Article

Currents in Biblical Research

The Philippians Christ Hymn: 2015, Vol. 13(2) 191206

The Author(s) 2013

Trends in Critical Scholarship Reprints and permissions:

sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1476993X13504167
cbi.sagepub.com

Gregory P. Fewster
McMaster Divinity College, Canada

Abstract
The so-called Christ hymn of Phil. 2.5-11 has maintained great scholarly interest for over a
century, with monographs and articles continuing to appear that seek to address important
critical issues. Questions including the pre-existence of Christ and kenotic theology have
digressed and been revived with the invocation of numerous methodologies and the influence
of major philosophical trends external to New Testament studies proper. This article tracks
the major trends in research of Phil. 2.5-11, with a view to three central topics of interest:
the authorship and origin of the passage, its plausible hymnic structure and form, and its
function and theology within the letter itself, including its ancient audience.

Keywords
Hymn, imitation, kenosis, Phil. 2.5-11, pre-existence, status

Introduction
The so-called Christ hymn of Phil. 2.5-11 has maintained great scholarly inter-
est for over a century, with monographs and articles continuing to appear that
seek to address important critical issues. Questions including the pre-existence
of Christ and kenotic theology have digressed and been revived with the invo-
cation of numerous methodologies and the influence of major philosophical
trends external to New Testament studies proper. Given the volume of treat-
ments, it is nearly impossible to note every contribution, so this article tracks the
major trends in research of Phil. 2.5-11, attending to three central topics of inter-
est: the authorship and origin of the passage, its plausible hymnic structure and
form, and its function and theology within the letter itself, including its ancient
audience. A pre-Pauline origin seems to be a tenuous, though widely held

Corresponding author:
Gregory P. Fewster, McMaster Divinity College, 1280 Main St W, Hamilton, ON, L8S 4K1, Canada.
Email: gregfewster@gmail.com
192 Currents in Biblical Research 13(2)

position, while metaphysical kenotic theology has seen a resurgence in recent

years. Promising results have developed from social-scientific and anti-Imperial
readings, though the widely variant results demand greater care and methodo-
logical control in future efforts.

Authorship and Origin

The origin of Phil. 2.5-11 is a perennial question for scholars. Is the passage a
Pauline composition, or is it a piece of pre-formed tradition to which Paul appeals
and weaves into the fabric of his letter? If this is a piece of pre-Pauline tradition,
where did it come from? Since Lohmeyer (1961), the conclusion of a pre-Pauline
origin has been common and closely connected with an appreciation of a poetic
or hymnic quality to the passage. This latter concern, and the reasons for that
conclusion, will be addressed below. As such, it is sufficient at this point to
engage perspectives that, on the one hand, accept Pauline authorship, and on the
other hand, seek some sort of antecedent source upon which Paul drew.
The most common suggestion of pre-Pauline origin is a Semitic or even Ara-
maic background. Lohmeyer is frequently attributed with identifying a Semitic
background, though it was a series of later scholars who pursued this question
more deeply. Fitzmyer (1988: 473-76) provides a helpful survey of these develop-
ments. Martin (1983: 38-41) finds Lohmeyers analysis convincing and proceeds
to go a step further by hypothesizing an Aramaic original based on Lohmeyers
structure of the verse. The opinion that an Aramaic original lies behind Pauls
Greek rendition depends on the assumption that, not only is the content and/or
language of Phil. 2.5-11 divergent from that characteristic of Paul, but also diver-
gent from Greek language use par excellence. For example, Lohmeyer (1961:
10) sees the use of participles (i.e., participles functioning as finite verbs) as
characteristic of Semitic hymnic prayers. This argument and others are merely
suggestive, however. From Martins perspective, the most convincing argument
for an Aramaic original is that it is possible to translate the Greek version back
into Aramiac, and when this is done, the text has a rhythm and evenness of flow
that may well be the mark of an authentic composition (1983: 40).
Writing some years later, Fitzmyer (1988) raises some concerns with respect
to such attempts. The Aramaic of the first century ce is not well attested, so when
certain Greek words do not have an appropriate Aramaic gloss, scholars must
have recourse to a later period (475). In spite of this hesitancy, Fitzmyer proceeds
to provide his own translation of the hymn into Middle Aramaic, complete with
explanatory notes along the way (476-82). In light of Martins comment that an
Aramaic retroversion evokes authenticity, it is significant to note that a compari-
son between Martin and Fitzmyers proposals yields strikingly different results.
This is evident even in the first two lines.
Fewster: The Philippians Christ Hymn 193

Martin (1983: 40-41):

Fitzmyer (1988: 482):

The latter half of v. 6 illustrates the differences well as Fitzmyer and Martin
chose different infinitival forms of the verb . This, and other differences,
reveal that constructing an Aramaic retroversion largely amounts to speculation
and borders on special pleading, especially when a convincing translation is the
strongest argument in favour of its existence. It is not surprising, then, that many
scholars have rejected this proposal including Ksemann (1968), who prefers to
see a Hellenistic background, and Beare (1959), who, at best, sees the hymn as
composed by someone in the Pauline circle and certainly a Hellenist (77-78).
Even if an Aramaic background is rejected, some scholars posit a connection
to some form of Jewish Christianity. Kmmel (1950), for example, argues that
the hymn originated with the Jewish church. On the other hand, Tobin (2006:
95-102) has argued that the concepts of pre-existence that seem to be present
reflect the thought world of Philo, particularly his Logos theology. Tobins
proposition rests on the understanding that vv. 5-11 are indeed pre-Pauline, but
a piece of tradition that Paul and the Philippian church held in common (91).
Conversely, as noted above, Ksemann and Beare typify an appreciation of more
Hellenistic elements to the hymn and Robbins (1980) has argued that the struc-
ture evinces the influence of Greek rhetoric. Regardless of the precise nuance put
forward, there remains a strong contingent who view this passage as pre-Pauline.
In spite of dissenting voices, Marshalls critique of Martin heads in the other
direction: that Martin does not go far enough in exploring the pre-Pauline origin
(1968: 123). Following this trend, contemporary authors tend not to spend much
time (if any) defending that position. From here, interesting theological infer-
ences have been drawn. For example, in Elliss treatment of pre-formed tradition
in Paul, he strongly asserts that Phil. 2.5-11 is evidence of deity Christology that
develops very early on in the Christian tradition (2000: 319-20). Such a position
is only possible given a particular view on the hymns authorship.
Despite Lohmeyers observations and the subsequent development of his line
of thought, there remains a contingent who want to argue for Pauline authorship.
From a literary critical perspective, Black (1988) has levelled criticism in that
direction, suggesting that the authorship of other poetic elements of Pauline dis-
course, such as those in 1 Corinthians 13 and Rom. 8.35-39, remain undisputed.
As such, it is inconsistent to reject Phil. 2.5-11 as Pauline on those grounds (274-
75). Further, other undisputed passages in Paul reflect as many hapax legomena
194 Currents in Biblical Research 13(2)

as does the Christ hymn (276). From a more positive angle, Black identifies
literary features such as inclusio that operate over a span of text that includes
2.5-11 within it (281-85). Lying at the foundation of such suggestions is the glar-
ing fact that there is no textual evidence for some form of the passage that exists
independent of the epistle.
Whether or not the Christ-hymn is Pauline or pre-Pauline, it is still appro-
priate to appreciate the hymn within the context of the letter to the Philippian
church. Hooker (1975: 152-53) identifies several lexical and grammatical links
between the hymn and its immediate linguistic context. For example, the verb
in 2.5 follows on the heels of and in 2.2. Paul
also begins 2.12 with the conjunction , which, Hooker suggests, identifies
a logical progression in Pauls thought. Similarly, Rogers (2007: 188) argues for
the inclusion of the textual variant after in v. 5, which he would see
as a strong grammatical link between the so-called hymn and the immediately
preceding text. Even if Paul did not compose vv. 5-11, he did an impressive job
of weaving it into his letter.
The acceptance of a pre-Pauline origin to the hymn has dominated Philippians
scholarship for almost one hundred years, in spite of the fact that the reasons for
this conclusion have repeatedly been shown as tenuous. It appears as though
the repeated assertion of this position has made it a foregone conclusion in the
minds of many. Beares ambivalence to this question in 1959 and Blacks out-
right rejection in 1988 do not seem to have made much impact. As such, fresh
inquiry into the question of the origin of Phil. 2.5-11 is most welcome.

Form and Hymnic Nature

Scholars have long identified a hymnic and poetic quality to Phil. 2.5-11, hence
its frequent characterization as a Christ hymn. However, Bockmuehl (1998:
116-17) argues forcefully against such a designation. Intense debate regarding
the precise form and structure of the passageparticularly its division into stro-
pheshas resulted. In light of the numerous variations, Hooker (1975: 157) does
not see the exercise as a valuable one and she is content simply to identify a
poetic naturewhat she calls rhythmic proseto the passage. Similarly, Fee
(1992) rejects the designation of hymn altogether, suggesting that Paul writes in
excellent Greek prose. Following Hookers lead, Tobin (2006: 92) suggests that
the passage is a prose hymn (rather than poetry) and therefore cannot be easily
divided into strophes. Distinctions between poetry, prose, and their relation to
hymnody are evidently contentious.
Regardless of the hesitancy in some quarters to provide a definitive struc-
ture to the hymn, such attempts have maintained staying power and continue
to evoke debate. Helpful discussions have been provided by Talbert (1967)
Fewster: The Philippians Christ Hymn 195

and Martin (1983: 24-41). The first and perhaps most significant attempt to
delineate a strophic structure was accomplished by Lohmeyer, as outlined
below.

(1)

~
w ~,

(2)


(3)


(4)
i/ w ~


~ 'I
(5) w

V

(6)
'I

Lohmeyers outline is thus divided into six distinct strophes, each made up of
three lines. Except for v. 6, new strophes begin with a conjunction, though con-
junctions (usually ) can be found in the middle of lines as well. A signifi-
cant feature of this outline is the removal of the expanding phrase
at the end of v. 8. Lohmeyer apparently views this phrase as a Pauline
insertion, given its disruption of the three-line, six-strophe structure.
Jeremias (1953: 152-54) provided an early rebuttal to Lohmeyers structure,
on the basis of its disruption of clear verbal parallels seen throughout the hymn.
For example, Lohmeyer does not seem to appreciate the conceptual and ver-
bal parallel between the phrases and
, separating them into distinct strophes. Jeremias
prefers such parallelisms in his reconstruction, as can be seen below.

(1)
~ ~
w



196 Currents in Biblical Research 13(2)

(2)



(3)
i/ w ~

w ~ 'I V

'I

It is evident that Jeremiass proposal better accounts for these parallelisms, while
maintaining a balanced strophic structure organized in terms of couplets. How-
ever, to do so, Jeremias removes additional phrases:
at the end of v. 10 and at the end of v. 11.
As with Lohmeyer, he suggests that these would have been Pauline additions
to the earlier hymn (see Talbert 1967: 143). Lohmeyer and Jeremias provide
important points of departure for subsequent discussions of the hymnic structure.
Talberts article, though primarily concerned with theological issues, gives some
treatment to structure, including a summary of Lohmeyer and Jeremias and his
own proposal. His structure departs from both schemas insofar as it includes four
strophes with three lines in each (147). Talbert also excises the phrase
. His scheme begins by identifying the close connection between the
lexemes and and forming a strophe around the complete
thought that contains this parallel. This construction includes three lines, thus
the rest of the strophes are to follow suit. Talberts proposal is characterized by
its three-line strophic structure, each of which includes a complete thought, and
insists upon key term repetition (146). Martin (1983: 36-37) also departs from
Lohmeyer and Jeremias, though he appears to follow Jeremias more closely in
terms of the phrases he excises from the Greek hymn as it stands in Philippians.
However, Martins proposal includes six strophes (as does Lohmeyers), each
with two lines. The two-line strophe is a unique contribution from Martin, given
that he envisions its antiphonal chanting, probably in a worship setting (36).
Each of these proposalsand this analysis is by no means comprehensive
represents an interesting foray into determining a poetic or hymnic structure.
Martins is perhaps the most interesting insofar as its arrangement has a direct
connection with the social context of its origin. However, all four arrangements
maintain the unfortunate characteristic of excising one or more phrases from the
hymn, as it appears in the epistle itself. Consequently, Hooker is adamant that
an ideal proposed structure would appreciate the hymn as is without removing
pieces of it (1975: 158).
Other proposals have been put forward that do not directly reflect a strophic
structure. Gundry (1994: 272-73) divides the hymn according to finite and par-
ticipial phrases, which leads him to propose a chiastic structure (274). The first
Fewster: The Philippians Christ Hymn 197

two segments (sections A and B) of the chiasm each consist of a participial and
a finite clause, while the central section (section C) consists of two participial
clauses. If the finite-participial verb structure is the means of identifying the
chiastic structure than it is reasonable to expect the final two sections to match
the first two sections. Indeed, section B` follows this pattern; however, C` is
significantly larger than the other sections and contains four finite verbs and no
participles. It becomes difficult to see how the chiasm can hold together at this
point. In spite of this issue, chiasm is a common means of explaining the hymnic
structure of 2.5-11 and can be seen especially in John Brecks descriptive essay
on chiasmus and the importance of literary structure to meaning (1987: 72) and
as recently as Moessner (2009: 139). Notably, in each of these instances, the chi-
astic structure is arranged differently. Thus, while Breck suggests that the phrase
unto death, death on a cross holds the central position in the chiasm, Moessner
divides the hymn into smaller sections and includes two middle sections (c and
c`), instead of just one (though he still identifies the centrality of crucifixion).
The discussion regarding structure is indebted to the suggestion that Phil. 2.5-
11 is a piece of pre-formed tradition and likely hymnic in nature. Some of the
most important work in this regard has been accomplished by Martin and Fowl.
Both scholars have asked questions as to the function of the hymn in the setting
of early Christian cultic practice, while Fowl critiques the methods used to iden-
tify hymns in the Pauline letters as a prolegomena to asking questions of func-
tion. Martin (1983: 43-45) appeals to lexical and stylistic evidence, as well as the
coherence of the material surrounding vv. 5-11, arguing that the former segment
of the letter is hortatory in nature, the character of which is interrupted by the
elaborate christological treatise beginning in v. 5. From these assertions, he is
able to move into his discussion of the initial context of the pre-formed hymn.
Drawing on his assertion of a confessional emphasis to the hymn (see below),
Martin proposes a specific early context for this hymn, particularly that of bap-
tism. Such a nuance is brought out by the concluding phrase 'I
, which is widely understood to have a presence in and around baptismal
rites. This point is further supported by the hymns mention of the name of Jesus
( w~ 'I), which is reminiscent of Acts 2.38 (1983: 292).

Collins has more recently revisited the liturgical elements of this hymn, rely-
ing heavily on the work of Lohmeyer and Martin to legitimize Phil. 2.5-11 as a
hymn. In her study, Collins situates the passage in the first-century practice of
using hymns in a liturgical context, appealing to several examples found in early
Christianity, Hellenistic culture, and early Judaism (Collins 2003: 361-71). In
due course, Collins considers Pauls exposure to Hellenism as good evidence to
suggest that Phil. 2.5-11 represents an adaptation of the Greek prose hymn (372).
While her conclusions assert a hymnic quality to the passage, Collins represents
a strong voice that maintains Pauline authorship. It is damaging to her case, how-
ever, that Martins arguments legitimizing Phil. 2.5-11 as a hymn also necessitate
198 Currents in Biblical Research 13(2)

its existence as pre-Pauline material. How Collins can argue for Pauline author-
ship yet maintain its hymnic character remains to be seen.
While considering hymns as a form-critical designation and in relation to the
Greek term , Fowl begins his inquiry with the basic assertion that Philippi-
ans 2 and similar passages reflect a poetic quality and distinctiveness from other
Pauline texts (1990: 31-37). Difficulties arise inasmuch as there is no immediate
contextual evidence for an embedded hymn (i.e., no introductory formula of
some sort; see Fowl 1990: 37) nor patristic evidence of its use in such contexts
(see Bockmuehl 1998: 116-17). Fowl sidesteps these obstacles by leaving room
for Pauline authorship of the passage, comparing the inclusion of poetic mate-
rial amidst prose to Rom. 11.33-36. Still, scholars tend to identify linguistic and
stylistic criteria, such as the presence of several hapax legomena, that would
eliminate Paul as a potential author (see Martin 1983: 42). Fowl considers these
criteria to be suspect, in spite of their longstanding acceptance. The linguistic
profile of Paul is not large, especially if Colossians and 1 Timothy are relegated
to deutero-canonical status, and as increasingly complex structures are proposed
for the hymn, it becomes difficult to ascertain what deviates from an established
Pauline style (Fowl 1990: 38-40). If this were not troubling enough, the identifi-
cation of hymnic material based on its contentwhether it be praise expressed to
a deity drawn from the psalmic tradition, didactic expressions borrowed from the
Wisdom tradition, or poetry related to pagan encomiaamounts to circular rea-
soning if the structure and background of the passage is important to interpreting
the content of the passage itself. While Fowl does not ultimately illegitimatize
the interpretations of such passages in terms of a pre-formed hymnic tradition,
he does assert that these so-called hymnic passages (i.e., Phil. 2.6-11, Col. 1.15-
20, and 1 Tim. 3.16b) can be well-understood within, and indeed are inextricable
from, their present epistolary contexts (Fowl 1990: 44). More recently, however,
Fowl has pushed his point further. Given developments in philosophy of inter-
pretation, the passages prior existence is essentially irrelevant to its interpreta-
tion in Philippians (2005: 115). Fowls comments are to be taken seriously and,
while they do not reject attempts to identify poetic form and structure, they do
recommend a degree of caution in the reconstruction of pre-Pauline contexts to
these verses. Though, as seen with Collinss work, it is difficult to separate issues
of authorship with issues of structure. Attempts to appreciate hymnic and poetic
elements while maintaining Pauline authorship must be done with care.

Function and Theology

Susan Eastman (2011) points out that there has been significant debate as to
whether the hymn is primarily ethical or kerygmaticis Paul giving a summary
statement of Christs incarnation or does he intend to provide an ethical example
to be followed? These options provide helpful points of departure for the other
Fewster: The Philippians Christ Hymn 199

theological issues that the hymn raises. That is to say, the function and the theol-
ogy of hymn are as two sides of the same coin. Other theological issues include
the question of kenosis or the emptying of Christ, issues of Christs pre-exis-
tence, and social, political, and literary backgrounds to the hymn.
That the Christ-hymn is an appeal to the Philippian Christians for a particular
code of conduct is a popular proposal. Hurtado (1984) picks up on Lohmeyers
foundational work that identifies Christ as an exemplar for the Philippian Chris-
tians to follow, seeking to dispute rejections of this proposal (particularly by
Ksemann, see below). According to Hurtado, the language of the hymn reflects
both the language of early Christian paraenesis as well as that of the Gospel tra-
ditions regarding Jesus earthly ministry. For example, the servant language of
the hymn reflects Jesus own servant-hood, the imitation of which was inherent
to that role (1984: 124). Submission to the Lordship of Christ implies a return
to Christs own obedience, which resulted in his emptying and submission to
death on the cross (1984: 125). For Nebreda (2011), Pauls experience at Philippi
contextualizes the need for the Philippian Christians to identify with and imitate
Christ. Recently, Eastman (2008; 2011) has pushed this ethical program by advo-
cating a mimetic element to the hymn. Eastman claims to detect the vocabulary
and themes of Greco-Roman mimetic education within the hymn, suggesting a
two-fold mimesis. Christ imitates or puts on Adam, while the Philippian church
is to mime Christ (2008: 429-30). The themes of Greco-Roman mimesis are
strikingly subverted inasmuch as Christ attains downward mobility in his imita-
tion of Adam, rather than the upward mobility typical of Greek students in an
educational setting (2008: 435-36). Eastmans proposal relies heavily on seeing
an Adamic background to the hymn. Dunn (1996: 114-21) has been a major
recent and oft-cited proponent in proposing this embedded Adamic Christology
in the hymn (though cf. Wanamaker 1987). Dunns proposal is situated in his
larger assertion that Adam Christology was widely current in the Christianity
of the 40s and 50s, the Philippians hymn being one of the fullest expressions
of this attitude (1996: 114). Contrast between the form of God and the form
of a slave and equality with God and the likeness of man can, according to
Dunn, be best explained through allusion to Gen. 13. Christs being in the form
() of God recalls Adams creation in the image (w ~) of God, while the
reference to equality with God may well invoke Adams temptation to eat of
the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil (1996: 115). However, unlike
explicit contrasts between Adam and Christ such as the one found in Romans
5, in Philippians 2, the contrast remains implicit at best and relies upon loose
lexical parallels (see Fowl 1990: 71). Fowl ultimately rejects Dunns proposal in
favour of seeing the suffering servant of Isa. 52.1353.12 as a broader conceptual
backdrop (1990: 72-73). Whether or not Fowls alternative stands, his rejection
of an implicit Adamic Christology is well-made and finds other sympathizers in
Gundry (1994: 274) and OBrien (1991: 263-68). In addition to the questions
200 Currents in Biblical Research 13(2)

raised regarding an embedded Adamic Christology, the mimetic character of the

passage itself is open to suspicion. Mimesis is far from explicit except later in
the letter, when Paul invites the Philippians to imitate himin this case it is
Paul and not Christ (or Adam) who is the object of imitation. The way that the
verb i~ in 2.5 is understood has significant bearing upon a mimetic, and
even ethical, viewpoint. If reflects a behavioural process, then East-
mans mimetic view stands on sounder footing. However, if should be
understood as primarily mental, then a mimetic view is on shakier ground.
In contrast to the ethical view, Ksemann (1968) has proposed a purely keryg-
matic perspective. Following Ksemann, Martin (1983: 287-89) argues that the
Christ-hymn portrays a soteriological drama or theological treatise on the actions
of Christan early Christian kerygmatic confession (1983: 21). From this per-
spective, ethics may be present, but only as an extension of the primary chris-
tological/soteriological meaningthe Philippian Christians may act according
to their standing in Christ (289). Martins position typifies what Eastman calls
the kerygmatic view. Even if Martins view can be sustained, it becomes dif-
ficult to see ethical and kerygmatic proposals as discrete options. Martin him-
self admits that ethical connotations necessarily stem from the proclamation of
Christs actions in emptying himself and submitting to death. Consequently, it is
not uncommon to encounter mediating positions, such as that of Hooker (1975:
156), that appreciate a melding of ethical and kerygmatic elements in the hymn.
In among the debate between ethical and kerygmatic proposals is the question
of the content of the hymn itself, particularly as regards Pauline (or pre-Pauline)
Christology vis--vis the issue of pre-existence and kenotic theology. As Light-
foot notes (1868: 131), the issue of pre-existence circles around the precise impli-
cation of the phrase in the form of God ( ). Lightfoot argues that
the Pauline tradition clearly indicates that Jesus birth was the first moment of
his humiliation, thus his being in the form of God could only occur before this
moment. Christs pre-existence is a logical inference from the description of the
(132). Gibbs (1970) is not far removed from this perspective as he
attaches a cosmic dimension to Christs lordship given the universality of those
who will bend the knee to Christ the redeemer at his exultation. This cosmic ele-
ment marks the endpoint of a trajectory that began with pre-existence and saw
Christs servant-hood and death as the fulcrum. Kenotic theology stems from the
pre-existence interpretation to the extent that Christs kenosis () is an
emptying of his divinity. Phil. 2.6-7 marks a shift from Christs pre-existent state
in the form of God to an emptying of this formcomplete with the privileges
that accompany deityand the adoption of the human appearance (
) and servants form ( ). In spite of its logical exten-
sion from the notion of Christs pre-existence, kenotic theology was beginning
to lose favour by the mid 1960s (see MacQuarrie 1966: 199). The reason for this
departure was a philosophical shift in an emphasis on the human Jesus, rather
Fewster: The Philippians Christ Hymn 201

than a pre-occupation with Christs divinity. MacQuarrie has thus identified a

new-style kenoticism (199) that instead focuses upon Jesus involvement in a
self-emptying while in his human condition in an attempt to distance itself from
mythological or speculative forays into metaphysics (i.e., the strange assertion
that a God can empty himself of divinity; see Harvey 1965: 337-38). Recently,
this approach is best represented in Fisks (2006) comparison of the passage with
some early Greek novels that highlight Christs own agency in his emptying.
On the other hand, Gorman (2007) pushes the kenotic reading to suggest that
Christs emptying reveals something about the nature of Godthat emptying
is a fundamental character of the divine. This reading of Phil. 2.6-11 has subse-
quently figured prominently into Gormans (2009) emphasis on cruciformity as
a central piece of Pauline soteriology.
In opposition to pre-existence and kenotic interpretations, Charles Talbert
(1967) addresses these questions from the position that a correct delineation of
the hymns structure will lead to correct interpretation. Given his structural pro-
posal, Talbert suggests that the first two strophes of the hymn should be consid-
ered parallel in structure and thus parallel in meaning. Since the second strophe
describes Christs earthly life and death on the cross, the first strophe necessarily
does as well. Drawing upon early assertions of AdamChrist parallels (see Beare
1959: 84), to suggest that Christ rejected equality with God (i.e., the ),
Talbert concludes that Phil. 2.6-11 only engages Jesus earthly life and decision
to be a servant of God, without recourse to identifying some pre-existent state
(1967: 153). Talberts work sets a trajectory for contemporary studies, which
tend to leave discussions of pre-existence behind. Dunns reintroduction of the
AdamChrist parallel provides ample room to see Christs kenosis in terms of his
incarnate state as the new Adam, and Hellerman (2009) understands the form
of God to indicate social status, not ontological relationship. I would be remiss,
however, to neglect some contemporary authors who insist upon the presence of
the concept of pre-existence in the passage (see Eastman 2011: 2; OBrien 1991:
267; Bockmuehl 1998: 129).
Bockmuehl (1998: 8-10) has argued against a Jewish presence in and around
the city of Philippi, and, in concert with this assertion, scholars have tended to
seek out social and literary backgrounds to the hymn that do not rely on Jew-
ish cultural expressions (such as Dunns Adamic Christology). Moessner (2009)
draws out elements of crucifixion and honor/shame in the hymn as typical of
a slaves death, connecting it with the Roman Imperial presence in the city of
Philippi. Christs taking on of a servants form and submitting to crucifixion
becomes all the more striking when read in the context of Roman Philippi. Gun-
dry (1994: 276) draws this out in relation to the servants form, suggesting that
draws a sharp contrast to the use of to refer to Christ. Wortham
(1996) explores similar themes to Moessner, though from a social-scientific per-
spective, inquiring into the social status of the Philippian Christians. Wortham
202 Currents in Biblical Research 13(2)

concludes that the Philippian church would probably have been a Gentile com-
munity made up of individuals from a variety of social strata. The christological
expression present in Phil. 2.5-11 thus serves as a means of social unity, binding
the members of the various strata together (1996: 274). This is accomplished by
the hymns description of a social drama in which Christ achieves status rever-
sal (282). Reversal emerges as a distinctive theme in 2.5-11 as social status is
reversed and an enslaved God becomes an agent of liberation (see Briggs 1989).
Similarly, Hellerman (2005) has given reasonable attention to the material evi-
dence at Philippi, offering the proposal that Christs actions would be viewed as
cursus pudorum given Philippis intense pre-occupation with social status. It is
also argued (Hellerman 2010) that Paul and Silass experience in Roman Philippi
provides a tangible example for following Christs emptying and counter-
cultural submission.
In a similar vein, the passage may reflect anti-Imperial sentiments, given the
audiences setting in Roman Philippi. Heen (2004) notes that the notion of equal-
ity with God (isa the) was a characteristic of the Roman Imperial cult, which
would have had a significant presence in the Roman colony of Philippi. Espe-
cially if Phil. 2.5-11 was used in a public worship setting, the repetition of the
hymn by the community would have functioned as public form of resistance
against the Imperial cult (2004: 126-27). The anticipated universal proclamation
that Jesus is Lord is another feature that could explicitly reject Roman Imperial
propaganda that tended to dictate that Caesar is Lord (Oakes 2001: 129-74).
Of course, the Philippians hymn exists presently in the context of the larger
epistle to the Philippian church and, as such, deserves to be considered in terms
of its function within that larger context. As noted above, Hooker (1975: 152-
53) is keen to identify lexical and conceptual links between the hymn and its
immediate context. Broader associations have been articulated as well. Wuest
(1958) suggests that the hymn is included specifically to address the strife that
had sprung up between Euodia and Syntyche. This is an interesting proposal,
though it is questionable that this set of verses, which fits so prominently in the
former half of the epistle, would be included for the primary purpose of address-
ing an issue that receives only brief mention. Eastmans emphasis on the mimetic
character of the hymn (though suspect in my opinion) is situated in the context
of what she sees as Pauls broader mimetic program throughout the epistle, seen
especially in Phil. 4.9. Fowl (1990) has made the strongest effort to situate the
hymn in the context of the epistle. He proposes that Phil. 2.6-11 (regardless of
authorship) is included in order to provide content to the earlier commission to
live worthy of the gospel of Christ (1.27) and in support of Pauls objections
against opponents in 3.1ff (1990: 77). As Fowl readily admits, the way in which
such goals are achieved is debated; however, the attempted connection between
the hymn and the larger context is well made. Fowls argument relies heavily
Fewster: The Philippians Christ Hymn 203

upon an ethical reading, particularly that of Christ as exemplar, a position that he

eventually extends to other Pauline hymnic material.

Conclusion
The literature devoted to the various issues connected with Phil. 2.5-11 con-
tinues to grow. Despite what has been said in the past, satisfactory conclusions
regarding issues of authorship/origin, structure, and hymnic nature continue to
elude scholars. What may appear to be fundamental assumptions, such as the
pre-Pauline or hymnic character of the passage, would not suffer from reap-
praisal, taking cues from Fowls work. In a similar vein, issues of the theology
and function of the hymn itself seem to go through cyclical trends. Christologi-
cal pre-existence was rejected in the mid-1960s in favour of more adoptionistic
(or at least less metaphysical) proposals. Yet, scholars like Eastman, OBrien,
Fisk, and Bockmuehl resist such trends, opting for more traditional perspectives
on the pre-existence of Christ.
A common approach to the interpretation of this passage has been to assess
conceptual origins, parallels, and analogues, and to situate the hymn in relation
to its immediate social and political context, namely Roman Philippi. The result-
ing surplus in meaning is almost overwhelming: Eastman has drawn insights
from Greek mimesis, Heen and Oakes see Paul as subverting the Imperial cult,
and Hellerman has investigated the social stratification characteristic of Philippi,
to mention a few proposals. The attempt to situate the passage in its material and
social setting of Roman Philippi seems to be worthwhile but could benefit from
more detailed research into the ancient site (how might the inscriptional and
papyrological evidence elucidate this further?) and relating such findings with
the letter as a whole.

Funding
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial,
or not-for-profit sectors.

Bibliography
Beare, F.W.
1959 The Epistle to the Philippians (BNTC; London: Adam & Charles Black).
Black, D.A.
1988 The Authorship of Philippians 2:6-11: Some Literary-Critical Observations,
Criswell Theological Review 2: 269-89.
Bockmuehl, M.
1998 The Epistle to the Philippians (BNTC; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson).
Breck, J.
1987 Biblical Chiasmus: Exploring Structure for Meaning, BTB 17.2: 70-74.
204 Currents in Biblical Research 13(2)

Briggs, S.
1989 Can an Enslaved God Liberate? Hermeneutical Reflections on Philippians
2:6-11, Semeia 47: 137-53.
Collins, A.Y.
2003 Psalms, Philippians 2:6-11, and the Origins of Christology, BibInt 11.4:
361-72.
Dunn, J.D.G.
1996 Christology in the Making: An Inquiry into the Origins of the Doctrine of the
Incarnation (2nd edn; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Eastman, S.
2008 Imitating Christ Imitating Us: Pauls Educational Project in Philippians, in
J.R. Wagner, C.K. Rowe and A.K. Grieb (eds.), The Word Leaps the Gap:
Essays on Scripture and Theology in Honor of Richard B. Hays (Grand Rap-
ids, MI: Eerdmans): 427-52.
2011 Philippians 2:6-11: Incarnation as Mimetic Participation, JSPL 1.1: 1-23.
Ellis, E.E.
2000 Preformed Traditions and their Implications for Pauline Christology, in
D.G. Horrell and C.M. Tuckett (eds.), Christology, Controversy and Com-
munity: New Testament Essays in Honor of David R. Catchpole (NovTSup,
99; Leiden: Brill): 303-20.
Fee, G.D.
1992 Philippians 2:5-11: Hymn or Exalted Pauline Prose, BBR 2: 29-46.
Fisk, B.N.
2006 The Odyssey of Christ: A Novel Context for Philippians 2:6-11, in C.S.
Evans (ed.), Exploring Kenotic Christology: The Self-Emptying of God
(Oxford: Oxford University Press): 45-73.
Fitzmyer, J.A.
1988 The Aramaic Background of Philippians 2:611, CBQ 50: 470-83.
Fowl, S.E.
1990 The Story of Christ in the Ethics of Paul: An Analysis of the Function of the
Hymnic Material in the Pauline Corpus (JSNTSup, 36; Sheffield: Sheffield
Academic Press).
2005 Philippians (The Two Horizons New Testament Commentary; Grand Rapids,
MI: Eerdmans).
Gibbs, J.G.
1970 The Relation between Creation and Redemption according to Phil. II:5-11,
NovT 12.3: 270-83.
Gorman, M.J.
2007 Although/Because He Was in the Form of God: The Theological Signifi-
cance of Pauls Master Story (Phil 2:6-11), JTI 1.2: 147-69.
2009 Inhabiting the Cruciform God: Kenosis, Justification, and Theosis in Pauls
Narrative Soteriology (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Gundry, R.H.
1994 Style and Substance in The Myth of God Incarnate according to Philip-
pians 2:6-11, in S.E. Porter and M.D. Goulder (eds.), Crossing the Boundar-
ies: Essays in Honour of Michael D. Goulder (BIS, 8; Leiden: Brill): 271-94.
Harvey, J.
1965 A New Look at the Christ Hymn in Philippians 2:6-11, ExpTim 76.11: 337-39.
Fewster: The Philippians Christ Hymn 205

Heen, E.M.
2004 Phil 2:6-11 and Resistance to Local Timocratic Rule: Isa the and the Cult of
the Emperor in the East, in R.A. Horsley (ed.), Paul and the Roman Imperial
Order (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International): 125-54.
Hellerman, J.H.
2005 Reconstructing Honor in Roman Philippi: Carmen Christi as Cursus Pudo-
rum (SNTSMS, 132; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
2009 as a Signifier of Social Status in Philippians 2:6, JETS
52.4: 779-97.
2010 Vindicating Gods Servants in Philippi and Philippians: The Influence of
Pauls Ministry in Philippi on the Composition of Philippians 2:6, BBR 20.1:
85-102.
Hooker, M.D.
1975 Philippians 2:6-11, in E.E. Ellis and E. Grer (eds.), Jesus und Paulus:
Festschrift fr Werner Georg Kmmel zum 70. Geburtstag (Gttingen: Van-
denhoeck & Ruprecht): 151-64.
Hurtado, L.W.
1984 Jesus as Lordly Example in Philippians 2:511, in P. Richardson and J.C.
Hurd (eds.), From Jesus to Paul: Studies in Honour of Francis Wright Beare
(Waterloo: Wilfred Laurier University Press): 113-26.
Jeremias, J.
1953 Zur Gedankenfuehrung in den paulinischen Briefen, in J.W. Stevenster and
W.C. van Unnick (eds.), Studia Paulina in honorem Johannes de Zwaan,
septuagenarii (Haarlem: Bohn): 146-54.
Ksemann, E.
1968 A Critical Analysis of Philippians 2:511, JTC 5: 45-88.
Kmmel, G.W.
1950 Mythos im Neuen Testament, Theologische Zeitschrift 6.5: 321-37.
Lightfoot, J.B.
1868 St. Pauls Epistle to the Philippians: A Revised Text with Introduction, Notes
and Dissertations (12th edn 1988; reprint 1995; Peabody: Hendrickson).
Lohmeyer, E.
1930 Der Brief an die Philipper (MeyerKommentar; Gttingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht).
1961 Kyrios Jesus: Eine Untersuchung zu Phil 2, 5-11 (Sitzungsberichte der Hei-
delberger Akademie der Wissesch., Phil.hist Kl.; 2nd edn; Heidelberg: Win-
ter).
MacQuarrie, J.
1966 The Pre-existence of Christ, ExpTim 77.7: 199-202.
Marshall, I.H.
1968 The Christ-Hymn in Philippians 2:511, TynBul 19: 104-27.
Martin, R.P.
1983 Carmen Christi: Philippians 2:511 in Recent Interpretation and in the Set-
ting of Early Christian Worship (SNTSMS, 4; reprt.; Grand Rapids, MI:
Eerdmans [1967]).
Martin, R.P., and B.J. Dodd (eds.)
1998 Where Christology Began: Essays on Philippians 2 (Louisville, KY: West-
minster John Knox).
206 Currents in Biblical Research 13(2)

Moessner, D.P.
2009 Turning Status Upside Down in Philippi: Christ Jesus Emptying Him-
self as Forfeiting any Acknowledgment of his Equality with God (Phil
2:6-11), Horizons in Biblical Theology 31: 123-43.
Murphy-OConner, J.
1976 Christological Anthropology in Phil 2:611, RB 83.1: 25-50.
Nebrada, S.R.
2011 Christ Identity: A Social-Scientific Reading of Philippians 2.5-11 (Forschun-
gen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments, 240; Gt-
tingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht).
Oakes, P.
2001 Philippians: From People to Letter (SNTSMS, 110; Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press).
OBrien, P.T.
1991 The Epistle to the Philippians: A Commentary on the Greek Text (NIGTC;
Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Robbins, C.J.
1980 Rhetorical Structure of Philippians 2:6-11, CBQ 42.1: 73-82.
Rogers, P.R.
2007 A Textual Commentary in Philippians 2.5-11, in J.H. Ellens (ed.), Text and
Community: Essays in Memory of Bruce M. Metzger Volume 1 (NTM, 19;
Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix): 187-95.
Talbert, C.H.
1967 The Problem of Pre-existence on Philippians 2:611, JBL 86.2: 141-53.
Tobin, T.H.
2006 The World of Thought in the Philippians Hymn (Philippians 2:6-11), in
J. Fotopoulos (ed.), The New Testament and Early Christian Literature in
Greco-Roman Context: Studies in Honor of David E. Aune (NovTSup, 122;
Leiden: Brill): 91-104.
Wanamaker, C.A.
1987 Philippians 2.6-11: Son of God or Adamic Christology? NTS 33.2: 179-93.
Wortham, R.A.
1996 Christology as Community Identity in the Philippians Hymn: The Philippi-
ans Hymn as Social Drama (Philippians 2:511), Perspectives in Religious
Studies 23.3: 269-87.
Wuest, K.S.
1958 When Jesus Emptied Himself, BibSac 115.458: 153-58.