An Early Christian Confession

R. P. Martin

[p.v]

CONTENTS

I INTRODUCTION 7

II THE FORM AND AUTHORSHIP OF PHILIPPIANS 8

ii. 5-11

III AN EXEGETICAL STUDY OF PHILIPPIANS ii. 5-11 16

IV CONCLUSION 38

V APPENDIX of notes to which the superior numbers in 39

the text refer

[p.vi]

ABBREVIATIONS

AV English Authorized Version

CQR. Church Quarterly Review
E.T. English translation
Exp. T. The Expository Times
H.E. Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius
J.B.L. The Journal of Biblical Literature
J.T.S. The Journal of Theological Studies
KJ Kyrios Jesus by E. Lohmeyer
LXX Septuagint Version
MT Massoretic Text
RV English Revised Version, 1881
T.W.N.T. Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament
Z.N.T.W. Zeitschrjft für die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft

[p.7]

AN EARLY CHRISTIAN CONFESSION

 I. INTRODUCTION

PHILIPPIANS ii. 5-11 exercises a twofold influence upon the would-be commentator. It both
attracts and repels. This ambivalent reaction is the result, on the one hand, of the importance
of the section for our knowledge of early Christianity and of Paul’s Christological teaching;
and, on the other hand, of the difficulty which the interpreter faces as he comes to weigh the
significance, and ponder the meaning, of these profound words. If A. B. Bruce in 1876 could
write of the diversity of opinion as ‘enough to fill the student with despair, and to afflict him
with intellectual paralysis’,1 how much more is the modern student amazed at the variety and
complexity of more recent scholarly research on this portion of God’s Word. ‘This section
belongs to the most difficult passages of the Pauline letters’, comments E. Lohmeyer in the
introductory sentence to this passage in his Commentary.2

Yet the section induces a fascination which invites the attempt to study it closely. It is
important not only for its own sake, but also because it represents a type of literature which
New Testament study has detected and classified as ‘cultic’ or ‘confessional’. Philippians ii.
5-11 is best described as a piece of early Christian kerygmatic confession which found a place
in the cultus of the primitive Church.3 It represents one of the earliest attempts to state, in
confessional form, the Church’s belief in the person of the Redeemer and Lord, the price He
paid to fulfil the divine purpose which brought Him into the world, and the honour He
received at the completion of His mission.4 The setting of this confession in the cultic life of
the early Christians may be described in the following ways.5 First, it shows clearly that the
early Church worshipped Jesus as the exalted Lord. Right at the beginning of the Christian
age the followers of Jesus, the people of the way

[p.8]

(cf. Acts ix. 2, xxii. 4, xxiv. 14), hailed Him in worship, confession and prayer as well as in
preaching as Maran-Jesus and accorded Him such divine honour as belonged properly to their
covenant God.6 Secondly, a literary piece such as Philippians ii. 5-11 presupposes a cultus,7
i.e. a clearly defined religious devotion which centred upon Him as Lord and drew its
inspiration from His living presence in the midst of His people. Thirdly, we may with
confidence believe that this confession of Jesus as exalted Lord and Christ laid the foundation
for later Christology.8 Indeed, Jeremias says explicitly of this Hymn to Christ that it ‘is the
oldest document on which the whole Christology of the later times, especially the doctrine of
the three states of existence of Christ (i.e. pre-existent, incarnate, exalted), was built up.’9

II. THE FORM AND AUTHORSHIP OF PHILIPPIANS ii. 5-11

The credit for the separate analysis of the section goes to E. Lohmeyer whose monograph
remains the outstanding single contribution in recent times.1 Before him, the poetic and
liturgical character of the verses had been recognized by J. Weiss and A. Deissmann2 who
arranged the section in two strophes of four lines and two strophes of seven lines respectively.
H. Lietzmann, in his monumental study of the Eucharist,3 has a chapter on the antecedents of
the Eucharistic prayer in Hippolytus, and refers to the ‘Christological hymn’ of Philippians ii
which he sets out in lines somewhat similar to Lohmeyer’s pattern.
Lohmeyer proceeds from the assumption that what we have in these verses is a Christological
Hymn set in rhythmical form, and composed of six strophes, each with three lines. It is a self-
contained unity because it begins with God in eternity, and concludes with the same thought.4
It is best understood as a primitive carmen Christi,5 which may be set out in the following
way:

I Being in the form of God,

He considered it not a thing to be seized
To be equal with God;
[p.9]
II But emptied Himself,
By taking the form of a slave,
Coming in human likeness.

III And appearing on earth as Man, He humbled Himself,

Becoming obedient unto death (indeed,
death on a cross).

IV Wherefore God exalted Him,

And bestowed on Him the name
That is above every name;

V That in the name of Jesus Every knee should bow,

Of things in heaven, on earth, and under the earth,

VI And every tongue confess:

‘Jesus Christ is Lord’,
To the glory of God the Father.

The evidence for this description is found in the following unusual features.

a. Stylistic evidence

There is a stately and solemn ring in these words which is noticeable when the Greek text is
read aloud.6 It is reminiscent, says Bonnard,7 of the Old Testament psalms and the religious
poetry of the Old Testament. There are extraordinary features which betray the form and style
of poetry. For example, we may instance the rhythmical quality of the sentences, the use of
parallelism based on the number of syllables in a line, and the presence of rare words and
phrases. Such evidence indicates that we are dealing with the literature of liturgy rather than
epistolary prose.

[p.10]

A. M. Hunter sums up the impression which the style of the piece makes in his conclusion,
‘The style of the whole is solemn, stately, liturgical, and it ends with a rhetorical clause.’8

b. Linguistic evidence
It is an incontrovertible fact that many of the key-words of the section are hapax legomena in
Paul’s writing; and even, in some cases, in the entire New Testament. The word ¡rpagmÒj is
not found elsewhere in the New Testament. It is absent from the LXX, and is quite rare in
secular Greek.9 The verb ‘highly exalted’, Øperuyoàn, likewise is not found again in the New
Testament, although it reappears in an Old Testament citation of Psalm xxxvii. 35-37 in 1
Clement xiv. 5.10 The threefold enumeration, ‘in heaven, on earth, and under the earth’ is
unique in New Testament writings.

Morf» is found only once elsewhere in the Received Text of the New Testament: in the
Markan appendix at Mark xvi. 12. The verb ‘emptied’, translating kenoàn, is used in four
other places in the Pauline literature but never with the precise meaning of ii. 7 where it is
used absolutely in contrast to the other Pauline usages which are usually in the passive voice.
The phrase, ‘in the name of Jesus’, is also something of a unique specimen. The customary
Pauline term is ‘in the name of the Lord Jesus’ or ‘in the name of Jesus Christ’.

The word translated ‘obedient’, Øp»rkooj, has a special meaning in the context, which is not
found elsewhere. In classical Greek it usually connotes political subjection. In two other New
Testament examples, it is obedience to men (to Moses, Acts vii. 39: to Paul himself, 2 Cor. ii.
9) which is in view. In the sense of religious obedience to God it is unique here in the New
Testament literature.

This cursory examination of the language of the passage reveals that there are many
exceptional terms and words; and confirms the impression that we are here dealing with a
piece of literature which is in a class of its own in the New Testament.

[p.11]

c. Contextual evidence

Philippians i. 27-ii. 18 forms one closely-knit section of the Epistle. The dominant theme is
exhortation. ‘What Paul expects from the Church’ is one commentator’s summary of the
contents.11 The ‘Hymn’ of verses 5-11 clearly interrupts the flow of the hortatory theme, and
points to the fact that the section has been inserted at this juncture as a citation by the apostle
of what would be to him the appropriate quotation to support his admonition to the
Philippians. The introductory formula of verse 5 is clear evidence of this. A. M. Hunter writes
of the Hymn as resembling ‘“a purple patch” stitched into the fabric of the exhortation’;12
while W. K. L. Clarke comments, ‘The more we press the actuality of Philippians as a
genuine letter, the more probable it is that St. Paul did not pause in his dictation to compose
an exquisitely balanced and rhythmical piece of prose.13

By this cumulative evidence the conclusion now appears irresistible that Philippians ii. 5-11 is
detachable from the pastoral context of the Pauline letter of which it forms a part. It is marked
out as a fragment of liturgy by the unusual style and the employment of expressions which are
more in keeping with the style of poetry and worship than the results of the dictation,
presumably ad hoc, of a letter to a factious and local community of Christ’s people at Philippi.
We find that this conclusion is now generally accepted as part of the wider concern to find in
the Epistles of the New Testament fragments of hymnic and liturgical compositions which
were incorporated into the writings of the apostles and the apostolic men. This is a vast field
which offers a fascinating line of investigation, and we can only refer to it in passing.14
The designation of the section as a Christological Hymn has a distinct bearing on the matter of
authorship. Lohmeyer argues that the section must be pre-Pauline on the ground that the
Greek text is based on an underlying Aramaic original. ‘The author’s mother-tongue was
Semitic’;15 and this is shown by traces of Semitic style in the text. The participial style which
is found in the

[p.12]

first half of the Hymn is a well-known feature of Semitic hymnic prayer-speech, with the
participle doing the job of the finite verb, preserving the continuity of thought and action, and
producing what Lohmeyer calls ‘a ballad-like tone’. This is a linguistic trait which is possible
only in Semitic writing, and finds illustration in the psalms of the Old Testament and the odes
of Solomon.

Lohmeyer mentions also constructions which are unlikely in a Greek composition. The
phrases ˜autÕn ™kšnwsen and eØreqeˆj æj call forth his brusque verdict that they are not
only unPauline but unGreek too.16

Another distinguishing characteristic which indicates that the Hymn had a Semitic origin is
the construction of the Section in threes.17 There are three stresses to a line, three lines to a
strophe, three strophes in each part of the entire composition with the first half containing
three steps down from the Lord’s heavenly state to humanity and Servant-hood and ultimately
the humiliation of death. And there is the threefold division of the cosmos in verse 10.
Furthermore, if we accept Jeremias’ modification of Lohmeyer’s analysis,18 there is an extra
feature of the Hymn covering the threefold state of the Person of Christ in His preexistence,
His humiliation and His exaltation. Jeremias has detected this triadic structure of early
Christian hymns elsewhere in the New Testament.

Lohmeyer draws the conclusion that, in view of the presence of rare words and the obvious
Semitic flavour of the piece, the author must have belonged to the early Jewish-Christian
community at Jerusalem. He goes even further with the suggestion that the Hymn belongs to
the Eucharistic liturgy of the Jerusalem church and was sung at the celebrations of the Lord’s
Supper in that early community. 19 This startling view has not met with approval by those who
would follow Lohmeyer in his general thesis about the origin of the Hymn and its pre-Pauline
authorship.20 In fact, later discussion would take the composition away from Jerusalem, and
locate it in Antioch in the Syrian province

[p.13]

where there was a large Jewish population, and where Paul spent his early years as a
missionary and in contact with the bilingual churches.21

The denial of apostolic authorship is not, however, merely a subjective guess. There are,
according to its proponents, certain factors which militate against the traditional view.

First, we may observe the absence of the great Pauline theme of redemption. Although it is on
the cross that the Lord of glory brings His life of obedience to a climax, no redemptive
significance is attached to that death. In fact, Lohmeyer would remove the phrase, ‘even the
death of the cross’, as a Pauline interpretative gloss on the score that it breaks the metrical
structure of the Hymn.22 But even if the phrase is allowed to stand, it adds little by way of
explanation to the meaning of the death. There is no thought of Øpr or perˆ ¹mîn.23 There is
no reference to the redemption of humanity from sin by the cross. Rather the outcome is that
the entire cosmos is subjected to a new Lord.

Secondly, no mention is made of the resurrection of Christ which was a doctrine dear to the
heart of the apostle and central in his preaching as the evidence of I Corinthians xv shows.24
Here in Philippians ii. 9, as in Hebrews (except xiii. 20), the thought proceeds directly from
the cross to the exaltation of the Lord.25

Thirdly, there is no reference to the Church as the company of those for whom Christ laid
down His life (contrast Ephesians v. 25). Instead, the reconciliation is one which embraces the
whole order of created life which is comprehensively covered by the phrase in verse 10.26

The noticeable absence of these Pauline characteristica provides the ground for a denial of
Paul’s hand in the composing of the Hymn. Could he have written a noble tribute to the Lord,
it is argued, and omitted those very ideas and emphases which we know to have been so vital
to his theology?

There is, moreover, a further consideration. If we may assume for the moment what will be
shown later, that one of the main categories of interpretation is the doctrine of the Servant of
the

[p.14]

Lord whose obedience, submission unto death and glorification are the prototype of the
presentation of Christ here, we may note the statement of R. H. Fuller: ‘Paul never makes use
of any of the Servant language, except where he is quoting tradition which he has received
from pre-Pauline Christianity’.27 If this is a sound judgment, it would buttress the already
imposing argument that Philippians ii contains a pre-Pauline Hymn which Paul inherited from
his Jewish-Christian predecessors, from those who were ‘in Christ’ before him (Rom. xvi. 7).
He utilized it at this point in his Epistle to illustrate and enforce the lessons of humility and
submissiveness which he was setting before the Philippian Christians.

The evidence is, however, not all on one side. To champion the cause of the apostolic
authorship is not an easy business in these days, and especially when the arguments ranged
against it are so strong and clear. We cannot deny the cogency of the point that ideas that we
associate with Paul are missing from the section; nor the unmistakable data of the rare words
and phrases. Rather, the line to be taken will be to admit all this; but then to suggest that there
are factors which explain the evidence, and make it unnecessary to postulate an unknown
authorship. The rhythmical and liturgical style of the piece betraying an early Christian con-
fession may be taken as proved. But this one concession may in itself explain some of the
other features which Lohmeyer and Hunter have so acutely detected, viz, the unusual
vocabulary and the absence of certain ideas which the apostle elaborates elsewhere in great
detail. If the section was originally composed as a Hymn, or confession of faith, in tribute to
the Church’s Lord, the employment of exceptional words and constructions might well be
expected. Presumably the author had a certain picture in mind of the Subject in whose praise
and honour the Hymn would be written, and it would be unnatural to ask that every truth
about Him and His work should be included in one short tribute. The author would have to be
selective of his ideas, and this one fact may go far to explain the omission of those features
which we

[p.15]

find in the undoubtedly genuine Pauline works. As Henry reminds us simply, ‘un silence n’est
pas une negation’.28

Also we are learning from recent Pauline studies that there is danger in too much confidence
in the value of word-statistics as a determining criterion of apostolic authorship; and we
cannot be over-dogmatic about just what the apostle could or could not have written.29

This leads on to the point that Paul is capable of an exalted and poetic style when the occasion
serves. 1 Corinthians xiii and Romans viii. 31 ff., xi. 33 ff. are the clearest examples of this
ability to scale the heights of sublime poetry and to compose in a style which is as far
removed from that of epistolary prose as is Philippians ii.30 There are also other examples
which may have been his guide and incentive, for instance the liturgical psalms of the Old
Testament and the Servant poems of Isaiah. It would be a risky conclusion to set a limit to the
ability of the apostle in his literary composition, and to say dogmatically that he was not
capable of producing a hymn in a style appropriate to the literary genre he is being inspired to
produce.

W. D. Davies has offered the point that the doctrine of Christ as the second Adam is
distinctively Pauline.31 As will be shown later, this view is another valuable key to the
elucidation of the whole passage. In his discussion of the second Adam doctrine in the New
Testament, he reaches the conviction that ‘the conception of Christ as the Second Adam was
probably introduced into the Church by Paul himself’.32 If this is so, our Hymn is the most
conspicuous example of the way his renewed mind was working in the formulating of the
contrast between the first Adam and last Man from heaven.

Against Lohmeyer’s description of the verses as a pre-Pauline Eucharistic liturgy, we may set
the verdict of Stauffer who has examined the credal elements in the New Testament and finds
twelve criteria which mark out credal formulae. Many of these criteria are present in
Philippians ii, and this endorses Stauffer’s statement that these verses are to be classified as a
Pauline in-

[p.16]

carnational formula which Paul composed at an earlier date than the writing of the Philippian
letter and inserted there.33

On the linguistic side, it is a fact that there are typically Pauline elements in the text which
should not be overlooked.34 His use of scÁma and his employment of the verb ‘to kneel’,
which is used in the same Old Testament quotation from Isaiah xlv. 23 in Romans xiv.11, are
cases in point. KÚrioj 'Ihsoàj is his favourite Christological appellation in, e.g., 1
Corinthians xii. 3 and Romans x. 9, which are both credal statements. There are also the two
main ideas which form the central convictions of his Christology: the obedience of the Lord
which reverses the disobedience of the first Adam, a theme which is worked out in
considerable detail in Romans v; and the bestowal of a name on the exalted Christ (cf. Eph. i.
20-23). If an underlying Semitic original may be taken as demonstrated by Lohmeyer, then
this raises an obvious question. Need we look any further than the apostle himself for the
author? We require, as a candidate for authorship, a Christian whose mother tongue is
Aramaic and one with equal facility in the use of Greek. The apostle has just that
qualification.35

III. AN EXEGETICAL STUDY OF PHILIPPIANS ii. 5-11

The method of many modern interpreters is to begin with an examination of the language of
the Pauline text and subject the key-words to close study. We may proceed, then, to some of
the controverted words and phrases, and observe the conclusions of modern lexicographical
study.

a. Øp£rcwn
This word, which is rendered by the plain participle ‘being’ in the AV, is more suitably
translated ‘being originally’, as in the RV margin. Øp£rcein can often mean simply ‘to exist’,
and we may compare the very frequent usage of the participle with a predicate noun to mean
‘who is, since he is’. There is also the connotation of ‘what belongs to someone, his
possession’, or, in the phrase Øp£rcei mo… ti, ‘something at my disposal’ which would be

[p.17]

rendered by the simple verb, ‘I have’.1 So we read in Ecciesiasticus xx. 16, ‘A fool will say, I
have no friend’ (oÙc Øp£rcei moi f…loj).

Perhaps we ought to bear this nuance in mind when we come to interpret the Christological
text of Philippians ii. 6. Our Lord, in His pre-incarnate state, had possession of the ‘form of
God’. The usage of Øp£rcein to denote an original or fundamental possession is attested by 1
Corinthians xi. 7 which is an important parallel in view of its meaning. Man is the e„kèn and
dÒxa of God, but not by acquirement. Rather, he is that by nature, in virtue of his original
creation at the hands of God (Gn. i. 27: kat' e„kÒna in the LXX: cf. Col. iii. 10). This would
be true of the first man Adam who enjoyed this dignity as the original gift of God.

In this context, then, while it is not absolutely required, the meaning seems clear. ‘He who
was originally possessing the “form of God” ‘is the introductory description of the pre-
existent Lord.2

b. ™n morfÍ Qeoà
The discovery of the exact meaning of this phrase is handicapped by the fact that the word
morf¾ is found only here in Paul’s writing, although cognate words are elsewhere used by
him.3 Of first importance is to notice that Paul does not say that Christ existed as the morf¾
Qeoà, but that He was in that morf»; or, as we may submit, He possessed that morf». Earlier
writers viewed the term through the spectacles of Greek philosophy, and reached the
conclusion that here was a word which expressed the metaphysical notion of oÙs…a as the
equivalent of deity.4
The exact wording ™n morfÍ Qeoà and the more likely background of the apostle’s thought in
the world of the Old Testament and Hellenistic Judaism would support a more profitable line
of thought. Instead of the parallels to be found in Aristotle’s highly formal statements about
morf», it is more in keeping with the apostle’s essentially Hebraic outlook to seek an
interpretation of the phrase in the language of the Old Testament.5 This is done in the
suggested equation of morf» and e„kèn (image). We may

[p.18]

also observe the way in which both words are directly related to the word for ‘glory’ (dÒxa).
Thus the meaning is that our Lord’s pre-existent state was one in which He uniquely shared in
the divine splendour which, to the Hebrew mind, would mean that He was the visible
representation or manifestation of the presence of God Himself.

The lines of evidence for this thesis are:

i. e„kèn and morf» are interchangeably used in the LXX and synonymous in other places.
There is a good example of this equivalence in a text in the Corpus Hermeticum.6

ii. That e„kèn and dÒxa are parallels is shown in the LXX’s translation of temu‚na|h by both
these words. morf» is also the LXX translation of temu‚na|h in Job iv. 16.7

iii. Our Lord as the ‘image and glory of God’ is attested Pauline teaching; and especially in
his doctrine of Christ as the last Adam.8 There are other notable instances of the fact that the
New Testament writers saw in the Old Testament conception of the glory of God a
prefigurement of the status of Christ.9

iv. This is confirmed by the Johannine witness to the preexistent state of the Logos as
enjoying the dÒxa of the Father.10

v. Further confirmation comes from the identification of the pre-incarnate Christ with the
divine and pre-existent wisdom of Hellenistic Judaism.11

The consensus of modern interpretation then would agree that the enigmatic phrase ‘in the
form of God’ is another way of saying that, in His eternal state in the Father’s presence, the
Lord existed as the image and glory of God. J. Behm expresses this very clearly when he says,
‘ “The form of God”, in which the preexistent Christ was, is nothing else than the divine
“glory”; the Pauline “being in the form of God” corresponds completely with John xvii. 5 “the
glory which I had with thee before the world was” ’, quoting Calvin in support.12

c. ¡rpagmÒj

This term poses one of the most thorny questions in the whole

[p.19]

field of New Testament exegesis. There is, on the one hand, the need to define the exact
connotation of the word;13 and, on the other hand, the discovery of the precise meaning in
relation to the context of Paul’s Christological thought.
On the first point, we must reach a decision on the question whether ¡rpagmÒj is active,
denoting an act of robbery or usurpation with a cognate form ¡rpag» as a synonym; or
passive as the description of what is done by the action, whether in the bad sense of ‘prize,
booty’, or in the good sense of ‘good fortune’, ‘lucky chance’. Here the synonym would be
¤rpagma or eÛrhma
.

The first view which defends the active meaning of ¡rmagmÒj is now largely abandoned,
although it is a common meaning in non-biblical Greek.14 The only conceivable way in which
it could be applied is the signification which J. Ross gives.15 He admits that the active force of
‘an act of plundering’ would not be understood by Paul’s readers as though he meant that our
Lord were robbing God, but rather that he was telling them that the Messiah, Christ Jesus, did
not think that to be on an equality with God spelt rapacity, plundering, self-aggrandizement.
On the contrary, He voluntarily and gladly rejected the earthly idea of Messiahship for the
spiritual. Ross finds this choice illustrated in the temptation presented to the Lord in the
wilderness when He was tempted by the Devil to seize the kingdom in opposition to the will
and purpose of God.

But this interpretation faces the decisive question: What exactly did our Lord refuse to
plunder? To this there is no satisfactory answer; and there is no help from other biblical texts,
because ¡rmagmÒj in its active sense of rapina (so the Vulgate, which is followed by the
AV), ‘robbery’, is not found again in the New Testament and is absent from the LXX.

The passive meaning, then, must be accepted. ¡rmagmÒj is equivalent to ¤rpagma; as has
been amply demonstrated,16 with the meaning of ‘spoil, prize’. We have still to determine the
exact force even if this translation be accepted. The issue here is to decide whether ‘the prize’
was something which the pre-incarnate

[p.20]

Lord was tempted to hold fast to, or something which He refused to snatch violently. It is the
controversy which was centred upon the choice of the terms res rapta or res rapienda.

i. Res rapta is the term used to carry the following meaning. Our Lord was faced with the
temptation to hold tightly the equality which He already possessed. He rejected this
temptation, in one of three ways. With Lightfoot the verse may be rendered, ‘He did not look
upon His equality with God as a prize to be clutched’, i.e. He already possessed divine
equality and resolved not to cling to it. So He chose to renounce it in becoming a Man. On
another interpretation the sense reads as follows: He did not regard equality as a prize to be
grasped because He already had it, and therefore there was no need for Him to snatch it
because it was already His as the eternal Son of God. Or, with Barth,17 the sense may be that
while holding fast that divine equality He accepted also the consequences of His decision to
become incarnate in human form.

All these views command support, but there are difficulties. Against the first mentioned, we
may doubt, with Kennedy, whether the verb underlying ¡rmagmÒj, translated in AV
‘robbery’, has been correctly understood. It means ‘to seize’, ‘to snatch violently’, and it is
not permissible to glide into the sense of ‘to hold fast’. The second interpretation hardly does
justice to the construction of the whole sentence in view of the place of the emphatic word
¡rmagmÒj and the strong adversative which follows. It also minimizes the force of ‘highly
exalted’ in verse 9 which may be translated, ‘God did more-than-highly exalt’.

ii. Res rapienda. This phrase expresses the view that He was tempted to seize what He did not
actually possess, namely, the equality with His Father. This He refused to do, deliberately
declining to seek His possession by an act of usurpation, and chose rather to embrace God’s
will in the humiliation of His incarnation and death. To support this, it is maintained that it is
only this understanding of ¡rmagmÒj that does justice to the basic idea of its verb ¡rp£zein,
which means ‘to snatch violently, to seize’, and not ‘to hold in possession’, ‘to hold fast to’.18
The notion of violent

[p.21]

seizing is apparent in the other uses of the verb.19 But it is still an open question whether the
term means to lay hold upon something which one does not already possess (res rapienda). It
is still a possibility that it can mean ‘to hold something convulsively’ as a bandit would seize
his booty and so hold on to it. The point at issue in the Pauline context is then, Did Christ,
who enjoyed equality with God as His possession, refuse to consider that equality as His prize
and to hold on to it in His decision to enter upon His incarnate life; or was the prize something
which He could have grasped at and made His own by self-assertion, but He refused to do
this?20

There is a third view, however. This stems from the connotation of ¡rmagmÒj as ‘a piece of
good fortune’, ‘a lucky find’, ‘a treasure trove’, as though it were eÛrhma or ›rmaion.21
Bonnard22 takes the illustration of a spring-board (tremplin) with the same general
presentation of the opportunity which the pre-existent Christ had before Him. He existed in
the ‘divine condition’ as the unique image and glory of God, but refused to utilize this
favoured position to exploit His privileges and assert Himself in opposition to His Father. It
remains an open question whether the windfall had already been seized and is waiting to be
used, or whether it had still to be appropriated.

But it seems more in keeping with the tenor of this view to interpret ¡rmagmÒj as the actual
holding of a privilege which opens up the future opportunity of advantage, if only the
possessor will exploit it to his own profit. This the pre-incarnate Christ refused to do. He
already had as His personal possession the unique dignity of His place within the Godhead, a
vantage-point from which He might have attained that equality with God which the later
verses show to be the bestowal and honour of the name of Lord. He possessed the divine
equality de jure because He existed eternally in the ‘form of God’:23 He could have seized the
glory and honour of the acknowledgement of that office de facto, if He had grasped His
sovereignty by self-assertion and desire for power in His own right. He considered the
appropriation of divine honour in this way

[p.22]

an intolerable temptation. He rejected it and chose rather to be proclaimed as equal with God
as ‘the Lord’ by accepting His destiny as the incarnate and humiliated One.24

From this understanding of ¡rmagmÒj we are able to appreciate the background of the
apostle’s reference. It seems clear that the background here is the contrast between the two
Adams.25 The probability of this is confirmed by the negative structure of the sentence: ‘He
did not count it a prize to be on an equality with God, but emptied Himself.’ This unusual
wording suggests that Paul has also in view the instance and example of another person who
did count equality with God as a desirable thing, and from a favoured position did aspire to
his own glory.26

The ‘form of God’, if taken in the sense of ‘the image and glory of God’, describes the state of
the first man at his creation (Gn. i. 26, 27).27 Adam reflected the glory of the eternal Son of
God who from all eternity was ‘with God’ (Jn. i. 1, xvii. 5) as the express image of the
ineffable and invisible God (Heb. i. 3). In His pre-existent ‘form’ He is seen as the visible
representation of the divine glory (Is. vi. 1-5; cf. Jn. xii. 41). The first ¡rmagmÒj was
attempted as Adam, ‘the son of God’ (Lk. iii. 38), and made a little lower than God (Ps. viii.
5, RV), asserted himself to be ‘as God’ (see Gn. iii. 5), i.e. to be lord in his own right and
independently of God his Maker. He was given a relative dominion (Gn. i. 28, ii. 19, 20), but
he grasped at the specious promise of an absolute lordship, eritis sicut deus, which was held
out to him by the serpent if only he would assert himself in rivalry and disobedience against
God.28 But he failed in this senseless aspiration. The Son of God, however, faced with a
parallel temptation, refused to use His favoured position to exploit His privileges and assert
Himself in opposition to His Father. In contrast to the first Adam, He refused the opportunity
to rival God, and chose instead the way of obedience as the pathway to His lordship.

d. ˜autÕn ™kšnwsen

It is this phrase which has given its name to the celebrated theory

[p.23]

of kenosis.29 By this term, in its classical formulation, we are to understand that in becoming
Man Christ divested Himself of the relative attributes of diety, viz, omniscience, omnipotence,
and omnipresence, and even suffered the extinction of His eternal self-consciousness.30 On
this view the secondary object of the verb, He ‘emptied himself’ (RV) which is the correct
translation of ˜autÕn ™kšnwsen, is the morf» Qeoà which He possessed in eternity, and
which is taken in the sense of His nature as a Member of the Godhead. Later writers, even
those who accept a modified form of the kenotic theory, agree that this cannot be the correct
meaning, and is open to damaging theological objections as well as to criticisms on exegetical
grounds.31 Linguistically the self-emptying is related to the taking of the form of a servant,
and the verse teaches nothing about the abandonment of the divine attributes.32

What exactly is meant by the words, He ‘emptied himself’? Of what did the eternal Son of
God divest Himself in His momentous decision not to cling to, or clutch at, equality with the
Father? There are certain definable consequences of His pre-incarnate choice,33 and this is
clearly implied in the structure of the sentence: ‘He did not... but’, where the strong
adversative ¢ll£, translated ‘but’, prepares for the statement of what the incarnation meant to
our Lord on the positive side. On the one hand, He refused to succumb to the temptation
represented by the term ¡rmagmÒj and on the other hand, He followed the inevitable
consequence of the choice not to exploit the prize within His grasp. This consequence is
described by the words of the verb under consideration.

i. For those who interpret ¡rmagmÒj as His possession which He voluntarily let go, and find
the phrase ‘equality with God’ as a synonym of this possession, the consequence follows that
He was willing to forgo, for the purpose and the period of the incarnation, the equality He had
known from all eternity. Lightfoot so regards the meaning of the word: ‘Though He pre-
existed in the form of God, yet He did not look upon equality with God as a prize which must
not slip from His grasp, but He emptied Himself, divested

[p.24]

Himself (not of His divine nature, for this was impossible), but of the glories, the
prerogatives, of Deity.’34 This He did by taking the form of a servant.

ii. We have earlier noted the view that ¡rmagmÒj has been taken to refer to a prize which lay
within the reach of the pre-existent Son but which was not His actual possession. This has
been identified with the ‘equality with God’, which was not His possession in His pre-
incarnate existence. It was rather a future possibility which He declined to accept by seizure,
but which was realized as He accepted the obedient role of the incarnate One, who was at the
last exalted to the rank or status of equality with God. On this interpretation He cannot have
emptied Himself of what He did not then possess, and those commentators who adhere to this
view of ¡rmagmÒj as res rapienda have to look elsewhere for their explanation of the content
of the verb kenoàn. They find it in the ‘conditions of glory and majesty that inevitably
pertained to his divine nature’.35 Or alternatively, they submit that the verb may be taken in
the sense of a general antithesis to the temptation of snatching at the equality which He
refused. ‘He poured out Himself’ is the way that W. Warren takes it, teaching that He did not
consider the equality with God as an opportunity of self-aggrandizement, but effaced all
thought of self and poured out His fullness to enrich others.36

Allied to this suggestion is the further idea that the phrase ˜autÕn ™kšnwsen, which is found
nowhere else in Greek,37 and is grammatically harsh, may go back to a Semitic original in
Isaiah liii. 12, ‘he poured out his soul unto death’ (RV). Warren, it appears, first drew
attention to this verse, and his idea has since then been developed by later writers.38 The
novelty of this view lies in its implication. It removes the Christological verse completely
from the doctrine of the incarnation and concentrates all attention on the cross. It sees the
death of Jesus as the supreme display of the outpouring of Him who so loved the race that He
emptied Himself to the uttermost in self-giving and sacrifice for man’s redemption. On this
view the text says nothing about the pre-

[p.25]

incarnate choice of the Son and its cost to Him in eternity; and the structure of the Hymn is
broken by mentioning the death of the cross before the circumstances of the incarnate life
have been given.39 How far we are to expect formal consistency and logical, historical order is
the issue here.40 If the Hymn, however, does proceed in orderly fashion from the pre-existence
to the earthly life and from the earthly to the exalted states, we must limit the choice behind
the words to that of the pre-incarnate One who accepted in His mission to earth the abnegation
and renunciation of His heavenly glory.41

The apostle did not make such a sharp distinction between the Lord’s choice to become
incarnate and the inevitable consequence of that choice in His obedience unto death. It was
His sacrifice, which commenced at His incarnation and was consummated at His passion, that
was the impressive thing. Here, as in 2 Corinthians viii. 9; Galatians iv. 4, 5; Romans viii. 3;
and Hebrews ii. 14-16, x. 5 ff., the two thoughts are not to be kept rigidly separate. The
conclusion then is this. In order to fulfil the divine will for human redemption, He emptied
Himself of that native glory which He enjoyed as the unique image and likeness of His Father
from all eternity. He was prepared to lay aside that splendour and accept the humble
conditions and obscurity of the earthly life as the Servant of God in whose form He appeared.
And ‘the form of the servant’ was a decisive step to that final offering of Himself when on
Calvary He did, to the fullest extent, ‘pour out His soul unto death’.

e. morf¾ doÚlou

Attention is drawn to the use of doàloj in this phrase by the fact that this is the only place in
the New Testament where the word is applied to Christ. The reasons for its employment in
this context are variously given. Lightfoot suggests that doàloj is used instead of ¥nqrwpoj
(which is the obvious parallel with QeÒj of verse 6) because the former is the stronger word,
and it contrasts with the –Úrioj of verse 11: ‘He, who is Master (kÚrioj) of all, became the

[p.26]

slave of all’.42 Dibelius sees here only an example of the way in which the writer varies the
expressions on the ground of poetic euphony.43

Much more credible is the view that the direct background here is the picture of the Servant in
Isaiah’s prophecy, and this derivation is accepted by the overwhelming majority of
commentators.44 The most apparent objection,45 that is the word here is doàloj and not pa‹j
as in the LXX, is not a serious one for the following reasons:

i. C. F. Burney has shown that ‘both Greek terms (doàloj, pa‹j) are indifferently used in
LXX to render the db≤[≤ of Deutero-Isaiah, but the preference is for pa‹j (doàloj in 49. 3, 5;
pa‹j in 42. 1, 49. 6, 50. 10, 52. 13); and it is pa‹j which is used of our Lord as the ideal
Servant in Acts 3. 13, 4. 27, 30’.46 While, therefore, pa‹j qeoà would have been the more
usual phrase, assuming that the derivation is from Isaiah’s prophecy, it cannot be said that
doàloj is wholly inappropriate.

ii. This conclusion is endorsed by the variation in textual tradition. In Isaiah lii. 13 Aquila
reads Ð doàloj in place of Ð pa‹j. Moreover, the verb douleÚein is used in the LXX of
Isaiah liii at verse ii, which suggests that there is no great distinction between the two terms.

iii. If we may, with any degree of plausibility, find a key to the understanding of Philippians
ii. 5-11 in Isaiah’s Servant poems, it will explain not only the use of doàloj here but the
entire phrase morf¾ doÚlou. Otto Michel and L. Cerfaux47 have drawn attention to the textual
tradition underlying Isaiah lii. 14 where the LXX reads tÕ edoj and ¹ dÒxa. These same
Greek words corresponding to /da}útw] Whaed]m" recur in liii. 2. Aquila reads for this pair
Órasij aÙtoà kaˆ morf¾ aÙtoà in Isaiah lii. 14 and there is a variant reading of morf» at
liii. 2. Michel suggests that both Aquila and Philippians ii. 7 refer to an older Greek
translation of the Isaiah text. This may sound like a piece of special pleading, but if there is
any justification in the view that we are reading here in Philippians ii. 7 a version in Greek of
the Old Testament picture

[p.27]
of the Lord’s Servant, a flood of light is thrown on the enigmatic phrase ‘the form of a
servant’. Even if this proposal is not fully acceptable,48 we are still entitled to hold that Paul
has the Servant-idea in mind, but prefers the word doàloj because of the implicit antithesis of
that word with kÚrioj.49

The older commentators (e.g. Calvin50) treated the entire verse as the vivid record of our
Lord’s true humanity. He comes to share our human nature in all its frailty and finitude (Rom.
viii. 3; Heb. ii. 7, 14), and to enter upon His earthly life circumscribed by the restrictions
imposed upon Him by that nature, with the glorious exception that He was without sin.

The newer view which traces a linguistic nexus between the Hymn and Isaiah lii-liii
emphasizes the reality of His coming in human form, but underlines also the mission and
destiny upon which He embarked. doàloj has the plain meaning of ‘slave’, but it would be
erroneous here to give it a social connotation.51 The title rather is one of dignity as Lohmeyer
has pointed out,52 and has an honoured application to such servants of God as Moses (Ex. xiv.
31; Nu. xii. 7; Ps. cv. 26) and the prophets (Am. in. 7; Je. xxv. 4; Dn. ix. 6, 10), who are seen
as receiving a commission of service from God Himself. In Isaiah lii-liii it is the Servant of
God par excellence, and points forward to Him who laid aside the glory of His native sphere
with the Father and assumed the office of One who is both suffering Servant and ideal Man.53

f. kaˆ sc»mati eØreqe…j æj ¥nqrwpoj

The meaning of scÁma is outward appearance or form,54 and when used with the verb
eØr…skesqai, it denotes the external appearance of the incarnate Son as He showed Himself
to those who saw Him ‘in the days of his flesh’ (Heb. v. 7). The thought of the Hymn is thus
taken a stage further. The preceding verse has stated His entrance upon the scene of time and
the official or functional destiny which He came to fulfil. Now there is unmistakable witness
to His full, personal humanity in the declaration that, in the eyes of those who saw His
incarnate life, He was ‘as a man’.55 The

[p.28]

present verse, then, serves two purposes. It states, without equivocation, the reality of His
human nature. That He was truly Man and not only, as the preceding words ‘in the likeness of
men’ might suggest, that He became ‘like’ a man, is made very plain by the phrasing here.56
The second purpose is to carry forward the life of the Lord, and lead up to His humiliation on
the cross.57 Verse 7 refers to the point of His entry upon His earthly career in the offices He
came to fulfil. This verse has that earthly life in view, throughout the time when He ‘went in
and out’ among men (Acts i. 21), and so it is a window into the circumstances of His incarnate
existence; for the whole of that existence is expressed in terms of ‘humiliation’.

We are now ready to enquire into the meaning of that kšnwsij which the eternal Son of God
underwent in order that He might discharge the mission of redemption for which He came to
earth. If the foregoing argument has been on the right lines, there can be little doubt as to the
scope and significance of His self-emptying and humiliation. In the pre-incarnate choice He
made there was inevitably bound up the limitation of His glory. In His incarnation He
accepted the full consequences of that decision, so that to all outward appearance He came ‘as
Man to men’ (Diognetus, vii. 4), as the Gospel records testify. His true stature was concealed
in the weakness of His mortality, and His glory was veiled in His humility.58 The kšnwsij
was this act of self-abnegation in which His native glory, which He had from all eternity
enjoyed (Jn. xvii. 5, 24) as being in the form of God, was hidden in His becoming Man; and
the state of His humanity is known as His self-chosen state of humiliation (™tapšinwsen
˜autÕn of verse 8) because this was the price He paid for the curtailment of His splendour.

The truth is expressed in the lines of a Scottish paraphrase:

‘His greatness He for us abased,

For us His glory veiled;
In human likeness dwelt on earth,
His majesty concealed.’

[p.29]

It now becomes apparent that there is no foundation here for any other theory of kšnwsij.
Paul does not make the morf¾ Qeoà and the morf¾ doÚlou mutually exclusive as though he
implied that Christ exchanged His divine condition for His human existence. He did not cease
to be God in becoming Man, and there is a strong consensus of modern scholarship to buttress
this orthodox conclusion, which Karl Barth expresses vigorously, ‘He is God continuously
equally in the obscurity of the form of a servant’.60 If the question is pressed, What is the
exact nature of His ‘self-emptying’?, the answer would be supplied in His readiness to assume
our nature and appear in ‘the form of a servant’.61 This, as we observed earlier, is the
exegetical connection between ˜autÕn ™kšnwsen and morf¾ doÚlou labèn. He emptied
Himself in that He took the servant’s form; and this necessarily involved an eclipsing of His
glory as the divine image in order that He might come, in human flesh, as the image of God
incarnate. He condescends to come ‘in the flesh’ (1 Jn. iv. 2; 2 Jn. 7), taking our nature upon
Him and fulfilling the role of the last Adam as the perfect Man in whom the image of true
Manhood is to be seen.62 So He is described in the New Testament as ‘the last Adam’ (1 Cor.
xv. 45), ‘the second man’ (1 Cor. xv. 47) of whom Adam was a tÚpoj (Rom. v. 14), ‘the new
man’ whose image is renewed in His people (Col. iii. 10; cf. 2 Cor. iii. i8; 1 Cor. xv. 49; Rom.
viii. 29).63

g. ™tape…nwsen ˜autÒn, genÒmenoj Øp»kooj mšcri qan£tou, qan£tou d stauroà

It has already been suggested that the scope of the verb ™tape…nwsen, ‘he humbled himself’,
covers His entire life upon earth in its devotion to the Father and the acceptance of our human
lot.64 It is clear that humiliation and obedience are intimately associated, for it is the Lord’s
willingness to be obedient to His Father’s will and purpose that leads Him to accept the life of
humiliation, even to the extent of the final obedience of the death of the cross.

The dominant motif is the coupling of humility and obedience

[p.30]

which is evidently drawn from rabbinical sources, as recent studies have shown.65 We should
not miss, however, the eminent suitability of the thought in the light of Paul’s pastoral
concern for the Philippians. He is anxious to impress upon them the need for humility in their
church’s life (ii. 3); and, at the same time, to call them to an obedient submission to his own
apostolic authority for their corporate good.66 What finer enforcement of this appeal for the
conduct which befitted those who were ‘in Christ’ (verse 5) could there be than this reminder
of their Lord who was both humble and obedient? The introductory sentence of the Hymn
confirms this. It runs literally, ‘Let this mind be among you, as also in Christ Jesus’. There is
no verb in the second part of the sentence, and we should supply, not the verb ‘to be’ (as in
AV, RV), but the same verb as in the first part. So the exhortation means, ‘think this way
among yourselves, which also you think in Christ Jesus’, i.e. ‘as members of His Church’.
The conduct they show to one another in the fellowship of the Church should be such as
would be expected of those who are ‘in Christ’, which is the famous Pauline formula that can
often be tantamount to ‘in the fellowship of His people’.67 To this community of Christ’s
people, harassed by intense strife and where pride has raised its ugly head, Paul would show,
in the picture of an obedient and humiliated Lord, how sadly it was failing to appreciate His
lowliness of mind and contradicting His spirit of obedience to the divine will.68

The obedience of Christ is a cardinal feature of His atoning work.69 The whole of His life was
controlled by His obedient acceptance of the Father’s good pleasure so that the confession
with which He came into the world (‘Lo, I come... to do thy will, O God’, Heb. x. 7 f.) was
turned into His daily experience. He could say at every turn, ‘I do always those things that
please him’ (Jn. viii. 29; cf. Jn. iv. 34, v. 30, vi. 38). It is this undeflected submission to the
divine will and eager embracing of it which gives proof of His divine-human nature,70 and
prepares the way for the ‘infinite value’ which attaches to the sufferings of Calvary. In this
sense we may approve the well-known dictum of Bernard that

[p.31]

‘it was not the death that pleased, but the will to die’, as stating the spiritual principle which
gives value to His work.71 It provides also the rationale of the work of redemption, for it
reverses the primal disobedience of Adam, and offers to God, on our behalf, the unheard-of
perfect acceptance of God’s will, even unto death.

The solemn words ‘unto death’ are the climax of the first half of the Hymn, coming, as they
do, at the end of the third strophe. They signify the utmost limit of the Son’s humiliation. As
there is no greater love than that which is shown in the sacrifice of a man’s life for his friends
(Jn. xv. 13), so there is no more exemplary obedience than the acceptance of the Father’s will
in the receiving of the cup of suffering and death. This ‘will to die’ in utter submission to
God’s age-old, redeeming purpose marks Him out as the true God-become-Man; for, as
Lohmeyer says in a brilliant insight, only a divine being can accept death as obedience;72 for
ordinary men it is a necessity, to which they are appointed by their mere humanity (Heb. ix.
27).

There is perhaps an even deeper significance in these words. Lohmeyer has pointed out how
in Jewish theology death is shown as a monarch, or even as a kingdom itself. So it may be that
our Lord’s obedience unto death is like an entrance into this realm, a kind of descensus ad
inferos.73 This thought of death, which is in places almost personified as a demon power
which enslaves humanity, is firmly embedded in the New Testament.74 If we are right in
referring the utter limit of His humiliation to His becoming enslaved by the tyranny of death,
it would take the scope of His identification with us in our sin to the furthest extent; and there
are strong grounds for this view.75

In what seems to be an extra line in the metrical arrangement of the Hymn76 the apostle
completes the thought of the death to which the Lord became subject. It was ‘the death of the
cross’. This phrase must be understood from two points of view. It would have special
meaning for the Philippian readers who were resident in a Roman city where revulsion against
this form of capital punishment would be very strong. In giving expression to his

[p.32]

feelings about crucifixion, Cicero uses words which convey something of the horror of the
cross-crudelissimum taeterrimumque supplicium; he also says, ‘Far be the very name of a
cross, not only from the body, but even from the thought, the eyes, the ears of Roman
citizens’.77 To the Roman mind there could be no greater object of shame and scorn than the
picture of a God upon a cross!78

And this attitude of disgust was shared by the Jew, albeit for different reasons.79 For him,
death by crucifixion came under the rubric of Deuteronomy xxi. 23, ‘he that is hanged is
accursed of God’ (cf. Gal. iii. 13), for it meant that the victim was ‘outside the pale of Israel;
that he was h»e^rem’,80 i.e. under a ban of excommunication from God’s covenant. If the
messianic interpretation of the Servant poems in Palestinian Judaism is accepted, then it was
the manner of Jesus’ death on a Roman cross that was the real scandal to the orthodox Jewish
mind;81 for the crucified is under the sentence of divine wrath.82 Christ’s humiliation to the
extent of the accursed cross is, then, His uttermost self-giving. From the glory of His Father’s
throne He enters upon an historical existence. He identifies Himself with men and is obedient
to His destiny as the Servant of God. He yields Himself still more to the yoke of submission
and to the curse of death by crucifixion. This is the lowest point in the dramatic parabola83 of
this Hymn as ‘these three stanzas lead, in one great sweep, from the highest height to the
deepest depth, from the light of God to the darkness of death’ (Lohmeyer).84

h. diÕ kaˆ Ð Qeoj aÙtÕn ØperÚywesen

Even to the reader of the English version it is noticeable that with this sentence and verse
there is a distinct change in language and thought. At this juncture the role of chief Actor in
the drama of incarnation and redemption is transferred. Attention has, up to this point, been
focused on the self-humbling and obedience of the divine Son with reflexive pronouns in
verses 7 and 8 contributing to this emphasis. Now it is God the Father who, as it were, takes
the initiative and becomes the principal Actor in the new

[p.33]

sequences of the second section of the Hymn. This new beginning is even more obvious in the
Greek where the language, which up to verse 9 has been terse and economical with participial
constructions (five in number) instead of main verbs, becomes ornate and full of echoes of
Old Testament Semitic constructions and allusions. In place of the pronouns there are proper
nouns (‘God’, who is mentioned by name for the first time, ‘Jesus’, ‘Jesus Christ’, ‘God the
Father’); and main verbs (‘highly exalted’, ‘given’) are followed by subordinate clauses with
the copulative ‘and’ twice, rather than participles.

However much the two parts of the Hymn are different in style and syntax they are
complementary in one important respect. The humiliation of the incarnate One, who is the
‘divine Hero’ of the first three stanzas, is followed by His exaltation; and this close
connection is the main thing which binds the two parts together. The pattern which is
followed is one which is a favourite theme with Jewish and rabbinical writers,85 and is found
very clearly expressed in the teaching of Jesus Himself (see Mt. xviii. 4, xxiii. 12; Lk. xiv. 11,
xviii. 14; cf. 2 Cor. xi. 7; Phil. iv. 12). The obedience of the Son is crowned by this act of
exaltation in which the Father raises Him from the dead, and elevates Him to the place of
honour. The transition from humiliation to exaltation is denoted by ‘wherefore’, which
prepares for what follows by introducing the result of His obedient submission unto death.86
Because He was so obedient He is now honoured by the Father’s act of power.

The verb Øperuyoàn, translated ‘highly exalted’,87 is generally taken as covering both the
resurrection which is tacitly assumed, and the ascension. It is the second aspect of Christ’s
victory over death which is more prominent, however.88 God has exalted Him not only by
raising Him from the dead but by installing Him, following His ascension, in the seat of
power and might. This teaching is found to be confirmed in Acts ii. 33; cf. Acts v. 31.

The exact sense of the verb needs a more careful definition, however. Is the meaning that the
Lord resumes the glory which

[p.34]

He laid aside when He condescended to come in ‘the form of a servant’,89 or is the prefix
Øpšr to be given its full force with the idea that He is exalted to a place which He had not
reached previously?90 The second alternative appears more in keeping with the drift of the
Hymn’s theology, although we must be on our guard not to overpress the significance of the
verb.91 What is meant is on these lines. He who stooped so low to the humiliation of death is
now lifted up to the glorious rank of equality with God. The elevation which followed is not
in regard to His nature or His inherent place within the Godhead.92 It is rather the conferring
of a new ‘function’ and the ascription to Him of that which could only be His after the
submission and sacrifice of His earthly life. This humiliation followed directly upon His
refusal to be exalted in any other way than the way which was in keeping with His Father’s
design and purpose. To corroborate this we may recall the teaching of Hebrews ii. 9 which
shows that it is only after the suffering of death, that is, His voluntary humiliation, that the
Son is crowned with glory and honour (cf. Lk. xxiv. 26); and Hebrews v. 8, 9 in which the
‘perfection’ of Christ as our High Priest could only be achieved as He first ‘learned
obedience’ by His sufferings.93

i. ™car…sato aÙtù tÕ Ônoma tÒ Øpr p©n Ónoma

This honour now conferred upon Him is expressed by the bestowal of ‘a name’, i.e. a
character and an office which He chose to assume not by exploiting His own privilege and
insisting upon His ‘right’, but by self-abnegation which was prepared to await the Father’s
gift. The contrast between these alternatives is very forcefully presented by the verbs oÙc
¡rpagmÒn ¹ge‹sqai and ™car…sato. He declined the opportunity to advance Himself by an
assertion of His own ‘right’, and now after His career of self-humbling and death there comes
to Him in the Father’s good pleasure94 the very thing He might have grasped; the ‘name which
is above every name’, which in this context can only be that of ‘Lord’.95 The root meaning of
this term kÚrioj denotes rulership

[p.35]
based on competent and authoritative power, the ability to dispose of what one possesses.96 It
is essentially a functional term;97 and this endorses the conclusion we reached about the verb
‘highly exalted’, in which the prefix corresponds to the preposition in the phrase the ‘name
which is above (Øpšr) every name’. The place of dignity He enjoyed and the supreme name
He received are both expressive of His new office.98 Following the resurrection and ascension
He is installed as kÚrioj (Acts ii. 36; Heb. i. 4, viii. 1) by divine fiat and proclaimed as ‘Son
of God with power’ (Rom. i. 4); and this is a function and name of God Himself. kÚrioj
recalls the LXX translation of the covenant name Yahweh, and proclaims that Jesus Christ is
installed in the place which properly belongs to God and exercises the sovereign authority
which God most rightly possesses. Of this fact there are, according to the subsequent verses,
two outstanding proofs.

j. ‰na ™n tù ÑnÒmati 'Ihsoà p©n gÒnu k£myV ™pouran…wn kaˆ ™pige…wn kaˆ
katacqon…wn, kaˆ p©sa glîssa ™xomolog»shtai Öti KURIOS IHSOUS CRISTOS e„j
dÒxan Qeoà patrÒj/

The two final strophes of the Hymn are devoted to the praise of the Name which ranks above
all other names. In a scene which is majestic in its setting and in those stanzas which describe
the universal scope of cosmic worship, it is remarkable that we are confronted with the
human, earthly name of the Redeemer. It is in the name of ‘Jesus’99 that every knee bows, and
it is the same familiar name that all the suppliant worshippers confess as supreme Lord. The
setting is supra-historical,’100 the language is exalted, but the divine Being, now glorified, is
Jesus the Nazarene in the character of His historical-redemptive ministry.101

The first reference to His sovereign authority, which is guaranteed by the possession of His
name, is the universal submission He receives. ‘Every knee’ to Him is bent in obedient
subjection (cf. Phil. iii. 2I). In further definition of the words ‘every knee’

[p.36]

there follows the triadic phrase ‘of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the
earth’. These words are represented in the Greek by three adjectives with connecting particles.
The AV and RV take the adjectives to refer to implied neuter nouns: hence ‘things’, a
translation for which Lightfoot argues. But it is more likely that the reference is a personal
one as in the parallels of Ignatius and a third-century magical papyrus.102 It is intelligent
beings, in heaven, on earth and in the underworld, who bend the knee in obeisance and
worship.103

Liturgical expression is joined to cultic action as we read of the confession of every mouth:
‘Jesus Christ is Lord’. This second reference to the obedience of cosmic authorities confirms
beyond a doubt that Isaiah xlv. 23 is being quoted.104 In the prophetic context the unique
greatness of Israel’s God is proclaimed; and the application of this text to the Church’s Lord
(as in Romans xiv. 11) provides unmistakable evidence of His pre-eminent position at the
Father’s right hand and His receiving such glory and worship as can only fittingly be ascribed
to God Almighty. Nonetheless, He occupies His exalted station ‘to the glory of God the
Father’. His throne is no rival to His Father’s. On the contrary, as He has overcome the
temptation to rival God and to aspire to an exalted place, He is accorded by the Father that
honour of co-regency which is pictorially expressed as sitting on His Father’s throne (Rev. iii.
21; Heb. i. 8-14; cf. Ps. cx. 1; Polycarp, Epistle to the Philippians, ii. 1). He lives and reigns in
heaven (1 Cor. XV. 25), not as a deÚteroj QeÒj, but a sharer in the glory of that full equality
with God which is His Father’s gift to His obedient Son. And such is the Father’s will (1 Cor.
xv. 27a; Eph. i. 20-23) until the consummation of all things when God shall be ‘all in all’ (1
Cor. xv. 28).

This raises the question of the time of the worship elaborately described in verses 10, 11. The
universal acclamation in which angels, men and devils join may either be contemporaneous
with the church age, following the Lord’s ascension; or still future, at the time of Hisparousia.
Most of the MSS read the future indicative,

[p.37]

which supports the second alternative. On this reading He will not be acclaimed as universal
Lord until His second coming. But, in the context of the Hymn, we should almost certainly
prefer the reading of the aorist subjunctive. ‘The cosmic homage is the effect of the exaltation
of Christ, which means his heavenly enthronement’;105 and this has taken place on His return
to His Father’s presence, as in Revelation v. 1-14. From a cultic standpoint, then, which views
His glory sub specie aeternitatis, His dominion is already acknowledged and His triumph over
all His foes complete.

His enthronement has a number of ramifications. He receives in this way the worship which
the first Adam, according to rabbinic thought,’106 had and later forfeited because of his vain
designs to rival God. He receives a universal dominion, like the Son of man in Daniel vii. 14,
27, and angelic worship (Heb. i. 6), so that it is as the Lord of the world that He is confessed,
and not simply the Lord of the Church. If this is the case, the confession, ‘Jesus Christ is
Lord’, which scholars generally accept as the earliest Christian creed,107 represents an
important factor in preparing for missionary preaching beyond the limits of Jewish
Christianity. It is a distinctive pointer to the universal scope of the gospel, for the lordship
which is proclaimed is the lordship over all created life, and not simply His rule in the
Church. And the final note recalls us to the purpose of His pre-incarnate choice, His advent
and His obedience unto death. ‘Christ died and lived again that he might be Lord’ (Rom. xiv.
9, RV); and in this office where He is installed at the Father’s pleasure He is the living token
of a full reconciliation between God and redeemed humanity.108 So the last word is the most
impressive. The final word is ‘Father’, the Father of Jesus whose pre-mundane will the Son
accepted and whose mission of redemption He carried through and to whose glory He is now
enthroned in power and honour. It is by that choice and mission and victory, corresponding to
the three ‘states’ of God’s Son, that the Father of Jesus becomes the Father of redeemed
humanity; and by the pre-existent Son, the humiliated Servant and exalted Lord, God and the
world are reconciled.

[p.38]

IV. CONCLUSION
We have traced the course of one of the earliest Christian creeds with its high doctrine of the
Person and work of the Church’s Lord. Such a study leads naturally, not only to an enhanced
appreciation of who He is and what He did, but also to a desire to worship Him. It may indeed
be said that this is the acid test of a true Christology.1 Does it lead the enquirer to bow down
and confess, My Lord and my God? James Denney reminds us that ‘the Church’s confession
of faith should be sung, not signed’.2 And so some verses based on our study may fittingly
sum up our conclusion. They express the three ‘states’ of Christ, and present Him according
to the pattern of Paul’s Hymn.

‘My heart and voice I raise,

To spread Messiah’s praise;
Messiah’s praise let all repeat;
The universal Lord,
By whose almighty word
Creation rose in form complete.

A servant’s form He wore,

And in His body bore
Our dreadful curse on Calvary:
He like a victim stood,
And poured His sacred blood,
To set the guilty captives free.

But soon the Victor rose

Triumphant o’er His foes,
And led the vanquished host in chains:
He threw their empire down,
His foes compelled to own
O’er all the great Messiah reigns.’3
[p.39]

APPENDIX OF NOTES

I. INTRODUCTION (pp. 7, 8)

1. A. B. Bruce, The Humiliation of Christ, 1876, 4th ed. reprint, Grand Rapids, 1955, p. 8.

2. E. Lohmeyer, Die Brief an die Philipper in the Meyer series, Göttingen, 11th ed. revised by
W. Schmauch, 1956, p. 90. This title is hereafter abbreviated as Commentary.

3. Nothing has ‘been more characteristic of recent research than the gradual detection of early
kerygmatic fragments in the New Testament, in which the original eschatological meaning of
the christological titles used in the kerygma is still apparent, and is clearly distinct from the
later metaphysical use’. J. M. Robinson, A New Quest of the Historical Jesus, London, 1959,
pp. 111, 112, quoting Phil. ii. 5-11 as illustration.

4. On this section as a confession, cf. A. Seeberg, Der Katechismus der Urchristenheit, 1903,
pp. 181, 182. Other places where a ‘confessional’ theme has been detected in the New
Testament are Acts viii. 16, 378, xi. 17, 20, xvi. 31, xix. 5; Rom. x. 9; 1 Cor. xi. 3; Col. i. 15-
20, ii. 6; 1 Tim. iii. 16; 1 Pet. iii. 18-22.
There are full discussions of early Christian creeds in O. Cullmann, The Earliest
Christian Confessions, E. T. London, 1949 and J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Creeds,
London, I 950, chapter 1, ‘Credal Elements in the New Testament’, pp. 1-29.

5. Cf. A. M. Hunter, Paul and His Predecessors, London, 1940, p. 101.

6. The use and significance of kÚrioj (=rm) as a Christological title is discussed by L.

Cerfaux in his contribution s.v. to Supplément au Dictionnaire de Ia Bible, Fasc. xxiv, cols.
200-228, Paris, 1950. See also F. C. Grant, An Introduction to New Testament Thought, New
York-Nashville, 1950, pp. 130-137; N. Geldenhuys, Supreme Authority, London, 1953, pp. 31
ff.

7. Cf. J. N. D. Kelly, op. cit., p. 18. The psalm as a carmen Christi is a forerunner of the
antiphonal hymn sung to Christ as God which Pliny later found in the Bithynian churches. Ep.
ad Traianurn, xcvi: ‘stato die ante lucem convenire carmenque Christo quasi deo dicere
secum

[p.40]

invicem....’ Lightfoot interprets the words secum invicem as implying antiphonal singing, but
remarks that carmen does not necessarily presuppose a metrical composition or hynm. See his
edition of Ignatius, The Apostolic Fathers, pt. II, vol. I, London, 1889, p. 31. On the other
hand, this sense is given to carmen in Tertullian, De Orat. xxvii; cf. Eusebius, H.E. III, xxxiii,
I; V, xxviii, 5. Antiphonal singing of psalms was part of Jewish cultic practice. Cf. W. O. E.
Oesterley, The Jewish Background of the Christian Liturgy, Oxford, 1925, p. 75 and O.
Cullmann, Early Christian Worship, London, 1953, pp. 21, 22.
The evidence for these early Christian carmina may be found in Acts xvi. 25; Eph. v.
19; Col. iii. 16, while examples have been detected in such passages as Eph. v. 14, the
canticles of the early chapters of Luke (i, ii), in the Pastoral Epistles (e.g. 1 Tim. iii. 16: cf. 2
Tim. ii. 12, 13; Tit. in. 4-7) and in the Apocalypse. Some of the hymn fragments in the
Apocalypse may be derived from the worship of Hellenistic synagogues (e.g. iv. 8, 11, xi. 17,
18, xiv. 7, xv. 3, 4), while other references are to hymns of distinctively Christian origin (e.g.
v. 9, 10, 12, 13, xii. 10-12, xix. 1, 2, 5, 6-8).
Compare also Heb. vii. 26-28 on which J. Schneider, The Letter to the Hebrews, E.T.
Grand Rapids, 1957, p. 67, says, It is ‘a piece that has the sound of a hymn... in the solemn
style of a cultic song of praise’.
The New Testament passages which can be associated with early Christian worship
are collected in F. Cabrol and H. Leclercq, Monumenta ecclesiae liturgica, I; Reliquiae
liturgicae vetustissae, part i, Paris, 1900, pp. 1-51.

8. E. Lohmeyer describes it as the so-called locus classicus of Pauline and early Christian
Christology. See his study Kyrios Jesus: Eine Untersuchung zu Phil. 2, 5-11, Heidelberg,
1928, pp. 4, 89. This title is hereafter abbreviated as KJ.

9. J. Jeremias, ‘Zur Gedankenfuhrung in den paulinischen Briefen: Der Christushymnus, Phil.

2. 6-11’ in Studia Paulina in honorem J. de Zwaan, edited by J. N. Sevenster and W. C. van
Unnik, Haarlem, 1953, p. 154: ‘...ist der älteste Beleg für die die gasamte Christologie der
Folgezeit grundlegend bestimmende Lehre von den drei Seinsweisen Christi’.

[p.41]

II. THE FORM AND AUTHORSHIP OF PHILIPPIANS II. 5-11 (pp. 8-16)

1. KJ. Tribute to this epoch-making study is made by most subsequent writers on this section
of Paul’s letters. In a review which appeared in the Exp. T., XL, No. II, Aug. 1929, pp. 519,
520, J. Moffatt praised the monograph as ‘one of the most brilliant and stimulating
contributions to the discussion (of the Lordship of Christ)... that have been made for long’.
See also the comments of J. Jeremias, art. cit. in Studia Paulina, p. 153; and O. Cullmann,
Die Christologie des Neuen Testaments, Tübingen, 1957, p. 179 note I: ‘Alle weitere
exegetische Untersuchung dieses Textes fusst auf dieser grundlegenden Arbeit’.
Since Lohmeyer, the drift of modern discussion is excellently and comprehensively
assessed by P. Henry in his article Kénose in Supplément au Dictionnaire de la Bible, Paris,
1950, Fasc. xxiv, cols. 7-161; and E. Käsemann, ‘Kritische Analyse von Phil. 2, 5-11’ in
Zeitschrjft für Theologie und Kirche, 47, 1950, 313-360. There is a summary of earlier views
in Vincent Taylor, The Person of Christ in New Testament Teaching, London, 1958, chapter
V.

2. A. Deissmann, St. Paul, E.T. London, 1912, p. 169; cf. K. Grayston, The Epistles to the
Galatians and to the Philippians, London, 1957, pp.91, 92.

3. H. Lietzmann, Messe und Herrenmahl, Bonn, 1926, p. 178.

4. ‘L’hymne se clôt comme ii a commencé, en Dieu’, comments Henry, loc. cit., col. 37.

5. Lohmeyer, Commentary, p. 91.

6. Deissmann, op. cit., p. 170.

7. P. Bonnard, L’Épître de saint Paul aux Philippiens, in the series Commentaire du Nouveau
Testament, Paris, 1950, p. 47.

8. A. M. Hunter, op. cit., p. 47. For the metrical aspects of the verses see Henry, loc. cit., col.
10 and in general the article ‘Die Bedeutung der Kolornetrie für das NT’ by R. Schütz in
Z.N.T.W., xxi, 1922, pp. 162-184, especially pp. 182-184: ‘Die religiöse Sprache des Alterums
war keine prosaische, sondern eine poetische’ (p. 182).
In Phil. ii 5-11 the most noteworthy features are:

[p.42]

Examples of synonymous parallelism:

qeoà-qeù; qan£tou in verse 8; Ônoma in verses 9, 10;
¢nqrèpwn-¥nqrwpoj; p©n-p©sa.

Examples of antithetic parallelism:

morfÍ qeoà-morf¾n doÝlou; Øp£rcwn-genÒmenoj; ™tape…nwsen-ØperÚywsen.

Example of assonance: doÚloj-kÚrioj.

Henry’s conclusion is expressed in the sentence, ‘L’ensemble de ces traits révéle une
composition soignée, d’une rhétorique presque recherchée.’

9. The strangeness of the word ¡rpagmÒj has led to a conjectural emendation. ”Apragmon is
proposed for ¡pragmÒn. There is no evidence to support this transposing of the letters. For
details see E. Stauffer, New Testament Theology, E.T. London, 1955, p. 284, who refers to F.
Kattenbusch’s article “`ArpamÒn? ”Apragmon! Phil. 2, 6 Em Beitrag zur paulinischen
Christologie’ in Theologische Studien und Kritiken, civ, 1932, pp. 373 ff. See also M. Goguel,
The Birth of Christianity, E.T. London, 1953, pp. 210-211 note 4 for other references to
earlier writers who made this suggested emendation. Goguel concludes, ‘I do not think the
text can be corrected as there is no ambiguity in the manuscripts and the meaning is perfectly
clear.’

10. Correcting the references in Arndt and Gingrich’s adaptation of Bauer’s A Greek-English
Lexicon of the New Testament, Cambridge, 1957, p. 849.

11. G. Heinzelmann, Der Brief an die Philipper in the series Das Neue Testament Deutsch,
Göttingen, 1955, p. 93.

12. A. M. Hunter, op. cit., p. 48.

13. W. K. L. Clarke, New Testament Problems, London, 1929, p. 146.

14. On early Christian hymns see the references given on p. 40, note 7; also Hunter’s chapter
IV which is entitled ‘Pre-Pauline Christian Hymns’; M. Dibelius, A Fresh Approach to the
Literature of the New Testament, E.T. London, 1936, pp. 246-254; and H. Leclercq’s article
Hymnes’ in Dictionnaire d’Archéologie Chrétienne et de Liturgie, vi, 2, Paris, 1925, pp. 2826
ff.

15. KJ, p. 9.
[p.43]

16. ‘eØr…skesqai æj... ist nicht nur unpaulinisch, sondern ungriechisch’, KJ, p. 8.

17. The closest parallel to this ‘Dreizeiligkeit’ is found in the so-called ‘Song of the Star’ in
Ignatius, Ephesians, xix. As a ‘Christushymnus’, Lohmeyer, KJ, p. 64, has divided the
Ignatian text into six strophes, improving on C. F. Burney’s earlier attempt to divide it into
four strophes in Syriac in his work, The Aramaic Origin of the Fourth Gospel, Oxford, 1926,
pp. 161 ff. In Lohmeyer’s analysis strophes II, III, IV, and V are built up of three lines each.

18. Jeremias, loc. cit., p. 154. See also the same author’s comments on the triple-action form
of early coronation hymns in the New Testament in his Jesus’ Promise to the Nations, E.T.
London, 1958, pp. 38, 39. He describes the three verses of Phil. ii. 9-11 as containing: (a)
Elevation in verse 9a (b) Proclamation of the Name above every name in verse 9b (c) Homage
to the Enthroned One by gesture and confession in verses 10 f.

19. KJ, p. 66: ‘em Stück ältester eucharistischer Liturgie... seine palastinensische Herkunft’.

20. The fact that there are no specific Eucharistic motives and characteristic Eucharistic terms
such as redemption, the new covenant, fellowship, parousia in the psalm was quickly pointed
out by H. Windisch in his review of Lohmeyer’s treatise in Theologische Literaturzeitung,
No. 11, 1929, cols. 246-248.
The tentative proposal of Käsemann, following A. Seeberg, to place the Sitz im Leben
of the Hymn in a baptismal context is still more unlikely. Loc. cit., p. 360.

21. Cf. Hunter, op. cit., p. 49; J. Héring, Le Royaume de Dieu et sa Venue, Paris, 1937, p. 161.

22. KJ, pp. 8, 44-46; and his Commentary, p. 96 where Lohmeyer gives the reason for the
gloss. It ‘arises from the paraenetic interest’ in the situation of the Philippian church as a
persecuted community. The church is thereby to be encouraged by the reminder that its Lord
died in humiliation on a cross.

23. E. Schweizer, Erniedrigung und Erhöhung bei Jesus und semen Nachfolgern, Zürich,
1955, p. 54 note 224; and for the Hymn in the light of 1 Cor. xv. 3-5, pp. 112 ff.

[p.44]

24. E. Peterson regards the omission of the resurrection as ‘decisive’ for attributing the Hymn
to Jewish Christians. See his article, ‘La liberation d’Adam de 1’ ¢n£gkh’ in Revue Biblique,
LV, 1948, p. 209.

25. That the verb Øperuyoàn in verse 9 refers to the exaltation of Jesus rather than His
resurrection is shown by J. G. Davies, He Ascended into Heaven, London, 1958, p. 29. His
conclusion is that ØyÒw and its intensive form ØperuyÒw may be taken as the equivalents of
¢naba…nw. and may, therefore, be understood to refer to the Ascension. Dibelius finds ‘the
central saving-event’ in Hebrews not in the cross or resurrection but in ‘the entrance into the
heavenly sanctuary’ (der Eingang ins himmlische Heiligtum), Theol. Blätter, xxi, Jan. 1942,
quoted by U. Simon, Heaven in the Christian Tradition, London, 1958, p. 267 note 3.
26. The exalted Christ is Lord of the world which renders to Him cosmic submission rather
than religious worship. See Lohmeyer, Commentary, p. 97 and note 4. The reason why the
Church is omitted is given by E. Schweizer in his essay, ‘Discipleship and Belief in Jesus as
Lord from Jesus to the Hellenistic Church’ in New Testament Studies, vol. II, No. 2, Nov.
1955, p. 97: Why is the Church not named? ‘By the very fact that she sings this hymn, she
belongs already to those who bow the knee and confess with their tongues that Jesus Christ is
Lord. By the very act of singing she confesses herself to be indeed saved by Him—and that
sin itself consists in refusing to sing praises for what he has done, in sinking back again into
anxiety, in worshipping the powers and authorities instead of the one name.’

27. R. H. Fuller, The Mission and Achievement of Jesus, London, 1954, p. 57. This point is
strongly made by Lohmeyer and Bonnard, op. cit., p. 48; cf. Käsemann, loc. cit., p. 346. See
also V. Taylor, ‘The Origin of the Markan Passion Sayings’ in New Testament Studies, vol. I,
No. 4, 1954, pp. 159-167: ‘All the indications in the Pauline Epistles, it may be claimed, go to
show that the Servant teaching as applied to Christ is pre-Pauline; and, coupled with the
evidence of the later New Testament writings, they suggest that by the time Paul wrote this
teaching was already on the wane. It is significant that Paul, like John and the writer of
Hebrews, never applies the name “the Servant” to Jesus’ (p. 162).

28. Henry, loc. cit., col. 33.

29. See. B. M. Metzger’s article in Exp. T., LXX, No. 3, Dec. 1958,

[p.45]

pp. 91-94. Writing on the denial to Paul of the authorship of the Hymn in Col. i. 15 ff., C. F.
D. Moule, The Epistles to the Colossians and Philemon, Cambridge, 1957, pp. 61, 62, wisely
comments, ‘Arguments based on rhythm, parallelism, and supposed strophic arrangement are
precarious enough at the best of times, and most of all, when there is no recognizable
quantitative metre by which to judge.... The rarity elsewhere in the Paulines of certain words
in a passage like this is not necessarily an indication of spuriousness: one must ask, rather,
whether there were any better or more natural terms at the writer’s disposal, if he needed to
introduce this particular theme; or whether there are any words here which it seems
impossible that St. Paul himself would have used.’
See also the observations of E. E. Ellis on the subject of statistical analysis in his book,
Paul’s Use of the Old Testament, Edinburgh, 1957, pp. 7 f.

30. See the full study Chiasmus in the New Testament by N. W. Lund, University of North
Carolina Press, 1942, pp. 137-225; and on 1 Cor. xiii, the same author in Journal of Biblical
Literature, I, part iv, ‘The literary structure of Paul’s Hymn to Love’.

31. W. D. Davies, Paul and Rabbinic Judaism, London, 1948, pp. 41 ff., against C. F. Burney,
The Aramaic Origin of the Fourth Gospel, p. 47.

32. W. D. Davies, op. cit., p. 44.

33. E. Stauffer, op. cit., Appendix III, pp. 338, 339 for the ‘zwölf Kriterien formelhaften
Glaubensgutes’; and for his verdict on the form of Phil. ii. 5-11 see p. 284 note 372.
34. And there are obvious parallels in the neighbouring context of the Philippian Epistle.
Compare:

¹goÚmenoi Øperšcontaj (ii. 3) and oÙc ¡rpagmÕn ¹g»sato (ii. 6).

(The verb ¹ge‹sqai is frequent in chapter iii)
kenodox…an (ii. 3) and ˜autÕn ™kšnwsen (ii. 7)
tapeinofrosÚnh (ii. 3) and ™tape…nwsen ˜autÕn (ii. 8).
See also iii. 21, iv. 12
eØreqè (iii. 9) and eØreqeˆj æj (ii. 7)
metaschmat…sei (iii. 21) and sk»mati (ii. 7)
™car…sqh (i. 29) and ™car…sato (ii. 9)
e„j dÒxan . . . qeoà (i. II) and e„j dÒxan qeoà patrÒj (ii. 11).

[p.46]

35. Since this section of the present Lecture was prepared, a full survey of the contemporary
discussion about the authorship of Phil. ii. 5-11 has been presented by J. M. Furness in Exp.
T., LXX, No. 8, May 1959, pp. 240-243. His conclusions are similar to those given above.

III. AN EXEGETICAL STUDY OF PHILIPPIANS II. 5-11 (pp. 16-37)

1. For the details of these meanings of Øp£rcein see Arndt and Gingrich, Lexicon, pp. 845,
846.

2. Lightfoot takes Øp£rcwn as implying the contrast between the original and the after state.
See his note on Gal. ii. 14. On Phil. ii. 6 he writes that the word denotes ‘prior existence’ but
not necessarily ‘eternal existence’. The latter idea, however, follows in the present instance
from the conception of the divinity of Christ which the context presupposes. But see B. W.
Horan’s article ‘The Apostolic Kerygma in Philippians ii. 6-9’, Exp. T., LXII, No. 2, Nov.
1950, p. 60 for the meaning of Øp£rcwn as ‘being essentially’.

3. For the cognate forms see Gal. iv. 19; Rom. ii. 20; 2 Tim. iii. 5; Rom. xii. 2; 2 Cor. iii. 18.

4. Cf. Lightfoot’s conclusion on the use of morf» in Phil. ii. 6: ‘....it is used in a sense
substantially the same which it bears in Greek philosophy’. Commentary on St. Paul’s Epistle
to the Philippians, London, 1896, p. 132. See also E. H. Gifford, The Incarnation, London,
1911 ed., pp. 12 ff. and Henry, loc. cit., col. 18.

5. Reference may here be made to the author’s contribution on the subject of morf» in Exp.T.,
LXX, No. 6, March 1959, pp. 183, 184.

6. The credit for the development of this linguistic connection between morf» and e„kèn goes
to J. Héring. His discussion is most conveniently to be consulted in his book, Le Royaume de
Dieu et sa Venue, pp. 162 ff. For a full investigation into the literary connections of the word
e„kèn see F.-W. Eltester’s study, Eikon im Neuen Testament, Beiheft 23, Z.N.T.W., Berlin,
1958. The chief reference which is important for the close relation between morf» and e„kèn
is Gn. i. 26 where the divine pronouncement reads: ‘Let us make man in our image (slx:
LXX
[p.47]

kat' e„kÒna), after our likeness (twmd)’. The Aramaic equivalent of slx is used in Dn. iii.
19 where it is rendered by the Greek morf».
The text of the Corpus Hermeticum is i. 12-15 (in the edition by A. D. Nock and A.-J.
Festugière, Paris, 1945, pp. 10-12) quoted in Henry, loc. cit., col. 21; cf. col. 42. This text
shows, as Eltester remarks, op. cit., p. 133 note 14, the terms morf¾ qeoà, e„kën qeoà and
‡soj qeù side by side in the same context. See also C. H. Dodd, The Bible and the Greeks,
London, 1935, pp. 149 ff. and the discussion in Eltester, op. cit., pp. 80-83, and especially the
earlier conclusion on p. 10 of his work which shows the equivalence of e„kèn and morf».

7. The intimate connection between e„kèn and dÒxa is found in the LXX and in the New
Testament usages. See the Exp. T. article already quoted p. 183 and Eltester, op. cit., pp. 23,
24.

8. The proof of this statement is given in the citation of the two verses where the apostle calls
his Lord the image of God (2 Cor. iv. 4; Col. i. 15: on which see Eltester, op. cit., pp. 130 ff.).
E„kèn must be accorded its full biblical significance. It means, not simply a copy or a
reflection of an original, but the visible manifestation or ‘objectivization’ of the original’s
essence. Cf. C. Masson, L’Épître de St Paul aux Colossiens, 1950, pp. 98, 99; Héring, op. cit.,
p. 165.
For Christ as the ‘Lord of glory’ see 1 Cor. ii. 8 and the references in note 9.

9. See A. M. Ramsey, The Glory of God and the Transfiguration of Christ, London, 1949,
passim; and H. Kittel, Die Herrlichkeit Gottes, Beiheft 16, Z.N.T.W., Berlin, 1934, pp. 183 ff.
Heb. i. 3: Öj ìn ¢paÚgasma tÁj dÒxhj kaˆ carakt¾r tÁj Øpost£sewj aÙtoà; Jas. ii. 1
and Jn. i. 14 are examples; cf. Acts vii. 55. May the ka… be epexegetical in this last named
reference, i.e. ‘Stephen saw the glory of God, that is, Jesus standing at His right hand’? As far
as Paul is concerned, the fons et origo of his conception of Christ as the divine ‘glory’ may be
traced to his conversion-experience. The narrative in Acts (ix. 3, xxii. 6, ii, xxvi. 13) clearly
emphasizes this point. It was the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ (2 Cor. iv. 4; cf. Gal.
i. 15, 16) which arrested him and made such an ineffaceable impression upon him that
thereafter his dominating picture of the Lord was that of Him as God’s eradiated brightness,
‘the outward shining of the inward being of God’. He is seen as ‘the visible radiance of the
divine light’: so Kittel, T.W.N.T., s.v. dÒxa ii, pp. 240,

[p.48]

251. For the conversion-experience of the Damascus road encounter with the glorified Christ
as the controlling source of Paul’s theology, cf. H. W. Beyer, Der Brief an die Galater, in the
series Das Neue Testament Deutsch, Göttingen, 1955, p. 12.

10. For the Johannine dÒxa of the pre-existent Christ see Kittel, op. cit., pp. 254-256 with
reference to Jn. xii. 41 and xvii. 5, 24.

11. The argument for the relation of the divine wisdom to the preexistent Christ proceeds
along two lines:
a. The rôle of Wisdom in creation in the book of Wisdom vii. 25, 26, and the teaching
of such New Testament passages as 1 Cor. viii. 6 and Heb. i. 3.
 b. Allusions to the rock of Wisdom x. 17, Xl. 4 and Philo which some have traced in 1
Cor. x. 4.
See the discussion in Eltester, op. cit., pp. 133 ff.
Other references may be added, e.g. Aboth v. 6 and Tosephta Sukkah, iii. II. But there
is a criticism of this line of reasoning in W. D. Davies, op. cit., pp. 153 ff.

12. In his article s.v. morf» in T. W.N.T., iv, p. 759: ‘Die morf¾ qeoà, in der der präexistente
Christus war, ist nichts anders als die göttliche dÒxa; das ™n morf¾ qeoà Øp£rcwn des Paulus
entspricht ganz J17, 5; tÍ doxÍ Â econ prÕ tÕn toÝ kÒsmon enai par£ so…’. The
quotation from Calvin is from his commentary on Phil. ii. 6: ‘Christ, then, before the creation
of the world, was in the form of God, because from the beginning He had His glory with the
Father, as He says in John xvii. 5.’ The same conclusion is succinctly expressed by J. Weiss,
The History of Primitive Christianity, vol. II, E.T. London 1937, p. 478: ‘The “divine form”
which he possessed before becoming man (Phil. 2: 6) was nothing less than the divine Doxa;
and may we not understand this statement to mean, in the Pauline sense; Christ was from the
beginning none other than the Kabod, the Doxa, of God himself, the glory and radiation of his
being, which appears almost as an independent hypostasis of God and yet is connected
intimately with God?’ Cf. also idem pp. 492, 493. It is interesting to note what looks like a
parallel to this meaning in the letter of the church of Lyons cited in Eusebius, H.E. V. ii. 2: ‘...
who also were such emulators and imitators of Christ, who being in the form of God, counted
it not a prize to be on an equality with God, that, though being in such glory (™nm toiaÚtÍ
dÒxh Øp£rcontej) and having

[p.49]

suffered martyrdom... they neither proclaimed themselves martyrs, nor indeed did they permit
us to address them by this name.’

13. The possibilities of meaning are stated fully by Henry, loc. cit., col. 23.

14. See Moulton-Milligan, The Vocabulary of the Greek New Testament, London, 1914-1929,
p. 78.

15. J. Ross, J.T.S., XI, 1909, pp. 573, 574. Cf. the comments on this article in the Exp. T.,
LXIX, No. 3, Dec. 1957, p. 93.

16. So Henry, loc. cit., col. 24. He points out that substantives ending in -moj no less than
those ending in -ma indicate the result of an action; and that doublets ending in -mÒj and -ma
are used in the same sense. For example, see the use of fragmÒj and its equivalent fr£gma in
Mt. xxi. 33; Mk. xii. 1; Lk. xiv. 23; Eph. ii. 14.

17. Karl Barth who supports this view teaches that the phrase ¡rpagmÕn ¹ge‹sqai means ‘to
hold something convulsively’ (krampfhaft an etwas festhalten) as a robber would clutch his
prize and hold it to himself. There is no thought, says Barth, of the abandoning of His
Godhead which He retained throughout His incarnate existence; the kenosis ‘consists in the
renunciation of His being in the form of God alone… He did not treat His form in the likeness
of God (tÕ enai ‡sa qeù) as a robber does his booty... In addition to His form in the likeness
of God He could also—and this involves at once a making poor, a humiliation, a
condescension, and to that extent a kšnwsij—take the form of a servant.’ These quotations
are from his commentary, Erklärung des Philipperbriefes, Munich, 1928, ad loc. especially p.
55, and the exposition in Church Dogmatics iv, The Doctrine of Reconciliation, I, E.T.
Edinburgh, 1956, p. 180.

18. So H. A. A. Kennedy, The Expositor’s Greek Testament, London, 1903, iii, pp. 436, 437.
Kennedy doubts the legitimacy of Lightfoot’s translation ‘did not look upon equality with
God as a prize, a treasure to be clutched’, i.e. tÕ enai ‡sa qeù is something which He
already possessed and resolved not to cling to. He points out that the basic connotation of the
verb ¡rp£zein is ‘to seize, snatch violently’. ‘Thus it is not permissible to glide from the true
sense “grasp at” into one which is totally different, “hold fast”. Are we not obliged, then, to
think of the ¡rpagmÒn (¤rpagma) as something still future, a res rapienda?’

[p.50]

19. Compare the uses of the verb ¡rp£zein in Acts viii. 39; 2 Cor. xii. 2, 4; I Thes. iv. 17.

20. This meaning is well brought out by C. A. Anderson Scott’s translation: ‘He did not
regard it as a thing to be grasped at to rise to equality with God’. Footnotes to St. Paul,
Cambridge, 1935, p. 192; and cf. his exposition in Christianity according to St Paul,
Cambridge, 1927, pp. 271, 272.

21. This translation is offered by various authorities. It goes back to W. Jaeger’s contribution,
‘Stilgeschichtliche Studie zum Philipperbrief’ in Hermes, 1, 1915, pp. 537 ff. especially pp.
550-552. A. D. Nock, St. Paul, Oxford, 1946, translates: ‘did not regard equality with God as
a piece of luck’, while W. K. L. Clarke takes ¡rpagmÒn as equal to eÛrhma and renders
‘lucky find’ or ‘treasure trove’, op. cit., p. 144. L. Cerfaux, Le Christ dans la théologie de S.
Paul, Paris, 1954, p. 289, paraphrases as ‘considérer ou traiter quelque chose comme une
bonne aubaine’.
The justification for this translation is given in the authorities cited by Arndt and
Gingrich, s.v. For the virtual equivalence of the words ¤rpagma and ›rmaion in the statement
oÙc ¤rpagma oÙd ›rmaion ¹ge‹tai tÒ pr©gma (Heliodorus vii, 20, 2) cf. Giiford, op. cit.,
p. 34: cf. also Isidore of Pelusium, Epist. iv, 22: e„ ›rmaion ¹g»sato tÕ enai ‡son oÙk ¥n
˜autÕn ™tape…nwsen.
The most interesting example is that of Plutarch, Alex. fortuna aut virtute, 1, 8 (330D)
which Lightfoot and Giiford had noted and mentioned as illustrating the meaning of ¤rpagma
which is equivalent to ›rmaion and denotes ‘a highly-prized possession, an unexpected gain’.
The text reads: oÙ g¦r lhstrikîj t¾n 'As…an katadramèn, oÙd æspr ¤rmagma kaˆ
l£furon eÙtuc…aj ¢nelp…stou star£xai kaˆ ¢nasÚrasqai dianohqe…j.
A. A. T. Ehrhardt makes this text the starting-point for a speculative theory based on
the supposed parallel between Jesus Christ and Alexander the Great (the title of his article in
J.T.S., XLVI, 1945, pp. 45-51). We may note, however, his comment on the use of ¤rpagma.
here. Alexander refused to exploit his good fortune (‘He did not overrun Asia on a looting
expedition, treating those territories as falling to him by the fortune of war, and so his to
seize….’). Christ refused to regard equality with God as a privilege to be exploited, a piece of
good fortune to be enjoyed. Loc. cit., p. 47.

[p.51]

The same view of ¡rpagmÒj is taken by W. L. Knox who, without quoting Ehrhardt, refers to
the Plutarch story, and comments that it is hardly likely that Paul knew such a view of
Alexander, but may have heard such views applied to Heracles whom Alexander imitated. See
pp. 237, 238 of his article, ‘“The Divine Hero” Christology in the New Testament’, in the
Harvard Theological Review, XLI, 4, Oct. 1948, pp. 229-249. But cf. the critique in Henry,
loc. cit., cols. 39, 40. It is most interesting to find lafurÒn, ‘spoils of war’, used in the text of
Plutarch in conjunction with ¤rpagma. The text of Aquila in Isaiah liii. 12 reads l£fura in
place of skàla in the LXX.

22. Bonnard, op. cit., p. 43: ‘Le Christ, qui jouissait d’une condition divine, n’a pas considéré
cette condition (qu’il possédait) comme un tremplin pour s’en prévaloir contre Dieu et
atteindre ainsi l’égalité avec lui’. This meaning of ¡rpagmÕn ¹ge‹sqai is supported by E.
Käsemann’s rendering ‘to utilize to one’s own advantage’ (etwas für sich ausnützen). He
treats the phrase as a proverbial expression (die sprichwörtliche Redensart). Loc. cit., p. 333.
L. Cerfaux, op. cit., pp. 289, 290, accepts a similar interpretation which makes the prize
neither res rapta nor res rapienda, but rather ‘un objet possédé sans doute justement mais
dont il ne faut pas user orgueilleusement et comme par bravade.’

23. Compare Calvin’s comment on Phil. ii. 6: ‘Being such as He was, He could have shown
Himself equal to God without doing wrong to anyone; but He did not manifest Himself to be
what He really was, nor did He openly assume in the view of men what belonged to Him by
right’ (sed non prae se tulit quod erat, neque palam sumpsit in oculis hominum quod iure
suum erat), quoted from P. van Buren, Christ in our Place, Edinburgh, 1957, p. 13.

24. With Lohmeyer and Bonnard then, it is impossible to decide between the two formulae of
res rapta and res rapienda if they are regarded as mutually exclusive. On the contrary, the
above interpretation includes both ideas. The pre-incarnate Christ had the full dignity of His
place as the second Person of the Trinity, with the exception of that acknowledgement which
could only be His by His installation and function as Lord (KÚrioj). He might have secured
this by personal seizure and self-assertion, but He resolved that the future honour which could
have been His possession by acquisition would come to Him as His Father’s gracious gift.
The ¡rpagmÒj which He refused to exploit to His own end

[p.52]

was the ‘privilege’ or advantage which lay within His power, the point of vantage from which
He might, had He chosen, have set up His own Lordship in rivalry to His Father’s.
This line of interpretation follows partly the train of Lohmeyer’s thought in his
Commentary, pp. 92, 93. He recognizes that the motif of the Hymn is the determination of the
path that Christ chose as the way to His Lordship. This choice, according to Lohmeyer, is in
contrast to that of Satan who attempted to be equal with God. See later for this possible
background. The Son of God, on the contrary, resolved to gain His Lordship by the way of
sacrifice and suffering. His way is a paradox which is expressed in the formula, ‘through
becoming Man His way leads to Lordship’. Lohmeyer relates this paradox to the theme of
divine election which he traces back to Isaiah’s doctrine in the picture of the suffering
Servant. ‘To be chosen by God means to suffer upon earth.’ So with the fulfilment of this
prophetic truth. In order to show Himself divine it was necessary for Him to pass through time
and to suffer as Man.

25. This key to an understanding of the Hymn is widely accepted. It was stated as early as
1908 by F. P. Badham, Exp. T., XIX, No. 7, pp. 331-333. O. Cullmann, Die Christologie des
Neuen Testaments, p. 182, says categorically, ‘Except for this background of the Pauline
teaching of the two Adams’, this verse (ii. 6) ‘is scarcely intelligible’; and offers a full and
convincing application. The almost solitary voice of dissidence from this suggested
background is that of W. Foerster, T.W.N.T. i, p. 473.

26. Another possible background is the proposed contrast between Christ and Satan. In the
apocalyptic tradition Satan’s fall from heaven is the result of his pleonex…a, the desire to
grasp more than his due which God had appointed him. See, for example, Life of Adam and
Eve, xv where Satan is robbed of his glory because he would not worship Adam, but aspired
after lordship in his own right. E. Stauffer, New Testament Theology, E.T. London, p. 64,
gives the following account of the tradition about the rebellion and fall of Satan: ‘We are told
(in Jewish sources: e.g. Slavonic Enoch, xxix. 4, 5: The Book of the Secrets of Enoch, edited
by W. R. Morfill and R. H. Charles, Oxford, 1896, p. 36) that the devil belonged to the most
glorious of the angels, and was himself the leader of one of the angelic hosts. But in a decisive

[p.53]

hour he refused to obey God... (and) God hurled him down into the depths. The early Church,
and Paul in particular, knew about these traditions of a pre-human catastrophe in the will of
creation, and accepted them (cf. 2 Peter ii. 4 ff.; Jude 6). It is quite plain that what is in Paul’s
mind in Phil. ii. 6 ff. is this picture of Satan and his superbia, and it is that which he contrasts
with such emphasis with the picture of Christ and his humibitas’. This background, although
very suggestive and interesting, has not been generally accepted, and that of the disobedience
and fall of Adam is to be preferred. Dibelius, for example, who supported the analogy with
Satan’s fall in his book, Die Gesterwelt im Glaubens Paulus, Göttingen, 1909, pp. 105 f., later
in his Commentary retracted this support.
There are points of contact between the two temptations and falls, Satan’s and
Adam’s, in their rejection of God’s authority, and their proud ambition to be as God. Compare
Is. xiv. 14, ‘I will be like the most High’ and Gn. iii. 5, RV, ‘ye shall be as God’.
27. Cf. D. Cairns, The Image of God in Man, London, 1953, pp. ig if. with reference to
Eichrodt who takes the second term (twmd) as defining more clearly than the first (slx)
what is meant: ‘In God’s image, that is to say, in His likeness’. It is of great significance that
the LXX uses e„kèn to render jwmd in Gn. i. 26, 27, v. 3, ix. 6; that the same Greek word is
used to translate amlx in Dn. ii (4 times) and iii (9 times), and morf» is used to translate
amLx in Dn. iii. 19 that Phil. ii. 6 in the Peshitta version has ajMd to render morf» and that
Delitzsch translates both Col. i. 15 and 2 Cor. iv. 4 by using slx Cf. J. Behm, T.W.N.T. iv, p.
759; and G. S. Duncan, Jesus, Son of Man, London, 1948, p. 193 note 3. For the linguistic
details, cf. Eltester, op. cit., pp. 13 ff. and K. L. Schmidt’s essay ‘“Homo Imago Dei” im
Alten und Neuen Testament’ in Eranos-Jahrbuch, 1947, XV, Der Mensch, Zürich, 1948, pp.
149-195, especially pp. 165 ff. See, too, the factual details provided by C. Ryder Smith, The
Bible Doctrine of Man, London, 1951, pp. 94, 95. He examines the usages of the Hebrew
words slx, jwmd and hgmj with their LXX equivalents, and concludes that ‘for the LXX
translators the three Hebrew terms were synonyms.’

28. See the exposition of E. Jacob, Theology of the Old Testament, E.T. London, 1958, pp.
170, 171.

29. See the clear statement of the meaning of kenosis in J. J. Müller’s

[p.54]
commentary, The Epistles of Paul to the Philippians and to Philemon, London, 1955, pp. 83-
85; and the acute comments of L. Morris in The Lord from Heaven, London, 1958, pp. 73, 74;
cf. also Henry, loc. cit., cols. 156, 157.

30. V. Taylor, op. cit., chapter xix; G. C. Berkouwer, The Person of Christ, E.T. Grand
Rapids, 1954, passim; L. Berkhof, Systematic Theology, Grand Rapids, 1941, pp. 327-329.

31. On the theological side, see the critique of kenosis by D. M. Baillie, God Was in Christ,
London, 1948, pp. 94-98. After an examination of the linguistic evidence and the
interpretation put upon it in the interests of the kenotic theory, J. S. Lawton, Conflict in
Christology, London, 1947, p. 132 concludes, ‘it is impossible to assign to the passage that
decisive place which it obviously holds in the construction of kenotic Christology.’

32. V. Taylor, op. cit., p. 77: ‘the reference is to a pre-incarnate renunciation coincident with
the act of “taking the form of a servant”’; Henry, loc. cit., col. 28: ‘L’action marquee par
l’indicatif aoriste paraît être concomitante avec celle du participe aoriste qui suit, comme en
Eph. i. 9, et la kénose, au sens large, consisterait bien dans le fait même de “prendre la forme
d’esclave”’.

33. We cannot follow Dibelius here when he quotes Lk. i. 53; Ru. i. 21 to prove that the verse
shows simply—but expressed poetically—that Christ was poor (er machte sich arm). He
refuses to define His poverty more closely. ‘Alle diese Erwagungen sprechen gegen eine
streng terminologische und für eine poetisch-hymnische Interpretation’ is his conclusion
about all the key-terms of the Hymn, Commentary, 4n die Thessalonicher an die Philipper,
Tübingen, 3rd ed., 1937, p. 77.

34. Lightfoot, op. cit., pp. 111, 112.

35. J. H. Michael, The Epistle to the Philippians, London, 1928, p. 90.

36. W. Warren, J.T.S., XII, 1911, pp. 461-463.

37. The suggested parallel in Is. xlix. 4, kenîj ™kop…asa kaˆ e„j m£taion kaˆ e„j oÙdn
œdwka t¾n „scÚn mou although quoted by E. C. Selwyn, The Oracles in the New Testament,
London, date of preface 1911, p. 250, and listed by Henry, col. 46 and Cerfaux, op. cit., p. 286
note 2, is rather far-fetched.

[p.55]

38. See the bibliography cited in the article by D. R. Griffiths, Exp. T., LXIX, No. 8, May
1958, pp. 237-239, and by J. Jeremias in the translation of his study of the term pa‹j qeoà in
T.W.N.T. v, p. 708 now published as The Servant of God, London, 1958, p. 97. The
conclusion from this suggested derivation of ™autÕn ™kšnwsen from the Hebrew wvpg …
hdxh of Is. liii. 12 is clearly stated by H. Wheeler Robinson, ‘the Kenosis was properly that
of the Crucifixion, though naturally involving the Incarnation’, in The Cross in the Old
Testament,1955 ed. London, p. 105; and especially by Jeremias in his contribution to Studia
Paulina where he writes that the use of Is. liii. 12 ‘bezieht sich dann auf die Priesgabe des
Lebens, nicht auf die Kenose bei der Inkarnation’, quoting C. H. Dodd, According to the
Scriptures, London, 1952, p. 93 in confirmation (p. 154). See also Dodd’s article in J.T.S.,
XXXIX, 1938, p. 292.
39. There is criticism of Jeremias on this point by Otto Michel, ‘Zur Exegese von Phil. 2, 5-
11’ in Theologie als Glaubenswagnis, Festschrift Karl Heim, Tübingen, 1954, pp. 83, 84; and
recently there is a criticism, on the linguistic side, of the identification of Wvpg … Hdxh and
™autÕn ™kšnwsen by M. D. Hooker, Jesus and the Servant, London, 1959, p. 121.

40. There are two points which should be borne in mind before we insist that the thought of
the apostle must proceed in logical sequence. The first is the argument of H. Wheeler
Robinson in his discussion of the verse in the light of Is. liii. 12. He grants that, on first
reading, it would appear that the incarnation is in view in ™autÕn ™kšnwsen, but the apostle’s
parenthetic style may account for the peculiar form of the clauses. ‘When he has begun to
express this divine humiliation unto death, with the memorable words of Is. liii. 12 in his
mind as its apt expression, he checks himself after saying, “He emptied himself—” before
adding the completing words “to death”, at the remembrance of the human life which was the
necessary pathway to that death of the Cross, and describes the humiliation of this life on
earth as a “servant” prior to the great humiliation of the Cross; hence the parenthetic clauses,
which grammatically follow the word which envisages the goal of the Cross, though logically
they precede this, as the preparation for it.’ Op. cit., p. 104, note 23.

The second observation is the way in which the text of Is. Lii-liii appears to be used in the
Hymn without any reference to logical or

[p.56]

historical sequence. For example, the glorification of the Servant in Is. lii. 13 with the key-
verb Øywq»setai is the frontispiece to the chapter of His humiliation, whereas in the
Philippians text at ii. 9 it comes as the climax of the Hymn and as the result of His obedience
unto death.

41. If the question is posed, Why does the apostle then not refer to the Lord’s glory rather than
to His ‘form’? the answer will be given with Michel that special stress is placed on the ‘form
of the servant’ in the contrast of the later verse. Loc. cit., p. 82, note 1.

42. Commentary, p. 112.

43. Dibelius, op. cit., pp. 77, 78.

44. Cf. J. Jeremias, T.W.N.T. v, pp. 708, 709 (= The Servant of God, p. 97). The most
outstanding exceptions among scholars to the view that Phil. ii. 5-11 depends linguistically
upon Isaiah liii are W. Michaelis, Der Brief des Paulus an die Philipper, Leipzig, 1935, p. 37
who says explicitly ‘Auch an den “Knecht” Jes 53 ist übrigens nicht zu denken’; and E.
Kãsemann, loc. cit., p. 336 who maintains that doàloj has nothing to do with the ‘ebed
Yahweh doctrine, but is a Greek idea!

45. This objection is voiced by, e.g., K. Rengstorf, T.W.N.T. s.v., ii, p. 282; and, recently, M.
D. Hooker, op. cit., p. 120.

46. C. F. Burney, op. cit., p. 108.

47. Michel, loc. cit., p. 92; L. Cerfaux, op. cit., p. 285.

48. But it is further supported by the fact that Ðmo…wma also is found to be interchangeable
with morf» and edoj in the Greek Bible. See Ezk. i. 26 where the divine glory appeared in
the form of a ‘likeness as the appearance of a man’ (LXX reads Ðmo…wma æj edoj
¢nqrèpou: and MT reads the key-term towmd). It may be submitted, therefore, that there is a
parallelism in the lines of verse 7 in which morf¾n doÚlou is parallel with ™n Ðmoièmati
¢nqrèpwn. The incarnate Son entered upon His earthly career to assume the office of the
Servant of Yahweh which entails a true incarnation and acceptance of human life with all its
‘historical risks’ (‘tous les risques historiques’, as Bonnard puts it, quoting the New
Testament meaning of gšnomenoj as always marking an historical happening).
The endeavour to find in this participle (as in Rom. i. 3; Gal. iv. 4) an indirect allusion
to the Virgin birth is not altogether convincing.

[p.57]

See H. E. W. Turner, Exp.T., LXVIII, No. 1, Oct. 1956, p. 12; cf. V. Taylor, op. cit., p.
217, note 1. gšnomenoj can have the plain sense of ‘being born’, as in Jn. viii. 58.

49. Cf. A. E. J. Rawlinson, The New Testament Doctrine of the Christ, London, 1926, p. 135,
note 3.

50. ‘So when this name of Servant is given to Him, we must understand that it is because He
has taken our nature, not merely humbled Himself, but even making Himself absolutely
nothing.’ Calvin’s sermon on Is. liii in T. H. L. Parker’s ed. London, 1958, p. 31.

51. For this view cf. Henry, loc. cit., col. 30. The term doÚloj may conceivably denote Jesus’
subjection to demonic powers. He willingly identified Himself with men in their enslavement
to the stouce‹a toà kÒsmou (Gal. iv. 3, 9); and, by entering their thraldom, He passed into
the control of the ¢rcÒntej toà a„înoj toÚtou (1 Cor. ii. 8) and under the demon power of
death. This line of interpretation would be confirmed if our view of the words ‘unto death’ in
verse 8 were accepted. See pp. 31, 63. Cf. J. A. T. Robinson, The Body, London, 1952, pp. 38,
39; M. Werner, The Formation of Christian Dogma, E.T. London, 1957, p. 127; and Weiss’
words: ‘Paul calls this “the form of a servant” because he, though born Lord of all things,
became like men, the slave of “the elements of the world”.’ Op. cit., ii, p. 493. Cf. also the
recent study of G. B. Caird, Principalities and Powers, Oxford, 1956, especially pp. 97, 98.

52. Lohmeyer, Commentary, p. 94: ‘ “Knecht” sein bedeutet in der religiösen Sprache des
Judentums nichts anderes als von Gott erwâhlt sein; so heissen die grossen Frommen der
Vergangenheit mit Stolz und Ehrfurcht.’

53. The exact meaning of Ðmo…wma is much controverted. See the discussion in Arndt and
Gingrich’s Lexicon, s.v. p. 570. The point at issue is in the question as stated by Michel, loc.
cit., p. 89. Is Christ who appears in ‘the likeness of men’ fully and perfectly Man, or is the
picture here one of a person who is only seen as Man, since He is, in reality, remaining in the
world as ein Gottwesen, a divine Being? Bauer’s reply (in the Lexicon just mentioned) to this
question covers both aspects, but he is not as emphatic as Michel on the Lord’s full humanity.
‘Jesus in His earthly career was similar to sinful men and yet not absolutely

[p.58]
like them’ is his conclusion on the Pauline usage of Ðmo…wma. In the light of the parallel text
in Rom. viii. 3 and the usage of Ðmo…wma in LXX, this is as far as verse 7 goes, and needs to
be supplemented by the unequivocal statement of the Lord’s true humanity in verse 8.
Part of the reason for Paul’s choice of this word is its close connection with the Adam-
Christ parallel (cf. Rom. v. 14), ‘In the likeness of men’ is the equivalent of ‘in the image of
the true man’, with a backward glance to the Genesis narrative. This is how Lightfoot takes it.
‘The plural ¢nqrèpwn is used; for Christ, as the second Adam, represents not the individual
man, but the human race’, Commentary, p. 112.

54. Arndt and Gingrich, Lexicon, pp. 804, 805 furnish a good illustration from Josephus of a
king who exchanged his kingly robes for sackcloth and takes on a scÁma tapeinÒn.

55. See Lightfoot’s note, op. cit., pp. 112, 113.

56. It is at this point that the verdict of Michel may be fully endorsed: ‘Die ganze Christologie
des Neuen Testaments hängt an dem entscheidenden Ereignis, dass Jesus nicht nur
menschenähnlich oder menschengleich war, sondern selbst em Mensch war.’ Loc. cit., p. 90.

57. So Lohmeyer, Commentary, p. 95, eØreqeˆj ‘refers not to the beginning but to the course
of this human life’. He goes on to conclude, therefore, that ‘this line is completely separated
from what has gone before. It can only serve to explain the thought of humiliation’. Jeremias,
however, objects to this division in his article in Studia Paulina, p. 153.
Lohmeyer, as it was earlier noted, has pointed out how unGreek is the expression
eØreqeˆj æj, and makes this the starting-point for an elaborate theory that the underlying
Semitic original of these words is to be discovered in the Aramaic of Dn. vii. 13: vna dkk
meaning ‘as a son of man’. This title he takes to mean ‘a man carrying the appearance of a
divinity’ as in Enoch (xlvi. 1 ff.) and the Ezra Apocalyse (2 Esdras xiii); cf. Rev. i. 13, xiv.
14. On this reading, what is in view is not Christ’s humanity but His transcendental state as
the heavenly man who came to earth to accomplish a redemptive mission for mankind. Most
scholars regard this identification of Paul’s æj ¥nqrwpoj with dkk as forced and unnatural;
and there is little to commend Lohmeyer’s endeavour to find here the background in the
Iranian myth of anthrōpos (KJ, pp. 39-41; cf. W. O. E. Oesterley, II Esdras, London,

[p.59]

1933, pp. 158-164). For a discussion of the supposed dependence of Paul upon the myth of
the ‘heavenly man’ see J. M. Creed, J.T.S., XXVI, 1925, pp. 113-135; A. E. J. Rawlinson, op.
cit., pp. 125 ff.; A. Schweitzer, The Mysticism of Paul the Apostle, E.T. London, 1931, p. 167;
and W. Manson, Jesus the Messiah, London, 1943, Appendix D.
æj is quite naturally taken as equivalent to ‡sa. Christ was seen to be, to human view,
like a man. But it is certainly arguable that ¥nqrwpoj here is Paul’s version of the full title
‘the Son of man’ in the gospel tradition. See E. Stauffer’s chapter xxiv, op. cit., pp. 108-111,
with the conclusion, ‘The idea of the Son of man lives on in the Pauline letters under a new
christological word that gives linguistic expression to the same thing under the term “Man”
and its further developments and correlatives. This terminology (e.g. ¥nqrwpoj, deÚteroj
¥nqrwpoj, ¥nqrwpoj, ¥nqrwpoj ™x oÙranoà, œscatoj Ad£m, kefal», e„kèn) gives a far
more distinct expression to the antithesis between Christ and Adam than the name Son of man
could do’ (p.111).
58. There were occasions, however, when His inherent glory shone through the veil of His
humilitas carnis which surrounded His divina majesta as Calvin says in his commentary on
Mt. xxvii. 45. See for this reference Corpus Reformatorum, lxxiii, 777, 778: ‘Although in the
death of Christ, the weakness of the flesh concealed the glory of His divinity for a short time,
and though the Son of God was disfigured by shame and contempt, and, as Paul says, was
emptied, yet the heavenly Father did not cease to distinguish Him by some marks, and during
His lowest humiliation prepared some indications of His future glory, in order to support the
minds of the godly against the oifence of the Cross’; quoted from van Buren, op. cit., p. 49.
There is the evidence of His miracles (cf. John ii. II) and especially the witness of the
transfiguration when His glory (dÒxa, Luke ix. 32) was displayed to favoured eyes. This
confirms the interpretation of morfÁ qeoà offered above. What became apparent on the holy
mount was the ‘glory’ or ‘form’ of God, as His megaleiÒthj was seen, He received from the
Father tim¾ kaˆ dÒxa and there came the voice from the megaloprep¾j dÒxa (2 Pet. i. 16-
18). This morfÁ qeoà underlay His earthly form, the morfÁ doÚlou, but was concealed in
His incarnate existence.

59. Lohmeyer, KJ, p. 35 (cf. his Commentary, p. 93), seems to imply this

[p.60]

in his view that by His kenosis He creates a new substantial Being; and he says explicitly of
His return to the Father’s presence in glory, ‘This is a new marvel; for it means not only a new
worthiness—the highest which it is possible to imagine—but also a new Being’ (ein neues
Sein), Commentary, p. 97.

60. K. Barth, op. cit., p. 56 (=Commentary ad. loc.): ‘Er ist Gott fortan, gleich in der
Verborgenheit der Knechtgestalt’. This sentence is quoted with approval by V. Taylor, op.
cit., p. 78. Cf. Henry, loc. cit., col. 32 and the earlier conclusion of E. H. Giiford, op. cit., pp.
8-12 where he maintains that Øp£rcwn denotes both the pre-existence and the continued
existence of Christ in the form of God; and pp. 30-36 where he defines the kenosis as the
laying aside of that equality of conditions, such as glory, majesty, and honour, which He
possessed in His pre-existence, and to which He prayed to be restored in Jn. XV11. 5. We
may note also the force of the participle in 2 Cor. viii. 9, ploÚsioj ên; not ‘He became rich’
or ‘He ceased to be rich’.

61. This interpretation follows the line indicated by Karl Barth in his exposition, Church
Dogmatics, iv, The Doctrine of Reconciliation, I, E.T. 1956, pp. 179-183: ‘In addition to His
form in the likeness of God, He could also—and this involves at once a making poor, a
humiliation, a condescension, and to that extent a kšnwsij—take the form of a servant.’ So
the kenosis ‘does not consist in ceasing to be Himself as man, but in taking it upon Himself in
a way quite other than that which corresponds and belongs to His form as God’. He quotes
Augustine:’ Sic se inanivit: formam servi accipiens, non formam Dei amittens; forma servi
accessit, non forma Dei discessit’ (Sermo, 183, 4 f. = Patrobogia latina, ed. Migne, xxxviii,
990) (p.180).

62. Cf. S. V. McCasland, ‘“The Image of God” according to Paul’, in J.B.L., LXIX, 1950, pp.
85-100.

63. Cf. Ignatius, Eph. xx. 1: thy tÕn kainÕn ¥nqrwpon,’ 'Ihsoun CristÒn. The identification
of Ð nšoj ¥nqrwpoj of Col. in. 10 with Christ is made by Lohmeyer, Die Briefe an die
Kolosser und an Philemon, Göttingen, 9th ed. 1953, p. 142. The argument is based on the way
in which the apostle can speak of the Christian as putting on Christ (Gal. iii. 27; Rom. xiii.
14); and the declaration of Col. iii. 11 that Christ is both everything (p£nta) and ‘in all’ (™n
p©sin), i.e. indwelling all the members of His Church. ‘So kann das für unsere Stelle kaum
anderes bedeuten,

[p.61]

als dass Christus der neue Mensch ist.’ Cf. the full discussion in Eltester, op. cit., pp. 158 ff.

64. Humility is an outstanding characteristic of life under the Torah according to the witness
of Jewish literature. It is more than just an isolated virtue; it is the quality which marks out the
righteous (hðasidim). Cf. Aboth vi. 4 for ‘the life of privation’ which is the sign of devotion to
the Torah. It is also connected with the fate of the Jewish martyrs (Enoch cviii. 7). The LXX
version of Is, liii. 8, however, is the nearest parallel to the use of the verb ™tape…nwsen
˜autÒn in Phil. ii. 8. Yet the free act of the Son of God, expressed in the use of the reflexive
pronoun, is an important feature which is not found in Is. liii.

65. Michel, loc. cit., pp. 86 ff.; W. D. Davies, op. cit., pp. 262 ff.; E. Schweizer, op. cit., 35 ff.
of which the sentence, ‘The concept that the righteous individual must pass through the
suffering, humiliation, and shame imposed by God in order, finally, to be exalted by him, is
widespread in the Judaism of the time’, New Testament Studies, II, No. 2, Nov. 1955, p. 88, is
a summary.

66. So we find that the example of the obedient Lord (ii. 8; cf. Heb. v. 8) is applied to the
Philippians’ situation directly following the citation of the Hymn; and the word ‘wherefore’ of
verse 12 is the connecting-link between the example (Øp»kooj) and the application
(ØphkoÚsate). ‘Il a obéi, donc (kaqëj) obéissez’, comments Bonnard. Cf. the link in Heb. v.
8 and 9 Øpako¾n... ØpakoÚousin. The way in which they are to obey is in submission to his
apostolic directives, with an obedience which is referred to in such texts as 2 Cor. vii. 15, x. 6;
2 Thes. iii. 4; Phm. 21.

67. R. Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, i, E.T. London, 1952, p. 311:’ “In Christ”,
far from being a formula for mystic union, is primarily an ecclesiological formula’ (italics in
the original). E. Lohmeyer adopts the unusual view that in. the phrase ™n Cristù in verse 5
the ™n carries a paradigmatic meaning with the phrase constituting ‘a sort of formula of
citation’ (eine Art von Zitationsformel). It corresponds to K] which is used (e.g. in Aboth iii. 7:
‘it is written in David’; cf. Rom. xi. 2; Heb. iv. 7) to introduce an authoritative quotation. So
in Phil. ii. 5 it paves the way for the Hymn in which the example of Christ is made
authoritative for the Philippian community. See KJ, p. 13.

[p.62]

68. This application re-appears in 1 Clement xvi: ‘For Christ is of those who are humble-
minded (tapeinofronoÚntwn) not of those who exalt themselves over His flock... (He) came
not with the pomp of pride or of arrogance... but was humble-minded (tapeinofronîn), as
the Holy Spirit spake concerning Him (quoting Isaiah liii and Psalm xxii). You see, beloved,
what is the example (ØpogrammÒj) which is given us; for if the Lord was thus humble-
minded (™tapeinofrÒnhsen), what shall we do, who through Him, have come under the yoke
of His grace?’
69. The locus classicus for this term in Paul’s writings is in Rom. v. 12 ff. where the contrast
parako¾-Øpako» first Adam-second Adam, is most clearly brought out. On this parallel see
the recent study of R. P. Shedd, Man in Community, London, 1958, section iii (pp. 93-123)
passim and pp. 151 ff. For the wider perspective of the New Testament doctrine of the
obedience of Christ, see E. Hoskyns and N. Davey, The Riddle of the New Testament,
London, 1931, pp. 192 ff., 216-222.

70. He gives proof of His divine nature, not so much by what He is as by what He did, as E.
Käsemann, loc. cit., p. 335, has observed. In contrast to later Christological thought, there is
no speculative interest in the Hymn. The danger of divorcing the person of Christ from His
work is strikingly pointed out by J. M. Creed, in Mysterium Christi, edited by G. K. A. Bell
and A. Deissmann, London, 1931, p. 129; ‘Unless the doctrine of the Incarnation is nailed to
the Cross it tends to lose definition and to evaporate into a cosmic principle’.

71. In speaking in this way of Christ’s obedience as the principle which underlies His
redemptive work we are not unmindful of the caveat entered by J. Denney. He says rightly
that, unless the terms ‘obedience’ and ‘God’s will’ are more exactly defined, ‘it is inadequate,
ambiguous, and misleading to speak of obedience as the principle of the Atonement. Christ’s
obedience is not merely that which is required of all men, it is that which is required of a
Redeemer; and it is its peculiar content, not the mere fact that it is obedience, which
constitutes it an atonement... The obedience of the Incarnate One has... its redemptive value,
i.e. its value for us... not simply as obedience, but as obedience to a will of God which
requires the Redeemer to take upon Himself in death the responsibility of the sin of the
world.’ The Death of Christ, London, 1911, pp. 232, 234.

[p.63]

72. Lohmeyer, KJ, p. 4I; Commentary, p. 96.

73. Lohmeyer, Commentary, p. 96; KJ, p. 43 quoting Rev. i. 18. The presence of the
descensus idea in verse 8 is denied by R. Leivestad, Christ the Conqueror, London, 1954, p.
III, but for no cogent reason. It is offered as a possibility by G. S. Duncan, Jesus, Son of Man,
London, 1948, p. 194, note 1.

74. 2 Tim. i. 10; Heb. ii. 15; Rom. Viii. 38, 39; I Cor. xv. 55, 56; and for death as the agent of
Satan cf. Dibelius, Die Geisterwelt im Glaubens Paul us, Göttingen, 1909, pp. 41-43.

75. The evidence to support this may be set out:

a. The germane New Testament data for the doctrine of Christ’s descensus ad inferos.
E. G. Selwyn, The First Epistle of St. Peter, London, 1947, pp. 319-322 surveys the evidence
in Rom. x. 6-8; Eph. iv. 8-10; Phil. ii. 10; Rev. v. 13, and above all i Pet. iii. 19, iv. 6, on
which see the latest discussion by C. E. B. Cranfield, Exp. T., LXIX, No. 12, Sept. 1958, pp.
369-372. We may also add Acts ii. 27, 31. This belief, which Selwyn regards as ‘part of the
current coin of New Testament teaching’ (p. 322) is concerned with our Lord’s going to the
underworld after death rather than His submission to the power of death on the cross; but
there is a close connection between the two ideas.
b. Phil. ii. 10 suggests that those agencies which now confess His Lordship and victory
are those to which He was subjected in His humiliation. They include t¦ katacqon…a; and
this is confirmed by Ignatius, Trallians, ix. 1: ‘Jesus Christ... was truly persecuted under
Pontius Pilate, was truly crucified and died in the sight of those in heaven and on earth and
under the earth.’
c. The metrical structure of the Hymn is set in triadic sections and phrases, as was
earlier noted. The three ‘states’ through which Christ passes are ‘divine-earthly-infernal’,
corresponding to the three stanzas of the first section. In each strophe ‘this membership of
each kingdom is pictured’ (Lohmeyer, KJ, p. 43); and at the triumphant conclusion of the
Hymn we see the three realms to which He has been subjected lying at the feet of the exalted
One (KJ, p. 43; Commentary, p. 96). See for comparison J. G. Davies, op. cit., p. 61.

76. Qan£tou d stauroà is regarded by many commentators since Lohmeyer’s day as ‘a

Pauline interpretative gloss’. He bases this judgment on metrical grounds, and deletes the
phrase from the original

[p.64]

version of the Hymn because it spoils the formal structure of the poem. But when he says that
the manner of the death cannot take away from the death or add anything to its humiliation
(Commentary, p. 96), does he not overlook the special degradation which death by crucifixion
would hold for a Jew?

77. Cicero, Pro Rabirio, v. 10; cf. in Verrem, v. 66: ‘How shall I describe crucifixion? No
adequate word can be found to represent so execrable an enormity.’

78. Cf. the satirical inscription, ‘Alexamenos worships his god’, found at Rome as the caption
of a graffito and used to depict a Christian who is reverencing a crucified figure with an ass’s
head.

79. The ‘shame’ (a„scÚnh) of the cross (Heb. xii. 2) and the ‘scandal’ (sk£nalon) to the Jew
of the Christian preaching which centred in that message (1 Cor. i. 23) are familiar themes in
the New Testament.

80. W. D. Davies, op. cit., 284. Something of the horror suggested by this form of death is
conveyed in the Qumran Commentary on Nahum, published by J. M. Allegro in J.B.L.,
LXXV, June 1956, pp. 89-93. On the Nahum text the pesher is, ‘This passage refers to the
Lion of Wrath who wreaked vengeance on the seekers after smooth things, and who used to
hang men alive on trees, as was never done before in Israel, for he that is hanged alive on a
tree....’ (J. T. Milik’s translation, Ten Tears of Discovery in the Wilderness of Judaea, E.T.
London, 1959, p. 73).

81. So J. Jeremias, The Servant of God, p. 77; and W. D. Davies, op. cit., pp. 273 ff. But see
W. D. Davies’ later note, p. 366.

82. Cf. Calvin on Phil. ii. 8: ‘By dying in this manner (on a cross) He was not only covered
with ignominy in the sight of men, but was accursed in the sight of God.’

83. This figure of speech is taken from E. Brunner, The Mediator, E.T. London, 1934, pp.
561-563.

84. Lohmeyer, Commentary, p. 96.

85. See E. Schweizer, op. cit., passim. A typical illustration may be drawn from the Passover
Haggadah, ‘One should begin with the disgrace and end with the glory’ (Pesah£im x. 4).

86. Bonnard sees no link between the cross of Christ and His elevation

[p.65]

in honour; but he is hardly correct in this denial. Cf. Barth, Erklärung, p. 60.

87. The LXX uses the cognate verb Øyoàn in Is. lii. 13 in conjunction with the verb dox£zein.
These two verbs are frequently associated in LXX. See L. H. Brockington, ‘The Septuagintal
Background to the use of DÒxa' in Studies in the Gospels, ed. D. E. Nineham, London, 1955,
p. 2.

88. Øyoàn is ‘used invariably in the LXX as a translation of nasa’ and rum, wherever in the
Psalter the “elevation” or enthronement of either the king, the Anointed One, or Yahweh
himself is under consideration’, C. S. Mann, ‘The New Testament and the Lord’s Ascension’
in C.Q.R., Oct.-Dec. 1957, p. 457; and Øperuyoàn which occurs only in Phil. ii. 9 in the New
Testament is used to translate the niph’al of hl[, ‘exalted far above all gods’ in Ps. xcvii
(xcvi). g: LXX, sfÒdra Øperuyèqhj Øpr p£ntaj toÚj qeoÚj. This is the best LXX
parallel; sfÒdra Clement xiv. 5.

89. Those who interpret ¡rmagmÒj as res rapta accept this connotation of Øperuyoàn and
explain the prefix Øpr as superlative. Rom. viii. 35 may be cited as evidence for the use of
the stronger form of a verb as though the simple verb nik£w was too weak to express the
glorious triumph of the believer through Christ. Cf. Henry, loc. cit., col. 34; Schweizer,
Erniedrigung u. Erhöhung...., p. 66, note 286.

90. A clear argument for this meaning is presented by J. Héring, op. cit., p. 163. God exalted
His Son, giving Him ‘une dignité supérieure a celle dont il avait joui dans sa pré-existence’.
This has recently been accepted by O. Cullmann, Die Christologie des Neuen Testaments, p.
185.

91. It is confirmed by the biblical idea of Christ’s session at the Father’s right hand.
Exaltation, which is pictorially expressed by this metaphor, denotes co-regency i.e. the
receiving and enjoyment of a dignity equal with God as W. Foerster, T.W.N.T. s.v. kÚrioj, iii,
1088, E.T. Lord, London, 1958, p. 100 has shown on the basis of Ps. cx. 1.

92. Commenting on ØperÚywsen, H. A. A. Kennedy, op. cit., p. 483 says: ‘It is nothing to do
with His nature. The Divine glory which He always possessed can never be enhanced. But
now, in the eyes of men and as claiming their homage, He is on an equality with God.’

93. ‘At first sight it is a strange thought that even the Son of God had to learn obedience. But
without this obedient readiness to walk the

[p.66]

path of soul anxiety and death’s agony, the exaltation of the high-priestly dignity was
impossible. Through His humiliation Christ was being prepared for the ministry which He had
to render as the eternal High Priest.’ J. Schneider, op. cit., p. 46.
94. ™car…sato is derived from c£rij and bears the sense of ‘granted by the exercise of a
favour’.

95. This is now the generally accepted as conclusive; but it is denied by W. Heitmüller, Im
Namen Jesu, Göttingen, 1903, pp. 65 ff. and W. L. Knox, Harvard Theological Review, XLI,
No. 4, Oct. 1948, p. 238 who presents a case for the supreme name being that of ‘Jesus’.

96. See T.W.N.T., iii, p. 1043 (= Lord, p. 9).

97. So O. Cullmann, Die Christologie... pp. 185, 186.

98. See Lightfoot’s Commentary ad loc. for his comment on the Hebrew sense of sv ‘not
meaning a definite appellation, but denoting office, rank, dignity’.

99. The knowledge of a name is a characteristic Semitic idea. It implies, for example, the
ability to render honour to the one who possesses the name, as in Jdg. xiii. 17. ™n tù ÑnÒmati
is a formula of invocation and worship as in the LXX usage and Eph. v. 20. So Arndt and
Gingrich, Lexicon, p. 576; but they translate Bauer’s version of Phil. ii. 10: ‘when the name of
Jesus is mentioned every knee should bow’. On this view, the preposition is evidently to be
understood as ‘instrumental’ (so also C. F. D. Moule, An Idiom-Book of New Testament
Greek, Cambridge, 1953, p. 78). The proclaiming of the name of Jesus is the accompanying
circumstance of the submission; cf. Acts ii. 38 for ™n tù ÑnÒmati 'Ihsoà Cristoà in this
sense.

100. Lohmeyer, therefore, speaks of ‘the timelessness of eternity’, Commentary, p. 97.

101. Lohmeyer, KJ, p. 56: ‘selbst der Name Jesu scheint gewählt, urn in dem Reich des
Geschichtlichen zu bleiben’.

102. Trallians, ix. 1: and lines 36, 37 in C. K. Barrett, The New Testament Background:
Selected Documents, London, 1956, p. 32; cf. A. Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East,
E.T. New York, 4th ed., 1927, p. 261. The text reads: kaˆ sÝ l¦lhson Øpo‹on ™¦n Ãj
™pour£nion À ¢šrion e‡te ™p…geion e‡te ØpÒgeion À katacqÒnion.

[p.67]

103. Lohmeyer has an interesting note on this cultic posture. Genuflexion is an oriental
gesture of utter submission on the part of those who feel their need so keenly that they cannot
stand erect before their God, in contrast to the free and upright posture of Hellenistic
worshippers. See Acts vii. 60, ix. 40, xx. 36, xxi. 5; cf. Mk. xv. 19 Lk. xxii. 41; Eph. iii. 14.
KJ, p. 59.

104. AQ in Is. xlv. 23 read ™xomolog»setai. in place of a*B Ñme‹tai.

105. R. Leivestad, op. cit., p. 144; so O. Cullmann, The Earliest Christian Confessions, E.T.
London, 1949, pp. 59-62; but, on the other hand, cf. E. Schweizer, New Testament Studies, II,
No. 2, Nov. 1955, pp. 95, 96.
106. W. D. Davies, op. cit., pp. 42, 46. Adam is spoken of as worthy of the angels’ worship
according to such texts as b San. 59 b; Gen. R. viii. 1; Life of Adam and Eve, xii. 1. When he
succumbed to the devil’s temptation he was robbed of his glory (cf. Life of Adam and Eve,
xx). There are rabbinic traditions that what Adam lost in the fall will be restored when the
blessed time comes. See Strack-Billerbeck, Kommentar zum N.T.... i. 19, iv. 886 ff., iii. 247-
255.

107. O. Cullmann, The Earliest Christian Confessions, pp. 22, 23 and passim; F. F. Bruce,
The Spreading Flame, London, 1958, pp. 238 ff. The formula, ‘Christ is Lord’, characterizes
every early Christian confession of faith; and its significance is well assessed by H.
Riesenfeld in his essay, ‘The Mythological Background of New Testament Christology’ in
The Background of the New Testament and its Eschatobogy, ed. by W. D. Davies and D.
Daube, Cambridge, 1956, p. 94: ‘The sentence “Jesus Christ is Lord”... was fitted to transcend
all frontiers and thus made the world mission possible.’

108. Cf. Lohmeyer’s notable conclusion on these verses: ‘In order to snatch back the world
from the power of Satan, and to re-instate God, He who was in the form of God, took the road
from heaven to earth; that He became Lord is the sign that the victory is won, and therefore,
the word “Father” betokens that now God and the world are “reconciled” and made one’,
Commentary, p. 98. We put the word ‘reconciled’ in inverted commas because it may be a
play on words in the original where versöhnt suggests an allusion to the Sohn Gottes through
whom the reconciliation is made.

[p.68]

IV. CONCLUSION (p. 38)

1. It is significant that Paul of Samosata, a leading exponent of dynamic Monarchianism in the
East, forbad the singing of hymns to Jesus as Lord. See Eusebius, H.E., VII, xxx, 10.

2. See the Exp. T., LX, No. 9, June 1949, p. 239.

3. This hymn is by Benjamin Rhodes, 1743-1815.

ADDITIONAL NOTE

Since the text of the Lecture was prepared, and the Appendix of notes compiled, the
commentary of F. W. Beare in the series Black’s New Testament Commentaries, London,
1959, has appeared. It was not possible to use this important work in the preparation of the
Lecture or the Tyndale Commentary; but this final note gives opportunity briefly to
summarize Professor Beare’s position.

He is convinced by those arguments which have been offered in favour of the non-Pauline
authorship of the Hymn, and regards Lohmeyer’s analysis (which he translates into modern
English) as ‘wholly convincing’ (p. 74). But he adopts the novel view that the Hymn is not
pre-Pauline in origin; rather, it is work of a disciple of Paul’s (p. 30), ‘a gifted writer of his
own circle’ (p. 78) whose tribute to the Lord against a Hellenistic, non-Jewish background the
apostle adopts with his imprimatur.
The discernible sources are the Old Testament, and possibly an Iranian redemption myth of
the descent of the Redeemer (here following Lohmeyer); but there is no clear proof of an
underlying Aramaic original as Lohmeyer suggested and P. P. Levertoff actually
reconstructed in W. K. L. Clarke’s book, New Testament Problems, p. 148.

In his exegesis, he treats the phrases ™n morfÍ qeoà Øp£rcwn and tÕ enai ‡sa qeù as
equivalent, so that ØperÚyèsen ‘is given a superlative, not a comparative sense’ and ‘the
thought is not that God exalts him to a higher rank than he held before’ (p. 85). But in the
other view which he rejects there is little warrant for the suggestion that Christ gains His prize
‘by storming the heights like a Titan’. It is the Father’s gracious gift to His obedient Son.

[p.69]

The Lord’s obedience is taken to mean His submission to the elemental spirits of the universe
(see Section III, note 51 supra); and the homage that is rendered to the exalted One is offered
by ‘the mighty spirits’ that rule over the three realms of heaven, earth and hell. The
commentator is sceptical, however, about the value of this teaching and joins the school of R.
Bultmann with its plea for ‘demythologizing’ (pp. 30 ff., 75). He can find little room for the
malevolent influence of demons in the modern world. But there is undeniable evidence from
the data of spiritualism, ‘Satanism’ and the clinical investigations into demon-possession; and
there are the popular appeals of astrology and fortune-telling which seem to guide the
destinies of so many in civilized society. D. H. C. Read’s chapter, ‘The Devil comes back’ in
his book, The Spirit of Life, London, 1939, is a timely reminder that we cannot easily dismiss
demonic influences as ‘antiquarianizing’ (p. 31).

There is an excellent paragraph (p. 87) to show that there is no rivalry between the throne of
the glorified Christ and the throne of the God who exalts Him.

For good measure, an extended note on the ‘kenotic Christology’ by E. R. Fairweather passes
the theory of Kenosis under penetrating review, and exposes its deficiencies. See further the
author’s review of Professor’s Beare’s commentary in Theology, LXII, No. 474, Dec. 1959,
pp. 514, 515.

Originally published in London by The Tyndale Press in 1961. Reproduced by kind permission of the
author. Professor Martin’s most recent work on this subject is Carmen Christi: Philippians 2:5-11 in
Recent Interpretations and in the Setting of Early Christian Worship, Society for Biblical Literature
Monograph Series 4. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1967. Reprinted: Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1983. Pbk. ISBN: 0802819605. pp.408. Interested readers should also refer to his Tyndale
New Testament Commentary and the revised Word Biblical Commentary on Philippians.

Prepared for the Web by Robert I Bradshaw in June 2005.

http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/philippians.html