 33). The pattern (Berger) includes (divine) origins; deeds or acts, service on earth; and fame, including any titles bestowed. Malina/Neyrey speak of “origin and birth, nurture and training, accomplishments and deeds,” and “comparison” with others (23–33; texts from Quint. Inst. 2.4.1–12 and 3.7.10–18; Theon of Alexandria; Hermogenes; Aphthonius + scholion, pp. 220–24). 2:6–11 is the oldest NT example of encomia (Berger). Preexistence is part of the origins for the “god-like, prophetic messenger” who is sent in such passages. The praxeis (or “acts”) section concentrates on the figure’s death. Such encomia, beginning with “who” (2:6a), unfold “the great name” of the person. HCNT (##794, 795) also offers Corp. Herm. 1.12–15 (convincing esp. to those who think Anthropos speculation relevant) and Ascen. Isa. (Gk.) 2:33–36, the prophet’s somewhat forced return to earth to face martyrdom. Malina/Neyrey 52, 55: Jesus’ “life” exhibits encomium features. “Encomium” is, then, a likely candidate from Paul’s day (not “hymn” or Schattenmann’s “prose hymn”; WDNTECLR 224) to describe 2:6–11.

For people in Philippi the most significant factor in life historically and socially was probably Roman rule and ordering of society. The emperors Caligula (†41) and Nero (ruled 54–68) have been connected with the background of 2:6–11, as figure(s) against whom its affirmation is directed, “the Lord is Jesus Christ,” not Caesar in the emerging Emperor cult (B.11.c, above). Heen 2000:193–96; 2004 suggests that “the local elite” (Hellerman 10, 24–25, 57–58, 80–100) was the target of a “hidden critique” in 2:6–11, decurions depicted in iconography under an effigy of the Emperor, their power elevated by association with the Imperial authority in the structures of the day. Such officials kept religious movements in their place and could bring about persecution. Christians would easily associate them with those on earth who one day will bend the knee to Christ. Such implications were part of universal homage to the new faith’s Lord.

B. MEANING AND INTERPRETATION

1. Complex Levels of Meaning. 2:6–11 is a composition by the Philippians, not “pre-” but “para-Pauline” (Walter 57). Epaphroditus brought it to Ephesus when he came with aid from Philippi. House-church members there had put it together for missionary work. It would strike hearers in Philippi as an encomion about the Christians’ hero-savior Lord. Possibly it came to Paul in written form, but the memorable seventy-three words could have been transmitted orally. The Philippians hoped for applause from their apostle (Schenk). Paul pondered the contents. Perhaps Christians in Ephesus (1:14–18) learned of the piece, used or debated it. Paul made just one addition (8c) as he sent the words back to Philippi in Letter B. But he turned the encomion in a new direction, as criterion about relations with each other in the house churches (2:2–5, 12–13) and with civic authorities (1:27) and neighbors. The piece took on further significance when Paul’s three notes to the Philippians were redacted into a single epistle.

There are levels of meaning. (a) On the earlier slogan “Jesus Christ is Lord” and Isa 45:23, see above, A.1,2. (b) The Philippians’ composition (2, below). (c) Paul’s redaction and use of the piece in Letter B, particularly 2:5 (3, below). (d) Meaning in Phil as a whole. Those convinced 2:6–11 is by Paul can read (2) and (3) as how the first readers in Philippi would have heard it. If the Philippians wrote it, (3) suggests how the Philippians heard afresh.

2. The Philippians’ Encomium about Christ and God (2:6–11). In Philippi, Roman hegemony and Caesar’s dominion stood over all. Yet Paul (in prison) urged converts there to exercise their citizenship (1:27) and be partners in the gospel (1:5) for its spread (1:12, 25), in the face of opponents (1:28). They had to couch their message in language appropriate in the Roman colonia. The Gk. encomion form (Lat. encomium, A.5, above) was appropriate, a subcategory of epideictic rhetoric, praising a people (Dionysus on Rome; D. Balch in Fitzgerald, ed., 1997: 123–44), a person (Caesar, Hippocrates, Moses), ancestors (1 Macc 2:50–64), famous men (Sir 44–50), or a deity (Zeus, Smithian Apollo). Not an exemplum (example to be imitated), but a profession of faith (Basevi/Chapa 343, 346, 348, 356), rhetorical, but not a hymn. Two long sentences about Christ’s self-abasement (vv 6–8) and then glorification by God (9–11) (C. J. Robbins). Three parts (Berger 1984a:345; ANRW 2.25.2:1184–92, chart on 1193; cf. Schenk, A.4, above): origins, acts, and fame.

This encomium arose not because of a “rival gospel in Philippi” (D. F. Watson 1988b:58–59; it antedates the opponents in ch. 3), nor simply for internal usage (cf. Minear 1990:203–5, sung in Philippi), but as a response to what the Philippians had heard from Paul, in their own terms, for outreach in their world. Thus Paul’s gospel (including some OT/Jewish backgrounds, 2:10b, 11a) plus the Philippian environment, “Pauline” and “fitting for Philippi.” This excludes an Aramaic original or ties to the mind of the historical Jesus at the foot-washing, etc. (claims usually set aside quite apart from the proposal of a Philippian provenance). It is the work of Christians who received the Spirit when they believed (Gal 3:2) and were baptized (1 Cor 12:13), who possessed God’s charismata (Phil 1:29). Paul agrees generally, incorporating it in his letter.

2:6–11 can be read in terms of a divine figure entering into human existence, or a human being subsequently exalted. Either construal was possible as a Philippian depiction of Christ. Christians there knew from Paul something of the man Jesus and his death, but also of Jesus Christ as Lord. Either reading was relevant in the world of kyrioi the Philippians faced. Each fits current notions about Caesar—as a mortal man who went around Rome in disguise, even as a slave, but divinized at death; or as already divine, something affirmed at death by fixture in the pantheon. From 6–7b the latter sense seems more likely, though with enough ambiguity for ancient listeners (and modern scholars) to sense a human figure later experiencing anabasis.

a. The Origins of One, Godlike, Who Emptied Himself and Appeared Like a Slave (2:6–7b). The rel. pron. who is paralleled in other NT “hymns” like Col 1:15–20 to introduce the figure being presented. Identity unfolds in a series of glimpses into whence he came and what he’s like; no name is indicated until v 10, no geographical place, ever. Those using this encomium in evangelization could preface it with “We preach (or believe in) Christ who …” or “I declare good news to you about Jesus Christ who …,” or a title like “The Son of God” (Walter 59), or they could leave the hearers in suspense, “I’m talking about a person who.…”

The initial segment is built around two main vbs., what he did not consider (6b) and himself he emptied (7a). Each vb. is flanked by a ptc., hyparchōn 6a (living) and labōn 7b (taking). Each ptc. has as object (in 6a object phrase) the noun morphē (traditionally “form”); there is balance, inclusio, and contrast involving “form of God” and “form of a slave.” These phrases mark movement from the realm of deity to the realm of servitude. The middle line, heart of the unit, to einai isa theō[i] (6c, “to be equal to God”), was an ancient aim and goal.

Verse 6a seems to express state of being, a continuing state at that. The ptc., virtually an equivalent of ōn, “being,” is the only one in 2:6–11 in the pres. tense. But neither philosophical concepts of ontology nor notions about “being from the beginning” are to be read in, though many have seen an ongoing implication, that morphē theou continues, even as this person takes on morphē doulou. This latter step comes only with an “emptying” of self. In contrast to 6a, vbs. and ptcs. that follow point to a series of actions, did not consider, emptied self, and taking on.… In 6a, living in the sphere of God means not static being but continuity with God.

Over morphē (6a, 7b) much ink has been spilled (see NOTE on living in the sphere of God). The two uses in 6a–7b hang together. Not technical, philosophical distinctions, but popular language average people in Philippi might use. Nuanced, not “being divine” or “being God,” but “in the morphē of God.” The NOTE suggests “mode of existence,” sphere, or realm where a person is. The person described is in a nuanced relationship with deity, a point borne out by the other reference to God in 6bc Double references to theos will be paralleled and contrasted in 7cd by two references to anthrōpos, “human being/humanity.”

The figure engages in a negative and then a positive action. He decides against (ouch goes with the vb.) “being equal to God.” morphē (6a) avoids the bald statement, “is God.” isa implies a weaker sense, “like God” or “godlike,” the sort of thing said of benefactors and rulers in the Greco-Roman world (see NOTE on to be like God). The difficult (and rare) word harpagmos (6b) is probably to be taken as equivalent of harpagma, “thing seized,” and the whole phrase (vb. of considering + double obj.) taken together. The person being described, in the sphere of God, decides not to take advantage of his position, either by clutching on to what he has or by reaching out for more. A contrast to someone who did or those who do?

Instead, himself he emptied, by taking on the sphere of a slave. 7ab (note but) begins a contrast with the godlike status this figure had and could have used to his advantage. He emptied himself instead of making himself full(er). Of what? Honors, rank, power? “Godlike status” is what traditional interpretations have shied away from. “Riches” (in order to become poor) is suggested by 2 Cor 8:9. The attempt to make it “emptied himself of life,” by death (Isa 53:12, a [suffering] Servant background) is unlikely; death is mentioned specifically at 8b; therefore premature at 7a.

Verse 7a, ekenōsen has to do with assuming a slave’s morphē. the sphere of a slave is the result of not taking advantage of godlikeness and, instead, experiencing abnegation of self. The outcome is serfdom. Of various interpretations (see NOTE), the most obvious to authors and hearers in Philippi would have been actual slavery, economic, social, political, in the world of the day (“slaves many” as well as “lords many”); “deprivation of rights” (Moule 1970:268). A further aspect of being a doulos was thralldom to fate and the ruling powers of the world (Gal 4:8, 9).

The katabasis of the godlike figure, from advantaged to disadvantaged existence, by choice, was not the typical cursus honorum or career path of the Roman world, but a path to ignominies (Hellerman) and slavery. Malina/Neyrey see in 2:6–7b two components from the encomium form: “Jesus’ genesis (‘in the form of God’) and his manner of life (‘he did not exploit it’)” (55); “comparison” (sygkrisis) is left to the hearers/readers to work out.

Is there an implied contrast here to Adam? Phil makes no clear reference to “the Man” of Gen 1–3. Paul contrasts Adam to Christ at 1 Cor 15:22 and 45 and Rom 5:14; perhaps Rom 1:23; 3:23; 7:7–12 (if “I” = Adam). But Pauline occurrences are scant in comparison with Jewish literature of the times; their relative importance in Paul is contested (B. Schaller, EDNT 1:27–28). Dunn, TPTA #4, uses these references to show “the dark side of humanity” and (##8.6, 9.1, 10.2) an aspect of Paul’s Christology, “perhaps” to be seen in 2:6–11 (p. 203, cf. 281, 284–86). Wright 1983 is more emphatic on Adam here. Vollenweider 1999b sees any reference to Adam (Gen 3:5, “you will be like God”) as problematic, preferring a different contrast (see below). Possibly the Philippians knew something about Adam from Paul. A contrast is attractive between the figure in 2:6–7b (who possesses godlikeness but is willing to let go of it) and Adam (who did not possess it, but reached out after the fruit of the tree of knowledge and then the tree of life), a Christ who did not grasp for divinity in contrast to an Adam who did. But vv 6–7b provide no overt evidence for such overtones. The OT Adam developed in Jewish traditions (Dunn #4.3) would not make sense to an audience in Philippi; one would have to explain about Adam to explain who Christ is.

The contrast preferred by Vollenweider and others is with “kings, rulers, and tyrants” who usurp equality with God. In many passages a (pagan) ruler reaches for the heights but is sent crashing to earth or to the underworld by God, for attempting to be equal with God; cf. Heen’s “Judaic tradition” (NOTE on 6c to be like God). Rulers claimed to be like God (isotheia); e.g., Alexander the Great (cf. EXC. B, II.D.11.a; “the hired hand, mercenary, or robber of all nations,” Curt. Ruf. 7.8.19, writing at the time of Caligula); Rome (“plunderers of the world,” Tac. Agr. 30.4), and Imperial cult.

Roman Emperors are the foil for 2:6–11 (EXC. B, II. 10–12; Georgi 1991:33–78, esp. 72–75, against the princeps in his military colony, for Paul’s “alternative utopia,” the politeia of 3:20; Portefaix; R. Horsley/Silberman; N. A. Beck 61–68, 2:11b is “a subtle anti-Roman cryptogram”). “Phil 2:5–11 is, at least in part, a subversion of Imperial public propaganda.” Bornhäuser 1938, the recipients of Phil were Roman army veterans who had exchanged the Lordship of Nero, the Caesar, Divus and Sōtēr, for Jesus, the Christ, their Lord and Savior (3:20). “Ruler-worship,” repugnant to Republican Rome, became more common under oriental influences, Emperors hailed as “god.”24 Space does not allow detailing here data for each Emperor. Philippians would have been acquainted with Caesar as a godlike figure, by apotheosis at death, during the ruler’s lifetime, and as part of his origins, in the sphere of the divine. 2:6bc reflects deity-figures who ruled over them in the state (Wright 1991:89). 2:6–11 contrasts one who did not seek advantages but abased self to the level of a slave.

Some speak of a “political Paul.” There were also “political Philippians,” Christians included, aware of Caesar’s lordship, the Imperator’s kinship to the gods, and local magistrates in the pyramid of power and Imperial cult. Thus another reflection of “the conflicts of Paul and the Christian community with the Roman municipal authorities” (Bormann 1995:218).

b. The Actions of This Man amid Humanity—Birth, Humiliation, Obedience, Death (2:7c–8b). The figure from the divine sphere who eschewed godlikeness and got slavery is now described by four terse comments. Encomia took up “origins” (forebears, birth) and “accomplishments,” deeds, or “acts” (Gk. praxeis; Berger 1984a:345, cf. 372–73; cf. “Acts of the Apostles”), in the Roman world” res gestae, “deeds done.” 2:7c–8b has nothing about Jesus’ personal achievements like miracles, teachings, or message, nothing about the kingdom of God (1 Thess 2:12), Davidic descent (Rom 1:3), or “Christ crucified” (1 Cor 1:23; 2:2; cf. Dunn, TPTA 210). There was certainly curiosity about hero figures. Paul’s letters include more about Christ than is often supposed, and Paul could well have taught converts what he knew. But in his letters “Paul tells us next to nothing about the life and ministry of Jesus apart from its climactic finale,” mainly “[f]ormulaic or allusive references … to recall a central theme in their shared faith” (TPTA ##8–10, quotations from pp. 186, 184, 212). The terseness in 2:6–8 may reflect Roman Philippi. “The kingdom” was readily misunderstood in Caesar’s realm (cf. Acts 17:6–7), replaced for Paul by God’s righteousness (TPTA 190). A royal messiah was “politically dangerous” (ibid. 184 n 8; the title Christos becomes a name). Reference to the cross (8c) seems an addition by Paul (see 3, below). There is little in vv 7c–8b that one can imitate, except dying.

The picture in these four lines is built around the main vb., he experienced humiliation for himself (8a). Philippians knew humiliation in daily life, “put in their place” by betters in the social structures of the Roman world, its hierarchy of authority, and economic networks. All could identify with a figure who suffered humiliation. Women, particularly oppressed, were attracted to Dionysus, Artemis, Isis cults, or the dignity of citizens in Paul’s gospel (1:27; Portefaix 138–39; cf. Abrahamsen 1995). With the later interpretation, he “humbled himself,” hearers would not identify, the way they could with humiliation. Vv 6–7b brought the godlike figure into slave existence; humiliations inevitably follow. Emphasis on action; he emptied … he experienced humiliation for himself (Loh/Nida 60, “he humiliated himself”) and 8b, death.

The chief vb. is preceded in 7cd by two participial expressions, born in humanity’s likeness and in appearance perceived as a human being. Double use of anthrōpos matches the two references to God in 6ab. 7c provides a reference to birth, as expected in an encomium, but no celestial signs or prodigies in nature, as expected in antiquity (Malina/Neyrey 26). The phrase tells less than Paul says at Gal 4:4 and Rom 1:3—nothing of Jewish background or earthly parents. Nil about physical prowess, endowments from fortune, or “deeds of soul” found in encomia (virtues like courage or wisdom, Malina/Neyrey 28–33). Use of genomenos begins an inclusio, however, for 7c–8b, birth and death.

2:7c situates the figure within the whole human race. Neither Jew nor Gentile is mentioned. Of other classic divisions in Gal 3:28, slave was asserted in 7b, “male” implied (by the gender of who, the ptcs., and himself). 2:7c speaks of the figure as viewed by others. From any angle, a human being, and what slavery implies—humiliation. Many a hearer must have reacted, not “Hallelujah, what a Savior!,” but “He is one with us!”

As in 6ab about deity, there is nuancing. Instead of “born a man” (cf. Gal 4:4 or Rom 1:3), the wording is “in the likeness (homoiōmati) of humans,” similarity, though not exact identity. Some sense Gen 1:26 (NRSV “Let us make humankind … according to our likeness [kath’ homoiōsin]”), but that is God’s likeness, not humanity’s. Others, 2:7c avoids implying Christ was a sinner like the rest of humanity, simply “in the likeness of sinful flesh” (Rom 8:3). Or a touch of Docetism; see NOTE on likeness. Is the wording one Philippians adopted naturally, reflecting stories about demigods born to mortal women or the status claimed for a divine ruler, “born in similarity to human beings,” but really something more?

Verse 7d, in appearance perceived as a human being, nuances what the figure was found or seen to be. Some trs. set aside hōs ([N]RSV; NAB). schēmati is more troublesome, often contrasted with morphē in 6a and 7b, “changeable and outward,” not “inner essence”; then the humanity was impermanent and fleeting, worn as an outward covering. Better, it was what anyone could see by looking, a personage within humanity who, as a slave, experienced humiliation. (One would like to find reflection of Jesus’ passion, but gospel accounts do not use tapeino-vocabulary there.)

Both 7c and d express the situation or condition of the figure, born, perceivable as a human being. The double description is the assumption for the action word describing his life and its outcome, “human, as he was, this slave experienced humiliation in his obedience, to the point of death.” 8b spells out the degree of humiliation: death, not suicide but execution; thanatos upon sentence by the authorities. genomenos in 8b matches 7c, an inclusio from birth as a slave to obedient death. No modifier for thanatos, the normal word for the end of life. Hermogenes (Prog. 7.40 = Malina-Neyrey 223) urged that an encomium tell the manner of a person’s end, e.g., “he died fighting for his fatherland,” or (Achilles) at the hand of a god (Apollo) (Malina/Neyrey 31, 223). Phil 2:8ab is the barest of NT passion references.

obedient at 8b (only occurrence in Phil) is a rare word in Paul (only at 2 Cor 2:9; the vb. is more common, the noun hypakoē a Pauline term). In antiquity, obedience was often praised, along with faithfulness or loyalty (pistis; Malina/Neyrey 166–68; Paul’s terminology on p. 195). The Philippians could have known the theme from Paul’s teaching (cf. Rom 5:19; Rom 1:5; Rom 10:16; 2 Cor 10:6). Here, scarcely “obedience to God” (God is not mentioned in 8b). Philippians, as military veterans, citizens, and inhabitants of a colōnia, would have known the concept (obedientia, officium = duty), a quality on which much rested in contemporary society. Is it because the concept was so obvious that nothing more is said in v 8 about to whom obedience is given? A figure faithfully obedient at his post would appeal to people in Philippi. Especially one faithful unto death. Then what?

Commentators have seen in 2:7c–8 the Suffering Servant (Isa 53) or the “righteous sufferer,” but remarkably little provides a toehold, quite apart from whether people in Philippi would have perceived such overtones. The theme was also found in Plato (Ap. 29A–31C, Crito 54D, Phaedo 115B–118A; Hengel 1981:1–32). We get snapshots in the encomium of a human being undergoing humiliation (but no details), death (how, is not stated), in the course of being obedient (to whom unstated). Nothing about the purpose or results, like “Christ died for us” or “for our sins.” Nothing about his death atoning for anything. The story line is limited to humiliation and dying. One might be reminded of Gaius Caesar putting on costumes to play Heracles or Dionysus (Philo, Leg. All. 79), but the impression in 2:6–8 is far more a very human person coming to a tragic end, not theatrical posturings. Did Philippians think of Heracles, whose final toil for humankind was self-immolation (cf. 1 Cor 13:3; TDNT 3:467)? By “this figure” or “the humiliated one,” we know Jesus is meant. But vv 6–8 have not identified the person by name or place.

The New International Greek Testament Commentary: The Epistle to the Philippians 1. Unity and Courage in the Face of Opposition (1:27–30)

1. UNITY AND COURAGE IN THE FACE OF OPPOSITION (1:27–30)†

27 Now, the important thing is this: as citizens of heaven live in a manner that is worthy of the gospel of Christ. Then, whether I come and see you or am absent, I may hear about you, namely, that you stand firm in one spirit, contending with one accord for the faith of the gospel, 28 in no way letting your opponents intimidate you. This [state of affairs] is a sure sign, with reference to them, of perdition, but of your eternal salvation. All this is from God. 29 For God has graciously granted you the privilege on behalf of Christ, not only to believe in him but also to suffer for his sake, 30 since you are now engaged in the same conflict which you once saw I had and now hear that I am still engaged in it.

1:27 Turning from his own circumstances, Paul exhorts his friends by focussing his attention on one (μόνον) highly significant demand. Whether he visits them again or not he wants them to live as citizens of heaven, behaving in a manner worthy of the gospel of Christ. This will involve them in standing fast or secure with a common purpose in the face of attacks upon the progress of the gospel.

μόνον (the neuter of the adjective used as an adverb, meaning ‘only, alone’) is well paraphrased as ‘just one thing!’3 The word introduces an admonition ‘lifted like a warning finger’, as Barth puts it. Although the sentence beginning with μόνον is without any connecting particle and commences a new subject,5 the links with the preceding are clear: (a) the spontaneous insertion of v. 27b, ‘whether I come and see you, or get news of you …’, is closely conjoined with vv. 25–26, and (b) there are parallels with vv. 12–26. In this connection the theme of the gospel is particularly significant.8 Just as the apostle read his own circumstances in the light of the gospel’s progress, so now he desires that the Philippians’ behaviour be entirely worthy of that same gospel of Christ (εὐαγγελίου τοῦ Χριστοῦ), resulting in their contending together with one accord for the faith of the gospel (πίστει τοῦ εὐαγγελίου).

Paul does not set forth a series of exhortations but only one, and it is crucial. μόνον belongs not simply to ἀξίως, but to the whole of the following imperatival sentence as well; the adverb limits ‘the action or state to the one designated by the verb’ and brings out the emphatic nature of the imperative statement that follows.11 Yet this one exhortation is comprehensive since it covers every aspect of the readers’ lives. Paul adds ‘nothing more for this includes everything’. This summons shows what he earnestly desires for the Philippians, and to that extent indicates the aim (or at least one of the aims) for which Paul wishes to remain alive (v. 24). As noted above, this comprehensive exhortation stands as a rubric to the whole section 1:27–2:18, with the subsequent admonitions and statements expanding and explicating what is involved in living worthily of the gospel.

In the clause ἀξίως τοῦ εὐαγγελίου τοῦ Χριστοῦ πολιτεύεσθε the precise meaning of the verb πολιτεύομαι has occasioned considerable discussion. Deriving from the word πόλις (‘a city, city-state’), the primary meaning of this verb, which is found only in the middle voice in early Christian literature, was ‘to live as a citizen, discharge one’s obligations as a citizen’. (1) R. R. Brewer, after a discussion of the lexical history of the word, argued that πολιτεύομαι was used ‘when conduct relative to some law of life—political, moral, social or religious—is signified’. Consequently, the political overtones must be regarded as paramount in a highly Romanized Christian congregation in the colonia of Philippi, and thus he paraphrased the clause: ‘Continue to discharge your obligations as citizens and residents of Philippi faithfully and as a Christian should’.

(2) Most commentators have rightly observed that πολιτεύομαι is not Paul’s customary word to describe Christian conduct or behaviour. This he usually expressed by περιπατέω (‘live, conduct oneself, walk’; cf. Rom. 13:13; Eph. 4:1; Col. 1:10; 1 Thes. 2:12; 4:12). Some have therefore concluded that Paul’s term here is fully synonymous with περιπατέω. Others think that πολιτεύομαι pointedly suggested itself to Paul as a distinctive term in the context of the city of Philippi, and by using it he drew attention to the mutual responsibilities his Philippian friends had as members of the local Christian community.

(3) Taking a different line, E. C. Miller contended that the meaning of the term was not to be found only with reference to Roman citizenship or any particular Greek understanding of the word, as Brewer had argued. Another nuance, arising from a usage that finds its root in the LXX and in the Hellenistic Jewish literature prior to and contemporaneous with the NT, was that of a life lived [by Jews] ‘faithfully in the covenant relationship with God as manifested in obedience to Torah’. Turning to the post-Pauline NT material and the extracanonical literature, Miller noted two trends: first, ‘Christian writers freely appropriate the term as used by Jewish writers’, for example, Acts 23:1; Justin, Dial. 45.67. But secondly, this usage was also extracted from its Jewish context and applied to Christians, who live not according to the Torah but according to Christ. πολιτεύομαι has thus on occasion been adapted from its Jewish context, according to Miller, to a Christian one. He further contends that ‘so significant a theological assertion is derived from Paul whose use of πολιτεύεσθαι marks the point of departure from its Jewish use to a Christian one’. The exhortation in v. 27 is a call to those who confess Christ crucified and may be paraphrased as: ‘See to it that you are the true Israel, people who live not according to Torah, but who live a life worthy of the new law which is the Gospel about the Christ who is Jesus’.

It is not necessary to see all the theological nuances and contrasts that Miller has read into the term. Nevertheless, πολιτεύομαι, which was similar to περιπατέω or ζάω, probably does retain a shade of its original significance and thus draws attention to the idea of mutual and corporate responsibility. That the cognate πολίτευμα (‘commonwealth, state’) should be used in the same letter (at 3:20, where it is followed by the same two verbs στήκετε, ‘stand’, and συναθλέω, ‘contend, struggle’) but nowhere else in Paul lends additional support to this view. A. T. Lincoln adds that the term ‘might well have … [the Philippians’] dual allegiance in view, for, as he goes on to say, they belong to the heavenly commonwealth and, as its citizens, are to reflect its life’.

ἀξίως τοῦ εὐαγγελίου τοῦ Χριστοῦ. Paul’s Philippian friends are to see to it that they behave as citizens ‘in a manner worthy of the gospel of Christ’. ἀξίως, an adverb deriving from ἄξιος and meaning ‘worthily, in a manner worthy of, suitably’, comes to be used as a preposition with the genitive case. The apostle employs ἀξίως in phrases usually by way of admonition and normally with the verb περιπατέω (‘walk, live’: 1 Thes. 2:12; Col. 1:10; Eph. 4:1; note, however, Rom. 16:2, and cf. 3 Jn. 6). Here the Philippians are urged to live worthily of the gospel of Christ. It was through this gospel, preached by the apostle, that God had been pleased to call them to himself (cf. 2 Thes. 2:13–14). He had begun his good work in their lives through the gospel, and he could now be relied upon to complete it (Phil. 1:6). It was to a partnership in this gospel that the Philippians were committed when they became Christians (1:5), and so from the ‘beginning of the gospel’ no church entered into fellowship with Paul in giving and receiving like them (4:15). Paul himself was set for the defence and confirmation of the gospel (1:7; cf. v. 16), so that even his imprisonment served to advance it (1:12).

By admonishing the readers to live worthily of the gospel of Christ Paul draws attention once again to that dynamic personal entity (εὐαγγέλιον) to which he has referred so often in the chapter, in which Christ is mightily at work in its proclamation (for when the gospel is preached he is the one who speaks) and which at the same time has him at the centre of its content. By calling the Philippians to live worthily of the gospel Paul is reminding them of the prior action of God in their midst.26 At the same time ‘the gospel establishes the norm of the Philippians’ conduct’. As they are wholly committed to the advance of the gospel, that is, its dynamic onward march, they will walk worthily of the gospel by holding fast to it, preaching and confessing it in spite of opposition and temptation.28

So this community’s life must have as its rule the gospel of Christ. Paul’s basic preoccupation, then, in these verses remains the same as in the previous section. Just as all of his own actions were determined with reference to the gospel, so it should be with his readers.

ἵνα εἴτε ἐλθὼν καὶ ἰδὼν ὑμᾶς εἴτε ἀπὼν ἀκούω … ὅτι.… ‘So that, whether I come and see you or am absent, I may hear … that …’. Although the construction is rhetorically inexact, the general sense is clear: ἵνα (‘so that’) should go with ἀκούω (‘I may hear’), and the words εἴτε ἐλθὼν καὶ ἰδών … εἴτε ἀπών (‘whether I come and see … or be absent’) should be regarded as a short parenthesis in apposition to the personal subject of ἀκούω, that is, Paul. Because of the somewhat irregular construction in the Greek, several commentators have suggested an emendation: the finite verb ἀκούω is changed to the participle ἀκούων and joined to the third participle ἀπών (‘remaining absent’), which would then be taken adverbially. The NEB follows this and renders the words: ‘whether I come and see you for myself or hear about you from a distance’. If this emendation is followed, one has to supply a finite verb, such as γνῶ (‘I may know’), for the following clause. However, the meaning seems clear enough without any emendation, and the RSV and TEV’s renderings are evidence of this.

In the words εἴτε ἐλθών … εἴτε ἀπών (‘whether I come … or be absent’) the issue is not whether Paul will be liberated or remain in prison; rather, assuming his release he desires to continue his apostolic journeys and to come again to the Philippians. He trusted that he would come (2:24); yet he might be led elsewhere and be far away from them (εἴτε ἄπων). Either way it is his earnest wish that he may come to learn (ἀκούω) of the excellent situation of the congregation, in particular that it stands firm in the face of opposition.

τὰ περὶ ὑμῶν means ‘the things concerning you’ or ‘your state’ (RSV)33 and is the object of ἀκούω, while ὅτι στήκετε κτλ. is a more precise definition, arising out of the loving concern of the apostle, and may be rendered ‘that, namely, you stand firm.…’ στήκω35 had the basic and literal meaning of ‘to stand’ (Mk. 3:31; 11:25; Jn. 1:26; cf. Rev. 12:4). In Paul, where the majority of the NT references occur, στήκω is used figuratively and signifies ‘to stand firm, be steadfast’. It turns up frequently as an imperative in paraenetic sections of his letters, where he exhorts his Christian readers to be steadfast ‘in the faith’ (1 Cor. 16:13), ‘in the Lord’ (Phil. 4:1), in the freedom Christ has won (Gal. 5:1), or, as here, ‘in one spirit’ (Phil. 1:27). The idea of standing fast or secure is clearly demanded from the context of vv. 28–30, where the Philippians are said to be troubled, in danger of being shaken, opposed by adversaries, required to suffer, and engaged in a struggle. For them to live lives worthy of the gospel it is necessary first of all that they stand firm in the face of attacks made upon that gospel. Such steadfastness presupposes ‘a single spirit’ (ἐν ἑνὶ πνεύματι). Commentators are divided as to how this phrase is to be interpreted. Many take it as designating the Holy Spirit, either as the sphere or the agent through whom (the preposition ἐν, ‘in’, could designate either) the Philippians will remain steadfast. Reference is made to Eph. 2:18 (ἐν ἑνὶ πνεύματι); 4:4, and 1 Cor. 2:13, as well as to the immediate context of Phil. 2:1, where κοινωνία πνεύματος (‘fellowship of the Spirit’) turns up, in support of this interpretation. At the same time those who follow this line recognize that the counterpart of the one Spirit’s presence will be the expression of unity by those who are made steadfast in or by him. This point leads to the second interpretation, which we prefer, namely, that ἐν ἑνὶ πνεύματι speaks of the human spirit and might be rendered ‘with one common purpose’. The phrase is parallel to the immediately following words μιᾷ ψυχῇ and denotes ‘having the same attitude or the same orientation of will’. Such a unity of purpose is effected only in and through the Holy Spirit. To this extent the two interpretations are closely linked. Nevertheless, in our judgment ἐν ἑνὶ πνεύματι is not an explicit reference to the Holy Spirit.

The following participles explain positively (συναθλοῦντες, ‘contending, struggling’) and negatively (μὴ πτυρόμενοι, ‘in no way intimidated’) what this remaining steadfast (στήκετε) signifies. στήκετε is the main verb, on which the following participles depend and to which the relative clause of v. 28b, ἥτις ἐστιν (‘which is’) points back.

συναθλέω (‘to contend, struggle along with’) appears only here and at Phil. 4:3 in the NT. Most English commentators, following Lightfoot, have discerned in the passage (vv. 27–30), with the juxtaposition of συναθλέω (‘struggle with’) and ἀγών (‘contest’), not only a clear athletic image, but also one from the gladiatorial arena. So Paul is said to picture the Philippian Christians as wrestlers or gladiators in the arena of faith (v. 27), and then to use the same image (v. 30) for himself. On the other hand, German exegetes prefer to see in both συναθλέω and ἀγών the general idea of struggle with the added thought of suffering. V. C. Pfitzner considers it wrong to take both words in a completely colourless sense; yet it is ‘equally false to attempt to draw the concrete features of the picture to which Paul supposedly refers by seeing Paul and the Philippians as gladiators in an arena!’ Instead, the Philippians are to present a united and unwavering front against the attacks of the enemy in their conflict for the gospel.

There is a stress in the apostle’s words on unity and the need for a concerted effort among the Philippians themselves: the συν- in συναθλέω is to be understood in this sense and may be paraphrased by ‘contending as one person’, while the phrase μιᾷ ψυχῇ (lit. ‘with one accord’),46 which is best regarded as modifying the participle συναθλοῦντες (‘struggling together’) rather than being in apposition to ἐν ἑνὶ πνεύματι (as the NEB renders the phrases: ‘one in spirit, one in mind’), points to the common and united purpose the members of the congregation are to have in this struggle.

ψυχή (‘soul, life’) occurs more than one hundred times in the NT, with a wide range of meanings. It can denote life on earth in its external, physical aspects, including the ‘breath of life’ of animals (Rev. 8:9) and of human beings (Lk. 12:20; Acts 20:10), as well as ‘earthly life’ itself (Mt. 2:20; Mk. 10:45; Rom. 11:3; note also life as prolonged by nourishment: Mt. 6:25; Lk. 12:22–23). ψυκή can also refer to the ‘soul’ as the seat and centre of the inner life of the person, viewed in its many and varied aspects (e.g., that which enjoys the good things of life, Lk. 12:19; feelings and emotions, Mt. 26:38; Mk. 14:34; Lk. 1:46; Jn. 12:27). The term can designate the ‘soul’ as the seat and centre of life that transcends the earthly: men cannot injure it, but God can hand it over to destruction (Mt. 10:28; Mk. 8:36). There is nothing more precious than ψυχή in this sense (Mt. 16:26; Mk. 8:37), which at this point stands in contrast to σῶμα. ψυχή can designate ‘that which possesses life’, or ‘a living creature’ (Rev. 16:3), and with the term πᾶσα (‘every’; Acts 2:43, 3:23; Rom. 2:9, 13:1) or in the plural comes to be equivalent to ‘person(s)’. πνεῦμα (‘spirit’) and ψυχή (‘soul’) appear on occasion in the NT, almost interchangeably (Lk. 1:47; cf. Jn. 11:33 with 12:27; and Mt. 11:29 with 1 Cor. 16:18). The expression μία ψυχή (‘one soul’) had previously been used by Aristotle to depict the social idea of unanimity and communal sharing48 and later by the Pythagoreans in relation to the golden age when people would have all things in common and would be ἑνὸς σώματος καὶ μιᾶς ψυχῆς (‘one body and one soul’). An interesting example of this usage is reflected in the LXX at 1 Ch. 12:38, where μία ψυχή depicts the unity of purpose in Israel in desiring David as king. Luke’s summary description of the original Jerusalem congregation uses the same expression: ‘All the believers were one in heart and mind’ (καρδία καὶ ψυχὴ μία, Acts 4:32). The Spirit-filled community in Jerusalem exhibited a remarkable unanimity—and our phrase describes this unity of purpose—that found concrete expression in the sharing of their possessions. Paul’s use of a traditional phrase here is an expression of his concern for the Philippians’ unity of heart and purpose in the face of persecution.

The immediately following words τῇ πίστει τοῦ εὐαγγελίου, which have no exact parallel in the NT, are best rendered ‘for the faith of the gospel’ (τῇ πίστει is a dative of interest or advantage, rather than of instrument).52 τοῦ εὐαγγελίου is a genitive of origin (‘the faith which is based on the gospel’) rather than an appositional genitive (‘the faith which is the gospel’) or an objective one (‘the faith in the gospel’). The Philippians are to stand united in their struggle for the cause of the faith—its spread and growth, the same goal that was set before all of Paul’s work.

1:28 Having exhorted the Philippians positively to stand firm in their struggle for the faith of the gospel, the apostle now encourages them not to be intimidated by their opponents from outside the community. This state of affairs, with its opposition from the enemies of the gospel and the steadfastness shown by the Philippian Christians, is a sign of the former’s perdition (whether they have a dim awareness of it or not) and the salvation of the latter. These words provide a ground of encouragement for Paul’s friends, and they are further assured that the experience of violent antagonism to the gospel through which they were passing, the steadfastness that they are to demonstrate, and the assurance of salvation that follows are all under the sovereign control and purpose of God.

καὶ μὴ πτυρόμενοι ἐν μηδενὶ ὑπὸ τῶν ἀντικειμένων. ‘In no way letting your opponents intimidate you’. This second participial clause dependent on στήκετε (μιᾷ ψυχῇ συναθλοῦντες κτλ. is the first) explains negatively what remaining steadfast signifies. πτύρω, found only here in the Greek Bible, in its other occurrences is almost always employed in the passive voice and means ‘to be frightened, terrified, let oneself be intimidated’. It could denote the uncontrollable stampede of startled horses.55 The Philippians’ opponents tried to throw them into a panic or to strike terror into their hearts. If, however, the believers stand firm as a congregation, one in heart and mind, then at no point (ἐν μηδενὶ; cf. 2 Cor. 6:3; 7:9; Jas. 1:4) should they be intimidated by their adversaries. ἀντίκειμαι (‘be opposed, opposition to someone’: Gal. 5:17; 1 Tim. 1:10) is here found in its participial form signifying ‘opponents’ or ‘enemies’ and has a wide range of applications, including the enemies of Jesus in the Gospel records (Lk. 13:17; 21:15), the opponents of the apostle at Ephesus (1 Cor. 16:9), as well as the Antichrist of 2 Thes. 2:4 and Satan, the adversary of God and human beings (1 Tim. 5:14). Exactly who these enemies were Paul does not say. A number of commentators contend that 1:27–28 anticipates the warnings of chap. 3 within the context of a struggle against Jewish-Christian preachers who sought to introduce a perfectionist teaching on the basis of legalistic obedience to the law. But in our judgment several factors militate against such a view. First, it is clear from the following words that they were non-Christians—they are said to be on the road to destruction (αὐτοῖς ἔνδειξις ἀπωλείας). Secondly, Paul calls his Christian friends to steadfastness in a section that speaks of a conflict (ἀγών, v. 30) that they associated with him when he was with them (‘you saw’, εἴδετε, v. 30) and that he is presently enduring (‘and now hear to be mine’, καὶ νῦν ἀκούετε ἐν ἐμοί, v. 30). They are engaged in this same struggle for the faith. Such a description best fits an opposition coming from outside the congregation rather than from within, and probably has particular reference to heathen inhabitants at Philippi who would use persecution, or the threat of it, to intimidate the believers. The term ἀντικείμενοι (‘adversaries’) is likely to be a veiled reference to ‘mob violence, the hatred of the Philippian populace (2:15) against this infant company of believers, whose purity of life and consciousness of high calling in Christ Jesus (3:14) were a constant challenge and rebuke to their pagan neighbours’. A Jewish element may have aroused their hostility, as at Thessalonica (Acts 17:5). But the number of Jews at Philippi does not appear to have been large: there is no mention of a synagogue in Acts 16, while v. 20 of that chapter indicates a certain antipathy to Jews. The Philippian Christians may now be facing the same kind of opposition that Paul himself experienced when he was with them, that is, from pagan neighbours, perhaps even from authorities.

The following words, ἥτις ἐστὶν αὐτοῖς ἔνδειξις ἀπωλείας κτλ. (lit. ‘which is with reference to them a sure sign of perdition …’), are a notorious crux and raise several important issues:

(1) Although most commentators recognize that the relative pronoun ἥτις (‘which’) has been attracted to ἔνδειξις (‘sign, omen’) in its own clause, it is unclear as to what is its antecedent. Is it, as G. F. Hawthorne has recently claimed, τῇ πίστει (‘the faith’) of v. 27? Or are we to follow the majority and regard ἥτις ἐστὶν αὐτοῖς κτλ. as loosely tied to the whole of the preceding clause (v. 28a), with either the steadfastness of the Philippians, their sufferings,64 or the opposition they are encountering as the issue under discussion? Throughout the whole section 1:12–30 Paul has been concerned with the progress of the gospel. He has been at pains to point out that the events that have befallen him have served to advance the gospel in a variety of ways. Further, the Philippians are to make sure that they conduct their lives in a manner worthy of that same gospel of Christ (εὐαγγέλιον τοῦ Χριστοῦ, v. 27). Such behaviour will mean that they stand firm in the face of attacks made upon it, and that their goal will be the same as Paul’s, namely the spread and growth of the faith that arises from this divine message. Although their circumstances differ, Paul and the Philippians are engaged in the same struggle (τὸν αὐτὸν ἀγῶνα, v. 30) for the gospel. The paragraph thus draws our attention to two related motifs: (a) the steadfastness of the Philippians in the midst of suffering for the gospel, and (b) the opposition of their enemies to them and their stand for the gospel. It is this apostolic message which is of paramount importance, and here in v. 28 two sharply contrasting attitudes to it are set forth. ἥτις could be rendered ‘which circumstance’ (i.e., where there is opposition to the gospel by the Philippian populace and steadfastness under trial shown by the Christians who stand firm for the gospel), or it could point back to the Philippians’ undauntedness in the context of opposition. Either way the meaning is essentially the same, and the clause provides a ground of encouragement for Paul’s friends.

(2) Such a state of affairs with its sharply contrasting responses to the divine, authoritative message is a sign (ἔνδειξις) of two facts (ἐστιν): the perdition (ἀπώλεια) of the enemies of the gospel, and the salvation (σωτηρία) of the Philippian Christians. But in what sense is Paul using ἔνδειξις here? And does his assertion suggest that the persecutors (αὐτοῖς) would realize that God was ranged against them but on the side of these Christian believers? The noun ἔνδειξις occurs only four times in the NT (all in Paul: Rom. 3:25, 26; 2 Cor. 8:24, and here), though the cognate verb ἐνδείκνυμι (‘show, demonstrate’) appears on eleven occasions, and the related noun ἔνδειγμα (‘evidence, plain indication’) once. As an Attic law term it denoted ‘proof’ obtained by an appeal to facts69 and may be rendered a ‘sure sign’ (NEB, JB, Gpd) or ‘clear omen’ (Mft, RSV). The point is not that the adversaries themselves see this (the dative αὐτοῖς is one of reference), though perhaps they may have a dim awareness of it, but that it seals their doom as the enemies of the gospel and confirms the eternal salvation of the faithful who endure to the end. At 2 Thes. 1:5, where the cognate ἔνδειγμα (‘evidence, plain indication’) appears, a close parallel is provided: the Christians’ endurance of persecution is clear proof of God’s just judgment with its future relief for the believers and its punishment of their persecutors.

Several commentators, correctly following the more difficult reading αὐτοῖς (rather than the αὐτῶν of the TR, the origin of which could be explained on grounds of symmetry with the following ὑμῶν), nevertheless interpret αὐτοῖς ἔνδειξις in a psychologizing sense, that is, they contend that there is imposed upon the opponents the unwelcome conviction that they are storing up tribulation and anguish for themselves against the day of judgment, while the Christians whom they are persecuting have God on their side and are assured of salvation. The dative, however, is one of reference, and the undauntedness of the believers in the context of persecution is a sign of perdition and salvation whether the persecutors recognize it or not. The apostle is stating the facts of the case (ἐστιν)—not the possible psychological effects on the opponents of the Philippian Christians.

It is the two nouns ἀπωλείας (‘destruction’) and σωτηρίας (‘salvation’) in the genitive case (dependent on ἔνδειξις) that stand in contrast (ἀπωλείας, … δὲ σωτηρίας), rather than the pronouns αὐτοῖς … ὑμῶν. Thus the sign that has reference to the persecutors is a twofold one—it concerns perdition and salvation (the pronoun ὑμῶν, ‘your’, emphasizes that salvation, with its future orientation, truly belongs to the Philippians as a divine gift; and the very mention of this would have further encouraged the readers). ἀπώλεια and σωτηρία are to be understood here eschatologically and eternally of future ruin and salvation respectively.

ἀπώλεια was comparatively rare in classical Greek. The ideas conveyed by it and the cognate ἀπόλλυμι usually had to do with injury (of a violent nature), destruction, or the final end of earthly existence (cf. Plato, Rep. 608e). In the LXX θάνατος (‘death’), ᾅδης (‘Hades’), and ἀπώλεια often occurred together as synonyms for destruction, which was personified as humans’ worst enemy. In nonreligious contexts the word group could describe the ruin of a city, a group of people, or a tribe.77 ἀπώλεια involves not only exclusion from belonging to the Lord, but also destruction and loss of life, and the LXX references to the word group bring out more strongly than the classical Greek literature the element of guilt in destruction (the exhortations that conclude the book of Deuteronomy confront the whole nation with the alternatives of receiving the blessing of long life through obedience, or the curse of extinction by disobedience; cf. Dt. 28:20; 22:3; 30:18, etc., where ἀπόλλυμι is used). Although in many of the OT writings destruction is understood in the sense of earthly death and extinction, later texts (note above) give to the term a far-reaching significance, relating to the state after death. In the NT, where it appears eighteen times, ἀπώλεια occasionally is used in a transitive sense for ‘waste, squandering’ (Mk. 14:4; cf. Mt. 26:8). Most instances, however, have the intransitive meaning ‘ruin, destruction’, particularly in the sense of eternal perdition. In the Synoptics there is the way that leads to destruction (Mt. 7:13, ἀπώλεια; the opposite is ζωή, ‘life’), while in Paul reference is made to objects of God’s anger, ready for destruction (Rom. 9:22). The end of the wicked is ἀπώλεια (Phil. 3:19; cf. Acts 8:20; 1 Tim. 6:9; Heb. 10:39), and one who has fallen victim to destruction is called, in Semitic fashion, ὁ υἱὸς τῆς ἀπωλείας, as Judas in Jn. 17:12 and Antichrist in 2 Thes. 2:3. The word is a favourite one in 2 Peter, where reference is made to heresies that lead to destruction (αἱρέσεις ἀπωλείας, 2:1), introduced by false teachers who bring sudden ruin (ταχινῆν ἀπώλειαν, 2:1) upon themselves (cf. 2:3; 3:7, 16). At Rev. 17:8, 11, the beast is said to go to his destruction (εἰς ἀπώλειαν ὑπάγει), an assertion that speaks not of a simple extinction of existence, but of an everlasting state of torment and death. (See on 1:19 regarding σωτηρία.)

(3) The final words, καὶ τοῦτο ἀπὸ θεοῦ (‘and this [is] from God’), apply not simply to σωτηρίας, nor to ἔνδειξις alone, but to the whole of the preceding.81 The antecedent τοῦτο is neuter and refers back to the whole episode of opposition in its double effect, leading the opponents to destruction and the believers to eternal salvation. P. Benoit puts it well: ‘It is God who sends the persecutions they must undergo, the solid resistance with which they must confront them, and the assurance of salvation which follows’.83

(4) Paul’s language is elliptical, and Westcott and Hort sought to solve the problem of the difficult Greek by suggesting that vv. 28b–29 were a parenthesis, with v. 30 being attached directly to v. 28a. This certainly smooths out the Greek and, according to R. P. Martin, ‘explains the intervening verses as a Pauline “aside”, added to give a theological commentary on the Philippians’ sufferings’. However, the text as printed in the UBS 3rd edition/Nestle 26th edition does make adequate sense. J.-F. Collange85 followed Westcott and Hort’s suggestion and sought to take account of the difference between the dative αὐτοῖς (‘to or concerning them’) and the genitive ὑμῶν (‘your’)—a distinction that perplexed more than one scribe (see above). Accordingly, he proposed the following: ‘what is for them a sign of perdition is your salvation’. ἥτις, an indefinite relative pronoun that introduces the sentence, is, according to Collange, explained by the phrase opening with ὅτι, v. 29: ‘What is … namely, that it is necessary to suffer’. But this reconstruction of Collange has serious difficulties, not only because it assumes a close relationship with the warnings of chap. 3, which is unproven (see the Introduction), but also because it gratuitously assumes that the enemies regarded weakness or suffering as a sign of destruction.

1:29 In a surprising statement Paul explains why the present situation of the Philippians is a sign of their future salvation: it is because (ὅτι) their believing in Christ and especially their suffering for his sake had been ‘graciously given’ (ἐχαρίσθη) to them by God.

ὅτι ὑμῖν ἐχαρίσθη τὸ ὑπὲρ Χριστοῦ. ‘For to you has been granted the privilege on behalf of Christ’. This ὅτι-clause has been (1) linked directly with v. 28a, καὶ μὴ πτυρόμενοι κτλ., thus giving the reason for Paul’s Christian friends not being intimidated in any way by their opponents. (2) It is preferable, however, to understand the clause as justifying the preceding words (καὶ τοῦτο ἀπὸ θεοῦ, which refer to the whole of what has gone before), particularly with reference to σωτηρία: ‘The evidence that your courage is a divine token of salvation lies in the fact that God has graciously bestowed on you, along with faith in Christ, the privilege of suffering with him’. As a slight variation on this the ὅτι-clause is linked with the whole of v. 28 and regarded as explaining why the present situation of the Philippians is a sign of their future salvation.90 N. Walter has recently argued that the believers at Philippi were drawn mainly from a Gentile and pagan background, and for them the idea of suffering ‘for one’s god’ was entirely new. This explains Paul’s references to his own example (in 1:12–26) and why he warns the Philippians of the impending necessity of suffering. Perhaps, too, the prospect of suffering was apt to terrify them. Certainly their trials were not due to some accident. Nor were they a mark of divine punishment as though God was angry with them. Quite the reverse. Their suffering had been freely bestowed on them as a gracious gift.

χαρίζομαι (‘give freely or graciously as a favour’) occurs within the NT only in Paul (sixteen times) and Luke (Gospel three times, Acts four times). In Paul’s letters the word is employed chiefly in connection with the decisive, gracious gift of God. Rom. 8:32 speaks of the all-embracing bounty of God in giving his Son (cf. Jn. 3:16), while 1 Cor. 2:12 refers to the Spirit of God leading us to an understanding of all that he has freely bestowed on us. Already under the old covenant the free gift of God was linked with his covenant promise and not with the law (Gal. 3:18). At Phm. 22 the apostle tells his friend Philemon that he hopes to come in person and visit him; if this occurs it will be because the prayers of his Christian friends have been graciously answered by God. Here, too, at Phil. 1:29 the passive voice is again used to signify that the gracious activity was God’s. The aorist tense points to the original bestowal of the gift,94 which occurred when they first believed, while the emphatically placed ὑμῖν corresponds with the previous ὑμῶν.

τὸ ὑπὲρ Χριστοῦ immediately follows ἐχαρίσθη, but before Paul writes πάσχειν, meaning ‘to you was given the boon of suffering for Christ’, with characteristic wealth of thought he adds the great blessing of believing in Christ. A somewhat complex grammatical construction is the result:

οὐ μόνον τὸ εἰς αὐτὸν πιστεύειν ἀλλὰ καὶ τὸ ὑπὲρ αὐτοῦ πάσχειν. ‘Not only to believe in him but also to suffer for his sake’. The fresh thought of believing in Christ is introduced by οὐ μόνον, and the balancing ἀλλὰ καί is then added. Because of the different prepositional relation (εἰς instead of ὑπέρ after πιστεύειν), the τὸ ὑπὲρ Χριστοῦ already expressed is again taken up by τὸ ὑπὲρ αὐτοῦ. Accordingly, the οὐ μόνον … ὑπὲρ αὐτοῦ appears as a parenthesis of more special definition, and the πάσχειν, which has been prepared for by τὸ ὑπὲρ Χριστοῦ, is finally introduced and especially emphasized: ‘to you it has been graciously given [by God], on behalf of Christ—not only to believe on him, but also for him—to suffer’. The preposition ὑπέρ, ‘for the sake of, for’, when used with verbs of suffering, gives ‘the reason for it’ (ὑπὲρ τοῦ ὀνόματος, Acts 5:41; 9:16; 21:13; cf. 2 Thes. 1:5). At 2 Cor. 12:10 the apostle uses the expression ὑπὲρ Χριστοῦ of his own suffering: ‘For Christ’s sake, I delight in weaknesses, in insults, in hardships, in persecutions, in difficulties’. Here, however, it is with reference to the suffering of his friends at Philippi. The present tense of πάσχειν suggests that their suffering for Christ was continuous, even up to the time of writing, while the conjunction of this clause with the following τὸν αὐτὸν ἀγῶνα ἔχοντες indicates that the Philippians’ afflictions had an active ring to them. Paul’s friends were not ‘helplessly exposed or subject to alien pressure’; rather, they were struggling manfully (cf. συναθλοῦντες of v. 27), encouraged by their apostle to stand firm (cf. στήκετε).

P. Bonnard believes that the expression ὑπὲρ Χριστοῦ should be rendered ‘for the proclamation of the gospel’. While it is true that in the context of chap. 1 Χριστός occurs as the subject of the apostolic announcement (vv. 15, 17, 18) and that εὐαγγέλιον is a noun of agency signifying ‘the activity of proclaiming the gospel’ (vv. 5, 7, 12 [cf. τὸν λόγον λαλεῖν, v. 14], 16), Χριστός and εὐαγγέλιον are not simply interchangeable, and the expression τὸ ὑπὲρ Χριστο͂υ … πάσχειν is somewhat broader in meaning than Bonnard’s rendering would suggest. It is likely that the suffering meted out by the Philippian populace to the infant company of believers was due not simply to the latter’s proclamation of the gospel but also to their purity of life and consciousness of high calling in Christ Jesus (3:14), which were a constant challenge and rebuke to their pagan neighbours. Further, suffering ὑπὲρ Χριστοῦ must be read in the light of 3:10, κοινωνίαν [τῶν] παθημάτων αὐτοῦ (see below), and this has to do with being related to Christ’s death and resurrection as well as sharing in his destiny.

With the words οὐ μόνον τὸ εἰς αὐτὸν πιστεύειν Paul introduces the fresh thought of believing in Christ. Such a gracious gift from God (ἐχαρίσθη) is clearly a magnificent blessing, yet in a sense the mention of it here serves to highlight the great privilege of suffering on behalf of Christ. πιστεύω with εἰς, together with a reference to Christ (him, or his name) as the one in whom trust or confidence in placed, is a frequent Johannine expression. It appears in Paul only at Rom. 10:14; Gal. 2:16, and here. In the first two references the aorist tense draws attention to the decisive moment of coming to faith in Christ. Here at Phil. 1:29 the present tense connotes an ongoing relationship of trust in him. Since it parallels the present tense of πάσχειν there is probably the added thought that God has graciously given to the Philippians the privilege of believing (or of continuing to believe) in his Son even while suffering and undergoing persecution. That was a blessing indeed.

1:30 Paul appeals to his own example in a fresh way in order to encourage the readers to ‘stand firm in one spirit’ (v. 27). They and he have the same ἀγών and for both the struggle on behalf of the gospel involves suffering.

τὸν αὐτὸν ἀγῶνα ἔχοντες. ‘You are now engaged in the same conflict’. Grammatically the participle ἔχοντες could be joined with στήκετε … μὴ πτυρόμενοι (‘stand firm … not being frightened’, vv. 27, 28a), thus making the intermediate words ἥτις … πάσχειν (vv. 28b, 29) a parenthesis. This, however, is rather clumsy, and it is better with most grammarians and commentators to regard the ἔχοντες as an irregular nominative (instead of a dative to agree with ὑμῖν) and to assume that Paul had ὑμεῖς before his mind as the logical subject of the preceding clause.

The picture of a struggle is again taken up, this time with the term ἀγών, so that the whole phrase characterizes the nature of God’s gracious gift of suffering for Christ. ἀγών (‘struggle, fight’) appears in the NT at Col. 2:1; 1 Thes. 2:2; 1 Tim. 6:12; 2 Tim. 4:7; Heb. 12:1, in addition to this reference; the cognate ἀγωνίζομαι turns up at Lk. 13:24; Jn. 18:36; 1 Cor. 9:25; Col. 1:29; 4:12; 1 Tim. 4:10; 6:12; 2 Tim. 4:7. According to V. C. Pfitzner,108 this word group describes Paul’s conflict for the gospel or the faith. It involves untiring toil and labour, an intense wrestling and struggle for the spread, growth, and strengthening of the faith as the goal of his mission. Further, the thought of a continual struggle against opposition is not far distant when Paul speaks of his ἀγών. Suffering is often involved, as here, so that when, for example, he refers to his struggle on behalf of the Colossians (2:1) this is akin to his statement about his sufferings for their sake (1:24). According to Pfitzner’s interpretation, Paul’s conflict is not to be limited to his inner struggles for the sake of his readers, whether it be his intercessory prayers on their behalf or his inner turmoil of some kind. Rather, this expenditure of his energies—through his concerns, his prayers, and his letters—is to be understood within the wider struggle for the spread of the gospel, and of the faith. Further, others may participate in this ἀγών for the gospel; several passages (cf. Col. 4:12–13; 1 Thes. 2:2) reveal an extension of this struggle to include the activity of his coworkers or, as is the case in Phil. 1:27–30, to members of an entire congregation. Although they face special trials, the apostle asserts, in an emphatic way, that they ‘share the same conflict’ (τὸν αὐτὸν ἀγώνα ἔχοντες). Their ‘fellowship in the gospel’ (1:5), that is, their active participation in the spread of the gospel from the time of their conversion until the present, meant that they were involved in the same conflict as Paul. The latter’s entire apostolic mission is understood as one ἀγών (not several ἀγῶνες) for the gospel. This is because Paul regards his experience during that first visit to Philippi and his present imprisonment with its trials as aspects of one and the same conflict. These two sets of circumstances, separated in time and by distance, are part of the one apostolic ἀγών for the gospel.

οἷον εἴδετε ἐν ἐμοὶ καὶ νῦν ἀκούετε ἐν ἐμοί. ‘Which you saw I had and now hear that I still have’. Paul’s comparison has paradigmatic significance, as the twofold ἐν ἐμοί clearly shows. Not only do he and the Philippians share in the same ἀγών; they are both involved in suffering for Christ’s sake as well. The Philippians in their afflictions are to take heart from the apostle’s example. They saw (εἴδετε) Paul engaged in this struggle (ἀγών) for the gospel during his first visit when he was scourged and imprisoned (Acts 16:19–40). Elsewhere in a catalogue of apostolic hardships he mentions this experience of being ‘beaten with rods’ at Philippi (2 Cor. 11:23–27, esp. v. 25). They now hear (νῦν ἀκούετε) of his present imprisonment with its trials as they read his letter and listen to the account from Epaphroditus. Paul has been at pains to point out, however, that the circumstances surrounding him have led surprisingly to the advancement of the gospel. And he desires to encourage his readers in their suffering for Christ’s sake.

The apostle is not suggesting by means of the comparison, as E. Lohmeyer argued, that their circumstances were identical with his or that members of the congregation (the bishops and deacons?) were in prison about to face martyrdom. J. Gnilka rightly notes that the point of the comparison is not the similarity of the circumstances but the theological basis: they were all part of the one apostolic ἀγών. The sufferings and persecutions that believers endure, whether difficult to bear or not, are endured for the sake of Christ, and the apostle desires that his example may encourage them to bear them with equanimity, even joy.

2. A CALL FOR UNITY AND MUTUAL CONSIDERATION (2:1–4)†

1 Therefore, if [as is the case] there is any comfort in Christ, if any consolation of love, if any participation in the Spirit, if any tender mercy and compassion, 2 then make my joy complete by being like-minded, having the same love, united in spirit, intent on one purpose. 3 Do nothing from selfish ambition or empty conceit, but in humility regard one another as more important than yourselves. 4 Each of you should look oute not only for your own interests, but also for the interests of others.

The exhortatory section of the letter, begun in 1:27, continues with a summons to unity and mutual consideration. The οὖν (which in the NT is an inferential and then mainly a transitional conjunction) shows the close relationship with the preceding paragraph,2 especially v. 27, for the exhortation to unity with its fourfold basis is a concrete expression of ἀξίως τοῦ εὐαγγελίου τοῦ Χριστοῦ πολιτεύεσθε (‘liv[ing] worthily of the gospel of Christ’). This earlier summons, we have already noted, is comprehensive, covering every aspect of the Philippians’ lives; it therefore stands as a heading to the whole section 1:27–2:18. The summons is to unity and mutual consideration (2:1–4 is not to be regarded, with K. Barth, as a ‘completely new start’). On the other hand, we are not to conclude with J.-F. Collange that ‘these verses continue and deepen what Paul has just said about the threat represented by his opponent preachers’.4 We have already shown that in the preceding section the apostle spoke of external opposition threatening the community. He now deals with dangers that arise from within. Standing firm in one spirit without being frightened by non-Christian opponents (1:27) and being one in aim or direction with other members of the congregation (2:1) are two separate but concrete expressions of conduct that is worthy of the gospel (1:27).

Verses 1–4 contain a stirring appeal by the apostle, and the exhortations to unity and mutual consideration are all the more effective because of the rhythmical or lyrical style. The paragraph may be structured in a threefold strophic arrangement, each with four lines as follows:

(1) A εἴ τις οὖν παράκλησις ἐν Χριστῷ,

B εἴ τι παραμύθιον ἀγάπης,

C εἴ τις κοινωνία πνεύματος,

D εἴ τις σπλάγχνα καὶ οἰκτιρμοί,

(2) A πληρώσατέ μου τὴν χαρὰν ἵνα τὸ αὐτὸ φρονῆτε,

B τὴν αὐτὴν ἀγάπην ἔχοντες

B1 σύμψυχοι

A1 τὸ ἓν φρονοῦντες,

(3) A μηδὲν κατʼ ἐριθείαν μηδὲ κατὰ κενοδοξίαν,

B ἀλλὰ τῇ ταπεινοφροσύνῃ ἀλλήλους ἡγούμενοι ὑπερέχοντας ἑαυτῶν,

A1 μὴ τὰ ἑαυτῶν ἕκαστος σκοποῦντες,

B1 ἀλλὰ καὶ τὰ ἑτέρων ἕκαστοι.

The opening strophe (v. 1) is characterized by a fourfold εἴ τις (τι) together with two substantives in each line. These four brief statements in synonymous parallelism form the basis of the apostle’s appeal to the Philippians as he speaks of supernatural, objective realities that have already occurred in their lives. The fourfold εἰ (‘if’), which formally introduces four conditional sentences, should be rendered ‘since’, or ‘if, as is indeed the case’, and the construction without the verb (most interpreters suggest that ἐστιν should be supplied), together with the sense given, is classical.

The second strophe (v. 2) has a chiastic arrangement in which the first and last lines (A and A1) and the second and third lines (B and B1) are virtually synonymous. Paul partly repeats the ideas of v. 1 but ‘goes on to express explicitly the adjustments needed to be made in the Philippian church’. The fourfold appeal of v. 1 is to lead to the fourfold result of v. 2. The only Greek imperative of the paragraph (πληρώατε) appears here, although ἵνα … φρονῆτε is virtually equivalent to one. In order to stress the need for unanimity the apostle piles up several expressions relevant to it: τὸ αὐτό, τὴν αὐτήν, συμ-, and τὸ ἕν. In the last two lines the two participles (ἔχοντες and φρονοῦντες) are examples of homoioteleuton, while the verb φρονέω, which occurs at the end of the second and fourth lines, is of particular significance to vv. 1–11 (see below).

The third and final strophe (vv. 3–4) is an example of antithetic parallelism: the first and third lines (A and A1), in which Paul calls attention to the evils that menaced the Christian community, are twice contrasted (note the twofold strong adversative ἀλλά) with the second and fourth lines (B and B1), where the exhortation to positive attitudes and behaviour is presented. D. A. Black points out that the ‘contrast between self-exaltation and self-denial is highlighted by the series of alliterative pronouns’ in this strophe: ἑαυτῶν, ἑαυτῶν, ἕκαστος, ἑτέρων, and ἕκαστοι. Both the spiritual problem facing the church and its remedy are set forth in vv. 3–4, which thus form a fitting climax to the paragraph. A further stylistic feature, noted by J.-F. Collange, is the assonance between the verb φρονέω and the noun ταπεινοφροσύνη. The usage of the ταπειν- root may well anticipate the reference in the following hymn (2:5–11) to our Lord’s humbling himself (ἐταπείνωσεν ἑαυτόν, v. 8) in obedience to the will of the Father.

The place and purpose of 2:1–4 within the context of 1:27–2:18 and its relationship to the christological hymn of 2:5–11 also demand attention. It was noted at 1:27 that the apostle focussed on one highly significant demand, namely that the readers should conduct their lives in a manner worthy of the gospel of Christ. This would involve them, first of all, standing fast or secure with a common purpose (‘in one spirit’) in the face of attacks from outside against the progress of the gospel (1:27–30). Now the apostle looks for a steadfast resistance to all kinds of internal division. 2:1–4 functions as a call to unity, love, and humility within a closely knit section of the letter (1:27–2:18). The Philippians are to be united not only against a common foe but also in heart and mind with one another.

2:1–4 has a number of linguistic correspondences with the following hymn (2:5–11). These opening verses prepare the way for the hymnic paragraph that follows. At v. 5 the apostle introduces Christ Jesus as the supreme example of self-abnegation and humility. The meaning of a right attitude to and regard for others, humility and compassion, which Paul calls for in vv. 1–4, is marvellously presented to the Philippians in this classic passage which sets forth Christ Jesus as ‘the Lordly Example’. Later, the apostle will close the chapter with three additional examples—Paul himself, Timothy, and Epaphroditus—servants of the gospel who in obedience to Christ and following his model show joy, unity, humility, and a concern for others (2:17–30).

2:1 The word of exhortation begun in 1:27, ‘only see to it that you live lives as citizens worthy of the gospel of Christ’, now finds concrete expression in a concerned appeal for unity and mutual consideration within the congregation. This is no simple ethical summons in the sense that the readers are being exhorted just to ‘do good’. Rather, the apostle urges his dear Christian friends on the basis of supernatural, objective realities that have already occurred in their own experience.18

There is no severity of censure in Paul’s words, and this suggests that the divisions or dissensions had not yet reached an acute stage. Yet the frequency and urgency of the apostle’s appeals imply that the danger of disruption was real. His concern reveals itself in the elaborate fourfold basis.

Four important themes are placed side by side and function as the grounds of Paul’s appeal: (a) παράκλησις ἐν Χριστῷ, (b) παραμύθιον ἀγάπης, (c) κοινωνία πνεύματος, and (d) σπλάγχα καὶ οἰκτιρμοί. The precise relationship of each to the other is far from certain, and even where two or more commentators have agreed about parallel phrases, they have frequently differed as to the precise meaning of the expressions in parallelism. We turn to a detailed examination of each:

(a) παράκλησις ἐν Χριστῷ. ‘Comfort in Christ’. The word παράκλησις, like its cognate verb παρακαλέω, had a wealth of meanings, including ‘exhortation, encouragement’; ‘appeal, request’; ‘comfort, consolation’. According to Schmitz, the meaning ‘comfort, consolation’ is found on only a few occasions in ordinary Greek usage, and even in these instances the consolation is mostly at the level of exhortation or encouragement to those who sorrow. This is also true of the word group in the LXX, where there is no Hebrew original (1 Macc. 12:9 is an exception). The meaning ‘comfort, consolation’, though almost entirely absent from the Greek world and Hellenistic Judaism, is more frequent in the translation Greek of the LXX, where it is influenced by the Hebrew OT. Human comfort is spoken of in the OT, where relatives, friends, and those more distant are called upon to give it (Jb. 2:11; cf. 2 Sa. 10:2). Ultimately, though, true consolation (παράκλησις ἀληθινή, Is. 57:18) comes from God, and by comparison all else is vain (ματαία, Is. 28:29). Comforting is his proper work, for he turns earlier desolation into perfect consolation for individuals (esp. in the Psalter; e.g., 94:19, where the psalmist delights in the divine consolation [παράκλησις] that refreshed his soul in the midst of sorrows; παρακαλέω, 23:4; 71:21; 86:17, 119) and the people of God (esp. Is. 40:1–11; 54:11–15, where God’s great consoling promise to Israel appears). In the time of salvation that draws near God himself will console Zion.

In the NT παράκλησις and its cognate παρακαλέω come to denote missionary proclamation and as a kind of formula to introduce pastoral administration (note Acts 13:15 and Heb. 13:22). Given the wide range of meanings for both noun and verb, together with the variety of possible backgrounds that might have influenced the apostle, how should we understand παράκλησις at Phil. 2:1? The majority of exegetes render the word by ‘exhortation’ in the sense of Heb. 13:22, regarding it as an ‘urgent appeal’ (Benoit) in the name of Christ, addressed to all ‘with a persuasive eloquence’. The grounds for taking παράκλησις in this sense are as follows:

(1) Since the term often means ‘exhortation’ in ordinary Greek usage and Hellenistic Judaism, and can denote this in the NT, it is quite reasonable, the argument runs, to regard it as having the same meaning ‘exhortation’ here.

(2) Because vv. 1–4 are an exhortation to the Philippian Christians to demonstrate unity and humility towards one another, it is argued that the opening phrase introduces Paul’s advice by way of an ‘urgent appeal’, and the rendering ‘if there is any exhortation in Christ’ best suits the immediate context of an admonition. At the same time it is thought that the idea of ‘exhortation’ makes better sense within the wider argument of 1:27–2:18, where the apostle urges his readers to live lives worthy of the gospel of Christ.

(3) Several exegetes consider the expression παράκλησις ἐν Χριστῷ to be equivalent to the verbal formula παρακαλέω διὰ Χριστοῦ. By means of the latter, Paul, at significant points in his letters, introduces important paraenetic and exhortatory material. So it is thought that Paul’s words are an admonition ‘in Christ’ (ἐν Χριστῷ denotes either the ‘sphere’ in which the admonition occurs, i.e., both apostle and readers are ‘in Christ’, or the authority through whom the summons is addressed, i.e., it is not simply a personal plea on Paul’s part). Cf. 1 Thes. 4:1 and 2 Thes. 3:12.

(4) Finally, it is argued that the rendering ‘exhortation in Christ’ balances the phrase that immediately follows, ‘consolation of love’ (παραμύθιον ἀγάπης), and shows that the two expressions are complementary in meaning.

The scholarly support for this interpretation of παράκλησις as ‘exhortation’ is considerable, and there is no doubt that it can be regarded as making reasonable sense of the clause.

However, an alternative to the majority interpretation is to understand παράκλησις as denoting ‘consolation’ or ‘comfort’ ‘in Christ’. Although certainty is not attainable, the arguments adduced in favour of this latter view are weighty, and on balance we prefer it. We shall compare the arguments for this understanding of παράκλησις as ‘comfort’ with those presented in favour of the majority interpretation:

(1) Even though the term παράκλησις sometimes means ‘exhortation’ in the NT (as well as elsewhere in the Greek world; see above) ‘consolation’ or ‘comfort’ is by far the most frequent meaning in Paul. Because the majority of the NT references to παράκλησις mean ‘consolation, comfort’, it is possible, if not probable, that the same connotation is in view here at Phil. 2:1.

(2) While it is recognized that Phil. 2:1–4 is an exhortation to unity through humility, it needs to be reasserted that v. 1 provides the fourfold basis for the admonition that occurs in vv. 2–4 (note the structural examination above). παράκλησις ἐν Χριστῷ is the first ground of Paul’s exhortation, not the exhortation itself. Some exponents of the majority view appear to have confused the two issues and assumed that because an injunction occurs—which is obviously expressed by the imperative πληρώσατε κτλ.—παράκλησις itself must be rendered by ‘exhortation [in Christ]’. There are, however, many instances in Paul’s letters where admonitions occur without any reference to the word ‘exhortation’ itself. All four verses of this short paragraph fit suitably within the wider context of 1:27–2:18 where the apostle urges his readers to live lives worthy of the gospel of Christ, and it is unnecessary to render the phrase by ‘if there is any exhortation in Christ’.

(3) As a result of his comprehensive examination of the παρακαλέω sentences in the Pauline letters, C. J. Bjerkelund recognized that they introduce important paraenetic and exhortatory material (for references see above), so that the verb can appropriately be rendered ‘I/we exhort’. However, he rejects the identification of παράκλησις ἐν Χριστῷ with παρακαλέω … διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ. Formally the expressions are distinct and their meaning is different: παράκλησις ἐν Χριστῷ = ‘comfort or consolation in Christ’.

(4) Finally, it was noted above (p. 167) that no definite conclusions can be drawn about the content of each of the four expressions (παράκλησις ἐν Χριστῷ, παραμύθιον ἀγάπης, κτλ.) on the basis of their interrelationship, since no certainty exists about the precise nature of that interrelationship.

We thus conclude that this first basis of Paul’s admonition to unity and humility is best rendered by ‘comfort/consolation in Christ’. The expression is almost equivalent to ‘salvation’, which is known and experienced in the sphere of Christ Jesus, and Paul is clearly referring back to what had taken place in the lives of his Philippian friends when the gospel was first preached to them.

(b) παραμύθιον ἀγάπης. ‘Consolation of love’. The noun παραμύθιον, in addition to its two cognates, the verb παραμυθέομαι and the noun παραμυθία, is used only six times in the NT. The basic sense of the verb in classical Greek was ‘to speak to someone in a friendly way’.36 The noun παραμύθιον meant ‘encouragement, consolation’ and ‘exhortation’ from the time of Sophocles onwards. The word group does not occur in the translation of the LXX but only in those books where the LXX is the original.

In examining the meaning of παραμύθιον at Phil. 2:1 a similar question arises as in the case of παράκλησις: Is the dominant idea that of consolation or exhortation? Again the answers of exegetes vary. H. A. W. Meyer, for example, claims that the whole phrase must be different from the preceding (this seems to be necessary because of his conclusions regarding the parallelism of the four phrases) and thus it denotes ‘a consolation which love gives’. For J. B. Lightfoot39 ‘encouragement’ as a motive for persuasion or dissuasion is the nuance of the substantive here, a meaning that he finds endorsed in the classical references. W. Michaelis understands παραμύθιον as an ‘exhortation’ springing out of love, in this case the love of the apostle, while J. Gnilka,41 recognizing that παραμύθιον is close in meaning to παράκλησις, claims that the former is somewhat stronger than παράκλησις and suits the directness of individual, personal address the basis of which is love (ἀγάπης).

The point has been made that in Paul παράκλησις appears to be the more significant term, with παραμύθιον and its cognates being used in a more supplementary way; note the conjunction at 1 Cor. 14:3; 1 Thes. 2:12; 5:14, as well as Phil. 2:1. Although it is natural to seek a distinction between the two word-groups, it is ‘difficult to find a convincing criterion by which to draw any sharp line of demarcation’. παραμύθιον is, in our judgment, best understood as ‘comfort’ or ‘consolation’; the ἀγάπης is a subjective genitive (= ‘the consolation of love’), and refers not to the brotherly love of Christians, nor to Paul’s love for his Philippian readers, but to Christ’s love. παραμύθιον and its cognate, in the few NT instances that occur, appear to denote ‘the comfort granted in this present earthly sphere’, while παράκλησις, as noted above, is used of an eschatological comfort as well. Here in the present context the expression ‘consolation of love’, which parallels but is not identical with the preceding phrase, most naturally points to the Philippians’ experience of ‘the consolation which Christ’s love for them has brought in their dangers and sufferings’.

(c) κοινωνία πνεύματος. ‘Participation in the Spirit’. The third expression in Paul’s fourfold basis for his exhortation to the Philippians contains two important theological terms, κοινωνία and πνεῦμα, in a genitival relationship. The κοινων- word group turns up some six times in Philippians (see on p. 61, etc.), with the noun κοινωνία appearing at 1:5; 3:10 as well as here. κοινωνία is a rich NT word, the precise meaning of which has received a great deal of attentive study in recent years.

The phrase κοινωνία πνεύματος raises several issues of interpretation. The first concerns the meaning of πνεῦμα. Although the word could possibly denote the human spirit, suggesting ‘fellowship of spirits among themselves’, it is almost universally agreed by commentators, on contextual grounds and the similar expression at 2 Cor. 13:13, that the reference is to the Holy Spirit. The second and more difficult question has to do with the precise meaning of κοινωνία together with the significance of the genitive case. The substantive, which is rendered in a variety of ways in the NT (‘association’, ‘communion’, ‘fellowship’, ‘close relationship’; ‘generosity’; ‘sign of fellowship, gift, contribution’; ‘participation’), meant ‘having something in common with someone’. The ideas of participation and association are both present, and according to J. Y. Campbell, ‘the main emphasis may fall upon either of them, sometimes to the practical exclusion of the other’.

κοινωνία outside the Bible is constructed (1) absolutely, (2) with an objective genitive of the thing shared,50 (3) with a subjective genitive of the person or thing sharing, the recipient being in the dative, or with the prepositions εἰς, μετά, or πρός, and (4) with an objective genitive of the person in whom there is sharing.52 κοινωνία, when it is an abstract noun, usually retains the sense of ‘participation in’ something. The κοινων- word group is not prominent in the LXX, and κοινωνία turns up only three times. In the NT the terms are most common in Paul, for whom the notion has theological significance (of the nineteen NT occurrences of κοινωνία thirteen are found in the Pauline corpus).

In our passage κοινωνία has been taken as (1) a subjective genitive (= ‘the Spirit’s fellowship’) and rendered ‘the partnership and fellowship, which only the Holy Spirit can give’. E. Schweizer55 prefers the subjective genitive for both 2 Cor. 13:13 and Phil. 2:1, yet concedes that the net result is the same as the objective genitive interpretation of Seesemann, for what the Spirit gives is a share in himself. E. Lohmeyer’s view is somewhat similar. For him whenever Paul uses the noun κοινωνία with a following noun in the genitive case, κοινωνία denotes a theological entity and the genitive gives ‘the ground and norm through which the fellowship is both possible and real’. (2) An objective genitive or, more strictly, a genitive that denotes ‘that of which one partakes’, so that the phrase signifies ‘participation in the Spirit’. (3) An ‘adjectival’ genitive that, according to W. Hendriksen, ‘transcends both objective and subjective’. He thus renders the phrase ‘the marvellous Spirit-fellowship’, claiming that it denotes ‘a fellowship with the Holy Spirit, an actual participation in that Spirit and in all his benefits.… But Paul also here regards it as the gift of the Spirit.…’ P. C. Bori’s grammatical explanation is rather similar (he considers πνεύματος to be either an attributive genitive or a genitive of quality meaning ‘spiritual communion’) even if the precise connotation of κοινωνία is different.

The arguments in favour of (2), namely that κοινωνία πνεύματος should be rendered ‘participation in the Spirit’, are in our view the most weighty, even if final certainty as to the precise meaning is not attainable. First, in a number of instances outside the Bible the genitive used with κοινωνία signifies that of which one partakes, the thing shared in. Such an interpretation fits this context. Secondly, Paul takes the possession of the Holy Spirit by the believer as a truth readily acknowledged and experienced by his readers (Gal. 3:2; 1 Cor. 12:13). Thirdly, there is a parallel in 1 Cor. 1:9, where the expression κοινωνία τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ can only refer to ‘participation in Christ’. Fourthly, there is evidence that in the early Church the Greek phrase used here was understood to mean ‘participation in the Spirit’.62

Accordingly, the third ground of Paul’s appeal is the gift of the Holy Spirit, and the Philippians’ knowledge of his indwelling and activity. The apostle takes it as a commonly accepted truth, which can be verified by personal experience, that these believers know this κοινωνία with the Holy Spirit in all his gracious ministry to their hearts and lives. Their common sharing in the Spirit should be a decisive factor in their life together as ‘one body in Christ’ (Rom. 12:5). ‘Participation in the Spirit’ should sound the death knell to all factiousness and party spirit, for it is by this ‘one Spirit’ that they were all baptized into one body (1 Cor. 12:13).

(d) σπλάγχνα καὶ οἰκτιρμοί. ‘Tender mercy and compassion’. (On σπλάγχνον see 1:8.) οἰκτιρμός, ‘pity, mercy, compassion’, in the LXX is predicated first and foremost of God (twenty-three of the twenty-six references are to his ‘mercy’), who is described as ‘compassionate’: he has acted graciously and compassionately on behalf of his people. In the Qumran literature ‘mercies’ (Heb. raḥamı̂m) first of all describes God’s compassion, though as in the OT the term can also refer to the godly person who lives according to God’s will (note especially 1QS 4:3 in a list of virtues describing the behaviour of the new people of God; cf. 2 Ch. 30:9; Ps. 106:46). οἰκτιρμοί (‘mercies’) in the NT denotes God’s compassion at Rom. 12:1 (particularly his concrete acts of mercy in his Son) and at 2 Cor. 1:3.

The joint expression σπλάγχνα καὶ οἰκτιρμοί has sometimes been taken to be a hendiadys, as though Paul was simply speaking of ‘heartfelt sympathy’. But it is probably better to keep the two terms separate.70 Whose ‘tender mercy and compassion’, however, does the apostle have in mind? Although the common view is that Paul is referring to the Philippians’ sympathy, in the light of

(1) the overwhelming LXX use of οἰκτιρμοί for the mercy of God,

(2) the other Pauline references to the term for God’s compassion (Rom. 12:1; 2 Cor. 1:3; though note Col. 3:12),

(3) the NT tendency to employ both σπλάγχνον and its cognate verb σπλαγχνίζομαι of God or Christ, and

(4) the opening words of each phrase pointing to objective realities and certainties rather than what is hoped for:

It seems best to understand our expression of the ‘tender mercy and compassion’ of Christ experienced by the Philippians when they became Christians through the preaching of the gospel (4:15). This is not to suggest that God’s mercy in his Son should not be demonstrated in and through the Philippians’ (or, for that matter, Paul’s) lives.74 Here, however, the focus of attention is upon the divine mercy and compassion.

The fourfold basis of Paul’s exhortation is grounded in divine certainties: the Philippians know God’s comfort and salvation in Christ. They have experienced the consolation that Christ’s love for them has brought in their sufferings and dangers. Theirs is a participation, a common sharing, in the Holy Spirit, and they have been blessed through his gracious ministry to their hearts and lives. When God began his good work in their midst through the preaching of the gospel, they were recipients of his tender mercies and compassion. Since they have been blessed with such riches in a magnificent way, let them hear Christ’s exhortation through their beloved apostle.

2:2 Paul’s admonition, which lies at the heart of this short paragraph, is not strictly speaking a direct exhortation for the Philippians to be united. Instead, by means of a tactful expression he frames his earnest appeal in such a way as to provide his readers with an additional motive for living in harmony,76 namely that they may ‘fill his cup of joy to the brim’. He wants them to be one in intent and disposition, having the same love, united in one spirit, and having a life directed towards a single aim. If the first strophe (v. 1) draws attention to the grounds for true unity, this strophe (v. 2) speaks of the fourfold result of such unity.

πληρώσατέ μου τὴν χαράν. ‘Make my joy complete’. Because πληρώσατε is the only main verb in the paragraph, it appears to spell out the content of Paul’s appeal and provide the climax to which the fourfold basis of v. 1 is moving. But πληρώσατε κτλ. is a tactful expression by which Paul brings the affairs of the congregation into a relationship with himself. His main concern, namely that the readers strive for unity and humility, is spelled out in the following subordinate constructions (ἵνα τὸ αὐτὸ φρονῆτε κτλ.). By writing in this way Paul shows the intensely personal nature of his exhortation and thus gives the Philippians a further motive for living in harmony.

It has already been shown that πληρόω is used in the NT with a wide range of meanings (see on 1:11, pp. 79–80). Here it signifies ‘to bring something to completion, finish’ something already begun, and refers to the Philippians making Paul’s joy complete.80 Joy is a fruit of the Spirit (Gal. 5:22), and the apostle’s life was characterized by this Christian grace even while he was a prisoner (Phil. 1:4; 4:1, 10). His rejoicing was in the Lord. At the same time, his joy was not always unrelated to external circumstances. Although Paul takes great joy in his Christian friends at Philippi, and tells them so directly (1:4; 4:1), his cup of joy will only be filled to the brim when the well-being of the congregation, currently troubled by strife and self-interest, is fully restored. If perfect harmony reigns among them, then his joy will be complete.82

In the following clauses, which form a chiasmus (a b b a; see above), Paul accumulates several synonymous expressions (τὸ αὐτό, τὴν αὐτήν, συμ-, and τὸ ἕν) to stress different facets of the unity he considers to be so vital. The repetition of similar ideas is to make sure that the Philippians will get the point.

ἵνα τὸ αὐτὸ φρονῆτε κτλ. ‘[You can do this] by being like-minded’. Grammatically this clause may: (1) function as the direct object of a verb to be supplied: ‘I ask’ (παρακαλῶ …), (2) substitute as an imperative,85 or, in our judgment, (3) provide an epexegetic limitation of the verb πληρώσατε and indicate the method by which the action denoted by the verb is achieved. So the means by which Paul’s joy is to be made full is by the readers being like-minded, having the same love, being united in spirit and intent on one purpose.

G. Bertram rightly observes that one of the fundamental demands of Paul’s exhortations is for ‘a uniform direction, a common mind, and unity of thought and will’ to be demonstrated within the churches of his Gentile mission. φρόνεω (see the note on 1:7) is regularly used in this regard together with a modifier such as τὸ αὐτό, which is found here. A possible literal translation of τὸ αὐτὸ φρονῆτε is ‘[that] you think the same’. However, as was noted above (see on 1:7), φρονέω can describe a person’s whole attitude and disposition of mind. One’s thinking and striving cannot be seen in isolation from the overall direction of his or her life. This verb ‘expresses not merely an activity of the intellect, but also a movement of the will; it is both interest and decision at the same time’. So τὸ αὐτὸ φρονεῖν ‘describes the general disposition of harmony which should be the background against which the whole Christian fellowship moves’; the rendering ‘by being like-minded’, which is not to be understood in an exclusively intellectual sense, means being one in intent and disposition.91

τὴν αὐτὴν ἀγάπην ἔχοντες, ‘having the same love’, denotes the Philippians’ reciprocal love for one another, which answers to Christ’s love (τὴν αυτὴν ἀγάπην) for them (v. 1). From the context it is clear that such love has special reference to the believers turning their attention from themselves to others in the congregation and their needs.

σύμψυχοι (lit. ‘one-souled’), ‘harmonious, united in spirit’,93 is parallel with τὴν αὐτὴν ἀγάπην ἔχοντες (‘having the same love’) and is probably to be taken as an independent statement, although some attach this adjective to the following words τὸ ἓν φρονοῦντες and render the whole phrase as ‘striving with one mind towards a single goal’. σύμψυχος appears only here in the NT, but it is one of several compounds of the ψυχή word-group found in Philippians: εὐψυχέω (2:19), ἰσόψυχος (2:20), and note ψυχή (2:30) as well as μιὰ ψυχή at 1:27. This last reference has to do with ‘Paul’s concern for the unity of the congregation in [the] face of persecution and heresy’,97 while σύμψυχος at 2:2 points to an inner harmony in place of strife and self-interest.

τὸ ἓν φρονοῦντες (which stands in a chiastic relationship with ἵνα τὸ αὐτὸ φρονῆτε) is to be rendered ‘intent on one purpose’ and speaks of a life directed towards a single goal. τὸ ἕν describes the one aim on which the readers ought to focus. K. Barth may be right when he claims that ‘the concrete details are all hidden from us’.100 But in the light of: (1) the orientation of both Paul and the Philippians in chap. 1 towards the ‘gospel’ (vv. 5, 7, 12, 16, 27) and the proclamation of Christ (vv. 14–18), (2) the suggestion that ‘living worthily of the gospel’ (1:27) is a comprehensive admonition that stands as a heading to the whole section 1:27–2:18 (styled ‘The Situation of the Philippians’), and (3) the subsequent exhortations, it is possible to state what this goal is. τὸ ἓν φρονοῦντες focusses on the need for the members of the congregation to be ‘gospel oriented’ as they relate to and care for one another.

2:3 The unity and harmony that Paul earnestly desires for his readers can be achieved only if they reject all forms of self-seeking and vainglory, and instead humbly regard one another as more important than themselves.

μηδὲν κατʼ ἐριθείαν μηδὲ κατὰ κένοδοξίαν. The double negative (μηδέν … μηδέ …) and the omission of a verb in the prohibition forcibly draw attention to its absoluteness; that is, ‘do nothing from selfish ambition or empty conceit’ is binding on all Christian lives at all times. Several commentators have suggested that since no verb appears in the Greek, the reader is left to supply φρονοῦντες from v. 2. Although this is possible, it is unnecessary,104 and several English versions bring out the sense forcefully with ‘don’t do anything’ (GNB) or ‘do nothing’ (RSV; cf. NAB, ‘never act’).105 The two ethical terms define the dangers besetting the Philippian community: ἐριθεία has already been used in a different context (1:17, see p. 101) to denote the rival preaching of these in Rome who set forth Christ from motives of selfish ambition because an arrogant spirit of self-seeking gripped them. The term belongs to Paul’s vocabulary of social evils (2 Cor. 12:20; Gal. 5:20), and here it denotes that ‘mercenary spirit’ (being derived from ἔριθος, a ‘hireling’, ‘one who works for pay’) or ‘selfish ambition’ which causes factions. κενοδοξία is the more significant of the two terms. It turns up only here in the NT, though the cognate κενόδοξος is found in Gal. 5:26, where it is clearly described: ‘Do not seek vainglory (μὴ γινώμεθα κενόδοξοι) by provoking one another’. κενοδοξία probably means more than ‘vanity’ and signifies ‘vain, empty glory’.109 It is noteworthy that the simple δόξα (‘glory’) appears on several occasions in Philippians: four times with reference to the ‘glory of God’ (1:11; 2:11; 4:19, 20), once in relation to Christ’s glorious resurrection body (3:21), and once polemically to disparage those who put their ‘glory’ in shameful and earthly things (3:19). Thinking or behaving ‘on the principles of’ or ‘from motives of’ empty pride or conceit, from mere pretentiousness111 or vainglory, stands in stark contrast to God’s glory and is inconsistent behaviour from those whose commonwealth is in heaven and who will finally be transformed so as to be like Christ’s glorious resurrection body (3:21).

ἀλλὰ τῇ ταπεινοφροσύνῃ ἀλλήλους ἡγούμενοι ὑπερέχοντας ἑαυτῶν. In sharp contrast (ἀλλά) to that spirit which is destructive of true community life Paul urges his readers: ‘in humility regard one another as more important than yourselves’. ταπεινοφροσύνη signifies the grace of ‘lowliness’ or ‘humility’. It is well known that in profane Greek literature the term occurs on only a few occasions, and then usually in the derogatory sense of servility, weakness, or a shameful lowliness. Although the noun ταπεινοφροσύνη (‘humility’) is lacking in the OT, ταπεινός (‘lowly’, ‘humble’) and its cognates turn up about 270 times. Particularly significant are those references to the Lord’s acting in history to bring down the proud and arrogant and to exalt the lowly: (1) the prophets express it in warnings of judgment, (2) the historical books spell it out with reference to events,114 (3) the psalmists express the theme in their prayers, while (4) in proverbs of the wisdom literature ‘humility’ is spoken of as the fruit of experience and as a rule of life.116 In the NT ταπεινοφροσύνη signifies the ‘lowliness’ with which one serves Christ (Acts 20:19) or relates to other Christians (Eph. 4:2; 1 Pet. 5:5, and here at Phil. 2:3; cf. Col. 3:12). The pattern or model is Jesus, who invited people to come to him as the one who is ‘meek and lowly (ταπεινός) in heart’ (Mt. 11:29). The twin themes of humiliation and exaltation, noted in the OT material, come to their clearest expression in the following hymn of Phil. 2:6–11, where it is stated that Jesus humbled himself (ἐταπείνωσεν ἑαυτόν, v. 8) even to death on a cross, and that God exalted him (v. 9), bestowing on him the name above every name. Particularly Christ’s action in humbling himself is the pattern for believers, who in humility are to count others better than themselves. Here at v. 3 the dative case, τῇ ταπεινοφροσυνῇ, signifies either the motivating cause or the manner (i.e., ‘in humility’) in which they are to form an estimate of others (the definite article τῇ is probably generic rather than possessive). Only in true humility—a stark contrast to self-seeking and vainglory—would the Philippians be able to count others better than themselves. J.-F. Collange has perceptively drawn attention to the assonance between φρονέω, which Paul uses frequently in Philippians, especially in vv. 1–5, and this word for humility, ταπεινοφροσύ νη. R. P. Martin takes this up and comments: ‘The message would be clear to the readers: let your attitude to and regard for others (phronein) be humble (tapeinos), and that means a total lifestyle of tapeinophrosyne.’

O. Merk has sought to give further meaning to Paul’s use of ταπεινοφροσύνη here by positing a particular sociological background at Philippi. He argued that this word (as well as κενοδοξία) did not belong to general paraenetic or traditional material; instead it was related to the specific situation at Philippi. In this Roman colony, as well as in Rome itself (note Rom. 12:16, where the cognate ταπεινός appears), an order of gradations prevailed, in which a person was regarded or valued according to his social standing. Accordingly, Paul’s exhortation in 2:2–4 (as well as at Rom. 12:16) is a call to the readers not to disqualify fellow church members on the grounds of their social standing. Rather, they are to show true humility, regarding others better than themselves.

ἀλλήλους ἡγούμενοι ὑπερέχοντας ἑαυτῶν. If this Christian grace of ‘humility’ denotes ‘other person-centredness’ by those who have humbled themselves under God’s mighty hand, then it will come to expression in a true estimate of fellow believers, that is, by regarding them better than oneself. ἡγέομαι means a. to ‘lead’, ‘guide’, and b. to ‘think’, ‘consider’, ‘regard’.126 ἀλλήλους is the direct object of ἡγούμενοι and is used precisely and distinctly from ἑαυτῶν. It signifies ‘others’ or ‘one another, without restriction or exception within the congregation’.128 ὑπερέχω, which in nonbiblical Greek meant to ‘hold over’ (e.g., the handing over of someone), ‘rise above’ (in the sense of towering above the earth),130 or to ‘stand out’ by reason of one’s possessions, power, or regard received from others, came to be used in the LXX in the sense of ‘to surpass’, ‘exceed’.131

Within the NT the verb ὑπερέχω occurs only five times, yet three of these are in Philippians. All the NT occurrences are participial and have a transferred sense of ‘standing out’ (a usage widespread in nonbiblical Greek).133 So at Phil. 4:7 the apostle can speak of the salvation given by God (= ‘the peace of God’) as completely ‘exceeding’ what we can grasp or think. In contrast to a works righteousness Paul asserts that he counts everything as loss when compared to the surpassing greatness of knowing (τὸ ὑπερέχον τῆς γνώσεως) Christ Jesus his Lord (3:8). Here at 2:3 the notion of ‘standing out’ in the sense of ‘being better than’ or ‘surpassing’ appears as each Christian in the congregation at Philippi is to regard others as better than himself or herself. Such an attitude presupposes a due sense of one’s own unworthiness (especially before God) as well as a readiness to see and rejoice in the good in fellow believers.

2:4 This short exhortatory section, vv. 1–4, a summons to unity and humility, concludes with an admonition to focus one’s attention on the interests of others. In the preceding verse Paul has exhorted his Philippian Christian friends to count their fellow believers as better than themselves. Here also the note of profound concern for the other person, which is an abiding characteristic of humility (ταπεινοφροσύνη), is continued in terms of looking after their interests.

μὴ τὰ ἑαυτῶν ἕκαστος σκοποῦντες. ‘Do not [always] look out for your own interests’. The theme of seeking one’s own or another’s interests is taken up by Paul on several other occasions in his epistles. Later in this letter he states rather sadly with reference to those from Rome whom he might have sent to Philippi: ‘all the others [apart from Timothy] are pursuing their own interests (τὰ ἑαυτῶν ζητοῦσιν), not those of Christ Jesus’ (2:21). At Corinth when dealing with the believer’s freedom he recognizes that while ‘everything is permissible’, not everything is constructive and beneficial. ‘Each of you should aim at his neighbour’s well-being rather than his own’ (1 Cor. 10:24). Paul himself did not aim at his own good (μὴ ζητῶν τὸ ἐμαυτοῦ σύμφορον) but at the good of the many so that they might be saved; and in this he desired his readers to follow his own example (1 Cor. 10:33; 11:1). A distinguishing mark of love is that it is not self-seeking (οὐ ζητεῖ τὰ ἑαυτῆς, 13:5).

In each of these examples the general verb ζητέω, meaning ‘to seek’, ‘look for’, is used. Here the synonymous but less frequent σκοπέω is employed. Is there any significant difference in meaning? H. A. W. Meyer claims that there is not, while J. Gnilka136 thinks that the latter emphasizes the positive direction of the seeking. In classical Greek σκοπέω meant ‘to look at’, especially ‘to look at critically’, sometimes with a view to ascertaining a propitious time, avoiding danger, or accomplishing a purpose. Finally, σκοπέω could also mean ‘to hold something as a model before one’s eyes’, a connotation paralleled at Phil. 3:17. When we turn to the NT (in the LXX the verb turns up only twice), we observe that apart from Lk. 11:35 all the occurrences of σκοπέω are in Paul (Rom. 16:17; 2 Cor. 4:18; Gal. 6:1; Phil. 2:4; 3:17; the only instance of σκοπός, ‘a goal’, ‘mark’, occurs at Phil. 3:14). It signifies ‘to look (out) for’, ‘notice’, ‘keep one’s eyes on’ someone or something, and so ‘to fix one’s attention on something’ with deep interest in it (cf. 2 Cor. 4:18; Gal. 6:1).

Taking his cue from Lightfoot’s rendering ‘regard as your aim’, R. P. Martin claims that the apostle is advocating that ‘his readers fix their gaze on the good points and qualities in other Christians; and when recognised these good points should be an incentive to our way of life’. On the negative side, Paul means, according to Martin, that the Christians at Philippi should ‘not be so preoccupied with their own concerns and the cultivation of their own “spiritual experience” that they fail to see what plainly should be evident for emulation in the lives of their fellow believers’. This view of Martin is then tentatively linked with Paul’s correcting the self-centred preoccupations of a perfectionist group at Philippi mentioned in 3:12–16.

A further reason for Martin’s rejection of the usual interpretation, as evidenced in the RSV (on which he is commenting), ‘Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others’, concerns the Greek text: ‘only’ does not appear in the original, while there is some MS evidence for the omission of καί, ‘also’, in the next clause (see the textual note). This shorter, original text cannot mean that Paul is making a general statement for Christians to keep an eye on the interests of others as well as their own. According to Martin, if the verse is dealing with ‘interests’ at all, then one’s own are wholly excluded by the omission of καί; they are not even subordinated to the interests of others. This cannot be right, the argument runs, so it is better to understand the injunction with regard to fixing one’s gaze on the good qualities of other Christians and emulating their behaviour.

But this exegesis is open to a number of criticisms: (1) Although σκοπέω is used in classical Greek and the NT of regarding someone as a model or example to follow (as well as a bad example to avoid; so Rom. 16:17), such a notion is usually expressed with the accusative case of the person who is the object of one’s gaze and emulation (Phil. 3:17). On the other hand, the general expression τὰ ἑαυτοῦ with σκοπέω or ζητέω means ‘to consult or seek one’s own interests’—and there are many classical as well as Hellenistic examples of this (see below). (2) Apart from these linguistic considerations it has been argued on contextual grounds that if the virtues of other Christians are in view, then, after the comprehensive ταπεινοφροσύ νη of v. 3, this ‘would yield a very insipid limitation’. Further, it does not harmonize with the example of Christ set forth in the following hymn. (3) The textual support for the inclusion of καί is both early and widespread. Its omission by later scribes probably sprang from their desire to make the clause strictly consistent with the absolute negation of the first clause. Since Martin’s interpretation does not explain the more difficult reading with the καί in the text, we judge it to be unsatisfactory.

Instead of signifying ‘to hold something as a model before one’s eyes’, σκοπέω here means ‘to look at attentively’, ‘fix one’s attention on’ something with deep interest in it (cf. 2 Cor. 4:18; Gal. 6:1). The negative μή shows that the objects of this particular interest and attention are not to be ‘one’s own interests’, while the presence of ἕκαστος (‘each one’) indicates that every believer at Philippi was to take the injunction to heart. The humble mind just mentioned (v. 3) cannot exist together with selfishness, which has its own interests in view. Paul’s exhortation is both negative and comprehensive and is virtually equivalent to 1 Cor. 10:24; 13:5; cf. 10:33; 11:1.

In the words that immediately follow, ἀλλὰ καὶ τὰ ἑτέρων ἕκαστοι (lit. ‘but each of you [should look] also to the things of others’), the contrast is softened147 by means of the καί. Paul does not prohibit any interest in one’s own affairs. It is the selfish preoccupation with them that he condemns. We must love our neighbours as ourselves, and this responsibility extends to ‘each and every one’ at Philippi. The ἕκαστοι is unusual; normally in the NT the singular is used in this distributive appositional sense. But the plural is not infrequently found in classical Greek in this sense, and it is best to take it here as one of emphasis, perhaps even as denoting an earnest repetition, giving the meaning ‘each and all’.150

3. CHRIST JESUS, THE SUPREME EXAMPLE OF HUMILITY (2:5–11)†

This magnificent passage (vv. 6–11) is an early Christian hymn in honour of Christ. It is the most important section of the letter to the Philippians and provides a marvellous description of Christ’s self-humbling in his incarnation and death, together with his subsequent exaltation by God to the place of highest honour.

The paragraph is the most difficult in Philippians to interpret. This is not, however, through lack of secondary literature on vv. 5–11, for there has been a continual flow of studies and articles in the twenty years since R. P. Martin’s history of interpretation was first published. Little scholarly consensus has emerged in relation to the origin and authorship of the passage (pre-Pauline, Pauline, or post-Pauline?), its form and structure (hymnic? the number of stanzas?), the conceptual background of the passage (OT, Gnostic myth, general Hellenism, wisdom speculation?), or key exegetical and theological issues. As a result, at several points in the following exposition it has been necessary to treat the more detailed cruxes in appendices, with the major conclusions being summarized in the main text.

a. Literary Form

In describing the passage as a ‘hymn’ it should be noted that the term is not being employed in the modern sense of what we understand by congregational hymns with metrical verses. Nor are we to think in terms of Greek or Semitic poetical metre. The category is used broadly, similar to that of ‘creed’, and includes dogmatic, confessional, liturgical, polemical, or doxological material. Recent scholarship has drawn attention to two criteria for discerning hymnic material in the NT: (a) stylistic: a certain rhythmical lilt when the passages are read aloud, the presence of parallelismus membrorum (i.e., an arrangement into couplets), the semblance of some metre, and the presence of rhetorical devices such as alliteration, chiasmus, and antithesis; and (b) linguistic: an unusual vocabulary, particularly the presence of theological terms, which is different from the surrounding context.

So the presence of introductory relative clauses (ὃς … ὑπάρχων, v. 6), the positioning of words in such a way that lines and strophes may be arranged, anaphora and parallelism, the presence and arrangement of participles, and unusual terms (which either do not appear elsewhere in the Pauline corpus or are used with a different meaning) are considered by the majority of scholars as grounds for regarding this as a traditional hymnic or poetic piece.

The centre of the current debate turns on: (a) how to set out the lines of the hymn so as to reproduce its structure, having taken into account the literary and rhetorical devices, whether based on OT or Greek patterns; and (b) to enquire whether and, if so, how far one can detect an original pattern of the hymn that was edited or altered (by Paul’s additions) when he came to use the hymn within his exhortatory material of vv. 1–4 and 12–18.

Johannes Weiss was the first in modern times to detect the poetic, rhythmic nature of these verses, and he arranged them into two main strophes of four lines each, with the four clauses of vv. 6–8 balancing the four clauses of vv. 9–11.

Ernst Lohmeyer understood these verses as a christological hymn set in rhythmical form and composed of six strophes, each with three lines.6 Noting that the hymn possessed an introductory formula (ὃ καὶ ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ, v. 5), and that it began with God in eternity and concluded with the same idea, he argued that the verses formed a self-contained unity. The paragraph was a studied composition with a definite progression and climax. The ‘plan’ of the hymn hinged on v. 9, as the words διὸ καί divide the piece exactly into two equal parts. It bears all the marks of being ‘a carefully composed portion of ancient liturgy’. On linguistic and stylistic grounds Lohmeyer concluded that the hymn was pre-Pauline and that it was the product of a Jewish-Christian community in Jerusalem that sang it at the celebration of the Lord’s Supper. Lohmeyer’s ground-breaking analysis was regarded as the fundamental starting point for all subsequent studies, and scholars such as P. Benoit, M. Dibelius, J. Héring, F. W. Beare, and P. Bonnard have, with slight modifications, followed it.

A major modification of Lohmeyer’s analysis was proposed by J. Jeremias, who claimed that the former’s reconstruction did not correspond to the natural limits of the sentences and that he missed the important hymnic feature of parallelismus membrorum. Jeremias insisted that the composition was in three strophes of four lines, each structured according to parallelismus membrorum of Hebrew poetry. These three strophes treated respectively the preexistence (vv. 6–7a), the earthly life (vv. 7b–8), and the heavenly life (vv. 9–11) of Christ. Jeremias noted in the first part of the hymn a number of answering expressions (μορφὴ θεοῦ, v. 6a; μορφὴ δούλου, v. 7b; and γενόμενος, vv. 7c, 8b), and he suggested that the two strophes were framed by these two pairs (vv. 6a–7b; 7c–8b). However, his arrangement was carried out at considerable cost, for the phrases ἐπουρανίων καὶ ἐπιγείων καὶ καταχθονίων (v. 10) and εἰς δόξαν θεοῦ πατρός (v. 11), in addition to θανάτου δὲ σταυροῦ (of v. 8), were taken as later Pauline additions to the original hymn. Further, by regarding ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσεν of 2:7a as a translation of Is. 53:12 and a reference to the death of Jesus rather than the kenosis of the incarnation (see below), Jeremias is hard put to explain how the first strophe, which is said to deal with Jesus’ pretemporal existence, can jump directly to the cross. Although Jeremias’s two-strophic division of vv. 6–8 has been criticised as being both incorrect and unnecessary, R. Deichgräber, J. Coppens, G. Friedrich, O. Michel, and J. T. Sanders, with some variations, have endorsed it. R. P. Martin, for his part, discarded Dibelius’s notion of three nicely balanced strophes covering three periods of Christ’s existence and regarded the hymn as forming a series of couplets, in six pairs, for use antiphonally in worship.11

J.-F. Collange followed Jeremias’s basic structure, particularly his two-strophic analysis of the first half of the hymn, but rearranged the latter half into two strophes (vv. 9–10a and 10b–11b) with the doxological response εἰς δόξαν θεοῦ πατρός of v. 11c. According to Collange, both halves of the hymn show a completely parallel structure. He rejected the possibility of various additions to the original hymn, claiming that ‘in the absence of decisive criteria we take the hymn as we have it in front of us in its entirety’. Yet Collange’s division of the two halves into two strophes is flawed: v. 7c, ἐν ὁμοιώματι ἀνθρώπων γενόμενος, should be taken with what precedes (see the exegesis below) rather than as the introduction to the second strophe of the first half, while πᾶν γόνυ κάμψῃ (v. 10b) is unnaturally separated from v. 10a under Collange’s reconstruction, which places the words at the beginning of the second strophe in the second half.

Another modification of Jeremias’s reconstruction of the hymn, this time in the interests of an adoptionist christology, was proposed by C. H. Talbert. Talbert was convinced by the internal parallels noted by Jeremias, but in order to save two (of three) deletions in Jeremias’s structure he divided the hymn into four strophes of three lines each: vv. 6–7b; vv. 7c–8b (θανάτου δὲ σταυροῦ, v. 8c, is omitted); v. 9; vv. 10–11. Talbert then enunciated the following hermeneutical principle: ‘A proper delineation of form leads to a correct interpretation of meaning’. The first two strophes are in parallel construction and thus have the same meaning. Since the second strophe is about the human, historical Jesus, the first must be as well. Proper form indicates that there is no need to interpret the hymn traditionally, that is, as referring to the preexistent Jesus. But Talbert’s hermeneutical principle that a delineation of form leads to a correct interpretation has been rightly challenged and is to be rejected.17 Few agree with Talbert’s proposed structure, and most disagree with his exegetical conclusions anyway. To note only one objection, Talbert’s structure fails to give proper attention to the strong adversative ἀλλά in v. 7.

In spite of the considerable amount of scholarly work carried out, no consensus has been reached about the exact structure of these verses. M. Hooker indicated that one of the particular difficulties is knowing what to look for. She claimed that ‘the passage as we have it never really fits the patterns into which the commentators try to push it’. Thus, the necessity of omitting words and phrases in order to establish a precise strophic structure raises serious doubts about the whole enterprise. There is still considerable uncertainty about the stylistic criteria. When different formal criteria lead to different results, which stylistic tests are to be followed? And when criteria of form and content differ, which take precedence?

Hooker herself acknowledged that there was something distinctly poetic about vv. 6–11. Whether this makes the paragraph a poem or a piece of rhythmic prose is another question. Hooker inclined to the latter, but acknowledged that if the paragraph is a ‘poem’ or ‘hymn’ it can be set out as it stands in poetic form without making any excisions.21 She presented a chiastic structure with a six-line statement (vv. 6–7c) referring to Christ’s kenosis in becoming man, which is followed by a four-line section (vv. 7d–8) about his downward movement to the cross. The second half of the hymn, according to Hooker, reversed the form as well as the scheme, with a four-line statement of Christ’s exaltation and the receipt of the name above all others (v. 9) followed by a six-line expansion of this motif (vv. 10–11). Hooker suggested that each of the si six-line sections can be divided into two three-line sections and further claimed, rather less convincingly, that each final line amplifies the meaning of the previous one. Linguistic connections are noted in this reconstruction (μορφὴ θεοῦ with μορφὴν δούλου; v. 7c with 7d; and the use of ὄνομα in vv. 9 and 10), while the first half of the hymn, as others have noticed, describe what Christ did (in the verbs ἐκένωσεν and ἐταπείνωσεν) and the second half refers to God’s actions (ὑπερύψωσεν and ἐχαρίσατο). Finally, each section is introduced by a small but important introductory word: ὅς, ἀλλά, καί, διό, ἵνα, and καί.

To date, Hooker’s suggested reconstruction is, in our judgment, the most plausible. Whether it is finally convincing or not—Hooker herself presents it ‘for consideration’—it has the following strengths: (1) it recognizes that the hymn naturally falls into two (rather than three) parts: vv. 6–8 and vv. 9–11, with the two finite verbs in each section describing Jesus’ self-humbling, on the one hand, and the Father’s action of exalting him, on the other. (2) All the words and phrases have been accepted as part of the original hymn and are necessary for an understanding of its meaning. Hooker remarked: We should ‘not think that we can pick out the Pauline garnishes to a pre-Pauline structure on the basis of literary form’. (3) The provisional nature of Hooker’s suggestions means that formal considerations, though possibly helpful for interpreting the paragraph, are secondary to material factors. A correct understanding of the hymn is not dependent on its correct versification.

In the exposition that follows I recognize the poetic nature of vv. 6–11. In addition I accept the twofold division of the paragraph (vv. 6–8; 9–11) on both material and formal grounds, regarding all the words and phrases as part of the original hymn and therefore necessary for a correct understanding of its meaning. I take formal factors into account in the following exegesis, but give precedence to considerations of content.

b. Background

The possible backgrounds to these verses suggested by scholars have been remarkably varied, including Hellenistic Judaism, Iranian religion, Greek epic tradition, the political circumstances of the time, pre-Christian Hellenistic or Jewish Gnosticism, as well as different strands of the OT. The following suggestions, which are briefly noted, have been the most influential:

(a) Ernst Käsemann’s strong advocacy of a Gnostic background to the hymn, as evidenced in the Hermetic literature (Corp. Herm. 1.13–14), is well known.1 He argued that the overall structure of events in Phil. 2:5–11 was to be interpreted on the analogy of the descent and ascent of the Gnostic ‘Urmensch-Saviour’. Vv. 6–8 describe the steps in which Christ became subservient to the hostile cosmic powers (see the exegesis below), while vv. 10–11 speak of the conquest of these hostile powers and their recognition of their defeat. Käsemann did not claim the mere transference of this Gnostic Redeemer myth to Christ. Rather, the hymn was the creation of the Christian community and included specifically Christian components, such as the Kyrios-acclamation and the motif of the second Adam. But for Käsemann the schema of the Gnostic redemption saga provided the integrity of the hymn as a unified whole.

Käsemann’s appeal to a pre-Christian Gnostic redeemer myth has been rejected by contemporary NT scholarship. Apart from the question of the legitimacy of appealing to second-century documents in support of a Gnostic background in general, there is considerable doubt as to whether a complete redeemer myth existed in the pre-Christian period. More specifically, D. Georgi argued that important elements of the Urmensch-Redeemer myth were missing from the Philippian hymn; for example, there is no mention of the pretemporal fate of the Redeemer, of any active conflict between the Redeemer and the cosmic powers, or of the believers who are the objects of this deliverance. Further, reference in Phil. 2:6–11 to a real incarnation (v. 7), to God’s sovereign intervention on behalf of the Redeemer (v. 9), and to his investiture with the highest of honours (vv. 9–11) makes the hymn essentially different from the Gnostic myth.

(b) A possible OT background to Phil. 2:6–11 that has found wide acceptance in recent scholarship is that of the Isaianic Servant of the Lord (Is. 53). L. Cerfaux went so far as to claim that the hymn evidenced detailed literary contact with the LXX rendering of this Suffering Servant Song.5 While such a thoroughgoing view has considerable difficulties, others such as J. Jeremias claim that several important expressions and verbal echoes in the hymn are to be understood in the light of the Suffering Servant of Is. 52:13–53:12; for example, μορφὴν δούλου λαβών (‘taking the form of a slave’) means exactly ‘playing the part of the servant of the Lord’, and the principal clause, ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσεν (‘he emptied himself’), is equivalent to Is. 53:12, ‘he poured out his soul (to death)’. (See the appendix below and the exegesis at the relevant points.) Significant challenges to this interpretation, in terms of its linguistic validity, the question of the hymn’s structure, and the issue of chronological sequence in relation to Is. 53, together with the propriety of using μορφὴ δούλου to designate the Isaianic Servant of the Lord, have been raised, and one must conclude that the evidence is insufficient to establish with certainty this Servant of the Lord background to the hymn.

(c) Eduard Schweizer located the background to Phil. 2:6–11 in the righteous sufferer of postbiblical Judaism who is humble and loyal to God, even to the point of suffering and death. This righteous sufferer is the loyal servant of God referred to in Jewish martyrology from the Maccabean period onwards. Jesus is spoken of as δοῦλος in Phil. 2:7 not because he fulfils the role of the Servant in Is. 53, Schweizer argues, but because he, like every righteous one who took upon himself suffering and humiliation for God’s sake, was so called (cf. 2 Macc. 7:34); Jesus, however, is the righteous one par excellence (see the exegesis below). For the loyal servant of postbiblical Judaism obedience lay at the very heart of his faith, and he looked forward to being vindicated by God, especially in terms of the eschatological or heavenly enthronement. Schweizer has difficulty in explaining how this righteous one can be described as a preexistent figure. He makes the link through the title Son of Man. Jesus referred to himself as Son of Man in the sense of the suffering and subsequently exalted righteous one. Palestinian Jewish Christians then connected this use by Jesus with the idea of the preexistent, messianic Son of Man in apocalyptic Judaism. In his second edition, however, Schweizer radically modified this view about the religious background to the notion of Christ’s preexistence, finding it now in Jewish Wisdom speculation.

(d) A comprehensive treatment of Phil. 2:6–11 in the light of a Jewish Wisdom background has been provided by Dieter Georgi. Against Käsemann, who understood the Redeemer myth as a single entity that existed in pre-Christian Gnosticism, Georgi preferred to speak of a ‘developing myth’ that lay behind Phil. 2:6–11, the form of which was contained almost exclusively in the Wisdom of Solomon. The background to the hymn is provided by the Righteous One, that is, the Suffering Servant, who is ‘the Divine instrument … in the Sapientia’. This Righteous One of the Book of Wisdom loses all individual traits and typifies the existence of the righteous, at the same time becoming a docetic figure (Wis. 3:1–4). Both Wis. 5:1, 16 and Phil. 2:8 understand the death of the divine figure ‘not as end but as turning point’. According to Georgi, it might justifiably be said that the Righteous One of Wisdom was in the form of God, that he took on the form of suffering and death, and that he will be exalted. The reference to preexistence in Phil. 2:6 is comparable to statements in the book of Wisdom about Wisdom itself rather than the Righteous One. Wisdom preexists with God but then descends to the world, mystically indwelling the Righteous One. Georgi thinks that these Hellenistic Jewish Wisdom themes were taken up and revised by early Hellenistic Jewish Christians, possibly in the circle of Stephen.

While some writers have been prepared to concede Georgi’s point about a ‘developing myth’, serious questions have been raised about his appeal to the Wisdom of Solomon as providing the sole religious-historical background to Phil. 2:6–11. In Hellenistic Jewish mysticism preexistent Wisdom is essentially the mediator in creation, but no mention is made in the hymn of Jesus’ mediatorship in creation. Further, Georgi has been challenged for not providing a plausible explanation for the identification of Wisdom and the Righteous One, and for not suggesting what motivated the transference of these to the person of Jesus. If an identification was made in Judaism between Wisdom and the Righteous One, when and where might this identification have taken place? If, on the other hand, the identification was made in Christian circles, how can he speak of a Jewish original that dealt with Wisdom and the Righteous One as a single entity? Why was it necessary to suppose a Jewish original to the hymn at all? Could it not be simply a Christian composition in which the author has drawn upon certain concepts from different backgrounds—perhaps combining them or finding them combined—to explain the Christ-event?16

(e) An influential contemporary interpretation that also draws upon an OT background (esp. Gn. 1:26–27 and 3:1–5) understands the entire hymn in terms of the first Adam-second Adam contrast. Paul, or the pre-Pauline author of the hymn, is thought to be working here with this familiar parallel (cf. Rom. 5:18–19; 1 Cor. 15:45–47). As the first Adam was in the image and likeness of God (Gn. 1:26–27), so Christ, the second Adam, existed in the form (= image) of God (Phil. 2:6). The first Adam wrongly tried to become like God (Gn. 3:5). In sharp contrast the second Adam neither strove to be equal with God, nor regarded equality with God as something to use for his own advantage. This explanation of Phil. 2:6–11 as a whole, as well as of key phrases in particular (e.g., ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ ὑπάρχων and τὸ εἶναι ἴσα θεῷ), in terms of the familiar first Adam-second Adam theme has taken various forms: Jean Héring, for example, who was the first in recent times to suggest this line, saw Phil. 2:6–11 as an expression of the earthly and the heavenly man teaching in Philonic Judaism. These ideas, which were already beginning to blend together in Philo and in Paul, were united in the redeemer figure of the Philippian hymn. Going further than Philo, the author of the hymn combined the concept of the heavenly Adam of Gn. 1, who was in the form of God and was associated with creation, with that of the earthly Adam of Gn. 3, who succumbs to the temptation to be like God and so must humble himself. The preexistence and incarnation of the Saviour were presented within the framework of Adamic speculation based on Gn. 1–3. The notion of a preexistent Heavenly Man as set forth by Héring and picked up by O. Cullmann has been rejected by most scholars, including those who claim that the ‘two Adams’ contrast of Phil. 2 derives directly from Gn. 1–3. Many among the latter think that the hymn points to the human Jesus, his life of humility, and his exaltation to an earthly position of glory, not to the preexistent Christ or his incarnation. The most powerful advocacy of this position has come from J. D. G. Dunn, who argued that the sequence of the hymn’s thought is ‘first Adam/last Adam’, as in 1 Cor. 15:45–49, without reference ‘to any particular time scale—pre-existence, pre-history or whatever’. Dunn’s position sets up a simple equation: what the Adam of Gn. 1–3 lost, namely his possession of divine ‘glory’, has been restored to the last Adam, Jesus Christ, whose ‘glory’ is described in Phil. 2:9–11.

The issues involved in this presentation are complex and have been evaluated, particularly with reference to vv. 6–8, in the appendix on pp. 263–268. While the contrast between the arrogance and self-seeking of Adam and Christ’s humility and self-humbling is evident in general terms, when a detailed comparison is made between Gn. 1–3 and Phil. 2, it is doubtful whether the apostle intended to present the Adam-Christ parallel at all. Too many linguistic, exegetical, and theological criticisms have not been satisfactorily answered. We conclude, then, that the influential contemporary interpretation that suggests that the dominant background to Phil. 2:6–11 is the Adamic one from Gn. 1–3 (whether directly or as filtered through Philonic exegesis) is not convincing.

It is clear from this survey that none of the above-mentioned backgrounds, suggested as sources for the hymn of 2:6–11, is able to give an account of the hymn in its entirety or explain how exalted predicates and activities came to be applied to Jesus of Nazareth, recently crucified and risen from the dead. Linguistic and conceptual links with the hymn have been suggested, in one way or another, from all of these possible sources. None, however, has won general acceptance and each has been subjected to criticism, sometimes of a very searching kind. Collange asserts that ‘it is impossible to pass directly from the hymn or this or that expression within it to one or other Old Testament prototype and to retain the Christian context of the hymn … [it] is not primarily a Christianised copy of prior speculations’.

(f) As a result, a different principle of interpreting the hymn in its context has been championed recently by L. W. Hurtado, who claims that the primary consideration in determining the meaning of Jesus’ actions in 2:6–8 must be the use of the terminology of early Christianity. While recognizing that the larger Graeco-Roman context must not be ignored, Hurtado has argued that ‘the language used to describe Jesus’ actions qualitatively in 2:6–8 is drawn from the language of early Christian paraenesis and possibly from the Jesus tradition of the Pauline period’. Independently, G. F. Hawthorne23 suggested the particular shape given to the hymn—indeed, the very existence of the hymn itself—may have been the result of deep meditation by Paul, or some other Christian if Paul was not the author, on one particular event from the life of Christ, namely Jesus’ washing his disciples’ feet (Jn. 13:3–17); on this view ‘δοῦλος emphasizes the fact that in the incarnation Christ entered the stream of human life as a slave, that is, as a person without advantage, with no rights or privileges of his own for the express purpose of placing himself completely at the service of all mankind’.

Hurtado contends that ‘the tradition of the earthly Jesus was influential in shaping both this description of his actions, and possibly early Christian paraenesis’. Further, ‘Jesus’ actions are so described as to present them as a pattern to which the readers are to conform their behaviour’. Hurtado claims that the unseen and ineffable action of the preexistent, heavenly Christ, referred to in 2:6, 7, is ‘described after the fashion of the observed, historical action’ since the former is directly linked with the action of the earthly Jesus in 2:8. So, rather than turning to supposed Graeco-Roman parallels—particularly those of a mythological kind (and here Hurtado has Käsemann’s work especially in view)—we ought not to ignore the context of the NT itself. And it is especially significant to observe that when Paul (or the author of the hymn) describes Jesus as having taken the role of a δοῦλος in 2:7 he is using language with rich positive overtones for himself and his readers.

Hurtado concludes that the description of Jesus’ actions in Phil. 2:6–8 is full of terms whose most customary usage is in connection with exhortatory material in Paul’s letters and references to his own ministry. ‘Jesus’ redemptive work is so described as to make it at the same time something of a pattern for those who call him Lord’. He is truly the ‘Lordly Example’.

c. Authorship

Since Ernst Lohmeyer’s study on Phil. 2:6–11 the scholarly consensus has been that this passage is a self-contained poetic unit. There is no evidence to suggest it was a later interpolation into the original letter, and most recent writers consider the hymn to have been composed independently of and prior to the writing of Philippians. Of these a few have suggested that Paul composed it himself, but the majority regard it as pre-Pauline and introduced into its present context by the apostle (with or without additions).

Three main arguments have been advanced against the Pauline authorship of vv. 6–11:

(a) The first is the structural critique. This argument claims that an original hymn, composed with rhythm, parallelism, and strophic arrangement, was taken over and used by the apostle, who incorporated his own additions. Lohmeyer, who argued that Phil. 2:6–11 was a self-contained poetic unit, sought to prove that the Greek text was based on an underlying Semitic (i.e., Aramaic or Hebrew) original. From his formal (and linguistic) analysis Lohmeyer concluded that the hymn was pre-Pauline and that it was the product of a Jewish-Christian community in Jerusalem. V. 8c (θανάτου δὲ σταυροῦ) in the third strophe was a Pauline gloss. However, an Aramaic original does not immediately preclude Pauline authorship, since the apostle’s mother tongue was Aramaic (Acts 21:37–22:3; cf. 26:14) and he clearly enjoyed considerable facility in using Greek. In fact, a translation into Greek might account for the unusual vocabulary and the different use of Pauline words in the hymn. At any rate, it is quite uncertain whether the hymn did actually exist in Aramaic. R. Deichgräber, for example, listed eight expressions that were difficult to imagine as translations from a Semitic original.

Subsequent writers, often following a different structure from Lohmeyer’s, have used the same structural argument against Pauline authorship. But if our contentions above—about the uncertainty of the stylistic criteria, the number and content of the strophes in vv. 6–11, the possible Pauline additions, and thus the questions as to whether the hymn was constructed according to a strict scheme at all—are correct, then this argument is not convincing.

(b) The second ground for rejecting the Pauline authorship of the hymn is linguistic: vv. 6–11 contain vocabulary that is unusual for Paul. So μορφή turns up in the NT only at Phil. 2:6, 7 (apart from the longer ending of Mk. 16:12); in fact, μορφὴ θεοῦ, ἴσα θεῷ, and δοῦλος are not elsewhere used of Christ in Paul’s writings. κενόω occurs on four other occasions in the literal sense of annihilating or emptying (Rom. 4:14; 1 Cor. 1:17; 9:15; 2 Cor. 9:3), but is used metaphorically of Christ at Phil. 2:7. ὑπερυψόω is a hapax legomenon in the NT, and its cognate ὑψόω, which is used for the ascension of the risen Christ in Acts 2:33; 5:31 and for the Johannine glorification of Jesus at his death (Jn. 3:14; 8:28; 12:32, 34) is not found in Paul. χαρίζομαι is normally used of people as recipients, but at Phil. 2:9 it is Christ who is the indirect object of this verb. ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγέομαι is a hapax legomenon in the entire Greek Bible, while καταχθόνιος is a hapax in the NT.

However, linguistic arguments of this kind do not prove that Paul was not the author of the hymn. In general, we do not have sufficient material of the apostle’s on a wide range of subjects to come to definite conclusions regarding the hymn’s authorship; expert linguists claim that a ten thousandword sampling from an author is usually necessary for making reliable decisions of this kind. Further, in other texts that are indisputably Pauline there is occasionally a sprinkling of rare words.

Specifically, the statement about Christ being ‘in the form of God’ (ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ) or ‘the image of God’ (εἰκὼν τοῦ θεοῦ, 2 Cor. 4:4; Col. 1:15) and the theme of Christians being conformed or transformed into the image of Christ appear explicitly only in Paul’s letters of the NT (Rom. 8:29; 1 Cor. 15:49; cf. v. 52; Phil. 3:21; Col. 3:9, 10; Eph. 4:24). Although Christ is not called a δοῦλος elsewhere in Paul’s writings, he is described as having become a διάκονος (Rom. 15:8) in the service of God. Further, if Hurtado is right in suggesting that the term δοῦλος had rich positive overtones for the author and his readers (note the arguments above), so that the latter were being instructed in the hymn as to the nature of true service to God, then the application of this term to Christ by Paul is not surprising. The words ὑπερυψόω and χαρίζομαι, appropriately employed of the Father’s response in exalting his Son (see the theological arguments below), could easily have been penned by the apostle, and given the nature of the subject matter the hapax legomenon, ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγέομαι, and the metaphorical use of κενόω do not seem to be outside Paul’s range of vocabulary. The relevant questions are: Could Paul have employed these terms of his own accord? And in his use of the ideas in the hymn is he ‘drawing on his own or somebody else’s inspiration’? None of these counter-suggestions proves Pauline authorship of the hymn. But they do raise sufficient doubts about the relative merits of the linguistic arguments against the apostle’s being the author of the passage.

(c) More significant than the arguments from language are the theological reasons adduced against Pauline authorship of the hymn. It is claimed that the soteriology of vv. 6–11 differs from Paul’s in two ways: first, the original hymn omitted any reference to the cross of Christ (v. 8c is a Pauline gloss), and, secondly, no mention is made of the saving significance of his death ‘for us’ (περὶ or ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν). No reference is made to the resurrection, which, according to 1 Cor. 15, was a central theme of the Pauline gospel. Instead, Phil. 2:9 moves directly from our Lord’s death to his exaltation.

Serious doubts, however, must be raised against the whole approach that makes the absence of certain ideas a determining criterion in matters of authorship. Is it right to assume that the apostle will express his many-sided soteriology in toto whenever he speaks of the saving event? In other passages of his epistles there are similar omissions! At Rom. 10:6–15, for example, where Paul refers to the saving event and the content of the kerygma as the object of faith and confession, no explicit mention is made of the cross or Christ’s death ‘for us’. Furthermore, O. Hofius has recently argued on the grounds of both form and content that the so-called Pauline gloss, θανάτου δὲ σταυροῦ (v. 8c), belonged originally to the hymn. If this is correct, then a significant argument against Pauline authorship of the passage falls down.10

The notion that the hymn expresses nothing about the sinner’s personal interest in the work of the Crucified (because of the omission of words such as ‘[his death] for us’) is not a valid argument against Pauline authorship. The hymn as we have it in Phil. 2, that is, after Paul’s supposed additions and reworking, still contains no redemptive statement about Christ’s death ‘for us’. Instead of being a contributing factor to the authorship question the absence of such language probably implies something about the apostle’s purposes in the passage. The most natural inference is that his central concern in mentioning Christ’s death was for something other than its saving significance. In the exegesis below it is claimed that the apostle’s intent was to show what Christ’s obedience meant for him, not for us—it meant condescension, humiliation, abject degradation, and a death of the worst possible kind. Hurtado agrees with this conclusion and ties it to an overall exhortatory purpose: ‘the fact that Paul did not use specifically redemptive language (or did not add it to this “pre-Pauline hymn”) … may signify that Paul’s interest in reciting the acts of Jesus in 2:6–8 was simply to give their dimensions and quality so as to provide both a basis and a pattern for the paraenesis that surrounds the passage’.

Similarly, the omission of any reference to Christ’s resurrection must be interpreted carefully. In line with many biblical passages about the humiliation-exaltation motif (see on 2:3) the movement of the hymn is in terms of Christ’s humbling and his subsequent exaltation by the Father. Christ’s humiliation is described through its various stages, from his preexistence to his incarnation and death on the cross. His exaltation is spoken of with simply one verb (ὑπερύψωσεν) and amplified as to its meaning in the second (ἐχαρίσατο). Apparently, it was not the writer’s intention to dwell on the stages of that exaltation since the resurrection is passed over and assumed. Instead, the purpose of the Father’s action, namely the universal homage and acclamation accorded to the one whose name ranks above all others, receives special stress.

Marshall points out that the christological scheme of the hymn with its stages of preexistence, humiliation, and exaltation is widely attested in early Christianity. He draws attention to the interest in Jesus’ suffering followed by glory (Lk. 24:26; Heb. 12:2; 1 Pet. 5:1) or his work of atonement being followed by glory (1 Pet. 3:18–22; Rev. 5:12), his preexistence paired with his earthly life in the so-called ‘sending’ formulas (Gal. 4:4; Rom. 8:3; cf. v. 32; Jn. 3:16), and the contrast between Jesus’ preexistent glory and earthly humiliation (2 Cor. 8:9). Marshall adds that the three-stage christology of preexistence, humiliation, and exaltation was widespread and early, since it appears in a number of NT passages, though sometimes the middle stage has to be inferred from the descent-ascent motif (Rom. 1:3–4; Col. 1:15–20; Heb. 2:9; cf. 1:3–4; Jn. 3:13; 6:62, and 17:5). Accordingly, ‘it would be wrong to limit the diffusion of the ideas expressed in the hymn to the Pauline area of primitive Christianity’.

It is possible that the hymn was composed independently of and prior to the writing of Philippians, either by Paul himself or as part of the tradition handed on to him by those who were ‘in Christ’ before him. The passage belongs in its present context and forms a highly significant section of the overall argument of 1:27–2:18 (see above). Its vocabulary echoes that of the verses immediately preceding (2:1–4), and it is anchored by what immediately follows (note the ὥστε of v. 12). At the same time the hymn prefigures themes that appear later in the letter (cf. 3:20–21). In fact, it fits its present context so well that it is hard to see it detached from it (note the discussion at v. 5). It is possible, of course, that Paul, knowing that it would be appropriate to use and quote an already existing hymn, worded 2:1–5 accordingly and proceeded to echo the same themes later in the letter. But Wright concludes his article by stating that if someone were to argue that ‘the “hymn” was originally written by Paul himself precisely in order to give christological and above all theological underpinning to the rest of Philippians, especially chaps. 2 and 3, I for one should find it hard to produce convincing counter-arguments’.

(On Paul’s use of the hymn in its immediate and wider contexts see the conclusion of this section.)

d. Text

5 Adopt towards one another, in your mutual relations, the same attitudeb that was found in Christ Jesus. 6 Precisely because he was in the form of God, he did not regard this divine equality as something to be used for his own advantage. 7 Instead, he emptied himself by taking the form of a slave and being born like other human beings. And being recognized as a man, 8 he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. 9 That is why God highly exalted him and graciously bestowed on him the name above all other names [i.e., his own name ‘Lord’], 10 in order that in honour of Jesus’ name [of Lord] every knee shall bow—all beings in heaven, on earth, and in the world below—11 and every tongue shall acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

(1) Paul’s Exhortation: Adopt Christ’s Attitude (2:5)

2:5 Paul’s personal admonition to the Philippians concludes the stirring appeal of vv. 1–4 and at the same time introduces the hymn of vv. 6–11. This verse, a crux interpretum over which there has been and continues to be considerable difference of opinion, ‘has essentially a transitional nature’, forming a link between the two sections.2 Although E. Käsemann, R. P. Martin, L. A. Losie, and other advocates of the ‘kerygmatic’ interpretation reject the notion of a link with the preceding exhortation to unity and humility (vv. 1–4), there are, in our judgment, good grounds for discerning its presence: (a) the key verb φρονέω (‘think, judge, set one’s mind on’), which in the present imperatival form dominates this verse, has already appeared twice in the preceding exhortation (ἵνα τὸ αὐτὸ φρονῆτε, ‘that you be like-minded’, v. 2, and τὸ ἓν φρονοῦντες, ‘striving with one mind towards a single goal’), while the related ταπεινοφροσύνη (‘humility’) also occurs in v. 3. Clearly and deliberately φρονεῖτε picks up this dominant catchword of the preceding exhortation and rounds off what has gone before: ‘Do this!’; ‘Act as I have just said!’5 (b) As a result the τοῦτο (‘this’), which begins the verse, points backward to Paul’s preceding exhortation rather than forward to the christological hymn that follows.7

On the other hand, one ought not to conclude with W. Michaelis that v. 5 cannot be understood as the introduction to a new section. Even though τοῦτο (‘this’) does not point forward to what follows, the real point is that ὃ καί (‘which [attitude] also’) parallels the τοῦτο (‘this’) and shows that the two halves of the sentence are linked. The phrase ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ (‘in Christ Jesus’), whether it is understood corporately along with Käsemann and other exponents of the ‘kerygmatic’ interpretation or as an individual reference to the example of Christ Jesus, is closely bound through the introductory ὅς (‘who’), a natural correlative, to the following hymn, thereby linking the latter with the exhortations of vv. 1–5.

To drive a wedge between vv. 4 and 5, as Käsemann and others do, is incorrect. At the same time to separate vv. 1–5 from what follows is also incorrect. Instead, v. 5 is an important transitional piece linking the exhortations to the hymn: the verse is ‘a typical example of the transitions St. Paul uses’, in which he ‘summarizes the preceding exposition by an imperative’.

τοῦτο φρονεῖτε ἐν ὑμῖν ὃ καὶ ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ. These words are particularly difficult to interpret because they are elliptical. It is an open question as to which verb (or its equivalent) is to be supplied in the second clause. Recent NT scholarship, which has gone in two major directions in interpreting the hymn of vv. 6–11, has demonstrated its differences in the handling of this introductory verse (see the following appendix, which deals with the meaning of v. 5 and the so-called ‘ethical’ and ‘kerygmatic’ interpretations). Following C. F. D. Moule and others, the verse should be expanded into τοῦτο [τὸ φρόνημα] φρονεῖτε ἐν ὑμῖν ὃ καὶ ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ and translated ‘adopt towards one another, in your mutual relations, the same attitude that was found in Christ Jesus’. τοῦτο stands for τοῦτο τὸ φρόνημα (‘this frame of mind’, ‘this attitude’), which Paul has just described in the preceding verses and is the direct object of φρονεῖτε (‘adopt the attitude’) rather than the subject of the imperative φρονείσθω. ἐν ὑμῖν then means ‘among you’, ‘towards one another’, ‘in your mutual relations with one another’. ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ is understood as referring to the person of Jesus in whom this attitude of humility is found. No verb needs to be supplied in v. 5b, while the καί (‘also’) is given its full force, which is to bring out the parallel between ἐν ὑμῖν and ἐν Χριστῷ.

Accordingly, the Christ-hymn presents Jesus as the ultimate model for Christian behaviour and action, the supreme example of the humble, self-sacrificing, self-giving service that Paul has just been urging the Philippians to practice in their relations one toward another (vv. 1–4). There is a relationship between the saving events of the gospel and the conduct appropriate to those who are in Christ. Because of the later connotations of the term, it is better to speak of ‘conformity’ to Christ’s likeness rather than of an ‘imitation’ of his example. The hoped-for attitude set forth by Paul in vv. 2–4 corresponds with that exhibited by Christ Jesus, especially vv. 6–8. (For details see Appendix A.)

(2) Christ’s Humiliation (2:6–8)

2:6 This magnificent passage begins by asserting that Christ Jesus, who existed in the form (μορφή) of God and shared his glory, did not regard his equality with God as something to be used for his own advantage. Unlike many oriental despots the preexistent Christ, who already possessed equality with God, understood his position to mean ‘giving’ not ‘getting’, and thus he chose the path that led to incarnation and death.

With the words ὃς ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ ὑπάρχων (‘who being in the form of God’) the hymn about Christ properly begins. The relative pronoun ὅς (‘who’), which commences this and other hymnlike confessions in the NT (cf. Col. 1:15; 1 Tim. 3:16; Heb. 1:3), here links and identifies the historical Jesus (note the exegesis of ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ above) with the one who existed prior to the incarnation.

ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ (‘in the form of God’) is a key phrase in the entire hymn. It stands at the head of the paragraph, and one’s exegesis of it has a bearing on the interpretation of the whole passage. Since its meaning has been hotly disputed, it will be necessary to review some of the main lines along which it has been interpreted.4 It is of particular importance to note that the author does not say that Christ was ‘the form of God’ (μορφὴ θεοῦ), but that he was ‘in the form of God’ (ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ), as though the form of God was a sphere in which he existed or a garment in which he was clothed (cf. Lk. 7:25).

The precise nuance of the important word μορφή (rendered in the AV and RV as ‘form’), which also turns up in the contrasting phrase of v. 7, μορφὴν δούλου, is unclear. Is the term to be understood as pointing: (1) to the external appearance, condition, position, or form of existence of something? Or does it denote (2) something more profound, so that it is equal to or closely related to the ‘nature’ or ‘essence’ of something? Could, for example, μορφή be regarded as an equivalent of εἰκών (‘image’) and/or δόξα (‘glory’)?

Related exegetical and theological questions arise: What is the background to μορφὴ θεοῦ? Does the expression point to the divinity of the preexistent Jesus, or to the divinity or humanity of the earthly Jesus? Further, what is the relationship of this expression to the following τὸ εἶναι ἴσα θεῷ? Is τὸ εἶναι ἴσα θεῷ, like μορφὴ θεοῦ, a possession that Christ already had?

μορφή is found infrequently in the Greek Bible: apart from the two instances here (vv. 6, 7) it turns up in the NT only at Mk. 16:12, and in the LXX on only six occasions (four of which are in the canonical OT).7 Although μορφή appears only in this context in Paul’s writings, cognate forms of the root μορφ- are elsewhere used by him: μόρφωσις (‘embodiment, outward form’, Rom. 2:20; 2 Tim. 3:5), μορφόω (‘shape, form’, Gal. 4:19), μεταμορφόω (‘transform’, Rom. 12:2; 2 Cor. 3:18), συμμορφίζω (‘give the same form’, Phil. 3:10), and σύμμορφος (‘having the same form’, Phil. 3:21).

μορφή, which appeared in Greek literature from Homer onwards, in all its many nuances came to represent that ‘which may be perceived by the senses’.9 It could also point to the embodiment of the form since possession of the form implied participation in its nature or character. In the six LXX instances (including the four occasions within the canonical books) μορφή refers to the visible form or appearance of something. But the term did not refer to external appearance alone; it regularly pointed to something more substantial. Similarly, from the NT contexts where μορφή and its cognates appear (noted above) it is clear that the word group describes not simply external appearance or behaviour but also that which inwardly corresponds (or is expected to correspond) to the outward.

The following are some of the most important interpretations of the phrase ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ:

(1) J. B. Lightfoot claimed that Paul here uses μορφή with the sense it had acquired in Greek philosophy, particularly Aristotelian. Lightfoot wrote: ‘Though μορφή is not the same as φύσις or οὐσία, yet the possession of the μορφή involves participation in the οὐσία also: for μορφή implies not the external accidents but the essential attributes’. He contrasted it with σχῆμα, which relates to external features and therefore may change, whereas μορφή refers to nature, quality, and essence. On this view our Lord’s preexistent ‘form’ came to be equated with his metaphysical status within the Godhead. Lightfoot’s results were similar to those of patristic exegesis. There is very little evidence, however, to support the view that Paul uses μορφή in such a philosophical sense, though several recent writers agree with Lightfoot’s conclusion that μορφὴ θεοῦ means ‘the essential nature and character of God’.

(2) Taking as its point of departure the notion that μορφή denotes the visible form or characteristic of a person or object under consideration, the phrase μορφὴ θεοῦ (‘the form of God’) is understood as his δόξα (‘glory’), the shining light in which, according to the OT and intertestamental literature, God was pictured. On this view μορφὴ θεοῦ does not refer to external appearance alone since possession of the form implied participation in its nature or character. So H. A. W. Meyer had earlier defined μορφή as the divine ‘glory’, that ‘form of being corresponding to the essence and exhibiting the condition’; in a similar vein J. Weiss claimed that ‘the divine form’ which Jesus possessed before becoming human was nothing other than ‘the Doxa, of God himself, the glory and radiation of his being, which appears almost as an independent hypostasis of God and yet is connected intimately with God’. On this view one can picture the preexistent Christ as clothed in the garments of divine majesty and splendour.18 The expression ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ corresponds completely with Jn. 17:5, ‘the glory I had with you before the world began’, and the description reminds one of Heb. 1:3 (‘the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being’) and of the title Logos.

The following criticisms have been levelled against this attractive interpretation: a. μορφή and δόξα are not synonyms, or at least their equivalence does not clearly occur, and the meaning ‘glory’ cannot be applied equally to the parallel phrase μορφὴ δούλου in v. 7 to render the words by ‘the glory of a slave’. But if μορφή has to do with the visible form that is characteristic of the object or person under consideration, then μορφὴ δούλου means, as Vincent Taylor rightly observed, that the slave is recognized and known by the form he possesses. The criticism has missed the point: the passage speaks of ‘Christ’s eternal δόξα not because μορφή equals δόξα but because the μορφὴ θεοῦ is δόξαʼ.

b. It is claimed that this interpretation cannot do justice to the force of the preposition ἐν in the phrase ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ. It is used, so the argument runs, in the technical sense to signify the sphere in which a person stands. With reference to the preexistent one it means that he was established in a place of divine power. We may speak of a person ‘having an appearance’, but not his being ‘in that appearance’. By way of response one wonders whether too much significance has been read into the preposition ἐν. The picture of the preexistent Christ clothed in the garments of divine majesty and splendour could be said to make adequate sense of the phrase (note the particularly close parallel: Lk. 7:25; cf. 16:23; Acts 5:4).

(3) A popular view that also draws upon an OT background (esp. Gn. 1:26–27 and 3:1–5) equates μορφή with εἰκών (‘image’) and interprets the entire hymn in terms of an Adam-Christ contrast. This explanation of ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ ὑπάρχων in relation to the familiar first Adam-second Adam theme has taken various forms, with advocates divided as to whether the preexistent Christ or the human Jesus is the subject in view. It is very doubtful, however, whether the apostle intended to draw the Adam-Christ parallel at all, and the view has been subjected to linguistic, exegetical, and theological criticisms that have not been satisfactorily answered (see Appendix C).

(4) Another meaning suggested for μορφή is ‘mode of being’ (Daseinsweise) or ‘a way of being under particular circumstances’. Käsemann arrived at this rendering on the grounds of those parallels from the literature of Hellenistic religious dualism (esp. the Sibylline Oracles 8.458; cf. Corp. Herm. 1.13–14) and by understanding the Christ-hymn against the background of the Gnostic myth of the ‘heavenly Man’, whose position was equal with God.26 μορφή does not mean the individual entity as a formed whole, but ‘a mode of being in a specific direction, such as, for example, being in divine substance and power’. On this view there is a refusal to distinguish between fundamental essence and appearance. So the ‘form of God’ in which the preexistent Christ existed is no mere form but the divine mode of being; similarly, the ‘form of a servant’ is the mode of being of a servant.28

This rendering fits the context and applies equally well to both μορφὴ θεοῦ (v. 6) and μορφὴ δούλου (v. 7). However, the appeal to an immediate background of the Gnostic world with its Heavenly Man has been strongly criticized by D. Georgi, J. T. Sanders, and W. Pannenberg. Georgi rightly claims that the Philippian hymn moves in a world different from the Gnostic redemption saga and that in particular there is no incarnation motif in the Gnostic myth, no thought of elevation by God in sovereign power (as in 2:9), and no idea of universal dominion (such as Is. 45:23 proclaims). Further, the recipients of redemption are not specifically mentioned, as in the supposed Gnostic parallels.31

(5) Finally, μορφή has been interpreted by E. Schweizer as ‘condition’ or ‘status’, thus referring to Christ’s original position vis-à-vis God. ‘He was the “first man”, holding a unique place within the divine life and one with God. This sense of “condition would fit the meaning required in v 7b. He who was in the beginning … at God’s side … chose to identify himself with men and to accept the human condition, “in the form of a servant” ’. An objection to this interpretation, namely the absence of such an understanding of μορφή in Greek literature, has been offset, according to Martin,35 by an appeal to Tob. 1:13: ‘Since I was whole-heartedly mindful of my God, the Most High endowed me with a presence (μορφή) which won me … favour’ (NEB). Martin36 claims that on balance this view has most in its favour, not least because of the close tie-up between the ‘righteous one’ and a personalized figure of wisdom in Jewish sapiential literature.

To conclude. μορφή refers to that ‘form which truly and fully expresses the being which underlies it’. The phrase ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ is best interpreted against the background of the glory of God, that shining light in which, according to the OT and intertestamental literature, God was pictured (view [2] above). The expression does not refer simply to external appearance but pictures the preexistent Christ as clothed in the garments of divine majesty and splendour. He was in the form of God, sharing God’s glory. ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ thus corresponds with Jn. 17:5 (‘the glory I had with you before the world began’) and reminds one of Heb. 1:3 (‘the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being’).

ὑπάρχων. ‘[because] he was [in the form of God]’. Older commentators understood the participle to point ‘clearly to the preexistence of Christ, to the period before the Incarnation’. ὑπάρχω can mean simply ‘exist (really), be present’ (Acts 19:40; cf. 27:21; 28:18; ‘be [found]’ somewhere, 4:34; 10:12; 17:27; 1 Cor. 11:18; Phil. 3:20), or with the dative of the person ‘to be at someone’s disposal’ (Acts 3:6). The usage of ὑπάρχω to denote an original or fundamental possession is attested by 1 Cor. 11:7.

The ‘time’ note of ὑπάρχων in Phil. 2:6 has often been debated. J. B. Lightfoot regarded the participle as implying the contrast between the original and the subsequent state of Christ. ‘Prior existence’ is denoted, not necessarily ‘eternal existence’, though the latter idea, he argued, proceeds from the conception of the divinity of Christ that the context presupposes. Others have argued that the participle has no time reference at all.

In Hellenistic usage ὑπάρχω had a weakened sense (as equivalent to εἶμι). Thus J. H. Moulton43 sounded a warning on the NT use of a timeless present participle: ‘Grammar speaks to exegesis here with no decisive voice’. The question, therefore, of Christ’s preexistence must be settled on grounds other than the lexical use of ὑπάρχων (see the discussion above. On the causative [‘because he was’] rather than the concessive use [‘though he was’] of the participle, see p. 214).

οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγήσατο τὸ εἶναι ἴσα θεῷ is the principal clause of v. 6 and is closely connected with the preceding ‘who being in the form of God’ (ὃς ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ ὑπάρχων). This clause, about which much has been written without any consensus being reached as to its meaning, states that ‘he [sc. Christ] did not regard the fact of equality with God as ἁρπαγμός’. It is necessary to ascertain the precise connotation of ἁρπαγμός within the whole phrase οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγήσατο and then relate it to the christological thought of the passage.

ἁρπαγμός occurs only here in the Greek Bible and only rarely in extrabiblical Greek (where most of the instances are patristic quotations of, or allusions to, Phil. 2:6 itself). In his recent history of interpretation of ἁρπαγμός within the context of Phil. 2:5–11 N. T. Wright brilliantly surveyed more than twenty different approaches to the problem (under ten categories). The noun ἁρπαγμός (derived from ἁρπάζω, meaning to ‘snatch, seize’) has been taken in an active (and usually abstract) sense to denote ‘the act of snatching or seizing’ and in a passive (and normally concrete) sense to signify ‘that which is seized’, whether in the bad sense of ‘what is stolen’, ‘prey’, ‘booty’, or in the good sense of ‘prize’ or ‘gain’. Wright’s analysis has made it clear that the noun ἁρπαγμός must be interpreted within the wider unit, namely οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγήσατο. Following Wright, we shall look at several of the more important contributions before suggesting what is, in our judgment, the most convincing solution to the meaning of this enigmatic expression.

(1) Noting that ἁρπαγμὸν τι ἡγεῖσθαι conformed to standard Hellenistic idiom, J. B. Lightfoot understood the word ἁρπαγμός to mean ‘a prize’ or ‘treasure’. The statement referred not to Christ’s majesty but to his condescension; he did not regard the rank and privilege of his equality with God, which he already possessed, as something to be clung on to greedily. Instead, he gave them up at the incarnation.48 Lightfoot was careful to show that this view did not undermine a belief in Christ’s divinity, which he did not give up, but the privileges of divinity.

(2) R. P. Martin’s writings on the Philippian hymn have been influential. His own view (which is partly indebted to E. Lohmeyer) is that ἁρπαγμός is to be understood in a passive concrete sense (‘prize, gain’). This mediating position, Martin claims, includes both the res rapta and res rapienda senses, and thus he calls it res retinenda: Christ had the equality with God as his image, but he refused to exploit it for his personal gain. In answer to the question: What is it that Christ did not already possess, and at which he refused to snatch? Martin responds that it is the status of ‘cosmocrator’. As one who is ‘in the form of God’ Christ was divine, but he was not yet ruler of the world. Martin’s treatment has been criticised from several angles, namely for driving a wedge between v. 6a, ‘being in the form of God’, and 6b, ‘equal with God’; for not explaining why equality with God is to be explained in terms of the status of ‘cosmocrator’, and why this is something to which Christ should not aspire. Further, it is claimed that the Adam-Christ parallel is hard to see on this view, while the emphasis of the hymn is thrown in the wrong direction.

As a variation on this view that interprets ἁρπαγμός in a passive, concrete sense (res rapienda), M. Hooker emphasized the implicit contrast between Christ and Adam and suggested that Christ did not need to snatch (like Adam) at divine equality since he already possessed it. In support of her interpretation Hooker claims that τὸ εἶναι ἴσα θεῷ is a reference to Gn. 1:26 and signifies divine likeness (like Adam’s), that μορφή and εἰκών are equivalent in Phil. 2:6 as in the LXX (but see above), and that the rabbinic tradition saw Adam as already possessing the thing at which he grasped (Gn. 3:5, 22). Somewhat surprisingly Hooker describes the pre-incarnate Christ as ‘the true Man’, ‘the one who is truly what Man is meant to be’.

(3) A recent, stimulating approach to the problem has been that of C. F. D. Moule, who claims that ἁρπαγμός is not to be confused with the cognate ἅρπαγμα, but is to be understood in the active, abstract sense of ‘act of snatching’ (raptus). The point of the passage is that ‘instead of imagining that equality with God meant getting, Jesus on the contrary, gave—gave until he was “empty” … he thought of equality with God not as πλήρωσις but as κένωσις, not as ἁρπαγμός but as open-handed spending—even to death’.

mnnnn

(b) ‘He Placed Himself Under Demonic Powers.’

Arguing that the framework of the hymn is a mythical drama, concerned with events in an otherworldly setting, E. Käsemann claims that the statements ‘he emptied himself’ and ‘he took the form of a servant’ tell us nothing about who Christ is in his person, nor do they relate that person to the Father. Instead, they speak of events in a connected series, as the Redeemer passes through successive phases of existence and is at length exalted as Lord of the cosmos. The kenosis of Christ is his incarnation; Christ voluntarily gave up (ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσεν) his heavenly existence and limited himself by becoming human. He placed himself under a yoke of submission in two ways: first, in his acceptance of humanity’s bondage to the elemental spirits of the universe (this is Käsemann’s way of taking μορφὴν δούλου λαβών) and, secondly, in his enslavement by the demonic power of death, he entered upon his humiliation. Jesus thus voluntarily subjected himself to these powers until by his death he could destroy them both for himself and for all mankind (cf. ; and the references to στοιχεῖα in , ; , ).

Käsemann thus treats the bondage into which Christ comes as δοῦλος as an enslavement to the evil spiritual forces that were thought to rule over the destinies of people in the Graeco-Roman world of the first century.

Although this theme is undoubtedly struck elsewhere in the NT, it is not an obvious meaning for the expression used here, ‘taking the form of a slave’, nor does it readily harmonize with the general direction of .

A further criticism of Käsemann’s exegesis turns on the precise interrelationship of the clauses in v. 7. Although O. Hofius, as one recent exponent, contends that v. 7c, ἐν ὁμοιώματι ἀνθρώπων γενόμενος, commences a new sentence (with v. 7a and 7b belonging together and parallel with v. 7c and 7d), in our judgment Käsemann is right in linking v. 7c with the preceding, but wrong in his explanation of that interrelationship: taking (λαβών) the form of a δοῦλος (v. 7b) and becoming (γενόμενος) a human (v. 7c) both point to Jesus’ incarnation. As already noted, the participles are coincident in time with the main verb ἐκένωσεν and explain its meaning. But δοῦλος and ἄνθρωπος should not be equated in an absolute sense. One may agree with M. Dibelius’s remark that Jesus’ ‘servanthood is a synonym for his humanity’. But δοῦλος is a more specific and partial predicate of the much wider concept of mankind, employed to sharpen the contrast between the preexistent and incarnate Christ.

(c) ‘He Played the Part of the Servant of the Lord.’

An important line of interpretation, followed by many exegetes, is that which holds that the term δοῦλος, as applied here to Christ, is to be understood in terms of Isaiah’s Servant passages (especially ). So the phrase μορφὴν δούλου λαβών (‘taking the form of a slave’) means exactly ‘playing the part of the Servant of the Lord’, and the principal clause, ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσεν (‘he emptied himself’), is equivalent to , ‘he poured out his soul (to death)’.

J. Jeremias, who has defended this interpretation of v. 7a in considerable detail, notes the many ‘verbal echoes’ of . (See above on the wider question of the religious historical background to the hymn in .) According to Jeremias97 and others, the expression ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσεν refers not to the kenosis of the incarnation but to the surrender of his life upon the cross. The mention of the cross before the incarnation, a reversal of the logical order, is explained by saying that the words following ἐκένωσεν are parenthetical, the aorists being of antecedent action (‘having taken the form of a servant, having come in human likeness, having been found in appearance as man’).

The challenges to this interpretation of an Isaianic background to (see Appendix D) have been in terms of its linguistic validity, the question of the hymn’s structure (see above), and the issue of chronological sequence in relation to , together with the propriety of using μορφὴ δούλου to designate the Isaianic Servant of the Lord. These challenges have not been fully met. As a result, it is concluded that the evidence presented by Jeremias and others is insufficient to establish with certainty the identity of and .

(d) ‘He Became the Righteous Sufferer.’

Another approach to our rather enigmatic phrase is that of E. Schweizer, who understood the reference to the δοῦλος of in terms of the obedient righteous man of postbiblical Judaism who is humble and loyal to God, even to the point of suffering and death in a world that is hostile to the Almighty. He is the righteous sufferer, the loyal servant of God, referred to in Jewish martyrology from the Maccabean period onwards. Jesus is spoken of as δοῦλος not because he fulfils the role of the Servant in , Schweizer argues, but because he, like every righteous one who took upon himself suffering and humiliation for God’s sake, was so called (cf. ); Jesus, however, is the righteous one par excellence. For the loyal servant of postbiblical Judaism obedience lay at the very heart of his faith and he looked forward to being vindicated by God, especially in terms of the eschatological or heavenly enthronement.

On Schweizer’s presentation the act of taking (λαβών) the form of a δοῦλος is analogous to that of becoming (γενόμενος) a human being (note the plural ἀνθρώπων in v. 7c), and both explain the expression ‘he emptied himself’. This gives due weight to the participles, which, as we noted above (pp. 217–218), are coincident in time with the main verb ἐκένωσεν, and explicate the action of that verb. Each of the three clauses, with their finite verb (ἐκένωσεν) and two participles (λαβών and γενόμενος), thus point to Jesus’ incarnation.

The term δοῦλος is employed to sharpen the contrast between the preexistent and the incarnate Christ, and is a specific and partial predicate of the much wider concept of mankind. For Schweizer this specific predicate is properly used to designate the abased and persecuted righteous one. The lack of a genitive with δοῦλος to specify whose servant is meant creates no real difficulty since it is clear from the context that δοῦλος is contrasted, not with the godless among whom the loyal servant has come to dwell, but with God (θεός).

Schweizer thus concluded that δοῦλος applies to the righteous man who suffers for his loyalty to God, and that the early Church saw in Jesus the preeminent example of this type of faithful one. The Servant of Isaiah is ‘a notable illustration of this pattern which reaches its peak example in the career of Jesus’. With reference to the present context the act of humbling is explained by means of a sharp contrast between the divine majesty and power of the preexistent one (μορφὴ θεοῦ) and the abased humble servant (μορφὴ δοῦλου).

G. Bornkamm has criticized Schweizer’s approach especially with regard to the issue of ‘obedience’ that lay at the heart of the righteous man’s behaviour. He claims that the phrase ‘form of a servant’ refers exclusively to the incarnation of the preexistent Christ, that is, to his assuming of human nature, and has no bearing upon his life as a man. But Bornkamm’s own approach and his criticisms of Schweizer’s interpretation are based on a strict progression of thought throughout the hymn. He is, in effect, insisting that each line says only one thing, and that in logical order. Such a canon, however, overlooks the fact that other confessional pieces in the NT (e.g., ) have an unusual order.

(e) ‘He Took the Form of a Slave.’

C. F. D. Moule put forward the suggestion that the term δοῦλος in this phrase was best understood against the background of slavery in contemporary society: ‘slavery meant … the extreme in respect of deprivation of rights.… Pushed to its logical conclusion, slavery would deny a person the right to anything—even to his own life and person’. The statement that Jesus ‘took the form of a slave’ thus means that he ‘so completely stripped himself of the rights and securities as to be comparable to a slave’. This assertion ‘constitutes a poignant description of his absolute and extreme selfemptying—even of basic human rights—and fits the context well’.

According to Moule this more general reference against the backdrop of contemporary slavery is more appropriate than a specific reference to the Suffering Servant of Isaiah or even the righteous sufferer generally. His suggestion has been accepted by and P. D. Feinberg, although the latter thinks that the general background of contemporary slavery could fit with a specific reference to the Servant of Isaiah.

(f) ‘He Became a Slave to God and is the Lordly Example.’

In accordance with his principle of interpreting the hymn, and especially the meaning of Jesus’ actions in 2:6–8, in the light of the use of the terminology of early Christianity (see above), L. W. Hurtado claims that the unseen and ineffable action of the preexistent, heavenly Christ, referred to in 2:6–7, is ‘described after the fashion of the observed, historical action’ since the former is directly linked with the action of the earthly Jesus in 2:8: μορφὴν δούλου λαβών is clearly intended to correspond to ἐταπείνωσεν ἑαυτόν and γενόμενος ὑπήκοος. When Paul (or the author of the hymn) describes Jesus as having taken the role of a δοῦλος in 2:7 he is using language with rich positive overtones for himself and his readers. G. F. Hawthorne, as noted above, suggested that this statement, μορφὴν δούλου λαβών, which speaks of a person without advantage, rights, or privileges of his own, may have been chosen as the author of the hymn meditated on one particular event from the life of Christ, namely Jesus’ washing his disciples’ feet ().

Hurtado argues that although it is not expressly stated in that Jesus was δοῦλος to God there are good reasons for understanding it in this way: a. the δοῦλος word group is found in Paul more frequently with reference to the Christian life and service than in connection with the unredeemed conditions of humans and (against Käsemann) never means human existence as such. b. The immediate context of vv. 6–7 with its contrast suggests that service towards God, or for his sake, is meant. c. In the light of the striking διό of 2:9 and the fact that God is the actor in 2:9–11, the service of 2:7–8 should be seen as offered to God, with 2:9–11 describing the divine response. God’s act of exalting Christ is a consequence of Christ’s obedience.

Finally, the expressions of Jesus’ redemptive work in vv. 6–8, including the term δοῦλος, are often used in connection with exhortations in the apostle’s letters and are intended at the same time to present that work as something of a pattern for those who call him Lord. He is indeed the ‘Lordly Example’.

We conclude with a summary evaluation. Bearing in mind that the apostle is writing to Christian readers in Philippi with a pagan past, it seems best, on balance, to understand the expression μορφὴν δούλου λαβών against the background of slavery in contemporary society. Slavery pointed to the extreme deprivation of one’s rights, even those relating to one’s own life and person. When Jesus emptied himself by embracing the divine vocation and becoming incarnate he become a slave, without any rights whatever. He did not exchange the nature or form of God for that of a slave; instead, he displayed the nature or form of God in the nature or form of a slave, thereby showing clearly not only what his character was like, but also what it meant to be God. A particularly telling example of this, as Hawthorne and Bruce note, was Jesus’ washing the disciples’ feet and drying them with a towel he had tied around his waist (). Jesus’ extreme act of humble service became the pattern of true servanthood, and it is understandable how Christian vocabulary would then come to reflect this, as Hurtado points out. But the action of Jesus serves as the model and explains the servant language.

ἐν ὁμοιώματι ἀνθρώπων γενόμενος. ‘He was born like other humans’. This second participial phrase also defines more precisely the expression of the finite verb ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσεν (‘he emptied himself’). As indicated above, the phrase is modal, describing the manner in which Christ ‘emptied himself’, rather than indicating the manner of his ‘taking the form of a servant’.115 The aorist participle γενόμενος (derived from γίνομαι), together with the preposition ἐν, stresses the notion of ‘beginning’ or ‘becoming’, in the sense of ‘coming into a position, or a state’, and stands in sharp contrast to the present participle ὑπάρκων of v. 6. In fact, two static verbs ὑπάρχων and εἶναι are found in v. 6, but elsewhere the hymn uses verbs that connote action (e.g., ἐκένωσεν, λαβών, and γενόμενος in v. 7; ἐταπείνωσεν and γενόμενος in v. 8). Earlier it was said that Christ always existed (ὑπάρχων) ‘in the form of God’. Here it is claimed that he came into existence (γενόμενος) ‘in the likeness of man’. Although J.-F. Collange objects to rendering the participle by ‘was born’,118 there is no doubt that Jesus’ entrance into an existence like that of human beings was certainly brought about by human birth, and the same participle means ‘born’ at and (cf. ).

The term ὁμοίωμα (‘what is made similar, likeness, image, copy’), although occurring seldom in secular Greek, appeared frequently in the LXX,120 connected with words such as μορφή, εἶδος, εἰκών, ἰδέα, and σχῆμα. ὁμοίωμα can be used to signify ‘equivalence, identity’ (; cf. 5:14), to emphasize the sense of an identical duplicate of the original, and thus here speaks of Christ’s ‘essential identity’ with the human race. He became in all respects like other human beings (ἀνθρώπων; cf. ). On the other hand, ὁμοίωμα can also mean ‘similarity’ or ‘resemblance’, that is, a likeness that nevertheless retains a sense of distinction from the original. In the present context this is taken to imply that the incarnate Christ is more than simply a real human being. Such a view is based on the usage of ὁμοίωμα in where the incarnation of Christ is emphatically asserted, and yet his ultimate distinction from sinful human beings is retained by the term ὁμοίωμα (in the expression ἐν ὁμοιώματι σαρκὸς ἁμαρτίας), since he obviously did not assume fallen human nature (cf. ).

Both Schneider and Käsemann argue that a differentiation between Jesus and all other human beings is made in the hymn in that the incarnate Christ accomplished what no other person could do, that is, render perfect obedience. However, as J. Gnilka126 rightly points out, unlike the problem of sin is not the issue in the hymn; there is no comparison at all of Christ with sinful, disobedient human beings. Schneider’s statement that ‘even as man He remained at the core of His being, what He had been before’ appears to come close to saying that Christ’s likeness to humans was not real but merely apparent. Interpretations that tend in this direction can hardly avoid the danger of some form of docetism, even when the contrary is asserted.

Instead, the term ὁμοίωμα should be understood here in the sense of Christ’s full identity with the human race. O. Michel may be correct in noting that the hymn employs a number of paraphrastic formulas (Umschreibungsformeln), such as ὁμοίωμα, μορφή, σχῆμα, and εὑρίσκομαι, instead of straightforward statements. But these are used to depict the marvellous fact of the incarnation and the earthly life of Jesus. In this context it is too subtle to state that the phrase ἐν ὁμοιώματι ἀνθρώπων γενόμενος ‘suggests a mysterious appearance of one who, since he came from God, still retains a secret relationship with him, and is, to that extent, removed from men’.

We agree with the concerns of both Michel and Martin to assert that Christ fully participated in our human experience, while at the same time recognizing that ‘even the self-emptying and humiliation have not destroyed or violated the secret of the pre-existent One’. Jesus is ‘truly Man, but he is not merely Man’. Nevertheless, here the term ὁμοίωμα and the other paraphrastic formulas draw attention to the action of Christ, namely, that as the preexistent one he became a real human being and took the form of a servant, becoming obedient to death. The expressions do not point to what is mystical and extraordinary in the nature or essence of the incarnate one, as Michel and Martin’s statements assert, since these are not the particular issues at hand.

καὶ σχήματι εὑρεθεὶς ὡς ἄνθρωπος. Lit. ‘And being found in form as a human being’. Although a number of exegetes take this clause (v. 7d = v. 8a in E.T.’s) ‘to be closely connected with the preceding participial affirmation’,132 in our judgment it is better to regard it as dependent on the finite verb ἐταπείνωσεν (‘he humbled’) that immediately follows. The καί links the two finite verbs ἐκένωσεν and ἐταπείνωσεν rather than the two participles γενόμενος and εὑρεθείς. This is not to suggest, however, that there is no relationship between the participial clauses. They are synthetically parallel with the progression of thought—a recapitulation occurring in the next strophe—signified through the contrasting ἀνθρώπων—ἄνθρωπος and γενόμενος—εὑρεθείς.

σχῆμα, ‘outward appearance, form, shape’, appears only twice in the NT, here and at . It occurs once in the LXX, at ; however, in classical Greek it was used often enough to denote ‘the outward form or structure perceptible to the senses’. Here in σκῆμα, when used with the verb εὑρίσκομαι, refers to the way in which Jesus’ humanity appeared. As R. P. Martin puts it, v. 7d ‘contains an unmistakable witness to His personal humanity in its declaration that, in the eyes of those who saw His incarnate life, he was “as a man” ’. The reality of his humanity is thus reaffirmed. At the same time the statement carries the point forward in the direction of his humiliation.

The ὡς does not suggest that to those who saw him he was more than a human being; rather, it ‘introduces the characteristic quality of a pers[on], thing, or action … referred to in the context’. The meaning is thus: ‘he was found to be a man’. A parallel to this is , ‘we were found to be sinners’, εὑρέθημεν … ἁμαρτωλοί. σχήματι is a dative of instrument indicating that ‘by his mode of appearance’ people gained the impression that Jesus was a human being (εὑρίσκομαι points to that quality of a person or thing as recognized or discovered by others).

Christ in his incarnation fully identified himself with humanity. As L. E. Keck puts it, ‘he shared man’s plight in reality and was no mere “reasonable facsimile of a man” ’.145 So, like other writers of the NT, Paul (or the author of the hymn) insists on the reality and completeness of Christ’s humanity (cf. ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ).

2:8 In words that describe the climax of Christ’s supreme humility and obedience v. 8 brings the first stanza of the hymn to a conclusion: Having fully identified himself with humanity in his incarnation (v. 7d) Christ humbled himself by becoming obedient to the utmost limit—even to death, and that the most shameful of all, ‘the utterly vile death of the cross’ (Origen).

ἐταπείνωσεν ἑαυτόν (‘he humbled himself’) is the main sentence (upon which the preceding participial clause καὶ σχήματι εὑρεθεὶς ὡς ἄνθρωπος is dependent) and stands in a chiastic relation to ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσεν (‘he emptied himself’). It expresses the final, climactic part of his consistent action of abasement. Although some interpreters see little difference in meaning between ‘he emptied himself’ (v. 7) and ‘he humbled himself’ (v. 8), since Christ’s whole life from the cradle to the grave was marked by genuine humility, the former relates to his incarnation, the latter to his humanity: he emptied himself in becoming a human being and then, having become human, he humbled himself further. ἐταπείνωσεν is not synonymous with ἐκένωσεν but carries the thought further.

ταπεινόω means ‘to humble, humiliate’ and appears in the NT at ; (twice); ; (twice); 18:14 (twice); ; ; ; ; ; . Here at the verb, used with the reflexive pronoun ἑαυτόν, means ‘to humble oneself’, since the pronoun indicates that the action was free and voluntary (note for a similar construction with this verb). K. Barth, in particular, draws attention to the deliberate act of self-humiliation that is intended, citing Kierkegaard: ‘Christ humbled himself—not, he was humbled’. Several exegetes who find the master key to interpreting the Philippian hymn in the descriptions of the Suffering Servant of Isaiah153 allege that ἐταπείνωσεν ἑαυτόν clearly echoes the LXX of , ἐν τῇ ταπεινώσει, as the obedience of the Servant ‘unto death’ (εἰς θάνατον, 53:8, 12) is presented within the hymn in the corresponding phrase γενόμενος ὑπήκοος μέχρι θανάτου. But even these scholars who interpret our passage along the lines of the Servant of the Lord admit that the ‘outstanding difference’ is seen in the inclusion of the reflexive pronoun ἑαυτόν in . It is the free act of Christ that leads to his humiliation.

γενόμενος ὑπήκοος μέχρι θανάτου. Christ humbled himself ‘by becoming obedient to death’. γενόμενος is a simultaneous aorist participle that explains what is actually meant by the action of self-humbling, namely it is that of becoming obedient even to the extremity of death. ὑπήκοος, which means ‘obedient’, is found at with the dative case to denote to whom the obedience is due. Here at no such object of Christ’s obedience is explicitly mentioned. W. Michaelis claims that the hymn turns upon ‘the obedience of Christ to the Father’s will’. This may be a fair inference from the text and is consistent with a passage such as (‘Then I said, “here I am—it is written about me in the scroll—I have come to do your will, O God” ’). However, several commentators have objected to this inference, claiming that the hymn ‘is not concerned as to whom Christ obeyed in his self-humiliation as a man … [it] is interested rather in the fact that he obeys, in the attitude of submission and dependence he adopts’.

Certainly it was not death that commanded and received his submission, an impression given by some older EVV (hence the GNB avoids any possible misunderstanding with its paraphrase: ‘he walked the path of obedience all the way to death’).

G. F. Hawthorne takes the point regarding submission further and holds that Christ in his humility was principally ‘obedient to God to the full length of accepting death’ (citing Caird), but was at the same time ‘obedient to the wishes of people as well … he set himself to obey God by serving humankind’. Now while it is correct to say that Christ came to serve others and that he did this in obedience to God, it is inappropriate to speak of him as being ‘obedient to the wishes of people as well’. At best it could only be a vague inference, and it does not seem to be consistent with Paul’s use of ὑπακούω and its cognates elsewhere, which have special reference to one’s submission to Christ, the gospel, and the apostolic teaching rather than to people generally.

μέχρι θανάτου means ‘to the extremity of death’. These words (which belong to γενόμενος ὑπήκοος rather than to ἐταπείνωσεν ἑαυτόν) draw attention to the utmost limit of the Son’s obedience. μέχρι is here used as a preposition of degree or measure, not merely of a temporal goal, that is, as long as he lived. By indicating the extreme depth of the humiliation μέχρι θανάτου at the same time points to its end. According to E. Lohmeyer, only a divine being can accept death as obedience; for ordinary human beings it is a necessity, to which they are appointed by their humanity ().

θανάτου δὲ σταυροῦ. These concluding words of the verse bring us to the climax of the first stanza of the hymn and indicate the special manner of Jesus’ death: it was ‘death on a cross’, the most loathsomely degrading death of all, that he endured. The particle δέ with a repetition of the same word σταυρός (cf. ; ) is both intensive and explanatory. What kind of death did he die? The most shameful of all, ‘the utterly vile death of the cross’ (Origen). Here the rock bottom of Jesus’ humiliation was reached.

A number of recent exegetes since Lohmeyer’s time have thought that the phrase θανάτου δὲ σταυροῦ breaks the metrical symmetry of the hymn and is found now in the text because it is a Pauline gloss, added to the original hymn by the apostle. They have further argued that for the Philippians the additional words would ‘emphasize the abject degradation of Christ’s lowly obedience, and drive home the lesson that His identification with men reached the lowest rung of the ladder’. The structure of the hymn and its possible original format have been examined above (see pp. 188–193). However, on this particular point a good case has recently been made for treating the words as integral to the sense as well as to the rhythm. The hymn celebrates Jesus’ humiliation, and that humiliation reached its utmost limit in his undergoing death on the cross. The words were ‘not added to a composition already existing in order to adapt it more precisely to the historical facts’.169 Further, the phrase rhythmically forms a coda to the first stanza just as the expression ‘to the glory of God the Father’ does to the second. Indeed, O. Hofius171 makes the additional point that the words θανάτου δὲ σταυροῦ are not simply the climax of the stanza but they also specifically indicate the purpose (as distinct from the consequence) of the incarnation: Jesus became a human being in order to die a shameful death on a cross. According to Hofius, it is this divine intention rather than the motif of obedience that stands out so sharply in the verse (a point he thinks is confirmed by the opening words of the next stanza, διὸ καί, which focus specifically on θανάτου δὲ σταυροῦ; but see below).

In his survey of the use of crucifixion as a penalty in the Graeco-Roman world Martin Hengel has shown that it was very widespread as a political and military punishment, inflicted by the Romans especially on the lower classes, including slaves, violent criminals, and unruly elements in provinces such as Judea. In order to be an efficient deterrent crucifixion was carried out publicly, usually in some prominent place. According to Hengel, it ‘satisfied the primitive lust for revenge and … sadistic cruelty. It was usually associated with other forms of torture, including at least flogging … the criminal could be tortured to death for days in an unspeakable way’.173 By first-century standards no experience was more loathsomely degrading than this. According to Jewish law anyone who was crucified died under the curse of God (; cf. ); a crucified Messiah was thus an impossibility, and the cross did not become a symbol of Jewish suffering. states that in ‘polite Roman society the word “cross” was an obscenity, not to be uttered in conversation’.

Within the context of the reason for the inclusion of these additional words as an anadiplosis needs to be sought. J. Schneider presents one response with his comment: Paul ‘is not concerned to depict the historical event of the crucifixion of Jesus but rather to show its saving significance’. In our judgment, however, it is precisely the historical event that Paul was concerned to depict with the words θανάτου δὲ σταυροῦ. For the apostle the cross was ‘the real, cruel instrument of execution, … the instrument of the bloody execution of Jesus’. Thus, the final phrase emphasizes ‘the abject degradation of Christ’s lowly obedience’ and drives home the lesson that ‘His identification with men reached the lowest rung of the ladder’.178

Is the saving significance of Christ’s death then also in view? σταυρός and its cognates, which turn up some eighteen other times in Paul (σταυρός: , ; , ; ; ; ; ; σταυρόω: , ; , ; ; ; ; ; and συσταυρόω: ; ), draw attention to some aspect of the saving significance of Jesus’ death. Accordingly, it is generally concluded that σταυρός is to be read here at in the same way; that is, the term gives concrete expression to the saving significance of Jesus’ death. However, if this is true, then it is not the saving significance as such that receives the stress,180 for the central concern of this passage has been to set forth what Christ’s obedience meant for him, not for us, that is, it meant condescension, humiliation, death, and finally exaltation.

(3) Christ’s Exaltation by the Father (2:9–11)

With the opening words of v. 9, διὸ καὶ ὁ θεός κτλ. (‘therefore, God for his part …’), a decisive change in the hymn occurs: in the first half Christ has been the subject of the finite verbs and participles, and attention has been focussed upon the self-humbling and obedience of the God-become-Man, with the reflexive pronouns in vv. 7 and 8 underscoring this emphasis. Now in v. 9 there is a change of emphasis: the Father intervenes decisively to exalt his Son.

To the reader of the English version this change is clear enough, but in the Greek it is even more obvious: a strong inferential conjunction, διό (‘therefore’), together with a second conjunction, καί (‘and’), is the first pointer to the change. Vv. 9–11 syntactically consist of one sentence, with God the Father as the subject of the main verbs ὑπερύψωσεν (‘highly exalted’) and ἐχαρίσατο (‘gave’, v. 9), followed by the subordinate ἵνα clause (vv. 10–11). Christ, who had been the subject of the main actions of vv. 6–8, now ‘becomes the passive recipient and object of God’s own acts’.

In the first half of the hymn (vv. 6–8) the language has been terse and economical, making use of five participial constructions instead of main verbs. Now it is full of echoes of OT constructions and allusions. Proper nouns appear in place of pronouns: ὁ θεός is mentioned as the subject of a sentence for the first time in the hymn, Ἰησοῦς, Ἰησοῦς Χριστός, and θεὸς πατήρ. Finite verbs (ὑπερύψωσεν, ἐχαρίσατο) are followed by subordinate clauses (ἵνα with two verbs, καμψῇ and ἐξομολογήσηται in the subjunctive) together with the paratactical copula καί (twice), rather than participles.

2:9 God the Father is now presented as decisively intervening and acting on his Son’s behalf. Jesus’ self-humbling reached the absolute depths in his most shameful death, a death on a cross (θανάτου δὲ σταυροῦ, v. 8). But now, by way of vindication and approval of Jesus’ total self-humbling, the Father has magnificently exalted his Son to the highest station and graciously bestowed on him the name above all other names, that is, his own name, Lord (= Yahweh), along with all that gives substance and meaning to the name. In his exalted state Jesus now exercises universal lordship.

διὸ καὶ ὁ θεός κτλ. ‘That is why God …’ The transition from humiliation to exaltation is clearly denoted by the inferential conjunction διό (‘therefore’), and together with the second conjunction καί, which marks the element of reciprocity, it indicates that the inference from the preceding passage is self-evident. The καί shows that God the Father for his part responds in raising Jesus. The position of αὐτόν (‘him’) is emphatic, as is natural in a statement of reciprocity. He humbled himself, and God exalted him. An appropriate translation of διὸ καί is ‘that is why’ (cf. ; ; ; ).

To what, in particular, was the Father responding when he exalted Jesus? In his recent detailed exposition of the hymn, O. Hofius has argued that on both formal and material grounds the expression θανάτου δὲ σταυροῦ (1) accurately reflects the Pauline emphasis on the death of Jesus, (2) originally belonged to the hymn and was not inserted as some kind of afterthought or later correction to an already existing Vorlage, and (3) is the climax of vv. 6–8 and the goal (Zielangabe) of Jesus’ self-humbling. His death on the cross was not simply the last event, albeit the most shameful, in a series or sequence. Hofius, consistent with his earlier exposition, claims that the introductory διὸ καί of v. 9 draws particular attention to these climactic and teleological words of the preceding strophe, θανάτου δὲ σταυροῦ. Why did God exalt his Son? Because of Jesus’ death on the cross (cf. ), Hofius replies. And the crucified one has now been exalted as the Lord of the universe.

However, while we do not wish to dispute Hofius’s claims (1) regarding Paul’s emphasis elsewhere on the saving significance of Jesus’ death, or (2) that θανάτου δὲ σταυροῦ originally belonged to the hymn, it is incorrect, in our judgment, to regard διὸ καί as indicating the Father’s response solely or preeminently to Jesus’ death on the cross. On grammatical grounds alone it is clear that the Father’s action is a reciprocal response to Jesus’ prior actions that were expressed by the preceding finite verbs ἐταπέινωσεν (v. 8) and the earlier ἐκένωσεν (v. 7). The Father for his part has ‘highly exalted’ (ὑπερύψωσεν) Jesus and bestowed on him (ἐχαρίσατο) the name above all names. In other words, God’s exaltation of his Son was in response to Jesus’ total self-humbling (which certainly reached its climax in his death on the cross), not simply to his death alone.

The Father’s act of exaltation is his reply to the Son’s self-humiliation, and as such is to be understood as a response of vindication and approval. It is not implied that Jesus’ eventual exaltation was the incentive for his temporary humiliation; otherwise the humbling would have been no true humiliation at all, and as such would have been self-regarding, not self-denying.

But are we also to think of the exaltation in terms of recompense or a reward, prompted by Christ’s actions, in which the hand of God has been forced? P. D. Feinberg has correctly observed: ‘a doctrine of human merit requires that human action alone can “force the hand of God” ’. Throughout Jesus’ whole life, however, he acted in obedience to the Father and in dependence upon God’s Spirit (cf. ; ; , ). Likewise his death upon the cross was offered ‘through the eternal Spirit’ (). Thus Feinberg concludes that ‘while Jesus’ actions were his and while they were the ground for God’s action, they were done through the Holy Spirit, and as such do not constitute a doctrine of merit or works’.

As a reaction to all notions of merit or reward K. Barth has gone to the opposite extreme, claiming that the διό of v. 9 does not divide the hymn into two separate parts, but simply marks another aspect of what has gone before. By means of a complex exegesis Barth insists that it is the same Christ throughout every stage of the drama. Commenting on διό he asserts: ‘It does not say that he who was humbled and humiliated was afterwards exalted’. But διὸ καί does mean precisely this; it ‘marks a new departure, and a new phase in Christ’s existence which cannot (pace Barth) be read back into His incarnate life, which Barth interprets in terms of the divine incognito’. God has in fact vindicated Christ’s self-chosen humiliation and conferred on him (χαρίζεσθαι) the name above all others.

Reference has already been made to the many instances in the OT where the Lord acts in history to bring down the proud and arrogant and to exalt the lowly (see on 2:3). In celebrating the reversal of Christ’s humiliation the hymn provides the supreme illustration of Jesus’ own statement, ‘whoever humbles himself will be exalted’ (; ; ; cf. , ). The wording in v. 9, as observes, is not primarily intended to provide ‘an interpretation of any particular OT passage’, though it does echo, as we might expect, some OT precedents, notably the Servant of the Lord (; cf. ).

To speak in terms of a principle of humiliation and exaltation being stated and exemplified in Scripture, and to say that the story of the hymn follows this pattern, is appropriate. However, a number of exegetes give the impression that we are dealing with an inexorable, divine law. E. Lohmeyer is perhaps the most extreme example of this. For him a universal law that humiliation will issue in exaltation operates in a universe where God rules. To suggest, as Lohmeyer does, that Christ is not explicitly named in v. 9 because a principle and not a person is the main theme is very strange. The hymn, as Martin correctly points out, is not written to establish the validity of a principle. Rather, it sets forth the humility and glory of one who illustrates the rule but who is greater than it.

αὐτὸν ὑπερύψωσεν. ‘[God] highly exalted him’. The simple verb ὑψόω was often used in the NT to describe the exaltation of Jesus. In a literal sense the verb was employed of the action of Moses lifting up the bronze serpent on a pole for all to see (; cf. ), while figuratively it pointed to Jesus being placed in a position of highest honour and supreme power (; ; cf. the blending of the literal and figurative uses in ; ; , ). Here at the compound verb with ὑπέρ appears to describe that exaltation (Paul is extremely fond of ὑπέρ compounds and twenty out of twenty-eight in the NT are found in his writings). ὑπερυψόω is a hapax legomenon in the NT, and if the prefix ὑπερ- is given its full force and treated strictly as a comparative, then the meaning will be that Christ is exalted to the place he had not reached previously, that is, in his preexistent state before the incarnation. However, both contextual and linguistic considerations strongly suggest that the verb has a superlative or, more strictly, an elative force connoting Jesus’ exaltation to a position over the whole of creation (rather than comparative force in relation to his preexistence). Nothing is higher than Christ Jesus, who is placed over all things and is given the name above every name (note the ὑπέρ again at v. 9c); every knee, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, will bow to him. So with F. W. Beare the words may be rendered: ‘God exalted him to the highest station’.21 By this expression Jesus’ uniqueness and absoluteness are emphasized. A close parallel to this elative use of the preposition as the prefix of ὑπερυψόω is the LXX rendering of [97]:9, where Yahweh is praised as ‘the most High over all the earth; you are exalted (ὑπερυψώθης) far above all gods’ (cf. LXX Dn. 3:52–90). The point is not that Yahweh is one stage higher than other deities, but that he is in a class by himself. He is truly the incomparable one (; ; ).

Christ’s exaltation, which is the theme of this second part of the hymn, is not described in stages as was his humiliation and descent to the lowest point. Rather, one verb is employed to speak of the Father lifting Christ from the depths to the heights. Several other NT texts move from Jesus’ death to his exaltation without mentioning either the resurrection or the ascension (; ; cf. ). Frequently in the NT Christ’s ‘Resurrection is related to the vindication of Christ’s messiahship and sonship … while Exaltation is related to the inauguration of his lordship.… The Resurrection proclaims “He lives—and that for ever”, the Exaltation proclaims “He reigns—and that for ever” ’. Here at as well as at where only Jesus’ exaltation is mentioned the fact of his resurrection is presupposed but is passed over in favour of the full emphasis on God’s act of raising Jesus on high to the position of unparalleled honour and universal authority.

καὶ ἐχαρίσατο αὐτῷ τὸ ὄνομα τὸ ὑπὲρ πᾶν ὄνομα. Along with (καί) the statement that God highly exalted Christ is the parallel assertion that ‘he graciously bestowed on him the name above all other names’. These words of the second principal clause in v. 9 (note the διὸ καί … καί …) do not describe a further or separate stage in the exaltation, much less an advance beyond it (which would be impossible). Rather, they are parallel to the first clause, amplifying its meaning and indicating its nature. At his exaltation a new rank involving the exercise of universal dominion was bestowed on Jesus.

In the past there has been considerable debate as to what precise name was given to the Exalted One: Jesus, Jesus Christ, Son, God, or Lord. The text does not answer this explicitly, although C. F. D. Moule, contrary to the majority opinion, contends that vv. 9–11 concern the name ‘Jesus’, not the title ‘Lord’. He claims that the following words of v. 10, ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι Ἰησοῦ, are most naturally rendered ‘when the name “Jesus” is uttered’. Moule adds: ‘Because of the incarnation, the human name, “Jesus”, is acclaimed as the highest name; and the Man Jesus thus comes to be acclaimed as Lord, to the glory of God the Father’.

But the expression τὸ ὄνομα τὸ ὑπὲρ πᾶν ὄνομα, in our judgment, is best interpreted along other lines. In ancient thought a ‘name’ was employed not only as a means of distinguishing one person from another but also as ‘a means of revealing the inner being, the true nature of that individual’ (cf. ; ). As Bauer put it, a name represents ‘something real, a piece of the very nature of the personality whom it designates, that partakes in his qualities and his powers’. Here in v. 9 ὄνομα is not used simply of an individual designation as a proper name. The phrase ὑπὲρ πᾶν ὄνομα (‘above every [other] name’) shows that something additional is in view. Older commentators who sought to interpret τὸ ὄνομα (‘the name’) simply of a personal designation given to the glorified Christ missed this important point regarding all the qualities and powers that give meaning and substance to the title.

The name (τὸ ὄνομα is definite) greater than any other that God conferred on Jesus as a gracious gift (ἐκαρίσατο) is his own name, κύριος (‘Lord’), in its most sublime sense, that designation used in the LXX to represent the personal name of the God of Israel, that is, Yahweh. The reasons for interpreting τὸ ὄνομα as κύριος are: (1) in the ἵνα clause of vv. 10–11, which is subordinate to the main clause in v. 9, Jesus is identified with κύριος (Yahweh), the one to whom universal homage is given (); (2) it is best to regard τῷ ὀνόματι Ἰησοῦ and τὸ ὄνομα τὸ ὑπὲρ πᾶν ὄνομα as juxtaposed; (3) for a Jew like Paul the superlative name was ‘Yahweh’. Since the phrase in v. 10 can mean ‘the name of Jesus’ it is best to understand it as referring to the name ‘Yahweh’; and (4) κύριος gives a symmetry to the hymn: θεός (2:6) becomes δοῦλος (v. 7) and is exalted to be κύριος (v. 11).

This bestowal by God is the rarest of all honours, in view of his assertion in : ‘I am the Lord (κύριος), that is my name’, that is, mine and no one else’s. Further, in the light of the above remarks God not only gave Jesus ‘a designation which distinguished him from all other beings, a title which outranked all other titles’. He also conferred on him all that ‘coincided with that title giving substance and meaning to it’.33 In his exalted state Jesus has a new rank involving the exercise of universal lordship. This gain was in official, not essential, glory since Jesus did not become divine through exaltation. All authority in heaven and on earth were his by nature as well as by gift (; cf. ).

2:10–11 These final verses of the christological hymn describe the universal homage and acclamation that will be accorded the one whose name ranks above all others. God’s purpose in exalting his Son and graciously bestowing on him the all-surpassing name, that is, his own name ‘Lord’, was twofold:

ἵνα ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι Ἰησοῦ

(a) πᾶν γόνυ κάμψῃ

‘that in honour of the name of Jesus

(a) every knee shall bow’ (v. 10)

καὶ

(b) πᾶσα γλῶσσα ἐξομολογήσεται

‘and

(b) every tongue shall acknowledge …’ (v. 11).

Vv. 10 and 11, which are grammatically dependent on the principal clause of v. 9, are governed by the conjunction ἵνα, which denotes purpose (‘in order that’). But does this conjunction indicate result as well as goal? It has been argued correctly that the two notions often run together in the language and thought of both OT and NT, so that the conjunction ἵνα is frequently used to indicate not only the intended or probable result, but even the actual result. BDF36 claim that ‘Jewish theology in general has contributed to the blurring of the distinction between purpose and result’ (cf. ; ), and many interpreters have taken up this point with reference to v. 10. If both result and goal are in view, then v. 10 is asserting that what God purposed in the exaltation of Christ has, in part at least, actually occurred on earth and is already taking place in heaven. J.-F. Collange argues the point strongly: ‘It is … arbitrary’, he claims, ‘to draw a line here between Lordship over the church and Lordship over the cosmos so as to lay the stress on the latter’. He adds, ‘it is evident that the congregation shared in the proclamation and the kneeling called for by it … the church regarded itself as the first-fruits of the New Creation and its confession and submission have universal significance’. Collange is right in suggesting that in honour of Jesus’ Lordship Christians bowed the knee in homage, so reflecting on earth the continued worship presented in heaven (cf. ). But the confidence expressed in vv. 10 and 11 is that this worship is destined to be universal, that is, rendered by ‘every knee’. The fulfilment of this divine intention will take place at the parousia.

ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι Ἰησοῦ. ‘In honour of the name of Jesus [every knee shall bow]’. BAGD39 point out that to date no corresponding use has been found in secular Greek, though there are parallels in the LXX: ; ; ; . The exact force of the preposition ἐν has been debated. The phrase ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι is not a technical formula of invocation here, even though such a use is frequently found elsewhere in the NT: ; ; ; in exorcism and healing, ; ; ; . Here at the whole cosmos is in view (πᾶν γόνυ, ‘every knee’), including those ‘in heaven, on earth, and in the underworld’ (ἐπουρανίων καὶ ἐπιγείων καὶ καταχθονίων), and these are not depicted as invoking that name which Jesus has. Nor is the prepositional phrase to be weakened (with the ἐν being regarded as instrumental, meaning ‘through’ or ‘by’) as though the name of Jesus is the means by which worship is directed to the Father. Rather, the adoration is in honour of the exalted Christ (cf. and the references in the Psalms noted above), and the parallel words of v. 11b describe explicitly the act of reverence as paid directly to the Son and ‘to the glory of God the Father’. It is clear that Jesus is the one being worshipped.

The English rendering ‘at the name of Jesus’, which a number of translations adopt (RSV, NEB, JB, NASB, and NIV), may be misleading,42 for it might suggest that whenever the name Lord is proclaimed everyone would bow the knee in reverence. The proclaiming of the name bestowed on Jesus is not the accompanying circumstance of the submission, but its efficient cause. Such a proclamation of the name ‘evokes the submission of the creatures’. The GNB makes this explicit: ‘in honor of the name of Jesus’.

Ἰησοῦ is neither a dative case (note our criticism of Moule above) nor an explicative genitive. Rather, the genitive case is possessive, for it is not ‘the name Jesus’, but ‘the name which belongs to Jesus’ that is meant. And, as we have seen, that name is ‘the new Name of Lord conferred on him by the Father’. It is not without significance that the concrete name Ἰησοῦ is used for the first time in the hymn. In such a context it serves to emphasize the reality of his humanity: it is the real human being of whom the first part of the hymn has spoken (vv. 7–8) who has been exalted. The one who humbled himself, Jesus, has been enthroned as Lord of the universe, and the day will come when all will acknowledge this.

πᾶν γόνυ κάμψῃ. ‘Every knee shall bow’. The universal scope of the adoration and confession offered to Jesus as Lord is described by the words ‘every knee shall bow’ and ‘every tongue confess’ (v. 11). κάμπτω, meaning ‘to bend, bow’, when used with γόνυ, signifies ‘to bend the knee’. The object of the homage is usually expressed by πρός with the accusative case (), or by the dative alone (; ), rather than by ἐν with the dative as here. This grammatical construction is unique, though note [LXX 63]:5; 43[44]:10; 104[105]:3; . The bending of the knee was an expression denoting great reverence and submission in the OT, especially marking the humble approach of the worshipper who felt his need so keenly that he could not stand upright before God. While the usual position in prayer was that of standing (e.g., ; ; ; etc.), in times of special need or extremity the worshipper fell on his knees (so , ). Likewise in the Gospels people stand to pray (, ), and Jesus assumes his disciples will stand (cf. ); but when there is an acute sense of need or urgent entreaty, the suppliant falls down before God. So Jesus in Gethsemane bows down in lowly submission and distress (; ; ). The bowing of the knee here at , as Martin puts it, is ‘a mark of extreme abasement and submission (as in ) and denotes that the universal homage marks the subjection of those who so kneel to the lordship of Christ’.

The two expressions, ‘every knee shall bow’ and ‘every tongue confess’, are dependent on the LXX text of , which reads: ὅτι ἐμοὶ κάμψει πᾶν γόνυ καὶ ἐξομολογήσεται πᾶσα γλῶσσα τὸν θεόν. This is a highly significant passage,49 and the context of is worth quoting in full:

22 ‘Turn to me and be saved,

all you ends of the earth;

for I am God, and there is no other.

23 By myself I have sworn,

my mouth has uttered in all integrity

a word that will not be revoked:

Before me every knee will bow;

by me every tongue will swear.

24 They will say of me, “In the Lord alone

are righteousness and strength”.

All who have raged against him

will come to him and be put to shame.

25 But in the Lord all the descendants of Israel

will be found righteous and will exult.’

Here the uniqueness of the God of Israel is proclaimed and his universal triumph is hailed. The Lord, who has already declared that he will not share his name or his glory with another, swears solemnly by his own life that ‘every knee will bow before me; by me every tongue will swear’. Paul reiterates this language, but now it is ‘in honour of the name of Jesus’ that everyone kneels.

O. Hofius, in his detailed examination of the Philippian hymn against the background of OT and early Jewish confessional material, claims that the composition follows the pattern of OT psalms and other passages such as , which rehearse the saving acts of Yahweh by way of thanksgiving and confession. ‘Basic to is the Old Testament and old Jewish theologoumenon that at the consummation of the age all creatures will fall down and worship Yahweh, the king of the world.… [It is to] Jesus Christ that universal, eschatological homage will be rendered’. brings to expression the notion of the final universal homage to Yahweh that is met in many other OT passages. The Lord is King and rules over the whole world (; , ; ; , ; ; ). Because of his all-embracing lordship over the whole of creation (cf. ; ) a summons goes forth to worship him and to ascribe the glory due to his name; this exhortation is addressed not only to Israel () but also to heavenly beings (; ; ; ), the peoples in general (; ; ; ; cf. 113:3–4), everything that has breath (), all the earth (, ; ; ; ), in fact, the whole creation (; ; ; ; , and esp. 148).

That summons will be heeded by all on the final day, for then Yahweh’s kingship will be plain for all to see. But what of his lordship now and a recognition of it, even if only in part, by his people? Within the OT itself this tension existed, for, on the one hand, it is asserted that Yahweh is eternally king () and, on the other, it is recognized that one day he will be king over the whole earth (). The tension is clearly evident in , for the summons to be saved, which is addressed to all the ends of the earth, is on the basis of Yahweh’s present kingship: he is God and there is no other (v. 22). At the same time the words of v. 23, which are reiterated in , express the notion of the universal and final homage to Yahweh. According to O. Hofius, a number of Jewish synagogue prayers (such as Nishmaṯ Kol-hay and ‘Alenu), which were based on , sought to bring together the paradoxical relation of these two biblical assertions.

Does , then, provide a solution to this dilemma? Hofius suggests that with the bowing of the knee in honour of the name of Jesus and the cry of allegiance, ‘Jesus Christ is Lord’ (v. 11), the future hope is partially realized in the present. By invoking as its proof-text the author of the hymn and the Greek-speaking Jewish community in which the hymn originated live ‘in the confident expectation that this salvation will soon be universally visible’.

But is not, it would appear, attempting to resolve an OT and early Jewish eschatological dilemma, for the tension still remains in the text. The exaltation of Jesus has already taken place and God has graciously given him his own all-surpassing name of Lord (v. 9); yet the bowing of every knee does not occur, at least on earth, until the final day. As members of the congregation at Philippi bowed the knee in submission to Jesus their Lord, so they reflected on earth the continual worship presented in heaven (cf. ). But the confidence expressed here is that the homage rendered to Jesus will be universal (πᾶν γόνυ; cf. πᾶσα γλῶσσα, v. 11). The focus of the verse with its use of is not eschatological but christological: in place of the ἐμοί (‘to me’) in the LXX text of ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι Ἰησοῦ (‘in honour of Jesus’ name, i.e., Lord’) is employed in the hymn to make plain the astonishing idea that homage is to be paid to Jesus as Lord.

Finally, it ought not to be assumed that the bending of the knee by all will be in glad acknowledgement of Jesus’ lordship. Since the following words of v. 10c, which explain the meaning of ‘every knee’, include both good and evil beings who acknowledge Jesus’ rule rather than voluntarily confess or praise him (see below), one ought to understand the bowing of the knee as an act of submission to one whose power they cannot resist. This suggestion fits the context of precisely, for there the assertion is made: ‘All who have raged against him will come to him and be put to shame’ (v. 24). It is also consistent with the use made of at to endorse the idea that ‘we will all stand before God’s judgment seat’.

ἐπουρανίων καὶ ἐπιγείων καὶ καταχθονίων. ‘All beings in heaven, on earth, and in the world below’. This triadic expression makes explicit the πᾶν (‘all’) of v. 10 (cf. πᾶσα in v. 11) and emphasizes the universal character of the acclamation offered to the exalted Lord. But what is the precise meaning of the expression and how does it function within its sentence? ἐπουρανίων καὶ ἐπιγείων καὶ καταχθονίων are three adjectives in the genitive plural, dependent on the noun γόνυ and connected by the particle καί with the literal meaning ‘of heaven, of earth, and of the underworld’. A number of earlier commentators and English versions took the three adjectives to be neuter nouns, thus designating ‘things’ animate and inanimate alike—in other words, the whole universe of nature and men that joins in worship. More recently W. Carr, after an examination of the triadic phrase in the light of passages in Ignatius (esp. Trall. 9:1), Polycarp, and Justin, concluded: ‘it is reasonably certain that the three adjectives are neuter rather than masculine’. Accordingly, ‘the reference is not so much to beings that inhabit the three regions as to the overall notion of universality of homage to God’.59 Like Lightfoot before him, Carr adduced in support, for here in a personification the whole of creation sings the praise of its Creator. One may add , , where Paul speaks of ‘all creation’ waiting for the redemption of Christ and as groaning in travail. Ancient man believed in a three-storied universe, and the totality was often expressed by phrases that included all three (cf. Homer, Od. 5.184–186), without inquiring too closely into the content of the separate compartments of that universe. So here it is argued that Paul, in proclaiming the universality of the homage offered to Jesus, used the language of his day (cf. ; Ign. Trall. 9.1).

It is more likely, however, that the three adjectives should be construed as masculine nouns, designating rational beings who pay homage and make confession (v. 11). The adjectives used in the parallel reference, Ign. Trall. 9.1, also seem to be masculine since those who are referred to are said to have seen Christ’s passion: Jesus ‘was truly crucified and died, in the sight of those in heaven and on earth and under the earth’. The majority of exegetes who regard the epithets as masculine in gender see here a threefold division of the universe and give concrete application to the terms along the following lines: (1) angels in heaven, human beings on earth, and either the departed in Sheol or demons under the earth, and (2) mighty angelic powers or spirits thought to rule over the realms of the cosmos—astral, terrestrial, and subterrestrial.

View (2), drawing on the earlier background researches of A. Seeberg, M. Dibelius, and E. Peterson, together with the more recent exegetical contributions of O. Cullmann and E. Käsemann, argues that: a. the division of the cosmos into mere realms under the domination of mighty spirits was known in ancient cosmology, b. whenever the full lordship of Christ is asserted in the NT and other early Christian literature, his victory over angel powers is included, and c. the suggestion that the hymn has the submission of spirit-powers in view fits well with the setting of vv. 9–11 as an enthronement drama. This view (2), however, has been challenged decisively by O. Hofius and W. Carr at a number of critical points.63

In our judgment there is no good reason for limiting the reference of the terms to heavenly, terrestrial, or subterrestrial ‘spirits’, as F. W. Beare, for example, does. It is every knee that shall bow to Jesus as Lord, not simply the spiritual powers thought to control three realms of the universe. Further, the victory motif upon which E. Käsemann places such an emphasis, while prominent in , is not mentioned explicitly here in v. 10. The Colossians passage asserts that God’s mighty action of leading the powers and authorities in triumphal procession has already occurred in Christ’s death on the cross. The universal homage to which points, on the other hand, will be rendered at the parousia, and then all—principalities and powers, human beings and spirits—will bow the knee. Some will do it gladly; others because they cannot resist.

Several recent translations and commentators have opted in favour of (1), and C. H. Hunzinger and O. Hofius67 have argued the point in some detail. It may well be correct to regard ἐπουρανίων as referring to angels in heaven, and ἐπιγείων as designating inhabitants on earth. καταχθονίων (a hapax legomenon) ought not to be examined too closely as to whether the reference is to dead human beings or to demons or to both groups. The language seems intended to convey the universality of the homage paid to Jesus ( has four groups; cf. ; ). ‘Not only human beings … but [also] angels and demons, in joyful spontaneity or in reluctant fear, acknowledge the sovereignty of the crucified one—all beings, in fact, in heaven, on earth, and in the world below’.

The second element (καί, v. 11) in God’s purpose of exalting his Son and graciously bestowing on him the name above all others is that ‘every tongue shall acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord’. With these words the hymn reaches its climax. The emphasis falls upon the word ‘Lord’: κύριος is given special force by being placed first in its phrase. At v. 9 it was mentioned that God had exalted Christ and bestowed on him the supreme name, though what that name was had not been made plain. Now, in the formula that all creation takes upon its lips, that name and what it signifies are revealed.

καὶ πᾶσα γλῶσσα ἐξομολογήσηται. ‘And every tongue shall confess’. This key verb ἐξομολογέομαι had in classical Greek the basic meaning ‘to declare openly or confess publicly’. The LXX made a profound contribution to the semantic development of both ἐξομολογέω and its cognate noun ἐξομολόγησις. When used to render the Hebrew yāḏaʿ the verb almost always meant ‘to praise’ or ‘give thanks’ (more than 100 times), while the noun regularly signified ‘praise’ or ‘thanksgiving’. The verb was sometimes used along with ψάλλω, ‘sing praises’. On occasion, however, in the LXX ἐξομολογέω meant ‘to confess openly’ or ‘proclaim’, and a few times it denoted the confession of sin. ἐξομολόγησις regularly denoted ‘praise’—for example, for God’s majesty and power, his mighty acts in the history of his people (), his gracious goodness (), and his saving people from distress (, , etc.)—or ‘thanks’ (especially in relation to answered prayer: ; ).

In early Christian literature the influence of the LXX was apparent in the use of the two words to express ‘praise’ and ‘thanks’.74 However, several other classical uses are also present, including the meanings ‘to promise’, ‘to confess’ or ‘admit’,76 and ‘to declare or acknowledge openly’ ().

ἐξομολογέω has often been taken in this context as signifying ‘to proclaim with thanksgiving’ and so to be speaking of a personal confession of faith. Accordingly, the whole of creation, including the heavenly host, the people of God on earth, and the dead in Sheol, is understood to be offering praise and thanksgiving to the exalted Christ—either in the here and now or on the final day at the consummation of the age. O. Hofius has given the following reasons for adopting this line: (1) as is clearly the case in and , so here in the hymn the calling upon Jesus as Lord is a confession that springs from faith in the One exalted by God. (2) ἐξομολογέομαι in (which is the source of its use in ) and elsewhere in the OT denotes a confession of praise (‘lobpreisende Bekenntnis’) to Yahweh. This Greek verb corresponds to its Hebrew equivalent hǒḏâ, which frequently includes notions of both praise and confession. (3) The confessional character of the acclamation ‘Jesus Christ is Lord’ draws attention to the statement in v. 10 that ‘at the name of Jesus’ every knee shall bow, for the structure of vv. 10 and 11, with its a b b a chiastic parallelism (10a: 11b; 10b: 11a), shows that the Kyrios acclamation of v. 11b is directly related to ἐν ὀνόματι Ἰησοῦ of v. 10a. These words, Hofius claims, are equivalent in meaning to ἐπικαλεῖσθαι τὸ ὄνομα (τοῦ) κυρίου, and wherever this formula occurs in the NT it denotes calling upon the name of Jesus as an expression of faith and confession (; ; , ; ; cf. ). Similarly, in the OT ‘calling upon the name of the Lord’ means ‘to confess to Yahweh in praise and worship’. (4) In both and homage and acclamation are closely conjoined; both are the response to a divine epiphany and together they have the character of an adoring confession. According to Hofius, these two verses in paint the picture of universal praise and confession that is offered in total worship to Jesus, who has been exalted by God to be Lord of the cosmos. The cry of confession ‘Jesus Christ is Lord’ is the appropriate response of faith by all.

But such an understanding of ἐξομολογέω as meaning ‘to proclaim with thanksgiving’ and introducing a confession of faith, in which every intelligent being in the universe openly and gladly proclaims that Jesus Christ alone has the right to reign, is open to a number of criticisms: (1) while the verb has in the LXX the secondary sense of ‘praise and confess’, the simple meaning is ‘to declare openly or confess publicly’ and this rendering should be retained here at v. 11, since a neutral sense such as ‘admit, acknowledge’ best fits the context of vv. 9–11, at the same time avoiding some of the difficulties of the previous view, as we shall endeavour to show. Several recent scholars favour this rendering; thus BAGD83 translates the verb (with its following construction of ὅτι and a noun clause) by ‘acknowledged’, as does O. Michel. D. Fürst makes the point clearly when he states: ‘At the last every power and might will have to confess Jesus as the Christ, i.e. recognize him and do homage’.85

(2) Contrary to Hofius and others, the context of strongly suggests that ἐξομολογήσηται be rendered in the neutral sense of ‘shall confess openly or acknowledge’. The summons addressed to ‘all the ends of the earth’ is that they should turn to Yahweh and be saved. The grounds are that he alone is God, and righteousness/salvation are found only in him (vv. 21–22). The Lord then swears solemnly by his own life that to him every knee will bow and by him every tongue will swear. The thought is that of complete submission to the Lord God of Israel, a full and total recognition of his sovereignty and power. But not all gladly acknowledge the sovereignty of Yahweh in this open confession. Those who have ‘raged against him will come to him and be put to shame’ (v. 24). The enemies of Yahweh are active in their indignation against him and their end will be shameful. Others, however, who openly confess his sovereignty do so gladly, for they recognize that ‘in the Lord alone are righteousness and strength’ (v. 24).

(3) It is possible to argue, as Hofius does, that vv. 10 and 11 evidence a chiastic structure (a b b a) with ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι Ἰησοῦ parallel to κύριος Ἰησοῦς Χριστός. Alternatively the sentence may be structured as follows without the two phrases being in parallelism:

ἵνα ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι Ἰησοῦ:

‘that in honour of the name of Jesus’

(a) πᾶν γόνυ κάμψῃ …

‘every knee shall bow …’

καὶ

and

(b) πᾶσα γλῶσσα ἐξομολογήσηται ὅτι …

every tongue shall acknowledge that …’

But either way ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι Ἰησοῦ does not coincide in meaning with ἐπικαλεῖσθαι τὸ ὄνομα (τοῦ) κύριου (which normally denotes the calling upon the name of Jesus as an expression of faith and confession), and thus cannot be used to support the view that ἐξομολογέω denotes joyful or glad confession of praise and thanksgiving.

(4) The affirmation κύριος Ἰησοῦς (‘Jesus is Lord’) is probably the earliest Christian confession—at least in Gentile circles (; )—and here Χριστός is combined with Ἰησοῦς almost as a part of the proper name. With this call the NT community submitted itself to its Lord, confessing him as the ruler of the world, for God had raised Jesus from the dead and exalted him to the position of universal κύριος. The significant difference about the confession κύριος Ἰησοῦς Χριστός here is that this open declaration is not confined to the Church. Instead, it is offered by all: πᾶσα γλῶσσα (‘every tongue’) is a poetic way of designating ‘everyone’ or ‘all’. In the LXX the expression was used of ‘all peoples’, for γλῶσσα (‘tongue’) was often a synonym for φυλή, λαός, or ἔθνος (‘tribe, people, nation’: ; , ; cf. ; ; ). So the public acclamation is made by all, or at least by ‘all rational beings, … everyone who is capable of making an intelligent acknowledgement concerning the Lordship of Jesus Christ’.

(5) The view that this confession (as introduced by ἐξομολογήσηται) is an open and glad proclamation by every intelligent being in God’s universe runs into a number of exegetical and theological difficulties. If the aorist subjunctive ἐξομολογήσηται is read and translated ‘[that every tongue] should/will openly and thankfully acknowledge’, then it is understood as a divine summons (similar to that of , ‘but now God commands all people everywhere to repent’), or a divine intention that (a) remains unfulfilled, or (b) is gladly offered by all intelligent beings on the final day irrespective of their present attitude to Jesus as Lord. But the note of confidence struck in the passage runs counter to the notions of simply a divine summons or a divine intention that remains unfulfilled, and the suggestion of all intelligent beings gladly acknowledging Jesus’ lordship regardless of their present attitude towards him is controverted by other explicit statements of the NT (cf. , ; , ).

In order to overcome such difficulties others choose the textual variant ἐξομολογήσεται (future indicative). V. 11 is separated from v. 10 and made an independent clause that asserts what will certainly happen in the future—‘every tongue will gladly confess’. But this is syntactically and exegetically awkward, for if the future indicative ἐξομολογήσεται is read in preference to ἐξομολογήσηται it should still be considered part of the subordinate ἴνα-clause denoting purpose. This verb of acknowledgement is, after all, joined to κάμψῃ, ‘will bow’, by the coordinate conjunction καί. Even if v. 11 is an independent clause, the above-mentioned theological problem remains, for the text is again interpreted as saying that on the last day every tongue will assuredly and gladly confess that Jesus Christ is Lord. The difficulty has been recognized by G. F. Hawthorne, for example, but no satisfactory solution has been provided.

(6) It is better, then, to conclude that on the last day every knee will bow and every tongue will ‘openly declare’ that Jesus alone has the right to rule (cf. , etc.). For those who, in the here and now, have already bowed the knee to Jesus and confessed him as Lord, as clearly the Philippian Christians had done, the acclamation at his parousia would spring from the heart. Others, however, such as the principalities and powers of , are not depicted as gladly surrendering to God’s grace, but as submitting against their wills to a power they cannot resist.

εἰς δόξαν θεοῦ πατρός. ‘To the glory of God the Father’. The hymn, which began by speaking of God and of his image, which Christ bears, at the turning point of v. 9 focussed on the Father’s sovereign and decisive action in exalting his Son. It now concludes by asserting that the lordship of Christ leads to the glory of God. These final words are no embarrassing ‘tail-piece’ nor a stylized closing formula akin to Jewish doxologies, which is artistic but purely formal.92 For it is only when the cosmic acknowledgement of Jesus’ lordship is understood to be the climax of the hymn or the central concern of vv. 9–11, and thus the syntactical arrangement of the passage is overlooked, that the doxology of v. 11 is regarded as an embarrassing addition. O. Hofius, however, has demonstrated convincingly that this closing doxology is an essential and original element of the hymn.94

How, then, is it to be interpreted? Put simply, it is that Jesus Christ’s lordship is to the glory of God the Father. This is better than linking εἰς δόξαν θεοῦ πατρός with ἐξομολογήσηται, which suggests that it is the confession that is to the glory of God.96 It may be true theologically to say that such a confession redounds to God’s glory; but here it is the lordship of Christ that is in view. It is to this lordship that the hymn has moved, and syntactically the final words, εἰς δόξαν θεοῦ πατρός, are most naturally linked with what immediately precedes, κύριος Ἰησοῦς Χριστός. For similar reasons W. Michaelis’s interpretation that the doxology of v. 11 is dependent on the ἴνα-clause of v. 10 is to be rejected, for on this view it is the adoration that is directed to the praise of God the Father. W. Thüsing has rightly shown that the lordship of Christ leads to the glory of God. ( brings this out particularly clearly.) God has exalted his Son Jesus Christ; he has enthroned him as Lord, graciously conferred on him his own superlative name, with the result that he has not only the title of Lord but also all the prerogatives that go with it. Further, God purposed that the whole of creation should bow the knee to Jesus as Lord and openly confess that he alone has the right to rule. But this lordship of Jesus in no way threatens or rivals God. Quite the reverse, for it actually reveals the divine glory since the Father has planned that this should be so. ‘The whole exaltation of Christ in the present and in the future is directed toward this, that God shall be all in all’ (note ; ; ). Christ’s lordship, then, points forward to the praise of God in his character of Father. It actually reveals him as Father, in particular as the Father of Christ.

We conclude with a summary statement about Paul’s use of 2:6–11 in its immediate and wider contexts. This early Christian hymn about Christ Jesus is the most important section of the letter to the Philippians and provides a marvellous description of Christ’s self-humbling in his incarnation and death, together with his subsequent exaltation by God to the place of highest honour.

Although no definitive conclusions have been reached regarding the authorship of the hymn (see the discussion on Authorship above), more significant for our purposes is how Paul has used it within the exhortatory material of 2:1–4 and 12–18, and the wider context of Philippians. The function(s) of the passage can only be understood within the surrounding paragraphs, and it may be assumed that the apostle has used and interpreted the material in a Pauline manner, even if he was not its author.

The passage fits neatly into its present context and forms a highly significant section of the overall argument of 1:27–2:18 (see above). Its vocabulary echoes that of the verses immediately preceding (2:1–4), and it is anchored by what immediately follows (note the ὥστε of v. 12). At the same time the hymn prefigures themes that appear later in the letter (cf. 3:20–21).

At 1:27 Paul had urged his readers to focus their attention on one highly significant demand, namely to conduct their lives in a manner worthy of the gospel of Christ. This would involve them in standing firm with a common purpose in the face of attacks from outside the congregation against the progress of the gospel (1:27–30), and steadfastly resisting all kinds of internal division (2:1–4). This latter paragraph functions as a call to unity, love, and humility within the closely knit section of 1:27–2:18. At 2:5, which forms a link between vv. 1–4 and 6–11, the apostle introduces Christ Jesus as the supreme example of self-abnegation and humility, and urges the readers to ‘adopt towards one another, in [their] mutual relations, the same attitude which was found in Christ Jesus’. The meaning of this right attitude to and regard for others, humility and compassion, which Paul calls for in vv. 1–4, are marvellously presented to the Philippians in this classic passage which sets forth Christ Jesus as ‘the Lordly Example’. Immediately after the hymn (v. 12) and reinforced by its contents (ὥστε is an inferential conjunction meaning ‘so then’) Paul resumes his exhortation. Christ’s obedience has been stressed (v. 8) and now serves as an encouragement to the readers.

This hymn is a christological gem unparalleled in the NT. It may have been originally composed for christological or soteriological reasons since it speaks about the real humiliation of the incarnation and the cross of the one who is himself God. As Wright has correctly shown, the passage focusses on Jesus—who he is and what he is like. At the same time it sets forth a ‘new understanding of God’ showing that ‘incarnation and even crucifixion are to be seen as appropriate vehicles for the dynamic self-revelation of God’. Yet Paul’s object in using the hymn here is not primarily to give instruction in doctrine (though it undoubtedly provides highly significant teaching); rather, his primary concern is to appeal to the conduct of Christ and to reinforce instruction in Christian living. The hymn presents Christ as the ultimate model for Christian behaviour and action. It has been suggested that, because of the later connotations of the term, it is better to speak of Paul’s ethics as having to do with ‘conformity’ to Christ’s likeness rather than an ‘imitation’ of his example.

The omission of any reference to the sinner’s personal interest in the work of the Crucified serves Paul’s paraenetic aim. When he mentions Christ’s death the apostle’s focus of attention is not on its saving significance; rather, his purpose was to show what Christ’s obedience meant for him and not for us—it meant condescension, humiliation, abject degradation, and a death of the worst possible kind. Jesus’ obedience and self-humbling to the depths are employed by the apostle in a context that has an overall exhortatory purpose.

Vv. 9–11, the second half of the humiliation-exaltation motif, indicate that Jesus’ actions of 2:6–8 received divine vindication and approval. These words are not simply an ‘appendix’ to the exhortatory material, but have reference to both Paul and the Philippians themselves, albeit later in the epistle. There are significant connections between 2:5–11 and 3:20–21, where Paul spells out what will happen to Christians at the appearance of the Lord Jesus Christ. The apostle uses what Hooker calls the idea of ‘interchange’: Christ becomes what we are—thus enabling us to become what he is. sets forth the former idea; vv. 9–11 describe his exaltation. At 3:20–21 we learn that the power given to him will enable him to transform us into conformity with himself: we shall become like him. Jesus humbled himself under God’s mighty hand, and the Father has now highly exalted him. The Philippians are to be conformed to Christ’s likeness in humility, and they will be exalted when he transforms them into his own likeness.

Appendix B: The Meaning of V. 5 and the ‘Hymn’ (Vv. 6–11) within Their Context

As noted above, v. 5 is difficult to interpret because it is elliptical, and it is an open question which verb (or its equivalent) is to be supplied in the second clause. I. H. Marshall may be right in claiming that no universally satisfying translation has yet been, or indeed can be, provided. Recent NT scholarship has gone in two major directions in interpreting the hymn of vv. 6–11, and, not surprisingly, these approaches have demonstrated the differences in their handling of this introductory verse. They are the so-called ‘ethical’ view (with several variations) and what has been styled the ‘kerygmatic’ interpretation. In the following, we will summarize the main lines of each interpretation, paying particular attention to their exegetical arguments. In so doing we will assess the criticisms of the ‘ethical’ view levelled by E. Käsemann and R. P. Martin, who have argued strongly in favour of a ‘kerygmatic’ interpretation. Finally, we will present our own conclusions.

a. The Ethical Interpretation

Under this heading are included all ideas of ethical example in which Christ is presented as a model to be followed.

(1) Mystical

If the verb ‘to have’ or ‘to regard’ is supplied in v. 5b it becomes possible to give a mystical turn to Paul’s thought. This was previously suggested by C. H. Dodd and A. Deissmann,4 with the translation being picked up by the NEB: ‘Let your bearing towards one another arise out of your life in Christ Jesus’. This interpretation was taken by Dodd to be an illustration of ‘ethics developing directly out of “Christ-mysticism” ’.5

(2) Imitative

The traditional view wishes to add part of the verb ‘to be’ (ἦν) to v. 5b. Paul introduces the great example of Christ Jesus for such a way of life, that is, of humility, in his exhortation. The Philippians are to have among themselves the same disposition and manner of life as Christ Jesus in his freely willed renunciation of the heavenly power and glory that he possessed before the incarnation. ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ refers to Christ as an individual person. Vv. 1–5 are joined to the ‘hymn’ by the introductory ὅς (‘he’), and Christ is presented in the hymn as an example for the conduct of the Philippians.

C. F. D. Moule’s recent arguments in favour of this interpretation are cogent and need to be noted in detail because of his particular treatment of v. 5. Rejecting the AV’s rendering (‘let this mind be in you’, which represents the inferior reading φρονείσθω—see below), Moule claims that the verse should be expanded into τοῦτο [τὸ φρόνημα] φρονεῖτε ἐν ὑμῖν ὃ καὶ ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ and translated ‘adopt towards one another, in your mutual relations, the same attitude that was found in Christ Jesus’. τοῦτο stands for τοῦτο τὸ φρόνημα (‘this frame of mind’, ‘this attitude’), which Paul has just described in the preceding verses and is the direct object of φρονεῖτε (‘adopt the attitude’) rather than the subject of the imperative φρονείσθω. ἐν ὑμῖν then means ‘among you’, ‘towards one another’, ‘in your mutual relations with one another’. It cannot mean ‘in you’ (i.e., ‘in your hearts’), for this is ‘at once an unlikely meaning for ὑμῖν and a redundant and unconvincing extension of φρονεῖτε (as though it were possible to think or adopt an attitude anywhere else but with oneself!’)’. On this interpretation ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ is understood as referring to the person of Jesus in whom this attitude of humility is found. According to Moule, the phrase does not represent the Pauline ‘incorporation in Christ’, as so many recent commentators have claimed. Accordingly, no verb needs to be supplied in v. 5b, while the καί (‘also’) is given its full force, which is to bring out the parallel between ἐν ὑμῖν and ἐν Χριστῷ.

G. F. Hawthorne, while endorsing the so-called ‘ethical’ interpretation in which Christ is presented as a model to be followed, treats v. 5 somewhat differently. He holds that because of ‘the clear parallel nature of the two halves of this sentence’, which demands that ἐν ὑμῖν and ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ be treated grammatically alike (either as ‘in you’/‘in Christ Jesus’ or ‘by you’/‘by Christ Jesus’), (1) it is impossible to maintain this grammatical parallelism and at the same time give the phrase ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ the ‘incorporation-in-Christ’ meaning so common to Paul in other contexts (since ἐν ὑμῖν cannot be stretched to mean anything like incorporation in Christ, but must be given a different connotation such as ‘towards one another’, NEB). (2) Similarly, the parallelism between ἐν ὑμῖν and ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ cannot be maintained if the reading φρονεῖτε (‘adopt the attitude’) is insisted on (ἐν ὑμῖν cannot mean ‘in you’, i.e., ‘in your case’ since ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ signifies ‘in the case of Christ Jesus’). Hawthorne thus modifies Moule’s arguments (though his basic interpretation is the same) and is also critical of the dominant exegesis, classically expounded by Käsemann. Instead, Hawthorne follows the Byzantine reading φρονεῖσθω in v. 5a (cf. AV), and supplies ἐφρονεῖτο as the missing verb in v. 5b. Paul’s sentences on this reconstruction are neatly balanced:

τοῦτο φρονείσθω ἐν ὑμῖν

ὃ καὶ ἐφρονεῖτο ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ

and rendered:

‘This way of thinking must be adopted by you,

which also was the way of thinking adopted by Christ Jesus.’

The parallelism is secured, however, ‘at heavy cost’, namely accepting an inferior text. Further, the question may be asked as to whether the parallelism demands, in the way Hawthorne suggests, that the two prepositional phrases ἐν ὑμῖν and ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ be understood as saying the same thing.

b. The Kerygmatic Interpretation

Although scholars from the Reformers until the middle of the twentieth century interpreted the passage as a piece of ethical exhortation to follow the example of Christ, since the 1950s the majority scholarly opinion concerning Paul’s use of the christological hymn in vv. 6–11 has swung in favour of the view that Paul is reminding the Philippians as to how they came to be in Christ—albeit for an exhortatory purpose.

Basic to Käsemann’s interpretation is the notion that the hymn has an independent existence prior to its inclusion in , and should be interpreted solely on the basis of a pre-Christian background (particularly Gnostic) of myths and images. Martin states the hermeneutical point explicitly: ‘It is of the utmost importance to isolate the meaning of the terms in the hymn from the use which is made of them by Paul in the verses which precede and follow’. Once the hymn’s significance in its original form is determined, ‘irritating difficulties of interpretation’ (!) are overcome, according to Martin.3

The main arguments in favour of this interpretation are: (1) while recognizing that it is necessary to insert some verb after the relative pronoun (ὅ) in v. 5, it claims that a second φρονεῖτε (an indicative following the preceding φρονεῖτε, which is an imperative), or φρονεῖν δεῖ as an alternative, yields greater parallelism and symmetry. The resulting translation is: ‘adopt towards one another, in your mutual relations, the same attitude as you adopt towards Christ Jesus, in your union with him’.5 So, as Käsemann notes: ‘The Philippians are admonished to conduct themselves toward one another as is fitting within the realm of Christ’.

(2) The phrase ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ is the familiar technical theological formula in Paul, which here refers not to the thoughts or attitude of Christ but to the union of believers with Christ as members of his body. So, according to Käsemann, the expression points to the salvation event, not an example.

(3) Only part of what Paul goes on to write could be regarded as providing an example to believers of humility and self-forgetfulness. Vv. 9–11 become an irrelevant addition, on the ethical interpretation, since Christ’s elevation to world rulership cannot be the theme of the Christian’s imitation.

(4) Paul only rarely points to the earthly life of Jesus as an ethical example. The closest parallels to this idea are and . But these are short statements and not really comparable with an extended passage such as .

(5) Käsemann’s view has the merit of connecting v. 5 with v. 11, and thus shows that the centre of gravity in the hymn is Christ’s lordship over the universe, not a piece of teaching on his ethical example, or even a discussion of his relationship to God.

(6) If the hymn has a baptismal setting, then the implied exhortation in v. 5 is, according to Martin, ‘become what you already are’, that is, risen with Christ to new life. You should work out in your congregational activities the new life you received at your baptism into Christ (). This thought, it is argued, admirably links up with the sequel to the hymn in 2:12, where those who are ‘in Christ’ and heirs of salvation are encouraged: ‘work out your own salvation’.

c. An Evaluation of the Kerygmatic Interpretation

In spite of the formidable array of arguments presented by Käsemann and Martin, among others, the case for the kerygmatic interpretation is not without its own difficulties:

(1) The completion of the elliptical v. 5b with the addition of φρονεῖτε leads to a tautology, for the resulting translation, ‘Have this attitude among yourselves that you have as members of Christ’s body’, assumes that believers could adopt one attitude in their mutual relations and another as incorporated into Christ. But this is incorrect. Although it is often thought (cf. [1] and [4] above) that this rendering is in line with the NT pattern of commanding believers to ‘become what they are’, in fact this is not so. Käsemann and Martin’s exegesis presupposes a contrast between two spheres of existence, whereas the contrast set forth by Paul is ‘between an already given condition on the one hand, and the implementing of it, on the other’. It is further argued that the addition of φρονεῖτε renders the καί meaningless, though Martin has recently countered this by suggesting that the καί should be given an ascensive force (‘even’) or an explicative meaning. He claims that this usage would fit neatly into Losie’s reconstruction of τοῦτο as the object of φρονεῖτε (see above). The ὃ καί is then thought to make the verb look forward to the following hymn with its paraenetic appeal. The weaknesses of Losie’s presentation have already been noted (see above, p. 204). Rather, the καί brings out the parallel between ἐν ὑμῖν and ἐν Χριστῷ; it is found in other passages where exhortation is made with reference to Christ.

(2) Regarding the expression ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ, M. Hooker considers it worthy of note that Paul does not introduce the hymn with the usual phrase ἐν Χριστῷ. She claims that it is significant that in this particular instance he chose to add the name ‘Jesus’. In agreement with Käsemann Hooker recognizes that ‘Paul has a very profound understanding of the relationship between the saving events of the gospel and the conduct appropriate to those who are in Christ’. Further, the apostle did not regard ‘Christian ethics to be simply a matter of imitating the example of Christ, rather it is a conformity to the true existence which belongs to those who are in Christ’. But to suggest, with Käsemann, that the character of this new humanity is not the character of Jesus himself, Hooker asserts, is ‘nonsense’; it is ‘only the dogma that the Jesus of History and the Christ of Faith belong to separate compartments that leads to the belief that the appeal to a Christian character appropriate to those who are in Christ is not linked to the pattern as seen in Jesus himself’.

(3) Paul’s appeal to the ethical example of Jesus is not as rare as Käsemann and Martin claim, and it is certainly more significant than they concede. provides a striking parallel to —both in the circumstances of those addressed and in the appeal to Christ who did not please himself. Hooker7 claims that the closest parallel to the idea of Christ’s self-emptying in is found in : ‘You know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that being rich he became poor for your sake, that you through his poverty might become rich’. Here, too, is a summary of the gospel events—briefer than the passage in Philippians—inserted into the argument in a typically Pauline fashion, that is, the example of Christ is appealed to in urging the Corinthians to be generous in giving to the poor. To describe this as simply imitatio Christi is inadequate; their obligation to behave like Christ arises out of the fact that their lives are dependent on him.

Other instances such as and (in addition to those already noted; cf. also ; ) suggest that the hymn’s presentation of Christ as the ultimate model for ethical action is quite in keeping with Paul’s practice elsewhere of using the life and death of Christ as a pattern for Christians to follow.

(4) Central to Käsemann’s argument is that the essence of vv. 6–11 is a drama of salvation that traces the steps through which Christ passed from preexistence to exaltation; the hymn is more concerned with what Christ did than with who he was. V. 5 introduces a soteriological setting by calling upon Christians to live in their community relations as those who belong to Christ’s rule. But even if it is true that the hymn traces the steps in the soteriological drama there is no reason why it could not have been given a new setting in the context of the letter. Deichgräber has argued convincingly that primitive hymns about Christ have come down to us because they were used in a secondary way, especially in paraenesis.

Whatever the origin of , the passage certainly belongs in its present context: on the one hand, its vocabulary echoes that of the verses immediately preceding. As we have noted, φρονεῖτε echoes ἐφρονῆτε and φρονοῦντες in v. 2, while the important word ἐταπείνωσεν of v. 8 picks up the term ταπεινοφροσύνη of v. 3. ἡγήσατο (v. 6) reminds one of ἡγούμενοι in v. 3. On the other hand, the hymn is firmly anchored to its context by what immediately follows: Paul begins the next section with ὥστε, not because it is a suitably weak linkword but because there is a logical progression in his thought—ὥστε ὑπηκούσατε echoes the ὑπήκοος of v. 8. Four times over the apostle ties in the behaviour that he expects of the Philippians with the behaviour of Christ himself, as described in vv. 6–8.

(5) A fundamental criticism, related to the preceding point, concerns Käsemann and Martin’s exegetical methodology. It is a mistake to try to isolate the meaning of the terms in the hymn from the use Paul makes of them in the immediate context. If the passage is pre-Pauline, then as Hooker rightly asserts, ‘we have no guide-lines to help us in understanding its meaning’. While commentators may speculate about the background, ‘we know very little about pre-Pauline Christianity, and nothing at all about the context in which the passage originated’. Instead, it is necessary to examine the function of these verses within their present context in the letter and then to ‘enquire about possible parallels within Paul’s own writings’. It may be assumed that the apostle has used and interpreted the material in a Pauline manner, even if he was not its author.12

(6) The strongest argument of Käsemann, according to Martin, against the so-called ‘ethical interpretation is that vv. 9–11 must be regarded as an appendix, with no relevance to the exhortation to humility’. Clearly vv. 9–11 do not deal directly with the theme of humility. Instead, they refer to Jesus’ exaltation by the Father to the place of highest honour. The opening words of v. 9, διὸ καὶ ὁ θεός (‘that is why God …’), signify the turning point of the hymn, and the διό (‘therefore’), in particular, draws attention to the change of subject: it is God who has exalted Jesus. Obviously it would be nonsense to think Paul was suggesting that the Philippians should imitate Christ in being exalted!

But the question sharply posed by both Käsemann and Martin is whether the presence of vv. 9–11 can be satisfactorily accounted for on the ethical interpretation, or whether they are simply an ‘appendix’ to the exhortatory material. One ought to note in the first instance that vv. 9–11 indicate that ‘the actions of 2:6–8 received divine vindication and approval’. Jesus, who took the role of a slave, has been exalted as Lord, and all owe obedience to him. Vv. 9–11 are not simply an epilogue to the preceding, but serve ‘to evaluate Jesus’ obedience in the highest terms’. His ‘action of self-humbling and obedience has not just exemplary but also fully authoritative significance’.

Attention has already been drawn to the humiliation-exaltation motif running throughout the Bible (see on ταπεινοφροσύνη, ‘humility’, at 2:3). This pattern is frequently used in exhortation (e.g., , ‘For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted’) and lies at the heart of . Central to the theme are the following: a refusal to exalt oneself, humbling oneself under God’s almighty hand (as an expression of trust and confidence), and finally being exalted by God in due time. Each of these elements is present with reference to Christ. He refused to take advantage of his equality with God. Rather, he humbled himself under God’s mighty hand and the Father has now highly exalted him. The Philippians have been exhorted to follow the example of Christ’s humility; but what of their exaltation?

At this juncture we need to note the apostle’s argument elsewhere in the epistle. Significant links with 2:5–11 are found in 3:20–21: σύμμορφον (‘similar in form’) echoes μορφή (‘form’), ὑπάρχει (‘is, exists’) echoes ὑπάρχων (‘being’), and μετασχηματίσει (‘transform’) picks up the word σχῆμα (‘form’). The reference to humiliation in ταπεινώσεως reminds us of the verb ἐταπείνωσεν (‘humbled’) used of Christ at 2:8, while the words δόξα (‘glory’) and πάντα (‘everything’) both reappear, as does the phrase κύριος Ἰησοῦς Χριστός (‘Lord Jesus Christ’). Even more important is the explicit teaching of the passage, for here Paul spells out what will happen to Christians at the appearance of the Lord Jesus Christ. The body of our humiliation (τῆς ταπεινώσεως ἡμῶν) is to be changed (μετασχηματίσει) and conformed (σύμμορφον) to his glorious body; the Lord Jesus is to do this through the power that enables him to subject all things to himself. Hooker claims that here (as in ; ; ; ) Paul uses the idea of ‘interchange’: Christ becomes what we are—so enabling us to become what he is. sets forth the former idea; vv. 9–11 describe his exaltation. At 3:20–21 we learn that the power given to him will enable him to transform us into conformity with himself: we shall become like him.

Thus, the latter half of the humiliation-exaltation motif does have point with reference to both Paul and the Philippians themselves—not in the immediate context, but later in the epistle. ὑψόω is not found in , but many aspects of the epistle as a whole make a promise of ‘exaltation’ relevant. This is so, on the one hand, of Paul who is imprisoned and suffering, and yet who is confident that his present adverse circumstances will turn out to be an advantage (1:12–14). Indeed, so confident is he of ultimate vindication and exaltation (1:21b; 3:11) that he accepts his present lot for the Philippians’ sake, even though he is aware of the possibility of a violent death (2:17). On the other hand, it is equally true of this infant company of believers at Philippi, which suffers mob violence at the hands of their fellow townspeople. It may, like Paul whom they are to imitate (3:17), include suffering the loss of all things in order to gain Christ (3:8) and full vindication, εἰς τὴν ἐξανάστασιν τὴν ἐκ νεκρῶν (‘[to attain] to the resurrection from the dead’, 3:11).

Against Käsemann and other exponents of the ‘kerygmatic’ interpretation we contend, along with others, that vv. 9–11 can be adequately accounted for on the so-called ‘ethical’ view. ‘Not only Christ’s humility, but also his exaltation is relevant, for the fact that Christ was exalted is an indication that God is at work in the midst of the Philippians and that τὸ σῶμα τῆς ταπεινώσεως ἡμῶν will be exalted (3:21) … as soon as one admits that Paul may be using the hymn as an ethical exhortation, the second part of the hymn, just as much as the first part, is seen as relevant to the epistle as a whole’.

(7) We conclude that the Christ-hymn presents Jesus as the supreme example of the humble, self-sacrificing, self-giving service that Paul has just been urging the Philippians to practice in their relations one toward another (vv. 1–4). Although this hymn is a christological gem unparalleled in the NT and may have been originally composed for christological or soteriological reasons, Paul’s object in using it here is not primarily to give instruction in doctrine but to appeal to the conduct of Christ and to reinforce instruction in Christian living. The hymn presents Christ as the ultimate model for Christian behaviour and action. We agree with Hooker and Dahl that, because of the later connotations of the term, it is better to speak of Paul’s ethics as having to do with ‘conformity’ to Christ’s likeness rather than an ‘imitation’ of his example. V. 5 forms the link between the two sections (vv. 1–4 and 6–11). Following Moule we agree that the verse should be expanded into τοῦτο [τὸ φρόνημα] φρονεῖτε ἐν ὑμῖν ὃ καὶ ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ and translated ‘adopt towards one another, in your mutual relations, the same attitude that was found in Christ Jesus’. The hoped-for attitude set forth by Paul in vv. 2–4 corresponds with that exhibited by Christ Jesus, especially vv. 6–9, and ‘that the Philippians are bound to act in accordance with this attitude toward one another if they wish to imitate their Lord … and share with him in his exaltation and glory’ (2:9–11; cf. 3:11, 20–21 and note ; ).

Appendix C: The Adam-Christ Parallel and Christ’s Preexistence

An influential contemporary interpretation of ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ ὑπάρχων, which draws upon an OT background, equates μορφή with εἰκών (‘image’) and explains the entire hymn in the light of and 3:1–5. In recent times J. Héring made the first thorough investigation of μορφή in the light of the OT terms ṣelem and demûṯ, and concluded (on the basis of and ) that the two concepts ‘image’ and ‘likeness’ must be taken as synonyms. F. W. Eltester and J. Jervell3 agreed that εἰκών and μορφή were interchangeable terms in the LXX and synonyms elsewhere. δόξα is also brought into the equation, with the conclusion that μορφή, εἰκών, and δόξα are thought to be ‘used in interchangeable ways … the interpretation of ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ can legitimately be taken as κατʼ εἰκόνα … or ἐν δόξῃ θεοῦ’. Accordingly, the phrase ὃς ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ ὑπάρχων (‘who being in the form of God’) and the expression ὃς ἐστιν εἰκὼν τοῦ θεοῦ (‘who is the image of God’, ; ) are regarded as synonymous.

Paul, or the pre-Pauline author of the hymn, is thought to be working here with the familiar first Adam-second Adam contrast (cf. ; ). As the first Adam was in the image and likeness of God (), so Christ, the second Adam, existed in the form (= image) of God (). The first Adam wrongly tried to become like God (). In sharp contrast the second Adam neither strove to be equal with God, nor regarded equality with God as something to use for his own advantage.

This explanation of ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ ὑπάρχων in terms of the familiar first Adam-second Adam theme has taken various forms, but before noting the different nuances some general comments are necessary:

a. Serious doubts have been raised about the interchangeability of μορφή and εἰκών. Most exegetes recognize that the semantic fields of the two terms overlap considerably. But there appears to be some difference in nuance between them even if it is difficult to define precisely what that difference is.8 Certainly Adam is nowhere in the LXX or the NT referred to as μορφὴ θεοῦ. When, for example, J. Murphy-O’Connor asks why the author of did not use εἰκών and suggests that μορφή was chosen to bring out the distinction between Christ and other humans, he appears to undercut his own argument that εἰκών and μορφή are simply ‘interchangeable terms’.

b. Further, it is argued that this explanation of μορφή comes to grief because it cannot be adopted for its second occurrence, μορφὴν δούλου, in v. 7.

c. The more fundamental question is, however, whether the interpretation of the entire passage in terms of a sustained contrast with Adam is really warranted. Here exegetes differ, both as to:

(1) whether the parallel between Adam and Christ is intended at all, and if so,

(2) whether it is a reference to the preexistent Christ or the human Jesus or both?

Concerning (1), M. Hooker suggests that there is a contrast between Christ and Adam, not only in the phrase ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ but also in the following words τὸ εἶναι ἴσα θεῷ, which are both regarded as echoes of . Following J. Carmignac she claims that οὐχ is intended to draw attention to a deliberate contrast between the two. provides a similar type of parallelism to : he who was in the form of God did not regard this equality with God (or this likeness to God) as something that needed to be usurped. Being in the form of God meant likeness to or equality with God, as in the case of Adam in . ἴσα in , though normally translated ‘equal’, is used more generally in the LXX to mean ‘like’. It is therefore appropriate as a reference to , at the same time providing a parallel to .

Hooker asks why the contrast between Adam and Christ is expressed as it is in v. 6, and suggests that although , indicate that Adam’s eating of the forbidden fruit meant that he became as God, knowing good and evil, according to Jewish tradition Adam, by disobeying God’s command, ceased to be in the likeness of God. If Paul was aware of ideas like these, then, Hooker argues, we can understand why he wrote that one who was in the form of God and who ‘did not consider being-like-God as something which needed to be grasped (since it was already his), nevertheless deliberately put himself into a situation of being-like-Adam which led to Adam’s death’.

However, others argue that the apostle did not intend to draw the Adam-Christ parallel at all. T. F. Glasson, for example, concluded that the Adam reference seems ‘forced at best’. No such antithesis with appears in because does not say that ‘Adam desired equality with God in the comprehensive sense of that expression.… The only kind of godlikeness in question in was obtained, according to 3:22’. Glasson warns us not to obtrude the Adam-Christ parallel ‘into passages where it is not relevant’, while J. M. Furness remarks: ‘The contrast between the arrogance and self-seeking of Adam and the humility and self-emptying of Christ is very striking so long as only the general tenor of and Ph 2:6ff is considered, but when detailed comparison of the two passages is attempted, … the parallel is less convincing’.

More specifically, serious exegetical criticisms have been levelled against the interpretation of τὸ εἶναι ἴσα θεῷ, the understanding of ἴσα in the general sense of ‘like’ (see below), and whether the phrase is an echo of at all.

(2) The Adam-Christ parallel has been interpreted in a variety of ways:

a. O. Cullmann, for example, claims that Paul here represents Christ as the man who has come from heaven. He is here ‘the pre-existent Heavenly Man, the pre-existent pure image of God, God-man already in his preexistence’. Cullmann relates this to the significance of Christ as the Son of Man, a title that does not occur in Paul although the notion is present in Paul’s pronouncements concerning Christ as Adam.20 Cullmann, however, in wishing to find here the representation of Christ’s human existence, is moving on the wrong track. For in the following verse it is asserted that by emptying himself Christ became a human being and made his appearance as a human being—not that he was a divine-man who became a slave-man. It is misleading to suggest that Christ was already a human being in heaven—indeed, it is not going too far to say that ‘pre-existent humanity’ is an idea foreign to the entire NT (see below).

b. H. Ridderbos, for his part, claims that ‘Paul describes Christ’s prehuman, divine mode of existence and his “disposition” shown in it … with features that make him known to us already in his pre-existence as the second Adam’. Ridderbos affirms Christ’s preexistence in the words ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ ὑπάρχων. But because this and the following words of v. 6b are Adamic, we have ‘the transposition of redemptive-historical to ontic categories’. He adds: ‘even in the glory of his pre-existence he can be designated by the name of the last Adam and he can already be ascribed the disposition that would characterize him as the second man’. Again, however, we would note that the general criticisms labelled against the first Adam-second Adam parallel apply with equal force to Ridderbos’s particular variation.

c. In recent times the most significant interpretation of the Adam-Christ parallel has been that which refuses to see any reference to the preexistent Christ or his incarnation. Instead, the hymn is thought to point only to the human Jesus, his life of humility, and his exaltation to an earthly position of glory. Previously regarded as a nineteenth-century Lutheran ‘dogmatic’ view that was virtually defunct, it is today endorsed by many.25

The most powerful advocacy of this position has come from J. D. G. Dunn, who argues that the sequence of the hymn’s thought is ‘first Adam/last Adam’, as in , without reference ‘to any particular time scale—pre-existence, pre-history or whatever’. According to Dunn ‘the language was used not because it is first and foremost appropriate to Christ, but because it is appropriate to Adam, drawn from the account of Adam’s creation and fall’. It comes then to be applied to Christ to ‘bring out the Adamic character of Christ’s life, death and resurrection … so is simply a way of describing the character of Christ’s ministry and sacrifice’, without reference to his prior existence as a heavenly being.

Dunn’s position sets up a simple equation: what the Adam of lost, namely his possession of divine ‘glory’, has been restored to the last Adam, Jesus Christ, whose ‘glory’ is described in . The opening words, ‘being in the form of God’, play no role, according to Dunn, in portraying the ‘glory’ from which Christ came, nor does it make allusion to his preexistent state.

Dunn’s main polemic is directed against all attempts at seeing a ‘heavenly man’ doctrine based on Gnostic teaching or derived from Philo’s exegesis of or drawn from speculation concerning the preexistence of wisdom. This polemic is correct since the notion of preexistent humanity is foreign to the entire NT, not only to Paul. Further, it has been suggested that Dunn’s recourse to a single model of a ‘two Adams’ teaching is possible. But he has been accused of championing this line at too high a price when he denies any element of preexistence in the hymn, especially at v. 6a.

His interpretation does not do justice to the force of the recapitulatory phrase in v. 7, καὶ σχήματι εὑρεθεὶς ὡς ἄνθρωπος (‘and being found in form as man’), which is very strange if it refers to a person who had never been anything else but a man. Further, the contrast clearly expressed between ‘being in the form of God’ and ‘becoming in the form of human beings’ is very odd if it is only between two stages in the career of a human being. Recent study on the idiomatic expression οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγήσατο has shown that it must refer to something that was already present and at Christ’s disposal, namely his equality with God, and which he did not use to his own advantage. Being equal with God represented a status that belonged to the preexistent Christ (see below).

Finally, R. P. Martin claims Dunn has failed to ‘press the hymn’s “logic” to inquire what is behind the first Adam’s characterization as made in the divine “likeness” ’. He adds that ‘Pauline theology points to humankind’s recovery of the imago Dei …, which is not what Adam had but lost but what the heavenly Christ had’ (; ; ; cf. , ). The hymn’s sequence, in order to achieve the required result, namely the final glory of the last Adam, needs to commence with how it was with Christ’s state in the beginning. It must go behind the Adam of Genesis to him who was the archetype (ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ ὑπάρχων) of Adam. Only as Christ existed ‘in the beginning’ can he be properly said to have regarded his position as a prize not to be exploited.

J. Murphy-O’Connor has argued that one should not assume too quickly that the phrases under review imply the notion of preexistence. But in our judgment that notion is consistent with the most satisfactory exegesis of the text and fits best with the logic of the hymn. Further, after a careful review of the Pauline ‘sending passages’ (; ; cf. v. 32) A. T. Hanson rightly concludes, against Dunn: ‘Once again, we find that the conclusion that Paul did hold a doctrine of pre-existence is by far the simplest explanation of the evidence’. R. H. Fuller puts the general conclusion even more trenchantly: ‘the attempts which have been made to eliminate preexistence entirely from this passage … must be pronounced a failure’.33

Appendix D: μορφὴν δούλου λαβών and the Servant of the Lord ()

As noted above, many exegetes have claimed that the phrase μορφὴν δούλου λαβών of , along with other statements in the Philippian hymn, is to be interpreted in the light of the Servant of the Lord of . In particular, the phrase μορφὴν δούλου λαβών (‘taking the form of a slave’) means exactly ‘playing the part of the servant of the Lord’, and the principal clause, ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσεν (‘he emptied himself’), is equivalent to , ‘he poured out his soul (to death)’. This expression in refers not to the kenosis of the incarnation but to the surrender of Jesus’ life upon the cross. The mention of the cross before the incarnation, a reversal of the logical order, is explained by saying that the words following ἐκένωσεν are parenthetical, the aorists being of antecedent action (‘having taken the form of a servant, having come in human likeness, having been found in appearance as a human being’).

The challenge to this interpretation of such an Isaianic background to has been directed, according to R. P. Martin, to three main areas:

a. The linguistic validity of the theory. M. Hooker claimed there was no linguistic evidence for holding that the words ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσεν … μεχρὶ θανάτου referred to . The LXX rendering of the Hebrew he‘erâ by παρεδόθη is not picked up by the author of our hymn; nor does he quote verbatim from the LXX. Accordingly, it is argued that is not in the writer’s mind. The counter-argument to this is that παρεδόθη has already acquired something of a technical meaning and that the rare verb κενόω additionally conveys the nuance of humiliation. L. S. Thornton suggested that only κενόω carried the double meaning in Greek, that is, voluntary self-giving to the utmost limit and the idea of shameful humiliation. G. Bornkamm6 objected that the phrases ‘his soul’ and ‘unto death’ in could hardly have been left untranslated if the apostle was thinking of Isaiah’s reference to Christ’s self-emptying. In response R. B. Strimple argued that they are not left untranslated since the ‘reflexive ἑαυτόν perfectly captures the force of the Hebrew nap̱šǒ and the “unto death” appears as the climax of the humiliation in verse 8’. But the issue is not quite as clear as this. Such a colourless use of nep̱eš as a mere reflexive pronoun is extremely rare, both in biblical Hebrew and in the Qumran texts, while μεχρὶ θανάτου appears to be too far from μορφὴν δούλου λαβών to justify its being a direct translation of the Hebrew expression and only supports the argument that the phrase ‘taking the form of a servant’ is a reference to Jesus’ incarnation, not his death (which is explicitly mentioned for the first time in v. 8), as the advocates of the Isaianic Servant interpretation claim.

So the linguistic challenge to the equivalence of and , although not decisive, has considerable weight. The second area of challenge concerns:

b. The contextual appropriateness of an Isaianic Servant reference. A particular difficulty of this theory emerges in connection with the structure of the hymn (see above, pp. 188–193). ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσεν on Jeremias’ (and others’) view speaks of Jesus’ surrender of his life upon the cross. If we expect the hymn to proceed in a chronological fashion to cover the curriculum vitae of Christ, then its structure has been broken by mentioning his death before the circumstances of his incarnate life have been given. How far are we to expect formal consistency with a logical, historical order?

H. Wheeler Robinson argued that the apostle’s parenthetic style may account for the unusual form and order of the clauses. Having begun to mention this divine humiliation unto death in words akin to those of , Paul checks himself after saying Jesus ‘emptied himself’, inserts the parenthetical clauses (‘taking the form of a servant’, etc.), and then adds the completing words ‘unto death’. But this explanation is too strained. In addition, it requires that the words ἐκένωσεν (v. 7) and ἐταπείνωσεν (v. 8) be regarded as analogous, with both verbs referring to Jesus’ humiliation unto death. The latter points to his death, but not the former, which refers to the incarnation. Further, the aorist tenses λαβών, γενόμενος, and εὑρεθείς, which have been taken as those of antecedent action, are more likely to be coincident aorists.

c. The third area of challenge concerns the propriety of using μορφὴ δούλου to designate the Isaianic Servant of the Lord. The primary objection to the identification of the Servant in with the δούλος of is that the LXX renders the Hebrew ‘eḇeḏ, with παῖς, a title of dignity and honour, whereas δοῦλος by contrast underscores the elements of shame and humiliation. However, in partial reply it has been pointed out that both Greek terms (δοῦλος and παῖς) are used interchangeably in the LXX to render the ‘eḇeḏ of , with a preference for παῖς (42:1; 49:6; 50:10; 52:13; δοῦλος: 49:3, 5; cf. 42:19; 48:20). K. Euler showed after an exhaustive examination that the two titles were employed interchangeably in the OT, while the use of the verb δουλεύω at has suggested that there was no great distinction in the writer’s mind between the two terms.

At another level R. B. Strimple has claimed that any appeal to the LXX loses much of its force once it is recognized that Paul is employing another translation of the Hebrew. Following Jeremias he notes that most of the allusions to the Servant Songs in the Synoptic Gospels can be shown to be based on ancient tradition independent of the LXX and closer to the Hebrew text. Aquila (at the beginning of the second century) always uses δοῦλος for Isaiah’s servant, but he employs the term μορφή at 52:14 and 53:2. Here Aquila and Philippians agree with each other against the LXX. And if there is substance in L. Cerfaux’s claim that Paul’s quotations elsewhere agree with Aquila against the LXX, then it is appropriate, the argument runs, to read back into Isaiah’s portrait of the Servant not only Paul’s designation of the incarnate Christ as the Servant, but also that he appeared in the form (μορφή) of that person.

Leaving aside the wider question as to whether other statements of the Philippian hymn are to be understood against an Isaianic Servant background (see the individual points of exegesis), we consider the above-mentioned challenges not to have been sufficiently met. Consequently, the evidence presented by Jeremias and others has not been sufficient to establish with certainty the identity of and .

4. WORK OUT YOUR SALVATION (2:12–18)†

12 Well then, my beloved, just as you have always obeyed—not only as in my presence but now much more in my absence—continue working out your own salvation with all godly fear, 13 for the One who works mightily in you is God, who produces in you both the determination to work and the power to carry it out—all in accordance with his good pleasure. 14 Do everything without grumbling and quarreling, 15 so that you may be blameless and pure, God’s perfectd children in the midst of a crooked and perverse people, among whom you shine like stars in the world, 16 by holding fast the word of life. This is so that I will have reason for glorying on the day of Christ, [knowing] that I did not run in vain nor labour in vain. 17 Yes, even if my life is to be poured out as a drink-offering in addition to your sacrificial service—that is, your faith—I am glad and rejoice with all of you. 18 In the same way, you too should be glad and rejoice with me.

At the conclusion of the Christ-hymn and reinforced by its contents, Paul resumes his apostolic exhortation in vv. 12–18 with words directly addressed to the Philippians (ἀγαπητοί μου, ‘my dear friends’). The paragraph (vv. 12–18) is part of a larger paraenetic or exhortatory section, 1:27–2:18, over which the comprehensive injunction of 1:27 stands as a rubric: ‘Now the important thing is this: see to it that you live as citizens in a manner worthy of the gospel of Christ’. Thematic links with this longer section (1:27–2:11) are in evidence, particularly regarding the apostle’s relationships with the congregation, the congregation’s witness to the non-Christian world, and the eschatological perspective. At the same time, this ‘single, lengthy ecclesiological paraenesis’ finds its christological basis in the hymn of 2:6–11, with the important motif of ‘obedience’ appearing first with the reference to Jesus Christ (ὑπήκοος, v. 8) and then being used of the Philippians (ὑπηκούσατε, v. 12).

Because of these interconnections between vv. 12–18 and what has gone before it is inappropriate to speak of v. 12 as marking a new beginning or a ‘fresh departure’. ὥστε is an inferential conjunction (‘so then, accordingly’) linking this new section with what has preceded it from 1:27 onwards, while the additional words of address, ἀγαπητοί μου (together with ὥστε), do not constitute a letter form that makes a fresh start; rather, this term of endearment shows that the apostle’s interest is once again directed to the actual situation of the readers. Vv. 12–18 ‘reach back beyond the hymn and link up with and add to the many other injunctions Paul had already given the church at Philippi for positive Christian living (1:27–2:5)’.

In 2:12–18 where a number of verbs in the imperative mood are used (κατεργάζεσθε, ‘work out’, v. 12; ποιεῖτε, ‘do’, v. 14; χαίρετε, ‘rejoice’, and συγχαίρετε, ‘rejoice with’, v. 18), there is first a general exhortation to the readers to work out their own salvation (vv. 12–13). This constitutes the main thought of the paragraph. It is followed by a more specific injunction to avoid dissension within the community (vv. 14–16); the Philippians are to live like God’s blameless children, holding fast the word of life, in the midst of a society that stands under divine judgment. Finally, appealing to his own ministry Paul depicts the life of the congregation at Philippi as an acceptable offering in God’s sight to which his own life may be added as a modest drink-offering (vv. 17–18)

O’Brien, P. T. (1991). The Epistle to the Philippians: a commentary on the Greek text (pp. 219–273). Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.