Is the Christology of Paul in Phil. 2.6-11 incarnational?

Alan Hooker

§0. Introduction

As regards Paul's christology, Philippians 2.6-11 has been a hotly-debated issue, due

especially in part to verse 6 (‘… who, being in the form of God …’), as Morna Hooker has pointed

out.1 The purpose of this essay, therefore, is to provide an overview of, and interact with, the

current scholarly debate on Philippians 2.

Whether this passage is incarnational or not is one of the prominent features in the debate,

and it is precisely this area which I intend to explore, i.e. Christ's preexistence and identification

with God are the particulars which shall be at the forefront of my examination. It is my intention

to analyze the structure, form and language of Philippians 2, whilst also setting it within its

Pauline context, in order to show that there is a good case for this text being considered ‘proto-

Trinitarian’ (a phrase used by Gordon Fee and Stanley Porter to describe Paul's christology in

which he ‘joins Father, Son and Spirit in ways that indicate the fully identity of the Son and Spirit

with the Father’).2 Moreover, the question of Phil. 2 vis-à-vis Paul's monotheistic Jewish

background must be acknowledged and brought into such a discussion. Therefore, the three

questions being addressed are as follows:

1. Does Phil. 2 present Jesus as a preexistent being?

2. In what sense is he ‘equal with God’ (v. 6)?

3. How is (2) reconciled given Paul's monotheistic faith?

It would do well to note here that whilst it has been suggested Phil. 2.6-11 is a pre-Pauline hymn, it

will be assumed that Paul utilizes various traditions to compose the hymn, and that it reflects an

essentially Pauline Christology. If the hymn was composed and received by Paul in Aramaic, it has

been taken that the translation reflects Pauline theology or that it was translated, or indeed

authored, by Paul – given that the Apostle’s native language was Aramaic (Acts 21.37-22.3).3 Either

1 M. D. Hooker. From Adam to Christ: essays on Paul (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990), 88.
2 G. D. Fee. The First and Second Letters to the Thessalonians (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Pub.,
2009), 300.
3
P. T. O’Brien. The Epistle to the Philippians: A Commentary on the Greek Text (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B.
Eerdmans, 1991), 199.
way, the pre-Pauline nature of the hymn does not mean it cannot tell us something of Paul’s

theology. If anything, it shows us the Christology of which he and his communities approved.

§1. Jesus as a preexistent Being

Given Christian Orthodoxy's insistence on the preexistent nature of Jesus Christ, it comes as

no surprise that the traditional interpretation of this passage maintains that Jesus' preexistent

nature is revealed therein, specifically in verse 6. Those who adhere to a more conservative

understanding of the word ὑπαρχων would be wont to say its meaning denotes Jesus' continual

existence as God,4 given the word's participle form. However, others have challenged the

orthodox position and have said that the idea of a preexistent Christ is an eisegesis, and thus a

presumption, rather an exegeted conclusion.5 J. D. G. Dunn's proposes that we ought to read this

Philippian hymn through an Adamic lens, i.e. by comprehending how this text uses the Adam

narratives of Gen. 1-3, we will more fully appreciate its christology, since Paul is utilizing the figure

of Adam in his construction of the person of Jesus. Dunn, in furthering his view, notes other

Adamic and Genesis allusions in Paul's writings, thus indicating how important creation and the

person of Adam is in Paul's understanding of Christ. He himself notes Rom. 1.18-25, 7.7-13, and

8.20, wherein the emergence of sin and the degradation of the world are noted.6 It is evident, he

claims, that a Pauline ‘recapitulation’ (so Iranaeus) is envisaged in the work of Christ.7 An Adamic

exposition of Phil. 2 then is not without precedent in Pauline literature. Thus, Dunn believes that

the two contrasts between ἐν μορφῃ Θεου vs. μορφην δουλου and το εἰναι ἴσα θεω vs. ἐν

ὁμοιωματι ἀνθρωπων are best understood when we note Adam's (or humankind's) creation ‘in the

image of God’ (‫)בצלם אלהים‬, ‘like the gods’ (‫)כאלהים‬8 and his subsequent subjection to death, arguably

due to his lack of access to the tree of life (Gen. 3.22).9

The first point Dunn raises concerns the phrase ἐν μορφῃ Θεου (Phil. 2.6). As noted earlier,

Dunn understands this as an allusion to the ‫( צלם‬LXX εἰκων) of Gen. 1.27. However, what is

immediately noticeable is that Paul does not utilize the Septuagint's vocabulary; rather he opts for

4 G. Johnston, ed. Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians and Philemon (London: Nelson, 1967), 40.
5 J. D. G. Dunn. Christology in the Making: A New Testament Inquiry into the Doctrine of the Incarnation
(Philadelphia: Westminster, 1980), 114.
6 J. D. G. Dunn. ‘Christ, Adam, and Preexistence.’ Where Christology Began: Essays on Philippians 2 (Louisville:
Westminter John Knox, 1998), 75.
7 Dunn, Christ, Adam, and Preexistence, 75.
8 Dunn, Christology in the Making, 115.
9 Dunn, Christ, Adam, and Preexistence, 76.
different wording. Dunn does not see this as a problem, noting that (1) this is poetical form, and

(2) the nature thereof is allusive, and thus it is not unexpected to encounter synonymous terms.10

Hurtado fundamentally disagrees with Dunn's methodological approach, stating that ‘words

acquire their specific meanings and denotations when used in phrases and sentences with other

words.’11 Dunn's decontextualizing of the word μορφη thus leads him to erroneous conclusions.

Indeed, Hurtado has claimed that Dunn's Adamic interpretation of Phil. 2.6-11 ‘greatly exceeds the

warrants of the passage.’12

When we employ Hurtado's linguistic approach, we find that μορφη θεοῦ is a unique

phrase in Pauline literature, whereas εἰκων (τοῦ) θεοῦ is not. There are two uses of the latter

phrase in the Corinthian letters; the first in 1 Cor. 11.7 is a clear reference (or perhaps 'allusion') to

the creation account in Genesis (‘man … is the image (εἰκων) and glory (δοξα) of God’), and the

other is a christological statement in which Paul sees Christ as the ‘image of God’ (2 Cor. 4.4). It is

worth noting as well that 2 Cor. 4.4 includes the εἰκων/δοξα vocabulary of 1 Cor. 11.7, and as such

it is plausible that this passage refers to Gen. 1.27, especially given Paul's statement in Col. 1.15,

wherein Christ is styled as the ‘image of the invisible God.’13 Hurtado's argument is that these

statements are focused on the ‘status and significance of human creatures’,14 and that Paul

appropriates this idea to make explicit christological statements.15 Thus, he concludes that if Paul

had intended to refer to Jesus in purely humanistic terms, with reference to Adam, then it would

be more probable to expect εἰκων θεοῦ here – as he further notes, in Phil. 2.6-8, apart from the

word ‘God’, there is no repetition of language from the Genesis story.16

Consequently, it seems to be the case that Paul is not explicitly alluding to the account of

Adam in Phil. 2.6-8, but rather we must assume that the μορφη θεοῦ is a novelty in this instance,

and hence its proper meaning must be deduced from the passage itself. A good place to begin this

endeavor is to note, as Dunn does, the parallelism between μορφη θεοῦ and μορφη δουλου in vv. 6-

7. Might it be then possible to say that the manner in which Jesus relates to his status as δουλος is

the same as how he relates to his status as θεος; that is – he actually is that whereof he is in the

10 Dunn, Christ, Adam, and Preexistence, 77.

11 L. W. Hurtado. Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity (Grand Rapids, MI: William B.
Eerdmans Pub., 2003), 121.
12 Hurtado, 121.

13 Whilst the authorship of Colossians is debated, I concede to the view that it contains Pauline features and

reflects his theology overall.

14 Hurtado, 122.

15 Hurtado, 122.

16 Hurtado, 122.
form.17 Hence, if we wish to maintain that Christ actually temporally appeared as a slave, we must

say that he existed/exists (cf. ὐπαρχων) atemporally as θεος beforehand. Furthermore, the use of

the adversative ἀλλα18 of v. 7 makes the contrast between God and slave even more pronounced.

Therefore, I would divide up Phil. 2.6-7d as follows:

A ὡς ἐν μορφη θεου ὑπαρχων

B οὐχ ἁρπαγμον ἡγησατο το εἰναι ἴσα θεου

C ἀλλα ἑαυτον ἐκενωσεν

Α' μορφην δουλου λαβων

B' ἐν ὁμοιωματι ἀνθρωπων γενομενος

C' και σχηματι ἑυρεθεις ὡς ανθρωπος εταπεινωσον ἑαυτον

Divided up in this way, one notes that A and B are bound up with the idea of divinity, and

A' and B' with humanity. Line C, therefore, as stated, heavily emphasizes the distinction between

two natures. Consequently, the ἐκενωσεν of v. 7 should be taken to be indicative of Jesus divesting

himself of divine prerogatives, in order to take (λαβων) the human nature (v. 7c-d). The active

participle would indicate that the subject of the verb, i.e. Jesus, emptied himself for the very

purpose of becoming man. There is a sense of choice in the passage, this interpretation being

strengthened by the presence of the reflexive pronouns, whereby one may see that the taking of

human nature was not something already possessed, but was something he made occur to himself.

If, as Dunn is wont to suggest, Phil. 2.6-11 is wholly about Jesus' earthly sojourn then it becomes

more difficult to explain how Jesus' empties himself and then is born (v. 7). As O'Collins says, ‘it is

what is said in v. 7 that first puts Christ with the community of human beings’ (emphasis his).19

Others have suggested that Jesus' emptying is not about incarnation but rather about his

crucifixion and death, hence Paul's statement that he became obedient to ‘death on a cross’ (Phil.

2.8). For example, Gundry believes Phil. 2.7-8 is an allusion to the Suffering Servant motif in Isaiah

52-53. The reference to κενοσις should be taken, he suggests, as a paraphrase of ‫ הערה למות נפשו‬of

Isa. 53.12.20 Gundry's suggestion may have weight, given that ‫ ערה‬relates semantically to

17 B. B. Thurston. Philippians (Minnesota, USA: Liturgical Press, 2009), 82.

18 O ‘Brien, 191.
19 Gerald O'Collin. Christology: A Biblical, Historical, and Systematic Study of Jesus (Oxford: Oxford University

Press, 2009), 34.

20 R. H. Gundry. The Old Is Better: New Testament Essays in Support of Traditional Interpretations (Tübingen:

Mohr Siebeck, 2005), 289.

‘emptying’ and ‘pouring out’ vessels (as in Gen. 24.20 and 2 Chr. 24.11). However, its primal

meaning is ‘to uncover’ with nuanced meanings covering the semantic field of ‘nakedness’. Thus,

in Isa. 53.12, the Suffering Servant is causing his soul, his life, to be uncovered and exposed to/

before (‫ )ל‬the presence of death. The LXX's translation παραδοθη εἰς θανατου ἡ ψυχη αὐτου bears

this understanding out in that παραδιδωμι means, essentially, ‘to hand over,’21 hence the Servant

is handed over to death. Paul, who utilizes the LXX in his writings, does not choose to use the verb

παραδιδωμι. Others have attempted to argue that the Hebrew verb ‫ ערה‬and the Greek παραδιδωμι

are synonymous. Yet, given Paul's use in his epistles of the term παραδιδωμι in relation to the

crucifixion of Christ, it is very surprising that he does not utilize this term in Phil. 2.7 if he intends

it to relate to Jesus' death, rather than his incarnation (especially since the very passage he is

supposedly alluding to uses the word!) Rom. 4.25, 8.32 and the so-called deutero-Pauline Eph. 5.2,

25 use the verb παραδιδωμι to talk of how Christ ‘handed himself over’ for us. It would have thus

made far more sense had Paul used παραδιδωμι if it were intended to be a reference to the

crucifixion of Christ. I am of the opinion, however, that the use of κενοω is used intentionally to

differentiate AB from A’B’ in the schema which I proposed above. Κενοω ought to be understood

in its immediate linguistic and schematic framework and interpreted as a transitional emptying of

that which characterized Christ in AB, so that he may take on the form of a slave in A’B’.

Therefore, this ‘emptying’ must refer back to the μορφη θεου and εἰναι ἴσα θεου. In the

mythological framework suggested by this hymn,22 I would posit that Paul does not see Christ on

Earth as existing in the form of God and having equality with him because he has descended a

level, i.e. from the divine stratum to the human one. However, upon exaltation back to the divine

stratum he resumes the divine prerogatives, and transforms the humanity in which he ascended (1

Cor. 15.42-44).

In other words, vv. 6-7c present us with a metanarrative; that is, the motif of a descending

being who himself actively takes the human form; furthermore, it is interesting to note the contrast

between reflexive pronouns in vv. 7-8 and those in v. 9 which become the object of θεος. There is a

marked transition between the independence of Christ as God to the total dependence of Christ on

God. Indeed, the conjunctions and reflexive pronouns marked in C and C' above appear to

demarcate the phases of our metanarrative:

21 D. G. Burke. ‚Give.‛ International Standard Bible Encyclopedia: E-J (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans,
2002), 474.
22 See forward to the end of §1.2; also note that Phil. 2.10 is reminiscent of the three-tiered universe of the

Hebrews with its language of the heavenly, earthly, and netherwordly realms.
 1. Christ exists in the form of God

2. But (ἀλλα) he empties himself and becomes a slave, in the likeness of man

3. And (και) subsequently humbles himself to accept death on a cross

4. Whereby he is then exalted with the name ‫( יהוה‬κυριος)

An incarnational reading of this text makes far more sense than Dunn's reading in which

preexistence is not part of the exegesis. For one, v. 7c's use of the participle γενομενος is

suggestive of ‘becoming’ to the point of ‘being born’. The understanding of γινομαι as linked to

birth has precedent in Pauline writings; firstly, in Rom. 1.3 where Jesus is said to have been born of

the seed of David, and secondly in Gal. 4.4 which narrates Jesus' birth of a woman, and birth under

the law.23 Understanding this participle to be referring to birth, it seems likely that with the

contradistinction between God and humankind that Jesus' ‘being found’ (εὑρεθεις) in human form

suggests that it is a novelty not having previously been enjoyed by Jesus, a novelty whereby he

divests himself of equality with God.

§1.2 The Precedence for Preexistence

As well as the linguistic features of this hymn suggesting an incarnational narrative, I

would also propose that this incarnational reading of Phil. 2.6-11 is supported further by the

precedent for preexistent figures within Judaism's traditions and its Scriptures.

It is arguably the case that within the Judaisms of the Second Temple Period, the opinion

was held that the Messiah was a preexistent being. For example, the book of 4 Ezra (written in the

first century CE),24 talks of a human-like figure ‘who the Most High has been keeping for many

ages’ (13.26). The corollary being that he is being kept in order to be revealed.25 Moreover, strands

of this type of idea are also found in 1 Enoch. 1 Enoch 48 narrates the origin of the ‘Son of Man’,

i.e. the Messiah (v. 10). The idea expressed in 1 En. 48 is extremely similar to that of 4 Ez in that the

Messiah's name exists before the world (48.3) and that he has ‘been hidden and chosen … before

the creation of the world’ (48.6). Stuhlmacher strongly opines that v. 6 reveals a preexistent

Messiah with the understanding that more than his name is being talked about:

23 Hurtado, 324.
24 G. C. Jenks. The Origins and Early Development of the Antichrist Myth (Berlin: W. De Gruyter, 1991), 275.
25 B. E. Reynolds. The Apocalyptic Son of Man in the Gospel of John (Tübingen, Germany: Mohr Siebeck, 2008),

54.
 Nach äthHen 48.6 … wurde nicht nur der Name des Menschensohn-Messias

schon … genannt, sondern er war auch in Person bereits … vorborgen vor

Gott … Hier ist ganz deutlich von der Präexistenz des Menschensohn-

Messias die Rede.26 (Emphasis his).

Rabbinic writings around this time (3rd century BCE – 1st century CE) also record the tradition of

the preexistence of the Messiah's name:

Seven things were created before the foundation of the world …

[one of them was] the name of the Messiah (BT Pesahim 54a, cf.

BT Nedarim 39b)

Additionally, other Rabbinic traditions which may have influenced Paul in his Christology

are those which present us with a highly developed view of Adam. Gieschen points to first

century CE Jewish documents as evidence of this. 2 Enoch describes Adam as a principle angel

over creation, as do other documents such as Vita Adae et Evae, which describes Adam as ‘the image

of God’ (cf. 2 Cor. 4.4), and the apocryphal book of Wisdom which gives Adam the cosmological

appellation ‘First-formed Father of the world.’27 These presentations of Adam, and the tradition

which gives rise to them, in my opinion, helped shape Paul's theology of Christ as the second, and

exalted, Adam.

In 1 Cor. 15 Paul juxtaposes Adam and Christ, saying that the former is the ‘man of the

earth’, whilst the latter is ‘the Lord from heaven’ (v. 47), and even calls him ‘the heavenly man’ (v.

48). Gathercole says that this verse is ‘a fairly clear reference’ to Jesus' preexistent state in heaven.28

Moreover, he makes a link between this verse and Rom. 10.6-7, in which Paul asks who will ascend

to heaven in order to bring Christ down.29

The strong parallelism existing between Adam and Jesus in Paul's writings may have been

influenced by the idea of a ‘two Adams’ theology. Such a train of thought is found in the writings

26 P. Stuhlmacher. Biblisches Theologie des neuen Testaments (Göttingen, Germany: Vandenhoek & Ruprecht,
2005), 186.
27 C. A. Gieschen. Angelomorphic Christology: Antecedents and Early Evidence (The Netherlands: BRILL, 1998),

154.
28 S. J. Gathercole. The Preexistent Son: Recovering the Christologies of Matthew, Mark, and Luke (Grand Rapids,

MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2006), 26.

29 Gathercole, 26.
of Philo, who, in his exegesis of Gen. 1.26-27, discusses the ‘earthly man’ and the ‘heavenly man’.30

Additionally, later Midrashic writings more clearly define the functions of these two Adams; e.g.

Genesis Rabbah 8.1 teaches a double Adamic creation; one before the first day of Creation (the

‘heavenly man’), and one after it (‘the earthly man’).31

What must be noted here is that Jewish tradition, especially as found in the Tanakh, does

not present an aversive attitude towards an anthropomorphically-visible God. The prophet

Ezekiel, with whom the mystical merkhabah tradition is identified, describes God in

anthropomorphic terms, specifically as ‘the likeness of a man’ (Eze. 1.26, 8.2). Therefore, what we

see happening in Paul is the Apostle working within the tradition(s) of his time, which informed

him of the Messiah and the cosmological significance of Adam, to construct his christology. My

thesis would be that Paul coalesces these two strands of thought in order to reinterpret Jewish

Midrashim for his Christian audience.

Although I do not have the space to make a more thorough exposition, it seems likely to me

that a common thread runs through the time period in which Paul writes. This tradition sweeps

across from Daniel's and Enoch's Son of Man, on through the Mishnah, Philo's philosophy and

eventually taking shape in Paul's formulation of the person of Jesus. This is not to say that Paul

explicitly used any of the sources which I have cited above, but it must be well-noted that the ideas

present within his theology (two Adamic figure-heads, an arguably pre-existent Messiah, and the

distinction between the heavenly and earthly man) are found before, during, and after the writings

of Paul. Gieschen posits that ‘angelomorphic traditions’, as in Enochic literature, played a key part

in the formulation of early Christology.32 Gieschen analyses prominent themes and phrases within

the Pauline corpus and concludes that the prevalent angelological beliefs of the time had a direct

influence on the developing christology within Pauline thought. Paul's vocabulary which talks of

Christ as ‘the Power’, ‘Wisdom’ and ‘Glory’ all have ‘angelomorphic roots closely linked with the

Angel of the Lord’ of Jewish tradition.33

It does not seem far-fetched to conclude that the Rabbinical environment, which Paul

would have been all too familiar with, allowed Paul to formulate his christology through a

fundamentally Rabbinical exegetical method. The high status accorded to human and angelic

30 S. M. Lee. The Cosmic Drama of Salvation: A Study of Paul's Undisputed Writings from Anthropological and
Cosmological Perspectives (Tübingen, Germany: Mohr Siebeck, 2010), 110.
31 J. Ribera-Florit. "Targum to Ezekiel." Targum and Scripture: Studies in Aramaic Translations and Interpretation

in Memory of Ernest G. Clarke (Leiden: BRILL, 2002), 156.

32 Gieschen, 315.

33 Gieschen, 316.
creatures, and the concept of a ‘prehidden’ Messiah, provides us with a precedence by which we

may interpret Paul's sayings as indicative of a suprahuman and celestial Messiah; a Messiah who,

in some sense, shares the qualities of the Messiah presented in Rabbinic literature. Christ's coming

in the likeness of man in Phil. 2.7 in Paul's theology should rightly be considered a part of the

understanding for Paul that the Messiah was revealed in the fullness of time (Gal. 4.4, cf. Eph. 1.9-

10).

Paul's heavenly man combined with the cosmological/creational elements he attributes to

him (1 Cor. 8.6, Col. 1.16-18), sets him up as being (both pre- and post-earthly) the Lord of all, seen

also in Phil. 2.10-11, and hence the whole meta-narrative of Phil. 2.6-11, when understood through

the ‘hiddenness’ motif (also found in the Pauline corpus, e.g. Eph. 3.9, Col. 1.26, Rom. 16.25-26, 1

Cor. 2.7), ought to be read as a three-phase mythology (also reflected in the structure of the hymn)

of (1) Preexistence, (2) Incarnation, and (3) Exaltation; that is, a descending-ascending Redeemer

myth.34

§2. Jesus' equality with God

Phil. 2.6 presents us with another phrase which we must analyze in order to understand its

significance in the wider meta-narrative. Since the question of this enquiry is whether or not we

can understand Phil. 2.6-11 to be considered incarnational, we must needs attempt to understand

in what manner Paul considered Jesus to be ‘equal with God’ (v. 6). It is my belief that we can view

this statement as Paul's affirmation of the divinity of Christ, in which he is, as Fee says, equal with

the Father in respect to the divine nature.35 Therefore, if this is the case, a 'traditional'

understanding (and perhaps a ‘Proto-Trinitarian’ one) can be maintained. If it can be shown that

Phil. 2.6 refers to Jesus' ontological equality with God, then this bolsters the claim that the text is

incarnational. Our analysis, however, may lead us in other directions. One possibility, similar to

our exegesis of κενοω, is that v. 6's setting is the earth life of Jesus.

The crucial issue in Phil. 2.6 is how we ought to understand the word ἁρπαγμον in

reference to Christ's equality with God. The two meanings of the word are generally understood

to be res rapta and res rapienda. The former designates that Christ already possessed equality with

God and gave it up in becoming man, not viewing his equality as something to be ‘forcefully

34 C. H. Talbert. The Myth of a Descending-Ascending Redeemer in Mediterranean Antiquity. NTS 22 (1976), 418-
440.
35 Fee, 300.
retained’, the latter designates that Christ was not equal with God, and did not regard equality

with him ‘a thing to be forcefully seized’, but became equal by God exalting him after his

obedience to death.36

The structure of the Phil. 2.6-11 gives credence to a res rapienda reading of the text. That vv.

9-10 are the exaltative apogee of the hymn would appear to indicate Christ's exaltation appoints

him to a position not previously held. This interpretation is strengthened by the verb

ὑπερυπσωσεν in v. 9, which, when read at a purely linguistic level, is composed from the affix

ὑπερ- and the verb ὑψοω and thus literally means ‘to exalt highly’. The augmentation of the verb

by the addition of the affix ὑπερ- emphasizes the verb, and perhaps shows that Christ was exalted

to a position higher than that which he erstwhile had. Hence, if his equality with God was res rapta,

there would be no apparent need to state he attained more. This position is taken by J. Jervell who

sees Christ's existence in the form of God in v. 6 as ein Maximum,37 a state to which nothing more

can be added. J. Héring also posits such an exegesis, and states quite emphatically that God's

exaltation of Christ gave him a position superior to the one of his preexistent state.38 However,

such exegesis assumes that ὑπερυπσωσεν would indicate an addition to Christ's nature, which is

not the case. If anything the exaltation was functional, i.e. the actions and obedience of Christ

augmented the function of Christ's divinity, rather than the ontological properties thereof. R. P.

Martin postulates that the extra which Christ received was the exercise of lordship, which could

only be received ‘subsequent to [Christ's] obedience and vindication.’39 The death and resurrection

of Christ are necessary to ensure that he can receive the obeisance given him in Phil. 2.10-11.

Christ did not acquire (more of) the divine nature, but rather the role of his divinity was added to.

As Bockmuehl rightly notes, ‘the context … does not suggest that there was some still some higher

status to which the pre-incarnate Christ might possibly have aspired.’40

The form of the hymn also negates a wholly res rapienda reading. If one equates the ‘form of

God’ with the ‘equality with God’, as the structure of the hymn dictates,41 then res rapta becomes

the most natural understanding of the hymn – Christ exists as God, but regards this existence as

God as something not to be held onto, and chooses to empty himself. In the structure as outlined

in §1, it is apparent that the key terms in A and B are synonymous and parallel with those in A' and

36 G. E. Ladd. A Theology of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1993), 460.
37 R. P. Martin. A Hymn of Christ: Philippians 2:5-11 in Recent Interpretation & in the Setting of Early Christian
Worship (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1997), 149.
38 J. Héring. Le Royaume de Dieu et sa Venue (France: Delachaux & Niestlé, 1959), 163.

39 Martin, 150.

40 M. Bockmuehl. Epistle to the Philippians (London: A & C Black Ltd., 1997), 130.

41 G. Fee. Paul's Letter to the Philippians (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1995), 207.
B'. Just as Christ emptied himself as became a slave as men are, so Christ already existed in the

form of God as God is. To separate the parallelism would destroy both the structure of the hymn

and the chronological aspect of it (suggested by the conjunctions of vv. 7, 9).

If one accepts that the passage ought to be taken in a res rapta sense, the question which

must logically follow is in what sense in Phil. 2.6-11 portraying Jesus as God? The key to the

question lies at the end of the hymn. Paul says that God gives Jesus the ‘name above all names’,

which must, in its Jewish context, necessarily refer to ‫יהוה‬.42 Given that this affirmation takes its

root in the radical ethical monotheism of Deutero-Isaiah (Isa. 45.23), Paul is ostensibly equating

Jesus with ‫יהוה‬. I would suggest that Paul’s phrase ‘name above all names’ has its grounding in the

Semitic word ‫שם‬, and its connotations of authority. Furthermore, the concept of God’s name

residing in someone or something is not within precedent in Jewish tradition and literature. The

angel of Ex. 23.21 has God’s name ‘in him’, and various Enochic beliefs reflect similar angelic ideas.

D. D. Hannah offers parallels between the divine name theology of Ex. 23 and Rabbinic literature,

and also states that Phil. 2.9 is reflective of Ex. 23.21.43 Thus, divine-name-cum-angelological

theology would have been extant in Paul’s time, and I propose that he is essentially drawing on

this tradition. However, Paul radically modifies it, in that he goes above and beyond an angelic

framework. That all creatures in heaven are said to give obeisance to Jesus is enough to show this.

Paul would certainly not afford angels such honors (Col. 2.18).44

Therefore, as regards the extent to which Paul equated Jesus with God, it is probable that

Phil. 2.6-11 contains a high Christology.45 Certainly, the use of Yahwistic texts in reference to Jesus

(which appear often in Paul, viz. Rom. 10.13, Rom. 14.10-11,46 1 Cor. 1.2, etc.) would give him

impetus to utilize this early Christian hymn, which suggests that Paul does indeed accord Jesus a

substantially high status. Without a doubt, we must regard these Pauline declarations as

historically noteworthy, especially considering the monotheistic background from which Paul

writes. Consequently, the question which logically follows and must be addressed is how this high

Christology was able to fit into Paul’s monotheistic faith.

§3. Reconciling the Faith

42 S. E. Fowl. Philippians (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2005), 207.

43 D. D. Hannah. Michael and Christ: Michael Traditions and Angel Christology in Early Christianity (Tübingen,
Germany: Mohr Siebeck, 1999), 111.
44 See n. 13.

45 C. S. Evans. Exploring Kenotic Christology: The Self-Emptying of God (New York, NY: Oxford University Press,

2006), 130.
46 Accepting the variant ‘judgment seat of Christ’ over ‘… of God’.
 Hurtado's Lord Jesus Christ deals with the devotion to Jesus in early Christianity, and thus

naturally discusses Paul and his attitude towards christological devotion. Hurtado acknowledges

that Paul ‘continued to be deeply shaded’ by his Jewish heritage and that his theology was ‘heavily

indebted to biblical and Jewish categories’47 as is readily seen in Paul's use of Hebrew scripture to

justify his claims about Jesus as Messiah (e.g. Gal. 3, Rom. 4). Moreover, Hurtado claims that the

basic identifier of Jewish tradition was its monotheism, as opposed to the polytheistic religions in

which Jews living in the Roman period found themselves entrenched.48

The question that we must then ask ourselves is how we ought to understand Paul's lofty

assertions of Jesus in the face of Jewish monotheism. Hurtado does not overlook this issue, for he

states that ‘the level of reverence for Christ reflected in Paul's letters is historically remarkable, and

will require some explanation.’49

Fee notes that Paul ‘seldom puts any emphasis on the basic Jewish theological reality that

there is only one God.’50 It is as basic presupposition for him. In view of this, the language which

he uses of the Son and the Spirit in the work of salvation and their participation in creation (1 Cor.

8.6, Col. 1.15-17) is theologically interesting. Paul’s experience of the risen Christ lead him to re-

envisage the divine unity which his Jewish faith had taught him. Barker’s conclusion that Jesus’

Messiahship is to be attributed to the fact that he is Yahweh manifest has a lot to be said for it.51

Essentially this would mean that Paul’s monotheism was (a) modalistic, or (b) economically

Trinitarian (so Fee). The oneness of God as taught by Judaism, in either case, is maintained insofar

as Yahweh is the only source of divinity.

§4. Conclusion

The intent of this essay was to establish whether the text of Phil. 2.6-11 presented a mythos

which can be said to be ‘incarnational’. In the introduction I set out the criteria by which this claim

would be assessed, namely:

1. Does Phil. 2 present Jesus as a preexistent being?

2. In what sense is he ‘equal with God’ (v. 6)?

3. How is (2) reconciled given Paul's monotheistic faith?

47 Hurtado, 87.
48 Hurtado, 91.
49 Hurtado, 91.

50 Fee, Pauline Christology, 591.

51 M. Barker. The Great Angel: A Study of Israel’s Second God (Bristol, UK: London Press Ltd., 1992), 3.
 In summary, the answer to (1) must be taken in the affirmative. In light of Phil. 2.6-11’s

structure and the stylistic and linguistic usage of the verb κενοω within it, any other conclusion

would be difficult to sustain. Certainly, this is the reason why Dunn’s exegesis must be rejected,

since it both does away with the natural chronology of the hymn and fails to appreciate the crucial

difference between εἰκων and μορφη, by which Paul’s high Christology is deduced. Secondly,

given what was inferred in (1) and acknowledging Paul’s monotheism, the affirmation that Christ

is ‘equal to God’ in a preexistent state indicates Paul saw Christ as either (a) being the God of Israel

(Phil. 2.10-11), or (b) being the full representation of God in the flesh (a view rooted in

angelomorphic ideologies). As I said, Paul clearly goes beyond what one would find in

angelomorphic traditions and ascribes to Jesus much more than that which is ascribed angels. Paul

saw the πλήρωμα τῆς θεότητος as dwelling in Christ, and N. T. Wright notes that the choice of the

word θεοτης is significant because it represents deity himself, as opposed to θειοτης, which may

be used of lesser beings as compared to God.52

To offer a final conclusion then, it appears that Phil. 2.6-11 reveals a theology in which

Christ is a preexistent divine being, who empties himself of this divinity in some sense, and

becomes identified with humanity because of his birth. Subsequently, Phil. 2.6-11 is certainly an

incarnational text.

52N. T. Wright. Tyndale New Testament Commentaries: Colossians and Philippians (Leicester, England:
Intervarsity Press, 1986), 103.