1. As God He Emptied Himself (2:5-7)
C. THE EXAMPLE OF CHRIST (2:5-11)
Without breaking stride, Paul turns from the appeal in v. 2, as elaborated in vv. 3-4, to a second imperative by which he will now define the "mindset" he is urging on them: "This mindset have among yourselves which was also found in Christ Jesus." And with that he launches into a narrative about Christ that is at once one of the most exalted, most beloved, and most discussed and debated passages in the Pauline corpus.1 Here is one of Paul's finest hours, which serves both to exalt Christ and to prod the Philippians to emulation (the issue of vv. 1-4), while reassuring them of Christ's exalted position — including over Caesar himself.
Since the seminal work of Lohmeyer, the vast majority of interpreters have assumed the present passage to be an early hymn2 (whether by Paul or otherwise3 ) in honor of Christ. Whether hymn or not, and I have considerable doubts here,4 one can scarcely miss the poetic and exalted nature of much of this. But neither, by calling it a hymn, should one miss the narrative character of the passage, which begins with Christ's pre-existence, followed by his incarnation, including his death on the cross, and concludes with his (assumed) return to heaven as the exalted Lord of heaven and earth. Indeed, of the many attempts to find the "original" strophic arrangement of the alleged hymn,5 the most satisfactory by far are those which follow Paul's own sentence structures. Hence for the purposes of seeing how the narrative functions, and thus how Paul's own dictated sentences6 work, the whole is set out in a structural display (again following Paul's Greek very literally7 ):
5This mindset have
among yourselves
which also
in Christ Jesus:
[Part I] 6who
I1 being in the "form" of God,
not harpagmon8 did he consider equality with God,
7but himself he emptied,
taking the "form" of a slave
coming to be in the likeness of human beings;
8and
I2 being found in appearance as a human being,
he humbled himself,
becoming obedient unto death,
death on a cross.
[Part II] 9Therefore also
God him has highly exalted
and
has granted him the name
that is above every name,
10so that
at the name of Jesus
every knee should bow
in heaven
and
on earth
and
under the earth
11and
every tongue should confess that
the Lord is Jesus Christ
to the glory of God the Father.
The narrative is thus in two parts, corresponding to our vv. 6-8 and 9-11.9 The first part is a compound sentence, with two clauses joined by "and" (I1 and I2 ),10 which are identical in form and in turn show how Christ's "mindset" expressed itself first as God and second as "man."11 Both of these clauses have a basic threefold structure: (a) each begins with a participial phrase indicating the "mode"'12 of Christ's existence (as God, as "man"), followed (b) by the main clause indicating what Christ did in each of these modes of existence (he poured himself out; he humbled himself); which (c) in turn is modified by a further participle indicating how Christ carried out what was said of him in the main verb (by "taking on the 'form' of a slave"; by "becoming obedient unto death"). In both cases this final participle is further modified, in the first clause by another clarifying participle (Christ's taking the form of a slave has to do with his "being made in the likeness of human beings") and in the second by a clarifying word about his death ("the death of the cross"). The first clause (I1 ), it should be noted, also has a significant difference: the main verb is expressed, typically for Paul, with a "not/but" formulation,13 intended to set Christ's "divine activity" into the starkest possible contrast ("being in the 'form' of God, he did not consider equality with God to be taken advantage of, but he emptied himself"). These parallels, plus the sheer power of some of the language, are what give the sense of poetry to this first part.
Part II (vv. 9-11) lacks both the poetry and the balanced clauses of Part I. Instead, it takes the form of basic Pauline argumentation. The ultimate consequence of Christ's "mindset," which led to his "humiliation," Paul asserts, is that God has exalted him "to the highest place" (NIV), by bestowing on him the ultimate name of all: God's own appellation of "Lord," which, not incidentally, is also one of the appellations of Caesar (cf. Acts 25:26). In so doing God vindicated Christ's "mindset" evidenced in w. 6-8.
The context makes it clear that vv. 6-8 function primarily as paradigm.14 The two clauses stand in bold relief to the "selfish ambition" and "empty glory" of v. 3, the second clause exemplifying the humility that is likewise called for in that passage. The function of Part II has been debated. Most likely its purpose is twofold: first, to express divine affirmation of Christ's way of expressing his "equality with God" in vv. 6-8; and, second, in keeping with a motif that runs throughout the letter, to affirm the Philippians' certain future, with its divine vindication. It thus also places Christ in bold contrast to "lord Nero," whose "lordship" they have refused to acknowledge in a city where the cult of the emperor undoubtedly played a significant role.
But quite apart from its function in the argument, this narrative has significance all on its own. Here is the closest thing to Christology that one finds in Paul;15 and here we see again why the "scandal of the cross" was so central to his understanding of everything Christian.16 For in "pouring himself out" and "humbling himself to death on the cross," Christ Jesus has revealed the character of God himself. Here is the epitome of God-likeness: the préexistent Christ was not a "grasping, selfish" being, but one whose love for others found its consummate expression in "pouring himself out," in taking on the role of a slave, in humbling himself to the point of death on behalf of those so loved. No wonder Paul cannot abide triumphalism — in any of its forms. It goes against everything that God is and that God is about. To be sure, there is final vindication for the one who goes the way of the cross; but for believers the vindication is eschatological, not present. Discipleship in the present calls for servanthood, self-sacrifice for the sake of others. Hence Paul concludes the narrative with a further call to "obedience" on the part of the Philippians (v. 12), which will take shape as God works out his salvation among them for his own good pleasure (v. 13); but for God to do so, they must stop the bickering (v. 14) and get on with "having the same love" for one another (v. 2) as Christ has portrayed in this unparalleled passage.
1. As God He Emptied Himself (2:5-7)
5 Your17 attitude should èe18 the same as that of Christ Jesus:
6Who, being in very naturea God,
did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,
7but made himself nothing,
taking the very natureb of a servant,
being made in human19 likeness.
aOr in the form of
bOr the form
Following the imperative in v. 5, Paul begins the narrative about Christ with his pre-existence,20 indicating both what his being God did not entail and what it did. The main thrust of the clause is simple enough: Christ's being God was not for him a matter of "selfish ambition," of grasping or seizing; rather it expressed itself in the very opposite. Thus in a single sentence Paul goes from Christ's "being equal with God" to his having taken the role of "a slave," defined in terms of incarnation. All of this to call the Philippians to similar self-sacrifice for the sake of one another (v. 4).
But the ideas are profound, full of theological grist, and the language not at all simple. Historically, the discussion has centered in four difficult wordings: morphê (NIV, "in very nature God"), harpagmon ("something to be grasped"); ekenôsen ("he made himself nothing"); and homoiömati ("in human likeness"). Some preliminary observations are needed in order to put these matters into perspective. First, it is of some interest that these difficulties are concentrated in the sentence that deals with divine mysteries. That is, on the basis of what was known and came to be believed about Jesus' earthly life, Paul is trying to say something about what could not be observed, yet came to be believed about Christ's prior existence as God. Most of our difficulties stem from this reality, plus our prevailing desire to penetrate into the divine mysteries themselves. Second, Paul's primary concern is not theological as such, but illustrative,21 what Christ Jesus did (in keeping with his "mindset") in his prior existence as God (which of course does indeed say something theological). Therefore, third, while not primarily intended as such, by its very nature the passage is full of theology (especially Christology) that must be dealt with. And fourth, Paul's actual choice of language22 is further dictated by two factors: (a) the "not/but" contrast, which dominates the whole, and which called for a word (morphë, in this case) that could serve equally well both expressions of Christ's existence (as God and as a slave);23 (b) his primary concern in the passage is to illustrate the kind of selflessness and humility referred to in v. 3.
Each of these provisos must be kept in mind as we look more carefully at the details.
5 This opening imperative, which functions as a transition from vv. 1-4 to 6-11, demonstrates that the narrative that follows is intentionally paradigmatic. Although the sentence is elliptical,24 Paul's point seems plain enough. He begins with an emphatic "this," which is best understood as pointing backward,25 in this case to vv. 2-4. That is followed immediately by the imperative, "this think"26 (touto phroneite, "your attitude should be," NIV), which purposely harks back to v. 2 (phronēte/phronountes). Thus the basic imperative sums up the whole of vv. 2-4: "This mindset (i.e., that which I have just described) have among yourselves."
In Pauline paraenesis the prepositional phrase "among yourselves"27 occurs most often to express what must take place in the community,28 although that must be responded to at the individual level. Just as v. 4 particularizes ("each" is responsible to apply the imperatives in the context of "one another"), so here, each is to have this mindset in you, but it must also be evident among you. Thus, "within your community learn to develop attitudes of selflessness and humility, considering the needs of one another as top priority."
This basic imperative is then qualified as that "which [was]29 also in Christ Jesus." This clause needs a verb supplied, which has caused far more difficulty for interpreters than seems necessary. The key lies with the relative pronoun and its adverbial modifier, "which also."30 The antecedent of "which" is "this," and thus points back to the content of vv. 2-4, meaning that the frame of mind set forth in vv. 3-4 is precisely that which one also has seen in Christ Jesus; at the same time "also" begins to point forward. The phrase "in Christ Jesus" is thus to be understood as in parallel with "in/among you," which is the natural reading of Paul's sentence.31 To be sure, some would treat the "also" as "colorless" and argue that "in Christ Jesus" should have an alleged "technical" sense,32 thus making the whole sentence refer to the believers in Philippi: "Have this mind among yourselves, which is fitting [for those] in Christ Jesus."33 While that might (just barely) work grammatically,34 it works very poorly contextually, where the issue is neither with soteriology35 nor with the Philippians' "being in Christ Jesus," but with behavior that is in keeping with Jesus' ,36 which is what the next clause defines by way of poetic narration.
6 With the relative pronoun "who,"37 Paul proceeds from the foregoing imperative directly to the narrative about Christ.38 Again, even though the details are not easy, his overall concern seems plain enough. Beginning with Christ's pre-existence, and by means of a striking "not/but" contrast39 (in keeping with the similar contrast of vv. 2-4), he portrays two ways of thinking, of "setting one's mind," one selfish, the other selfless. Thus he reminds the Philippians that everything Christ did in bringing them salvation was the exact opposite of the "selfish ambition" censured in v. 3.
The sentence begins with a participial phrase, "who being40 in the 'form' (morphe) of God." Despite some recent interpreters, this language expresses as presupposition what the rest of the sentence assumes, namely that it was the Pre-existent One41 who "emptied himself" at one point in our human history "by taking the 'form' of a slave, being made in the likeness of human beings." Very likely Paul used the participle rather than the finite verb because of Christ's always "being" so42 The participle also stands in temporal contrast with the two aorist participles at the end of the sentence. That is, prior to his "having taken the 'form' of a slave" he was already "in the 'form' of God." Moreover, it also stands in contrast in a substantive way with the final participle, "being born/made in the likeness of human beings," which only makes sense if "being in the morphē of God" presupposes prior existence as God.43
But what about morphē?44 Our difficulties here are twofold:45 discovering what Paul himself intended by this word, and translating it into English, since we have no precise equivalent46 The key to understanding the word lies with Paul's reason for choosing it, which in turn lies with what transpires in the sentence itself. His urgency is to say something about Christ's "mindset," first as God and second as man. But in the transition from Christ's "being God" to his "becoming human," Paul expresses by way of metaphor the essential quality of that humanity: he "took on the 'form' of a slave." Morphë was precisely the right word for this dual usage, to characterize both the reality (his being God) and the metaphor (his taking on the role of a slave),47 since it denotes "form" or "shape" not in terms of the external features by which something is recognized,48 but of those characteristics and qualities that are essential to it. Hence it means that which truly characterizes a given reality.49
What the earliest followers of Christ had come to believe, of course, on the basis of his resurrection and ascension, was that the one whom they had known as truly human had himself known prior existence in the "form" of God — not meaning that he was "like God but really not," but that he was characterized by what was essential to being God. It is this understanding which (correctly) lies behind the NIV's "in very nature God."50 And it is this singular reality, lying in the emphatic first position as it does, which gives such extraordinary potency to what follows, and therefore to the whole.
That Paul by this first phrase intends "in very nature God" is further confirmed by the clause that immediately follows, which also happens to be one of the more famous cruxes in the letters of Paul. "Being in the 'form' of God," Paul begins. "Not harpagmon did Christ consider to be equal with God," he adds next. But first a closer look at harpagmon will aid the discussion that follows.51
The difficulties are two:52 its rarity in Greek literature; and where it does appear it denotes "robbery,"53 a meaning that can hardly obtain here.54 This means that scholars have been left to determine its meaning on the basis either (a) of (perceived) context, or (b) of the formation of Greek nouns, or (c) of finding parallels which suggest an idiomatic usage. Also involved is the question as to whether "equality with God" was something Christ did not possess but might have desired or something he already possessed but did not treat in a harpagmon way.55
Although the jury is still out on this question, the probable sense of this word is to be found in one of two refinements — by C. F. D. Moule and R. W. Hoover — of earlier suggestions.56 The former based his conclusions on the formation of Greek nouns, in which nouns ending in -mos do not ordinarily refer to a concrete expression of the verbal idea in the noun but to the verbal idea itself.57 In this view harpagmos is not to be thought of as a "thing" at all ("something" to be treated by the verbal idea in the noun). Rather it is an abstract noun, emphasizing the concept of "grasping" or "seizing." Thus, Christ did not consider "equality with God" to consist of "grasping" or being "selfish"; rather he rejected this popular view of kingly power by "pouring himself out" for the sake of others. In Moule's terms, equality with God means not "grasping" but "giving away" (272). This view has much to commend it,58 and in any case, surely points in the right direction in terms of the overall sense of the noun in context.59
The alternative is to see the word as a synonym of its cognate harpagma ("booty" or "prey"), which in idioms similar to Paul's60 denotes something like, "a matter to be seized upon" in the sense of "taking advantage of it." This view has much to commend it and probably points us in the right direction, although it is arguable that the evidence for the interchangeability of harpagmos and harpagma is not as strong as its proponents suggest.61 In either case, it should be pointed out, the clause comes out very much at the same point.
Back then to Paul's point with this "not" clause, which is twofold (= two sides of a single concern). First, he is picking up on, and thereby reaffirming, what he said in the initial participial phrase, that Christ before his incarnation was "in very nature God." This reaffirmation is accomplished by means of two complicated points of grammar,62 which together make it clear that Paul intends the infinitive phrase ("to be equal with God") to repeat in essence the sense of what preceded ("being in the 'form' of God"). Thus Paul intends (by way of a structured elabortation):
Being in the 'form' of God as he was,
Christ did not consider a matter of seizing upon to his own advantage,
this being equal63 with God we have just noted,
but he emptied himself."
This, then, is what it means for Christ to be "in the 'form' of God"; it means "to be equal with God," not in the sense that the two phrases are identical, but that both point to the same reality.64 Together, therefore, they are among the strongest expressions of Christ's deity in the NT. This means further that "equality with God" is not that which he desired which was not his, but precisely that which was always his.65
Second, Paul is thereby trying to set up the starkest possible contrast between Christ's "being in the 'form' of God" and the main clause, "he emptied himself."66 Equality with God, Paul begins, is something that was inherent to Christ in his pre-existence. Nonetheless, God-likeness, contrary to common understanding, did not mean for Christ to be a "grasping, seizing" being, as it would for the "gods" and "lords" whom the Philippians had previously known; it was not "something to be seized upon to his own advantage," which would be the normal expectation of lordly power — and the nadir of selfishness. Rather, his "equality with God" found its truest expression when "he emptied himself."67
What is thus being urged upon the Philippians is not a new view of Jesus,68 but a reinforcement, on the basis of Paul's view of the crucifixion, that in the cross God's true character, his outlandish, lavish expression of love, was fully manifested.69 This is what Paul is calling them to by way of discipleship. The phrase, "not harpagmon," after all, corresponds to "not looking out for one's own needs" in v. 4. Here is Paul's way of saying that Christ, as God, did not act so. Thus, as he has just appealed to them to have a singular "mindset" (phronēte), which will express itself in "humility" as they "consider"70 one another better than themselves, so now he has repeated the injunction to have this "mindset" (phroneite, v. 5) which they see in Christ Jesus, who did not "consider" (same verb as in v. 4) being equal with God as something to be taken selfish advantage of, something to further his own ends.
We should note finally that many have seen Paul here to be playing on the Adam-Christ theme71 that appears elsewhere in his letters.72 Most who hold this view understand Christ to be set in studied contrast with Adam, who, "being in God's image,"73 considered his "equality with God" as something to be seized. Christ, on the contrary, disdained such "grasping" and did the opposite; as Adam tried to become "like God," Christ, as God, in fact became man. This is an intriguing analogy, but it must be noted that its basis is altogether conceptual, since there is not a single linguistic parallel to the Genesis narrative.74 Whether the Philippians would have so understood it without some linguistic clue probably depends on whether Paul himself had used such an analogy at some point in his time with them.75
7 That leads us then to the most famous, but unnecessary, crux of all, the main clause of the present sentence, "but [in contrast to his considering equality with God as something to seize on to his own advantage] he emptied (ekenōsen) himself." This is a crux, however, that has been generated by scholarship, not by Paul or by Pauline ambiguities. The debate has raged over the concept of "emptying himself," i.e., what kenōsis means, and emerged either because of a faulty understanding of harpagmon or because it has been assumed that the verb requires a genitive qualifier — that he must have "emptied himself" of something.76 But that is precisely not in keeping with Pauline usage. Just as harpagmon requires no object for him to "seize," but rather points to what is the opposite of God's character, so Christ did not empty himself of anything; he simply "emptied himself," poured himself out.77 This is metaphor, pure and simple.78 The modifier is expressed in the modal participle that follows; he "poured himself out by having taken on the 'form' of a slave."
Pauline usage elsewhere substantiates this view, where this verb regularly means to become powerless, or to be emptied of significance.79 Here it stands in direct antithesis to the "empty glory" of v. 3, and functions in the same way as the metaphorical "he became poor" in 2 Cor 8:9. Rather than doing anything on the basis of "empty glory," Christ on the contrary "emptied himself," or as the KJV has it (memorably), "he made himself of no reputation,"80 whose sense the NIV has captured with its "made himself nothing." As Wright put it well, "The real humiliation of the incarnation and the cross is that one who was himself God, and who never during the whole process stopped being God, could embrace such a vocation."81 Thus, as in the "not" side of this clause (v. 6b), we are still dealing with the character of God, as that has been revealed in the "mindset" and resulting activity of the Son of God. The concern is with divine selflessness: God is not an acquisitive being, grasping and seizing, but self-giving for the sake of others.
That this is Paul's intent is made even more certain by the two explanatory participial phrases that follow.82 The first explains the nature of Christ's emptying himself, the way it expressed itself in our human history: "by taking83 on the 'form' of a slave." "Form" (morphē) here means precisely what it did above, that in his earthly existence he took on the "essential quality" of what it meant to be a slave. We have already looked closely at the word "slave" in Paul's self-designation in 1:1. Here it probably means something close to its corresponding verb in Gal 5:13 (= "perform the duties of a slave").84 From Paul's perspective this is how divine love manifests itself in its most characteristic and profuse expression.
It is often suggested that there is more to this word, that by using "slave" Paul has some other "background" in mind than simply slavery as such. Two have been proffered.85 Altogether unlikely is the suggestion that by becoming human Christ accepted "bondage" to the "powers," so that through death he might destroy them.86 The obvious difficulty with such a view is that nothing in the text suggests as much; indeed, it is held basically by those who read the whole "hymn" as pre-Pauline and with a meaning in its prior existence, due to its background there, which Paul has then imperfectly imported into its present context. A more likely "background" is the Servant of the Lord of Isaiah 42-53, where some interesting linguistic and conceptual links do exist.87 In the LXX, however, Isaiah's Servant is designated by a quite different Greek word.88 If, therefore, such ties exist, and they are at least as viable as the "cryptic reference to Adam" in v. 6, they most likely do so as general background; after all, Jesus himself interpreted his death in light of Isaiah 53, and Paul and the early church were quick to see that Christ's "servanthood" was ultimately fulfilled in the "pouring out of his life unto death" (53:12) for the sake of others. It is hard to imagine that early Christians, therefore, would not rather automatically have heard this passage with that background in view, especially since that passage begins (52:13) the way this one ends, with the Servant's exaltation by God.89
But in the present context the emphasis does not lie on Jesus' messi-anism or on his fulfilling the role of the Servant of the Lord. Rather it lies primarily on the servant nature of Christ's incarnation. He entered our history not as kyrios ("Lord"), which name he acquires at his vindication (vv. 9-11), but as doulos ("slave"), a person without advantages, with no rights or privileges, but in servanthood to all.90 And all of this, surely, with an eye to vv. 3-4.91
The second participial phrase simultaneously clarifies the first by elaboration92 and concludes the present sentence by paving the way for the next (v. 8; Part I2 ). Together these phrases give definition to Christ's "impoverishment." The phrase "in the form of a slave" comes first for rhetorical reasons — to sharpen the contrast with "in the form of God" and to set out the true nature of his incarnation. It thus reflects the "quality" of his incarnation. The second phrase indicates its "factual" side. Thus, Christ came "in the form of a slave," that is, by his "coming to be93 in the likeness of human beings."94
The word "likeness"95 has been the troubling word in this phrase, especially in light of the even more difficult word "appearance" in the first phrase of the next sentence. But again, the difficulty stems more from philosophical theology than from Paul. The word is used primarily because of Paul's belief (in common with the rest of the early church) that in becoming human Christ did not thereby cease to be divine. This word allows for the ambiguity, emphasizing that he is similar to our humanity in some respects and dissimilar in others. The similarity lies with his full humanity; in his incarnation he was "like" in the sense of "the same as." The dissimilarity, which in Rom 8:3 had to do with his being sinless while in the "likeness" of sinful flesh, in this case has to do with his never ceasing to be "equal with God." Thus he came in the "likeness" of human beings, because on the one hand he has fully identified with us, and because on the other hand in becoming human he was not "human" only. He was God living out a truly human life, all of which is safeguarded by this expression. Even so, one should not miss that this phrase is also part of the contrast. Christ "made himself of no reputation" in becoming human — whether we humans like that or not.
In sum: In Christ Jesus God has thus shown his true nature; this is what it means for Christ to be "equal with God" — to pour himself out for the sake of others and to do so by taking the role of a slave. Hereby he not only reveals the character of God, but from the perspective of the present context also reveals what it means for us to be created in God's image, to bear his likeness and have his "mindset." It means taking the role of the slave for the sake of others, the contours of which are what the next clause will spell out.
———————————
1. Unfortunately, the latter item — the profusion of discussion and debate — has sometimes tended to obscure rather than to enlighten, and, even worse, to bog down in debate a passage that should cause the reader to soar. It seems tragic that such a marvelous moment should get inundated by so much talk (and I am among the guilty [see "Philippians 2:5-11"], although part of that article, it should be pointed out, was in protest against the proliferation of literature resulting from its alleged hymnic character). Nonetheless, that talk does exist (the bibliography constitutes well over half of the special literature devoted to Philippians, so that nearly 100 pages [of 555] of O'Brien's commentary, for example, are devoted to this passage alone); and a great deal of it, it must be admitted, is extremely helpful. Much of the literature deals with critical issues, esp. form, authorship, and background. I have dealt with some of this in the Introduction, pp. 39-46, although a few of these questions are also taken up in footnotes (for form see nn. 2, 4, 5; for authorship, nn. 3, 6 [cf. η. 12 on v. 8; n. 9 on vv. 9-11]; for background, nn. 45, 86 [cf. η. 11 on v. 8; n. 35 on v. 10]). For a helpful discussion of the relevant questions, see O'Brien, 186-203, 253-71; also 186-88 for bibliography up to 1990.
2. Reflected in the poetic format of the NIV and NA2 6 (the REB is noteworthy among recent translations for not having done so; cf. also UBS4). Lohmeyer's dissertation (Kyrios Jesus) appeared in 1928, the first edition of his commentary the year following. Adumbrations of this view can be found as early as J. Weiss (1897), and begin to be noted in passing (in English) as early as Moffatt (Introduction, 1917) and Plummer (1919), so that Michael (1928), on the basis of Moffatt, can say, "It is not impossible that Paul is making use of the words of some early poem or hymn. " The first commentaries in English after World War II (Synge [1951]; Scott [1955]; Müller [1955]) are mixed; Scott discusses the possibility, but rejects it; Müller uses the language of "hymn," but in quotation marks. Soon thereafter the quotation marks disappear and "Christ-hymn" is the coinage of the realm (Caird is a lonely exception). The next major commentary in English (Beare, 1959, now influenced by Käsemann [1950]) adopts Lohmeyer in such a thoroughgoing way that he speaks of Pauline authorship as "impossible," and in his ten pages of commentary on the passage (78-88), Paul's name is mentioned but once, only to deny that he could have authored what he wrote. The upshot is that for these ten pages Beare offers no commentary on Philippians at all, but on an unknown author's "hymn" (cf. Collange, who repeatedly refers to "our hymn," and mentions Paul but once; the same tendency is also at work in Martin); on the matter of authorship see next note. This point of view has only occasionally been called into question; see Hooker, "Philippians 2:6-11"; G. Wagner, "Le Scandale"; Fee, "Philippians 2:5-11"; and especially Fowl, Story, 31-45.
3. On the matter of authorship, see the Introduction, pp. 45-46. There is a discernible — but nothing approaching a groundswell! — swing back to Pauline authorship on the part of some (see, e.g., Furness, "Authorship"; Hooker, "Philippians 2:6-11"; Strimple, "Recent Studies"; Feinberg, "Kenosis"; Wright, "άρπαγμός"; Black, "Authorship"; Fowl, Story; and the commentaries by Silva and O'Brien). The steps toward the denial of authenticity are easy to discern: first, the passage is understood to be a hymn (preceding n.); if so, then it is probably pre-Pauline; and if so, given some unique words and phrasing, it must also be non-Pauline. All of this is certainly possible, though unprovable; it becomes pernicious when one also argues that the words in their present context must be understood on the basis of their reconstructed "original form, " so that Kreitzer (Jesus, 115), inter alia, can say, "We should not necessarily presuppose that the christology of the hymn is identical to that of Paul." In fact, methodologically we should do precisely that, since this passage is not available to us except in its present Pauline expression. Throughout the exposition that follows I will assume what one may rightly assume about any piece of writing such as this, that the words used are the "choice" of the author of the text we now have. Since Paul dictated these words, and did so in the form of prose sentences (see next n.), we may assume that he chose to use these very words, even if they had existed in prior form. After all, we have all kinds of evidence that Paul "cites" texts (the LXX in particular) in such a way as to make them his own! Cf. Hooker ("Philippians 2:6-11," 152): "For even if the material is non-Pauline, we may expect Paul himself to have interpreted it and used it in a Pauline manner" ; and D. J. Moo (Romans, 49 [on the same issue about Rom 1:3-4]): "Methodologically it is necessary at least to maintain that whatever Paul quotes, he himself affirms." That is so eminently reasonable one wonders how so many can comment on the passage as though not written by Paul (even if not originally "authored" by him). See also n. 6 below.
4. What seems to favor this view are (1) the obvious poetic nature of vv. 6-8, (2) that it begins with ος, which is how two other apparent hymns begin (Col 1:15; 1 Tim 3:16); (3) that it seems to be a self-contained piece, not all of which, some have argued, seems to fit the context (esp. vv. 9-11); and (4) some unusual wording, especially for Paul. Against it are: (1) the word ύμνός in Greek, including the LXX, is used exclusively to describe songs or poems written in praise of a deity (or honored person), which include an ascription of praise and the reasons for it (see esp. Fowl [Story, 31-45], whose evidence seems irrefutable on this matter); (2) that no one has yet produced an analogy (either stylistically or linguistically) that even remotely resembles the structures of our passage; and (3) that vv. 9-11 have almost nothing hymnic about them; the combination of διό ("therefore"), followed by a ϊ να clause ("so that"), concluding with a οτι clause (serving as the object of "confess"), is not the stuff of hymns but of argumentation. To say, as Collange (95), that vv. 6-8 and 9-11 are "identical in structure" is to stretch the words "identical" and "structure" beyond recognition. Indeed, if this sentence (vv. 9-11) had appeared elsewhere in the corpus, not following the poetry of vv. 6-8, no one would ever have guessed that it was originally part of a hymn! This is not to deny the poetic nature of much of this; but poetry does not = hymn, which is poetry intended to be sung or read in praise of God, and giving the reason for it. More likely the passage reflects something more creedal, as elsewhere in Paul. Cf. Hooker ("Philippians 2:6-11," 157): "It is of course undeniable that there is something poetic about these lines. Whether this makes them a poem — or whether they would be better described as a piece of rhythmic prose — is a different matter. In many ways the latter seems more likely"; but in the end she leans slightly toward the former. This whole matter seems to be a case of cross-pollination, whereby the exalted nature of this passage, plus its obvious poetry, is merged with a more contemporary use of the word "hymn" and then read back into the first century. That Paul is capable of something hymnic is attested by Rom 11:33-36, which, like those in Luke 1 and 2, is a fine mixture of OT words and motifs with his own concerns, and which stands in contrast to this passage, precisely because both its poetry and form are those of a hymn in the first-century use of that word.
5. For a critique of much of this, see Fee, "Philippians 2:5-11," 30-34. That scholars have come up with five basic arrangements, with countless variations within each, does not offer great confidence that we can ever discover the "original" form of the hymn — especially since it is only recoverable from Paul's prose, and the reconstruction is thus subject to the whims of subjectivity (e.g., one scholar's "inclusio" ["taking the form of a slave," with the opening participle] is another scholar's "parallelism" [with the next participle]; both of which are correct, because they have nothing to do with "strophes").
6 . 1 emphasize these words, because this passage was dictated, just as was the rest of the letter — not "inserted" or "interpolated" (the reigning language of scholarship), as though by some kind of editorial process. Although taken down word by word or phrase by phrase (usually), what Paul dictated were sentences, not strophes or lines of a hymn. The evidence for this lies in the structural display, all of which makes perfectly good sense as Pauline sentences, but parts of which do not fit well in the various strophic arrangements, where many "lines" lack a verb and some are nothing more than prepositional phrases (cf. Fee, "Philippians 2:5-11," 32-33). See the Introduction, pp. 40-43.
7. Except for the participles in vv. 7-8, which I have translated in keeping with the exegesis that follows, since to do otherwise creates nearly impossible English.
8. Gk. άρπαγμόν, one of the extremely difficult words in the passage; for its probable meaning see the discussion below.
9. Cf. C. J. Robbins, "Rhetorical Structure," who presents a similar, basically two-part, analysis based on the principles of classical rhetoric.
10. Some think otherwise; see n. 3 on v. 8.
11. On the issue of translating this word, see η. 1 on v. 8.
12. Finding proper language to express divine realities is difficult at times. By "mode" I do not intend to suggest "modalism"; this is simply an attempt to find a word that will work on both sides of Paul's compound sentence, just as Paul himself did with his choice of μορφή.
13. This very important feature in Paul's sentence is generally overlooked in the literature; but see M. Thekkekara ("Neglected Idiom"), who correctly notes that the contrast deliberately highlights the lengths to which Christ went in his self-abasement.
14. So the vast majority of interpreters, although it is vigorously denied by E. Käsemann ("Analysis"), followed by Martin (Carmen, 84-88); cf. Losie ("Note"). Käsemann's denial is in strong opposition to Lohmeyer and is thus predicated primarily on his theological aversion to anything that smacks of "imitating Christ," as though ethics were based finally on self-effort rather than on grace; for Martin it also includes the "impossibility" of emulating Christ in vv. 9-11. But these objections are based on a fundamental misunderstanding of "imitatio" in Paul, which does not mean "repeat after me," but (in the present context) "have a frame of mind which lives on behalf of others the way Christ did in his becoming incarnate and dying by crucifixion." The point of vv. 9-11, after all, is not "imitatio" in the "follow me" sense, but in the sense of God's vindication of such a life. Hurtado, whose refutation ("Lordly Example") of the Käsemann/Martin view is especially noteworthy, points out (125) that they object to a view that is overly simplistic (dubbed by Martin "naive ethical idealism"), their caricature of which, one might add, is not the perspective of most who have written on the subject. See the discussion at the end of vv. 9-11; cf. O'Brien, 253-62, and Fowl, Story, 77-101.
15. Those who deny that Paul's concern is pardigmatic (see preceding n.) also argue that the point of the "hymn" is soteriology, a position that seems especially difficult to sustain, in comparison with the profusion of semi-creedal soteriological texts in Paul which use actual soteriological language. True, Christ's death on the cross is ultimately soteriological for Paul — and even indirectly so here (i.e., the one whose "mindset" carried him to the cross is also the one whose death effected their salvation) — but when the cross is mentioned in soteriological contexts there is always a "saving verb" and usually some form of the preposition "for us" — both of which are missing here.
16. Cf. esp. 1 Cor 1:17-31.
17. The relationship between this verse and what precedes has been made the clearer in the manuscript tradition by the insertion of either γάρ ("for," Ρ4 6 N2 D F G Maj lat syh) or ούν (2492 pc). This is a clearly secondary process: (1) the asyndetic text has by far the best support (Χ* A Β C Ψ 33 81 1241 2464 2495 pc); (2) the variations reflect two separate attempts to remove the asyndeton; and (3) one cannot imagine the reasons for omitting the conjunction, if either were original.
18. As another reflection of the difficulty with Paul's Greek in v. 4, the later MajT, which there changed the plural έκαστοι to έκαστος, likewise changed Paul's second plural imperative (φρονείτε) to a third singular (φρονεισθω). This is reflected in the well-known rendering of the KJV: "let this mind be in you." Hawthorne argues for this as the original text, but does so for the very reason that the later scribal tradition corrupted the text — to make Paul a tidier writer than he demonstrates himself to be at this point.
19. Paul's Greek reads (literally), "in the likeness of 'men' having become" (Gk. έν όμοιώματι ανθρώπων γενόμενος). Ρ4 6 and some Latin witnesses, probably quite independently, changed the plural "men" to "a man," most likely in assimilation to the next clause. But Paul is precise; see n. 94 below.
20. Some have thought otherwise, esp. those who consider the passage to be based on an Adam-Christ analogy, in which Christ is being portrayed as the second Adam in his humanity. See the discussion below on v. 6 (and nn. 41 and 73).
21. A point that is too often missed in the discussions; on this matter cf. Kennedy, 435.
22. On the matter of "Paul's choice of language," see n. 3 above.
23. Cf. Kennedy (435, written in an earlier day but still apropos): "Much trouble would have been saved if interpreters instead of minutely investigating the refinements of Greek metaphysics, on the assumption that they are present here, were to ask themselves, 'What other terms could the Apostle have used to express his conceptions?' " See further n. 47 below.
24. That is, the second clause is without a verb, which must be supplied either from the first clause or from the sense of the context.
25. As is most often the case in Paul; and so most interpreters. In this letter see the usage in 1:7 (τοūτο φρονεϊν; clearly pointing backward); 1:22 (this one is debated); 1:25 (τοūτο πεποιθώς); 3:7 (ταūτα ήγημαι), 15 (τοūτο φρονώμεν), 15 (τοūτο ό θεός ύμϊν αποκαλύψει); 4:8 (ταϋτα λογίζεσθε); 4:9 (ταϋτα πράσσετε). Only in 1:19 (q.v.) does this not seem to be the pattern, and there it is at least in part the result of his citing Job. Whenever τοϋτο clearly points forward, it is followed by a noun clause which explains the content of the "this." One could argue for that pattern here, except that in context the τοϋτο does not pick up a new train of thought, but continues one already in process. Contra Käsemann, Martin, Loh-Nida, Losie ("Note," 53), et al., who see τούτο as pointing forward, especially to the hymn (although Losie argues this case on the basis of the backward pointing examples of this letter). It is of some interest that those who see "in Christ Jesus" as referring not to Christ's own mindset, but to that of the community as they are "in Christ," almost to a person fail to come to terms with this pronoun. Losie is an exception, but the forced nature of his view highlights the difficulty with it.
26. Here is the place where the translation "have this mindset" ("frame of mind," Z-G) breaks down, since it puts the emphasis on the noun implied in the verb, rather than on the action itself. Which has led to no end of trouble in this case, since it has caused generations of readers (and scholars) to assume the relative pronoun that follows has this non-existent noun as its antecedent, whereas the grammar of Paul's sentence is clear — that the antecedent of δ ("which") is τοūτο ("this"). Cf. Losie ("Note"), who correctly notes that τοūτο is the object of φρονείτε (although he otherwise quite misses Paul's syntax).
27. Gk. έν ΰμΐν; in this letter see on 1:6 and 2:13.
28. But see, inter alia, Lightfoot, Meyer, Vincent, Müller, Hendriksen, who see it as referring strictly to the "hearts" (Lightfoot) of individual believers. Meyer and Vincent suggest that if it refers to the community, the parallel with Christ breaks down; but that is to take the concept of "parallel" much too rigidly, as do those who also use the same argument to insist that έν Χριστώ Ίησοϋ must also be corporate (e.g., Silva).
29. As in 1:21 and 22, this clause is without a verb. Ordinarily in such a sentence one supplies the verb from the first clause. But that makes very little sense here (pace Hawthorne, who can make this work only by adopting a patently secondary textual corruption; see n. 18 above). Most likely (as Z-G), in light of the narrative that follows, the verb should be past tense. But a present tense ("is") would also work, as would a verb that keeps the second plural of the first clause (e.g., "you find"). Kennedy (434) objects that to supply ήν is "harsh, for it would presuppose τοϋτο φρονεΐν (not τοϋτο alone) as the antecedent of δ." But that, of course, is not true if one takes τοϋτο, as one should grammatically, as the object of the verb and as pointing back to vv. 2-4 (see n. 25).
30. Gk. δ xαί; "which also" is the ordinary sense of this idiom. For some who think otherwise, see n. 33 below.
31. That is, rather than viewing έν Χριστώ Ίησοϋ as a "technical" term (see next n.), which in this case is especially questionable, one should see the έν as functioning precisely as in 1:30 ("which you saw έν έμοί and hear έν έμοί").
32. Much is made of the "technical" (= formulaic) use of this phrase in Paul, as though it meant to be incorporated into "Christ's mystical body." Besides the particularly questionable assumption that there is such a "mystical body" in Paul (see esp. the critique by Yorke, Body), to assume that it would have carried such a "technical" sense in most of its appearances is quite unwarranted; that the Philippians would have known such a usage could not be demonstrated under any circumstances. See the discussion by Seifrid in DPL, 433-36, whose overview of the data should help to put this idea into perspective. Cf. the discussion on 1:13 and the similar judgment on the phrase "with Christ" on 2:23. See also the next note.
33. See Zerwick (Biblical Greek, 156), who recognizes the traditional meaning, but suggests that δ xαί might be more stereotypical here, and therefore "otiose" in this clause. This view can be traced back to Deissmann (In Christus); it has been adopted, inter alia, by Kennedy, Moffatt, Jones, Michael, Dibelius, Beare, Gnilka, Collange, Silva, Käsemann ("Critical Analysis"); Martin (Carmen); Losie ("Note"). But this is an unmanageable, noncontextual tautology (= "think what you think in Christ"; cf. Lohmeyer, Hendriksen, Caird, Marshall, Moule, Strimple) and a most unnatural reading of the text, if word order and "hearing" count for anything. For the majority in Philippi the letter was a matter of hearing, not reading; it seems nearly impossible that they could have "heard" the subtleties demanded by this alternative. Paul's text reads τοϋτο φρονείτε έν ύμιν δ και έν Χριστώ Ίησοϋ (lit., "this think in you which also in Christ Jesus"), which calls either for an "is" (or "was") before or after "in Christ Jesus" or for another form of second plural verb ("you see or find"), either of which would be readily supplied by the mind of the hearer (because they would automatically hear the δ as picking up the τοũτο and the xαί as picking up the prepositional phrase). Surely this is what Paul intended his audience to do. On the other hand, it would require considerable pauses and re-reading for one to hear, first, that "in Christ Jesus" should be understood in a "formulaic" way and thus refer to "us"; which would require, second, that one reread and drop the xαί (Losie's ploy ["Note"] to get around this is especially forced) and then, third, supply something like "is proper" (or in the case of Käsemann and Martin, some form of φρονείτε) to complete the sentence. This seems much too subtle for a basically oral culture. It is noteworthy in this regard that the REB ("what you find in Christ Jesus") has thus changed the NEB ("arise out of your life in Christ Jesus"). One wonders how anyone but a scholar could have come by the latter. Caird (118-19) tries to dodge the tautology by offering the wholly unsupportable suggestion that we treat δ xαί as the equivalent of the Latin id est; but xαί does not = est under any circumstances. Silva resorts to an intensive ("which indeed"), but that seems to intensify the tautology instead.
34. For the reasons for "just barely," see nn. 25, 26, and 33. To make the τ ο το point forward to the δ, it should be pointed out. makes the latter the real antecedent of the former rather than the other way about, which is how Paul's sentence reads.
35. As Käsemann et al. would have it.
36. This is precisely in keeping with Rom 15:5-8. In a context of Jews and Gentiles "living in harmony with one another" so that "with one voice they might glorify God," and in nearly identical language (τό αύτο φρονεΐν έν άλλήλοις κατά Χριστόν Ίησοϋν), Paul prays that "God would grant you to have the same mindset among one another according to Christ Jesus." What that means is spelled out in vv. 7-8, where he appeals to Christ's assuming the role of a servant on behalf of them both. Now, a few years later and from Rome, he makes a similar appeal, which is like the former in all of its particulars: the appeal itself, the setting, Christ as paradigm, and the servant nature of the paradigm. Silva (109) sees this text as supporting the alternative position, but to do so he must make Paul's κατά become "a general expression that calls attention to our relationship with Christ." But that seems to stretch the preposition beyond recognition. The Romans are to have this mind among themselves, precisely because it is "in keeping with" what they know about Christ as that is spelled out in ν v. 7-8.
37. Gk. ǒς. For the suggestion that this relative signals the beginning of a hymn, see the discussion in Fee, "Philippians 2:5-11," 31 (cf. the Introduction, pp. 41-42).
38. Cf. the similar appeal to Christ's incarnation in 2 Cor 8:9 ("being rich, for your sakes he became poor"), which functions like this one: an imperative (to give generously), followed by an appeal to Christ's self-giving in his incarnation.
39. Paul's point, of course, could have been made without the contrast, but it would not have been as effective. That is, as always in these Pauline contrasts, one can read the sentence strictly in terms of the "but" clause. Thus, "who, being in the form of God, . . . emptied himself by taking on the form of a slave." But the power of the rhetoric lies in the contrast of Christ's emptying himself vis-à-vis "grasping," or "using to one's own advantage" (for this meaning of harpagmon see the discussion).
40. Gk. υπάρχων; although at times interchangeable with είναι, in this case (pace BAGD) it very likely carries its primary sense of "to exist (really)." Earlier interpreters (e.g., Lightfoot, Plummer) argued that the word itself implies prior existence; but in the koine period the word on its own will hardly bear that weight. See M-M, 650-51. The relationship of the participle "being" to the verb "did not consider" is debated. Most consider it concessive (so NRSV ["though he was in the form of God"]; cf. NASB, NAB, Lightfoot, Vincent, Michael, Hendriksen, Silva). Hawthorne (85) and Wright ("άρπαγμός," 345 n. 87) follow Moule ("Manhood," 97, in Wright's case from personal conversation) in considering it causal (= "precisely because he was in the form of God . . . he recognized what it meant, etc."). More likely Paul's intent is circumstantial, meaning, "who, in the circumstance of being in the μορφή of God, as he always was" did not act selfishly (cf. GNB, "he always had the nature of God"; so also Meyer, 79).
41. The denial that this clause refers to pre-existence has taken two forms. (1) Many earlier interpreters (including Calvin) understood the whole passage, including v. 6, to deal with the divine Christ in his Incarnation. He who was "in the form of God" even in his earthly life did not consider his equality with God something to be seized upon (see the discussion and refutation in Meyer, 77-79). (2) More recently many have argued, either on the basis of a certain structural arrangement (Howard, "Phil 2:6-11") or of "Wisdom christology" (Murphy-O'Connor, "Anthropology") orof an Adam-Christ analogy (Harvey, "New Look"; Bakken, "New Humanity"; Talbert, "Problem"; Dunn, Christology, 114- 21), that Paul sees Christ here merely in his humanity, who, e.g., as Adam, was in God's "image" (cf. η. 73 below), but vis-à-vis Adam did not try to seize God-likeness. But against these views are: (1) the grammar and language that do exist must be stretched nearly beyond recognition in order to work; (2) the metaphor inherent in έκένωσεν ("he emptied himself") seems strikingly inappropriate to refer to one who is already human; (3) that the one described in v. 6 as "being in the form of God," which means further that he was "equal with God," is later said to "be made/born in human likeness" and is then "found in human appearance"; and (4) the structure itself, in which Part I2 ("and being found in appearance as a human being") stands in such clear contrast to I1 ("who being in the 'form' of God"). (On the unlikelihood that one should begin Part I2 with the redundancy of making both participles that refer to his humanity begin the final sentence ["coming to be in the likeness of human beings and being found in appearance as a human being"] see n. 43 and n. 3 on v. 8). Dunn's exegesis is suspect methodologically, in that it requires a considerable accumulation of merely possible, but highly improbable, meanings, all of which are necessary to make it work. Conclusions based on such a procedure are always suspect. Finally, this view divests the narrative of its essential power, which rests in the pointed contrast between the opening participle ("being in the form of God") and the final coda ("death of the cross"). For refutations see Feinberg, "Kenosis"; Hurst, "Re-enter"; Wong, "Problem"; Wanamaker, "Philippians 2.6-11"; and O'Brien, 263-68. For a helpful overview and sane conclusions on this matter, see Hurtado, DPL, 743-46.
42. On this usage of the participle in a very similar context, cf. 2 Cor 8:9.
43. Those who deny this (see n. 41 above) by suggesting that the second sentence begins with the participle γενόμενος ("coming to be in the likeness of human beings"), not only create a nearly intolerable redundancy (see n. 3 on v. 8), but also never quite come to terms with the oddity of this second "strophe" in comparison with the first: In the so-called first strophe the human Jesus is already on the scene, whereas the second picks up with his "coming to be" as a human. Moreover, why the "hymn" should emphasize his humanity with a further twofold assertion of it, if the first "strophe" already assumes it, is never spoken to.
44. The word occurs in only these two instances in the NT. The literature here is immense. The best of the dictionary articles are those in TDNT (4.759-62; J. Behm) and EDNT (2.442-43; W. Pohlmann), with a useful bibliography in the latter. The best of the earlier discussions in English (before the influence of the papyri) is by Kennedy (435-36; cited by M-M, 417), which supersedes that of Lightfoot (127-33), which is limited to classical usage (and, in spite of its usefulness in that regard, takes up issues probably not Pauline). See also the discussion by Martin (Camen, 99-133; although he accepts its improbable identity with είκών and δόξα), and the more recent commentaries (Hawthorne, Silva, O'Brien).
45. Others see another issue here as well, namely the cultural-historical "background" to this word (and to many other of the ideas found throughout the "hymn"). On this issue, see the discussion in O'Brien, 193-98 — except to point out that the view of Käsemann, who influenced many, that it reflects a pre-Christian Gnostic Redeemer myth is itself a piece of scholarly mythology, since there are no hard (or soft, for that matter) data for such a view in the first Christian century.
46. Cf. Vincent (57): " 'Form' is an inadequate rendering of μορφή, but our language affords no better word." In the absence of a better alternative, I will stay with "form," but put it in quotes.
47. Had it not been for the second phrase, therefore, Paul most likely would have written something like φύσει θεός ("being God in nature"), or perhaps έν φύσει θεοũ ("in God's nature"). But φύσις would not work in the second instance, where "slave" is metaphorical and needs the second participle to spell out what is intended. Nor would the σχήμα of the final participial phrase in v. 7 work, since that word emphasizes external features rather than substance or reality. As Meyer (80) notes: "The μορφή θεοũ presupposes the divine φύσις."
48. See preceding n. on the use of σχήμα in v. 7.
49. So M-M, 417 (citing Kennedy): "a form which truly and fully expresses the being which underlies it" (cf. Martin; O'Brien). The second occurrence, it should be pointed out, which in part determines the meaning in this first instance, makes it extremely unlikely that μορφή serves as a synonym for είκών ("image"), which is used in 2 Cor 4:4 and Col 1:15 to refer to Christ's revelatory and mediatorial functions respectively; and thus it is equally unlikely that this sentence was shaped with an Adam-Christ contrast in view (see n. 73 below). That μορφή is the equivalent of είκών is another piece of scholarly opinion that has gained increasing momentum, being repeated over and again as though the linguistic data actually supported it — which it does not. The second occurrence of μορφή (v. 7) also plays havoc with the view, adopted in various forms (by, inter alia, Meyer, Jones, Martin, Strimple, Fowl) that μορφή = δόξα ("glory"), a view that would have much going for it had we only the first instance (έν μορφή θεοũ); but to apply "glory" to the role of the slave is to press words beyond their ordinary sense (cf. Collange, Hawthorne).
50. Cf. GNB ("he always had the nature of God"); NEB ("the divine nature was his from the first"; but changed back to the ambiguous "form" in the REB); cf. TCNT, Montgomery, Phillips.
51. Because of the significance and difficulty of this word, I have chosen in this case to set it off as a mini word study, which will need to be read in order to understand the whole, but hopefully by doing it this way will also help to make better sense of the overall passage.
52. Again, as with μορφή, the literature is immense. The best of the recent literature is that by Ν. T. Wright, "άρπαγμός," who both summarizes the preceding debate and offers a solution that is especially satisfactory in light of all the issues, and to which I gladly acknowledge indebtedness. Wright basically adopts the view of Hoover ("Harpagmos," see n. 56).
53. The noun is formed from the Greek verb αρπάζω, which means to "snatch" or "seize," usually with the connotation of violence or suddenness.
54. Since it makes very little sense at all (despite the KJV, and those who have tried to comment on the basis of this translation). J. C. O'Neill ("Hoover") argues against Hoover (see n. 56) that "robbery," which is "near nonsense," seems "to be the only choice left" (448), whose counsel of despair is then to emend the text. But in so doing O'Neill has called into question only some of Hoover's data (the evidence from Heliodorus [Hoover, 102-6] is especially noteworthy); by turning Hoover's findings into a "rule," O'Neill eliminates the "rule" by noting the exceptions. But that is not the same thing as eliminating Hoover's understanding of the idiom.
55. The technical language for these distinctions is res rapta ("something grasped" = "robbery") or res rapienda ("something to be grasped"), both referring to what was not previously possessed, and res retinenda ("something to be clung onto"), referring to something already possessed.
56. See Moule ("Reflexions") and Hoover ("Harpagmos"); these two pieces appeared nearly simultaneously (1971 and 1970 respectively). Hoover built especially on the work of W. W. Jaeger ("Studie"), although its line goes back to Lightfoot. Moule gave a more solid philological base to the previous work of J. Ross ("ΑΡΠΑΓΜΟΣ"), F. E. Vokes ("άρπαγμός"), and S. H. Hooke (Alpha); cf. also J. M. Furness, "άρπαγμός"; Η. Dean, "Glory." Although some have followed Moule (e.g., Hawthorne), the general swing (adopted also in this commentary) is toward Hoover, while keeping Moule in view (so Martin, Strimple, Feinberg, Wright, Silva, Fowl, O'Brien, Melick); it was taken earlier by Käsemann, "Analysis," 63 ("to use something for one's own benefit").
57. Cf. the discussion in M-M, 78.
58. The common objection that it still requires an object, i.e., "what is not being seized or given away?" has been already answered by Moule, that such an "active" view of the noun does not require an object as such.
59. As Wright ("άρπαγμός," 345) also points out.
60. That is, when it occurs as part of a double accusative with a verb like "think" (as here) or "do."
61. Cf. the (much overstated) critique by O'Neill, "Hoover." The first objection to both suggestions (Moule's and Hoover's), of course, is the lack of linguistic evidence as such for this word.
62. First, by the structure of the clause. In Greek άρπαγμόν . . . το είναι 'ίσα θεφ is a double accusative which functions as the object of the verb ήγήσατο ("consider"). Thus it is a form of indirect discourse; in direct discourse "to be equal with God" would the subject and άρπαγμόν the predicate noun of a sentence that would read: "to be equal with God is harpagmon," which is not Christ's mindset (cf. Käsemann ["Analysis," 62]). But by putting "not harpagmon" in the emphatic first position, Paul indicates that the infinitive that follows refers back to the initial participial phrase, in a kind of A-B-A structure. Thus, "in his being in the form of God (A), not harpagmon did Christ consider (B) his being be equal with God (A')·" Second, by using the definite article with the infinitive, which, as in 1:21-22 — and ordinarily so in any case — is probably anaphoric, pointing to "something previously mentioned or otherwise well known" (this is the language of BDF, §205); cf. Meyer (88), Hawthorne (84), and Wright ("άρπαγμός," 344), who also see the article as anaphoric.
63. Gk. 'ίσα θεώ; for this use of ίσα as a predicate, Lightfoot notes Job 11:12 LXX. Cf. John 5:18, where Jesus is accused, on the basis of his "working on the Sabbath," of making himself ίσος τώ θεώ.
64. So most interpreters (e.g., Meyer, Müller, Beare, Hendriksen, Collange, LohNida, Brace, Hawthorne, Silva, O'Brien, Melick; Käsemann ["Analysis," 62-63]; Wright ["άρπαγμος," 344]). Those who reject what the grammar seems to require do so either because they take a different view of άρπαγμός (e.g., Kennedy, Jones, Michael) or because of prior commitments to an Adam-Christ analogy in which Christ is seen as only human (see nn. 41 and 73).
65. Indeed, the fact that "equality with God" was something he always had is what makes the contrast between the opening participle and the main verb (our next point) work at all.
66. Strimple ("Recent Studies," 263) notes (correctly) that the res rapienda view of άρπαγμόν (see n. 55) creates a disjunction between being in the form of God and being equal with God "contrary to the natural force of the grammatical construction which so closely binds together these two clauses which precede the real disjunction, which comes with the άλλά at the beginning of verse 7."
67. Cf. Wright, "άρπαγμός," 344-46.
68. As a Pauline church, what is presented here is the one they would already have known well.
69. Which is why the "coda" to the final participle in v. 8, "even death on a cross," is expressed in such a way — so as to carry ultimate rhetorical effect. Here is the apogee of true "God-likeness," where the divine Christ gives himself away in the utterly execrable "weakness" (humiliation) of crucifixion. For this understanding of the cross, see esp. 1 Cor 1:18-25 in Fee, First Corinthians, 67-78.
70. For this verb (ήγεομαι) see n. 76 on v. 3.
71. This possible association with Gen 2-3 goes back at least as far as Ernesti (noted, but rejected, by Meyer); it was also noted, and again rejected, by Vincent and Plummer. It has been much more widely accepted in recent years (inter alia, by Caird, Houlden, Kent, Silva; Cullmann, Christology; Ridderbos, Paul; Bandstra, " 'Adam' "; Hooker, "Philippians 2:6-11"; Dunn, Christology; Wright, "άρπαγμός") — with varying degrees of conviction as to how much the language has been purposely designed to represent this analogy, from Caird's "the context requires it," to Wright's more cautious "typically cryptic reference to Adam" ("άρπαγμός," 348: cf. Silva, "network of associations"). It is rejected by Collange, Glasson ("Two Notes"), Strimple ("Recent Studies"), and Feinberg ("Kenosis"). The most useful current overview of this matter is O'Brien, 263-68.
72. In conjunction with the resurrection (1 Cor 15:21-22, 45-49) and with the universality of human sin (Adam) and God's redemption (Christ; Rom 5:12-21).
73. Those who see the analogy as intentional on the part of the "author" of the "hymn" argue (1) that μορφή and είκών are interchangeable terms, and (2) therefore that the "author" is deliberately "citing" Gen 1:26-27 with this substitution. They see this as further confirmed by the language τό είναι ίσα θεφ ("to be equal with God"), which is understood to pick up Gen 3:5 and 22 ("be like one of us," although there is not a single linguistic link between these passages and Phil 2:6-7). That the two words are fully interchangeable in this sense is scholarly mythology based on untenable semantics (cf. esp. the refutations by Wallace, "Note," and Steenburg, "Case Against"), as though, because in certain instances they have a semantic overlap, therefore an author could — or would — use either one or the other at will. For example, there is a semantic overlap with the words "right" and "just" in English, and they might be fully interchangeable in a sentence that says, "What she did was right/just." But one is in grave danger who thinks they are thereby fully interchangeable, even in comparable sentences (as, e.g., "she is just; she is right"). Since Paul is quite ready to speak of Christ as "in the image (είκών) of God," and since that is the word used in Genesis, how could it be possible, one wonders, that Paul was intending this analogy and have written μορφή? And it will do no good in this case to say that he was "citing" a pre-formed hymn, because as anyone knows who has watched Paul use the OT, he seldom lets the words in an original text dictate how those words will appear in his own sentence.
74. This seems to me to negate this view as intentional on Paul's part: cf. Käsemann ("Analysis," 64): "The text lends no support to i t . . . ; and such support must certainly be expected in the case of such a concrete reference" (emphasis mine). Vincent, followed by Glasson ("Two Notes"), also points out that nothing in the Genesis account that suggests seeking "equality with God" to be the nature of the Fall; rather, it was the quest for absolute knowledge.
75. Many of those who hold this position, it should be noted further, likewise deny that the passage speaks of pre-existence (see n. 41 above).
76. The literature here covers a broad range (commentaries, theologies, articles), which makes it impossible to offer an adequate bibliography. For the earlier (mostly theological, and mostly Reformed) debate, see Müller, 83-85. For more recent treatments, see E. R. Fairweather, " 'Kenotic' Christology"; T. A. Thomas, "Kenosis"; and C. Patitsas, "Kenosis" (for a Greek Orthodox view). At issue in this debate for the most part has been whether Paul considers Christ to have emptied himself of divinity itself in some way or of "the glories, the prerogatives of Deity" (Lightfoot, 112), which in more recent times has had to do with his "glory" (as a way of understanding μορφή; see n. 49 above) or of his power (Müller, Hendriksen, Collange).
77. Pace Plummer (44), who argues that "a secondary object must be understood" (cf. Hendriksen, Kent). One wonders why so, since this is not true in Paul's other uses of this word. When metaphors start being pressed like this, one may as well ask other irrelevant questions (e.g., into what was he emptied?). The view argued for here ("poured himself out") was first presented (apparently) by W. Warren, "έκήνωσεν"; it has been adopted, inter alia, by Jones, Michael, Hawthorne, Silva, O'Brien, Melick, Dean ("Glory"); it was anticipated by Vincent, 59.
78. Cf. Martin, Carmen, 195; Müller, 80; Silva, 125; O'Brien, 217. But it is a metaphor, one should note, that demands pre-existence (see n. 41); otherwise why use it, when other more appropriate verbs were at hand ("denied himself," "rejected," etc.)? Indeed, if it does not presuppose pre-existence the metaphor itself has been "emptied."
79. See 1 Cor 1:17 ("lest the cross of Christ κενωθή [be made ineffectual]"), and Rom 4:14 ("faith xεκένωται [has been emptied]"). Why not ask, e.g., of what has faith been emptied? (cf. Silva). The two other passages ( 1 Cor 9:15 and 2 Cor 9:3) refer to one's "boast" being "emptied," which is precisely the meaning the cognate noun regularly has in Paul (e.g., Phil 2:16 [2x]; cf. Gal 2:2). On this point see esp. Hooker ("Philippians 2:6-11," 152), followed by Wright ("άρπαγμός," 345-46).
80. Contra Michel, 89.
81. "άρπαγμός," 346. The further point to make, of course, is that the text does not imply that he exchanged one form of existence for another (pace Thomas, "Kenosis," 151; et al.); rather, it is precisely he who is in the form of God (always) who "beggared himself" (Beare) by "taking on" the form of a slave; cf. Bruce (70): "He displayed the nature (or form) of God in the nature (or form) of a servant."
82. Which are best understood as modal; i.e., they describe the manner, or circumstances, in which he "emptied himself" (so most interpreters).
83. Gk. λαβών; ordinarily the aorist participle indicates antecedent time. But despite Moule (Idiom Book, 100), who recognizes only two such uses in the NT (both in Acts), the majority of scholars understand this participle to express coincident time. Cf. Gal 4:6; Eph 1:9.
84. On this meaning of the verb, see Fee, Presence, 425. To argue that he must be enslaved to someone ("God" [so Meyer, Plummer], or "the powers" [see n. 86]) is to press the metaphor and therefore to miss it.
85. Actually three. E. Schweizer (Erniedrigung, 21-33, 93-102) suggests the righteous sufferer such as one finds in intertestamental Jewish martyrologies, although apart from Martin, he seems not to have persuaded many.
86. See Käsemann ("Analysis," 67-68), followed by Beare, 82; Gnilka, 120; Caird, 121-22; Bornkamm ("Verständnis," 181).
87. Esp. the repeated είς θάνατον (53:8, 12) in the context of his being έν τή ταπεινώσι (v. 8). Note also the conceptual ties of "he emptied himself" and "he poured out his soul unto death" (53:12); and 52:13 ("my servant και ύψωθήσεται και δοξασθήσεται σφόδρα [shall be exalted and glorified greatly]"). This was first argued for at some length (apparently) by H. W. Robinson (Cross, 104, 105 [first appearing in 1926]) and carried forward by L. Cerfaux (Le Christ, 288-98) and J. Jeremias ("Zu Phil ii 7"); it has been adopted, inter alia, by Jones, Michael (tentatively), Hendriksen; Martin (Carmen, 169-96); Gibbs ("Creation," 275-81); Strimple ("Recent Studies," 260-61); Feinberg ("Kenosis," 36-40). See the helpful discussion in O'Brien, 268-71, although he finally rejects it.
88. He is the παις θεοũ; Paul's word is δοũλος, and he is not called "the slave of the Lord." This linguistic difference is the most frequently given reason for rejecting the idea altogether (e.g., Plummer).
89. Similarly Silva, who also cites Heriban (Retto, 160-62) and Wagner ("Le scandale") in support.
90. Moule ("Reflexions," 268-69) suggests this as the only motif; cf. Houlden, Hawthorne, Bruce.
91. So also Hurtado ("Lordly Example"); cf. O'Brien, 223-24.
92. Cf. Meyer (90, "specifies"); Kennedy (437, "defines"); Vincent (59, "explains"). Those who deny pre-existence (see n. 41) recognize the difficulties this phrase poses for their point of view and adopt the tautological "strophic" arrangement which sees this and the next participle as introducing the next clause (on this matter see n. 3 on v. 8).
93. Gk. γενόμενος; cf. v. 8 where the same participle appears in a similar qualifying phrase. Cf. further the double use of this participle in the semi-creedal Gal 4:4-5, which in that case = "was born." It is so translated here by Moffatt; cf. NRSV, NAB. The NIV and NASB translate "being made," while GNB suggests "appearing."
94. Gk. ανθρώπων; the plural is purposeful, implying his identity with the whole human race, which is then particularized in the next phrase ("as a human being [himself]").
95. Gk. έν όμοιώματι; cf. esp. Rom 8:3 (έν όμοιώματι σαρκός αμαρτίας, "in the likeness of sinful flesh"); on this latter usage BAGD comment ("it is safe to assert that [Paul's] use of our word is to bring out both that Jesus in his earthly career was similar to sinful [people] yet not absolutely like them").