ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

In the course of this project, I have accumulated many debts.

Most of them are not the sort that are easily repaid. Neverthe-
less, I would like to take some space here to acknowledge and
thank some of those to whom I feel most grateful.
First, thanks are due to the Rev. Dr A.C. Thiselton and Dr
A.T. Lincoln. Dr Thiselton supervised this research during my
first two years in Sheffield. Indeed, it was his interest in
hermeneutics and encouraging correspondence that origi-
nally brought me to Sheffield. Dr Lincoln had the unenviable
task of taking over supervision of this thesis when it was
already well under way. In spite of this, he has helped greatly
to improve my work, and I am thankful for his open mind and
sharp eye for detail. Needless to say, I take full responsibility
for any errors of omission or commission in this thesis.
Less tangibly, I have benefitted from the stimulating atmos-
phere in the Department of Biblical Studies in Sheffield. In
particular I must thank Alan Winton and Mark Brett for
countless cups of coffee and hours of conversation.
One does not complete a Ph.D. without financial support. I
want to acknowledge the assistance of the Overseas Research
Student Scholarship Scheme and the Tyndale Fellowship. In
addition, my parents and my parents-in-law have provided
support that went well beyond monetary aid.
Lastly, I must thank Melinda who has had to live with this
project as well as her own research. Her love and companion-
ship have been a sustaining influence on me, and it is to her
that I dedicate this book.
 ABBREVIATIONS

ANRW Aufstieg und Niedergang der romischen Welt

BGD Bauer, W., A Greek-English Lexicon of the
New Testament and Other Early Christian
Literature, 2nd edn, trans., rev., and
augmented by F.W. Gingrich and F.W.
Danker (Chicago: University of Chicago Press,
1958)
BDF Blass, F. and Debrunner, A., A Greek
Grammar of the New Testament, trans, and
rev. R. Funk (Chicago: University of Chicago
Press, 1961)
Bib Biblica
BTB Biblical Theology Bulletin
BZ Biblische Zeitschrift
BJRL Bulletin of the John Rylands Library
CBQ Catholic Biblical Quarterly
Corp. Herm. Corpus Hermeticum in the 2nd edition of A.
Nock, trans. A.-J. Festugiere (Paris: «Les
Belles Lettres», 1960)
EvTh Evangelische Theologie
ExpT Expository Times
FRLANT Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des
Alten und Neuen Testaments
HNT Handbuch zum Neuen Testament
HTR Harvard Theological Review
Herders
TKNT Herders theologischer Kommentar zum
Neuen Testament
ICC International Critical Commentary
Int Interpretation
JAC Jahrbuch filr Antike und Christentum
JBL Journal of Biblical Literature
10 The Story of Christ in the Ethics of Paul

JJS Journal of Jewish Studies

JR Journal of Religion
JSNT(S) Journal for the Study of the New Testament
(Supplements)
JSOT(S) Journal for the Study of the Old Testament
(Supplements)
JSS Journal of Semitic Studies
JTS o.s/n.s. Journal of Theological Studies old/new series
LSJ Liddell, H.G. and Scott, R., A Greek-English
Lexicon, new edn, rev. and augmented by H.S.
Jones aided by R. McKenzie (Oxford:
Clarendon, 1940)
NCB New Century Bible
NICNT New International Commentary on the New
Testament
NTC New Testament Commentary (as in Black's
NTC)
NTS New Testament Studies
NTD Das Neue Testament Deutsch
NovT Novum Testamentum
RB Revue biblique
RQ Revue de Qumran
RHPR Revue d'histoire et de philosophie religieuses
SJT Scottish Journal of Theology
SBLDS Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation
Series
SNTSMS Society for New Testament Studies
Monograph Series
SBT Studies in Biblical Theology
SNT Studien zum Neuen Testament
StTh Studia Theologica
VF Verkilndigung und Forschung
VT Vetus Testamentum
WMANT Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten
und Neuen Testament
WUNT Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum
Neuen Testament
WBC Word Biblical Commentary
(B)ZNW (Beihefte zur) Zeitschrift fur die
neutestamentliche Wissenschaft
 Abbreviations 11

ZTK Zeitschrift fur Theologie und Kirche

We hope that abbreviations of biblical books, Qumran material

and all other abbreviations are self-explanatory. Citations
from Hellenistic texts are from the relevant editions of the
Loeb Classical Library unless otherwise noted.
 INTRODUCTION

This work ultimately says something about a certain form of

moral discourse in Paul's epistles. It does this through a
detailed analysis of the function of specific hymnic texts
focussed on Christ. In this light, it may be useful to begin by
briefly discussing the ways in which this work differs from
previous works on NT hymns1 (particularly the older works
of J. Weiss, A. Seeberg, E. Norden, J. Kroll and E. Lohmeyer).2
This will also provide an opportunity to explain the way in
which we will use certain terms.
First, however, we should establish the limits of our discus-
sion: we shall be concerned only with hymnic material focused

1 R. Deichgraber in his book Gotteshymnus und Christushymnus der

friihen Christenheit (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1967),
pp. 11-21, provides a detailed account of the development of scholar-
ship on NT hymns.
2 See J. Weiss, 'Beitrage zur paulinischen Rhetorik', in Theologische
Studien fur B. Weiss (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1897),
pp. 165-247. Weiss is primarily concerned with noting different
rhetorical forms in the Pauline epistles. A. Seeberg, Der Katechis-
mus der JJrchristenheit (Leipzig: Teubner, 1903). Seeberg's interest
was in reconstructing an early Christian catechism from the earli-
est missionary proclamations of the NT. He was, thus, involved in
isolating traditional materials. E. Norden, Der antike Kunstprosa, 2
vols. (Leipzig: Teubner, 1898) and Agnostos Theos (Stuttgart: Teub-
ner, 1912, 31956) (see text for comments on Norden.) J. Kroll,
Christliche Hymnodik bis zu Clemens von Alexandria (Konigsberg:
Harlung, 1921). Kroll sought to further Norden's work into the ori-
gin and construction of hymns in the first century. Of Lohmeyer's
numerous works, two that will be of particular interest to us are
Kyrios Jesus, Sitzungsbericht der Heidelberger Akademie der Wis-
senschaften Phil.-hist. Kl. Jahr 1927-28 (Heidelberg: Winter, 1961)
and Die Briefe an die Philipper, an die Kolosser und an Philemon,
Meyer's NTK (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1930).
14 The Story of Christ in the Ethics of Paul

on Christ. There are at least two reasons for what may at first
sight appear to be an arbitrary limitation. The first reason is a
practical one related to space constraints. Secondly, we believe
that the three passages we discuss (Phil. 2.6-11; Col. 1.15-20; 1
Tim. 3.16b) are sufficiently alike and sufficiently different
from other passages to justify examining them as a separate
group. The arguments for this are set out in Chapters 1 and 2.1
The first respect in which our work differs from previous
work on NT hymns concerns the question of the form and
definition of a hymn. Most of the previous work on this ques-
tion is indebted to E. Norden's philological research into the
Tormengeschichte' of religious speech in antiquity.2 More
recently, two works have appeared which, based on criteria
largely derived from Norden, are primarily interested in for-
mally identifying NT hymns.3 The first is G. Schille's Friih-

1 For a variety of reasons we do not examine material outside those

epistles traditionally ascribed to Paul. It may, however, prove useful
to note briefly two texts whose form, content and function display
similarities to those of the passages we are considering. The first is
1 Pet. 2.22ff. While this passage shares some of the formal charac-
teristics of the passages we discuss, we would probably not include
it in our discussion for the same reasons we do not include Col.
2.9fF. and Eph. 2.14. That is, as they stand now, all of these passages
are so firmly integrated into the discourse of their respective epistles
that it is difficult to see them as separate units. (See our discussion
of this point in Chapter 1.) Having said this, the function of 1 Pet.
2.22ff. is most like that of Phil. 2.6-11. In both cases Christ's activity
is presented as a norm to which believers should conform. In the
case of 1 Pet. 2.22ff. the problem would be to show how 2.24ff., which
would have to be included in the passage on formal grounds, could
be applied to the activity of believers. The other non-Pauline passage
we might have discussed is Heb. 1.3. Again, formally, there are
similarities between this text and those we will discuss. To a greater
degree than 1 Pet. 2, however, this text conforms completely to its
present context and one would be hard pressed to see it as a separa-
ble piece of discourse.
2 See particularly Norden, 1956, pp. 253fF. For an evaluation of Nor-
den's influence see Deichgraber, pp. 14ff.
3 It is not our intention to ignore the pioneering work of Lohmeyer in
regard to Phil. 2.6-11 and Col. 1.15-20. It should be noted, however,
that Lohmeyer's work has not had the enduring influence of Nor-
den's. For example, see Kasemann's evaluation of Lohmeyer on
 Introduction 15

christliche Hymnen.1 Schille's study reflects standard form-

critical interests in that its goal is to establish and to define
more specifically the various types of NT hymns, and to
determine what role these hymns played in the life of the early
church. Schille notes three problems in regard to this enter-
prise: 1. There is a paucity of materials on which one can base
such a project. 2. The materials which do exist are secondary.
They exist only as parts of larger texts and must, therefore, be
reconstructed. 3. We have little knowledge of Christian festi-
vals in which hymns would have been used.2 Nevertheless,
using stylistic criteria derived primarily from Norden,3 Schille
identifies thirty hymns in the text of the NT. He situates all of
these hymns in either the baptismal or the eucharistic services
of the earliest church.4
The second of these works is R. Deichgraber's Gotteshym-
nus und Christushymnus in der friihen Christenheit.5 Deich-
graber is critical of the way Schille applies various criteria in
order to identify the hymns of the NT.6 Deichgraber thinks
that a more judicious application of these criteria is needed in

Phil. 2.6-11 in 'Kritische Analyse von Phil. 2.5-11', ZTK 47 (1950),

pp. 313-60, trans. A. Carse in Journal for Theology and the Church
5 (1968), pp. 46-59. All future citations will be from the English.
1 (Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1962). A work roughly con-
temporary with Schille's, J. Schattenmann's Studien zum neutes-
tamentlichen Prosahymnus (Munich: Beck, 1965), has always been
considered idiosyncratic because it identifies hymns by counting
words and syllables to see if one can reconstruct balanced strophes.
Schattenmann justified this by stating the Pythagorean dictum that
'Number and Rhythm are spiritual principles' (see his preface).
2 See Schille, p.ll.
3 These criteria include the use of second or third person singular
pronouns to begin the hymn, participial predications and relative
clauses, celebratory and elevated style, and the use of parallelismus
membrorum. See Norden, 1956, pp. 253ff.; appendix 5 and 1898,
pp.811ff.
4 See Schille, p.21.
5 See above, p. 13 n. 1.
6 'Schille hat freilich eine entscheidende Schwache: in dem Verlan-
gen, hymnisches Gut aufzuspiiren, geht Schille viel zu weit und
gerat immer wieder an prosische Texte, die er aber als poetisch
strukturiert auffaBt' (Deichgraber, p. 18).
16 The Story of Christ in the Ethics of Paul

order to circumscribe the exaggerated results of Schille's

work. In spite of the numerous criticisms he makes of Schille's
work, however, Deichgraber conceives of his task in much the
same way. His interests are primarily form-critical.1
Deichgraber carefully applies to the NT the same basic cri-
teria for identifying a hymn that Schille used. The result of
this care is that Deichgraber identifies one hymn to God (Rom.
11.33-36) along with several hymn fragments in the NT. In
addition, he locates five hymns to Christ (Phil. 2.5-11; Col.
1.15-20; 1 Tim. 3.16b; Heb. 1.3; 1 Pet. 2.21ff.) along with some
smaller hymn fragments. Further, Deichgraber recognizes
that there is virtually no evidence that would allow one to
establish a Sitz im Leben for these hymns that is any more
specific than simply the worship of the earliest church.2 As a
result of his rigor and cautious use of evidence, Deichgraber's
work has become the standard form-critical discussion of NT
hymns.
We generally accept the basic formal observations of Schille
and Deichgraber in regard to the passages we discuss. That is,
we agree that there are certain stylistic features of these pas-
sages that both link them to one another and separate them
from the discourse of the epistles in which they appear. These
formal criteria provide us with reasons for examining these
passages as a separate group. What we reject is the notion
that, based on these formal criteria, there is any reason to call
these passages hymns in any of the senses of 'hymn' used by
Schille, Deichgraber and others (i.e. a formalized expression of
praise from the worship of the earliest church). Further, the
principles used in reconstructing the original 'hymns' behind
these passages and in situating them in some sort of Sitz im
Leben of the earliest church are unconvincing. For our part,
the only claim we make in calling these passages 'hymns' or
'hymnic' is that these passages represent reflection on an
exalted religious figure in language that could justifiably be

1 See Deichgraber, p. 19. Deichgraber consciously avoided discussing

the hymns in the Apocalypse as he felt it was a large enough task to
be covered on its own. K.-P. Jorns took up this task in Das hymni-
sche Evangelium, SNT 5 (Giitersloh: Mohn, 1971).
2 See Deichgraber, p. 132.
 Introduction 17

called poetic. Our disagreement on this point, however, is more

than just semantic. This is because, once a passage has been
identified as a hymn, one often finds that various claims are
then made on behalf of such a passage that would otherwise be
unsubstantiated. Again, arguments for this position will be
advanced in Chapters 1 and 2.
Concerning the content of these passages, our agreements
and differences with previous work will be evident in our dis-
cussions of particular exegetical issues. At a more general
level, however, it is not our intention to follow the paths
charted by two recent writers on NT hymns, J.T. Sanders and
K. Wengst.
In his 1971 monograph The New Testament Christological
Hymns: Their Historical Religious Background1 Sanders
shows little interest in the form-critical issues which occupied
Deichgraber and Schille.2 As his title suggests, Sanders is pri-
marily interested in the history of religions backgrounds to
these texts. Sanders finds a convergence of different mythical
motifs in the NT hymns. These motifs have their background
in pre-Christian Judaism.3 Sanders reconstructs a myth of
cosmic reconciliation that had become part of a developing
redeemer myth in pre-Christian Judaism. This myth pro-
vided Christianity with a convenient explanation for the
Christ-event.4
The Wisdom circles of Judaism, then, where the thanks-

1 SNTSMS 15 (Cambridge: CUP, 1971).

2 Sanders does very little formal or form-critical analysis. He does,
however, try to rely on the precise form-critical use of the term
'hymn' found in form-critical analyses of the Psalms (see pp. 2ff.).
This could have moved the formal and form-critical work on NT
hymns in a different direction from that of Deichgraber and Schille.
As it turns out, however, Sanders was unwilling to pursue this
point at length (see below p. 18 n. 7), and actually adopts a list of
hymns virtually identical to Deichgraber's. The two additions
Sanders makes are Eph. 2.14-16 which Deichgraber called a small
fragment of a Christ-hymn (pp. 164ff.) and the prologue to John's
Gospel, which Deichgraber chose not to discuss because of its par-
ticular difficulties (p. 21).
3 See Sanders, p. 97.
4 See Sanders, p. 98.
18 The Story of Christ in the Ethics of Paul

giving hymn was most at home, seem to have provided the

most convenient point of entry for redeemer motifs from
other religions into Judaism, or to have provided the best
possibility of a merger. The NT christological hymns reflect
one stage in this process, at which time the aspect of cosmic
redemption was added to the role of the variously named
mythical beings of Judaism.
Coming after Sanders' book is K. Wengst's Christologische
Formeln und Lieder des Urchristentums.2 Wengst attempts
to look at a wide variety of material including traditional for-
mulas and larger 'Lieder'. This places him both in the tradi-
tion of hymn research and in a tradition which is interested in
confessional formulas, characterized by the work of O. Cull-
mann and V. Neufeld.3
Wengst starts from the premise, I t has long been recog-
nized that early Christianity was not a monolithic group.
Therefore, one must inquire after the theological and histori-
cal background behind each individual formula.'4 By studying
various shifts in motifs and vocabulary among the traditional
materials in the NT Wengst hopes to determine whether a
formula comes from an Aramaic-speaking Jewish church, a
Greek-speaking Jewish church or a Greek-speaking Gentile
church.5 As might be expected, Wengst is critical of Sanders
for seeking a monolithic background for the NT hymns in
Judaism. 6 According to Wengst, Sanders seems to have
assumed that because all of the hymn texts he discussed fol-
lowed, at a formal level, the conventions of Hebrew psalmody,
the content of these passages also emerged from a Jewish
milieu. While this might be true as a matter of contingent fact,
it cannot be assumed a priori as Sanders seems to do.7

1 See Sanders, p. 139.

2 (Gutersloh: Mohn, 1972).
3 See O. Cullmann, The Earliest Christian Confessions, trans. J.K.S.
Reid (London: Lutterworth, 1949) and V.H. Neufeld, The Earliest
Christian Confessions (Leiden: Brill, 1963).
4 See Wengst, p. 11.
5 See Wengst, p. 11.
6 See Wengst, p. 24.
7 At this point we may find an indication of the reason for Sanders'
interest in the Psalms. He was not really interested in formal com-
 Introduction 19

In spite of their differences, it will be clear that both Sanders

and Wengst are primarily interested in the content of these
passages as a basis from which to dig into the background of
each text, enabling them to make claims about the very earli-
est stages of Christianity (assuming the relative antiquity of
these passages). Without attempting finally to arbitrate this
dispute in favor of Sanders or Wengst (or neither),1 and with-
out denigrating the type of historical interests their works
reflect, we merely wish to point out that our work is not inter-
ested in this particular issue. It is not necessary for our exami-
nations of the content or the function of these passages in their
epistolary contexts to determine their history of religions
background. We will rely on a variety of texts to help illumine
the texts in which we are interested, but in order to do this we
do not need to fit all of these texts into a specific historical
matrix. In addition, our work on the form of these passages in
Chapters 1 and 2 will indicate that we do not believe there is
sufficient evidence to situate these texts in another historical
context that would be specific enough to sustain the sorts of
history of religions examinations carried out by Sanders and
Wengst. For, while neither of them engages in much form-
critical work, their reconstructions depend on the very form-
critical conclusions which we think are unsubstantiated.
Finally, all of the works we have mentioned here (and they
are paradigmatic of work in this area) have concentrated on
abstracting these passages from their present context in order
to explore some aspect of the history of these passages. Very
little attention has been devoted to understanding these pas-
sages within the context of the epistles in which they appear.2

parisons as such. Rather, he was looking for evidence of a Jewish

background for the texts he examines.
1 See, for example, J. Murphy-O'Connor, 'Christological Anthropol-
ogy in Phil. 2,6-11', RB 83 (1976), pp. 25-50.
2 Deichgraber offers some comments on the paraenetic use of hymnic
material (pp. 186-96). This, however, is a relatively brief attempt,
concentrating mainly on Phil. 2.5-11. Another exception to this is C.
Burger's discussion of Col. 1.15-20 in Schopfung und Versohnung,
WMANT 46 (Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 1975). We will dis-
cuss Burger's work at greater length in our own discussions of Col.
His examination of the function of Col. 1.15-20, however, is primar-
20 The Story of Christ in the Ethics of Paul

Even the commentaries on these epistles, because of their

rather larger interests, have not thoroughly explored the role
that each of these hymnic passages plays in the argument of
their respective epistles. This is what we will attempt to do in
our discussions of the function of the Christ-focussed hymnic
material in Paul.
We hope to show that none of these passages is directly con-
cerned with christology in the sense of later creeds and defini-
tions. That is, Paul does not use these passages to argue for one
christological position over another. From the way in which
Paul presents these stories about Christ and employs them in
his discourse, it is clear he does not expect there to be any
argument over their content. Rather, Paul relies on these
poetic pictures of Christ to support what might generally be
called ethical positions, countering the influence of false
teaching (though not explicitly false teaching about Christ) in
each of the epistles.
This, then, is an outline of the specific issues we will cover in
our discussion of the form, content and function of the Christ-
focused hymnic material in the Pauline corpus. We should,
however, make some final remarks about the scope of this
work. We use the term 'Pauline corpus' to refer to those let-
ters traditionally ascribed to Paul. Likewise, Paul' will be used
to refer to the author ascribed to these epistles without making
any judgment about whether or not it refers to the apostle
Paul. As the authorship of both Colossians and 1 Timothy is
disputed, none of our claims will depend on a precise
identification of the author of those epistles.

ily founded on noting the repetition of lexical items from 1.15-20 in

the rest of the epistle. This is also true of M. Hooker's work on Phil.
2.6-11. See Thilippians 2.6-11' in Jesus und Paulus, Festschrift for
W.G. Kiimmel, ed. E. Grasser and E.E. Ellis (Gottingen: Vanden-
hoeck & Ruprecht, 1975), pp. 152ff. While these sorts of observations
are potentially useful for a discussion of the function of the passages
we are interested in, they are not adequate in themselves, and can
be misleading (see Chapter 4, p. 77 note 1). Rather, what is needed is
a close examination of the argumentation of each epistle. It is this
element which we believe is lacking in attempts to examine the
function of the hymnic material within their respective epistles.
 Chapter 1

THE SCOPE OF THE PROJECT

The aim of this chapter is to establish which texts will be con-

sidered in our examination of hymnic material in Paul, and
why. We will first look at the three passages which will count
as hymns for our purposes, Phil. 2.6-11, Col. 1.15-20 and 1
Tim. 3.16b. Having looked at the characteristics which make
it reasonable to group these texts together we will look at some
passages which we might have included in this group, but for
various reasons we will not consider.

Philippians 2.6-11
The first passage we discuss is Phil. 2.6-11. The particular
formal characteristics of this passage have made it an object of
discussion for several generations of scholars.1 This passage
represents a sharp break in the discourse of the epistle. The
focus shifts from the Philippian church in v. 5 to Christ Jesus
in v. 6, returning to the Philippians in v. 12. This shift is intro-
duced by a relative pronoun, bq. The passage then goes on to
describe certain aspects of Christ's activity. This description
employs a large number of participles and exhibits a sort of
parallelism similar to that noted by J. Kugel in Hebrew
poetry.2
Kugel's view is a revision of the idea of parallelisrnus mem-
brorum first presented by R. Lowth in 1753, and most familiar
1 For a summary of research on this passage see R.P. Martin, Car-
men Christi, rev. edn (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983).
2 J. Kugel, The Idea of Biblical Poetry (New Haven: Yale U.P., 1981).
The fact that these conventions appear in Greek texts is not
unusual. See Sir. 51; Judith 16; the Greek additions to Daniel; also
S. Segert, 'Semitic Poetic Structures in the New Testament', ANRW
II, 25.2 (1984), pp. 1438ff.
24 The Story of Christ in the Ethics of Paul

to NT scholars through the work of E. Norden.1 Kugel's view

of parallelism is characterized by the notion of 'seconding*.
The sentence 'A is so, and what's more, B is so' provides a
model for this seconding process.2 That is, clause B is a contin-
uation of clause A, or a going beyond clause A in force or
specificity.3 The virtue of Kugel's description of parallelism is
that it accounts for numerous, different ways that B can sec-
ond A. This is opposed to the three ways (antithetic, synony-
mous and synthetic) described by Lowth.4 A good example of
this seconding in Phil. 2.6-11 is v. 6 where the first clause, oq ev
Geou i)7cdp%cov, is seconded by the next clause, ot>%
fiyriaaxo TO elvai i'aa Gew.5 This sort of style is
repeated throughout w . 6-11 in sharp contrast to the sur-
rounding verses.
Our aim here is not to develop a detailed stylistic analysis of
this passage. Rather, we are merely interested to show that
Phil. 2.6-11 is a distinct unit within the epistle both because of
its shift in focus from the Philippians to Christ and because of
its particular formal and stylistic characteristics, which could
reasonably be called poetic. To move beyond this minimal
claim would involve us in a host of very contentious issues. For
now, we will be content with this limited claim, which is
acceptable to virtually all scholars who have written on this
passage.

1 R. Lowth, De Sacra Poesi Hebraeorum Praelectiones Academicae

(Oxford: Clarendon, 1821); E. Norden, Agnostos Theos, 4th edn
(Stuttgart: Teubner, 1956), pp. 260ff.
2 See Kugel, pp. Iff.
3 See Kugel, p. 7.
4 Kugel's classic comment in regard to this is, 'Biblical parallelism is
of one sort, "A, and what's more, B" or a hundred sorts; but it is not
three' (p. 58).
5 The fact that one clause is longer than the other is of little conse-
quence as this sort of parallelism is based primarily on relations
between the content of each clause. Nor does this sort of parallelism
need to be limited to the relationship of two clauses to each other.
Three and four clauses can stand in a parallel relationship. See
W.G.E. Watson, Classical Hebrew Poetry, JSOTS 26 (Sheffield:
JSOT, 1984), pp. 177ff.
 1. The Scope of the Project 25

Colossians 1.15-20
Moving on to Col. 1.15-20 we find that this passage as a dis-
tinct unit also has a long history of scholarly interest.1 Like
Phil. 2.6-11 this passage represents a shift in the focus of the
epistle's discourse. From 1.9ff. the discourse is directed at the
Colossians in the form of Paul's prayer for them. Even in
w. 12-14 where Paul begins to thank the Father for his saving
activity in Christ, the focus is still on how this activity has
affected the Christian church of which the Colossians are a
part.2 In v. 15, however, the focus is solely on Christ and his
activity. This continues until v. 21 where the Colossians are
again directly addressed.
As in Phil. 2.6-11 the shift in focus is introduced by the rela-
tive pronoun, OQ, which is repeated in v. 18. This passage con-
tains several predications about Christ. Hence, there are fewer
participial constructions than in Phil. 2.6-11, which is more
interested in describing Christ's activity. There is, however, a
similar degree of parallelism in the clauses of this passage
which is not characteristic of the surrounding verses. An
additional stylistic feature of this passage is the use of lists in
v. 16.3 Hence, as with Phil. 2.6-11, we find in Col. 1.15-20 a dis-
tinctive passage poetically describing certain aspects of
Christ's person and work.

1 Timothy 3.16b
There is one other passage in the Pauline corpus that is simi-
lar to these two passages, 1 Tim. 3.16b. In many ways this pas-
sage is the most stylized of those we have looked at. It is also

1 See J. Gabathuler, Jesus Christus, Haupt der Kirche—Haupt der

Welt: Der Christushymnus Kolosser 1,15-20 in der theologischen
Forschung der letzten 130 Jahre (Zurich: Zwingli, 1965), who traces
the beginning of scholarly interest in this passage back to Schleier-
macher.
2 See iKavcooavxi -b|xag (r^iac), v. 12; o<; eppvaaxo riixaq, v. 13; ev a> exojiev,
v. 14.
3 The use of lists seems to have been an acceptable poetic convention
in both hellenistic Greek and in Hebrew. See K. Berger,
'Hellenistische Gattungen im Neuen Testament', ANRW, II, 25.2
(1984), pp. 1152ff.; also Watson, pp.351ff.; B. Kittel, The Hymns of
Qumran, SBLDS 50 (Missoula: Scholars Press, 1981), pp. 160-61.
26 The Story of Christ in the Ethics of Paul

the passage which is most easily separated from the sur-

rounding discourse. Verse 16a provides an introduction which
stresses the distinctiveness of the following clauses. 1 By the
beginning of 1 Tim. 4 Paul has returned to addressing Tim-
othy personally.
This passage, like the previous two, is introduced by oq.2
Unlike the other two passages, the antecedent of oq is only
implied. There is, however, little doubt that the implied subject
of the following verbs is Christ. 3 As we noted above, this pas-
sage is the most stylized of the three. This is reflected in the use
of six aorist passive verbs followed by six dative nouns (in all
but one case preceded by the preposition ev). Further, scholars
have long recognized the parallelism of the clauses in this pas-
sage.4
With the inclusion, then, of 1 Tim. 3.16b we have a group of
three texts which all poetically describe various aspects of
Christ's person and work. They all represent distinct shifts in
both the focus and style of the discourse of their respective
epistles. Their focus is on Christ, and they exhibit similar for-
mal characteristics. As a result, we would claim that we are
justified in examining them as a distinct group. Nor would we
be the first to do so.5

Other Passages which Might Have Been Included

One might wonder, however, whether other texts in Paul
should also be included in this group. Certainly, other Pauline

1 We will cover the exegetical complexities of this verse in Chapter 6.

2 See our discussion in Chapter 7 of the text-critical issues involved
here.
3 See W. Stenger, Der Christushymnus 1 Tim. 3,16: Eine struktur-
analytische Untersuchung (Frankfurt: P. Lang, 1977), p. 51; J.N.D.
Kelly, The Pastoral Epistles, Black's NTC (London: A. & C. Black,
1963), p. 89.
4 See Norden, 1956, pp. 254ff.; Stenger, pp. 54ff.; also R. Gundry, The
Form, Meaning and Background of the Hymn Quoted in 1 Tim.
3:16', in Apostolic History and the Gospelt Festschrift for F.F. Bruce,
ed. W. Gasque and R.P. Martin (Exeter: Paternoster, 1970), p. 205.
5 Schille, Deichgraber, Sanders and Wengst all discuss these pas-
sages, although they also include other passages in their discus-
sions.
 1. The Scope of the Project 27

passages are sometimes mentioned in the same breath with

the three we have looked at. At this point we will turn to dis-
cuss some of those texts which we might have included. We
would argue, however, that based on the criteria we have
used, there are no other Pauline passages which we should
include in this group.
Clearly, one would have to call a passage like 1 Cor. 13
poetic. Just as clearly, however, the focus of this passage—the
superiority of dydTcri—is quite different from the passages we
have noted. The same reason could also hold for rejecting
those Pauline passages which Deichgraber calls 'Gottes-
hymnen', Rom. 11.33-36; Eph. 1.3-14; 2 Cor. l.Sf.1 There are,
however, at least two Pauline passages whose focus is directed
more towards Christ, and which scholars have occasionally
called hymns: Col. 2.9(13)-15 and Eph. 2.14-(16)18.2
In Col. 2.9-11 there is some repetition of the vocabulary of
1.15-20. In fact, we will argue later that the primary function
of 1.15-20 is to support the argument carried out in 2.8-23.
This repetition, however, is not a necessary or sufficient reason
for placing this passage with the three we have already exam-
ined.3 In addition, based on the criteria we have used in distin-
guishing Phil. 2.6-11, Col. 1.15-20 and 1 Tim. 3.16b, there are

1 See Deichgraber, pp. 60-87. This is not to deny that these passages
could be called hymns in some senses of the word. Rather, we are
only making a claim about an essential difference between these
passages and the ones we are interested in.
2 See Schille, pp. 24ff.; C. Burger, Schopfung und Versohnung
(Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 1975), pp. 79ff., 144ff. Wengst
calls Col. 2.13-15 a piece from a baptismal liturgy (pp. 186ff.), and
Eph. 2.14-18 a Redemption song (pp. 18Iff.). Sanders argues that
Eph. 2.14-16 is a hymn in 'Hymnic Elements in Ephesians 1-3', ZNW
56 (1965), pp. 214-32.
3 This is not to deny that there is some very unusual vocabulary in
these verses. We have, however, consciously avoided relying on
unusual vocabulary as a criterion of relevance for the work we are
doing. There are two reasons for this. First, there seems to be no
necessary reason to link any particular word to a particular form of
utterance. Secondly, in the particular language system we are con-
cerned with we do not have a large enough sample to indicate sci-
entifically that a particular word is conventionally found in a cer-
tain type of utterance.
28 The Story of Christ in the Ethics of Paul

several elements lacking in Col. 2.9-15. First, while w. 9-15

often speak of Christ's person and work, the focus of the dis-
course is on the Colossians and their relationship to those who
might deceive them by means of philosophy and vain specula-
tion (v.8). All of the statements about Christ and his work are
made in regard to their applicability to the Colossians. This is
in sharp contrast to the concentrated picture of Christ pre-
sented in 1.15-20. These verses in Col. 2 do not stand apart as a
distinctive piece of discourse. Rather, they form part of a con-
tinuous argument beginning at v. 6 and extending through the
rest of the chapter.
In addition, it would be difficult to demonstrate any great
degree of parallelism in these clauses. One way of countering
this lack is by reconstructing an 'original' hymn in which the
clauses are parallel by excising later 'redactional glosses'.1
While particular manifestations of this procedure may or
may not be convincing, it is not particularly relevant for our
purposes. In theory, it is certainly possible to construct a text
from Col. 2.9-15 which would be sufficiently similar to the
three passages we have already noted to warrant inclusion
with these passages. In fact, no such text exists in the extant
Pauline corpus, which is'what we are interested in at the
moment. Hence, Col. 2.9-15, as it stands now, should not be
included in our examination.
A similar case may be made against Eph. 2.14-18. Clearly,
both the syntax and vocabulary of this text are unclear in
places.2 This, however, is not unique to the passages we are
discussing and is not a sufficient reason to view this text as a
distinct unit in the same way that Phil. 2.6-11, Col. 1.15-20
and 1 Tim. 3.16b are. Without attempting to solve the exegeti-
cal problems of this passage, there are several reasons for not
including this text with those we are considering.
The first is purely formal. Verse 14 begins with amoq. The
other passages use oq. While this difference makes no seman-
tic difference to one's understanding of the text, it is a depar-
ture from one of the formal criteria we have used to isolate the
other three texts.

1 See Schille, p. 33; Burger, pp. 79ff.

2 See Burger, pp. 117ff.
 1. The Scope of the Project 29

Further, it is possible to point to several elements which

firmly connect the discourse of this passage with that of w. 11-
13 and 19ff. Verses llff. focus on the alienation that existed
between Paul's Gentile audience and the 'circumcision'. This
alienation has been overcome, and the Gentiles have been
brought near' through Christ's blood. Verse 14 continues this
thought by explaining how Christ's activity brought this sit-
uation about. The conjunction firmly links w. 14ff. with v. 13.l
This activity is immediately related to the Ephesians in w. 17-
18.2 The picture presented in w. 17-18 is then used as a basis
for further statements in vv. 19ff. This move, however,
depends on the connection of vv. 19ff. to w. 17-18. Even
Burger, who sees a pre-existing hymn behind this passage,
concedes that, as they stand now, w. 14-18 correspond com-
pletely to their context.3 Schille, Sanders and Burger all pro-
ceed to reconstruct an 'original' hymn from this passage.
Regardless of the relative merits of these various attempts, we
would conclude that the present text of Eph. 2.14-18 should
not be included with the other three texts we have noted.
This claim would also apply if one only considered 2.14-16.
The advantage to circumscribing the passage in this way is
that w. 14-16 are more sharply Christ-focussed than w. 14-
18.4 Nevertheless, the conjunction still links v. 14 to v. 13 in a
way not found in the other three passages. Further, the formal
difference between the demonstrative ccuxoq and the relative
oq is still a problem.
1 See Deichgraber, p. 166.
2 Burger (p. 120) recognizes this phenomenon which Schille (p. 25)
believed helped to show that this passage quoted from a hymn. Fur-
ther, while the alternation between 'we' and 'y°u' in this passage is
confusing, the phenomenon occurs throughout Eph.
3 See Burger, p. 119.
4 While this passage does focus on Christ as its main character its
concern is with how Christ's activity relates to the salvation of sinful
(alienated) humanity. This will further distinguish this passage
from those we are interested in. The passages we discuss are not
soteriological in that they do not explain the process of how human-
ity attains salvation (see our concluding comments to find this point
argued in more detail). At this point, however, this claim remains
to be shown exegetically. In any case, it should not serve as a reason
for excluding this passage from those which we are to examine.
30 The Story of Christ in the Ethics of Paul

In isolating these three Pauline texts we have, thus far,

made a rather limited claim: within the Pauline corpus Phil.
2.6-11, Col. 1.15-20 and 1 Tim. 3.16b are distinct units which
uniquely share both a common focus and common stylistic
characteristics. Hence, it is reasonable to group them together
for the purposes of further examination. It is important to
make this claim and the rationale behind it clear. First, this
discussion has helped us to isolate a stable field of enquiry con-
sisting of texts that, at a formal level, are all alike. Secondly, it
will be important to reflect on the reasons for grouping these
texts together if we are to call them hymns. This is because the
term 'hymn' can be used in a number of ways. Therefore,
there is the possibility that in using the term hymn to describe
these passages one might invoke wider claims than the pas-
sages themselves can sustain.1 The issue this raises concerns
the sense in which these passages can be called hymns. It is to
this issue that we will now direct our attention.

Deichgraber (p. 106) provides an excellent example of this. He first

defines a Christ-hymn according to the same basic criteria we have
used, focus on Christ, and poetic style. From these criteria he
makes the assumption that these Christ-hymns are 'Lieder' from
the worship service of the earliest church. In the following chapter
we will see how many unsubstantiated assumptions are involved in
the move from observations about poetic style to claims about the role
a poetic passage played in the earliest church.
 Chapter 2

WHAT IS A HYMN?

In this chapter we will try to answer the question, I n what

sense are these passages hymns?' Answering this question is
important because scholars have customarily used the term
'hymn' to describe these passages. It is apparent to us,
however, that 'hymn' is a very slippery term. Occasionally
scholars use it to justify claims regarding these passages that
would otherwise be unsubstantiated. Therefore, in this chapter
we will examine several ways in which one might use the
term 'hymn' in regard to these passages in order to clarify our
use of the term.

'Hymn' as \5|ivoq
One way of using the term hymn is in a sense that would have
been intelligible to a first-century, non-Jewish speaker of
Greek. That is, one could use 'hymn' in the same way such a
person would have used x>\ivo<;. The term \>\ivoq generally indi-
cated a song or poetic composition in praise of the gods.1 The
rhetoricians of the Hellenistic world used the term V\LVO<; to
indicate that type of encomium which was directed towards
praising the gods.2 This was not, however, an iron-clad rule, as
\5|xvoi were sometimes used in encomia to humans and places.3
With this general idea of v^ivoq in mind, there are several rea-
sons for thinking that the NT texts we are interested in could
not be called v^
1 See Belling, TDNT 8.489-93.
2 See Menander 1.331ff. in the edition by D.A. Russell and N.G. Wil-
son (Oxford: Clarendon, 1981); also K. Berger, 'Hellenistische Gat-
tungen im Neuen Testament', ANRW, II, 25.2 (1984), p. 1150, for
other citations.
3 See Berger, p. 1150.
32 The Story of Christ in the Ethics of Paul

The most obvious is t h a t while they are focused on a divine

being, the NT texts in their present form are not expressions of
praise. Further, in vuvoi praise is directed (either directly or
indirectly) to the god(s) by someone who begins their hymn by
justifying the need to praise. 1 This is completely lacking in our
Pauline texts. Further, hymns regularly end in a prayer of
petition, while none of the texts we have looked at does so. 2 This
is not to deny that the Pauline passages we have discussed and
Hellenistic \)^ivoi share some common features. For example,
both contain poetic accounts of the activity and/or virtues of a
divine figure. Numerous sorts of encomia, however, share this
characteristic. Therefore, this is not a sufficient reason to call
the Pauline passages under discussion hymns in this sense of
the term. We would agree with Berger that, 'Neither t h e
Christ-hymns (such as Phil. 2.6-11; 1 Tim. 3.16) nor t h e
hymns of the Apocalypse could be classed within the ancient
genre x>\ivoc,'.3
This judgment would also generally apply to the way a
Greek-speaking Jew would have used the term v^ivoc;. The
large majority of times \)^vo<; appears in the LXX it is used to
designate a song of praise to God (e.g. 2 Chron. 7.6; Neh. 12.24,
46, 47; Jdt. 15.16; Pss. 99.4; 118.171; 148.14; Sir. 44.1; 1 Mace.
4.33). The objects of this praise would have differed from those
of Hellenistic hymns, and different stylistic conventions would
have been employed. Nevertheless, the fact that these X>\LVOI
are also expressions of praise indicates that someone operating
with this notion of hymn would not have used the term u^ivoq
to describe the passages under discussion.
There are, however, some exceptions to this. On the occa-
sions when the phrase ev unvoiq is used in the titles of Pss. 6,
53, 54, 60, 66, 75 (cf. Ps. Sol. 10) the subsequent Psalms are not
expressions of praise. In fact, the only thing these Psalms seem
to have in common is that they are all addressed to God.4

1 For example, see Philo, Vit. Mos. 2.239; also Berger, p. 1151.
2 See Berger, p. 1151. The only NT text which Berger thinks would
have been recognized as a v^ivoq is Acts 4.24b-30.
3 See Berger, p. 1151. Similar comments can be found on pp. 1153,
1167,1171.
4 See also Josephus' use of the phrase v^ivoax; eiq xov 0e6v in Con.
Apion 1.40.
 2. What is a Hymn? 33

This would indicate that, for a Greek-speaking Jew, the

term oS^ivoq could be used in two senses. The first is fairly
specific, and similar to that found in Hellenistic texts. The sec-
ond sense is more generic, referring to a relatively formalized
expression directed to God. Presumably, for such a Greek-
speaking Jew, the context of each appearance would clarify
which sense of \5uvo<; is in view in any particular case.
This seems to be confirmed by the use of uuvos in Col. 3.16-
17 and Eph. 5.19-20. In each of these passages X>\L\OC, is paired
with \\faX\ioq and <h5i\ 7cve\)^axiKT| in such a way that the con-
text would not allow one clearly to distinguish a 'psalm' from a
'hymn* from a 'spiritual song'.1 All we can infer from these
passages is that a \)^ivog was seen as a suitable vehicle of
instruction and admonition, and that it was addressed to God.
The fact that in Colossians and Ephesians upvoc; is used in a
general way, indistinguishable from \\fa\\ioc, and a>8fi
7cveD|xaxiKf|, for some sort of formal expression addressed to
God would indicate that it is this second sense of v\ivoc, which is
in view here. Further, if the only criterion for designating a
passage as a ^jxvoq in this second sense is that it is addressed to
God, then none of the passages we are discussing could be
called \)^tvoi, even in this general sense.2
This in no way invalidates the use of the term hymn in
regard to these passages. Rather, it means that in calling these
passages hymns we are using a term that is the construction
of a later, critical community, and not a straightforward
translation of iSjivo^ in either its specific or generic sense. It

1 Kroll was one of the first to suggest that it would be impossible to dis-
tinguish what exactly these three words refer to. See Kroll, p. 8.
2 If, on the other hand, it is merely coincidence that all these \)|ivoi
are addressed to God, then, based, on the examples we have noted in
the Psalms, there do not seem to be any useful criteria by which a
passage might be called a \>nvo<; in this generic sense. A \)^ivo<;
would merely be any sort of formalized passage. For our work, this
generic sense of o5(xvoq would have little value as a means of provid-
ing precise reasons for calling one passage a x>\ivo<; and rejecting
that designation in regard to another passage. 1 Cor. 13 as a \)jxvo^
would be indistinguishable from Phil. 2.6-11 as a X>\LVO<;. In fact, this
view of \)n,vo<; could not help any sort of form-critical examination of
NT hymns.
34 The Story of Christ in the Ethics of Paul

does, however, mean that one cannot rely on the ambiguity

between 'hymn' as a translation of vuvoq and 'hymn' as, for
example, a form-critical designation to equate the passages
under discussion with the hymns mentioned in Colossians and
Ephesians as a means of saying something about the worship
of the earliest Christian communities.1 Rather, this equation
needs to be argued for and not assumed. In a moment we will
examine some of the arguments that might be relevant to
someone wishing to uphold this position. First, it will be
necessary to look at a scholarly use of the term 'hymn' and its
applicability to the passages in which we are interested.

* as Form-Critical Designation
The term 'hymn' has had a fairly specific meaning for biblical
scholars since it was applied to certain Psalms by H. Gunkel.2
He isolated 'hymns' as one of the seven major 'Gattungen'
(types) of Psalm, and went on to discuss the basic structures of
each, noting various sub-types and the formal variations
occurring within each type.
It was Gunkel's opinion that hymns were the easiest type of
Psalm to recognize.3 He defined a hymn as a song of praise to
God, citing the following Psalms as examples of hymns: 8, 9,
29, 33, 65, 67, 68, 96, 98,100,103,104, 105, 111, 113, 114,117,
135, 136, 145-150.4 A hymn normally begins with an introduc-
tory phrase which is usually an exhortation to rejoice and
sing.5 The hymn moves from an introductory expression of
praise or call to praise into the body of the hymn which poeti-

1 Two recent works which tend to do this are: M. Hengel, 'Hymn and
Christology', in Studia Biblica III, ed. E.A. Livingstone (Sheffield:
JSOT, 1980), pp. 173-97, esp. pp. 175ff.; R.P. Martin, 'Some Reflec-
tions on New Testament Hymns', in Christ the Lord, Festschrift D.
Guthrie, ed. H.H. Rowland (Leicester: IVP, 1982), pp. 37-49.
2 See H. Gunkel and J. Begrich, Einleitung in die Psalmen, 2nd edn
(Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1966, hdSS).
3 See Gunkel, p. 32.
4 See Gunkel, pp. 32ff. This definition is obviously similar to that
which Berger ascribes to oS^ivoi. For a comparison betweenti^ivoiand
OT hymns see Berger, pp. 1156-57.
5 See Gunkel, p. 33.
 2. What is a Hymn'? 35

cally recounts some of God's actions and/or attributes.1 The

transition from the introductory phrase to the body of the
hymn is generally accomplished by means of a clause provid-
ing the motive for praising God. This motive clause is usually
introduced by the particle o.2 A hymn often closes with some
type of concluding formula.3
While subsequent scholarship has expanded and revised
Gunkel's work to varying degrees, his view of hymns is still
the prevailing one in OT scholarship.4 Further, while Gunkel's
work in this area was basically confined to the Hebrew
Psalter,5 examples of what he would have called hymns can be
found in numerous other places. For example, based on
Gunkel's notion of a hymn, one could call the 'Song of Miriam'
in Exodus 15 a hymn, also the 'Song of Deborah' in Judges 5.
Moving outside the Hebrew Bible, one finds hymns in the
material from Qumran.6 In addition, one finds hymns in Hel-
lenistic-Jewish literature such as Sir. 51.1-12 and Judith 16.7

1 See Gunkel, p. 42.

2 See Gunkel, p. 42. In addition to "O the relative pronoun "icm is also
used (Pss. 16.7; 31.8).
3 See Gunkel, pp. 56ff. Unlike the Hellenistic hymn where this is reg-
ularly a prayer of petition, the form of this conclusion is quite vari-
able. It may involve a repetition or expansion of the introduction
(e.g. Pss. 65.9; 75.10; 97.12), but is not regular in this respect.
4 S. Mowinckel, The Psalms in Israel's Worship, 2 vols., trans. D.R.
Ap-Thomas (Oxford: Blackwell, 1962) and C. Westermann, The
Praise of God in the Psalms, trans. K. Crim (London: Epworth,
1965) have both tried to expand and alter the limited form-critical
comments Gunkel made in regard to the Sitz im Leben of hymns.
Both scholars, however, accept Gunkel's formal analysis of hymns.
5 Gunkel also wrote on the hymns in Luke 1-2, 'Die Lieder in der
Kindheitsgeschichte Jesu', in Festgabe von Fachgenossen und
Freunden Adolf Harnack zum 70. Geburtstag dargebracht, ed. K.
Holl (Tubingen: Mohr, 1921), pp. 43-60.
6 See B. Kittel, The Hymns of Qumran, SBLDS 50 (Missoula: Scholars
Press, 1981).
7 See H. Germann, 'Jesu Ben Siras Dankgebet und die Hodayoth\
Theologische Zeitschrift 19 (1963), pp. 81-87; T. Craven, Artistry and
Faith in the Book of Judith, SBLDS 70 (Chico: Scholars Press, 1983),
pp.105ff.
36 The Story of Christ in the Ethics of Paul

As widespread as this phenomenon seems to be, it is still not

possible to call the three texts under consideration in Paul
hymns in the sense Gunkel and others use the term. The same
basic reason holds here as applied earlier. On Gunkel's view a
hymn is an expression of praise directed by an individual or a
group towards God. This is clearly not the case with the
Pauline passages in which we are interested. Certainly a pas-
sage like Rom. 11.33-36 or the nativity songs in Luke 1-2
could be called hymns in this sense, but Phil. 2.6-11, Col. 1.15-
20 or 1 Tim. 3.16b could not. As with Hellenistic hymns, these
passages share with Gunkel's hymns the feature of poetically
relating aspects of a divine being's person and work. This, by
itself, however, does not make a passage a hymn.
Having accepted these points, someone might claim that
while these passages, as they stand now, are neither hymns in
Gunkel's sense nortijivoi,in the specific (and, hence, useful)
sense of the term, they are quotations from pre-existing pas-
sages which one could reasonably call hymns in one of these
senses.1
Those who would make this claim start from the same basic
observation we have made. We both recognize the distinctive-
ness and poetic quality of these Pauline texts. From this point,
however, we move in different directions. Our recognition of
the distinctiveness of these passages will lead us to explore the
role these distinct units play in the rhetoric of the epistle. Those
who move from recognizing the distinctiveness of these pas-
sages to reconstructing an 'original' hymn on which Paul's
passage is based are essentially interested in exploring some
aspect of that period in history between the death of Jesus and
the writing of the epistles—the period of the earliest church,
for which we have so little information.2 Since we intend only
to explore our particular interest, it may be helpful to spend

1 Schille is quite explicit about this (p. 11). This also seems to be
Sanders* view (pp. 1-5). Wengst also recognizes that the 'Formeln'
and 'Lieder' of the NT need to be reconstructed (p. 11). Deichgraber's
comments on p. 21 n. 3 also lead him this way.
2 M. Rese shows that this was one of the primary motives for the ear-
liest research into NT hymns. See Tormeln und Lieder im Neuen
Testament: einige notwendige Anmerkungen', VF 2 (1970), pp. 75-
95, esp. pp. 85ff. Cf. also Hengel, 1980, pp. 173,189ff.
 2. What is a Hymn? 37

some time examining this other interest, the assumptions that

lie behind it, and the possible relationship it may have to our
own interest.
Issues of Reconstruction
The fundamental assumption made by those who seek to
reconstruct a hymn behind these passages is that these
Pauline passages are quotations from pre-existing material.
Over time, various scholars have questioned this assumption
in regard to each passage. As S. Kim has recently shown, how-
ever, it remains firmly entrenched in the critical consensus.1
The arguments both for and against the notion that these pas-
sages are quotations are often closely bound up with issues
regarding Pauline authorship of these passages. We are not
concerned to make a claim one way or another in regard to
this. We are merely concerned with examining the reasons
given for seeing each of these passages as a quotation.
Unlike numerous other places in Paul where an author or
character is explicitly recounting what another has said or
written (e.g. 1 Cor. 11.23; Gal. 3.10; 1 Tim. 5.18), there is no
such specific statement in regard to these passages. Nor do we
have another text with which a comparison could be made to
show that Paul is quoting something else (as with the synoptic
Gospels). Some, however, might argue that the very presence
of these poetic passages, which presumably took a great deal of
reflection to compose, in the midst of epistolary discourse
would indicate that such a passage was not composed with the
rest of the epistle.2 This can be a plausible view if one can
account for the fact that there seems to be no hesitancy in the
Pauline corpus to be explicit when presenting previously for-
mulated material. Further, the existence of poetic material
such as Rom. 11.33-36, which seems to have been composed
with the rest of the epistle, would have to be accounted for. In
fact, a passage like this one argues for the possibility of the
composition of poetic speech in the midst of the composition of

1 See S. Kim, The Origin of Paul's Gospel (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,

1981), pp. 144ff.
2 See Martin, 1983, pp. 44-46, for those who make this point in regard
to Phil. 2.6-11.
38 The Story of Christ in the Ethics of Paul

a larger, non-poetic work.

To decide in favor of one view or the other we would have to
have a fairly clear idea of the composition process in regard to
the Pauline corpus. If one could show that the composition
process was a spontaneous occurrence, over a relatively con-
centrated period of time, this could indicate that the poetic pas-
sages are likely to be quotations. If the process was longer,
more reflective, encompassing several sessions, it would seem
more likely that, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the
poetic passages in the epistles are not quotations. Unfortu-
nately, we have very little knowledge of the processes involved
here.1 Hence, further criteria would be needed to support the
view that these passages are quotations.
The two criteria which scholars invoke most often are
uniqueness of vocabulary and evidence of redaction based on
stylistic abnormalities.2 As for the first of these criteria, it is not
immediately evident that uniqueness of vocabulary indicates
that a passage is a quotation. We might well find unique
vocabulary in poetic passages of this sort. It seems no less likely
that the author of the epistle would have used rare words in a
poetic passage than that he quoted them.3 The appearance of
unique vocabulary merely adds to the distinctiveness of the
passage. It does not necessarily indicate that someone else
wrote it first. Further, even to make a probability judgment in
regard to this we would have to develop a more detailed profile
of the linguistic abilities and tendencies of an author than can
be obtained from the Pauline corpus. Of course, if the Paul of
Philippians did not write Colossians and 1 Timothy, there is

1 While Doty is most probably right in situating Paul's epistles some-

where between dogmatic essays and private letters, this is a judg-
ment about the epistles themselves and not about the composition
process. See W. Doty, Letters in Primitive Christianity (Philadel-
phia: Fortress, 1973), p. 26.
2 See W.H. Gloer, 'Homologies and Hymns in the New Testament:
Form, Content and Criteria for Identification', Perspectives in Reli-
gious Studies 11.2 (1984), pp. 125ff.; also Martin, 1983, p. 42; Kim,
pp. 144-49.
3 See Kim, p. 145; C.F.D. Moule, The Epistles of Paul to the Colossians
and Philemon, Cambridge Greek Testament (Cambridge: CUP,
1957), p. 61.
 2. What is a Hymn? 39

even less material for this profile and it would be of limited

relevance to our interest in Colossians and 1 Timothy.
The criterion of redactional activity indicated by stylistic
abnormalities in a passage has greater potential for indicating
that these passages are quotations. This criterion, however,
presupposes a standard for what is stylistically conventional.
Previous scholarship has generally relied on the work of
E. Norden to provide an account of both Hellenistic and Jewish
stylistic conventions.1 Our knowledge of these conventions,
however, has advanced markedly since 1913.
With regard to the poetic conventions operative in Jewish
literature, scholars have now abandoned notions of metre or
rhythm in respect of a language whose vocalization during
this period is so obscure.2 The main focus of attention now is on
formal characteristics, and parallelism in particular. Works
by Kugel, Watson and others have advanced and challenged
the notion of parallelism well beyond the ideas of parallelismus
membrorum supported by Norden.3 Using these findings as a
new standard, it would be difficult to say what a stylistic
abnormality would look like, since parallelism would be con-
ceived of as one general type, 'A, and what's more, B', or a
hundred types. 4 In theory, however, this could be done and a
case made for redactional activity. In fact, this has yet to be
done.
Further, if one were to apply more recent accounts of the
stylistic standards of pagan Hellenism to the texts under con-
sideration the results would hardly be decisive for determining
whether these texts are quotations based on evidence of redac-
tional activity. For, as Berger notes, The extensive structuring
of the comparable New Testament prose texts ('hymns') by
means of anaphoric elements (repetition of relative pronouns,
and connecting words) is without analogy in the poetic and

1 See Berger, pp. 1163ff.; Deichgraber, pp. 14ff.; Sanders, 1971, p. 1.

2 See Kugel, pp. 292ff.
3 See above, pp. 23ff.; cf. also Watson's review of Kugel in JSOT 28
(1984), pp. 89-98.
4 See Kugel's comment quoted above, p. 24 n. 4. Perhaps we should
note here that Kugel follows the first of these possibilities while Wat-
son follows the second, trying to chart as many different types of
parallelism as possible.
40 The Story of Christ in the Ethics of Paul

prosaic pagan hymns and encomia. The New Testament texts

are in this sense a separate group/ 1 This is a crucial comment,
because if there are no pagan Hellenistic analogies to the
stylistic features of these passages as a whole, it is hard to see
how using pagan Hellenistic conventions as a standard could
indicate the sort of individual abnormalities needed to show
redactional activity, and, hence, quoted material.
Finally, one could try to establish some sort of stylistic norm
for Paul or the Pauline corpus. This, however, will face the
same problems noted above in regard to establishing a norm
for Paul's vocabulary. This is not to say that the criterion of
redactional activity based on stylistic abnormality is indecisive
for indicating whether a passage incorporates a quotation. It
does, however, indicate that this criterion as it is applied
presently is not able to show that these particular passages are
quotations.
Based on these two criteria, as they are presently applied, it
is not at all clear that these passages represent quotations from
pre-existing material. 2 For the sake of exploring some of the
other assumptions involved in reconstructing an original
hymn, let us suppose that scholarship at some point convinc-
ingly showed that these Pauline passages were quotations
from previously existing texts. Could we then reconstruct a
hymn as the source of each passage? Clearly, the answer is
yes. One could, for example, add an introductory expression of
praise/call to praise to each passage, along with a motive
clause, and reconstruct a text which could quite plausibly be
called a hymn according to Gunkel's view.
We might well ask, however, why this particular recon-
struction should be preferred over other, equally possible ones.
Reconstructing these texts differently, but no less plausibly,
might yield an original confession, or a piece of catechetical
material from which our present passages are quotations. The
difference here is between reconstructing an expression of
praise, a statement of belief or an assertion which needs to be
mastered by all new members of the church. In theory,

1 See Berger, p. 1168.

2 See, however, the discussion of how the function of these passages
may shed light on this issue in our concluding comments.
 2. What is a Hymn1? 41

numerous reconstructions are possible. These three, however,

would seem to be the most plausible. On the other hand, there
seems to be no rational way to determine why one should
reconstruct a hymn from any of these passages and not a
confession or catechetical piece.1 The point is, given that these
Pauline passages are quotations, the reconstruction of an
original text which could reasonably be called a hymn is an
arbitrary choice.
For the sake of further argument, however, let us assume
we could make a convincing case both for viewing these pas-
sages as quotations and for reconstructing them as hymns.
Could we then move on to place each hymn within a specific
social setting in early Christianity? Certainly the earliest
Christians expressed praise to God and Christ in their worship
services. Clearly, hymns would play some role in such a set-
ting.2 There are, however, other settings in which hymns
might play a role. As we have noted, hymns were part of the
rhetoric of encomia. They also play a role in OT narratives
about God's saving acts (e.g. Exod. 15; Judg. 5; Jdt. 16).
Further, Sanders notes that wisdom schools used hymns as
didactic tools.3 Here, again, there seems to be no way of
determining what role our reconstructed hymn might have
played in the earliest church. There is certainly no compelling
reason to confine it to one setting, nor to situate it in the wor-
ship of the church as NT scholars often do.4

1 See E. Stauffer's comment that, 'Many confessions were hymn-like

and many hymns were creed-like' (New Testament Theology, trans.
J. Marsh [London: SCM, 1948], p. 237). Deichgraber's attempt to dis-
tinguish between confessional formulas and hymns (pp. 107ff.) is
irrelevant for the problems we have raised. Deichgraber's interest is
to show that a text like 1 Cor. 15.3-5 is not formally compatible with
Phil. 2.6-11. To do this he deals with each text in its present form.
While no one would deny that these two texts are formally different
as they stand now, the criterion of formal difference is somewhat
trivialized when one begins to reconstruct texts.
2 See Acts 1.14; 2.42; 1 Cor. 14.26; etc. Also Martin, 1982, p. 37; Hengel,
1978, p. 173.
3 Sanders, 1971, pp. 133ff.
4 As early as 1922 Kroll warned against such an assumption (p. 12
n.l). Schille, however, in 1962 still asserts that all NT hymns are
either baptismal or eucharistic (p. 21).
42 The Story of Christ in the Ethics of Paul

Our discussion here should not be read as an attempt to

undermine the sorts of interests that lead scholars to dig
behind such texts as the ones under discussion in order to
improve our knowledge of the earliest period of Christianity.
Rather we have merely tried to illuminate the sorts of claims
involved in calling these passages quotations from hymns (in
either Gunkel's sense or in a Hellenistic sense). It seems to us
that the case for such classifications is not at all convincing.
This is not to say, however, that a convincing case could not be
made.
This raises one final question. If we could convincingly show
that any or all of the passages we are concerned with were
quotations from previously existing hymns of the early
church, would that be relevant to our interest of discussing the
function of these passages in their present contexts? At a gen-
eral theoretical level the answer to this is no. Work by philoso-
phers of language such as J.L. Austin and J. Searle clearly
shows that the function of an utterance is determined by each
specific context in which it is used.1 Therefore, what is an
expression of praise in one situation can be a curse in another
situation. Consider, for example, the various ways one could
take the phrase, This coffee is poison*. Under certain condi-
tions this would be a warning. Under different conditions it
would be a complaint. How one understands the phrase
depends on its context and is independent of any other way the
phrase could be used.
On the other hand, one could speculate about a situation in
which Paul quotes from a hymn from the earliest church
which was known to his audience. In this case a presupposed,
common knowledge between Paul and his audience would be
part of the context in which this hymn was quoted. Hence, it
would be important that a third party knew this if they wished
to comment on the function of that quoted hymn.
We have already noted, however, that at present the case
for viewing these passages as quotations from early Christian
hymns is far from convincing. Even if this could be convinc-

1 See J.L. Austin, How to Do Things with Words (Oxford: Clarendon,

1962), pp. 133-47; J. Searle, Speech Acts (Cambridge: CUP, 1969),
pp. 131-56.
 2. What is a Hymn? 43

ingly argued, it is a separate task altogether to show that

Paul's audience would have recognized these passages as
quotations from hymns which they knew. That is, any judg-
ment about an audience's previous knowledge of these pas-
sages is not necessarily tied to a particular judgment about
any previous life these passages may have had. The question is
whether there are good reasons to think that Paul's audience
already knew these passages.
There is no explicit indication in the epistles that the pas-
sages in question were already known to their audience, albeit
in another form.1 Further, we have noted that these texts
exhibit none of the indicators found elsewhere in Paul where
he is quoting from pre-existing material. Nor is there any
indication, as in 2 Corinthians, that Paul is addressing himself
to an issue he had previously discussed. Martin seems to claim
that the very fact that Paul quoted from these hymns
(assuming, for the sake of argument, this is what they were)
indicates that these were well known in the various
communities.2 It is not, however, immediately evident from
Paul's use of a hymn that it was already known to his
audience. It may well be the case that the pictures of Christ
presented in these hymns were new to the specific groups Paul
was addressing. Paul would have used them to complement
the traditions about Christ which each group had already
received. This possibility seems just as plausible as Martin's
position. Further, there is no way to argue conclusively for
either position. The epistles simply provide us with discrete
poetic descriptions of Christ's person and work. In no case does
Paul argue for the validity of these pictures. He assumes they
will be accepted.
There are, of course, cases where it may be plausible to
argue that there is some piece of knowledge presupposed by
Paul and his audience.3 Unless a phrase or passage is unintel-
1 One might argue that this is the force of oM-oXoyovixevox; in 1 Tim.
3.16. For a discussion of this see Chapter 8. The force of
6iioA.oyounev©<; in this case is to stress the acceptability of the picture
of Christ in 3.16b. It does not necessarily indicate that this particu-
lar formulation was previously known to the audience.
2 See Martin, 1982, p. 45.
3 For example, see the use of xarceivocppoavvTi in Colossians 2—3 in our
44 The Story of Christ in the Ethics of Paul

ligible, or intelligible but threatens to render the larger context

incoherent, however, we would not be justified in assuming
that a phrase or passage presupposes some specific piece of
common knowledge between Paul and his audience. This
issue is very similar to issues concerning the recognition of
irony, or metaphor, or joke perception. In these cases, it is only
when a phrase makes better, more comprehensive sense
taken as irony, metaphor or a joke that this possibility is enter-
tained.1 We will spend the next part of our discussion arguing
both that each of these passages is intelligible within its present
context and that they are integral to the coherence of the con-
texts in which they appear. Since we will do this without
recourse to the assumption that these texts were already
known to Paul's audience, we would claim to be justified in not
presuming prior knowledge of these texts on the part of Paul's
audience.
This does not mean it is invalid to discuss the function of
these passages in terms of a situation in which Paul was
quoting from an early Christian hymn that would have been
recognized as such by his audience. Rather, our claim is sim-
ply that positing such a situation involves numerous question-
able assumptions both about the nature of these passages as
hymns, and about the common knowledge presupposed by
Paul and his audience. This makes it a hazardous hypothesis
on which to base one's judgments about how the original audi-
ence of the epistle would have understood these texts.
Summary
Thus far we have tried to show that these passages under dis-
cussion are not hymns in the sense of being v^ivoi nor in the
sense that Gunkel used the term. Further, the case for calling
these passages quotations from pre-existing hymns is far from
conclusive. Yet even if one could convincingly argue this point,
discussion in Chapter 6.
1 See, for example, J. Searle, Expression and Meaning (Cambridge:
CUP, 1979), pp.76ff.; T. Cohen, 'Metaphor and the Cultivation of
Intimacy' and P. Ricoeur, The Metaphorical Process as Cognition,
Imagination and Feeling', both in On Metaphor, ed. S. Sacks
(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979), pp. 1-11,141-59 respec-
tively.
 2. What is a Hymn? 45

it remains a separable interest from our own. The only excep-

tion to this is in the case of a situation in which this hymn was
known to the audience. We have noted that while this is a pos-
sibility, there is insufficient evidence to support a claim that
Paul's audience would have been familiar with each hymn.
In what sense, then, are these passages hymns? We would
claim that these passages are hymns in the very general sense
of poetic accounts of the nature and/or activity of a divine
figure. This seems to be the only sort of claim that the criteria
we used in distinguishing these passages in Chapter 1 can
sustain. They may or may not have incorporated formulations
from previously existing material(s). We certainly do not have
any indication, nor any compelling reason to suppose, that
these passages in one form or another had a previous life in
the worship of the church. It is clear that Paul expected these
interpretations of traditions about Christ to be accepted by his
audience. Yet the only assumption we will make in regard to
this is that these particular formulations were compatible
with the pictures of Christ already accepted by the commu-
nity. With these minimal assumptions we can use the term
liymn' to describe these passages, and we can talk coherently
and plausibly about the function of these hymns in their epis-
tolary contexts.
 Chapter 3

PHILIPPIANS 2.6-11

A.B. Bruce aptly summarized the situation with regard to the

interpretation of this passage when he wrote, The diversity of
opinion prevailing among interpreters in regard to the
meaning [of this passage].. .is enough to fill the student with
despair and to afflict him with intellectual paralysis'. 1 The
recognition that Bruce made this comment in 1876 is only
cause for greater despair for the contemporary student of this
passage. Fortunately, the modern scholar has recourse to R.P.
Martin's Carmen Christi which, with its recent revision, does
an admirable job of charting modern scholarly opinions about
this passage. 2 Relying on Martin's work to situate these vari-
ous views, we will begin a detailed discussion of the content of
this passage in order to give an account of the sort of picture of
Christ it presents.

An Exalted Position: og ev |xop<pf| Qtov i)7cdp%cov

The passage begins with a relative pronoun oq which clearly
refers to Christ Jesus, mentioned in v5. Unfortunately, the
first phrase of this passage, oq ev fxopcpfi 0eov i)7cdp%cov, is some-
what obscure. The way one chooses to read this phrase will, to
a large degree, color one's view of the whole passage. Most
modern commentators reject Lightfoot's reading of [iopcpf|
which, based on Plato and Aristotle, construed ^lopcpri in the
light of oixnoc. Though [iopcprj is not the same as o\>a(a or (p\>oi<;,

1 Cited by M. Hooker, Thilippians 2.6-11', in Jesus und Paulust

Festschrift for W. Kiimmel, ed. E. Grasser & E.E. Ellis (Gottingen:
Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1975), p. 151.
2 Originally SNTSMS 4 (Cambridge: CUP, 1967); revised 1983 and pub-
lished by Eerdmans in Grand Rapids.
50 The Story of Christ in the Ethics of Paul

yet the possession of the |iop(pf| involves participation in the

ovoia also'. 1 Lightfoot, however, relies only on classical sources
which do not give an accurate picture of the various ways
ovcia is used in the Hellenistic world.2
Clearly, in the LXX ^lopcpri signifies something that is visible
and might best be translated as 'appearance'. 3 This usage is
also widely attested outside the LXX.4 This is even the sense in
which God's M^opcpri is spoken of. For example, in Corp. Herm.
1.12 we read, 6 8ercdvicovrcotTTip...arceidiriGev "AvGpcorcov
a\)TG) i'aov, ou f|pda0T| ax; i5(oa) TOKOD- rcepucaM^g yap, rnv xov
naxpbq eiKova e'xcov OVTGX; yap xai 6 Qebq T|pda0T| xf|g iSiag
|xop9f|(;. In this case God's own |xopcpr| with which he fell in love
is the beautiful appearance of the "AvGpcorcot;.5 This view is
supported by Corp. Herm. 1.14 which reads,... m i eSei^e if]
KccToxpepei (piioei xr\v Koc^nv xov Qeov nop(pf|v. Again, the fiopq>f|
of God is used to indicate the beautiful appearance of the
"AvGpcorcoQ. Further support for the notion that God's ^opcpri
signifies God's appearance is found in v. 23 of the Naasene
hymn, iiopcpdc; 8e 6ecov erci8e{2;co.6 Here the verb erciSedcvonA
indicates t h a t the gods' nopcpou are perceptible things,
appearances.
Several scholars have moved from similar observations to
equate jiopcpri with EIKCOV.7 Further, this equation of ^iop(pT| with

1 J.B. Lightfoot, Saint Paul's Epistle to the Philippians (repr. of 1898

edn, Lynn: Hendrickson, 1981), p. 110.
2 See J. Behm, TDNT, 4.744-45.
3 See Tob. 1.13; Job 4.14; Wis. 18.1; Isa. 44.13; Dan. 3.19; 4 Mace. 15.4.
4 See the use of jiopcpfi in regard to Christ in Mk 16.12; also C. Spicq,
'Note sur MOPOH dans les papyrus et quelques inscriptions', RB 80
(1973), pp. 37-45.
5 See F.-W. Eltester, Eikon im Neuen Testament, BZNW 23 (Berlin:
Topelmann, 1958), who says that in this passage CIKCOV and jiop<pf| are
synonymous, designating someone's appearance. While we would
agree that ^opcpfi in this passage is used to signify 'appearance* it is
not at all clear that nopcpfi and eiK(ov are synonymous. See below,
pp. 51-52.
6 Cited by A. Kehl, 'Beitrage zum Verstandnis einiger gnostischer
und fruhchristlicher Psalmen und Hymnen', Jahrbuch fur Antike
und Christentum 12 (1972), p. 96.
7 Some who do this are J. Hiring, 'Kyrios Anthropos', RHPR 16
(1936), p. 200; Martin, 1983, pp. 106ff. (modified somewhat, p.xx); S.
 3. Philippians 2.6-11 51

EIKCOV sometimes leads scholars to view the presentation of

Christ who is in the nop(pf| of God in Phil. 2.6 as connected with
the account of Adam's creation mx' ekovoc 6eoi) in Gen. 1.26.l
The scholars who hold this view support their position by
pointing out that in Gen. 1.26 the LXX translates nbx with
eiKcov, and in Dan. 3.19 uopq>T| translates nbx.2 This does not,
however, indicate that ixopcpfj and eiKcov are interchangeable or
synonymous in the LXX. On the contrary, whenever the Greek
Bible talks about humanity as the image of God, eiKcov is used
and never n<opcpf|.3 Further, in the Daniel passage nopcpri is
used to refer to the appearance of Nebuchadnezzar's face,
while in 3.1, 2, 3,4, 5, 7,11,12,14, etc., ekcov is used to refer to a
golden sculpture. Hence, even in Dan. 3 |xopcpf| and EIKCOV are
neither synonymous nor interchangeable. Nor does the fact
that M*>pq>T| a n d eiKcov sometimes appear in a contiguous rela-
tionship mean that they are synonymous.4 In cases like Corp.

Kim, 1982, pp. 193ff.; G. Bornkamm, 'Zum Verstandnis des Chris-

tus-Hymnus Phil. 2.5-11*, in Studien zu Antike und Urchristentum
(Munich: Kaiser Verlag, 1963), p. 179; J. Jervell, Imago Dei: Gen.
lt26f. im Spatjudentum, in der Gnosis und in den paulinischen
Briefen (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1960), p. 228.
1 See, for example, Martin, 1983, p. 116: *ev jxopcpfj 0eoO can legiti-
mately be taken as rax' eteova . . . or ev bofyri Geov'. See also J. Mur-
phy-O'Connor, 'Christological Anthropology in Phil. 11,6-11', RB 83
(1976), pp.25ff.; G. Howard, 'Phil. 2.6-11 and the Human Christ',
CBQ 40 (1978), pp.368ff. These latter two works are specifically
interested in using this connection to Adam to undermine the posi-
tion that this verse is a reference to Christ's pre-existence. On this
exegetical point, see T.F. Glasson's comment, 'It could be objected
that the LXX (of Gen. 1.27) has a different preposition and a different
noun . . . [I]f the writer were intending to make a reference to the
Adam story, why was his meaning wrapped up in such an obscure
manner?' (Two Notes on the Philippian Hymn (ii.6-11)', NTS 21
[1974-75], p. 138).
2 See Hiring, p. 200; E. Larsson, Christus als Vorbild, Acta Seminarii
Neotestamentici Upsaliensis (Upsala, 1962), p. 237; O. Cullmann,
Christology of the New Testament, trans. S. Guthrie and C. Hall
(London: SCM, 1961), p. 176; A.M. Hunter, Paul and His Predeces-
sors (London: SCM, 1961), p. 43 n. 1.
3 See Gen. 1.26, 27; 5.1, 3; 9.6; Wis. 2.23; Sir. 17.3; also Philo, Leg. All.
1.131; 1.151; Op. Mundi 1.134; Quaes. Gen. 1.4.
4 On the difference between contiguity and synonymity see M. Silva,
52 The Story of Christ in the Ethics of Paul

Herm. 1.12, Plutarch's Pericles 31.4 and Sib. Or. 3.8, where
one could claim that the semantic fields of M^opcpri and EIKCOV
overlap, the context indicates that this overlap is in regard to
an object's appearance.1 Yet the very fact that both terms are
used in each of these passages indicates that they are not sim-
ply interchangeable even when their semantic fields overlap.
In conclusion, then, our understanding of jiop<FI in Phil. 2.6,
7 must depend on the context in which it is used and on the
occurrences of px)p(pT| in contemporary literature, but not on
the equation |xopc()f| = EIKCOV. This does not necessarily under-
mine the notion that Christ in Phil. 2 should be viewed in the
light of traditions about Adam (a view we will discuss later).
What it does undermine is the notion that jiopcpri provides a
linguistic connection between Phil. 2.6 and Gen. 1.26.
Kasemann proposed that ^iop(pT| here indicated a mode of
being (Daseinsweise).2 This is connected with his understand-
ing of the world-view of Hellenism after the decline of the city-
state. The resulting chaos and seemingly purposeless nature of
existence led to the view that conflicting powers controlled the
world. In saying that Jesus is in the \LOpq>r\ of God this passage
is asserting that Jesus was in the realm determined by God.3
The examples Kasemann gives for this reading of \iopq>T\ are

Biblical Words and Their Meanings (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,

1983), pp. 125-26.
1 See Eltester, p. 10; also p. 5 where he notes that in Plotinus when
liop<pf| and eiKcbv are parallel, eiioov carries the sense of perceptible
image. Plutarch, Pericles 31.4 reads: K<xi \iaXioQ' oxi xfjv npbq
'A\iaC,6vaq M-dxTlv ev xfi aanibi TCOUOV auxofi xiva jxopqynv ev evexviccooe
7cpeap\)xoi) (pataxKpoOrcexpovtnr\p\ievox> 6i* d^wpoxepcov x©v xeip&v, m l
xox> nepiK&eoix; eiKova nayKdXr\v eve0r|Ke |iaxo|ievo\) rcpo
Sib. Or. 3.8 reads: avGpcorcoi Qeonkaoxov exovxeq ev EIKOVI
xinxe (xdxr|v nXa^eoQe; (from the edition of J. Geffken [Leipzig:
Hinrichs, 1902]).
2 E. Kasemann, 'Kritische Analyse von Phil. 2.5-11', ZTK 47 (1950),
pp. 313-60, trans. Alice Carse, Journal for Theology and the Church
5 (1968), p. 61.
3 See Kasemann, 1968, p. 61. Regardless of the adequacy of Kase-
mann's account of the world-view of Hellenism, Marshall notes that
this world-view was not particularly catered to in the church's
preaching in the Hellenistic world. See I.H. Marshall, The Christ
Hymn in Philippians 2.5-11', Tyndale Bulletin 19 (1968), pp. 124ff.
 3. Philippians 2.6-11 53

not very convincing. He asserts that the Hermetic writings

use |xopq>f| to indicate 'mode of existence', but gives no exam-
ples of this. 1 On the other hand, the uses of jxop<pf| in Corp.
Herm. 1.12, 14 seem to be relatively straightforward state-
ments about the visible appearance of the primal man. While
it is possible to make inferences about this primal man's 'mode
of being' based upon his ^iopcpT|, these inferences would have to
be supported by the context of each occurrence and not by the
definition of [xop(pr|. Further, the two uses of |iop(pf| in Sib. Or.
on which Kasemann relies do not appear to support his case.2
In Sib. Or. 2.230 |iop(pr| is used to speak about the mournful
expressions of those who are led off to judgment (ml jcdoag
liopcpag noXvizeyQiac, eig Kpiaiv a£ei).3 In 8.458 |xopcpr| signifies
the earthly appearance of a heavenly being (o\)pav69ev 8e
lio^cov ppoxer|v eve8\)aaxo uopcpfjv). Again, while it is possible to
make deductions about the modes of being of these various
characters, these deductions can only be based on the contexts
in which these beings are discussed and not on the word jiop<pf|.
In addition, Kasemann follows Lohmeyer in attaching great
significance to the preposition ev.4 He claims that Paul uses ev
to 'designate the realm in which one stands and by which one
is determined, as in a field of force'.5 Clearly, Paul does use ev
in this way (cf. Rom. 6). Further, if uopcpri indicated a mode of
being there might be good reason for reading ev jiopcpfi GeoB
i)7idpxcov as an indication that Christ was in the realm
determined by God (although ev 8efi) would seem to be a more
adequate way of putting this). Since, however, >xopcpf| does not
appear to signify a mode of being, there is no necessary reason
to read ev as a designation of the realm in which one stands.
What does it mean, then, to say that Christ was ev uDpcpii
Geou i)7cdpxcov? In its most common usage at the time of the
NT the |xop<pf| of God would designate the appearance of God.
By 'appearance' we mean something visible and perceptible,

1 See Kasemann, 1968, p. 60.

2 See Kasemann, 1968, p. 61.
3 Included in this group are those who are pale imitations of the
Titans and Giants of old.
4 See Kasemann, 1968, pp. 61ff.; also E. Lohmeyer, Kyrios Jesus
(Heidelberg: Winter, 1961 [11927]), p. 19.
5 See Kasemann, 1968, p. 61.
54 The Story of Christ in the Ethics of Paul

not appearance as opposed to reality or essence in a platonic

sense.1
In the LXX the visible form of God is often described in terms
of God's 86£oc, God's glory and splendor, by which the majesty
of God is made manifest to humanity. 2 There are also several
occasions where Paul uses 86£ot as the visible manifestation of
God's majesty (cf. Rom. 1.23; 1 Cor. 11.7; 2 Cor. 3.18; 4.6).3
It seems most adequate, then, to take the p,op(pT| of God as a
reference to the glory, radiance and splendor by which God's
majesty is made visible. By locating Christ in this glory, it con-
veys the majesty and splendor of his pre-incarnate state. 4 This
image, then, is not primarily a dogmatic statement about
Christ's nature. Rather, the image is used to say something
about Christ's status. We would agree with Schweizer that
this phrase indicates Christ's position or status. 5 We come to
this position, however, for different reasons. That is, we would
agree that this particular use of |xopcpf| in this context is used to
reflect Christ's exalted position but this position is conveyed by
the force of the phrase as a whole, linking Christ to God's
glory, and is not inherent in the term }xop<pf|.

A Position not Taken Advantage of: ot>x apTtayuov fiyfiaaxo TO

eivai i'aa 0eS
The next phrase, o\>% ap7cayp,6v fiyriaaxo TO eivai i'aa 0eS,
expands on this idea. It both further defines Christ's majestic
state and relates his attitude toward it. Scholarly debate on this

1 With Behm, TDNT, 4.750.

2 Exod. 16.10; 24.16; 33.17ff.; 40.34f.; 1 Kgs 8.11; Isa. 6.3; Ezek. 1.28;
43.3; 44.4; 2 Mace. 2.8; 3 Mace. 4.18; 1 Enoch 14.21; Test Lev. 3.4;
Asc. Isa. 10.16. See also A.M. Ramsey, The Glory of God and the
Transfiguration of Christ (London: Longmans and Green, 1949),
pp. 15-18; L.H. Brockington, The Septuagintal Background of the
New Testament use of 66£<x\ in Studies in the Gospels, Festschrift
R.H. Lightfoot, ed. D. Nineham (Oxford: Blackwell, 1955), pp. 1-8.
3 See also Lk. 2.9; Rev. 15.8; 21.23; also Brockington, pp. 7-8.
4 As Behm, TDNT, 4.751, notes, this image corresponds to Jn 17.5.
5 See E. Schweizer, Erniedrigung und Erhohung bei Jesus und
seinen Nachfolgern (Zurich: Zwingli, 1955), p. 54 n. 234; also P. Bon-
nard, L'Epttre de Saint Paul aux Philippiens (Neuchatel: Delachaux
&Niestle\ 1950), p. 42.
 3. Philippians 2.6-11 55

passage usually focusses on the term ocpTcay^io^.1 Some see the

phrase as reflecting something Christ had and held on to (res
rapta).2 Others view it as something that Christ did not have
and could have grasped after (res rapienda).3 Martin tries to
combine aspects of both views.4
Earlier work by W. Jaeger tried to link apKay\i6c, to terms
like epumov and e\)prip.a to show that in 2.6 Christ did not treat
his equality with God as a piece of good fortune, a fortuitous
occurrence.5 In 1971, however, R.W. Hoover revised Jaeger's
work and gave a very powerful explication of aprcctyuoc; which
has proved most convincing.6 Hoover showed that aprcayuoc is

1 See Martin, 1983, pp. 134-43. More recently, however, N.T. Wright
has provided a detailed account of the various scholarly views on
this passage and showed the confusions within Martin's analysis.
See 'ap7i<xY^i6<; and the Meaning of Phil. 2.5-11', JTS n.s. 37 (1986),
pp. 321-52.
2 See Lightfoot, p. I l l ; Kasemann, 1968, pp.63ff.; Schweizer, 1955,
p. 54 n. 235; Jervell, p. 229; Larsson, p. 242; Bornkamm, 1963, p. 180;
M.R. Vincent, Philippians and Philemon, ICC (Edinburgh: T. & T.
Clark, 1961), p. 58. Wright insightfully notes how misleading these
Latin terms have been in the discussions of this phrase (p. 323).
3 J.H. Michael, The Epistle of Paul to the Philippians, Moffatt NTC
(London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1946), pp. 87-89; F.W. Beare, A Com-
mentary on the Epistle to the Philippians (London: A. & C. Black,
1959), pp. 79ff.; H.A.A. Kennedy, The Epistle to the Philippians,
Expositor's Greek NT (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1903),
pp. 436ff.
4 See Martin, 1983, pp. 148ff. Other alternatives are provided by Bon-
nard, p. 43; C.F.D. Moule, 'Further Reflections on Phil. 2,5-11', in
Apostolic History and the Gospel, Festschrift for F.F. Bruce, ed. W.
Gasque and R.P. Martin (Exeter: Paternoster, 1970), pp.271ff.; J.
Carmignac 'L'Importance de la place d'une negation: OYX APITAr-
MON HrHZATO (Philippiens ii. 6)', NTS 18 (1971-72), pp. 131-66. All of
these views are undermined to some degree or another by Hoover's
work (see below). Wright also concludes this, p. 339.
5 W. Jaeger, 'Eine stilgeschichtliche Studie zum Philipperbrief,
Hermes 50 (1915), pp. 536-53.
6 R.W. Hoover, The Harpagmos Enigma: A Philological Solution',
HTR 64 (1971), pp. 95-119. In his 1983 preface Martin acknowledges
the persuasiveness of Hoover's position (p. xxii). For some reason,
however, Martin still retains his 1967 view which Hoover called
'philological obfuscation' (see Hoover, p. 101). See also Wright, p. 328
n.28.
56 The Sti y of Christ in the Ethics of Paul

distinguishable from epfiaiov and ex>py\\ia, and that fortune did

not play a role in apjcayp-a.1 Through a careful study of the
uses of apnay\ia, particularly as a predicate of verbs such as
i, Hoover showed that in contexts similar to Phil. 2.6
has the sense of 'something to take advantage of.2
He also notes that aprcayna and aprcayno*; are used synony-
mously.3 He concludes that Phil. 2.6 indicates that Christ did
not regard being equal with God as something to take advan-
tage of.4
The adverbial use of iacc in this phrase is also rare. It does not
imply complete identity in the same way the adjective i'ooq
might. Rather, when iacc is used with a dative noun it is in
expressions asserting the equality of two things in certain
respects. 5 The context of Phil. 2.6, with its connection of ev
fxopcpfj Qeov i)7cdpxcov and TO EIVCCI iaa 6eG,6 would indicate that
status or position is the respect in which Christ and God are
equal.7
The phrase TO eivcu iaa 0eG, then, reflects the status that
belonged to Christ. Noting that this type of equality with God
belonged to Christ sharpens the image of the previous phrase
in which Christ is connected with the glory of God. Unfortu-
nately for later christological discussions, the passage does not
move on to elaborate the nature of this equality. Rather, this
clause is more interested in relating Christ's attitude to his

1 See Hoover, p. 117.

2 See Hoover, p. 104.
3 Hoover, p. 108, citing Eusebius, Comm. Lk. 6; H.E. 8.12.2.
4 See Hoover, p. 118. As Wright notes, '... "taking advantage of does
not aim at TO eivcti iaa 9ew: it begins from it* (p. 339).
5 Num. 12.12; 1 Kgs 7.33; Job 5.14; 10.10; 11.12; 13.12, 28; 15.16; 24.20;
27.16; 28.2; 29.14; 30.19; 40.4, 10; Wis. 7.3; Isa. 51.23. See also P.
Grelot, 'Deux Expressions difficiles de Philippiens 2,6-7', Bib 53
(1972), pp. 495-507, against J.F. Collange, The Epistle of Saint Paul to
the Philippians, trans. A.W. Heathcote (London: Epworth, 1979),
p. 100, who claims that the use of the adverb gives the expression a
more legal air.
6 Wright argues for this on contextual grounds and on the regular
use of the articular infinitive in Paul (p. 344).
7 See J. Gnilka, Der Philipperbrief, Herders TKNT (Freiburg: Herder,
1968), p. 117: The [adverbial] form does not refer to the essential
nature of divinity, but to a status equal to God's/
 3. Philippians 2.6-11 57

exalted position. That is, he did not consider it something to

exploit.1
Thus far we have a picture of a Christ who has a majestic
position, which could even be called equal to God's. Christ does
not, however, consider this exalted position something to be
used for his own advantage. On the contrary, as the next
phrase indicates, he emptied himself, taking the form of a ser-
vant.

A Change of Position: &A,A,a eccuxov eicevcoaev M,op(pT]v

Xapcov
It would be safe to say that modern scholarship has given up
attempts to base a Kenotic christology on a literal' reading of
2
KEVOO) as emptying something of its contents. It must be noted,
however, that there are several metaphorical uses of KEVOCO.
For example, in Jer. 14.2; 15.9 the passive voice of the verb is
used to describe someone being made desolate by someone else.
Philo uses KEVOCO metaphorically in a medical context to speak
of a doctor purging a patient (Leg. All. 3.226). Paul, on the
other hand, seems to consistently use the metaphor of kenosis
with the sense of nullification or making void (cf. Rom. 4.14,
where KEVOCO is linked with KaxapyEco; 1 Cor. 1.17 where it is
claimed that wise words nullify or empty the power of the
cross; 1 Cor. 9.15 and 2 Cor. 9.3 where boasting is nullified or
emptied of its force).3
It would seem best to adopt the Pauline metaphor for Phil.

1 Both Moule, 1970 (pp. 271ff.) and Wright (p. 345) stress the contrast
between Christ's attitude, as reflected in the text, and what one
might have expected. This reconstruction of a first-century reader's
horizon of expectations is primarily based on what such a reader
would have expected from an oriental despot. It seems reasonable,
however, that the vast majority of real first-century readers of this
passage would have already had some knowledge of the story of
Jesus. This may make it unlikely that they would have compared
Christ's activity and a despot's and, hence, have been surprised.
This surprise is, of course, even less likely upon subsequent read-
ings.
2 See Martin, pp. 169-72.
3 Hooker, 1975, p. 162, and Collange, p. 101 also note this Pauline use
of KEVOO).
58 The Story of Christ in the Ethics of Paul

2.7 since Philo's metaphor depends on a medical context and

Jeremiah's would not really make sense with a reflexive pro-
noun.1 In this sense, then, what could it mean for Christ to
empty or nullify himself? Clearly, this is an obscure image if it
stands on its own. The immediate context, however, in which
Christ had decided not to use his position for his own advan-
tage, would indicate that in emptying himself Christ was
nullifying his exalted position. The next phrase confirms this
when it relates that Christ took on the M^opcpri of a servant. The
image these two phrases convey is one of a change of position
or status.2 Whereas Christ's status as being in the form of God
was one of exaltation, his new position reflects subjection.
Christ has moved from being in a position to give orders to a
position where he must take orders. The reflexive pronoun
indicates that this change was not the result of punishment
but a freely chosen action.3
In regard to the previous clauses, the phrase ^iop(pr|v 8ot>A,o\)
taxpcov is clear to the extent it represents a change in Christ's
status. In emptying himself and taking on the appearance of a
servant, Christ moved from a position of equality with God to
one of obedience to the will of another. This phrase, however, is
somewhat ambiguous in that it does not specify to whom and
in what sense Christ appeared as a servant. Was Christ's
appearance as a servant manifested in taking on a human
body or in being seen to be obedient to God? By not explicitly
resolving this ambiguity the passage is able to draw on both
possibilities.
As the two clauses immediately following this firmly situate
Christ's activity in the human realm, Kasemann is right to

1 J. Jeremias, 'Zu Phil, ii.7: eounov eicevcocev', NovT 6 (1963), pp. 182-
89, argues that the phrase eavtov eicevcoaev is a translation of... m m
T0S3 in Isa. 53.12. While in theory it may well be possible to translate
the Hebrew this way, there is no Greek text of Isaiah that does so.
Secondly, when KEVOCO is used to translate mo in Gen. 24.20 and 2
Chron. 24.11, KEVOCO has the literal sense of emptying an object of its
contents, which is a far different use from that of Phil. 2.7 or Isa.
53.12. See also Gnilka, p. 118 and Bornkamm, 1963, p. 180 for further
criticisms of Jeremias's view.
2 See Schweizer, 1955, p. 54.
3 See Kasemann, 1968, p. 66.
 3. Philippians 2.6-11 59

note that Christ's taking the form of a servant is a reference to

Christ's incarnation in which he subjected himself to the
things to which humanity is subject.1 Michaelis is manifestly
wrong in rejecting this view on the claim that there is no
notion in the Bible that humanity is in bondage.2 One need only
look to Rom. 6.12ff.; Gal. 4.3; Col. 2.20, etc., to find in Paul the
notion that pre-Christian existence is characterized as servi-
tude. 3 Further, passages like Rom. 6.10 and 8.3 indicate that
Paul considered the human Christ to have lived under various
powers.
There is, however, a more specific aspect to Christ's accep-
tance of the form of a servant which is taken up in v. 8. That is,
in his obedience unto death Christ was being obedient to God,
and thus manifesting the appearance of a servant. Here we
would disagree with Kasemann that Christ's obedience unto
death was obedience to the things that hold humanity in
bondage. 4 We will explore the exegetical reasons for this
reading of v. 8 in due course. For now we need only point to a
passage like Rom. 5.18 where Christ's obedience is clearly
obedience to God. The presence of Rom. 5.18 and 8.3 in the
same epistle would indicate that there are several aspects to
Christ's obedience and that these two are not incompatible.
Hence, rather than polarize the issue and force an inadequate
reading of either v. 7 or v. 8, we would claim that |iop(pTiv
8o\)Xo\) XafJcov is able to support the view that Christ appears
as a servant by taking on a human body, subject to the things
that bind humanity, and that Christ has the appearance of a
servant in being seen to be obedient to God in his death.

Situated in the Human Realm: ev OJIOICOJKXTI avBpcorccov yevo-

\Lzvoq KOC! cxr\\ioixi eupeGelq ox; avOpcojuo^
The next two clauses, ev b\ioid)\iaxi dvGpcojccov yew6\izvoq m l
CXWOLZI eipeGeiq (oq avGpcorcoc;, describe the earthly manifes-
tation of Christ's decision to give up his exalted position in

1 See Kasemann, 1968, p. 67.

2 See W. Michaelis, Der Brief des Paulus an die Philipper (Leipzig:
Deichert, 1935), pp. 36ff.
3 See Kasemann, 1968, p. 67.
4 See Kasemann, 1968, pp. 67ff.
60 The Story of Christ in the Ethics of Paul

favor of one of obedience. One of the main issues this verse

raises is a dogmatic one, concerning the extent of Jesus'
humanity. This, however, is not our main interest and we
would agree with Kasemann that
These sentences are not intent on giving a definition of the
essence in the sense of the christology of the later church.
They speak rather about the sequence of occurrences in an
event unified in and of itself: He emptied himself, took the
form of a servant, appeared in the essence of a human
being... In this way, it could be said, he had become man.
The text is not concerned with the identity of a person in var-
ious developmental phases, but with the continuity of a
miraculous event.
The force of these two lines is obscure in that a term like
6^o(cop.a is used to reflect a range of relationships, from those
that border on identity (Deut. 4.16), to those that reflect loose
analogy (Rev. 9.7).2 Likewise the term <5%r\\ia can be used to
indicate outward appearance and inner nature. 3 Nor does the
context give us much aid. The first phrase, ev o^ioicouaxi
avGpamcov yevouevog, may well be a reflection on the birth of
Jesus. 4 It is not unknown for yevo^ievoq to be used in this way in
the NT (cf. Rom. 1.3; Jn 8.58). Alternatively, one might point to
the use of 6^ioio)|xa in Rom. 8.3 and view this verse as a paral-
lel.5 In this case, then, the phrase would convey the notion of
Christ's entrance into the earthly realm in a human body. It
seems reasonable to presume that, as in Rom. 8.3, Christ
would have been subject to those things to which all humanity
is subject. Yet there is no specific indication that when Christ
took on a human body it was for the purpose of ultimately
freeing humanity from its subjection.6

1 See Kasemann, 1968, p. 70.

2 See Schneider, TDNT, 5.191-98.
3 See Schneider, TDNT, 7.954-56; also BGD, p. 804.
4 See Beare, p. 83, who links the phrase with Gal. 4.4.
5 See Kasemann, 1968, p. 68; Gnilka, p. 121.
6 Kasemann insists on calling this passage a 'soteriological drama*
(1968, p. 65 et ai). Kasemann claims that he is not using 'soteriologi-
cal' in a narrow sense (p. 71). Rather, for Kasemann, soteriology is
anything relating to the Savior, Christ, even when the salvific aspect
of Christ's activity is not in view. This collapses discussion of
 3. Philippians 2.6-11 61

The next line is not a great deal clearer. The use of ebpeQeic,
indicates that what is in view is not a quality of a thing in itself,
but a quality as it is recognized by others. 1 The particle oq
would not be an indication of an Aramaic Vorlage like 02*0:0
as Lohmeyer thought. 2 Rather, one can account for it by not-
ing its almost pleonastic use in such texts as Mt. 21.26; Lk.
16.1; 1 Cor. 4.2; 2 Cor. 10.2; 2 Thess. 3.15; Jas 2.9.3
All in all we must admit that the text is not as straight-
forward as we might like.4 We would have to conclude that
rather than providing a clear explication of Christ's human-
ity, these verses firmly situate the following action in the
human realm.

Ultimate Humiliation: eiotTcewcoaev eoruxov yevo^evo^ i)rcr|Koo£

pixpi Bavaxoo), Bavaxou 8e OTcropou
The following two phrases give an account of Christ's activity
in the human realm. Consistent with his servant's appear-
ance, we read that Christ humbled himself and became obedi-
ent even to the extent of dying on the cross. One of the most
immediate parallels this image conjures up is of the Servant of
Yahweh in Isa. 52-53. Michel notes the paradoxical relation-
ship of the Servant to others. He is both like (53.4) and unlike
(52.14; 53.3) the people he lives with. His life distinguishes him

Christ's activity thai has no reference to any of its consequences for

humanity and discussion of Christ's saving activity into the term
soteriology. The misleading nature of this is clear from the fact that
it obscures the very clear differences between texts like Rom. 8.3 and
Gal. 4.4 on the one hand, and Phil. 2.6-11 and Rom. 1.3 on the other.
See also Marshall's comments in regard to Martin's use of this
notion, pp. 124ff.
1 See Martin, 1983, p. 208.
2 See Lohmeyer, 1961, pp. 39ff.
3 SeeBGD,p.9O6.
4 Michel's attempt to explain the opacity of these lines by noting the
indirect ways that apocalyptic texts relate epiphanies is inadequate
on two counts. First, this text is not an apocalyptic text in the sense
that Dan. 7.13; Ezek. 1.26; 8.2: 1 Enoch 30.11; Rev. 1.3 are. Secondly,
even if this were the case, it would only explain why the text is
opaque and not what these lines mean. See O. Michel, *Zur Exegese
von Phil. 2.5-11', in Theologie als Glaubenswagnis, Festschrift for
K. Heim (Hamburg: Furche, 1954), pp. 90ff.
62 The Story of Christ in the Ethics of Paul

from humanity and yet he is firmly rooted in the human

realm. The distinguishing feature of his life is his humiliation
(53.8), which is taken on in obedience to God.1
Martin raises two objections to this view.
In the first place, it is strange that, if the author of the hymn
had wished to point to the Servant of Isaiah as the prototype
of the Church's Redeemer, he should have omitted just those
features in His humiliation which give to His sufferings
their eternal value, viz. His sin-bearing vicarious work.
While the obedience of Christ is mentioned in the hymn, no
hint is given as to how this obedience provides a rationale of
His redemptive work; and no statement is made of the inter-
est which sinful man may have in His redemption.
Martin's objection is confusing. In the first sentence he implies
that Phil. 2.6-11 is concerned with the church's redeemer.
Therefore, the failure of this passage to mention the servant's
redemptive work as in Isaiah undermines the ability of the
servant image in Isaiah to illumine the picture of Christ in
Phil. 2. Clearly, however, Phil. 2.6-11 is not about the church's
redeemer. Hence, one would not expect this aspect of the ser-
vant's work to come into the picture. In the second sentence
Martin turns this objection on its head and claims that since
Phil. 2.6-11 is not about redemption and that since redemption
is a part of the servant's work in Isaiah 52-53, this image
cannot inform our reading of Phil. 2.6-11. There is, however,
no particular reason why one aspect of the servant's activity
in Isaiah cannot inform our reading of v. 8 as long as one does
not import other elements from Isaiah which clearly lack
parallels to Phil. 2.6-11. Our claim here is quite small and
Martin's objection does not stand against it.3
Martin's second objection is that this view tends to be asso-
ciated with the so-called ethical example interpretation, about
which he has reservations.4 We will discuss the ethical exam-
ple view in the next chapter. It is enough to say here that using
1 See Michel, pp. 92ff.
2 See Martin, 1983, p. 213.
3 Martin's objection may have some force when applied to those who
see a closer link between Isaiah 52—53 and Phil. 2.6-11. We will
discuss some of these positions below.
4 See Martin, 1983, pp. 213-14.
 3. Philippians 2.6-11 63

the Servant of Yahweh to inform one's reading of v. 8 in no

way commits one to viewing w.6-11 as an ethical example,
nor does Martin claim that this is a necessary consequence,
merely a tendency. Hence, this objection also lacks force.
Kasemann's position is that Christ's humiliation and obedi-
ence reflect Christ's free choice to submit himself to the pow-
ers that control human life, of which death is the greatest. 1
This view is consistent with Kasemann's interpretation of
M,op(pT]v 8ot>A,o\) Xocpcov discussed above, and will lead him to
view w . 9-11 as an account of Christ's triumph over these
hostile powers.2 In regard to Kasemann's view of v. 8 we would
note several objections. First, Christ's obedience is jieXP19av(*-
xo\) and not 9dvcreep or eic, Odvaxov (cf. Rom. 6.2ff.).3 Death is
not portrayed as a personalized power to whom Christ is sub-
ject. Rather, death, to be more specific, death on a cross, is the
extent to which Christ is obedient. To whom is Christ obedient?
The text is not explicit.4 There are, however, both intrinsic and
extrinsic reasons which make it reasonable to assume that
God is the one to whom Christ is obedient. The fact that God is
the one who exalts Christ in v. 9 lends credence to the notion
that Christ's obedience was obedience to God. This is especially
so as there seems to be a causal relationship between Christ's
humiliation and obedience and God's exaltation of Christ. 5
Further, in Rom. 5.18 when Christ's obedience is also men-
tioned it is clearly obedience to God as opposed to Adam's dis-
obedience.
Christ's obedience unto death is the ultimate testimony to

1 See Kasemann, 1968, pp. 73-76.

2 See Kasemann, 1968, pp. 77ff.
3 This seems to be the most common way to express obedience to
something. See Acts 7.39; 2 Cor. 2.9; also Rom. 1.5; 6.12, 16; 16.19;
Eph. 6.2, 5; Col. 3.20; 2 Thess. 1.8; 3.14; Heb. 5.9; 11.18.
4 K. Barth, The Epistle to the Philippians (London: SCM, 1962), p. 65,
makes a great deal of this. See also Kasemann, 1968, p. 71 and
Gnilka, p. 122.
5 Note the use of 5io KCU in v.9; and also in Lk. 1.35; Acts 10.29; 24.26;
Rom. 4.22; 2 Cor. 1.20; 4.13; 5.9. See also L.W. Hurtado, 'Jesus as
Lordly Example', in From Jesus to Paul, Festschrift for F.W. Beare,
ed. P. Richardson and J.C. Hurd (Waterloo: Wilfrid Laurier Uni-
versity Press, 1984), p. 172.
64 The Story of Christ in the Ethics of Paul

his appearance as a servant. That this death took place on the

cross emphasizes the extent of Christ's humiliation.1 This is
because in addition to being an unspeakably painful death, the
goal of crucifixion was to subject the victim to great indignity.2
As Hengel notes, in the Greco-Roman world the cross was
'obscene in the original sense of the word'.3 Crucifixion was
also a common way of executing slaves.4 That this should be
Christ's fate bears witness to his appearance as a servant. The
contrast between the one who was in the form of God and the
one who died on a cross could not be sharper.
At this point in the passage we have seen Christ exchange
his exalted position for that of a servant. He has entered the
human realm in which he gave testimony to his position as a
servant by humbling himself and by his obedience even to the
extent of dying on the cross. In w. 6-8 Christ's position has
moved steadily downward, and at his death on the cross he
reached the very bottom. In v. 9 God reverses this movement.

A Reversal of Fortunes: 2.9-11

The phrase 5io KOCI indicates that the exaltation related in the
following verses is a direct result of the humiliation and obedi-
ence related in the previous verses.5 This raises the issue of
whether Christ's exaltation is a reward for his obedience or

1 The phrase Gavaioi) 8e oiaupov is taken to be a Pauline gloss by

those who view this passage as a previously formulated composi-
tion. As a result, scholars have tended either to overemphasize or to
ignore this phrase, depending on their interests. Within the passage
as it stands now this is just one element in the total picture of
Christ. It is clear that Christ's death, particularly his death on the
cross as a testimony to the extent of his humiliation, is a theme
taken up elsewhere in Paul. This should not cause us, however, to
give this phrase a significance out of proportion to its place in this
passage. For a thorough discussion of the relation of this phrase to
an original hymn see O. Hofius, Der Christushymnus Philipper 2,6-
11, WUNT (Tubingen: Mohr, 1976), pp. 3-17.
2 See M. Hengel, Crucifixion, trans. J. Bowden (London: SCM, 1977),
p. 24.
3 See Hengel, 1977, p. 24.
4 See Hengel, 1977, pp. 54ff.
5 See p. 63 n. 5 above.
 3. Philippians 2.6-11 65

not.1 Predictably, this issue has split Catholic and Protestant

scholars. Without resolving the wider theological issues
involved in this dispute, it seems clear from the text that exal-
tation is the result of humiliation.
A further issue concerns the extent of Christ's exaltation.
Some scholars have tried to read the verb i)7cep\)\j/6co compara-
tively, reflecting the idea that Christ is exalted to a higher
position than he had in v.6.2 There is no linguistic evidence to
indicate that i)rcep'u\|/6co by itself has a comparative force like
'hyper-exaltation'.3 Rather, it is used consistently in a super-
lative sense to indicate exaltation to the loftiest heights. As the
rest of v. 9 will show, this is also the force of vrcep-uxj/oco in
regard to Christ.4
As part of this exaltation process we read that God bestowed
on Christ the name above all other names.5 An important
point to note in this phrase is that God is the one who grants
the name.6 The actual name that God gives is not specified.
The fact that it is above all other names indicates that the
function of the name is to indicate Christ's position or office as
opposed to indicating personal identity.7 This would tend to
make knowledge of the actual appellation unnecessary.
Clearly, however, the highest name would be the name of God,
and would correspond to the universal acclamation of Christ
asKuriosinv.il.
Kasemann proposed that as Kurios Christ was free to exer-
cise power in a way he could not do when he was in the form of

1 See Martin, 1983, pp. 231ff.

2 Some who hold this view are E. Lohmeyer, Die Briefe an die Philip-
per, an die Kolosser und an Philemon (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 1964), p. 97; Bonnard, p. 46; Kennedy, p. 438.
3 See the use of \)7cep\)y6oo in Ps. 96(97).9; throughout the 'song of the
three young men' in Dan. 3; 4.34; 11.12. When \)7cepi)\|/6a) is used to
talk of God's superiority to any other exalted being the preposition is
used to make the comparison (see Ps. 96(97).9).
4 Some who read it this way are Gnilka, p. 125; Collange, p. 106;
Beare, p. 85.
5 Reading xo 6'von.a with ?>46, R, A, B, C, against D, F, G, et al.> which
omit the article.
6 See Martin, 1983, p. 236.
7 For this use of ovo^a see Lightfoot, p. 113; BGD, p. 576.
66 The Story of Christ in the Ethics of Paul

God in v. 6. This view recognizes that Christ's exaltation is not

a higher state than that reflected in v. 6. Rather, the revelation
of Christ as the ruling power in the cosmos is the 'more'
implied in {mepinj/oco.1 As we have noted, however, there is no
need to view urcepDyoco as implying anything more than
exaltation to a supreme position. Nor is there any indication
that Christ's position in v. 6 is in any way hidden or limited in
the way Kasemann's reading implies.
From v. 6, which describes Christ's position in relation to
God in terms of appearance (jxopcpf|), his position is now
described in terms of authority, office (ovo^ia). To describe the
latter position as higher than the former is difficult as the two
descriptions employ images from two different realms, and
describe Christ's relationship to two different entities, God and
all other names.
Verse 9 reflects a dramatic reversal of fortunes. God has
vindicated the humiliated, obedient one and exalted him to a
position of supremacy. The drama, however, does not end
here. In w. 10-11 we read of the universal acclamation of
God's vindication and exaltation of Christ. These verses move
on from God's exaltation of Christ in v. 9 to expound a conse-
quence of that exaltation.2 That is, 'At the name of Jesus every
knee will bend... and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is
Lord...' The action here is viewed from the perspective of an
observer of heavenly activity as in Revelation 4-5.3 Unlike the
detail of Revelation 4-5, however, these verses present a
narrow scene with little detail.
The verse begins with the name of Jesus being recognized.
That is, not the name, Jesus, but the supreme name above all
names which God has bestowed on Jesus.4 The phrase ev x©

1 See Kasemann, 1968, p. 76.

2 The conjunction ivcc could indicate either consequence or purpose.
In fact, these two possibilities often run together (see BDF, §319). We
would not wish to exclude the notion that the purpose of God's exal-
tation of Christ was so that Christ might receive universal acclaim,
yet even within his notion the idea that acclamation is a conse-
quence of exaltation is implied. Hence, we have employed the term
'consequence'.
3 See Lohmeyer, 1964, p. 97 n. 4.
4 See Martin, 1983, pp. 253ff.
 3. Philippians 2.6-11 67

ovouocxi 'IHGOS initiates the response to God's act of bestowing

the name on Jesus.1 We are not told how this response is pro-
voked, but most commentators assume that it is by some sort
of universal proclamation.2 Nor does the text provide an
account of the temporal relationship between the 'naming" of
Jesus in v. 9 and the response to that in w. 10-11. Even if one
reads e^o^o^oynaexai (with A, C, D, F, G, et al.) it is still most
likely that the verb form is indicating the achieved conse-
quence of a previous event rather than providing a temporal
reference.3
The acclamation that follows the recognition of God's exal-
tation of Jesus is reminiscent of Isa. 45.23. In that passage this
image of every knee bending and every tongue confessing to
God is used to justify the claims made in the previous verses
about God's power to save those who repent. It conveys the
idea of God's omnipotence and humanity's universal submis-
sion. The image is used in this text in the same way, to indicate
submission to Jesus Christ as Kurios, as the name above all
names.4
The term e^ouoXoyeco often carries the sense of public praise
and acclamation.5 As Mt. 11.25 and Lk. 10.21 show, however,
there is nothing in this term that would necessarily link this
praise to a cultic context.6

1 The phrase ev T(p 6v6\iax\ is not a formula of invocation here, as

though the cosmic powers were invoking that name which Jesus
has. Rather, its meaning is that when the name is uttered they
prostrate themselves in subjection and acknowledgement that this
is the name over air (Martin, 1983, p. 251). The alternative view
(cited by Martin, 1983, p. 250) is that the proclamation of the name of
Jesus is the accompanying circumstance of the submission. This
view tends to make either the proclamation at the beginning of v. 10
or that at the beginning of v. 11 redundant.
2 See Martin, 1983, p. 251; Gnilka, p. 127.
3 This is particularly likely in the light of the subjunctive KOCH^U to
which the reading k^o\ioXoyx\or\ia\ may have been made to conform.
4 In Rom. 14.11 Paul quotes this verse to emphasize universal sub-
mission to God's judgment.
5 It is also used in regard to the confession of sin (Mt. 3.6; Mk 1.5;
Acts 19.18; Jas 5.16) and in Lk. 22.6 to indicate the act of coming to
an agreement.
6 Against Michel, TDNT, 5.213-14 and Neufeld, 1963, pp. 13-17.
68 The Story of Christ in the Ethics of Paul

In regard to the three terms, ercovpavicov, erciyeicov and

KCCTCXX0OV{G)V, scholars have generally abandoned the older
view that these terms describe heavenly beings, earthly beings
and the dead.1 The majority view now is that these terms des-
ignate spiritual powers.2 The uncertain issue is whether these
are hostile powers or not. There is no mention of cosmic con-
flict in the previous verses, nor is it even implied as in Col.
1.15-20. One the other hand, the closest linguistic parallels to
the terminology of this verse refer to demonic powers (Ign.
Trail. 9.1). There does not seem to be a clear way to adjudicate
between these two competing pieces of evidence. As a decision
bn this issue is not essential for our purposes we will leave this
question open. We would add, however, that the ambiguity
here may play upon the ambiguity in v. 7, implying that
underlying the exaltation scene played out in w.9-11 is the
notion that Christ has somehow subdued those powers to
which he would have been subject upon entering the human
realm.
These powers acclaim Jesus Christ as Lord. This phrase
clarifies Jesus' position as the one with the name above all
names. 3 Following this acclamation, which appropriately
culminates the action, we find the phrase eiq 86^ocv Qtov
7caxpo<;.4 This phrase reminds the reader that God is the one
who has initiated the activities of w.9ff., and that the accla-
mation of Christ by all of the powers ultimately leads to the
1 See Lightfoot, p. 115; Michaelis, p. 42; Vincent, p. 63. Hofius, p. 53,
tries to reintroduce this view. It would seem, however, that Ign.
Trail. 9.1 is a decisive text against this view.
2 See Martin, 1983, p. 259; Gnilka, p. 128; G.F. Hawthorne, Philippi-
ans, WBC (Waco: Word, 1983), p. 93; see also Ign. Trail. 9.1.
3 See T. Nagata's comment that '... the real concern of the hymn is
neither with who came to acknowledge the lordship of Christ, nor
with the soteriological significance as such, but with the purely
christological fact that Jesus Christ... is the lord of the cosmos*
(Thil. 2.5-11: A Case Study in the Contextual Shaping of Christo-
logy' [PhD, Princeton, 1981], p. 298).
4 Those who reconstruct an original hymn often leave out this line for
various reasons. See J. Jeremias, 'Zur Gedankenfuhrung in den
paulinischen Briefen', in Studia Paulina, Festschrift for J. de
Zwaan, ed. J. Sevenster and W.C. van Unnik (Haarlem: Bohn,
1953), pp. 153-54.
 3. Philippians 2.6-11 69

glory of God.1

Other Texts which Might Illumine this One

In Phil. 2.6-11 Christ moves from a position of glory to humil-
iation to exaltation. Various attempts to read this passage
against a roughly contemporary background have met with
varying degrees of success. One factor in this is the fact that,
unlike Col. 1.15-20, the most important terms used in Phil.
2.6-11 to describe Christ are not found in similar descriptions
of other figures. Perhaps the text with the most linguistic
affinities with Phil. 2.6-11 is Corp. Herm. 1.12ff. In this
passage we find phrases such as M.opcpf| (1.12, 14) to describe
the Urmensch, who is equal with God (i'aov aviS, 1.12) and in
his descent to earth becomes a slave to 'the harmony7 (Softtax;
apuoviccQ, 1.15).
Kasemann relies on these connections and connections to
other gnostic texts to identify Phil. 2.6-11 as a Christianized
Urmensch-Savior myth.2 Georgi offers several criticisms of
Kasemann's position which we will not rehearse here. We
should, however, note that the so-called Urmensch-Savior
myth has been shown to be a creation of critics conflating sev-
eral texts to reconstruct a myth that is never actually formu-
lated in any ancient text.3 This in no way negates the linguistic
connections between Corp. Herm. 1 and Phil. 2. It does,
however, mean that in proposing a background against which
to read Phil. 2.6-11 one would then be limited to textual
material and not to a reconstructed myth. This being the case,
there is very little connection between the Urmensch of Corp.
Herm. 1 and the Christ of Phil. 2 beyond the use of the terms
already mentioned. The descent of the Urmensch occurs in
primal time; Phil. 2 speaks of an event in history. The
Urmensch cohabits with Nature and creates humanity; our
text mentions no such activity, and is not interested in
accounting for human origins. Christ shares in the lot of
1 See Lohmeyer, 1964, p. 98; Collange, p. 109.
2 See Kasemann, 1968, pp. 62ff.
3 See D. Georgi, 'Der vorpaulinische Hymnus Phil. 2,6-11\ in Zeit und
Geschichte, Festschrift for R. Bultmann, ed. E. Dinkier (Tubingen:
Mohr, 1964), pp. 264-66; also C. Colpe, Die religionsgeschichtliche
Schule (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1961), esp. pp. 170ff.
70 The Story of Christ in the Ethics of Paul

humanity; the Urmensch, while in the realm of nature, is still

a supreme being. Even as a servant of 'the harmony' the
Urmensch is immortal. Christ, on the other hand, is obedient
to God and it leads to his death. Christ's obedience leads to
exaltation; there is no mention of this in Corp. Herm. 1.
Ultimately, it becomes clear that the connections between
these two texts are limited to some shared vocabulary, and
that Corp. Herm. 1 does not provide an adequate background
against which to read Phil. 2.6-11. Therefore, one is forced to
look for parallels in terms of shared motifs and conceptual
patterns. This means that the sort of parallels one does find
will be of a softer, less explicit nature. The history of scholar-
ship on this passage suggests that the closer the parallel one
draws between Philippians 2 and another text the more likely
one will misrepresent one of the texts.1 In the light of this, we
will examine two other possible backgrounds against which
scholars read this text, Paul's 'Adam christology' and the
image of the suffering servant/righteous person.
We will begin by looking at Phil. 2.6-11 against the back-
ground of Paul's 'Adam christology'. In 1936 J. Hering first
proposed this background and it has had several adherents
since then.2 One of the strongest assertions of this view is found
in the recent work of J.D.G. Dunn.3 We will use Dunn's work
as the main example of this view.
One must admit that the person of Adam and the narratives
about him in Genesis 1-3 play a significant role in Paul's
thought.4 In Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15 Paul explicitly
contrasts Adam and Christ. Adam brings death; Christ brings
life. Adam deviated from God's intention; Christ fulfilled it. By
incorporation into Christ the believer begins to be transformed
into God's ideal from which Adam deviated.5 In these cases

1 For good examples of this see Georgi (particularly part three of his
essay) and J. Murphy O'Connor, 'Christological Anthropology in
Phil. 2.6-11', RB 83 (1976), pp. 25-50. See also the criticisms leveled at
these works by Sanders, 1971, pp. 70-74 and G. Howard, 'Phil. 2.6-11
and the Human Christ', CBQ 40 (1978), pp. 369-72.
2 See p. 50 n. 7 above.
3 J.D.G. Dunn, Christology in the Making (London: SCM, 1980).
4 See Dunn, pp. lOlff.
5 See Dunn, pp. 107ff.
 3. Philippians 2.6-11 71

Christ and Adam are contrasted as type and antitype.

In regard to Philippians 2 this idea needs to be modified as
Adam is not specifically mentioned in the text. Here (and
elsewhere according to Dunn) the intended allusion to Adam
can be fomulated as follows: Jesus fully participates in the lot of
the first Adam before God installs him as the last Adam at his
exaltation.1 The christology lying behind all this is that the
resolution to the plight of man is provided not, as it were by
scrapping the previous model and starting afresh with a new
humanity wholly independent of the old, but precisely by
Christ following through Adam's plight to the end (death) and
thus becoming a new Adam in resurrection beyond death/ 2 It
is against this background of an implicit contrast with Adam
that Dunn approaches Philippians 2.
The crucial verses for this position are w . 6-8, and the cru-
cial issue in these verses is the extent to which they resonate
with the picture we have of the first Adam. Dunn relies some-
what on the equivalence of uop<FI and EIKCOV in order to view
Christ, who was in the form of God, as a reflection of Adam
who was created KCCT' GIKOVCC Geou.3 We have already shown
that there is no linguistic evidence for this supposition and will
not labor the point further.
Dunn also claims that the 'form of a servant' reflects
Adam's state after the fall. This position was forced on Adam,
but Christ freely took it up. If, however, there is no reason to
link Christ, who was in the form of God, with Adam, then
there is no reason why his appearance as a servant should be a
specific reference to Adam.
Further, Dunn relies on a res rapienda view o{ apnay\i6q to
read v. 6b as a contrast between Jesus' refusal to grasp at
equality with God and Adam's grasping for knowledge of good
and evil in the temptation narrative.4 This whole view depends
on an inadequate reading of apnayiioq.5 If the status of iacc Geco6
is something already available to Jesus as Hoover's reading
1 These other passages include Rom. 8.3; 2 Cor. 5.21; Gal. 4.4.
2 See Dunn, p. 113.
3 See Dunn, p. 115.
4 See Dunn, p. 116.
5 Dunn seems unaware of Hoover's work.
6 Dunn misreads 6eoO, p. 117.
72 The Story of Christ in the Ethics of Paul

implies, then the connection of this phrase to Adam and the

temptation narrative is broken. Verses 7d-8 which relate
Jesus' life on earth have only a trivial connection to Adam in
the sense that they were both human and shared in the lot of
humanity. This, however, links any human to Adam and is
not very illuminating for this particular case. We would con-
clude, then, that the depiction of Christ in 2.6-8 has no linguis-
tic connection and only the most general conceptual connec-
tion to Adam, particularly to Adam as Paul views him.
Nor does the Christ of w. 9-11 bear much relation to the
Christ of 1 Cor. 15.44ff. and Rom. 5.12ff. In 1 Corinthians and
Romans the exalted Christ, as the last Adam, reverses the
alienation between God and humanity caused by the first
Adam. The exalted Christ's role as last Adam is soteriological.
Phil. 2.9-11 says nothing about soteriology. Christ's exaltation
is God's vindication of Christ's obedience, and leads to God's
further glory. There is no mention of the consequences of this
for sinful humanity.1 In regard to the background against
which one might read this passage we would conclude that
Dunn may well have reflected Paul's views of Adam, but by
relying on this as a background for Phil. 2, he has misread the
passage.
In the light of these criticisms one might adopt a softer posi-
tion and claim that the implicit contrast between Christ in
Phil. 2.6-11 and Adam is less direct than Dunn proposes.2 This
indirect contrast could be stated thus: Adam was disobedient
and punished, as opposed to Christ who was obedient and
exalted. It is a similar contrast in Romans 5. There, however,
the contrast is explicit, the characters are identified. In
Philippians 2 Adam is never mentioned. Again, in Romans 5
the Adam/Christ contrast has soteriological importance, while
Philippians 2 makes no direct soteriological statement.
Clearly, one can explore the contrast between Adam as he is
portrayed elsewhere in Paul and Christ as he is portrayed in
1 One might point to Phil. 3.21 for these, but there is no mention of it
in the passage in question. See the next chapter for a discussion of
this verse.
2 See, for example, N.T. Wright, 'Adam in Pauline Christology', SBL
Seminar Papers 1983 (Chico: Scholars Press, 1983), pp. 373-84; also
Cullmann, pp. 174ff.
 3. Philippians 2.6-11 73

Phil. 2.6-11. The point is that Phil. 2.6-11 does not explore this
contrast itself as Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15 do. This
raises questions about the ability of Romans 5 and 1
Corinthians 15 to illumine the picture of Christ in Phil. 2.6-11.
It does not undermine the potential value of comparing the
Christ of Philippians 2 with the Adam of Romans 5 for some
other purpose.
We would propose that a much more adequate, alternative
background against which one can illumine Phil. 2.6-11 is
found in texts discussing the suffering servant/righteous one
in Judaism. The problem which consistently ensnares scholars
who read Philippians 2 against such a background is that they
extend the parallels too far. This is usually done when scholars
try to make direct connections between Phil. 2.6-11 and, for
example, Isa. 52.13-53.12. Two cases of this are Jeremias's
attempts to show that ecruxov eicevcoaev is a direct translation of
the Hebrew of Isa. 53.7, and that 8o\)Xoq in 2.7 is a translation
of 72D in Isaiah 53. * These linguistic enterprises have been
roundly criticized.2 Their rejection has, to some extent, moved
scholars away from this passage as a possible background for
Philippians 2.
If, however, one is not concerned to find direct literary
sources for Philippians 2 but merely to find a conceptual
background against which to read this passage, then there is
much to commend Isa. 52.13-53.12. In Isaiah God's servant is
humiliated and then exalted in an analogous way to Christ's
humiliation and exaltation in Philippians 2. One must admit,
however, that the servant's sufferings are related to the
forgiveness of sins which is not a part of Phil. 2.6-11. Further,
there is an emphasis on Christ's choice of humiliation in
Philippians 2 that is not apparent in Isaiah. Nevertheless, both
passages can easily fit into a general pattern of humiliation
and exaltation such as the one Schweizer presents.3 Isaiah 52-
53 can be seen as one of several texts which can illumine the
1 See above, p. 58 n. 1; also TDNT, 5.711.
2 See especially M. Hooker, Jesus and the Servant (London: SPCK,
1959), pp. 120-23, and Bornkamm, 1963, p. 180.
3 See Schweizer, 1955, pp.35ff.; also Nagata, p. 295, who says, The
basic formative scheme of the hymn is God's vindicating act of exalt-
ing the self-humiliated Christ as cosmocrator'.
74 The Story of Christ in the Ethics of Paul

presentation of Christ's activity in Phil. 2.6-11. Difficulties

arise when one pushes the connection between any two
particular texts too far, ignoring the obvious differences
between them.
Another text which fits into this pattern but has also been
pushed too far as a source for Philippians 2 is Wisdom 2-5.
Georgi's work on this passage provides a good example of
pushing a useful parallel too far.1 In Wisdom it is the
Righteous (Skaiog) who calls himself the servant of the Lord
(2.13) and who suffers at the hands of the unrighteous (2.1-
20). God, however, intervenes and exalts the righteous one
(3.1-9; 5.15ff.).
The problems in Georgi's position begin to surface in part 3
of his essay. In this he shows that the statements about
Christ's pre-existence in 2.6-7 derive from statements about
Wisdom's pre-existence in Wisdom 8ff. and not about the
righteous one.2 To show how these statements about Wisdom
and the righteous one came to be combined in the Christ of
Phil. 2.6-11 Georgi proposes that they were combined in a
Jewish hymn which Christians later re-worked and applied to
Christ.3
Sanders rightly explores the inner tensions in Georgi's
speculations.4 He points out that in his desire to find direct lit-
erary dependence between Philippians 2 and another single
source (Wisdom), Georgi has pushed the connections between
these two texts too far and his resulting solution is overly
complex and speculative.5
Clearly, however, there are useful parallels in Wisdom. The
righteous one who suffers in obedience to God and is vindi-
cated through exaltation fits with the same general pattern of
Phil. 2.6-11. There may also be some parallels between the
confession of the unrighteous (Wisdom 5) and the acclama-
tion of Christ as Lord. One might even find that the
speculation about Wisdom reflected in the later chapters of

1 See above, p. 69 n. 3.
2 See Georgi, p. 276.
3 See Georgi, pp. 281ff.
4 See Sanders, 1971, pp. 72ff.
5 See Sanders, 1971, p. 74.
 3. Philippians 2.6-11 75

Wisdom provides some background for the concepts of Phil.

2.6-7. There is, however, no need to posit a literary relationship
between these texts. Nor does one need to claim that Wisdom
provides the only background against which to read Phil. 2.6-
II. 1 It is this general pattern of a person who suffers in
obedience to God and is then exalted, of which Isaiah 52ff. and
Wisdom 2ff. are just two examples, that provides the best
conceptual background for Phil. 2.6-11. In the next Chapter
we will try to show the important role this pattern plays in the
function of the passage in the argument of the epistle.
The picture of Christ this passage provides for us is one
which opens with Christ occupying an exalted position similar
in status to God's own position. Christ voluntarily abandons
this position and enters the human realm as an obedient ser-
vant (both in the general sense in which all humans were seen
to be in bondage, and in the more specific sense of being God's
servant). His obedience ultimately leads to his humiliation,
culminating in an ignoble death on the cross. When Christ
had reached the extremities of humiliation, God intervened.
God vindicated Christ's obedience by exalting him, giving him
the name above all names, and establishing him as Lord of the
cosmos. With this picture in mind we will now turn to discuss
Paul's application of it in the rest of the epistle.

1 Another useful text might be Asc. Isa. 11.

 Chapter 4

THE FUNCTION OF PHILIPPIANS 2.6-11

The Situation Addressed in the Epistle

The task of discussing the function of Phil. 2.6-11 in the epistle
as a whole is somewhat complicated by the dual role that the
hymn plays in Paul's argument. In this chapter we will try to
show that Paul uses 2.6-11 to support the ethical demands of
1.27ff., which are designed to give the Philippians directions
about how they are to live in the midst of hostile surroundings.
Further, we will argue that 2.6-11 also functions to support
Paul's argument against his opponents in 3. Iff.1 While the
1 M.D. Hooker also sees 2.6-11 as playing a role in the discourse of
both 1.27ff. and of 3.17-20 (1975, pp. 152-57). The difference between
our position and hers is that we think that the whole of 2.6-11 is
employed in both the argument of 1.27ff. and the argument of 3.Iff.
Hooker, on the other hand, sees no role for 2.9-11 in 1.27ff. She pro-
poses that these verses are taken up in 3.20. If this is the case, one
wonders why 2.9-11 do not occur in the context of the argument of
3.Iff. and not in their present inconvenient position. Further,
instead of a detailed examination of the arguments of each section of
the epistle, Hooker emphasizes the morphological similarities be-
tween words in 2.6-11 and words elsewhere in the epistle. One need
only look at the semantic differences between, for example, oxflixa in
2.7 and \iexaGxr\\iOLzioei in 3.20 to see how potentially misleading
such morphological comparisons can be. Nevertheless, some key
terms in 3.20ff. may resonate with, if not repeat, terms in 2.6-11 (e.g.
\)7cdpxcov (2.6)/i)jcdpxei (3.20); exajceivcooev (2.8)/Ta7ieivo<ppoawn (3.21);
icopux; 'Iriao\)<; Xpiaxo<; (2.11)/ic6piov 'ITIGOOV Xpiaxov (3.20); see
Hooker, pp. 152-153, for a full list of these terms). Clearly, the
meaning of these terms in one context should not simply be imposed
on similar terms in another context. Such repetitions, however,
may well serve as clues to the reader that Paul is relying on the
picture of Christ in 2.6-11 to support his position in Phil. 3. See
further our discussion of the role of 2.6-11 in the argument of 3.2ff.
78 The Story of Christ in the Ethics of Paul

arguments of 1.27ff. and 3.Iff. are, to a certain extent, interre-

lated, we will examine them separately in order to distinguish
clearly the function of 2.6-11 in each case.1 We will begin by
discussing the function of 2.6-11 in regard to its immediate
context, 1.27fif.
After informing the Philippians about his own situation in
prison and how the gospel of Christ was faring as a result,
Paul turns his attention to the situation of the Philippian
church in 1.27ff. In this section of the epistle there is very little
concrete information about the church. We do read in 1.28-30
that the church has opponents and is being persecuted. The
fact that these opponents could cause fear among the Philippi-
ans (v. 28), coupled with the implication that they can cause
suffering (v. 29), would indicate that these opponents are out-
side the church. This is further supported by the parallels Paul
draws between his own encounters with those who oppose the
church and the Philippians' situation (v. 30). These opponents
stand in contrast to Paul's opponents in 1.15ff. and 3. Iff. who
clearly make some claim to belong to Christ.2
No reason is given for the persecution the Philippians were
experiencing. Presumably they would have known why they
were persecuted, and the reasons could go without saying. In
Acts 16 we read that Paul's missionary activity in Philippi
brought him into conflict with the civil authorities (cf. also
1 Thess. 2.2). While the charges brought against him, in large

1 While several scholars have questioned whether Philippians was

composed all at one time, we are not concerned to answer this ques-
tion here. Our point is simply that the argument in Phil. 3 draws
much of its force and coherence from 2.6-11. Hence, no matter when
ch. 3 may have been composed, the argument must be read in the
light of the preceding two chapters. For various theories on the
composition of Philippians see R.P. Martin, Philippians, NCB
(London: Oliphants, 1976), pp. lOff.; Hawthorne, pp. xxixfF.; Gnilka,
1968, pp. 5ff.; B. Mengel, Studien zum Philipperbrief (Tubingen:
Mohr, 1982), pp. 191-212.
2 See H. Koester, The Purpose of the Polemic of a Pauline Fragment',
NTS 8 (1961-62), who notes, The entire argument [of Phil. 3] is con-
vincing only if the opponents shared Paul's conviction that the ulti-
mate goal is "to be found in Christ"'(p. 322). See also Martin, 1976,
p. 22 and Gnilka, 1968, p. 99 who clearly state that the Philippians'
opponents in 1.28 are different from Paul's opponents in 3.Iff.
 4. The Function of Philippians 2.6-11 79

measure, arose out of commercial self-interest (16.19), Paul

and and his companions are also charged with being Jews
(16.20). In fact, this seems to be the main charge against
them.1 If, as Martin posits, the Jews of Philippi met outside the
city (16.3) because they were prohibited from practicing their
religion inside the city walls, then we have further evidence of
the animosity the local populace had for Judaism.2 This ani-
mosity may have been directed at the earliest Philippian
Christians, who, although mainly comprised of Gentiles, had
close connections to such Jewish women as Lydia (Acts 16.40).
While this seems to be a plausible account of the nature of
the opposition to the Philippian church, Paul's directions con-
cerning how the Philippians are to live in the light of persecu-
tion are of such a general nature that they could apply to
almost any situation of persecution. These directions comprise
a section of the epistle from 1.27 to 2.18.3 Their aim is to help
the Philippian church to remain a faithful witness to Christ in
the midst of hostile surroundings.

The Problem of the Function of Philippians 2.6-11

It is generally accepted that Paul bases his ethical commands
in 1.27fF. on the hymnic passage in 2.6-11. Exactly how this
passage functions as a basis for Paul's commands, however, is
a contested point. The traditional view, which extends back
beyond the Reformation, is that Christ's activity of self-denial
and humiliation related in w. 6-11 functions as an example
for believers to imitate.4 That is, the behavior which Paul
demands of the Philippians in 1.27-2.18 is based on and
justified by Christ's example. This view persisted until Kase-

1 See Martin, 1976, p. 5; also Beare, p. 11.

2 See Martin, 1976, pp. 5-6.
3 So Collange, p. 71; Bonnard, p. 32; Gnilka, 1968, p. 95; Martin, 1976,
p. 80; Hawthorne, p. 53. Lohmeyer, 1964, p. 70 sees this section as
only extending to 2.16.
4 For a brief history of this view see Kasemann, 1968, pp. 45ff. One
might well question whether anyone actually ever held the view that
Kasemann ridicules. See our conclusion for a further discussion of
this. For now we will let this view stand simply because it has been a
powerful fiction which has influenced modern discussion.
80 The Story of Christ in the Ethics of Paul

mann took it to task in 1950. * Since then, Kasemann's position,

particularly as it was formulated by Martin, has held sway.2
The most damaging argument against viewing w. 6-11 as
the presentation of an example for the Philippians to imitate is
that such a view fails to take account of w. 9-11.3 As it would
certainly be impossible for a believer to imitate these verses,
Kasemann argued that scholars proposing an 'ethical exam-
ple' interpretation of w. 6-11 necessarily treated w. 9-11 as
an 'excursus' or an 'unwanted plus'.4 He claims that, 'If the
conclusion lacks any paraenetic reference, then the passage as
a whole can hardly be interpreted in terms of the theme of the
ethical example'.5
Kasemann then proposed an alternative view that sought to
take account of the entire passage. He began by examining 2.5,
which is certainly a key verse for establishing how w. 6-11
should be read. Kasemann rejected the idea that o icai ev
Xpiaxo) Tnaoa) referred to the person of Christ, posing him as
an ethical example to be imitated. Rather, he claimed the
phrase should be read in the Pauline formulaic sense of being
'within the realm of Christ'.6 This claim allows Kasemann to

1 Kasemann credits Lohmeyer with the insights that began to

undermine this view. He criticizes Lohmeyer, however, for falling
back into ethical idealism. See Kasemann, 1968, pp. 46-50; Loh-
meyer, 1964, pp. 90-98.
2 See Martin, 1983. See also J.A. Sanders's comment on Kasemann's
essay, 'One more prop is taken from under the nose of those who
still would find models for morality in the Bible' ('Dissenting Deities
and Phil. 2.1-11', JBL 88 [1969], p. 289).
3 A further objection to this view is that it inevitably binds one up in
ethical idealism (Kasemann, 1968, pp. 46-48). This vestige of tradi-
tional liberalism was particularly repugnant to Kasemann. Hur-
tado (pp. 114-16) makes some interesting comments about how this
predisposition may have affected Kasemann's exegesis. Another
objection, raised by Martin, is that Paul never uses the earthly Jesus
as an example to be imitated (1983, p. 288). This objection seems to be
countered by such passages as Rom. 15.3-8; 1 Thess. 1.6. On this
point see G. Strecker, 'Redaktion und Tradition im Christushym-
nus Phil. 2.6-11', ZNW 55 (1964), p. 65.
4 See Kasemann, 1968, pp. 52ff.
5 See Kasemann, 1968, p. 53.
6 See Kasemann, 1968, p. 51.
 4. The Function of Philippians 2.6-11 81

supply a verb like cppoveixe or cppovew 5ei to the second clause of

the verse as opposed to e(ppovf|0r| or r\v which the 'ethical
example' view supplied. Instead of admonishing the Philippi-
ans to imitate Christ's example, v. 5 is seen by Kasemann as
admonishing the Philippians to 'conduct themselves towards
one another as is fitting within the realm of Christ'.1
Kasemann, then, read vv. 6-11 as a soteriological drama
relating the events that establish this realm of Christ.2 We
have already criticized Kasemann's exegesis of w. 6-11. His
ideas on the function of these verses, however, primarily rely
on the existence of a general humiliation/ exaltation theme in
them, which is widely accepted even by those who reject
Kasemann's exegesis of this passage in the light of a 'Gnostic
Redeemer' myth.
On the basis of this reading, Kasemann then tried to explain
how w. 6-11 relate to Paul's ethical commands. Paul, accord-
ing to Kasemann, admonishes the Philippians to conduct
themselves towards one another as is fitting within the realm
of Christ. He then goes on to relate how this realm was
established with Christ as the supreme power in it (w.6-11).
The resulting argument then runs something like this: Since
the Philippians are in Christ's realm, and Christ, the Lord of
the cosmos, is their Lord, they must be obedient to Christ, they
must live as those who are 'in Christ'.3
The question we would raise against Kasemann's view is
whether this explanation really deals with the point at issue.
Unlike a text like Rom. 6.Iff., the issue in Philippians is not
whether to be obedient or not, whether to live in Christ or in
sin.4 Rather, Paul is anxious to impart to the Philippians an
understanding of what would constitute an obedient life in
their situation (cf. 1.27).5 To assert, as Kasemann claims Paul

1 See Kasemann, 1968, p. 83.

2 See Kasemann, 1968, p. 65.
3 See Kasemann, 1968, pp. 83-88.
4 Kasemann (1968, p. 84) draws an explicit parallel between Rom. 6.2
and Phil. 2.5. See also K. Wegenast, Der Verstdndnis der Tradition
bei Paulus und in den Deuteropaulinen, WMANT (Neukirchen:
Neukirchener Verlag, 1962), p. 89.
5 Jewett's claim that the Philippians were resisting Paul's 'command
to act ethically in a manner consistent with the gospel' finds no
82 The Story of Christ in the Ethics of Paul

does in 2.5-11, that the Philippians are under Christ's lordship,

therefore they must obey, answers the question of whether or
not to obey. This, however, is not the issue addressed in the
epistle. Kasemann has made a naive ethical example reading
of 2.5-11 untenable, but his own formulation is also an inade-
quate explanation of the way in which this hymnic passage
functions to support Paul's paraenesis because it does not deal
with the concerns of the epistle.
Several have taken issue with Kasemann's position. One of
the first to question Kasemann's explanation of the function of
Phil. 2.6-11 was E. Larsson.1 Larsson claims that Paul clearly
presents Christ as a model (Vorbild) in several instances. The
only question is what scale and what content this model should
have.'2 Larsson examines several Pauline texts in which he
sees Christ presented as a model. One of these is Phil. 2.5-11.
Larsson's main objection to Kasemann's position is that he sets
up too strong a barrier between the facts of redemption in the
hymnic passage and the surrounding paraenetic context.3
Larsson also rejects Kasemann's reading of the second clause
of 2.5. If, with Kasemann, one adds (ppoveixe to this clause then
the Philippians become the subjects of the second half of the
verse. The result of this is that ev h\ilv and ev Xpiaxw 'Inaoi)
become equivalent and the whole second clause becomes
superfluous if not merely tautologous.4 These problems allow
Larsson to re-assert an 'ethical example' reading of v. 5.
If this view is to be successful, however, Larsson must be
able to treat w. 9-11 seriously. Larsson, however, admits that

justification in the text. See R. Jewett, 'Conflicting Movements in

the Early Church as Reflected in Philippians', NovT 12 (1970), p. 374.
1 See Christus als Vorbild. Before Larsson, D.M. Stanley made the
point that there seemed to be a prejudice in Protestant scholarship
against the idea of ethical models (Vorbilder) which did not allow
them to see this concept in the NT. See 'Become Imitators of Me\ Bib
40 (1959) pp. 859-77. More recently, W. Kurz has made a similar
point. See 'Kenotic Imitation of Paul and of Christ in Philippians 2
and 3', in Discipleship in the New Testament, ed. F. Segovia (Phila-
delphia: Fortress, 1985), p. 103.
2 See Larsson, p. 17.
3 See Larsson, p. 234.
4 See Larsson, p. 233.
 4. The Function of Philippians 2.6-11 83

with w. 6-8 the paraenesis ends.1 He proposes that w. 9-11

reflect the future, heavenly glorification that God will bestow
on the church as a reward.2 We will argue later that a notion
of future exaltation similar to Larsson's is an essential part of
Paul's argument in 1.27ff. and 3.2ff. Larsson, however, makes
no real attempt to show this.3 Rather, he admits that w. 9-11
play no role in the surrounding argument.4 Hence, his expla-
nation lapses into the same problem for which Kasemann
criticized traditional views.
H.D. Betz cites Kasemann's work with approval in his book
Nachfolge und Nachahmung Jesu Christi im Neuen Testa-
ment.5 Betz notes, however, that Larsson is right in his criti-
cism of Kasemann for separating the soteriological drama of
w. 6-11 from its ethical context.6 Betz tries to counter this by
showing that the Urmensch myth is made concrete for the
ethical life of the Philippians because of their incorporation
into Christ.7 That is, incorporation into Christ demands obedi-
ence and humility (2.3, 12) of the type demonstrated by Christ
in 2.6-II.8 This advances Kasemann's view only slightly.
While Betz notes the lack of connection between Kasemann's
reading of 2.5-11 and its context, all he has done is to show the
connection between 2.8 and 2.3, 12. He is then open both to
Kasemann's criticism that he does not take the whole passage
seriously (except in the same way Kasemann does), and to the
criticism of not trying to integrate fully the passage into its
present context (although he is better at this than Kasemann).
One of the most recent scholars to take issue with Kase-
mann's position is L.W. Hurtado.9 Hurtado basically follows
two lines of argument in his opposition to Kasemann. First, he
examines the numerous possible history of religions back-

1 See Larsson, p. 253.

2 See Larsson, p. 262.
3 Except for a vague reference to 3.20 on p. 260. See also Hooker, 1975,
pp. 155ff. who makes a similar observation.
4 See Larsson, p. 262.
5 (Tubingen: Mohr, 1972), pp. 163ff.
6 See Betz, p. 167 n. 5.
7 See Betz, p. 167. Betz calls this the *Versittlichung des Mythos'.
8 See Betz, p. 167.
9 See above, p. 63 n. 5.
84 The Story of Christ in the Ethics of Paul

grounds proposed for this passage.1 He does not, however, try

to determine the precise background of the passage. Rather,
he is satisfied to note that There is wide agreement that the
most important texts and the most likely religious atmosphere
have to do with Judaism of the Greco-Roman period'.2
Hurtado then notes that the situations andfiguresdiscussed in
these texts function as positive and negative ethical examples:3
If what is regarded these days as the general background of
Phil. 2.5-11 reflects ethical concerns, and if the figures in
this literature that are offered by scholars as analogies or
contrasts for the description of Christ so function in Jewish
literature as to include their being positive or negative ethical
examples, then this raises the question of whether Jesus too
so functions in this passage.
This is an interesting and overlooked point. Hurtado recog-
nizes, however, the limited nature of this claim. He also rec-
ognizes that interpretations based on a passage's supposed
background are notoriously open to abuse, and tend to ignore
the importance of interpreting passages in their present con-
text.5 With this in mind, Hurtado extends his argument to
examine Phil. 2.6-11 in its immediate context.6
Unfortunately for Hurtado, looking at the immediate con-
text of w.6-11 means only a brief examination of 2.5.7 Hurtado
then goes on to explain the function of w. 9-11. These verses
show that the actions of 2.6-8 received divine vindication and
approval.' Further, This means that 2.9-11 is not an epilogue
to 2.6-8, but rather serves to evaluate Jesus' obedience in the

1 See Hurtado, pp. 116ff.

2 See Hurtado, p. 118, following J.T. Sanders, 1971, pp. 73-74.
3 Some of these figures include the righteous figure in Wisdom, the
fallen watchers in 1 Enoch, and the rebellious angels in Vita Adae
et Evae. Hurtado asserts that these characters function as ethical
examples but gives little evidence to support this point. Clearly, the
behavior of the Righteous One in Wisdom is set before the reader as
an example to be emulated; but we are less sure about the others
Hurtado lists.
4 See Hurtado, p. 118.
5 See Hurtado, p. 119.
6 See Hurtado, pp. 120ff.
7 See Hurtado, pp. 121ff.
 4. The Function of Philippians 2.6-11 85

highest terms'.1 This takes w. 9-11 seriously without propos-

ing that the believer should imitate the actions presented in
these verses. Hurtado contrasts the call for an imitatio of
Christ, which Kasemann criticized, with his own view which
sees Paul's demands as one of a conformitas to Christ. That is,
the believer's behavior is to conform to the pattern of Christ's
behavior.2 The problem with the notion of conformity, how-
ever, concerns what counts as conformity and what does not.
In the case of Paul this can only be explicated by a close exam-
ination of his argument. This is what Hurtado fails to present.
In spite of this, Hurtado's is clearly a positive contribution to
the question of how Phil. 2.6-11 might function in its present
context. Hurtado has shown that 2.6-11 could provide the
Philippians with some sort of ethical example. He does not,
however, devote much space to exploring how Phil. 2.6-11
actually functions in the particular context of 1.27ff. (not to
mention 3.2ff.). By not paying close enough attention to this
larger context, Hurtado's view begins to reflect the same
problems as Larsson's position. That is, how exactly do w. 9-11
function in the present context of Paul's argument? While we
agree with Hurtado's general account of w. 9-11, he does not
ground this judgment concretely in Paul's discourse. If one is
to argue that this hymn functions to support Paul's ethical
directives in this section of the epistle, then one will have to
integrate it within the whole course of the argument that
begins at 1.27. This is where we will direct our attention.

The Argument of Philippians 1.27-2.5

As we noted above, we have very little information about the
situation to which Paul addresses his commands in 1.27ff. All
we know is that the church faced opposition from outside
forces, who seemed to be intent on its destruction. Paul's
instructions to the Philippians can, then, be seen as a survival

1 See Hurtado, p. 125.

2 Hurtado, p. 125. Hurtado borrows this idea from N. Dahl, Jesus and
the Memory of the Early Church (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1976),
p. 34. Hooker, 1975, pp. 155ff., also stresses the notion of conformity
over imitation.
86 The Story of Christ in the Ethics of Paul

plan.
Paul begins by urging the Philippians to live in a manner
worthy of the gospel of Christ. The use of KoXnevtaQz in v. 27
may well reflect upon the status of Philippi as a Roman city.1
It does not, however, follow that noXiieveoQe emphasizes the
civil responsibilities of the Philippians in addition to their
Christian ones.2 Rather, since 3.20 indicates that the Philippi-
ans are citizens of a heavenly commonwealth,3 it is more
likely that the political connotations of this verb, 'to live as a
citizen', have been transferred to the corporate life of the
church.4 The practical consequence of this command is that
the Philippians must unite in the face of their opposition. They
must stand firm in one spirit and in one mind, striving
together for the faith of the gospel (1.27).5
If the Philippians unite in their struggle for the faith, they
have nothing to fear from their adversaries. In fact, their
steadfastness, unity and fearlessness will be a sign to their
opponents.6 It is most likely that Paul is indicating that the
Philippians' steadfast adherence to the gospel will be a sign of
the eternal damnation of the opponents and the eschatological
salvation of the Philippians.7 Commentators run into prob-

1 R. Brewer, 'The Meaning of Politeuesthe in Philippians 1.27', JBL

73 (1954), pp. 76-83.
2 Against Brewer, p. 83; Hawthorne, p. 56.
3 See A.T. Lincoln, Paradise Now and Not Yet, SNTSMS 43 (Cam-
bridge: CUP, 1981), pp. 97-101.
4 Collange is surely right when he notes that The context shows
clearly that there is no question of a relationship with a city or a
state or individual conduct, but rather of community life [of the
church]' (p. 73). Also Bonnard, p. 34; Beare, pp. 66-67; Lightfoot,
p. 104.
5 The connection between ev evi nve\)\iaxi and pia yoxfi militates
against reading TcveOjxcc as a reference to the Holy Spirit as against
Martin, 1976, p. 83; Gnilka, 1968, p. 99; Collange, p.74; Vincent,
p. 33; and with Hawthorne, p. 57.
6 Taking the relative pronoun TITK; as a reference to the previously
mentioned steadfastness and unity and the resulting fearlessness.
The feminine would, then, be the result of attraction to ev5ei£t<;. See
Gnilka, 1968, p. 100; Lightfoot, p. 106; Martin, 1976, p. 83; Beare,
p. 67; Vincent, p. 35.
7 See Gnilka, 1968, p. 100; Beare, pp. 67-68. See also the use of djc(oA,eia
 4. The Function of Philippians 2.6-11 87

lems, however, when they try to explain how the Philippians'

steadfastness, unity and fearlessness will be a sign to their
opponents of the opponents' damnation. Beare suggests that
the notion of this sign being from God (TOUTO drco Geov) indi-
cates that God is secretly at work on the consciences of the
opponents.1 Yet it is still hard to conceive of how the Philippi-
ans' perseverance is a sign to their opponents that God is at
work in the opponents' conscience.2
Rather than try to explain how the opponents recognize
their own damnation in the Philippians' behavior, we should
see Paul's claim here as his own judgment of the situation.
This sort of rhetoric is similar to that found in 2 Cor. 2.15ff. In
both Philippians and 2 Corinthians it is not important that
those who reject the gospel recognize the signs of their own
damnation. The force of Paul's rhetoric is to make his judg-
ment of the situation known, and to claim implicitly that this
judgment is clear to all who have faith. Further, when Paul
claims that this judgment is from God (TOCTO drco Geou), he is,
in effect, claiming divine authority for his interpretation of the
situation.3 Further, he will be able to draw on the precedent of
God's dealings with Christ in 2.6-11, in which God delivered
the obedient, suffering Christ.
Paul does not deny that the struggle to maintain the com-
munity as a faithful witness to the gospel will entail suffering
(v. 29). Paul even sees the Philippians' struggle as an extension
of his own.4 Nevertheless, unity must be maintained and they
in 3.19 and the pairing of diKoXeia/ocoTripia in Ps. Sol. 15.6-9; 16.5.
1 See Beare, p. 68.
2 On this view evSei^iq would read as some sort of omen. Paul,
however, always uses ev5ei£i<; to refer to a concrete demonstration of
what is the case (Rom. 3.25-26; 2 Cor. 8.24). See also W.G. Kiimmel,
taxpeoit und hrbexfyq9, ZTK 49 (1952), pp. 158-59.
3 This takes xoOxo anb 0eo\) to refer to the whole episode of how the
Philippians' steadfast unity will be viewed. See Vincent, p. 35;
Martin, 1976, p. 84. If TOVTO is seen as just a reference to ev5ei£i<;
(Beare, p. 68; Lightfoot, p. 106; Gnilka, 1968, p. 100) it is hard to
explain why evSei^iq could attract a feminine relative pronoun (rixiq)
but not a feminine demonstrative.
4 See Beare, p. 69; Hawthorne, p. 62. Gnilka, 1968, p. 101, however,
questions whether the Philippians' situation could ever have been as
difficult as Paul's.
88 The Story of Christ in the Ethics of Paul

must stand firm in the gospel.

In ch. 2 Paul demands specific types of behavior to insure
that steadfast unity will prevail. 1 He commands the
Philippians to be of the same mind. This is not a request for
uniformity of thought. 'Rather by the use of (ppovelv he is ask-
ing for a total inward attitude of mind or disposition of will
which strives after one thing/ 2
In addition, the Philippians are to have the same love (TTJV
GC\>TTIV &Y&7rr|v e'xovxeq). Collange captures the force of this
demand when he comments, This unity shows itself chiefly in
love which, according to the context, is a turning of attention
from self to others; it is then directed to a single aim'.3
Paul commands them to be bound together in one soul.4
Further, repeating (ppoveiv, he wants them to be characterized
by a common orientation. In four similar clauses Paul
demands that the Philippians come together in a selfless unity,
putting aside self-interest. Rivalry is to be replaced by humil-
ity, arrogance by active concern for others.
Paul continues his call for unity in w . 3-4. Nothing would be
more destructive to the unity which Paul sees as essential for
the salvation of the community than for the Philippians to
maintain a spirit of partisanship and empty conceit (epiGeicc,
K£vo8o2;ia).5
In contrast to these vices Paul urges the Philippians to adopt
the virtue of humility (xaTteivocppoawn). This attitude was not
considered a virtue in classical Greece,6 but in the LXX xccTieivoc;
is employed to describe a virtuous disposition (cf. 1 Kgs 18.23;
Jdt. 9.11; Wis. 12.3; Isa. 2.11; Ezek. 17.24). Further, in the

1 See G. Barth, Der Brief an die Philipper (Zurich: Theologischer Ver-

lag, 1979), who claims that 'these verses are not only closely bound
up with 1.27ff., they follow directly from it' (p. 39).
2 See Hawthorne, p. 67; also Beare, p. 72.
3 See Collange, p. 79. See also Gnilka, 1968, p. 105, who notes that n
a{>TTi ayanr[ 'does not point to a similar manner for their love, but to
a similar direction for their wills'.
4 cunxjroxoi is a hapax legomenon but it may reflect pact yx>xx\ in 1.27.
So Hawthorne, p. 68.
5 Gnilka notes that both of these words were elements in traditional
vice lists (p. 105).
6 See Lightfoot, p. 109; Vincent, p. 56.
 4. The Function of Philippians 2.6-11 89

Qumran Community Rule humility is listed as a virtue.1 Paul

would not have been exceptional, then, in seeing humility as a
virtue for the Philippians to strive after. He adds further pre-
cision to this idea of humility when he urges the Philippians to
consider the needs of each other and to consider others better
than themselves.
Paul's claim thus far is that if the Philippians are to walk in
a manner worthy of the gospel of Christ in the face of oppon-
ents seeking their destruction, then they must remain stead-
fast in their faith, united in a selfless love and concern for one
another. Such behavior, while it will necessarily entail suffer-
ing, will result in their salvation. Up to this point Paul has
justified this view by claiming that it is from God (1.28). Fur-
ther, he has appealed to the Philippians personally (2.1). In
2.5ff. Paul urges the Philippians to reflect on the precedent
provided by Christ's activity for those who are in Christ.
All scholars would agree that 2.5 could provide the key for
understanding the function of w. 6-11. Unfortunately, the
syntax of this verse is so obscure that it can be used to support
several competing readings.2 This means that illumination of
the syntax and semantics alone will not solve the problems of
this verse. The central issue for adjudicating between these
competing readings, then, must lie in each reading's ability to
relate 1.27ff. to 2.6-11. That is, the best reading will be the one
that makes the best sense of the context.
Kasemann effectively criticized older readings of this verse
which pointed to Christ as an example to be imitated.3 His own
proposal was that o ml ev Xpiaxw 'Iriaov should be viewed as a
technical term referring to being within the realm of Christ.
Consequently, Kasemann read v. 5 as an admonition to the
Philippians to have the same disposition in their mutual rela-

1 See the references to mo nw in 1QS 2.24. For other references see

Grundmann, TDNTy 8.12ff.
2 See, for example, Kasemann, 1968, pp.51, 83, 84; Larsson, pp.232f.;
C.F.D. Moule, 'Further Reflections on Phil. 2.6-11', in Apostolic His-
tory and the Gospel, Festschrift for F.F. Bruce, ed. W.W. Gasque
and R.P. Martin (Exeter: Paternoster, 1970), pp. 264-66; L.A. Losie,
'A Note on the Interpretation of Phil. 2.5', ExpT 90 (1978), pp. 52-54.
3 See above p. 80 n. 2.
90 The Story of Christ in the Ethics of Paul

tions as is fitting within the realm of Christ. 1 Critics of Kase-

mann have claimed that in his view ev \>\i\v and ev Xpiaxw
'Iriaou become synonymous if not tautologous, rendering the
latter phrase superfluous.2 As Moule further notes, this view
'conceives of Christians as adopting one attitude in their
mutual relations with one another and another attitude as
incorporated in Christ. A study of the epistles suggests, rather,
that the two relationships are inseparable/ 3 Kasemann might
reply to this by saying that the force of the imperative (ppoveixe
is to urge the Philippians to make sure these two relationships
are inseparable.4 One might reply to Kasemann, however, that
there is no indication in the previous verses that the Philippi-
ans have let these two relationships become separated. On the
other hand, this command could still carry some precaution-
ary force.
In any case, as we have noted above, the problem with
Kasemann's reading does not have to do with his understand-
ing of the syntax and semantics of v. 5. Kasemann's seems to
be as plausible an account as any other. The problem with
Kasemann's view is his assumption that in Phil. 1.27ff. Paul is
concerned with the Philippians' disposition to obey and not
with their actions. Clearly, the disposition fitting to one who is
in the realm of Christ, the Lord of the cosmos, is obedience to
one's Lord. While this may well be the issue Paul is discussing
in Romans 6, it is not the position he is emphasizing in Phil.
1.27ff. Rather, he is arguing for a course of action that a
persecuted group of Christians should follow. The path Paul
urges them to take will clearly entail suffering. Yet Paul is
convinced that this is the manner of life demanded by the
gospel, and to adopt this manner of life will result in God's
deliverance. In the light of this argument, we would claim that
the story of Christ's humiliation and exaltation in 2.6-11
supports Paul's position both by providing an account of
Christ's own activity to which the Philippians should conform,
and by providing a precedent for how God responds to the

1 See Kasemann, 1968, pp. 51,83,84.

2 See Deichgraber, p. 162; Larsson, p. 71; Moule, 1970, p. 265.
3 See Moule, 1970, p. 262.
4 Martin, 1983, p. xiv, expresses a similar position.
 4. The Function of Philippians 2.6-11 91

suffering of the righteous servant of God from which the

Philippians, as those in Christ, can draw an analogy to their
own situation.
It is important to note that this story about Christ is
integrally related to the Philippian church. This claim,
however, does not imply that the Philippians were familiar
with this particular formulation. We cannot know whether
they were or not.1 Rather, it is a part of the Philippian church
in the sense that it was this story and/or others like it that
provided the basis for the Philippian church when Paul first
preached to them. They are a community founded on the
traditions narrating the life, death and resurrection of Christ.
Surely Kasemann is right that to be in Christ is to be in the
realm determined by Christ, but this realm only receives
definition from the stories that describe its founder and its
founding.2 To be in the realm of Christ is, in part, to accept this
particular story about Christ. To apply this particular story to
the communal life of the Philippian church is the fitting way
to live within the realm of Christ. Hence, we would agree with
Kasemann that in 2.5 Paul is admonishing the Philippians to
orient their common life in a manner that is fitting within the
realm of Christ. He is, in fact, reiterating the sentiments of
1.27. We would, however, disagree with Kasemann's claim
that this admonition followed by w. 6-11 provides a motive for
obedience. Rather, this admonition points the Philippians to a
normative account of the humiliation and vindication of the
founder of their community, Christ. This account is used to
support the sort of behavior Paul has been urging in the

1 If this passage represents an interpretation of traditions about

Christ already familiar to the Philippians, all the better. If it were
new, they would be able to recognize, reflect upon and judge it in
relation to their own traditions and formulations. In either case, it
is clear that Paul expects the Philippians to accept this interpreta-
tion of the Christ-event since he does not try to legitimate it in any
way.
2 Strecker (p. 67) makes a similar point when he says, The reminder
of the definition (of the community) through Christ does not only
contain the constituting of the church through the cross, but also
the reflection on what took place in the event of the cross—the ethi-
cally normative manner of behavior of the Kyrios'.
92 The Story of Christ in the Ethics of Paul

previous verses.
It is obvious that there cannot be a one-to-one relationship
between the Christ-event portrayed in vv. 6-11 and the
Philippians' situation. If the Philippians are to let the events
presented in w . 6-11 guide their common life, they will have
to draw an analogy from the events in w . 6-11 to their own
situation. As D. Tracy notes, 'Analogy is a language of ordered
relationships articulating similarity-in-difference. The order
among relationships is constituted by the distinct but similar
relations of each analogue to some focal meaning, some prime
analogue.' 1 We would argue that this is what Paul has done
here. He has perceived the similarity-in-difference between
the narration of the Christ-event in 2.6-11, which all of the
Philippians share by virtue of being in Christ, and the situation
faced by the Philippians, and he has used this to support his
view that God will vindicate the Philippians if they adopt the
Christ-like virtues prescribed in 2.2-4 and remain steadfast in
their faith. To put the analogy crudely: If the Philippians will
unite in a steadfast adherence to the gospel (which will entail
the practice of the virtues in 2.2-4), even in the face of
suffering, then God will save them in the same way he saved
the obedient, humiliated and suffering Christ in vv. 6-11. 2
Paul's admonition in v. 5 is a call to recognize this, to apply to
their communal life the precedent that is theirs by virtue of
the fact that they are in Christ.

The Notion of 'Exemplar' as a Means of Describing

the Function of Philippians 2.6-11
In this light we would suggest that Phil. 2.6-11 functions as an
exemplar within Paul's argument. In describing the role of
this passage as that of an exemplar we are relying on insights
from T. Kuhn's explication of the role of exemplars in the

1 D. Tracy, The Analogical Imagination (London: SCM, 1981), p. 408.

Cf. also R. Hazelton, 'Theological Analogy and Metaphor', Semeia
13 (1978), p. 159: 'Whereas metaphor presents diversity in unity,
contrast-in-correspondence, analogy uses comparison to build a
case for intelligible continuity despite experienced discontinuity'.
2 See Wright, p. 351, who makes a similar comment. See also Kurz
who claims that Phil. 2.6-11 'functions as an example of surrender-
ing one's own prerogatives and letting God do the exalting' (p. 105).
 4. The Function of Philippians 2.6-11 93

learning and practice of science.1 To summarize Kuhn's view:

an exemplar is a concrete formulation or experiment which is
recognized and shared by all scientists.2 This is opposed to an
abstract law-like systematic generalization. These exemplars
are useful for solving various problems and gaining new
insights. Yet because exemplars only exist as concrete entities,
their usefulness in problem solving depends on one's ability to
see a similarity-in-difference between the exemplar and any
particular problem. One can then draw the proper analogy
between exemplar and problem in order to solve the problem.
Briefly, then, an exemplar is a concrete experiment or formu-
lation which is normative for scientists and which can be
extended by analogy to offer solutions to particular problems.
It is important to remember, however, that not every con-
crete formulation is an exemplar. The term exemplar
describes a role that such a formulation plays. Hence, some-
thing can only be called an exemplar in retrospect, once it has
been used to solve a problem. If 2.6-11 had merely been pre-
sented in the course of the epistle as, for example, a general
criterion of christological orthodoxy, then, we could not use-
fully call it an exemplar. Rather, we would call it a story—a
christological story. It is only after this concrete formulation
has been applied to the problems facing the Philippian church
in the way Paul does, that one can accurately describe the
function of Phil. 2.6-11 as that of an exemplar.
Kuhn gives the example of Galileo's concrete finding that a
ball rolling down an incline acquires just enough velocity to
return it to the same vertical height on a second incline of any
slope. Galileo then was able to draw an analogy from that con-
cete situation to explain the motion of a pendulum with a
point-mass for a bob.3 Standing behind this exemplar is the
abstract law-like formulation that 'actual descent equals
potential ascent'. Kuhn makes the point, however, that prior to
performing his exemplary experiment such a law would have
been impotent for Galileo. He would not have known what to

1 See T.S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 2nd rev. edn
(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1970), pp. 187ff.
2 See Kuhn, p. 187.
3 See Kuhn, p. 187.
94 The Story of Christ in the Ethics of Paul

do with it until he saw it actualized in a concrete experiment.1

As Kuhn observes, such situations inevitably recur for each
student of science. A student may well have mastered the
actual formal components of a law or formula, but is unable to
solve particular problems. This difficulty is overcome as the
student develops the facility for seeing a particular problem as
being like a previously encountered problem. 'Having seen the
resemblance, grasped the analogy between two or more dis-
tinct problems, he can interrelate symbols and attach them to
nature in the ways that have proved effective before.'2 In such
a case the previously encountered problem has functioned as
an exemplar.
There is, however, an important difference between ethics
and physics in regard to the sorts of things which will count as
exemplars. As Kuhn has noted, the sorts of formulations sci-
entists turn to are often concrete solutions to particular prob-
lems. This is due to the nature of experimental practices in
science. In ethics this is less likely to be the case. Rather than
previous solutions to concrete problems, the ethicist is more
apt to find exemplars in concrete formulations of previous sit-
uations. In fact, it makes much more sense to see Phil. 2.6-11
as the concrete formulation of a specific situation rather than
a concrete solution to a problem. While this is an important
difference between physics and ethics, it need not undermine
the usefulness of using a term like exemplar. This is because
the important characteristics of exemplars are not that they
are solutions to problems, but that they are concrete and need
to be applied through analogy to another concrete situation,
whether that be a scientific problem or a moral quandary.
It would seem to us, then, that such a notion of exemplar
may well be relevant for describing the function of Phil. 2.6-11.
This passage is a concrete formulation which is normative for
a particular community as opposed to an abstract formulation
such as 'God vindicates all obedient servants of God'. Because
it is a concrete formulation about Christ and God's vindication
of Christ its relationship to the particular problems of the
Philippian church is not self-evident. It is up to Paul to note the

1 See Kuhn, p. 191.

2 See Kuhn, p. 189.
 4. The Function of Philippians 2.6-11 95

similarities-in-difference between the story of Christ narrated

in 2.6-11 and the particular situation of the church and to
draw the appropriate analogies.
It is also interesting to note that Kuhn specifically discusses
the role and use of exemplars as part of the process by which
students are inducted into the practices of science. While the
Philippians are not students in the classroom, they are
engaged in the process of discovering what it means to be
faithful followers of Christ. They are being inducted into the
practices appropriate to being a Christian.
Clearly, the contingencies of ethics are far greater than
those of physics.1 Hence, the sorts of analogies that are drawn
between any particular exemplar and a specific situation will
be of vastly differing strengths; the connections may be less
direct. There is, however, no necessary reason for the analo-
gies between different exemplars and different situations to be
of the same type. In spite of these contingencies, it would seem
that the basic characteristics of Kuhn's exemplars (i.e. a con-
crete normative formulation) and the basic mode of reasoning
they require (i.e. analogy) are similar enough to Paul's use of
Phil. 2.6-11 to justify explaining this passage's function in the
epistle as that of an exemplar. We will argue in the course of
this book that just this sense of exemplar aptly describes the
function of the other two hymnic passages in Paul (although
the types and aims of the analogies will, of course, be different).
We would argue that by viewing w . 6-11 as an exemplar
from which Paul draws an analogy to the Philippians' situa-
tion in order to justify the course of action he has urged in
1.27ff. we avoid the criticisms leveled against those who see
2.5-11 as proposing a model to be imitated. Further, in this
view w . 9-11 play a crucial part in the function of the passage.
If God does not vindicate Christ's suffering and humiliation,
there is no reason to expect the same God to save the Philippi-
ans if they remain steadfast in the face of opposition. Further,
we would argue that our view addresses the issues at hand in
Paul's argument in 1.27ff., which Kasemann's view cannot
do.

1 We will discuss some of these contingencies in greater detail in our

concluding comments.
96 The Story of Christ in the Ethics of Paul

The Argument of Philippians 2.12ff

Having made this case, Paul continues in 2.12 to remind the
Philippians of their past obedience. The implication here is
that they must continue to obey, which means working out
their salvation. Paul's emphasis on his own role in the Philip-
pians' previous obedience would indicate that he—Paul, their
teacher—is the object of the Philippians' obedience.1 In the
light of the argument running from 1.27-2.11 this implicit
call for obedience is a plea to take his argument, the analogy
he has drawn, seriously (cf. 2.1). The Philippians can manifest
this obedience by working out their own salvation. It would
seem that as the goal of Paul's commands from 1.27ff. has
been the Philippians' deliverance, the term acoxr|p{a here in
2.12 should be read in the light of this. That is, ocoTr|p{a in 2.12
should be read in the same way as in 1.28.2 In this light, the
extent to which salvation in 1.28 is the result of the Philippi-
ans' steadfastness and unity in the face of opposition would be
the sense in which the Philippians could work out their own
salvation. To adopt the practices Paul has demanded in 1.27ff.
in order to secure salvation (1.28) would be to work out their
own salvation. This command for the Philippians to work out
their own salvation assumes that Paul has made a convincing
case in arguing for salvation as the result of remaining united
in the faith.3
Even on this reading of v. 12 the phrase \LETOL cpoPoa) mi xpo-
^LOD is somewhat problematic. In spite of this, there is no
reason to follow Glombitza and add a negative particle here.4
This same phrase occurs two other times in Paul. In 2 Cor.
7.15 it is used to describe the attitude of humility and willing
submission with which the Corinthians received an apostolic
envoy, Titus. In Eph. 6.5 it reflects the attitude of humility and
willing submission slaves are to have toward their masters.5 In
these cases \iexa (po^oi) KOCI xpo^ioi) seems to be used as an

1 See Beare, p. 89; Martin, 1976, p. 102; Michael, p. 101.

2 See Martin, 1976, p. 103.
3 See Collange, pp. 109-10; Martin, 1976, pp. 102-103.
4 See O. Glombitza, 'Mit Furcht und Zittern, zum Verstandnis von
Phil. 2,12', NovT 3 (1959), pp. 100-108.
5 Compare this with the usage of ev cpopq> KOCI ev xp6jj.(p in 1 Cor. 2.3.
 4. The Function of Philippians 2.6-11 97

idiomatic expression for a virtuous attitude of submission that

people exhibit towards those over them. The placement of this
phrase in 2.12, however, makes it somewhat ambiguous. It
may refer to the sort of attitude the Philippians are to have
towards one another, considering one another more
important than themselves (2.3) as they work out their
salvation.1 On the other hand, in the two other cases noted
above, the phrase u£ia cpoPoi) mi xpouoa) modifies verbs which
are used to talk about the interaction of a superior person
(group) and a subordinate person (group). In fact, in Eph. 6.5
the verb i)rcaico\)G) is used, the same verb as in 2.12. It may,
then, be more plausible to read U^TOC cpopoi) mi xpouou as a
reference to the sort of obedience the Philippians had shown
Paul (and, indirectly, God) rather than a description of the
way they are to work out their own salvation. While the
syntax of the phrase would allow for either possibility, the
advantage to the latter view is that it conforms to the sorts of
conditions under which the phrase is used elsewhere in Paul.
Bornkamm calls the next clause, v. 13, an 'oddly paradoxi-
cal sentence'.2 It is, however, a main point in Paul's whole
argument. If God were not at work among the Philippians,
then the suffering they will face at the hands of their oppo-
nents as a result of their steadfast faithfulness to the gospel
would be senseless. In the same way as God worked to exalt
the humiliated and obedient Christ and vindicated his suffer-
ing, God will also work to bring about the salvation 'worked
out' by the Philippians in obedience to Paul's commands. This
is just as much God's good pleasure in regard to the Philippi-
ans as it was in regard to Christ.3
In 2.14-18 Paul goes on to add some personal remon-

1 See Collange, p. 110; Hawthorne, p. 100; Beare, p. 90.

2 See G. Bornkamm, 'Der Lohngedanke im Neuen Testament*, in
Studien zum Antike und Urchristentum (Munich: Kaiser, 1963),
p. 92.
3 Collange, p. I l l and Hawthorne, p. 101 are among those who read
i)7cep TTIQ e\>8oida<; as a reference to human, interpersonal goodwill
which God is seeking to bring about in the Philippians. Most other
commentators read the phrase as a reference to God's good pleasure
(Martin, 1976, p. 104; Gnilka, 1968, p. 150; Beare, p. 91; Lightfoot,
p. 116).
98 The Story of Christ in the Ethics of Paul

strances, but the force of 2.6-11 in supporting his argument

has already been felt. To support his commands to a perse-
cuted church concerning how they are to live in a hostile
world Paul used the picture of Christ in 2.6-11 as an exem-
plar, drawing an analogy between the account of Christ's
activity of humiliation and God's vindication of that activity
and the Philippians' situation to guide them in the way they
should conduct their lives.

The Role of 2.6-11 in the Argument of 3. Iff.

In 1.27ff. Paul gives the Philippians guidance on how to live in
a manner worthy of the gospel of Christ in the face of opposi-
tion. This manner of life will necessarily entail suffering as the
Philippians remain steadfast and united in their faith. Using
the Christ of 2.6-11 as an exemplar, Paul can assert that this
behavior reflects the way of salvation. In 3. Iff. Paul carries out
a sustained polemic against those proposing a different view of
how the Philippians should respond to their situation. They do
not accept (among other things) Paul's notion that walking in
a manner worthy of the gospel may entail suffering. Paul calls
these people enemies of the cross of Christ and in his polemic
against them he relies to some degree on the picture of Christ
presented in 2.6-11. We will now briefly sketch the argument
of 3. Iff. and discuss how it relates to 2.6-11.1
Paul begins his attack in 3.2 with some strong invective
against his opponents. He calls them dogs, malicious workers
and mutilators of the flesh. The term KVVEC, was often used by
Jews to insult Gentiles by comparing them with dogs, which
were unclean.2 As the following verses indicate that Paul's
opponents were Judaizers, his application of this term to them
would turn their characterization of Gentiles back on them.3
The term epydxrig seems to have assumed the technical

1 While some have proposed that Paul is addressing a plurality of

groups in Phil. 3 (e.g. Jewett, pp. 362-90), it would seem to us that
unless one could show a coherent break in the argument, or that
Paul's opponents are portrayed as holding mutually exclusive
views, it is then best to read 3.Iff. as an argument against one
group. See Lincoln, p. 89; Koester, p. 322.
2 See 1 Enoch 89.42; Mk 7.22; Mt. 7.6.
3 See Lincoln, p. 89.
 4. The Function of Philippians 2.6-11 99

meaning of 'missionary'.1 Paul's opponents may well have

cast themselves as itinerant missionaries just as Paul was.
Paul claims, however, that their work is malicious. The term
KOCTCXTO^TI is used in the LXX to refer to cutting oneself in a way
that is displeasing to God.2 In the light of Paul's assertion that
the church is the true circumcision in 3.3, one can read
Kaxaxo|XT| as a way of belittling the opponents' claims for their
own circumcision.3
In 3.3 Paul claims that the church is the true circumcision,
worshiping in the spirit and boasting in Christ and not in the
flesh. Presumably these claims were all in opposition to similar
claims made by the opponents. The picture presented thus far
is of Jewish-Christian missionaries who boasted of their spiri-
tual attainments-much as one finds in 2 Corinthians.4 From
Paul's comments in w . 4fF. it seems that the opponents' claim
to spiritual superiority came from keeping the law to
perfection. Their aim would have been for the Philippian
Christians to strive after similar spiritual superiority through
rigorous adherence to the law.5
Paul claims that their achievements, which he had also
attained, were worthless (3.7-8). What is most important is to
know Christ and the power of his resurrection, to share in his
suffering and to be conformed to his death (3.10).6 While
Paul's opponents may have claimed already to know Christ
and the power of his resurrection, they reject the fact that
knowing Christ entails knowing the fellowship of his suffer-
ings and being conformed to his death.7 Obviously this idea
would be incompatible with Paul's opponents' claim to have
already fully appropriated the power of Christ's resurrection
through fulfillment of the law. On the other hand, Paul's view
clearly conforms to the precedent provided by Christ pre-
sented in 2.6-11 in its refusal to separate humiliation and suf-

1 See Mt. 9.37ff.; 10.10; 2 Cor. 11.13; 1 Tim. 5.18; Did. 13.2; also Jewett,
p. 382; Koester, p. 320; Lincoln, p. 90.
2 See Lev. 21.5; 1 Kgs 18.28; Hos. 7.14.
3 See Koester, p. 320; Lincoln, p. 90; Martin, 1976, p. 126.
4 See Koester, p. 321.
5 See Koester, pp. 321-22.
6 See Koester, p. 321.
7 See Lincoln, p. 92.
100 The Story of Christ in the Ethics of Paul

fering from exaltation. Since one of the issues here, however, is

the extent to which full participation in Christ's resurrection
can be attained in this life, Paul also engages in a discussion
about the present and future aspects of the Christian's partici-
pation in the power of Christ's resurrection.1 This discussion
presupposes a general knowledge of Christ's exaltation, but it
is not strictly analogous to the narration of it in 2.9-11 in the
way that the argument in 1.27ff. is.
After urging imitation of his own example and the examples
of those like him, Paul goes on to talk about the enemies of the
cross of Christ. While this epithet surely applies to Paul's
opponents in Philippi, it must also apply to a wider group as
well.2 These enemies are unwilling to become like Christ in his
death, which, as 2.8 emphasizes, was a death on the cross.
Their theology can only accommodate the exalted Christ of
2.9-11. Paul, however, will not let them forget 2.6-8.
Paul claims that the final end of these enemies is destruc-
tion.3 He elaborates on this by asserting ironically that while
claiming to worship in the spirit, their god is material.4
Although they claim to have attained glory, the irony is that
their glory is really disgrace.5 They are bound to an earthly
mindset, which presumably has no place for suffering in its
theology.6
Paul contrasts these worldly-minded enemies of the cross
with the true disciples who have their commonwealth in
1 See Lincoln, pp. 93-95 and Koester, pp. 322f., for discussions of this
issue.
2 So Lincoln, pp. 95f.
3 This may well be an ironic play on the word xeXoq, a catchword of
Paul's opponents. So Koester, p. 326; Lincoln, p. 96.
4 While Jewish food laws may well be the specific practices in view in
the phrase a>v 6 Geoc; f| KoiAia, the force of the phrase is to situate the
opponents' god within the sphere of the flesh. See Rom. 16.18; also
Koester, p. 327; Gnilka, 1968, p. 206; Lincoln, p. 96. This is against
those who read this phrase as a reflection of various types of sensual
licentiousness (e.g. Beare, p. 136; Martin, 1976, p. 145; Jewett,
p. 380).
5 See Koester, p. 327 who compares the 56£a claimed by Paul's oppo-
nents with the heavenly 56£a of 2 Cor. 4.16-18.
6 This would counter the opponents' claim to be heavenly-minded. See
Lincoln, pp. 96-97.
 4. The Function of Philippians 2.6-11 101

heaven.1 Even though they are still in the "body of our humil-
iation', Paul claims the real focus of Christians' loyalties is in
heaven under the rule of Christ. Ultimately, Christ will
transform their bodies of humiliation into the body of his glory.
Here too Paul plays on the theme of vindication of humiliation
on the basis of 2.6-11. Clearly, he colors this image with
eschatological interests directed towards the specific situation
at Philippi. Nevertheless, one can see that the precedent
provided by 2.6-11 supports Paul's argument against his
opponents.
We would conclude, then, that in both 1.27ff. and 3. Iff. Paul
relies on 2.6-11 as an exemplar or shared norm on which he
bases his argument. This is not done by posing Christ's activity
in 2.6-11 as a model to be imitated in ethics or eschatology.
Rather, this hymnic passage supports Paul's position by
means of its analogous relationship to various aspects of the
Philippians' situation. There is a similarity-in-difference
between the traditions about Christ formulated in 2.6-11 and
the situation of the Philippian church that allows Paul to use
the tradition to speak to the present. As we move on to explore
the content and function of the other two hymnic passages in
Paul it will become clear that all of these hymnic passages
function as exemplars.

1 See Lincoln, pp. 97-101, for a discussion of the force

 Chapter 5

COLOSSIANS 1.15-20

Like Phil. 2.6-11, Col. 1.15-20 has long been a focus for schol-
arly interest. A history of scholarship on this passage, however,
would take an undue amount of space. Further, J. Gabathuler
has given an account of all but the last 25 years of scholarly
discussion on this passage. 1 Hence, we will begin directly with
an examination of the content of these verses, followed by a
discussion in Chapter 6 of the function of this passage within
Colossians.2
Formally, the passage can be divided into two parts, each
beginning with the phrase OQ eaxiv (w. 15, 18b). We do not,
however, want to press this formal division too far in a discus-
sion of the content of these verses.
Scholars have often puzzled over the many rare phrases

1 See J. Gabathuler, Jesus Christus, Haupt der Kirche—Haupt der

Welt: der Christushymnus Kolosser 1,15-20 in der theologischen
Forschung der letzten 130 Jahre (Zurich: Zwingli, 1965), who traces
scholarly interest in this passage back to Schleiermacher. For a his-
tory of exegesis of 1.15 see A. Hockel, Christus der Erstgeborene
(Dusseldorf: Patmos, 1965).
2 In doing this we are not engaging in an examination of attempts to
reconstruct an 'original hymn' from this passage as it would be
irrelevant to our interests. This activity of reconstruction began with
Norden in 1913 and has continued since. Some important examples
of this activity are: E. Kasemann, 'A Primitive Christian Baptismal
Liturgy', in Essays on New Testament Themes, trans. J. Montague
(London: SCM, 1964), pp. 149-68; J.M. Robinson, 'A Formal Analysis
of Col. 1.15-20', JBL 76 (1957), pp. 270-87; E. Bammel, 'Versuch zu
Col. 1,15-20', ZNW 52 (1961), pp. 88-95; N. Kehl, Der Christushymnus
im Kolosserbrief (Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1967); and C.
Burger, Schopfung und Versohnung (Neukirchen: Neukirchener
Verlag, 1975).
104 The Story of Christ in the Ethics of Paul

and terms in these verses (e.g. dopaxcx;, 6paxo<;, Bpovoi, icopio-

xr|<;, Guviaxrmt, dpxr|,rcpcoxevco,eipr|vo7coieco, drcoKaxaAAdaaG)).1
C. Burger, however, makes the important point that this
passage is not merely a compilation of predicates and titles.
Rather, these predicates are part of a larger narrative which
can be read as a coherent, unified expression. They are related
to and help to explain each other.2

Christ as Revealer: og eaxiv BIKCOV xou 9eo\) xou dopdxoi)

The first clause of this passage identifies Christ, God's beloved
son (v. 13), as the EIKCOV xox> Qeov %ox> aopdxoi). As Eltester
notes, eiKcov has a relatively wide and diverse range of seman-
tic values.3 Hence, we will need to rely on the fact that eiKcov is
modified by xov Geou xov dopdxou in order to make this
description more precise.4 At a general level, the opposition
between 'image' and 'invisible' would indicate that by using
eiKcov to describe Christ, Paul is claiming that Christ is the
visible manifestation of God.5 To take this general impression
further, it will be important to look both at the only other
occasion in the NT where Christ is called the ekcov of God, and
at other figures that are identified as the eiKcov of God.6
The only other occasion in the NT where Christ is called the
eiKcov of God is 2 Cor. 4.4. Here, as in Col. 1.15, terms like extxp-
Xcoaev, auydoai and (pcoxia|i6v all indicate that the emphasis of

1 See P.T. O'Brien, Colossians and Philemon, WBC (Waco: Word,

1982), p. 40.
2 Burger, p. 44; see also J.B. Lightfoot, St. Paul's Epistles to the Colos-
sians , repr. of 1875 edn (Lynn, MA: Hendrickson, 1981), p. 150
3 See F.-W. Eltester, Eikon im Neuen Testament, BZNW 23 (Berlin:
Tbpelmann, 1958).
4 O'Brien, p. 43, creates confusion by looking at all of Paul's uses of
eiKcov and not allowing the phrase xox> 0eo\) xox> dopdtov to narrow
the semantic possibilities of eiKcov.
5 While Kim (p. 219) makes essentially the same point, we would add
the following reservation: Kim calls Christ the Visible, therefore
material manifestation of (the invisible) God'. Our objection here is
that while EIKCOV can describe material things (cf. Dan. 3. Iff.), visibil-
ity does not necessarily entail being material. Philo's De Fuga 101
provides a good counter-example to Kim's conclusion.
6 Adam is not to be considered here as he is not directly called EIKCOV,
but is said to be mx' eiKova (Gen. 1.27) or ev eiKovi (Gen. 9.1).
 5. Colossians 1.15-20 105

the verse is on visibility.1 The glorious Christ, the object of the

gospel, is the 'image of God\ The glory of Christ makes God
visible to those who believe.2 Further, if w. 5-6 are used to
inform this statement, it becomes clear that it is God's glory
which the glory of Christ, the image of God, manifests. That is,
Christ, as the image of God, makes God's glory visible. In the
context of 2 Cor. 4.4, then, the ekcov of God is the visible mani-
festation of God's glory.
This notion is clearly very similar to Phil. 2.6 where Christ is
described as ev uopcpii 9eo\) vrc&pxcov.3 There are, however,
some important differences between these two descriptions
which may modify any direct application we may make to
Col. 1.15. As we argued in Chapter 3, Phil. 2.6 is primarily a
statement about Christ's exalted status. In 2 Cor. 4.4 the
description of Christ as the 'image of God' is primarily a
statement about Christ's role as the one who makes God's
glory visible.4 While it may be possible to develop the implica-
tions of this description in regard to Christ's status in relation
to God, its primary force seems to stress the role of the 'image
of God' in making God visible. Further, it is only the context
provided by 2 Cor. 4.4-6 that allows one to claim that the
aspect of God which Christ makes visible is God's glory. There
is nothing inherent in the term EIKCOV which indicates this. It
would seem, then, that when Paul calls Christ the 'image of
God' in 2 Cor. 4.4 and Col. 1.15 he asserts that Christ mani-
fests something of God. It is only the context of each occur-
rence, however, that provides the reader with information
concerning what Christ reveals about God.
We find further support for this reading of the phrase

1 This is against Eltester (p. 136), who sees the use of ekcov in Col. 1.15
as emphasizing the cosmic dimensions of eiKcov while de-emphasiz-
ing visibility.
2 See Eltester, p. 133; Jervell, p. 216; C.K. Barrett, A Commentary on
the Second Epistle to the Corinthians, Black's NTC (London: A. & C.
Black, 1973), p. 132.
3 See also Eltester, p. 133.
4 See Eltester's comment that 'Speculation about the relationship
between God and Christ, or the cosmological role of the eiKwv is
absent. Clearly, Paul has no interest in this' (p. 133). See also
Jervell, p. 218.
106 The Story of Christ in the Ethics of Paul

'image of God' when we look at other characters who are

called the 'image of God'. In Wis. 7.26 Wisdom is called the
eiKcov of God's goodness as part of a detailed description of
Wisdom's nature and work. In the immediate context of v. 26
Wisdom is also called 'reflection of eternal light' and 'the spot-
less mirror of the working of God'. These two phrases employ
metaphors of visibility in order to describe Wisdom. It would
seem, then, that we should read the description of Wisdom as
the image of God's goodness in this light. That is, Wisdom, as
image, makes God's goodness visible. Unlike Col. 1.15 the
notion of Wisdom as the image of God receives greater preci-
sion. That is, Wisdom is the image of God's goodness. This
precision, however, is merely the function of this particular
context. What both verses share is the idea that the 'image of
God' makes God, or some aspect of God, visible. In this sense
the phrase 'image of God' reflects the role that Christ, or Wis-
dom, or anything else plays in manifesting or revealing God.
Philo also uses the phrase 'image of God' in this way in
regard to the Logos in order to talk about the role that the
Logos plays in making God manifest.1 In Conf. Ling. 96f. a
vision of the Logos, the 'image of God', substitutes for a vision
of the never-changing, unmoved God. In Som. 1.239 the Logos,
the 'image of God', is likened to the sun's corona which can be
seen by those who cannot see the sun directly. Further, in
Conf Ling. 147 the Logos is called the 'invisible and oldest
image of God'.2 Philo's point here in regard to the Logos as
God's image seems to be that of all the manifestations of God,
the Logos provides the highest. To be a child of the Logos is the

1 Philo claims that Moses called 'heavenly Wisdom* apxfi KCCI eiica)v
m i opaaiq 0eoO (Leg. All. 1.43). This passage, however, sheds little
light on the phrase EIKCOV of God as it is merely given as one of a
series of names ascribed to Wisdom. There is no indication of what
this name might signify. See also Eltester, p. 34, who can say little
about this phrase without relying on Wis. 7.26 or on a synthesis of
Philo's view of Wisdom.
2 In calling the Logos an invisible (dei8r|q) EIKCOV Philo seems to be
emphasizing the non-material nature of the Logos. The Logos
belongs to the world of ideas. Hence, it is invisible to the eye, yet per-
ceptible to the mind. This notion is confirmed by De Fuga 101. See
also Dunn, pp. 223ff.
 5. Colossians 1.15-20 107

next best thing to being a child of God. In Be Fuga 101 the

Logos is again identified as the image of God. The aim here, as
in Conf. Ling. 147, is to stress that the Logos offers the best
manifestation of God. Since God is supreme in the higher
world of ideas, the most adequate manifestation of God would
also be found in the world of ideas. Hence, the Logos is not visi-
bly portrayed. Rather, it is intellectually perceived. Neverthe-
less, its role as the image of God is to make God manifest, at
least to the mind.1
In due course, we will discuss the extent to which texts about
Wisdom and/or the Logos might illumine Col. 1.15-20. For
now we merely wish to claim that the 'image of God' is that
which makes God, or some aspect of God visible, and that this
is true when Paul applies the phrase to Christ, when the
author of Wis. applies it to Wisdom and when Philo applies it
to the Logos. The image of God plays the role of a revealer. We
must stress, however, that only the context of each occurrence
of the phrase can determine what aspect of God is revealed,
and what the implications of this are for the status of the one
who is the image.
As we noted above, the immediate context of Col. 1.15 simply
indicates that Christ reveals the invisible God. As the passage
unfolds it will become clear that the issue of what exactly
Christ reveals about God is of secondary importance. The
primary concern of the passage is with the adequacy and
superiority of Christ and his revelation of God. We will argue
in the next chapter that this issue and its implications are at
stake in Paul's conflict with the Colossian philosophy. At this
point, however, we will concentrate on how the subsequent
verses elaborate the identification of Christ as the image of the
invisible God.

Clarifying the Image: Christ's Role in Creation

This process of clarification begins when the 'image of the
invisible God' is calledrcpcoxoxoKoc;Kacriq KTIGZCOQ. Outside of
Colossians the termrcpcoxoTOKoqis used of Christ in Lk. 2.7;

1 Plato calls the cosmos the visible image of God (Tim. 92c). See also
Corp. Herm. 12.15 where the emphasis is also on the role the image
plays in making God visible.
108 The Story of Christ in the Ethics of Paul

Rom. 8.29; Heb. 1.6; Rev. 1.5. Only Luke uses the word in rela-
tion to natural birth processes. All of the other uses of the term
have a metaphorical coloring, indicating priority of rank or
supremacy which comes through temporal precedence. 1 As
natural birth processes are clearly not in view here, the phrase
would be used to reflect the supremacy and sovereignty over
all creation that is Christ's by virtue of his temporal prece-
dence. 2 This notion of superiority through temporal prece-
dence is not unique to the NT. Philo also uses the notion of
temporal priority to emphasize the superiority of the Logos
and Wisdom.3
The reason why the 'image of the invisible God' is sovereign
over all creation is given in w . 16ff. That is, 'All things were
created in him...' The passive eimaOn indicates that it was God
who created all things, ev, 8id and ei<; Christ. 4 The difficult
interpretive issue here concerns the significance to be attached
to each prepositional phrase. Of the three, the implications of
all things being created ev am&> are the most contested. Nor-
den, citing Marcus Aurelius, calls this verse a Stoic Allmachts-
formel.5 F. Craddock has noted, however, that there is a great
difference between the Stoic idea of God as in everything and
v. 16 which states that all things were created in Christ. 6 In

1 This parallels the LXX's use of TCPCOT6XOKO<; both in genealogies and

in more metaphorical senses such as Ps. 88.28 where it expresses
priority of rank. See also Michaelis, TDNT, 6.873ff.
2 So E. Lohse, Colossians and Philemon, Hermeneia, trans. W.
Pohlmann and R. Karris (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971), p. 49;
C.F.D. Moule, Colossians and Philemon (Cambridge: CUP, 1957),
p. 64; R.P. Martin, Colossians and Philemon, NCB (London:
Oliphants, 1974), p. 55; E. Schweizer, The Letter to the Colossians,
trans. A. Chester (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1982), p. 68; O'Brien,
p. 44; Kehl, pp. 85-87.
3 See Conf. Ling. 147; Leg. All. 3.175; Ebr. 31.
4 See Lohse, p. 49; O'Brien, p. 45.
5 Norden, 1956, pp. 24Off. See Marcus Aurelius, Meditations 4.23.
Norden also cites Rom. 11.36 and 1 Cor. 8.6 as examples of this All-
machtsformel.
6 F.B. Craddock, 'All Things in Him: A Critical Note on Col. 1.15-20',
NTS 12 (1966), pp. 78-80. See also Lohse, p. 50, who says that it is
'impossible to identify the God of Israel with nature, and the faith of
Israel could not be dissolved into a pantheistic world view'.
 5. Colossians 1.15-20 109

addition, Pohlmann has noted numerous occurrences of 'All-

Pradikationen' in Greek and Jewish texts outside Stoicism.1
Lohse chooses to read ev instrumentally, giving it the same
force as 8id.2 He claims this reading is demanded by the his-
tory of religions background of the text and is supported by the
presence of 8id.3 Allowing background to determine meaning
would be methodologically dubious even in regard to a text
with a less disputed background than this one. Further, the
presence of the prepositions 8id and eiq together argue against
reading ev as synonymous with Sid. If only 8id were used
without eiq one might make a case for reading the phrases in
this clause synonymously. Since, however, this is not the case,
one should resist dissolving ev into 8id.
Alternatively, we read ev amcb as reflecting the idea that
'Christ represents the sphere in which the world was created
and preserved'.4 This is paralleled in the way Philo talks about
the creation of the world being located in divine reason.5 God's
creation finds its coherence in Christ because Christ is the
'sphere' in which creation took place.
We would then read the preposition 8id instrumentally,
representing Christ's mediation of creation.6 The final prepo-
sition, eig, indicates that Christ is the goal towards which
creation is directed. Christ is the 'final purpose of creation'.7
These three phrases taken together serve to emphasize the
comprehensive nature of Christ's role in the creative process.

1 W. Pohlmann, 'Die hymnischen All-Pradikationen in Kol. 1.15-20',

ZNW 64 (1975), pp. 53-74.
2 See Lohse, p. 50 n.129; also H. Hegermann, Die Vorstellung vom
Schopfungsmittler im hellenistischen Judentum und Urchristen-
tum (Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1961), p. 96.
3 See Lohse, p. 50 n. 129.
4 See Schweizer, 1982, p. 69; E. Percy, Die Probleme der Kolosser- und
Epheserbriefe (Lund: Gleerup, 1946), pp. 69-70; F.F. Bruce, The Epis-
tle to the Colossians, NICNT (London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott,
1957), p. 197; Burger, p. 36.
5 See Opif. Mundi 17-20; also Schweizer, 1982, p. 69 n. 37, for further
examples.
6 See J. Gnilka, Der Kolosserbrief, Herders TKNT (Freiburg: Herder,
1980), p. 66; Schweizer, 1982, p. 70; Lohse, p. 51.
7 See Martin, 1974, p. 58; Schweizer, 1982, p. 70; Percy, p. 72; O'Brien,
p. 47; Gnilka, 1980, p. 66; Bruce, p. 199.
110 The Story of Christ in the Ethics of Paul

They also provide justification for the assertion of Christ's

supremacy over all creation—only the 'firstborn' could have
such a comprehensive role in creation. The fact that this
'firstborn' is also the image of God supports the claim that
Christ's manifestation of the invisible God is the most adequate
one given to humanity. If Christ reigns supreme over all
creation (by virtue of his comprehensive role in creation), then
one could hardly point to another created being as providing a
fuller manifestation of God.1
In between the first and second prepositional phrases of this
verse one finds a series of terms setting out the extent and
definition of'all things'.2 'All things' includes things in heaven
and earth, visible things and invisible things. These invisible
things are further defined by the terms Gpovoi, K-opioiTixeg,
apxcci and E^ouaiai.3 Throughout Paul these terms refer to
spiritual powers (cf. 1 Cor. 15.24; Rom. 8.38; Eph. 1.21; 6.12;
Col. 2.10). This is also the way these terms are used in such
places as 1 Pet. 3.22; 2 Enoch 20.1; Test Lev. 3.8. In some of
these cases the powers seem hostile towards Christ or
humanity (1 Cor. 15.24; Rom. 8.38; Eph. 6.12). In other cases
they are benign. In each case, however, it is the context which
determines the nature of these powers.4 There is nothing
inherent in these terms which would indicate that they refer
solely to either hostile or benign powers. In the context of Col.
1.16 the question of whether these powers were viewed as
hostile or benign does not seem to be important. The emphasis
is on the universal scope of Christ's superiority. Whether or
not these powers are hostile is not significant. They are all
created in, through and for Christ.5
This compilation of a list of powers and the series of

1 Philo seems to imply the same thing; cf. his similar comments con-
cerning the Logos in Conf. Ling. 147.
2 See Lohse, p. 51; O'Brien, p. 46.
3 See Burger, p. 65.
4 See W. Carr, Angels and Principalities, SNTSMS 42 (Cambridge:
CUP, 1981), pp.43, 52; also W. Wink, Naming the Powers
(Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984), pp. 13ff.
5 See Moule, p. 66; Bruce, p. 199. In the light of 2.13-15, however, these
may well be hostile powers. See our discussion of these verses in the
next Chapter.
 5. Colossians 1.15-20 111

prepositional phrases together emphasize the comprehensive

nature of Christ's supremacy over creation. The next phrase,
m i oroxog eaxivrcporcdvxcov,continues this emphasis although
its exact force is somewhat ambiguous. In the vast majority of
cases Tcpo designates either temporal priority or being spatially
in front of something. The one time the Johannine Christ
speaks of himself as beingrcpohe is referring to his coexistence
with the father before the foundation of the world (Jn 17.5, 24).
This would support those who read v. 17 as an expression of
temporal priority.1 On the other hand, in the only other places
the phrasercporcdvicovoccurs (Jas 5.5; 1 Pet. 4.8), the phrase
refers to supremacy.2 It should, however, be noted that Christ
is not the subject in either of these cases. The advantange to
reading this phrase as an expression of temporal priority is
that one could point to the previous verse to support the view
that an emphasis on temporal priority is used to establish
Christ's superiority over all things. In this sense, then, the
phrase repeats the force ofrcpcoxoTOKOQin v. 16.3
The next phrase, KOC! xarcdvxocev av%G> crov£axT|K£v, is inter-
esting because of its close verbal parallels with several differ-
ent writings.4 Perhaps the closest parallel is Sir. 43.26 (ev Myq)
aixoi) o\)YK£ixai xd rcdvxa).5 In these parallels the aim is to
demonstrate who provides the unity and coherence of cre-
ation.6 For Plato, it is the 'artisan of heaven', for Ben Sira, it is
'God's word', for Paul, it is Christ.7 Behind Paul's assertion is
an implied claim about Christ's superiority. If Christ is the one
who provides the created order with its unity and coherence,
he must, in the end, be superior to creation. (Hence, he is also a

1 See Schweizer, 1982, p. 71; O'Brien, p. 47; Martin, 1974, p. 58.

2 The NEB translates the phrase 'above air.
3 See Lohse, p. 51.
4 See Plato, Rep. 7.530a; Pap. Oxy. 11, 1380.183-85 in the edition of B.
Grenfell and A. Hunt (Oxford: OUP, 1915). See also Hegermann,
pp. 94-95; A. Feuillet, Le Christ Sagesse de Dieu (Paris: Gabalda,
1966), p. 214.
5 See Schweizer, 1982, p. 71 n. 49; Martin, 1974, p. 59; Feuillet, p. 215;
Gnilka, 1980, p. 66.
6 See Lohse, p. 52; Gnilka, 1980, pp. 66-67.
7 This is not to say that Paul is consciously reacting to Plato's or Ben
Sira's claims.
112 The Story of Christ in the Ethics of Paul

superior manifestation of God.)

Further Clarification: Christ as Head of the Body—the

Church
The phrase KOCI OCUTOQ ecmv f| KecpaA/n TOS aco^axoq xr\c,
ixKk^Giac, closes the first part of this passage. The majority of
scholars accept Kasemann's position that xf|q tKKh\Gia<; rep-
resents a gloss on an original hymn. 1 For our purposes, how-
ever, it is only necessary to deal with the text in its present
form.
The force of this phrase turns on the metaphorical use of
K£(pocAf|. There are two metaphorical uses of 'head' which
might be relevant here. One stresses the notion of the head's
authority in relation to something else (cf. 1 Cor. 11.3ff.). This
view of KecpocWi is consistent with the general focus of this pas-
sage on Christ's supremacy. It also conforms to the meta-
phorical use of head in 2.10. Hence, some scholars see an
emphasis here on Christ's authority over all things, including
the church, in the same way the head rules the body.2
There is, however, another metaphorical use of 'head'
which is probably more adequate for reading the verse. That
is, the entire phrase 'head of the body' is a metaphor
emphasizing the life-sustaining role of the head in relation to
the body. The head is the locus of the body's unity and
direction.3 There are several contextual considerations which
make this reading of the metaphor more adequate. First, v. 17

1 See Kasemann, 1964, p. 151. Kehl, pp. 93ff., and O'Brien, p. 49, repre-
sent some of those in the minority who think that the phrase is orig-
inal.
2 See J.G. Gibbs, Creation and Redemption, NovTSup 26 (Leiden:
Brill, 1971), p. 105; Kehl, p. 97; Moule, p. 68; Martin, 1974, p. 55.
3 For a similar metaphorical view of'head* see Philo, Quaes. Ex. 2.68,
117. S. Bedale rejects this metaphorical view of the head/body rela-
tion because it was physiologically inconceivable at the time. See
The Meaning of KecpctXri in Paul's Epistles', JTS n.s. 5 (1954),
pp. 211-15. But the examples from Philo clearly show that such a
head/body relationship was conceivable in Paul's time. It may well
be, however, that the logic of Philo's use of bodily parts to talk about
the cosmos leads him to posit the sort of head/body relationship
found in Quaes. Ex. In this case, physiology would not have played
any role in his connection of head and body in this manner.
 5. Colossians 1.15-20 113

has emphasized that Christ provides all things with their

unity and coherence. Likening this to the relationship between
head and body continues this line of thought. Secondly, the
head/body relationship is used with a similar metaphorical
force in 2.19. Further, this metaphorical use of head contains
most, if not all, of the implications of power and leadership
found in, for example, 2.10.1 Nevertheless, it goes further than
2.10, reflecting the unity, coherence and direction the head
provides for the body. In this sense, then, to call Christ the head
of the body, the church, in v. 18 is to extend the thought of v. 17
into a specific realm, the church. That is, Christ is the locus of
the church's unity and coherence, the source of the church's
sustenance and direction.2
This phrase concludes what is formally the first part of the
passage. We have argued that the focus of these verses is not to
elaborate the description of Christ as the 'image of the invisible
God', at least in terms of what it is Christ reveals about God.
Rather, Paul is concerned to show that, because of Christ's
supreme and comprehensive role in creating and sustaining
all things, including the church, he is the supreme manifesta-
tion of the invisible God.3 In w . 18b-20 Paul moves from a dis-
cussion of Christ's supremacy in creation and the church to a
description of his role as the reconciler of all things.

Christ—'The Beginning and First-Born from the Dead../

Paul begins this part of the passage by calling Christ dcpxri,
^beginning*. Philo calls both Wisdom and Logos dp%T|.4 In each
case &pxn is an honorific title. Only in Conf. Ling. 143 is it clear
that being the beginning, the oldest, is a virtue because it
entails supremacy over other, younger beings. The combina-
tion of dpxr| with TcpcoxoTOKoc; ex xSv veicpcov confirms this use

1 This is certainly true ofQuaes. Ex. 2.117 as well as the other similar
metaphors cited by Lohse, pp. 53-54.
2 We would, therefore, agree with Lohse's interpretation of the
metaphor (p. 54; also O'Brien, p. 50), but disagree that the
identification of 'body' and 'church' substantially changes the
metaphor (p. 55). See E. Best, One Body in Christ (London: SPCK,
1955), pp. 129f.; also Bruce, pp. 20Iff.
3 See Gnilka, 1980, p. 61, and Jervell, pp. 218-21, for similar views.
4 Leg. All. 1.43 and Conf. Ling. 146 respectively.
114 The Story of Christ in the Ethics of Paul

of dpxT| in regard to Christ. 1 In addition, it also provides a

specific sphere of beings amongst whom Christ is supreme by
virtue of his temporal priority. In these verses Paul does not
emphasize Christ's primacy in creation, and his consequent
superiority to 'all things' as in 1.15-18a (or Rev. 3.14). Rather,
in this part of the passage, the focus of Christ's primacy is the
resurrection. 2 This idea also occurs elsewhere in Paul (Rom.
8.29; 1 Cor. 15.20; cf. also Acts 26.23; Rev. 1.5).
The aim of this emphasis on Christ's resurrection, however,
is still to show Christ's superiority to all things. The following
clause, ivcc yevrixai ev rcaaiv ambqrcpcoxeucov,makes this clear.
Rather than reflecting on the consequences of Christ's resur-
rection for sinful humanity, this clause draws attention to
Christ's preeminence resulting from his resurrection.3

Justifying These Claims: Christ as the Dwelling Place of All

Fulness
The on clause beginning in v. 19 provides justification for the
causal connection Paul makes between the assertions con-
cerning Christ's resurrection and the conclusion regarding
his preeminence in all things. This verse, however, contains
several ambiguities. The first concerns the subject of the verbs.
It has been suggested that 0eo<; be supplied as the subject to
agree with the masculine participle, eipT|vo7coif|aa<;.4 While
grammatically possible, this view has the disadvantage that it
is equally possible to read nav xorcAjipconxxas the subject of
e\)86KT|aev and avoid having to supply a word to the text. The
problem with this view is that God seems to be the implied
subject of arcoicaxaAAa^ai and eiprivorcoifiaac;. The problem of
changing the subjects of the verbs seems to be avoided if TC&V XO
TcWipcojia is seen as a designation for God and all God's fulness.
The masculine participle would then be a construction accord-

1 Gen. 49.3; Deut. 21.17 pair TCPCOT6TOKO<; and apxH, describing the
primacy of the first-born son. See also Gnilka, 1980, p. 70.
2 See Gibbs, p. 106; Lohse, p. 56; O'Brien, p. 50.
3 See Michaelis, TDNT, 6.881-82, for the use of jcpcoTevcov to indicate
supremacy.
4 This is generally the view of the older commentators. See J.B. Light-
foot, St. Paul's Epistles to the Colossians, repr. of 1875 edn (Lynn:
Hendrickson, 1981), p. 158.
 5. Colossians 1.15-20 115

ing to sense.1
The plausibility of reading mv TO jcW|pco|j.a as the subject of
the verb will depend, then, on the plausibility of reading this
phrase as a circumlocution for God. The term 7cA,f|pcon.a itself is
not overly revealing. In Valentinian Gnosticism nXr\p(o\ia was
a technical term for the unity of the aeons.2 In secular Hel-
lenistic literature nXi\p(o\ia is used with a wide range of
meanings, generally implying completeness and unity. Fur-
ther, in the LXX KXJ\ pcouoc is used to speak of the completeness
or the totality of something (e.g. 'the sea and its fulness', 1
Chron. 13.32; Pss. 95.11; 97.17; 'the earth and its fulness', Ps.
23.1; Jer. 8.16; 29.2; Ezek. 12.19; 19.7; 30.12; 32.15). This gen-
eral idea is also present in the Hermetic literature (cf. Corp.
Herm. 12, 16), although some Hermetic writings seem to be
moving towards a Valentinian understanding ofrcAripcopxx.3In
Col. 1.19 and 2.9 it is possible to readrc^fipcouaas a Gnostic,
technical term. Overfield, however, shows that this is not the
way the Gnostics themselves read these verses. 4 A more
probable reading, then, would take nXr\pto\ia in its secular
sense of completeness or fulness.
Having established this, several scholars then read the
phrase 'all fulness' as a circumlocution for God.5 The argu-
ments for this, however, are not all of equal weight. Those
which are based on the notion that this verse represents the
convergence of two OT themes (God's dwelling amongst
humanity and God's good pleasure or election), first proposed
by Miinderlein, are unconvincing.6 It is unlikely the two verbs

1 See G. Miinderlein, 'Die Erwahlung durch die Pleroma: Bemerk-

ungen zu Kol. i.19% NTS 8 (1961-62), p. 226. Miinderlein is followed
by Gibbs, p. 100; Kehl, p. 110; Schweizer, 1982, p. 77; Lohse, p. 57;
O'Brien, p. 51.
2 See P.D. Overfield, Tleroma: A Study in Content and Context', NTS
25 (1978-79), pp. 384-88.
3 See Overfield, p. 390; also J. Ernst, Pleroma und Pleroma Christi
(Regensburg: Pustet Verlag, 1970), p. 15.
4 See Overfield, pp. 394-396.
5 So Miinderlein, p. 272; Ernst, p. 84; Moule, pp. 164-69; Kehl, pp. 120-
23; O'Brien, pp. 52-53; Schweizer, 1982, p. 77; Burger, p. 60.
6 Munderlein, pp. 260ff., is followed in this by Ernst, pp.84ff.; Kehl,
p. 123; O'Brien, p. 53.
116 The Story of Christ in the Ethics of Paul

ei)8oKeo) and Kaxonceco are so specific as to evoke the conver-

gence of these two themes merely by occurring in the same
sentence. The issue here is concerned with the phrase 'all ful-
ness' and whether there are good reasons for reading 'all ful-
ness' as a circumlocution for God. To support this view there
are only two pieces of evidence. First, the context seems to pre-
suppose God as the subject. Secondly, the way 'all fulness' is
elaborated in 2.9 seems to link it quite closely with God, or god-
likeness. 1 This may not be much evidence, but it is all that we
have.
Clearly, this is a somewhat obscure way for Paul to talk
about God.2 Paul, however, is not interested at this point in
elucidating this phrase. For now, he is content to assert that,
because all fulness is pleased to dwell in Christ, he is preemi-
nent in all things. Rather than give the notion of fulness fur-
ther precision, as in 2.9, it would seem Paul's aim is to empha-
size its location, in Christ. 3 If one must find a point in history
when all fulness began to dwell in Christ, then the passage
would indicate that this took place at the resurrection and not
at Christ's baptism.4

Further Justification: Christ's Role in the Reconciliation of All

Things
The next phrase, KOCI 8 I ' <x\>xoai arcoKaxaAAa^ai xarc&vxaeiq
a\>xov, provides further justification for the predications of
v. 18b. Underlying this phrase is the idea that in some sense
creation had gone wrong and was in need of redemption and
renewal. Since this general view seems to have been relatively
widespread in the world of the NT, it would be difficult to claim
that one particular view of the disintegration of cosmic har-
mony stands behind this passage, especially in view of the

1 See our discussion of this verse in the next Chapter.

2 This term may well reflect the language of the Colossian philoso-
phy, but this, too, is an issue for the next Chapter.
3 Miinderlein argues that 'in him' is connected with e#u8oK'naev and
not KaxoiKTiaev (see pp. 268-70). This conclusion, however, is based
on the reconstruction of a supposed Semitic original behind the text
as we have it now. In addition, it ignores the evidence of 2.9. See
Lohse, p. 57 n. 193.
4 With Kehl, p. 124, Gnilka, 1980, p. 73; against Munderlein, p. 271.
 5. Colossians 1.15-20 117

silence of the text at this point.1 It may, however, be assuming

too much to think Paul and his readers would have presup-
posed the same account of the dissolution of cosmic harmony.
On the other hand, whichever story of cosmic disruption is
presupposed, Paul is clear that God brings the reconciliation of
all things through Christ. 2 This, in turn, supports claims of
Christ's preeminence. 3 If Christ was God's agent of reconcil-
iation, then, by implication, Christ, unlike all other things, had
no need to be reconciled to God. Hence, Christ is superior to all
things.
The final phrase, eipTivorcoiriaaq 8ia %ox> ai'iiaxcx; xov
axocopoi) a\)io\).., continues this emphasis. That Christ is the
agent of peace-making is both an assertion about God's
reconciling activity and a further assertion of Christ's
superiority in the light of the fact that all other things were in
a state of alienation and enmity. The fact that this peace is the
result of the crucifixion shows that any glory which Christ
now experiences has been attained through suffering. The
first-born from the dead cannot be viewed in isolation from his
death on the cross.4 The subsequent formulation, eixe xa erci xfj<;
yrjc; eixe xa ev xoic; o\)pavoi<;, asserts the comprehensive nature
of the peace Christ brings. This, then, reinforces Christ's claim
to supremacy.
We have argued that in Col. 1.15-20 Paul is concerned to
show the superiority of Christ, the one who manifests the
invisible God. The passage reflects very little on what in par-
ticular Christ manifests about God. Rather, by focussing on
Christ's role in creation and in redemption the passage asserts

1 See Schweizer, 1982, pp. 125-34, for various examples of this view in
Hellenistic literature of both Jewish and Gentile origin; also
Hegermann, pp. 103-105. Kehl, pp. 163-65, thinks the rupture in view
is that reflected in Rom. 1-3.
2 The word dicoKaxaXdaoo) only appears in Christian literature. See
Biichsel, TDNT, 1.258.
3 See E. Schweizer, 'Die Kirche als Leib Christi in den paulinischen
Antilegomena', in Neotestamentica (Zurich: Zwingli Verlag, 1963),
p. 298.
4 See our comments on Phil. 2.8. Whether this phrase is a direct
response to a 'theology of glory' in the Colossian church (Lohse,
p. 60) remains to be seen.
118 The Story of Christ in the Ethics of Paul

Christ's superiority to all other things which might be seen as

manifestations of God. We will argue in the next Chapter that
these are just the sorts of assertions that Paul will rely on to
combat a 'philosophy* which undermines the fulness found in
Christ.
Before this, however, it may be useful here, as with Phil. 2.6-
11, to discuss how other texts, particularly discussions of Wis-
dom, might provide insight into a reading of Col. 1.15-20.

Against Wisdom: The Relationship between Colossians 1.15-

20 and Texts about Wisdom
As we noted above, several terms used in Col. 1.15-20 to iden-
tify Christ are also used by other writers to identify Wisdom
and/or the Logos. Again, as with Phil. 2.6-11, the value of these
texts depends exactly on what one is trying to show. We should
state here we are not interested in the origin of Paul's
thought.1 Nor are we interested in trying to fit this passage
into a coherent tradition of reflection about Wisdom.2 We do,
however, agree with Schiissler Fiorenza that there is no
unified myth of Wisdom either encompassing or standing
behind the various texts which reflect on Wisdom.3 This is not
to question the potential value of anything that these interests
may produce. Rather, we merely want to recognize that these
tasks are separable from (although actually dependent on) a
discussion of the content of Col. 1.15-20 such as the one we
have pursued. Further, the recognition that there is not a sin-
gle, unified myth of Wisdom in the ancient world means that
we have to limit our examination to discrete texts. Our discus-
sion of various Wisdom texts will be limited to examining
what, if any, useful insights these texts might provide for our
understanding of the content of Col. 1.15-20.
The first text we will look at is Sirach 24. Here Wisdom
speaks of her own role in creation (24.5). The aim here seems
to be to enhance Wisdom's glory and desirability (cf. 24.1).
1 This is the interest of Kim, and, to a lesser extent, Dunn.
2 See E. Schiissler Fiorenza, Wisdom Mythology and the Christologi-
cal Hymns of the New Testament', in Aspects of Wisdom in
Judaism and Early Christianityy ed. R. Wilkin (Notre Dame: Uni-
versity of Notre Dame Press, 1975), pp. 17-41.
3 See Fiorenza, pp. 28ff.
 5. Colossians 1.15-20 119

Likewise, one might say that the assertions about Christ's role
in creation, would, by implication, enhance his glory. Their
primary aim, however, is to assert his adequacy and
supremacy as an image of the invisible God. In addition, Ben
Sira's text does not indicate that Wisdom plays any
redemptive role. In the light of this, Sirach 24 would not shed
much light on the content of Col. 1.15-20.
The next text we will consider is Wis. 7.22ff. We have
already noted the use of EIKCOV in 7.26. Clearly, in this verse
Wisdom's adequacy as a manifestation of God is in view. This,
however, is but one of Wisdom's many qualities. Another one
of Wisdom's virtues is her role as the 'fashioner of all things'
(7.22; 8.6). Here, then, are two attributes predicated of Wisdom
which are roughly analogous to those predicated of Christ in
Colossians 1. Wisdom, however, does not make a causal con-
nection between these two qualities as Col. 1.15-16 does. That
is, Wisdom's superiority as a manifestation of God is not a
function of her role in creation. Alternatively, this seems to be
the connection Paul makes in regard to Christ. Further, as in
Sirach 24, there is no mention here of Wisdom's role in
redemption. Rather, Wisdom's virtues are ennumerated with
a view towards enhancing her desirability (cf. 8.5ff.).
Perhaps the most enlightening text for our reading of
Colossians would be Conf. Ling. 146ff. Here one of Philo's con-
cerns is to argue that the Logos is the most adequate manifes-
tation of God. One of the reasons for this is the temporal prior-
ity of the Logos. In this respect, Philo bases the adequacy of the
Logos as a manifestation of God on the same general reason
that Paul uses to assert the supremacy of Christ, the image of
the invisible God. From this one could say that both Philo and
Paul were concerned to show their readers who it was that
provided the best image of God. Further, they both accept that
temporal priority would be a major consideration in
determining who was the best image of God.
In Conf. Ling. 146ff., however, the Logos does not play a
redemptive role in the same way Christ does. On the other
hand, Philo urges those who are not yet able to be called
children of God to order themselves (KoapxTaGcci) according to
the Logos. This is because being associated with the Logos is
the next best thing to being a child of God. Further, this asso-
120 The Story of Christ in the Ethics of Paul

ciation should prepare one to become a child of God (cf. Conf.

Ling. 147). In this case, however, it is the fact that the Logos is
the oldest image of God that provides its 'redemptive' sig-
nificance. For Paul, on the other hand, it is because of Christ's
redemptive activity that he is 'preeminent in all things'.
In spite of these similarities we have no reason to claim that
Paul makes his assertions about Christ to oppose directly
Philo's assertions about the Logos. Nor do we have any reason
to think that the terms Paul employs to describe Christ could
be called Wisdom language' in the sense that they represent a
special vocabulary that attached itself to Wisdom or the
Logos.1 Both Philo and Paul use the vocabulary of their lan-
guage systems to make roughly similar claims about different
entities. Surprisingly or not, they occasionally draw on the
same words in their descriptions. Unless one is willing to claim
that Paul is consciously relating his description of Christ to
Philo's description of the Logos or Wisdom, or that Philo's
descriptions used vocabulary reserved only for descriptions of
the Logos or Wisdom, a term such as 'Wisdom language'
seems misleading. Since Paul's consciousness is forever lost to
us, and we have no indications in the text that he is explicitly
making his claims about Christ in response to Philo's claims
about Wisdom, we have no way of supporting this first claim.
Even if one could make a plausible case for this claim, the most
one could say is that Paul uses Philo's language about Wisdom
to speak about Christ. As for the second claim, concerning the
uniqueness of vocabulary used to describe Wisdom, one need
only look up the relevant terms in a lexicon to see the range of
beings they are applied to. One might well recast the phrase
'Wisdom language' in such a way that it is both coherent and
useful for NT studies.2 We doubt, however, that such a phrase

1 Dunn reflects this sort of idea when he asks, 'What did it mean for
the first Christians when Wisdom language was applied to Christ?'
(p. 167).
2 Such a reconstruction might be based on passages such as 2 Cor. 4.4
where Christ is identified as the 'wisdom of God*. Alternatively, one
might use the phrase as a way of referring to a specific form of
Jesus' discourse in the Gospels. In both of these cases, however, the
phrase 'wisdom language' would be more appropriate than
'Wisdom language'.
 5. Colossians 1.15-20 121

would be applicable to this passage. As long as Wisdom lan-

guage' is used to refer to a special vocabulary attached to Wis-
dom and/or the Logos, however, it is not a coherent notion.
We have tried to explore what light is shed by texts about
Wisdom on our understanding of the content of Col. 1.15-20.
We would conclude it is actually Philo's reflections about the
Logos in Conf. Ling. 146ff. that come closest to Paul's descrip-
tion of Christ. But even here we have noted significant differ-
ences of detail. In the light of our next Chapter, however, it
may still be useful to note that others besides Paul are engaged
in reflection on who or what constituted an adequate image of
God, and why.
 Chapter 6

THE FUNCTION OF COLOSSIANS 1.15-20

Of the three passages under consideration, the role of Col.

1.15-20 in the epistle as a whole may be the most complex to
trace. We can say at the outset that 1.15-20 is not used to sup-
port one christological statement over another, since in w. 15-
20 Paul merely states his position and makes no effort to
defend it. 1 Nor does he attack any other christology. He
assumes that the assertions he makes in 1.15-20 will be
accepted without dispute. This, however, is a rather innocuous
claim. It is much more difficult to show that the picture of
Christ presented in w. 15-20 functions in an exemplary way
similar to Phil. 2.6-11, that 1.15-20 provide an exemplar
which Paul extends analogically to address the situation of the
Colossian church. It is for this view that we shall argue in this
Chapter.
Two things complicate our task. The first is structural. In
contrast to Philippians 2 where the exemplar (w.6-11) is
immediately extended, under the guidance of v. 5, to the moral
life of the Philippian church, it is not until Col. 2.6ff. that 1.15-
20 exercises its primary function. To show this we will have to
give a fuller account of the way the argument in Colossians
moves. This we will pursue in due course.
The second complication is historical. This is due to the fact
that scholars have widely differing views concerning the posi-
tion Paul attacks in Colossians 2. Scholars have proposed
nearly fifty different possible identifications of the Colossian
'philosophy'.2

1 See Gnilka, 1980, p. 76.

2 J.J. Gunther, St. Paul's Opponents and Their Background,
NovTSup 35 (Leiden: Brill, 1973), pp. 3-4.
124 The Story of Christ in the Ethics of Paul

The Situation Addressed in the Epistle

The text itself does not provide a concrete identification of
Paul's opponents and, as M. Hooker has indicated, there are
several reasons for questioning the idea that in Colossians
Paul is engaged in fighting a full-blown heresy.1 Unlike Gala-
tians, in which Paul sharply attacks a false teaching that has
infested the church, we find no direct evidence of this in
Colossians. On the contrary, Paul commends the Colossian
believers heartily (1.3-8; 2.5). While there are warnings
against certain practices, there are also warnings in Rom.
16.17-20 and Phil. 3.2, 18, 19 without the implication that
these Christians had strayed or were about to stray from the
gospel.2 Nor does one encounter here the resistance to Paul's
authority one finds in the Corinthian correspondence. Rather,
Paul is able to make assertions without having to defend his
authority or teaching against anyone else's.
Hooker proposes that there were no false teachers in Colos-
sae. Rather, the situation was one in which new believers were
under pressure to conform to the beliefs and practices of their
neighbors.3 Hooker's thesis is appealing in many ways. In fact,
if one imagines the Colossians as a group of relatively recent
converts it is quite possible that they would require instruction
on how their new faith related to the beliefs and practices of
the world around them. It is natural that an epistle written to
them would present both a critical interpretation of the theo-
logical and christological traditions to which they were heirs
and a correlation of those traditions with their present situa-
tion to guide their behavior.
On the other hand, Hooker does not take adequate account
of verses like 2.8, 16 and 18 which reflect a situation in which
a group or groups were putting pressure on the Colossians to
adopt certain specific beliefs and practices. The situation
reflected in Colossians is not one in which a group of Chris-
tians are abstractly enquiring about how they should relate to
those of other faiths. On the contrary, verbs like
1 M. Hooker, 'Were There False Teachers in Colossae?', in Christ and
Spirit in the New Testament, Festschrift for C.F.D. Moule, ed. B.
Lindars and S. Smalley (Cambridge: CUP, 1973), pp. 315-31.
2 Hooker, 1973, pp. 316ff.
3 Hooker, 1973, p. 329.
 6. The Function ofColossians 1.15-20 125

Kpivco and KatccppaPetico indicate that the Colossians were

under real pressure to conform to certain beliefs and practices.
We do not know if this pressure came from outside the
community or from various members in the community who
had already adopted the practices Paul warns against. Nor do
we know the extent to which the church had succumbed to
these pressures. What we can do is examine the nature of the
practices Paul warns against to see if they fit into a wider
background of religious practice. For our purposes we do not
need to lump all of these prohibitions together and construct a
coherent system of belief that can be associated with a particu-
lar group. We only need to sketch a plausible situation which
relates the pressures being put on the Colossians and Paul's
arguments in the epistle. This should provide us with a
sufficient basis from which to discuss the role of 1.15-20 in the
argument of the epistle.
The practices of 2.16, 21 imply a certain degree of asceti-
cism. The general nature of these prohibitions do not give us
much information concerning the degree or the purpose of the
asceticism.1 The enigmatic v. 18, however, seems to shed light
on both the degree and purpose of the ascetical practices
mentioned in Colossians 2. As a result, since the time of
Dibelius, scholars have viewed this verse as a key to unlocking
the nature of the pressures being exerted on the Colossian
church. The basis of Dibelius' position was his view that
ep,PocT£\)cov in v. 18 was a technical term from the initiation
ceremony of a pagan mystery religion.2 This was based on
Dibelius' reading of several inscriptions from the sanctuary of
Apollo at Claros in which e^ipaxetjeiv appears. From this,
Dibelius reconstructed the sort of group against whom
Colossians was written. He then used this reconstruction to
inform his reading of the whole epistle.

1 Percy, p. 161, claims that these ascetic practices militate against the
notion that the 'elemental spirits' are actually the spirits of each
material element. This is because worship of the spirits of material
elements would be inconsistent with asceticism.
2 Dibelius' essay on this subject now appears in Conflict at Colossae,
ed. F. Francis and W.A. Meeks (Missoula: Scholars Press, 1975),
esp. pp. 82-90. This reading was anticipated by W. Ramsay, The
Teaching of Paul (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1913), pp. 283-305.
126 The Story of Christ in the Ethics of Paul

The number of scholars who either follow Dibelius or

specifically attack his position bears witness to the power of his
exegesis of v. 18. In 1963, however, F. Francis was able to
advance Dibelius' reading of v. 18 and thus provide a more
powerful explanation of the Colossian situation.1
Francis begins by looking at the term xarcewocppoawn. The
use of this term in a positive light in 3.12 leads one to consider
whether the clearly negative use of xocrceivocppoaiivTi in 2.18
indicates that it is used here as a technical term. Tertullian's
use of TocTceivocppoawri as well as that of Hermas indicates that,
as a technical term, xocrceivocppoawn can refer specifically to
fasting or, more generally, to ascetical rigors.2 The purpose of
these rigors is to transcend one's present situation and attain a
visionary experience.3 By examining a wide range of sources
Francis shows that the view that rigorous asceticism was
necessary for visionary transcendence was not uncommon in
the world of the NT.4
Francis then moves on to re-examine the term ejipccxeveiv.
He discusses the inscriptional evidence on which Dibelius
based his view, and rejects the notion that euPccxeueiv is a
technical term for initiation. Rather, enPotxevew in the Clarian
inscriptions is used in a non-technical way to speak of entering
into the oracle chamber.5 For understanding e|j.pax£\>eiv in Col.
2.18, Francis argues that legal papyri, the Heracleidae 863-
878 and Josh. 19.49-51 are equally, if not more, relevant texts. 6
In these texts eiiPotxeueiv is used to designate entering into
possession of or attaining something.7 The words a eopaicev

1 Also in Conflict at Colossae, pp. 163-96. There is also a revision of

Francis's views on pp. 197-208. (Hereafter Francis's essays will by
cited as Francis.)
2 See Francis, p. 168. See p. 187 for citation from Tertullian; cf. also
Hermas, Sim. 5.3, 7.
3 See Francis, p. 169; also Hermas, Sim. 5.3; Vis. 3.10,6.
4 See Francis, pp. 169-71. See also Apoc. Ezra 1; 4 Ezra 5.16; Apoc.
Abr. 9;Asc. Isa. 2; 7-11; Philo, Som. 1.33-37; Vit. Mos. 2.67-70; Ebr.
148-52; Herm. 13.
5 See Francis, p. 202.
6 See Francis, p. 198. Francis also notes cases where e^Pccxeveiv is
used absolutely as in Colossians (p. 207).
7 See Francis, pp. 198-99.
 6. The Function ofColossians 1.15-20 127

, 1 then, would refer to 'the things viewed upon

attaining or entering'. The first question one would ask of this
reading concerns what is attained or entered. In answer to
this question Francis points to texts in which those who have
visionary experiences (some of which are induced by ascetical
rigors) are said to enter into heaven. 2 Unfortunately for
Francis, none of these texts uses en-Pocxeveiv.3 If e^Pateiieiv did
appear it would obviously bolster Francis's position. Its
absence, however, is not fatal for his view. If ejipccxeueiv is not a
technical term, and is not used in a technical way in
Colossians, then it would not be essential for Francis's case
that the word appear in the texts he cites. The requirements
of historical parallelism are satisfied when the simple sense of
the verb together with its context answers to a profuse literary
tradition.'4 Francis has shown that, in the Clarian inscriptions,
ep-Paxeiieiv is not used in a technical way.5 Further, even if a
eopaxev eiiPcxxeucov is a catch phrase of Paul's opponents,6 this
does not mean that enPocxeueiv is used technically. The burden
of proof lies on those who see it as a technical term to show that
this is the case. Francis's position, while not proven, relies on
the conventional sense of the word and is able to situate the
concept in a plausible historical context.
The second question one asks of the phrase, 'the things
viewed upon entering*, concerns what is seen when the mystic
enters the heavenly realm. In answer to this Francis relies on
the preceding phrase, GprioKeux xcov dyyeX,cov. Generally, schol-
ars have viewed this term as a reference to worship directed
towards angels. Francis proposes that the phrase is more
probably a reference to the worship angels perform which is
seen by the visionary upon entrance into the heavenlies.7 Sev-

1 Rejecting the insertion of \ir\ by K2, C, D2 et al. and ot>K by F, G.

2 See Francis, pp. 173-76, drawing on Apoc. Bar. 2, 3, 11; 1 Enoch 14; 3
Enoch 1, 2; T. Levi 2; Naasene literature cited by Hippolytus, Ref. 5,
8; Asc. Isa. 7-11; Corp. Herm. 4, 10.
3 Lohse, p. 120, and Martin, 1974, p. 95, rely on this in rejecting Fran-
cis's view.
4 See Francis, p. 176.
5 See particularly Francis's discussion of Aristedes on p. 203.
6 So Lohse, p. 120.
7 See Francis, pp. 176-81. This goes some of the way towards answer-
128 The Story of Christ in the Ethics of Paul

eral of the texts which relate the visionaries' entrance into

heaven also describe the angelic worship which the visionary
sees.1 The main objection to this reading is that e9eta)0pr|aK{a
in v. 23 is characterized as worship performed by humans and
not angels.2 Francis replies to this on two fronts. First, it is not
at all evident that e0eA,o0pr|aK{a refers to worship performed
by humans. The prefix iQeXo- can imply voluntariness,
interest and/or pretense.3 Secondly, even if this were the right
way to read this term, it may only indicate that the Colossians
were being pressured to choose for themselves or to aspire to
the worship performed by angels.
The picture this reading of v. 18 yields is one in which the
Colossians were under pressure to practice ascetical rigors to
induce a visionary experience by which they might enter
heaven and experience angelic worship. Francis has given a
coherent and plausible account of this verse as well as provid-
ing evidence that this sort of piety was not uncommon.
From this we can briefly sketch the sort of situation which
may be reflected in Colossians. A group (or groups) within or
without the church was putting pressure on the Colossians to
adopt certain ascetical practices. The goal of these practices
was to attain a mystical state in which one shared in angelic
worship. We will also argue (on the basis of our reading of
GTOi%£ia xoi) K6G|IO\)) that these practices were undertaken in
order to placate certain 'elemental spirits', angelic powers who
would have controlled access to the heavenly sphere.
Presumably these mystics believed that the Colossians'
experience of God was lacking in some respects and that the
'elemental spirits' held the key to a fuller experience. From
the mystics' point of view, the Colossians needed to submit to
the ascetic practices these powers demanded. They would
then attain a deeper, fuller experience of God. This would
account for the epistle's interest in the notion of fulness and

ing Percy's point raised on p. 125 n. 1.

1 See Asc. Isa. 7.13-9.37; T. Levi 3.4-8. Further descriptions of angelic
worship are found in Rev. 4-5; lQSb 4.25-26; 1QH 3.20-22; Corp.
Herm. 1.22.
2 See Lohse, pp. 117-18.
3 See Francis, pp. 181-82.
 6. The Function ofColossians 1.15-20 129

being filled.1
If this higher experience is reflected in the angels' worship,
then the angelic powers mentioned in Colossians would not be
viewed simply as mediators between God and humanity who
were worshiped. Rather, they would be viewed as models of a
higher form of religious experience, a higher knowledge of
God, to which experience the Colossians should aspire.2
If the Colossians had any of the desire to 'grow in the knowl-
edge of God's will and all wisdom and spiritual understanding*
which Paul wishes for them (1.9), they would have been eager
to have the highest order of experience (fulness) available.
They may, however, have been unsure about how to evaluate
the claims of the mystics. Therefore, Paul has written to clar-
ify the matter.
The presupposition that underlies Paul's response and that
is made explicit in verses like 2.9-10 is that Christ is the
supreme manifestation of God and that all fulness dwells in
him. Christ has the highest knowledge and experience of God.
This view of Christ is based on 1.15-20. It would, of course, be
impossible for the Colossians to imitate Christ's creative and
redemptive activity in these verses in order that all fulness
might dwell in them. This is not Paul's point. He does not draw
an analogy between Christ's activity and the Colossians'
behavior as in Philippians. Rather, Paul's point is that they
can (and in fact do) stand in an analogous relationship to the
fulness found in Christ and that this is the most adequate ful-
ness available to them. This fulness is accessible by entering
into union with Christ, as the Colossians have already done,
and not through the practice of ascetical rigors. Hence, the
Colossians need not submit to pressure to adhere to these rig-
ors with the aim of attaining a higher order of experience.
Paul's argument relies on extending the traditions about
Christ's adequacy and superiority as a manifestation of God
and God's fulness related in 1.15-20 to the Colossians' situa-

1 See Percy, p. 161. As we noted in Chapter 5,7iA.ripG)nxx is not used in a

technical sense in Colossians. It is, however, possible that it was a
phrase used (albeit in a non-technical way) by those putting pres-
sure on the Colossians.
2 The responses of John (Rev. 19.10; 22.8-9) and Isaiah (Asc. Isa. 7.21)
indicate the high view of angels and their experience of God.
130 The Story of Christ in the Ethics of Paul

tion. Our interest in discussing the function of 1.15-20 will be

to show how this is done. We will begin by examining the
argument in 1.21-23.

The Normative Nature of 1.15-20 for the Colossians:

The Argument of 1.21-23
In these verses Paul relates how the Colossians came to be in
Christ.1 In effect, he is showing the Colossians how they are
related to the Christ of 1.15-20. This is necessary if Paul is to
use this picture to address the issue of false teaching in the
Colossian church.2
In v. 21 the epistle returns to the discourse of direct address.
Paul describes the former state of the Colossians as 'estranged
and hostile in mind'. They were evil-doers.3 Here the cosmic
alienation presupposed in w. 18b-20 is concretely expressed.
In v. 22 we read that this situation has been rectified by the
death of Christ. The aim of this reconciliation is that the
Colossians should stand 'holy, blameless and without blemish'
before God. Having said this, v. 23 adds a call to perseverance.
In these verses Paul relates an account of the Colossians'
redemption to the story of Christ's reconciliation of all things
presented in 1.15-20.4 This story about Christ is the Colossians'
story in the same way that Phil. 2.6-11 is a story of the Philip-
pian church.5 That is, they are a community founded on the
stories of the life, death and resurrection of Christ. To be a part
of this community is to share in this and/or other stories about
Christ. One might well argue that these verses play a similar
role in the argument of Colossians to that which Phil. 2.5 plays
in Philippians. While Colossians goes into more detail, the aim

1 The most obvious connection between these two passages is the repe-
tition of <X7C0K<xT<xtaxaaG) in 1.22.
2 Schweizer, 1982, p. 88, calls this passage a 'commentary on the
hymn* in that these verses apply 1.15-20 to the reader. This is also
the way O'Brien, pp. 62ff., and Martin, 1974, pp. 66ff., understand
1.21-23, although they do not call this passage a commentary.
3 Both Lohse, p. 62, and Martin, 1974, p. 67, note that this is the sort of
characterization that a Jew might make of a Gentile.
4 See Gnilka, 1980, p. 88.
5 See Chapter 4. The same limits to this claim that were made in that
Chapter also apply in Colossians.
 6. The Function of Colossians 1.15-20 131

here, as in Phil. 2.5, is to establish a connection between the

hymnic passage and the particular community addressed in
the epistle.
The connection of the Colossians to the Christ of 1.15-20
does not seem to be a contestable point. At least Paul seems to
assume it is not. Nor is it part of a systematic argument yet.
Rather, throughout 1.9-2.5 Paul presents a loosely linked
series of assertions. These assertions would enrich the tradi-
tions on which the Colossian community is based. These
assertions will help the Colossians to *bear fruit and grow in
the knowledge and understanding of God so that they will
walk worthily' (1.9-10). It is only as Paul begins to address the
'philosophy* in 2.6ff. that we get an indication of how 1.15-20
functions in his argument and why the Colossians' connection
to this story about Christ is important. It is to this part of
Colossians we now turn.

The Argument of Colossians 2.6-9

At 2.6 the argument of the epistle moves from assertions about
the traditions to which the Colossians are heir to the extension
of those traditions to the Colossians' situation.1 As the Colos-
sians have received Christ Jesus as Lord, they are to walk in
him. The reception of Christ mentioned here is a reference to
the reception of traditions about Christ and his lordship.2 The
traditions the Colossians have received surely go back to the
initial evangelization of the community by Epaphras. More
immediately relevant, however, are the traditions passed on in
the previous verses. When Paul tells the Colossians to be
rooted and built up in Christ in 2.7 he is urging them to live in
the light of what they know about Christ. In 2.6-7 Paul is
making the transition from 'the indicative to the imperative'.
There is every indication that the Colossians are quite willing

1 Note the ox>v which Lohse, p. 92, and O'Brien, p. 105, claim marks
the transition to a new section. 'By means of the "Therefore", the
dispute with the false teaching is explicitly joined to what is said
about Christ as the content of the revealed mystery...' (Schweizer,
1982, p. 122).
2 See J.I.H. MacDonald, Kerygma and Didache, SNTSMS 37
(Cambridge: CUP, 1980), pp. 110-25; also O'Brien, p. 105; Schweizer,
1982, p. 123; Lohse, p. 63.
132 The Story of Christ in the Ethics of Paul

to walk in Christ. As the following verses show, however, they

need instruction about what the implications of God's activity
in Christ are for their present situation.
In v. 8 Paul begins to confront directly the situation in Colos-
sae. He starts by warning the Colossians not to let anyone
carry them off as booty.1 No one is specifically named as a
potential robber, but the following verses clarify what sort of
person is intended. If Paul's warning employs the metaphor of
robbery, then the weapon is philosophy and vain speculation,
which is Korea XTIV rcapdSoaiv xcov avGpcorccov. The term
(pi^oaocpia is unique in the NT, and may well have been used by
Paul because it was used by the teaching he is trying to
counter. In any case, its use is not very illuminating for identi-
fying the false teachers. This is because the term is used with-
out much discretion in the first century.2 The term 'the tradi-
tion of men' is found in Mk 7.8 as a description of a Pharisaic
command. Its use in Col. 2.8 as a description of the philosophy,
however, should not necessarily be read as a reference to Jew-
ish commands. The emphasis here is on the contrast between
the basis of traditions, humans or Christ.3
Paul further defines the philosophy as Kctxa xa axoi%eia xox>
Koodoo). The term axoi%eiov is quite flexible. It describes the
four elements of the universe (earth, air, fire, water), letters of
the alphabet, basic sounds, irreducible constituent parts, et al.4
Thus we might say that axoixeiov is essentially a "formal"
word, using "formal" in the sense that in and by itself no
specific content is designated. It receives its "specific content"

1 The term ovXaywyE,® is unique in the NT but probably has the sense
of 'to carry away as plunder or spoil' (LSJ, p. 1375). The word is used
of an animate object in Heliodorus, Aeth. 10.35. See also Lightfoot,
p. 178; Bruce, p. 230.
2 For a survey of all the different movements to which the term
'philosophy' is applied, see Michel, TDNT, 9.172-88.
3 See also Mt. 15.1-20. Further,' "Traditions of men" are not necessar-
ily limited to Jewish traditions of the fathers but could include all
sorts of traditions common to mankind' (A.J. Bandstra, Law and
the Elements of the World: An Exegetical Study in Aspects of Paul's
Teaching [Kampen: Kok, 1964], p. 70).
4 Bandstra, pp. 3Iff., gives a breakdown of the occurrences of oxoixeiov
in Philo.
 6. The Function ofColossians 1.15-20 133

from the context in which it is used/ 1 In this light, the English

word 'element' might be an adequate translation. Formally,
then, the term indicates a constituent part of a complex. The
NT uses of axoixeiov in Heb. 5.12 and 2 Pet. 3.10-12 support
this idea. In the context of Heb. 5.12 it is clear that the axoixeia
are the primary or basic elements of God's word which the
Hebrews had yet to master. In 2 Peter the axoixeia are the
constituent elements of the earth which will be destroyed.
In Galatians 4 axoixeia also appears, and in 4.3 we find xa
axoixeia xov KOG\IOV as in Colossians. The context of Galatians
is similar to that of Colossians in that both are polemical
attacks against the role of certain axoixeicc in the life of the
church. The discussion in Galatians 4 gains part of its focus
from the discussion of the law as a tutor in 3.23ff. The image of
a minor being under a master tutor continues into Galatians 4.
That master is explicitly named as xa axoixeia xov K6C\IOV in
4.3. This seems to forge a close link between the axoixeia and
the law. It is this connection, among other things, which leads
Bandstra to view the axoixeia as the fundamental beliefs and
practices (such as adherence to the law) considered necessary
for salvation.2 This identification of the axoixeicx with the
system of beliefs and practices summarized under the term
'law* is not, however, straightforward. This is because both the
law and the axoixeia are seen as personalized forces which
exercise power over humanity.3 This is further confirmed by
4.8-10 where the axoixeia are linked with those beings which
are by nature not gods'. On the other hand, 4.10 makes it clear
that being under the rule of these axoixeia entails certain
beliefs and practices.
It would seem, then, that the axoixeia in Galatians 4 should
not be straightforwardly identified with certain beliefs and
practices necessary for salvation. Rather, they should be seen
as spiritual forces which require certain fundamental beliefs

1 See Bandstra, p. 33.

2 See Bandstra, p. 65.
3 For a detailed criticism of Bandstra's work on this point see H.
Weiss, 'Law in the Epistle to the Colossians', CBQ 34 (1972), pp. 294-
316, esp. 298-304. See also O'Brien's criticisms of Bandstra cited
below.
134 The Story of Christ in the Ethics of Paul

and practices in order to attain some sort of salvation.1

Paul's question to the Galatians is this: having been saved
and reconciled to the living God through Christ, why would
one still consider these forces powerful and such practices
fundamental for salvation? Having been set free by Christ, it
would be foolish to put oneself under the tyrannical rule of
these forces.
Turning to Colossians 2, we will see that Paul carries on a
similar polemic against the role of the GTOIXEIOC xov KOG\LOX> in
the life of the Colossian church. There are three basic positions
regarding the meaning of TOC GTOIXCIOC zox> KOG\LOX> in
Colossians. 2 The first position, represented by Schweizer,
claims that since all the uses of TOC axoixeia TOU K6G\LOV
contemporary with the NT refer to the elements of earth, air,
fire and water, one should also read Colossians similarly.3
Under the influence of Jewish Pythagoreanism these ele-
ments were viewed as binding humans, not allowing them to
ascend to the heavenlies. The only way to purify oneself from
the elements and ascend to the heavenlies is through the sort
of ascetical practices mentioned in 2.16-23.4 While there is
much we would agree with in Schweizer's overall position, we
would disagree with his reading of oxotxeia as the material
elements of the world. It may well be the case that all of the
uses of this phrase outside the NT refer to these sorts of ele-
ments, but, on the other hand, the reference to TOC aToi%eia xov
Koajioi) in Gal. 4.3 seems to have a fairly close connection to
the law. On such a reading of aToixeia in Gal. 4.3 the term
Koa^io<; would either be a reference to the realm outside of
Christ,5 or the universe.6
The most recent proponent of the second view is Bandstra.
He basically imports his work on Galatians into Colossians.
Bandstra's view is that the OTOIXEIOC represent the beliefs and

1 Paul speaks about the law in similar manner in Rom. 7. Iff.

2 O'Brien gives a brief survey of this discussion on pp. 129-32; Band-
stra has a more detailed presentation, pp. 15-30.
3 See Schweizer, 1982, pp. 128f.
4 See Schweizer, 1982, pp. 131-33. Here, too, is another answer to
Percy's point referred to on p. 125 n. 1.
5 See Bandstra, p. 57.
6 See O'Brien, pp. 130ff.; Lohse, pp. 96-99.
 6. The Function ofColossians 1.15-20 135

practices considered fundamental for salvation by those out-

side of Christ.1 He further abstracts these fundamentals to two
forces, law and flesh.2 O'Brien offers four basic criticisms of
Bandstra: (1) His case is primarily based on Galatians and he
has not paid enough attention to the particular detail of
Colossians. (2) For Paul, law and flesh' are not basic struc-
tural entities outside of Christ. (3) Bandstra does not take
account of the personalized language used to describe the
Gxoixeia in Galatians 4. (4) Bandstra does not pay attention to
the relatively widespread notion in the first century that
angelic forces governed the forces of nature.3 Of these, the
third is the most damaging criticism, especially as Col. 2.20
also uses this sort of language to describe the axoixeia.
The majority view is that the axoixeioc are 'elemental spirits'
or demonic angels who were worshiped and placated in order
to have a knowledge of God.4 The linguistic evidence for this
usage is fairly late (T. Sol. 8.2, 18). There is, however, evidence
for the belief that spiritual powers stood behind and controlled
various elements of the universe.5 In addition, in Col. 2.20 the
axoixeioc are spoken of as if they were personalized powers,
demanding certain practices.
These elemental spirits would fit into the Colossian situation
in the following way: Spiritual powers such as these were
viewed as controlling access to the heavenly realm. To gain
entrance to this realm and attain a heavenly vision of their
angelic worship, the Colossians were urged to adopt certain
ascetic practices. The aim of these rigors would have been to
purify oneself, or, perhaps, to placate these powers in order to
be allowed into the heavenly realms.
Paul ridicules these beliefs and practices in 2.8 by linking
them to mere 'tradition of men'. He also claims they have
nothing to do with Christ. Paul's goal in 2.6-23 is to defuse the
pressure put on the Colossians both to submit to these elemen-
tal spirits and to adhere to the practices they demand to attain

1 See Bandstra, pp. 68ff.

2 See Bandstra, pp. 57-67.
3 See O'Brien, p. 131.
4 See O'Brien, p. 132; Martin, 1974, pp. 10-14; Percy, p. 167; Lohse,
pp. 96-99; Bruce, p. 232.
5 See Jub. 2.2; 1 Enoch 60.11, 12; 43.1, 2; 80.6; 2 Enoch 4.1, 2.
136 The Story of Christ in the Ethics of Paul

a fuller experience of God. The basis for Paul's attack is the

presentation of Christ in 1.15-20.
The justification for why submission to the elemental spirits
is not essential for a full experience of God begins at 2.9 with a
direct reference to 1.19. One need not submit to the elemental
spirits to attain a full experience of God because 'all the fulness
of deity dwells actually in Christ'.
As we noted in the previous chapter, the term TcXfipcop.a by
itself does not tell us very much. Overfield has shown that the
most plausible reading of nXi}pto\La is not in a Gnostic, tech-
nical sense, but in the general sense of fulness or complete-
ness. 1 In 2.9, however, 7c^f|pcop,a is modified by Georng, divinity
or deity.2 Col. 2.9, then, would stress that the completeness of
God's nature dwells in Christ. 3 The phrase depicts Christ's
unique relationship with God, and it would reflect the sort of
relationship the Colossians themselves sought.
In 2.9 the adverb OCOUOCTIKOK; modifies this idea. Moule lists
five possible ways of reading this word.4 Of the five, the two
most plausible readings are 'actually'—as opposed to merely
appearing to be so, and 'assuming bodily form', 'becoming
incarnate'. There is no clear way of deciding between these
two. It seems to us, however, that in a context such as this one
where the aim is not to define rc^f|pco|ia with any great
specificity, but to situate it, aconxmiccoQ would emphasize that
the fulness of deity is actually found in Christ and nowhere
else.5
It is quite possible, however, that those representing the phi-
losophy could assent to this statement (as well as 1.19). In both
instances Paul merely asserts that all fulness dwells in Christ.

1 See the discussion in Chapter 5, pp. 114-16.

2 See BGD, p. 359. Gnilka, 1980, p. 128, sees a fine difference between
deity (Geoiris) and divinity (9ei6xr|<;). Deity is the abiding essence of
God. Divinity is the sum of God's characteristics.
3 See Overfield, p. 392; Ernst, pp. 69f.
4 See Moule, 1971, pp. 92-94.
5 This is against Lahnemann who tries to conflate these two readings
of oco^iaxiKcoq. The notion of 'bodily' is read alongside 'actually* in
order to combat the asceticism of the false teachers (p. 118). This
seems to bring together needlessly two quite separable meanings of
the word, particularly as the asceticism is dealt with in the course of
the argument.
 6. The Function of Colossians 1.15-20 137

If this was something the philosophy would contest then

Paul's simple assertion would either be rejected, the philoso-
phy remaining unscathed, or it would be accepted at face
value, thus undermining the philosophy. Neither of these pos-
sibilities is indicated by the following verses. It would seem that
locating the fulness of deity is an important first step, but the
real, contested issue would be whether, and how, this fulness is
accessible to the Colossians. If any persuasive analogy is to be
drawn between the fulness which dwells in Christ by virtue of
his creative and redemptive activity and the sort of fulness the
Colossians aspire to, then there must be some way for the
Colossians to have access to it. If Paul's argument is to have
any force, this fulness must be accessible apart from submis-
sion to the elemental spirits.

An Important Connection: The Argument of Colossians 2.1Off

Paul now addresses the argument to this point. It is not
enough to say that all fulness is to be found in Christ. This ful-
ness must be accessible to the Colossians without resorting to
the elemental spirits and the practices they demand. This is
the force of 2.10.l As Schweizer notes, 'Presumably the point at
issue between the Colossians, influenced by the philosophy,
and the writer of the letter is precisely this, whether fulness is
in fact attained when one is united with Christ...'2 Paul will
need to show that fulness is not merely something which
dwells in Christ; it is something which the Colossians them-
selves have by virtue of their incorporation in Christ and not
by submission to the elemental spirits.
The further assertion in this clause that Christ is the head of
all principalities and powers emphasizes the value and com-
pleteness of the fulness the Colossians have obtained in Christ.3
The metaphorical use of K£(pocA,f| in 2.10 is different from its
metaphorical use in 1.18 and 2.19. In the latter cases icecpa^ri is

1 Lahnemann claims that with the play on words of rctaipG)pivot./

7cA,r|p(DH.a Paul is referring to the content of 1.15-20 in his polemic
against the philosophy' (p. 118).
2 See Schweizer, 1982, p. 139; also Lahnemann, p. 118. This is not an
expression of a wish (against Lohmeyer, 1964, p. 106), nor is it a
statement of realized eschatology (against O'Brien, p. 114).
3 Reading o<; eoxiv instead of o eoxiv with g>46, K, A, C, et al.
138 The Story of Christ in the Ethics of Paul

linked with ocelot and the resulting image is an organic one in

which the head unites and sustains the body. In 2.10 Kecpa^fj
appears on its own and the resultant image is one of
supremacy much like 1.16,1 reflecting Christ's superiority
over the principalities and powers.2
The relevance of this assertion, based on 1.16, for the Colos-
sians is that it undercuts any notion that the dp%a( and
e^oixncu are as adequate mediators of the fulness of God as
Christ, the head, is. This phrase addresses the notion that
somehow the Colossians' experience was lacking and needed
to be supplemented by a mystical experience of the cepxeu and
e^ouoiai. The metaphorical use of KecpaXf| here extends the
concrete account of Christ's superiority to these powers in
1.16ff. to the Colossians' situation, giving it practical force.
It seems reasonable to take 'principalities and powers' as
specific members of the larger class of angels mentioned in
2.18.3 They would, then, be closely connected, if not identical,
with the 'elemental spirits'. By mystically experiencing their
worship one would attain a higher level of fulness. Alterna-
tively, Paul's position implies that if one isfilledby being united
with the one who is head of all principalities and powers then
there is nothing lacking in one's fulness that these powers can
supplement.
Up to this point Paul has asserted that all fulness is found in
Christ and that the Colossians are filled by virtue of the fact
that they are in him and not by virtue of adherence to the
demands of the elemental spirits. By entering into union with
Christ who is the head of all principalities and powers, their
relationship to these powers is now analogous to Christ's rela-
tionship to them. Therefore, they need not be subject to these

1 Lahnemann, p. 119, sees 2.10b as a further example of reflection on

1.15-20, particularly 1.16, 18a. While the connection with 1.16 is
strong we will show that the metaphorical use of 'head' in 2.10 is
different from 1.18a and that 1.18a should not be read into 2.10.
2 See the metaphorical use of Ke<pa^r| in 1 Cor. 11.3; Eph. 1.22; 4.15;
5.23, etc. By recognizing that these are two discrete metaphorical
uses of K£<paXr| one avoids the forced explanations of why acojia is not
used here (see Schweizer, 1982, p. 141), and the unlikely claim that
the writer is conflating 1.18a with 1.16 (see Lahnemann, p. 119).
3 So Percy, p. 155.
 6. The Function ofColossians 1.15-20 139

powers.
In 2.11 Paul goes on to elaborate how the Colossians came to
be in Christ, and, hence, to befilled.1This whole line of thought
has sought to extend by analogy the idea, first presented in
1.19, that all fulness dwells in Christ, to the Colossians'
particular situation. The following verses provide a basis for
this analogy by connecting the Colossians to Christ.
The context of the references to circumcision in w. 11 and
13 indicates that they are probably not polemical references to
a practice associated with the philosophy.2 Rather, the image
of circumcision is used metaphorically here as part of Paul's
explanation of how the Colossians have fulness right now by
virtue of being in Christ. As the connection of the image of
'putting off the flesh' and baptism will show, the image of cir-
cumcision here would reflect the entrance of the individual
into union with Christ.3 That this 'circumcision' was 'not
made by hands' indicates both that it was a spiritual circum-
cision,4 and that it was the work of God.5
Union with Christ is further defined as 'putting off the body
offlesh'.This is a rather enigmatic phrase. Some take 'putting

1 See Moule, 1971, p. 94; Gnilka, 1980, p. 131.

2 Schweizer, 1982, pp. 140ff., argues strongly for this position. Lohse,
p. 102, considers the circumcision referred to here to be a sacramen-
tal rite of initiation. There is, however, scant evidence for this (see
Burger, p. 92).
3 See Burger, p. 92; Martin, 1974, p. 82; Lohse, pp. 101-102. Gnilka,
1980, p. 131, adds, however, that the identification of circumcision
and baptism is not total: 'Rather, circumcision is a metaphor for an
aspect, albeit an essential aspect, of baptism (i.e. putting off the
flesh)'. While we would agree that the identification of circumcision
with baptism is not total, the identification need not be limited in
scope to the putting off of the flesh. For example, it seems plausible
that circumcision could be a metaphor of initiation into the commu-
nity of the redeemed (see Bruce, p. 234) in the same way that baptism
is. It may well be that the connection between putting off the flesh
and the removal of flesh in circumcision is merely coincidental.
4 For such an idea of circumcision see Deut. 10.6; Jer. 4.4; Ezek. 44.7;
1QS 5.5.
5 See Mk 14.58; Acts 7.48; 17.24; and Heb. 9.11, 24 where the image of
'made without hands' contrasts the work of humans with the work
of God. Also Lohse, p. 102; O'Brien, p. 115; Gnilka, 1980, p. 131.
140 The Story of Christ in the Ethics of Paul

off the body offlesh'as a reference to Christ's death.1 There is,

however, no reason to view the phrase 'body of flesh' as a
specific reference to Christ's physical body. In 1.22 the pro-
noun oti)TO\) makes it clear that Christ's body is in view, but
there is no such specificity here.
Another possibility is to understand 'putting off the body of
flesh' as a reference to putting off the old humanity (3.9), the
old fleshly nature (Rom. 7.24; Gal. 3.27) which occurs in bap-
tism.2 The advantage to this view is that it reflects the con-
text's emphasis on entrance into the community (through
baptism) and subsequent union with Christ. The problem,
however, is that in 1.22 Paul has used the phrase oG>\ia xr\q
oapxoc, to refer to a physical body (Christ's) and not to
humanity's fleshly nature.
Alternatively, there are several examples in the hermetic
literature which indicate that the key to attaining mystical
experience is to transcend one's physical body.3 If one accepts
that Paul is combatting an ascetical form of mysticism in
these verses then it is possible Paul is playing on a catch phrase
of those who are putting pressure on the Colossians to submit
to the elemental spirits. By adhering to the ascetical rigors
which these powers demand, they hope to transcend their
earthly bodies (put off the body of flesh) to attain a mystical
state. Paul, however, claims that the Colossians have already
put off the body of flesh when they entered into the commu-
nity of Christ, but he clearly means this in a different sense
from the false teachers. Anyone who subscribed to 1.15-20 and
its high view of creation and redemption could not view the
physical body as evil and something to be transcended. Rather,
for Paul, the putting off of the body offleshreflects the death of
the old person who was under the rule of sin and alienated
from the fulness of Christ. In this Paul and the false teachers
agree; 'putting off the body of flesh' is necessary to attaining
fulness, but they view putting off the flesh differently. For the
false teachers, putting off the flesh indicates transcending the
1 See Lahnemann, p. 122; Moule, 1971, pp. 94-95; O'Brien, p.117;
Bruce, p. 235.
2 See F. Zeilinger, Der Erstgeborene der Schopfung (Vienna: Herder,
1974), pp. 144-45; Martin, 1974, p. 81.
3 See Corp. Herm. 13.6-7; 4.6-8; also Francis, pp. 168-70.
 6. The Function ofColossians 1.15-20 141

physical. For Paul, it amounts to removing one's fleshly sinful

nature. The advantage to reading this phrase as a slogan of
the false teachers which Paul has turned against them is that
it makes better sense of the context's emphasis on the change
in the believer's status which occurs upon being joined with
Christ. At the same time this reading takes account of the way
acouxx ifj<; capKoq is used in 1.22.
Paul calls this 'circumcision made without hands', this
'putting off of the body offlesh','the circumcision of Christ'. If
circumcision is a metaphorical way of speaking of entering
into a union, then the 'circumcision of Christ' is the act of
entering into a union with Christ in whom all fulness dwells.1
Beasley-Murray and those who follow him2 are right in
thinking that 'putting off the body of flesh' and the
'circumcision of Christ' are references to roughly the same
thing.3 The problem is that they see 'putting off the body of
flesh' as a reference to Christ's death. Hence, they also read
the phrase 'the circumcision of Christ' as a reference to
Christ's death.4 We have just given reasons against reading
'putting off the body of flesh' in this way. Here we would fur-
ther add that there is no evidence of circumcision being a
metaphor for death.5 Rather, like 'putting off the body of flesh'
it is the language of transference from one realm into another.

1 We recognize that reading 'circumcision of Christ' as the circumci-

sion which is Christ's is not without problems. Christ's circumci-
sion in this case would indicate that Christ, particularly as he is
identified in Colossians, is the one who provides definition and
intelligibility to this metaphor of circumcision. (See Lightfoot's
comment, It is the circumcision not of Moses, or of the patriarchs,
but of Christ' [p. 183].) When this is compared with reading the
phrase as the circumcision which Christ underwent (i.e.
crucifixion) it becomes evident that ours is the better of two difficult
options (see below).
2 E.g. O'Brien, pp. 146ff.; Burger, pp. 94-95, holds the same view with-
out citing Beasley-Murray.
3 See G.R. Beasley-Murray, Baptism in the New Testament (London:
Macmillan, 1962), p. 152.
4 See Beasley-Murray, pp. 152-53.
5 Gnilka, 1980, p. 132, says, To refer to the cross as the circumcision
of Christ would have been completely unintelligible to the
addressees'.
142 The Story of Christ in the Ethics of Paul

This is also true of the metaphor of being buried with Christ in

v. 12 (cf. Rom. 6.3-4).
In v. 12 Paul makes it clear he views putting off the body of
flesh differently from those who require adherence to the
demands of the elemental spirits. It is burial with Christ in
baptism and rising with him through faith, not transcendence
of the physical.1 While the statements on baptism in this verse
are parallel to the statements concerning circumcision in
v. 11, Paul is not discussing a doctrine of baptism in this verse.
He uses the images of circumcision and baptism to describe
the entrance of the Colossians into union with Christ, their
passage from death to life (2.13), from the powers of darkness
to the kingdom of Christ (1.13). Unlike Romans 6 where the
image of baptism is used to stress the moral obligations inher-
ent in union with Christ, Paul uses this image in Colossians to
stress that the Colossian Christians have attained fulness
upon being united with the one in whom all fulness dwells.2
This train of thought continues as Paul describes the Colos-
sians' state before they entered into union with Christ and
how this was rectified.3 The Colossians were 'dead in their
transgressions and in the uncircumcision of their flesh' (2.13).
Given the uses of the images of circumcision and of being
made alive in the previous verses, this phrase emphasizes the
Colossians' alienation from God at one time (cf. 1.21-23).4 God,
however, overcame this state of affairs. He made the Colos-
sians alive by graciously forgiving all their transgressions.5
The enigmatic w. 14-15 relate in more detail how God
rectified the Colossians' alienation. It seems best to read xeipo-
Ypcccpov as a signed acknowledgment of debt, an IOU.6 Since
1 Reading ev a> as a reference to baptism (with Schweizer, 1982, p. 146)
and not Christ (Lohse, p. 104 n. 73; Gnilka, 1980, p. 134).
2 See Gnilka, 1980, p. 135.
3 Verses 13-15 recapitulate the ideas of 1.12-14, 21-23.
4 So Moule, 1971, p. 97; O'Brien, pp. 122-23; Martin, 1974, p. 83; Lohse,
p. 107. Paul often uses aKpopucmoc to identify pagans (cf. Rom. 2.25-
27; 3.30; 4.9; 1 Cor. 7.18).
5 The reading i)n.a<; is supported by K, A, C, K, et al. Its replacement
with fin,a<; in $ 4 6 , B, 33, et al. could be explained by a desire to con-
form to the following i\\i\v. So Metzger, p. 623.
6 With Schweizer, 1982, pp. 148-49; Lohse, p. 108 n. 101; O'Brien,
p. 125; Moule, p. 97; Martin, 1974, p. 83. See Lohse, TDNT, 9.435, for
 6. The Function ofColossians 1.15-20 143

God is the one who wipes away the debt it is reasonable to

assume the debt was owed to God. The accompanying phrase,
xoig 86ynaaiv, relates the cause of this debt.1 The term 56y^a
indicates a binding statute. The contexts in which this term
appears generally clarify the actual content of these statutes.2
Here, however, the specific statutes which caused the Colos-
sians to become debtors are not specifically mentioned. Pre-
sumably the original readers of the epistle would know why
they are debtors to God. It is possible the thought here is remi-
niscent of Romans 1-3 where, for different reasons, both Jews
and Gentiles were guilty in God's sight.
On the other hand, the use of the verb 8oYuax{£ea0e in v. 20
may indicate that the demands of v. 21 are the 86YH.CC of V. 14.3
If this is the case, the philosophy may well have taught that
failure to observe these ascetical practices resulted in the
Colossians' debt to God. This debt, the xeipoypacpov, would have
been a barrier between the Colossians and fulness, which
could only be overcome by adhering to the philosophy's
demands. This would make the wiping away of the certificate
at the cross significant for the Colossians and their relation-
ship to the elemental spirits.
In whatever way the Colossians came to be debtors to God,
the force of this passage is to assert that God has removed this
debt by virtue of Christ's death on the cross (cf. Acts 3.19; Rev.
3.5).4 A legal claim no longer exists. Further, if our hypothesis
about the relationship of the elemental spirits and the
certificate in the Colossian philosophy is correct, then Paul's
claim stands in sharp contrast to the philosophy's. The
certificate of debt is removed by God's work in Christ and not
through submission to the elemental spirits.

examples of this usage. Cf. with these O. Blanchette, 'Does the

Cheirographon of Col. 2:14 Represent Christ Himself?', CBQ 23
(1961), pp. 306-12.
1 See O'Brien, p. 125; Burger, p. 107.
2 See Lk. 2.1; Acts 17.7, the imperial decrees regarding the census;
Acts 16.4, the decrees of the Jerusalem council; 3 Mace. 1.3-4;
4 Mace. 10.2, the commands of God; Eph. 2.15, the law of the com-
mandments.
3 See Lincoln, pp. 113-14; Gnilka, p. 139.
4 See O'Brien, p. 126.
144 The Story of Christ in the Ethics of Paul

Verse 15 provides further support for this sort of relation-

ship between the certificate and the elemental spirits. Here
Paul elaborates that at the cross God not only removed the
Colossians' debt, but also exposed the principalities and powers
as subject to Christ. God stripped them,1 divesting them of any
dignity, and forced them to march in Christ's parade. That is,
the scene here is of a military parade where the vanquished
are paraded before the victor.2 The image is one in which the
powers are exposed as under Christ's command. This image
draws its force from 1.18b-20 which asserts Christ's rule over
the reconciled creation. The stress here, as in 2.10, is on the all-
sufficiency of Christ. At the same time the principalities and
powers are utterly defeated, humiliated and subjected to
Christ's rule.
On our reading of the relationship of the certificate and the
elemental spirits, v. 15 completes the second of a two-pronged
attack on the philosophy. On the one hand, Paul attacks any
notion that submission to the principalities and powers can
remove the Colossians' debt to God. God has done this through
Christ. On the other hand, Paul also notes that Christ com-
pletely humiliated and subjugated these powers. They would
have no way of enhancing the Colossians' life. Being in Christ
unites the Colossians with the supreme power, the most ade-
quate manifestation of God. There is nothing these elemental
spirits can add to the fulness Christ provides.
In 2.8-15 Paul has carried out a sustained attack against
those who want the Colossians to submit to the rigors
demanded by the elemental spirits with the aim of attaining
fulness. He does not deny there are certain activities essential
for the attainment of fulness. On the contrary, his argument is
based on the fact that, by virtue of their union with Christ and
by faith in the God who raised him from the dead and caused
all fulness to dwell in him, the Colossians are already full.
This argument draws heavily on certain aspects of 1.15-20.
Paul extends this passage's emphasis on Christ's supremacy

1 This is based on an active reading of aneKbvodiievoq (see BDF, §316),

with Schweizer, 1982, p. 151; Lohse, p. 112; O'Brien, p. 127; Burger,
p. 103.
2 See L. Williamson, 'Led in Triumph', Int 22 (1968), pp. 317-32. For
an account of such a parade, see Plutarch, Amelius Paulus 32-34.
 6. The Function ofColossians 1.15-20 145

over all things and the allied notion that all fulness dwells in
Christ to assert that for those united with Christ there is
nothing lacking in their experience of God which could be
supplemented by any other being. That is, the notion that all
fulness dwells in Christ provides the foundation on which Paul
bases his argument. He also relies on Christ's supremacy over
the powers to stress the sufficiency of the fulness Christ pro-
vides to those who enter into union with him. This argument is
not based on a straightforward mapping of 1.15-20 onto the
Colossians' situation. The relationship between 1.15-20 and
the Colossians' situation is neither straightforward nor iso-
morphic. It is up to Paul to note the similarities-in-difference
between the Christ of 1.15-20 and the Colossians' situation in
order to explicate the implications of this picture of Christ for
the Colossians' life. The function of 1.15-20 here is to provide a
basis from which Paul can combat pressure to add to or to
subvert the Colossians' experience of God. Relying on 1.15-20
as a norm which he shares with the Colossians, Paul can
argue that the Colossians have no need to submit to any other
power to attain fulness.

Further Attacks on the Philosophy:

The Argument ofColossians 2.16ff.
In 2.6-15 Paul relies on 1.15-20 to reject the idea that the
Colossians need to submit to the elemental spirits. In 2.16-19
we will see that Paul turns to attack the specific practices con-
sidered essential for fulness according to the philosophy. As in
2.6-15, he bases this attack on the picture of Christ presented
in 1.15-20.
Paul begins this passage with the powerful phrase,
Therefore, do not let anyone judge you...' This demand is
based on 2.9-15 and draws on the fact that, since the Colos-
sians have no need to submit to the elemental spirits as far as
Christ is concerned, they should not be compelled to do so by
the judgments of others. Further, since Christ is sovereign
over all the powers, the Colossians are ultimately responsible
only to him. The judgment implied here is the judgment of the
philosophy that views practices regarding eating, drinking,
new moons and sabbaths as essential to attain fulness. We
know very little about what specific practices these words
146 The Story of Christ in the Ethics of Paul

designate. Clearly, however, the Colossians knew precisely

what these terms implied. From w . 21, 23 it seems reasonable
to assume that ppcbou; and TCOOK; were related to rigorous,
ascetical dietary practices. 1 The series eopxf|, veourivia and
odppaxa occur in the LXX to describe days dedicated to God (cf.
Hos. 2.13; Ezek. 45.17; 1 Chron. 23.31; 2 Chron. 2.3; 31.3). Pre-
sumably, keeping these days is the essential issue here.
Whereas in the OT these days were kept in obedience to God's
law, in Colossians they may well be important times during
which mystical experiences were induced.2
Paul calls all of these shadows of those things which were to
come. We would read xcbv \IZXX6\KOV as a reference to future
events from a pre-Christian standpoint, and not to the future
from the standpoint of the author. This reading is essential for
the argument that the Colossians are 'filled' now, and is sup-
ported by similar usage in Heb. 8.5; 10.1; Rom. 5.14.3
The use of the CKia/a&\ia image to contrast appearance and
reality was well established by the time of the writing of Colos-
sians and this seems to be the way Paul uses it here. 4 In this
case the genitive xov Xpiaxov indicates that the body, reality,
belongs to Christ. 5 Any validity that submission to the ele-
mental spirits of the world may have had in the past is merely
transitory. Further, now that present reality belongs to Christ
such submission is valueless. The idea that present reality
belongs to Christ must draw its force from 1.18b-20 which
asserts Christ's preeminence over the renewed and reconciled
universe. In this renewed order those who are united with

1 It is not likely that Jewish dietary restrictions are in view here as

the Torah has very few restrictions concerning drink (e.g. Lev. 10.9;
11.34, 36; Num. 6.3). See also O'Brien, p. 138; Gnilka, 1980, p. 145.
2 See Lohse, p. 115, and O'Brien, p. 139, who think that these days
were to be kept for the sake of the 'elemental spirits' of the universe.
3 See also O'Brien, p. 140; Lohse, p. 117.
4 See Philo, Conf. Ling. 190; Migr. Abr. 12; also Lohse, p. 116 n. 18, for
further examples.
5 Attempts to read a theological reference to the church as Gcdjxa xov
Xpiaxo\> (e.g. Zeilinger, p. 161; Gnilka, 1980, p. 148; Moule, 1971,
p. 103; Lahnemann, p. 137; Martin, 1974, p. 91) in this passage are
an imposition on the text since the phrase is perfectly intelligible in
its contrast of appearance with reality (see O'Brien, p. 141; Best,
p. 121; Bruce, p. 245).
 6. The Function of Colossians 1.15-20 147

Christ have no need to adopt any practices designed to achieve

fulness. The fulness Christ provides is sufficient because he is
preeminent.
In the inscrutable v. 18 Paul continues his attack against
those urging submission to the elemental spirits and adher-
ence to the practices they demand to attain fulness. Paul tells
the Colossians not to let anyone deprive or disqualify them
*being bent upon' certain practices.1 These practices are called
TccrceivocppoaiivTi and GpTiaiceia xcov dyyeAxov. We would agree
with Francis that this complex of terms reflects a practice of
engaging in ascetical rigors in order to transcend one's body,
have a visionary experience and thus participate in the angels'
worship.2 The implication of this desire for a deeper, mystical
experience is that something is lacking in the community's
present experience—a notion Paul has just tried to refute.
Those who consider these practices essential do so merely
from a baseless confidence in their own knowledge of what is
essential which is directed by the flesh.3 It is possible that those
urging submission to the elemental spirits claimed to be
directed by the mind (vnb TOO) VOO<;). Paul ridicules this by
calling it the 'mind of the flesh'.4
The alternative to this is 'holding fast to the head', who sus-
tains and nourishes the whole body. The head/body metaphor
in this verse draws directly on 1.18.5 Here Paul extends the
metaphor from 1.18 to the specific practices of a particular
member of the body. This metaphor is, however, different
from the metaphorical use of'head' in 2.10 which emphasizes
sovereignty. In 2.19 the metaphorical pairing of Kecpa^fj/aS^ia
reflects an organic relationship, stressing Christ's nourish-

1 This is the consensus reading of KaxappaPe'oeTG) (see also BGD,

p. 409). Further, we have followed Francis's reading of Oetaov ev:
* "Being bent upon" is either a specification of judgment (as, say,
"insisting upon"), or a specification of the community setting in
which one might be deprived of the prize of Christ (as, say,
"delighting in"). The English idiom like the Greek is appropriate in
both cases' (Francis, p. 167).
2 See our previous discussion of this above.
3 See 1 Cor. 8.1 where Paul uses <p\)oi6(o to link knowledge with
conceit.
4 See Lahnemann, p. 139; O'Brien, p. 146; Lohse, p. 121.
5 See Lahnemann, p. 141, who notes this connection.
148 The Story of Christ in the Ethics of Paul

merit and sustenance of the church.1 According to the

metaphor, not to hold to the head would be to situate oneself
outside the body. To be cut off from the body means separation
from the source of fulness. The false teachers are, ironically
then, as far away from fulness as they can be. In fact, this pas-
sage is full of irony as Paul consistently situates the claims and
practices of the philosophy in the realm of the flesh, the very
thing the philosophy's asceticism is designed to transcend.

The Argument of Colossians 2.20-23

In w . 20-23 Paul recapitulates the argument thus far. He
poses the rhetorical question, 'Since you have died with Christ
from the elemental spirits of the world, why do you allow
yourselves to be dictated to as if you were in the world?' As we
have already noted, Paul uses the metaphor of dying to
something as a means of speaking of the transfer of allegiance
that a Christian undergoes upon entering union with Christ.
Having already established that the Colossians had entered
into this union, thus rendering the elemental spirits unneces-
sary, he cannot understand why the Colossians might allow
themselves to be dictated to concerning the demands these
powers make as if they were in the world and not in Christ.
The question here reflects that expressed in Gal. 4.9. The verb
8oy^iax{^co indicates that it is not only the practices demanded
by the elemental spirits which are at issue. It is the fact that
the Colossians allowed themselves to be dictated to as if they
were still ev K6G\LQ>.2
Verse 21 gives a generalized account of the practices
demanded as essential for attaining fulness. These are cast in
negative terms, 'do not handle; do not taste; do not touch'.
These all concern the proper approach to certain things in the
material world.3 In v. 22a Paul mocks this concern both by

1 See Best, p. 127.

2 The passive voice of the verb supports this. See also Gnilka, 1980,
p. 157.
3 Verse 22 makes it unlikely that |xf| &Yfl is a prohibition against sex-
ual relations, as it would be odd to claim that these will 'perish
through use'. Alternatively, the phrase may be related to the view
that one becomes denied by contact with certain things (O'Brien,
p. 150).
 6. The Function ofColossians 1.15-20 149

noting the perishable nature of these objects, and the human

origin of these prohibitions. The latter half of this verse uses
language reminiscent of Isa. 29.13 (LXX) to stress that after
dying with Christ, it is inconsistent to be dictated to by
humans.
In v. 23 Paul continues his attack on the prohibitions of v. 21.
The phrasing of this verse is complex and obscure. There is,
however, no manuscript evidence to support the view that the
text is corrupt.1 Hollenbach has offered the most intelligible
rendering of this verse:2
axiva eaxiv Xoyov \ikv exovxa ao(p(a<; ev eGeXoGpriaida KOU
xarceivocppoaiJVTi [icai] dcpei6ia acb|xaxo<;, OI>K ev xijxfi xivi
xfj<; oapKo<;.
Which things (actually) lead, even though having a reputa-
tion for wisdom in the areas of self-made worship, humility
and severity to the body, without any honor whatsoever, to the
fulfillment of the flesh.3
In spite of the fact that these practices seem to be the way to
attain wisdom, they only lead to the fulfilment of theflesh.As a
group, £0e^o8pT|aK{a, Tarc£ivo(ppoai>vr| and otcpeiSia a(0|iaxo<;
would reflect some of the practices involved in submission to
the elemental spirits. 4 This is the first time the term
e6e^o0pr|aK{a appears in Greek and is necessarily difficult to
understand. Lohse and Martin have emphasized (specifically
against Francis) that the prefix eGe^o- indicates that
eGetaOpTiaida refers to self-made worship.5 Francis, however,
noted that the prefix e0eA,o- is by no means as clear as Lohse
and Martin think. Francis shows that compounds with eQeXo-
have three different areas of meaning: (1) voluntariness, (2)

1 Against B. Hall, 'Colossians 2.23', ExpT 36 (1924-25), p. 285.

2 B. Hollenbach, 'Which Things Lead to the Fulfillment of the Flesh',
NTS 25 (1978-79), pp. 254-61.
3 We would translate eGeXoGpTioKia as 'would-be worship' rather than
'self-made'. See below.
4 There is, however, no particular reason to view them as catchwords
of the philosophy; against Lohse, p. 126; O'Brien, p. 153.
5 See Lohse, pp. 119 n. 36, 126; Martin, 1974, p. 94. Even if this reading
of eGeXo- were followed, it could be accommodated within Francis's
overall position. See, for example, Francis, pp. 181-82; Lincoln, p. 223
n.9.
150 The Story of Christ in the Ethics of Paul

delight/endeavor, (3) pretense. 1 Francis opts for the third pos-

sibility and tries to read eOeXoGpTjaida in the light of GpTioiceux
xcov ayyeAxov in v. 18. The term would, then, be rendered as
'would-be worship*. The force of this term is to cast doubt on
the false teachers' experience of heavenly worship through
submission to the elemental spirits.2 This reading is persuasive
in that it gives a plausible account of the prefix e0eXx>-. It is also
consistent with Paul's general attack on the philosophy in
w . 18-23, and with the specific aim of v. 23—to cast doubt on
the validity of the false teachers' claims.
The term xaiceivocppoa-uvri would, as in 2.18, refer to the
ascetical rigors demanded by the elemental spirits in order to
attain fulness.3 Following from this, &<pei5{a OCO|J.(XTO<; should be
read in a similar light. It further represents the sort of asceti-
cism advocated by the philosophy.4
On Hollenbach's rendering of the verse, the separate clause,
OTJK ev xt|ifi xivi reflects Paul's judgment of the reputation these
things have. 5 While Hollenbach makes a convincing case for
viewing these words as a separate phrase, he makes no
attempt to explicate their meaning rigorously.6 In fact, nobody,
whether they view these words as a separate clause or not, has
presented a persuasive rendering of this phrase based on its
syntax and semantics.7 Hollenbach's translation, 'without any
honor whatsoever', is merely an educated guess based on the
context of the phrase. It does, however, seem to conform to
Paul's basic aim to show that these practices, in spite of their
appearance, are valueless. We may well have to concede that,
in this situation, context is the only thing on which we can base
a reading of this phrase.
Paul adds that these things lead to the KXr\G\iovr[ rng accpKog.
This phrase has also caused problems for commentators. 8 It

1 See Francis, p. 181.

2 See Francis, p. 181.
3 See O'Brien, p. 153; also our discussion of 2.18 above.
4 See Lohse, p. 127; O'Brien, p. 153.
5 Hollenbach is followed by O'Brien, p. 154.
6 See Hollenbach, p. 259 n. 2.
7 See Moule, 1971, p. 108, for some of the possibilities here.
8 O'Brien, pp. 154-55, surveys the major positions regarding this
phrase.
 6. The Function of Colossians 1.15-20 151

would seem that in a passage full of Paul's ironic judgments it

may well help to view this last clause as a further piece of
irony. The occurrence of KXT]O\LOVJ\ here is unique in the NT
but it is often used in the LXX to indicate satisfaction or
gratification.1 Paul's claim is that all these practices merely
lead to the gratification of the flesh, the physical body and/or
humanity's fleshly nature.2 This would have been the exact
opposite aim of the false teachers. Their undertaking of asceti-
cal rigors was designed to overcome the flesh and ascend to
heaven. To claim that an ascetic's practices only lead to
gratification of the flesh would have been the worst thing Paul
could say about them.3
Thus ends Paul's argument against the Colossian philoso-
phy. Paul has pursued two main points in this argument.
First, he has disputed both the notion that there is anything
lacking in the Colossians' experience of God, and, therefore,
the belief that there is anything the elemental spirits can do to
supplement this supposed lack. The Colossians have been filled
by virtue of their incorporation into Christ, the image of the
invisible God, in whom all the fulness of deity dwells. There is,
therefore, nothing lacking in the Colossians' fulness since it is
the fulness of Christ. Further, Christ has utterly defeated and
humiliated the elemental spirits. There is nothing they can do

1 See Exod. 16.3, 8; Lev. 25.19; 26.5; Ps. 77.25; Hag. 1.6; cf. also BAG,
pp. 678-79.
2 There is some uncertainty here as to whether Paul is using 'flesh'
in a sense in which his opponents would use it (i.e. physical body) or
in the sense in which he used it in 2.11 (fleshly nature). If one takes
'flesh* as physical, Paul's claim counters that of the false teachers.
By following various ascetical practices they hope to deny the flesh;
Paul's counter-claim is that they are merely gratifying the flesh. It
is a straightforward rhetorical denial of the false teachers' claim. If
one understands 'flesh' as fleshly, sinful nature, then Paul's claim
is that submitting to these ascetical practices in order to attain
fulness is merely pandering to one's fleshly desires. Paul does not
seem to give any clues as to how to resolve this ambiguity. Perhaps
he is content to let both senses of 'flesh' play off each other.
3 Philo notes that the ascetic Therapeutae abhorred n\r\Giiovr\ (Vit.
Cont. 37). Lohse, p. 155, and O'Brien, p. 155, offer similar readings of
this verse. There is, however, no justification for seeing n\r[G\iovr\ as
verbally linked to
152 The Ston/ of Christ in the Ethics of Paul

to supplement the Colossians' fulness.

The second point follows from the first. Since there is noth-
ing the elemental spirits can do to supplement the Colossians'
fulness, there is no reason to submit to the practices demanded
by these spirits. In fact, instead of subduing theflesh,leading to
a vision of heaven, these practices bring about the opposite
result—gratification of the flesh.

Can the Function of Colossians 1.15-20 be Described in Terms

of Exemplars?
Having presented both a reading of Col. 1.15-20 and a discus-
sion of the role this passage plays in the argument of the epis-
tle, can we now claim that this passage is used by Paul as an
exemplar. Many scholars have noted that Paul's argument in
2.8ff. is founded on the picture of Christ presented in 1.15-20. *
The question here, then, is to what extent the term 'exemplar'
is an adequate description of the relationship between 1.15-20
and the argument of 2.8ff. Clearly, the role of Col. 1.15-20 in
the argument of the epistle is less explicit than Phil. 2.6-11.
This, however, is a contingent problem, and having traced the
role of 1.15-20 in the argument of 2.8ff. one should be able to
make some sort of judgment as to how to describe that role.
In 1.15-20 Paul points to Christ as the most adequate and
supreme manifestation of God. Christ is superior to all other
powers by means of his role in creation and redemption. Paul
then relates how the Colossian church came to be connected
with Christ (1.21-23). Having presented this picture of Christ,
and having linked the Colossians' own experience to this pic-
ture, Paul is then able to move on to use the picture provided
by 1.15-20 in Colossians 2 to counter certain false teachings.2
Paul uses two major ideas from 1.15-20 to combat the false
teaching. The first is the notion that Christ is superior to all
elemental spirits and spiritual powers. The second is the claim
that Christ is the dwelling place of all fulness. In the course of

1 For example, Lahnemann notes, 'Der Hymnus gab dem Brief-

schreiber das Bild an die Hand, das sich polemisch gegen die Geg-
ner und positiv fur die Umschreibung des Wesens der Gemeinde
verwenden Hess' (p. 151). See also Burger, p. 86, who says, The
passage, 2.9ff., can actually be read as a commentary on Col. V.
2 See Burger, pp. 79ff.; Lahnemann, p. 150.
 6. The Function ofColossians 1.15-20 153

our explication of the argument of 2.8ff. we have tried to clar-

ify why these ideas from 1.15-20 are crucial for the argument.
In addition, there are very clear verbal links between 1.16 and
1.19, the primary assertions of these two ideas in 1.15-20, and
2.10 and 2.9.1 In the light of this one might well claim that
1.15-20 as a complete concrete expression does not play a role
in the argument, and, therefore, could not be described as an
exemplar.
In response to this we would note that the meaning of such
ideas as Christ's superiority to the powers and Christ as the
dwelling place of all fulness would not have been immediately
self-evident to a Colossian Christian trying to understand how
to respond to the false teachers. In fact, the meaning of just
these ideas seems to be at the root of Paul's dispute with the
false teachers. It is the concrete expression that these ideas
receive in the context of 1.15-20 as a whole which gives them
their practical force for Paul. We would not claim that each
particular phrase of 1.15-20 is taken up in the argument of
the epistle. Rather, our point is that the two central points Paul
takes from this passage depend on the particular definition
and elaboration they receive as parts of the larger narrative
comprising 1.15-20. Hence, the fact that Paul essentially relies
on these two ideas from 1.15-20 does not undermine our
attempts to describe this passsage's role in the epistle in terms
of an exemplar. In fact, we would claim that at this very point
of sorting out the points of relevance between a concrete for-
mulation and a particular situation Paul and Galileo are
engaged in the same sort of activity.2
It is precisely because the story of Christ in 1.15-20 and the
situation of the Colossian Christians are different that Paul
has to find the points of similarity-in-difFerence between these
two concrete elements and draw an analogy. The Colossians
themselves could never stand in the same relationship to the
powers and to fulness as Christ does. They do, however, stand
in a similar sort of relationship to the powers and to fulness by
virtue of their incorporation in Christ. In Christ they are not
the source of all fulness, but they arefilledby the one in whom

1 Cf. also 1.18; 2.19; and see Lahnemann, pp. 150ff.

2 See our earlier discussion of Galileo and exemplars in Chapter 4.
154 The Story of Christ in the Ethics of Paul

all fulness dwells. In Christ they do not stand in the same sort
of superior relationship to the powers as Christ, the image of
God, does. They do, however, share in the benefits of Christ's
defeat of these powers and need no longer be subject to them.
Unlike Philippians, the analogy in Colossians does not rely
on Christ's activity and God's response as a means for pre-
scribing a pattern of behavior for the Colossian church.
Rather, the analogy in Colossians draws on a concrete
description of who Christ is as a means of prescribing a certain
pattern of action that the Colossians should follow by virtue of
having entered into union with Christ. The type of analogy
Paul uses here is of a completely different type from the one
employed in Philippians. This, however, is not a barrier to
using the term 'exemplar' to describe the function of Col. 1.15-
20. An essential characteristic of exemplars is that their rela-
tionship to any other concrete situation is bound to be such that
an exemplar can only be applied to a situation by means of
analogy. There is no necessary reason, however, for the
analogies between different exemplars and differing situations
to be of the same type, to have the same aims or to be of the
same strength. Hence, the fact that in Colossians (and in
1 Timothy) Paul's move from the hymnic passage to its
application in the argument of the epistle entails a different
sort of analogy than that employed in Philippians would not
inhibit us from using the term 'exemplar' to describe the
function of both hymic passages in their respective epistles.
It would, then, seem that Col. 1.15-20 provides a concrete
normative formulation which Paul extends by analogy to
address the problems facing the Colossian church. In this
sense the role of Col. 1.15-20 in the argument of the epistle is
that of an exemplar.1

1 In Col. 3.1 we have a transition from a direct attack on the philoso-

phy to a presentation of moral demands on the Colossian church (so
Schweizer, pp. 130-31; Lahnemann, pp. 30-31; O'Brien, p. 157). While
these demands are not inconsistent with the argument of
Colossians 2, one finds the basis for these demands in the discourse
of 1.12-14, 21-23 and 2.11-14 and not primarily in 1.15-20.
 Chapter 7

1 TIMOTHY 3.16b

Of the three passages we will consider, 1 Tim. 3.16b is the most

stylized. It is also the densest of the three passages, presenting
its story of Christ in only eighteen words. Like Phil. 2.6-11 and
Col. 1.15-20 this passage is introduced by oq. This reading is,
however, disputed by D*, itd, g, et al. which read o, and by Kc, A2,
C 2 , et al. which read 6e6<;. Of these og is the most difficult
reading and is supported by better textual evidence (K*, A, C, F,
G, et al.). The o could have been a correction to conform to the
neuter irooxfipiov and those reading Geoc; could have mistaken
0 1 for the nomen sacrum SI.1
oq marks the beginning of a unified passage and constitutes
the subject of the following six verbs. Unlike the other two pas-
sages we have considered, the antecedent of og is only implied.
There is, however, little doubt that the implied subject of these
verbs is Christ. 2 In considering the form of this passage most
scholars have focussed their comments on the formal unity of
the six aorist passive verbs, and the contrast between earth
and heaven reflected in the six nouns which conclude each
clause. This leads scholars to present the clauses of this

1 See Metzger, p. 641. In the past this text-critical point was argued
with intense passion and cost J.J. Wettstein his chair in Basel. See
W. Stenger, Textkritik als Schicksal', BZ 19 (1975), pp. 240-47.
2 See W. Stenger, Der Christushymnus 1 Tim. 3.16: Eine
strukturanalytische Untersuchung (Frankfurt: P. Lang, 1977),
p. 51; J.N.D. Kelly, The Pastoral Epistles, Black's NTC (London: A.
& C. Black, 1963), p. 89; A.T. Hanson, The Pastoral Epistles, NCB
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982), p. 84; W. Lock, The Pastoral
Epistles, ICC (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1936), p. 44; E.F. Scott, The
Pastoral Epistles, MofFatt's NTC (London: Hodder and Stoughton,
1947), p. 40; Deichgraber, p. 133.
156 The Story of Christ in the Ethics of Paul

passage as three couplets exhibiting an a/b, b/a, a/b pattern. 1

This, however, is only a very general observation, and fur-
ther examination of each clause is necessary before one makes
any precise judgment about the content of the passage.2 In this
discussion a great deal depends on the way one views the first
two phrases, ecpavepcoOri ev actpKi and £8IKOUCO0T| ev nvz\)[iax\.
Once one has reached conclusions regarding these two
phrases the aim of providing a consistent reading of the whole
passage significantly circumscribes the number of interpre-
tive options regarding the rest of the passage. It is to these two
phrases that we now turn.

1 See Deichgraber, p. 136; Wengst, p. 158; Hanson, p. 85; M. Dibelius

and H. Conzelmann, The Pastoral Epistlesy Hermeneia, trans. P.
Buttolph and A. Yarbro (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1972), p. 62; N.
Brox, Die Pastoralbriefe (Regensburg: Pustet, 1969), p. 160; V.
Hasler, Die Briefe an Timotheus und Titus (Zurich: Theologischer
Verlag, 1978), p. 30; J. Jeremias, Die Briefe an Timotheus und
Titus, NTD (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1963), p. 23; E.
Schweizer, Two New Testament Creeds Compared', in Current
Issues in New Testament Interpretation, Festschrift for O. Piper,
ed. W. Klassen and G. Snyder (London: SCM, 1962), p. 169; also
Schweizer, 1955, p. 63 n. 272. R. Gundry, The Form, Meaning and
Background of the Hymn Quoted in 1 Tim. 3.16', in Apostolic History
and the Gospel, Festschrift for F.F. Bruce, ed. W. Gasque and R.P.
Martin (Exeter: Paternoster, 1970), p. 205, accepts this basic pattern,
but adds further refinement to it (pp. 203-208). An exception among
commentators is C.K. Barrett who treats each line individually as
part of a chronological progression; see The Pastoral Epistles
(Oxford: Clarendon, 1963), pp. 65ff.
2 Stenger, pp. 5Iff., derives the most detailed structure from this pas-
sage. The coherence of this structure relies not just on formal char-
acteristics, but on judgments about the content of each clause. We
will try to show that the desire to find a comprehensive structure for
this passage, such as Stenger's, often ignores subtleties in the con-
tent of each phrase. Stenger himself seems aware of this problem
(see p. 14). One may be able to trace his rigorous devotion to struc-
ture to his dependence on the work of W. Richter (see p. 14 n.23). For
our part, we prefer to take this very general a/b, b/a, a/b pattern as a
heuristic model, and to subject the model to the particuliarities of
each clause.
 7. 1 Timothy 3.16b 157

ecpccvepco&ri ev accpid
The clause ecpccvepcoGii ev aapid has generally been taken to
refer to the incarnation of Jesus. 1 This recognition, however,
leaves open such questions as Christ's pre-existence, and
whether a certain aspect of Jesus' earthly existence is meant. 2
Stenger concentrates his observations on the verb (pavepoco,
particularly as it is used of Christ in the NT.3 His aim is to read
ecpavepcoGri ev oapid as part of a revelatory pattern
(Revelationsschema) which he finds in the NT.4 The passages
which constitute this Revelationsschema are 1 Cor. 2.7-10;
Col. 1.26 and its parallel in Eph. 3.4-6, 8-12; 2 Tim. 1.9-10; Tit.
1.2-3; 1 Pet. 1.20-21. The pattern Stenger sees in these verses is
that a 'pre-existent and hidden mystery is fundamentally
revealed in the eschatological Christ-event'. 5 In spite of the
fact that different elements of this mystery are emphasized in
the various passages, they all maintain that the mystery itself

1 So Gundry, p. 209; Hanson, p. 85; Brox, p. 160; Wengst, p. 158; Kelly,

p. 90; W. Metzger, Der Christushymnus 1 Tim. 3.16 (Stuttgart: Cal-
wer, 1979), pp. 73ff. Some, however, view this phrase as a reference
to the appearance of the resurrected Christ. See C. Spicq, Les
Epitres Pastorales, 2 vols., 4th rev. edn (Paris: Gabalda, 1969), I,
p. 472. This reading is unlikely in the light of the following clause,
and in the light of the questionable nature of the realm of thefleshin
this passage. See Hanson, p. 85; Lock, p. 45. A further exception to
this is D.M. Stanley's view that this clause refers to Christ's
crucifixion. See The Divinity of Christ in the New Testament
Hymns', in Studies in Salvation History, ed. C.L. Salm (Englewood
Cliffs: Prentice Hall, 1964), p. 193. As Gundry notes, however, there
is no particular reason to link 'appearance' solely to the death of
Christ (see Gundry, p. 209).
2 These questions cannot be resolved by merely looking at the NT uses
of odp£. The NT uses of adp£ in relation to Jesus usually focus on
his earthly existence as a whole. On the other hand, sometimes the
context indicates that a particular aspect of Jesus' earthly existence
is in view (Col. 1.22). See further, Gundry, p. 209.
3 See Stenger, pp. 119-47.
4 Stenger takes this idea from D. Luhrmann, Das Offenbarungs-
verstdndnis bei Paulus, WMANT (Neukirchen: Neukirchener
Verlag, 1965), esp. pp. 129ff. Stenger, however, is critical of
Luhrmann's conclusions (see p. 138).
5 See Stenger, p. 138.
158 The Story of Christ in the Ethics of Paul

is revealed in the Christ-event.1 Having established this

pattern, Stenger posits that one should read ecpavepcoGri ev
capid in this light.2
While at this point we do not wish to question the existence
of this Revelationsschema, we disagree that 1 Tim.3.16b fits
into this pattern. For example, within the Pastorals both
2 Tim. 1.9-10 and Tit. 1.2-3 emphasize that what is revealed in
the Christ-event is God's plan of salvation for humanity. The
revelation occurs so that humanity might attain salvation.
The Christ-event is not seen just as a mystery revealed, it is
the vehicle through which God's plan of salvation is made
known. This is also true for the other members of this pattern.
In the case of 1 Tim. 3.16b, however, there is no mention of the
effects of the Christ-event in regard to human salvation.3 That
is, in the Revelationsschema, Christ or something about Christ
is revealed in order to enable human salvation. In 1 Tim. 3.16b
what is revealed about Christ is made known in order to say
something about Christ. The passage makes no explicit con-
nection between this revelation and human salvation. We do
not dispute that the verb cpavepoco has something to do with the
act of appearing or making manifest.4 To that extent, the
notion of revelation is involved. This clause, however, cannot
fit into the Revelationsschema proposed by Stenger.
Rather than trying to fit this clause into a Revelations-
schema, it seems best to understand the verb (pccvepoco in a
relatively straightforward sense of appearing or making
manifest.5 What is less straightforward is the significance to be
attached to the phrase ev aapid. It will be best, however, to
answer this question in the light of an examination of the next
clause, eSiK(xico0r| ev

1 For example, the Ephesians passage talks about the revelation of the
universal church of Jews and Gentiles as the revealed mystery in
Christ. On the other hand, 2 Timothy talks about the revelation of
salvation in Christ Jesus.
2 See Stenger, p. 138. Brox, p. 160, holds a similar, though less
detailed, view.
3 This is similar to our earlier criticism of Kasemann's use of soteri-
ology in regard to Philippians 2.
4 See BGD, p. 852.
5 See Kelly, p. 90; Lock, p. 45.
 7. 1 Timothy 3.16b 159

e5iKaico9r| ev rcvetjuxm
This clause is in many ways the watershed of the whole pas-
sage. One's views regarding its meaning tend to determine to
a large degree one's views on the whole passage. At the risk of
over-simplifying the issue, it may be helpful to characterize
the three main readings of this clause.
Some see this line as a reference to Jesus' earthly life, follow-
ing chronologically from the moment of incarnation recorded
in the first clause. On this reading the phrase 'appeared in
(the) flesh' would be a reference to Jesus' appearance in a
human body. This second clause would then rely on allusions
to Jesus' baptism, preaching, miracles and sinless life to show
he was 'justified by the Holy Spirit'.1
Gundry notes that this requires an awkward instrumental
reading of ev nv£x>\iax\.2 Further, any reading which tries to
view the whole passage as a chronology of the life of Jesus will
encounter problems at the final two clauses if it seeks to be
consistent.
Gundry's own position is that this phrase refers to the
Vindication of Christ during and by his "Descensus ad
Inferos" in spirit-form between death and resurrection'. 3
Gundry derives support for this view from 1 Pet. 3.18. After
characterizing the third position regarding this phrase we will
return to note some of the inadequacies of Gundry's view.
The third position, held by most scholars, is that eSncaicoOri ev
7cvet>naTi refers to Christ's vindication in the spiritual realm
(as shown by the resurrection and ascension).4 This is partly
based on the contrast between adp£ andrcvefiuain this passage
and the way this contrast is used in Rom. 1.3-4 and in 1 Pet.
3.18.

1 See H. Alford, The Greek New Testament, vol. 3 (London: Riving-

tons, 1865), p. 334; Barrett, pp. 65-66; Metzger, pp. 82-90. Metzger also
includes the resurrection as the final act of the Holy Spirit's
justification of Christ.
2 See Gundry, p. 212.
3 See Gundry, p. 213.
4 G. Fee, 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus, Good News Commentary (San
Francisco: Harper and Row, 1984), p. 56; Hanson, p. 86; Lock, p. 45;
Kelly, p. 90; Dibelius/Conzelmann, p. 62; Hasler, p. 31; and Stenger,
pp. 158ff., all hold some form of this view.
160 The Story of Christ in the Ethics of Paul

Taken on their own, the uses ofrcveujiain the NT in regard

to Christ are varied and inconclusive.1 There are, however,
two occasions beside 1 Tim. 3.16b in which the antonym pair
adp^/Tcveftna is used in relation to Christ. In Rom. 1.3-4 Jesus
is described as being born of the seed of David Kara a&pica and
appearing as the son of God in power Kaxarcvevjiaayicoa^vTiq
by his resurrection. Schweizer notes that because of its parallel
relationship with Kara adpKa, one should not read Kaxa
Tcveaina ayicoavvTic; instrumentally, "by the Holy Spirit'.2 Rather,
the phrase should be read, 'in the sphere of the flesh... in the
sphere of the Holy Spirit'.3 In this case, then, the pairing of
adp£ andrcvefi^aindicate the two spheres or stages of Jesus'
sonship.
In 1 Pet. 3.18 the antonym pair adp^ /rcveunxx also appears in
relation to Christ. As with Rom. 1.3-4, it relates two events in
which Jesus is the subject. In this case, however, the two
events are death and being made alive. The two dative
antonyms modify the two passive verbs. Gundry would like to
understand these datives, and those of 1 Tim. 3.16b, as a sort of
hybrid, having both a locative sense and a sense of referring to
aspects of Christ as an individual:
In 1 Peter 3.18 the phrase GavaxcoGelq \iev oapKi contains a
dative of reference (or locative) concerning the physical death
of Christ, so that the parallel £coo7coir|0ei<; 5e 7cve\)|j,aTi must
likewise contain a dative of reference (or locative) concerning
his human spirit rather than an instrumental dative con-
cerning the Holy Spirit.
Gundry then transfers these findings to 1 Timothy:
In 1 Timothy 3.16, just as ev oapid surely denotes the indi-
vidual physical manifestation of Christ as well as the gen-
eral sphere in which this manifestation took place, so also ev

1 See, for example, Lk. 4.1; Acts 16.7; Rom. 8.9; etc.
2 See E. Schweizer, 'Rom. 1.3f. und der Gegensatz von Fleisch und
Geist vor und bei Paulus', in Neotestamentica (Zurich: Zwingli Ver-
lag, 1963), p. 187. See also Schweizer, 1955, pp. 62ff.
3 See Schweizer, 1963, p. 187. Also C.K. Barrett, The Epistle to the
Romans, Black's NTC (London: A. & C. Black, 1957), p. 18; E. Kase-
mann, Commentary on Romans, trans. G. Bromiley (London: SCM,
1980), p. 12.
4 See Gundry, p. 211.
 7. 1 Timothy 3.16b 161

%vz\>\iax\ denotes the individual human spirit of Christ as

well as the general sphere in which his vindication took
place.
Moving from this, Gundry concludes that the only point to
which this phrase could refer is that vindication in spirit prior
to the resurrection, which would have been during Christ's
Descensus ad Inferos' in a manner similar to that related in
1 Peter.2
We have two major disagreements with Gundry's view.
First, regarding his reading of 1 Pet. 3.18, which is determi-
native for his view of 1 Tim. 3.16b, it is not at all clear that
GocvccTcoGeic; ^iev aocpid is a direct reference to the death of Jesus'
fleshly body, as, for example, Col. 1.22 is. Naturally, death in
the realm of the flesh entails the death of Jesus' earthly body.
This, however, is a logical entailment and not a grammatical
one as Gundry's position seems to assume.3 This being the
case, there is no necessary reason to read ^coorcovnGeiq 8e
Tcvet^cm as a reference to the individual human spirit of
Christ.4 The phrase can simply stand as a reference to the
realm in which Christ was made alive and in which he
subsequently preached to the imprisoned spirits. Without
these two props there is no particular reason to view 1 Tim.
3.16b in the way Gundry does.
This leads to our second disagreement with Gundry. It con-
cerns his motives for trying to add greater specificity to the
odpi; /rcveuucc pairing in 1 Peter and 1 Timothy. He acknowl-
edges that odp^ and TcveBjia may denote contrasting spheres of

1 See Gundry, p. 211.

2 See Gundry, p. 211.
3 See, for example, the counter-reading of this verse provided by
J.N.D. Kelly, A Commentary on the Epistles of Peter and Jude,
Black's NTC (London: A. & C. Black, 1969), pp. 150-51.
4 In reply to Gundry's reading of 1 Peter Stenger comments, 'Das
brachte als Konsequenz die Behauptung mit sich, daB Pneuma
Christi sei erst im Augenblick des Todes lebendig gemacht, und die
Sarx Christi sei im Tode vollig vernichtet worden' (p. 113). For
Stenger, the first of these consequences is inconceivable and the
second verges on a docetic christology. While this latter point cannot
stand as an an objection to exegesis, the first point does carry some
weight.
162 The Story of Christ in the Ethics of Paul

existence. He doubts, however, 'that they do so apart from very

particular and individual references in context'.1 He further
notes in his comments on evrcveuuaxithat ' "the spiritual
realm" appears to be somewhat too abstract and impersonal a
meaning, particularly when standing in contrast to Christ's
appearance in the flesh, the flesh of his human body'.2 For
some reason Gundry is not satisfied that these two clauses are
simply references to two distinct realms in which Christ's
appearance and vindication took place. There is, however, no
necessary reason for the text to be more specific than this.3 The
only other reason that Gundry can give for this is that he
reads ev aocpid as a personal reference to the flesh of Christ's
human body.4 Here, again, however, we would argue that he
has confused a logical entailment for an explicit reference in
the text. That is, Christ's appearance in the realm of the flesh
presupposes that Christ had a human body, but the phrase
itself simply situates Christ's appearance in the realm of the
flesh.
This, at least, seems to be the conclusion one can draw from
the way the pairing of adp£ and Kvtx>\ia is used in Rom. 1.3-4
and 1 Pet. 3.18. That is, these two antonyms are used to con-
trast two different spheres of Christ's existence. These two
realms are not necessarily opposed to each other. Rather, they
complement each other in presenting a two-stage pattern—
heavenly existence temporally following earthly existence.5
Returning, then, to 1 Timothy we would read eSiKocicoBri ev
Kvtv\Laii as a statement of Christ's justification or vindication
in the heavenly, spiritual realm. Dibelius/Conzelmann are
right in suggesting that e8iKaico9r| should not be read in the
narrow sense of a reference to the forgiveness of sins.6 Rather,

1 See Gundry, p. 211.

2 See Gundry, p. 213.
3 In fact, we will argue that it is just this 'abstract' distinction which
is important for the function of the passage in Paul's argument.
4 See Gundry, p. 211.
5 See Schweizer, 1962, p. 125. Kelly's 1963 view that adp^/jcvev^a is a
reference to Christ's dual nature seems to contradict the position he
later took in regard to 1 Pet. 3.18, which he explicitly links to 1 Tim.
3.16. See above p. 161 n. 3.
6 See Dibelius/Conzelmann, p. 62; Hanson, p. 85; Schweizer, 1955, p. 82.
 7. 1 Timothy 3.16b 163

an English word like 'vindicated' conveys the sense here of

being declared acceptable in the spiritual realm.1 This judg-
ment is most clearly manifested in Christ's resurrection and
exaltation (cf. Rom. 1.4).2
On the other hand, a term like eSncaicoOn would indicate that
there was some sort of question mark standing over Jesus
which his resurrection and exaltation removed, something
needing vindication. The immediate context, with its adp^/
Kvex>\ia contrast, would indicate that it is Christ's appearance
in the realm of the flesh which required vindication in the
realm of the spirit. This implies that there was something
unrighteous about this fleshly realm (though not necessarily
about Jesus' human body). The text, however, does not indi-
cate what makes the fleshly realm unrighteous. Presumably
Paul and his original readers would know what makes the
fleshly realm ungodly. We, however, are left to draw infer-
ences. This is made more difficult by the fact that there are no
further references to odp^ in the Pastorals. From looking at
the rest of the Pauline corpus we may, however, find numer-
ous reasons for why the realm of the flesh was ungodly. The
flesh is the realm in which sin operates (cf. Rom. 7.5, 25).
Nothing good dwells in theflesh(cf. Rom. 7.18). It is the source
of evil desires (cf. Rom. 13.4; Gal. 5.13ff.). The flesh is mortal
and corruptible (cf. 2 Cor. 4.11; Gal. 6.8). Thefleshis the realm
of (moral) weakness (cf. Rom. 6.19; and particularly 8.3ff.
which discusses Christ's appearance in the realm of the flesh).
Any one of these characteristics of the realm of the flesh would
raise questions about Jesus' appearance in this realm, and
might require heavenly vindication. Hence, while we cannot
say exactly why Jesus' appearance in the realm of the flesh
needed heavenly vindication, we can reasonably claim that
elsewhere Paul gives enough indications of the ungodly
nature of the flesh to support the view that Jesus' appearance
in the flesh is the sort of event that would require heavenly
vindication.
How had the realm of the flesh fallen into this ungodly state

1 See Dibelius/Conzelmann, p. 62, citing Ign. Phld. 8.2; Lock, p. 45;

Schweizer, 1955, pp. 63,136.
2 See Hanson, p. 85.
164 The Story of Christ in the Ethics of Paul

after being created by God? Unfortunately, the text does not

say. The ungodly nature of the flesh seems to have been such
an uncontroversial notion that it could be assumed by both
Paul and his audience, and the causes of this did not need to be
elaborated. We must be content to say that underlying this
story of Christ, as in Col. 1.15-20, is a larger story which
accounts for how the realm of the flesh came to be ungodly. As
we noted in regard to Col. 1.15-20, several of these larger sto-
ries were prevalent in the world of the NT, and there is no
necessary reason to assume Paul and his readers would have
presupposed the same story. It does, however, appear that
some account of how the realm of the flesh came to be
unrighteous is assumed in this text.
In whatever way the fleshly realm came to be ungodly,
Paul's point in this second clause is to assert that Christ has
been justified in the heavenly realm. This assertion raises a
question concerning what it would mean for Christ to be
justified or vindicated. Nowhere else does Paul use 8iKai6co
with Christ as the object. The immediate context of this clause,
however, would strongly indicate that it was Christ's appear-
ance in the ungodly realm of the flesh which required
justification. It is Christ's entrance into this realm in which sin
rules, in which weakness and corruptibility reign, which
requires God's justification. Any or all of these elements which
make the fleshly realm ungodly would also serve to alienate
those who dwell in this realm from God. It would be reasonable
to assume, then, that Christ's appearance in thisfleshlyrealm
would require God's justification. Justification, in this context,
would not be required for any specifically sinful act Christ
committed. Rather, justification would overcome the more
comprehensive alienation between one who existed in the
ungodly realm of the flesh and God.1 As we noted above, then,
an English word like 'vindication' might be more appropriate
to describe the heavenly acceptance of the one who was mani-
fested in the flesh.

1 This usage of 8IKOU6G) seems to parallel that of Rom. 6.7. In fact, one
may well press the implications of this passage to claim that Rom.
6.7 would also apply to Christ.
 7. 1 Timothy 3.16b 165

This statement of Christ's vindication in the spiritual realm is

followed by the somewhat obscure phrase ©cpGri dyyeAx)i<;. This
phrase has inspired a number of different interpretations.
Metzger is one of the most recent scholars to view this phrase
as a reference to Christ's post-resurrection appearances to his
disciples.1 The main thrust of his argument is that oxpGri is used
as a technical term for the appearances of the risen Christ to
human beings (cf. 1 Cor. 15.5-8; Lk. 24.34; Acts 1.2; 13.31; 9.17;
26.16).2 The argument then builds on the assumption that in
1 Tim. 3.16b the lack of the preposition ev indicates that
dyyeXoK; does not refer to angels in the heavenly realm.
Rather, it is used more generally to refer to those 'messengers'
to whom the risen Christ appeared.3 However, while o5cp0r| is
often used to refer to Christ's post-resurrection appearances,
other terms are also used, and by itself <S(p0T| cannot be seen as
a technical term.4 Further, the NT uses ayyekoc; only four
times to refer to humans and never those to whom the resur-
rected Christ appeared.5
The vast majority of scholars view this clause as a reference
to Christ's appearance to angels in the heavenly realm. There
is, however, a diversity of views regarding the context of this
appearance.
Gundry sees this clause as a reference to Christ's appear-
ance to the spirits in prison as in 1 Pet. 3.19.6 This view, how-
ever, depends on his reading of the second clause of this pas-
sage as a reference to Christ's 'Descensus ad Inferos', which
we have already shown to be improbable.
There is further diversity among those who see Christ's

1 See Metzger, pp. 96-98. Another who does this is Barrett, p. 65.
2 See Metzger, p. 97.
3 See Metzger, p. 98.
4 See Rev. 11.19; 12.1, 3; Acts 7.2 for other non-technical uses of
5 The two disciples of John the Baptist are called ayyetan in Lk. 7.24.
In Mk 2.1 (Lk. 7.27; Mt. 11.10) ayyeXot is used in a quotation from
Mai. 3.1 to refer to John the Baptist. In Lk. 9.52 ayye^oi appears in
reference to those sent by Jesus to prepare his way to Jerusalem.
Finally, Jas 2.25 uses ctyyetan to refer to the messengers whom
Rahab hid (cf. Josh. 2.1 LXX).
6 See Gundry, p. 219.
166 The Story of Christ in the Ethics of Paul

appearance to angels as a reference to an appearance in the

heavenly realm. Norden, followed by Jeremias, identified this
whole passage as a part of an enthronement drama common
in Egypt.1 Norden isolates three stages to this drama.2 First, a
king is exalted to a divine status by the gods. The newly deified
king is then introduced and presented to the circle of heavenly
beings. The final act is the enthronement of the king to rule
over all things. It would be this second act, the presentation of
the exalted king to the heavenly beings to which Christ's
appearance to angels corresponds.
Concerning whether one should read the passage as a whole
this way, one should note that a phrase like 'vindicated in the
spiritual realm' lacks the detail of the Egyptian rite. In addi-
tion, while vindication may involve exaltation, exaltation is not
emphasized here. Further, there is nothing in 1 Timothy that
directly corresponds to the third act of enthronement. All this
is to say it is highly unlikely that 1 Timothy is directly depen-
dent on an Egyptian text.3 Nevertheless, the picture of the
exalted one being presented to the heavenly hosts may well
offer a useful insight for reading the phrase 'appeared to
angels'.
Dibelius/Conzelmann find a similar image in Asc. Isa. II. 4
Here the resurrected and exalted son of Mary is manifested to
the angelic powers, 'And all the angels of the firmament and
Satan saw and worshipped him' (11.23). Here, again, the dif-
ferences in detail between this text and 1 Timothy speak
against any relationship of dependence.5 Further, even
Dibelius/ Conzelmann note that Christ's exaltation is not
accentuated in 1 Tim. 3.16b.6 Nevertheless, we find a similar

1 See E. Norden, Die Geburt des Kindes (Stuttgart: Teubner, 1958),

pp. 116ff., for the details of this drama; cf. also Jeremias, p. 24.
2 See Norden, 1958, pp. 116ff.
3 This seems to be Kelly's major reason for rejecting Jeremias's view
(see p. 93). This in no way, however, invalidates the use of this
drama as a general background of the passage under discussion
and particularly of this clause.
4 See Dibelius/Conzelmann, p. 62; Lock, p. 46.
5 Stenger, pp. 182-84, like Kelly, seems to think that this invalidates
the usefulness of Asc. Isa. 11.
6 See Dibelius/Conzelmann, p. 63.
 7. 1 Timothy 3.16b 167

image of a figure exalted by God and presented to the angelic

powers in heaven. The chief difference between Asc. Isa. 11
and 1 Tim. 3.16b seems to be that Christ's appearance to the
angelic powers in the Ascension of Isaiah is related to his
triumph and their subjection. This element is lacking in 1 Tim.
3.16b.1
In 1 Tim. 3.16b there is no indication that the angels were
hostile to Christ. Rather, he is presented to them as one whose
appearance in the fleshly realm has been vindicated in the
spiritual realm. It would seem that the primary force of the
vindicated Christ's appearance to angels is to note that God's
vindicating judgment of Christ is made known to those
inhabiting the spiritual realm.2

ev eGveaiv
The next clause, eicnpuxQ'n £v eBveaiv, follows on from this by
asserting that what has been made known to the angels is also
proclaimed among the nations. The temptation is to see this
clause as a reference to the sum total of the apostolic preach-
ing about Christ.3 The text, however, makes no specific men-
tion of what was proclaimed. At a purely syntactic level, the
relative pronoun oq is the subject of the verb. Hence, one could
say that Christ is what is proclaimed. While this is true, it is a
very general observation, and the context of the previous
phrases may provide greater precision to our understanding
of what was proclaimed. This context indicates that what was
seen by the angels is the same thing that is proclaimed among
the nations, that is, the one who appeared in the realm of the
flesh has been vindicated in the realm of the spirit.
The real issue in this clause concerns the scope of the
proclamation as defined by the phrase EV eOveaiv. The term is
ambiguous. Does it refer to 'nations' or 'Gentiles'? Barrett opts
for 'Gentiles' in view of the reference to Paul's mission related

1 In this respect Asc. Isa. is closer to 1 Pet. 3.18. So Stenger, p. 190.

2 See Stenger's comment, 'Christus erscheint den Engeln im himm-
lischen Bereich nicht in erster Linie als ihr Herr, sondern als der,
an dem und durch den Gott im Bereich der Sarx und im Bereich des
Pneumas, in seinen eschatologischen Offenbarung und Annahme
gehandelt hat* (p. 190). See, to the contrary, Hanson, p. 86.
3 Kelly, p. 91, Fee, p. 55, and Scott, p. 41, all move in this direction.
168 The Story of Christ in the Ethics of Paul

in 1 Tim. 2.7.1 On the other hand, the more immediate context

of this phrase contrasts flesh and spirit as two realms of being.
This would support a similar contrast between angels and
eOvn. If this is the case, it would be better to read eOvti as
'nations' since this is the more comprehensive category.2 This
would also be supported by the use of KOG\IO<; in the following
clause.

EV
The following clause, e7cioxei50T| ev KOGHCO, relates the response
to this proclamation. The use of the passive azioxevQi] is rare in
the NT.3 This unusual form is probably used here for stylistic
reasons to maintain the series of passive verbs.4 At a gram-
matical level the object of this belief is Christ, as he is the
implied subject of the verb. Further, the actual content of this
belief would logically be determined by what is preached, that
is, the very sparse narrative related in the first two clauses of
this passage.
In addition, we would disagree with those who see this
phrase as a reference to the universal acceptance of the gospel
either in the present or at some future point in time. 5 The pas-
sage indicates the realm in which this preaching is believed,
not the extent to which it is accepted. The passage describes
this realm of belief as ev KOG^CO. Selwyn claimed that KOCJIIOQ
here must refer to the entire universe as it does in Acts 17.24.
He rejected the limited sense of Koa\ioq as 'earthly realm* or
'humanity' because he felt it would repeat the thought of
'among the nations' in the preceding clause.6 It would seem,
however, that this repetition is precisely what the passage
seeks. If the belief spoken of here is the direct response to the
preaching mentioned in the previous clause, which seems
most reasonable, then both activities would be confined to

1 See Barrett, p. 66. Lock also sees such a connection (p. 46).
2 See Gundry, p. 216; Fee, p. 55.
3 The form appears without a personal subject in Rom. 10.10 and
2Thess. 1.10.
4 So Norden, 1956, p. 255.
5 See Hanson, p. 86; Scott, p. 42; Kelly, p. 91; Brox, p. 160.
6 E.G. Selwyn, The First Epistle of St. Peter, Thornapple reprint
series (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1981), p. 326 n. 3.
 7. 1 Timothy 3.16b 169

roughly the same sphere. It is less clear whether icoauoq

should be rendered as 'earth' or 'humanity'. The difference in
meaning in this case, however, is not significant.1

ev
This passage closes with the clause a\eXj\\i(pQr\ ev So^p. Bar-
rett's desire to read this passage as a chronological progression
leads him to see this clause as a reference to Jesus' parousia
where he achieves ultimate exaltation.2 The chief obstacle to
this reading is that each time dtvocXauPdvco is used in regard to
Christ it refers to his ascension.3 In fact, in the light of the way
the NT uses this verb in regard to other people, we would tend
to agree with Gundry that, when used of Christ, aveM|uxp9r| is
a technical term for his ascension.4
The force attached to ev 86£n is more difficult to ascertain.
Gundry views the phrase as a description of the circum-
stances attendant upon the ascension rather than in a local
sense, describing the goal to which Jesus ascended.5 Gundry
notes that if'glory' were the goal of Jesus' ascension, then the
preposition eiq would be more appropriate than ev.6 On the
other hand, Stenger, citing Mayser, notes that ev is sometimes
used instead of dq with verbs of motion to indicate that the goal
of the motion has been reached.7 While this is a grammatical
possibility, the NT never uses ev 862^ in this way. In addition,
there are numerous instances in Paul and the Gospels in
which 86^a describes attendant circumstances (cf. 1 Cor.
1 See Stenger, p. 206.
2 See Barrett, p. 66.
3 See Mk 16.19; Acts 1.2, 11, 22. 'Av<xtaxn|3dva) also appears in Lk. 9.51.
This verse refers not only to Christ's ascension but also to his death
and resurrection. See G. Lohfink, Der Himmelfahrt Jesu (Munich:
Kosel Verlag, 1971), p. 213. Further, when dvaXa^pdvco is used of
others in the NT (e.g. Mark, Paul) it refers to meeting someone (cf.
Acts 20.13, 14; 2 Tim. 4.11).
4 So Gundry, p. 204; Spicq, 1.474.
5 See Gundry, p. 216; Lock, p. 46. Stenger, p. 216, and Kelly, p. 92, opt
for the latter possibility.
6 See Gundry, p. 216.
7 See Stenger, p. 216. See also G. Mayser, Grammatik der griechis-
chen Papyri aus der Ptolemaerzeit, Band 2.1 (Berlin: de Gruyter,
1934), p. 372 §111.
170 The Story of Christ in the Ethics of Paul

15.43; Col. 3.4; Mt. 25.31; Mk 8.39; Lk. 9.26, 31).

Perhaps the strongest reasons for reading ev 56fyf\ locally are
those of style. That is, all of the other uses of ev in this passage
have a local force. Further, as the pairing of flesh/spirit and
angels/nations reflects contrasting realms of existence it
would indicate that the pairing of cosmos/glory should main-
tain such a pattern. On the other hand, there is no preposition
before the term 'angels' in clause three. Hence, consistency in
this regard was not seen to be essential by the author. Further,
while angels inhabit the spiritual realm the term is not a local
designation in itself. Rather it designates a group of beings
within a particular realm. The same might also be said of
'nations'. While 'nations' inhabit the realm of the flesh it is the
people to whom the message is proclaimed who are important,
not their location in the realm of the flesh. This may be an
overly subtle distinction. Our point, however, is simply that the
imposition of a rigid poetic pattern on this text may well blunt
many of the particular subtleties of each clause. Hence, such a
pattern may well have some heuristic value, but it should not
be decisive in determining the reading of ev 86£p when there
are sufficient counter-arguments.
If, then, we read ev 86£n as a description of attendant cir-
cumstances, what is the thrust of the clause in which it stands,
and how does it fit with the preceding clauses? It would seem
that both the passive verb and the description of the attendant
circumstances as glorious indicate that God's hand is behind
Christ's ascension. In this light, 'taken up in glory' recapitu-
lates the central message of this passage as expressed in the
first two clauses. That is, God has vindicated (taken up in
glory) the one who appeared in the realm of the flesh. It
emphasizes the fact that the one who appeared in the flesh
now enjoys an exalted status granted by God. Here we find
some of the emphasis on exaltation that was subdued in the
second clause.
Briefly, then, we could summarize the content of this pas-
sage as follows: Jesus appears in the realm of theflesh.For any
number of reasons this is seen to be a questionable activity
because of the ungodly nature of the fleshly arena. Without
further elaboration we are simply told that this appearance in
the flesh is vindicated (by God) in the heavenly realm. This
 7. 1 Timothy 3.16b 171

basic narrative is then proclaimed and recognized throughout

the cosmos. On this particular point, at least, heaven and earth
are in agreement. The passage closes by recapitulating the key
event in this story, God's glorious vindication of Jesus.

Backgrounds and the Particular Problems Raised by

1 Timothy 3.16b
In looking for a useful background against which to read this
passage we confront a problem unique to this passage, namely,
the terseness of the language. This means that almost any
other text we turn to in order to illumine this text is going to be
far richer in detail and description. As a result, the value of
these texts for our discussion of 1 Tim. 3.16b will always be
limited because such texts will have numerous elements not
found in 1 Timothy.
For example, we have already seen that in regard to a very
particular point, Norden's enthronement drama and
Ascension of Isaiah 11 provide useful insights into Christ's
appearance to angels. On the other hand, these passages differ
from 1 Tim. 3.16b both in detail and in the significance they
attribute to the appearance of an exalted figure to the hosts of
heaven.1 Further, beyond this specific point there are other
large differences between these three texts. The Egyptian
drama narrates the enthronement of a king to rule. This is not
part of 1 Tim. 3.16b. Asc. Isa. 11 elaborates both the earthly life
and the heavenly exaltation of the son of Mary well beyond
what is found in 1 Tim. 3.16b. In addition, Asc. Isa. makes no
mention of the proclamation and belief among the nations
found in 1 Tim. 3.16b.2 The point we wish to make is that any
parallels are likely to be either so general or so specific to a
particular element of this text that their heuristic value for
understanding 1 Tim. 3.16b as a whole is negligible.
It may be more useful to see this passage as one of the sev-
eral humiliation/exaltation passages noted by Schweizer, or
similar to those we noted in regard to Phil. 2.6-11 (e.g. Isa. 52f.;
Wis. 2ff.). As a general description of 1 Tim. 3.16b this pattern

1 See our discussion above.

2 In fact, Isaiah asks the angel to keep his vision hidden from the
people of Israel (cf. 11.39).
172 The Story of Christ in the Ethics of Paul

and these texts may suffice. We should note, however, that

Christ's appearance in the realm of the flesh could not be cast
unequivocally as humiliation. The passage does indicate that
appearance in this realm is, at least, a questionable activity,
requiring vindication. On the other hand, there is no mention
of servitude or obedient humiliation such as we find in Phil.
2.6-8. Rather, interest in the previous status or attitude of the
one who appeared in the flesh is pushed to the side in the
simple statement locating Christ in the realm of the flesh. It
would also seem that what is vindicated in the next clause is
not Christ's humiliation as such. Rather, Christ's vindication
in the spiritual realm seems to stress the unrighteous nature
of the realm of the flesh and not the humiliated status of
Christ. This is not to say that there may not be some degree of
humiliation involved in Christ's appearance in the flesh. It is,
however, not the primary emphasis of the clause, unlike Phil.
2.6-8 or other similar passages.
In addition, Christ's vindication depicted in the next clause
is not a straightforward assertion of exaltation. Exaltation
certainly is implied here. Nevertheless, the emphasis on exal-
tation is minimized. What is stressed here is heavenly accep-
tance of the one who appeared in the flesh. Even the final
phrase with its description of Christ's glorious ascension can
be seen in this light. As we noted above, both the passive verb
and the glorious circumstances of the ascension can be seen
primarily as assertions of the divine nature of the acceptance
of Christ, as a sign of divine affirmation.1 Further, Christ's
appearance to angels is not cast as a dramatic triumph.
Rather, it serves to make God's vindication of Christ known to
the heavenly hosts. It mades God's acceptance of the one who
appeared in the flesh known to the inhabitants of heaven.
Again, this would have been a glorious event. Nevertheless, the
text lacks the detail of the description of Christ's appearance to
angelic powers found in Phil. 2.9-11.2
What we seem to have here is, perhaps, the skeletal outline

1 See above, p. 164.

2 See Dibelius/Conzelmann, p. 63: In contrast to Phil. 2.6ff. it is not
the death which is marked as the turning point, nor is the contrast
between humiliation and exaltation accentuated'.
 7. 1 Timothy 3.16b 173

of a humiliation/exaltation pattern. Most of the flesh for this

skeleton, however, has to be supplied by the reader.
Rather than see this passage as a poor example of the
humiliation/exaltation pattern, however, we should accept the
limits of this text and try not to read it through some of the
other, more detailed, texts we have looked at elsewhere in this
book. We should, instead, focus on the pattern the text pre-
sents: Christ's appearance in the realm of the flesh is vindi-
cated by God and made known to those in heaven and earth.
Rather than being an example of a particular christological
pattern, this story may well be a response to an unstated, but
presupposed account of the separation of God from the earthly
realm. As we noted above, the implied ungodliness of the
fleshly realm must presuppose some account of how this
realm fell from the righteous state in which God created it. By
telling of Christ's appearance in this realm and his subsequent
vindication, Paul has offered a response to this story. The vin-
dication of Christ's appearance in the realm of the flesh indi-
cates that God can overcome the ungodliness of the material
world.1 Further, God's vindication of Christ was not a covert
operation known only to a few. It has been made known
throughout heaven and earth. The universal recognition of
God's vindication of Christ's appearance in the realm of the
flesh helps to provide this event with its significance. As it is
described here, the Christ-event becomes a universally rec-
ognized concrete point at which the barrier between heaven
and earth has been overcome.
The virtue in reading this passage as a response to some
account of the separation of God from creation is that we do
not need to read the passage through any other more detailed
pattern such as humiliation/exaltation. Further, while there
are no textual indications that this story is a response to some
sort of account of the separation of God from creation, we
would claim that this passage makes more comprehensive
sense when one presupposes some such story. This is, of

1 This is what we take Schweizer basically to mean when he claims

that this passage recounts the reunification of heaven and earth.
See Schweizer, 1955, p. 66. We would not, however, see such an
emphasis on exaltation as Schweizer does.
174 The Story of Christ in the Ethics of Paul

course, the primary criterion which we discussed in Chapter 2

for presuming that some unstated piece of knowledge is pre-
supposed by the parties to a conversation.1 Finally, a reading of
1 Tim. 3.16b such as ours will be able to fit well into Paul's
arguments against the false teachers. This last assertion, how-
ever, needs to be argued for, and we will supply such an
argument in the next Chapter.

1 See Chapter 2, pp. 42ff.

 Chapter 8

THE FUNCTION OF 1 TIMOTHY 3.16b

There are several points which make a discussion of the func-

tion of 1 Tim. 3.16b more difficult than our discussions of Phil.
2.6-11 and Col. 1.15-20. First, there is no verse like Phil. 2.5
immediately preceding the 1 Timothy passage which would
give some immediate indication of what role this passage
might play in the argument of the epistle. Nor do we find
important verbal repetitions elsewhere in the epistle (as in
Colossians 2) which might show us where and how 1 Tim.
3.16b is incorporated into the argument of the epistle.
Therefore, to discuss the function of this passage one will have
to show how a particular part of the argument presupposes
and depends on some account like the one we have in 1 Tim.
3.16b. If this can be done, one has then made a good case for
claiming that it is, in fact, the particular account related in 1
Tim. 3.16b which is presupposed. All this is to say that, unlike
our other two discussions, our discussion of the function of 1
Tim. 3.16b will have to rely almost solely on inferences drawn
from the context of the epistle rather than on explicit textual
connections.1

The Situation Addressed in the Epistle

To aid our examination of the function of the hymnic material
within the epistle we will give a brief sketch of the situation
1 One may, of course, argue that the various pieces of 1 Timothy are
not meant to be read as part of an intelligible argument. This is a
logical possibility. We would claim, however, that if we can give a
plausible account of how some of the pieces of this epistle fit together
a charitable reader would then have to grant the plausibility of an
argument which claimed that these pieces of 1 Timothy were meant
to be read as part of an intelligible argument.
176 The Story of Christ in the Ethics of Paul

reflected in 1 Timothy. From 1.3 and 4.11 we get the indication

that Paul is concerned to combat the influence of false
teachers within the community.2 Unlike Philippians and
Colossians, in 1 Timothy (and the Pastorals in general) Paul
does not really deal with substantive themes of his opponents'
teaching in a direct way.3 This makes it very difficult to form a
picture of the teachings of Paul's opponents.
Undoubtedly, most of this polemic against the teachers is of
the traditional sort originally used against sophists.4 Although
this may be the case, it does not necessarily follow that this
polemic has no relation to the situation to which Paul
addresses it.
In 1 Tim. 1.3-11 the picture that emerges from the tradi-
tional abuse is that Paul's opponents aspired to be teachers of
the law. Their teaching, however, was false and incompetent
(1.7). It is not clear whether these people had institutional
positions of leadership or aspired to such a position. Fee asserts

1 Although 4.1 gives the impression of future conflict, the rest of the
epistle indicates that the conflict has already started. For various
explanations of this sort of predictive discourse see: Dibelius/
Conzelmann, p. 64; Jeremias, p. 22; Kelly, p. 94; Lock, p. 47; Brox,
p. 167; Hanson, p. 87; Spicq, 1.495.
2 D. Verner, The Household of God, SBLDS 71 (Chico: Scholars Press,
1983), p. 76, argues that it is not clear whether the false teaching is
within or outside the community. As he later notes (pp. 179-80),
however, there are indications that there is a leadership struggle in
the church between the false teachers and the recognized leader-
ship. This would indicate the the false teachers were members of
the community. See also Fee, p. xxi.
3 This fact has led some scholars to question the epistolary character
of the Pastorals. That is, rather than reflecting a particular situa-
tion, the Pastorals present general criteria of orthodoxy. See R. Kar-
ris, The Background and Significance of the Polemic in the Pas-
toral Epistles', JBL 92 (1973), pp. 549-64; also Dibelius-Conzelmann,
pp. 5ff. Obviously, a large portion of this argument turns on the way
one defines an epistle. For our purposes, however, we need not
answer the question of the particularity of the situation envisaged in
the Pastorals. We are primarily interested in the cogency of the
argument of 1 Timothy on its own terms, which is a separate issue.
This seems to be Verner's point on p. 115.
4 See Karris, pp. 551ff.
 8. The Function of 1 Timothy 3.16b 111

that these people were elders in the church.1 The text, how-
ever, is not completely clear on this. Verse 3 identifies the false
teachers as certain people, not certain elders, overseers or dea-
cons.
Verner notes that in a similar description of the false teach-
ers in Titus they are called rebellious (GCVOTCOTCCKTOI, 1.10).2 He
tries to show that this description indicates that the false
teachers are a subordinate group challenging the established
leadership of the church.3 If one based this view solely on the
word dvuTtoTccKToi it would be a highly suspect position in the
light of the very general way in which this word is used in Tit.
1.6, 9. On the other hand, if this scenario is posited, it would
account for several aspects of 1 Timothy. First, such a situa-
tion would account for the emphasis on submission to
recognized authority figures in 2.8ff.; 5.1-3, 19; 6.1-2.4
Secondly, the emphasis on the proper status and qualifications
for leaders would be part of a purposeful attempt to support
the legitimacy of the established leadership in the face of an
attempt by a subordinate group to increase their own
standing. In addition, if one remembers that the traditional
polemic found in the Pastorals was originally developed to
undermine the challenge of the sophists to the established
philosophers,5 it would make sense that, in a similar situation
in the church, Paul would take a similar approach.
All this would indicate that the false teachers primarily
came from a subordinate group in the community seeking to
increase their status.6 This, of course, does not rule out the
possibility that some among the established leaders also

1 See Fee, p. xxi.

2 See Verner, p. 179. This word does not appear to be a part of tradi-
tional polemic abuse.
3 See Verner, p. 179.
4 The particular commands to women in 2.8ff. may well reflect the
success that the false teachers had among women who were inter-
ested in improving their status in the community by undermining
the established leaders. See Karris, p. 563; Dibelius/Conzelmann,
p. 65; Verner, pp. 178-80.
5 See Karris, p. 551.
6 Verner, p. 180, thinks that this may well account for its popularity
among women.
178 The Story of Christ in the Ethics of Paul

ascribed to this teaching, but it would suggest that it was not

confined to certain elders as Fee thinks. 1 While this sort of sit-
uation may account for the appearance of traditional polemi-
cal forms, and for Paul's attack on the integrity and compe-
tence of the false teachers, it does not give us much indication
of what they taught.
The use of the terms (ivGoi m i yevea^oyiai (1.4; cf. also 4.7),
vo|io8i8daicata)i (1.7), and 'IODSOUKOI HA>0OI in Tit. 1.14 reflects
the Jewish nature of the teaching.2 The lack of elaboration of
these relatively elastic terms, however, gives little insight into
the role Judaism played in the false teaching. 3 So, while we
have some idea of Paul's view of the integrity and competence
of the false teachers, some general references to a possible
connection with Judaism, along with a hypothesis about the
role they may have played in the community, the only
substantive picture we have of their teaching is found in 4.1-5.
Without entering into a detailed discussion of this passage
yet, we can say at this point that the prohibitions concerning
marriage and the eating of certain foods indicate that the false
teachers practice a certain degree of asceticism.4 In Colossians
we can see that the false teachers' ascetic practices were
directed to a particular end (fulness). Part of Paul's polemic
addresses the reasons for pursuing this end. In 1 Timothy this
is not the case. We have no indication of the ends to which the
false teachers' asceticism leads. The false teachers may well
have relied on their asceticism as a mark of their super-
spirituality or their higher level of religious experience (as in
Colossians), and used this as a basis for their claim to a higher
status in the community.5 As Paul makes no link, however,

1 See Fee, p. xxi; cf. Verner, pp. 179-82.

2 See Hanson, 1982, p. 58; Kelly, p. 48; Dibelius/Conzelmann, pp. 16ff.;
Karris, p. 562; A. Lemaire, 'Pastoral Epistles: Redaction and Theol-
ogy*, BTB 2 (1972), p. 35. This is also supported by several references
to the OT (cf. 2.13ff.; 5.18-19).
3 See C.K. Barrett, 'Myth and the New Testament', ExpT 68 (1957),
pp. 345-48, 359-62; also Spicq, 1.93-103.
4 See Dibelius/Conzelmann, p. 65; Kelly, p. 11; Brox, pp. 37ff.; Spicq,
1.497; Jeremias, p. 22.
5 See W.L. Lane, '1 Tim. iv.1-3. An Early Instance of Over-Realized
Eschatology', NTS 11 (1964), pp. 164-66, who links the false teachers'
 8. The Function of 1 Timothy 3.16b 179

between the aspirations of the false teachers and their

practices this possibility must remain at the level of
supposition.
From Paul's attack on these practices we will show that he
is not so much concerned with the ends achieved by asceticism
as with the anti-materialist stance inherent in asceticism.
Brox claims these ascetic practices reflect a Gnostic attempt to
overcome the separation of God from the material world.1 One
would have to agree that the anti-materialist views of reli-
gious asceticism are primarily founded on the desire to over-
come the constraints on a knowledge of God imposed by one's
existence in the material world.2 This sentiment, however, is
by no means confined to one religious group, as Brox seems to
imply.3
In addition, we have no indication of why God was believed
to be removed from creation. We lack some account of why
God was seen to be separated from creation that would help us
understand why asceticism was a part of the false teaching.
Some such account seems to be a piece of knowledge common
asceticism in 4.1-3 to their belief that the resurrection had already
occurred (cf. 2 Tim. 12.18). This possibility would be more convinc-
ing if Lane could show that Paul attacks the ascetics in terms of the
future nature of the believer's resurrection. (The reference in 4.8
which Lane points to is not a direct attack on the false teachers.) On
the contrary, Paul attacks the ascetics by referring to the goodness of
creation (cf.4.4-5 and our discussion below).
1 See Brox, pp. 34ff.; also Spicq, 1.495; Jeremias, p. 22; J.L. Houlden,
The Pastoral Epistles (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1976), p. 87.
2 See M. Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism, trans. J. Bowden
(Philadelphia: Fortress, 1974), p. 213; also M.P. Nilsson, Geschichte
der griechischen Religion, 2 vols. (Munich: Beck, 1950), 2.399, 577,
687; H. von Campenhausen, 'Early Christian Asceticism', in Tradi-
tion and Life in the Church, trans. A.V. Littledale (Philadelphia:
Fortress, 1968), p. 103. This anti-materialist view could be contrasted
with the person who adopts ascetic practices to serve God better not
because the material world is evil (cf. Paul's comments on marriage
in 1 Corinthians 7).
3 See, for example, Jos. Ant. 18.19f.; War 2.119ff.; Acts of Paul 3
(presumably the sort of asceticism Paul preaches in ch. 3 is different
from that of the false teachers in Corinth [ch. 8] in that it is directed
to different ends); Hipp. Ref. 7.17ff. (citing the views of Empedocles);
Iren. Adv. Her. 1.23.5; 24.1; 28.1.
180 The Story of Christ in the Ethics of Paul

to Paul and his original readers, underlying 1 Tim. 3.16, but

hidden to us. What we can try to show is that, however the
ascetics account for the separation of creator from creation,
Paul counters it with an affirmation of the goodness of God's
creation. This affirmation is supported by a story about Christ
(3.16b) which tells of God's universally recognized vindication
of the one who appeared in the realm of the flesh. From this
affirmation Paul can draw an analogy to the practice of his
audience. If God vindicated Christ's appearance in the realm
of the flesh, then by analogy followers of Christ should be able
to take part in the material world with the confidence that the
same God will also vindicate them. This confidence is, in part,
justified by the fact that God's vindication of Christ has been
made known in both heaven and earth, it is recognized
throughout the cosmos. These two elements (the assertion of
the goodness of creation and the story about Christ in 3.16b)
provide Paul with ammunition with which to combat the
ascetic practices of the false teachers. To show this we will
trace Paul's argument from 3.14 to 4.5.

The Argument of 1 Timothy 3.14-4.5

In 3.14 we find a transition in the thought of the epistle.1 The
great emphasis of 3.14ff. on truth and true practice provides a
basis from which to combat the falsehoods of 4. Iff. Yet scholars
have not made much of an effort to show how the argument
moves from 3.14 to 4.5. By following this part of the argument
we can begin to see the role 3.16b plays in the epistle.
Most commentators hold the view that 3.14 cannot reflect
an actual situation.2 It is not, however, essential for the intelli-
gibility of the argument that this verse actually reflect histori-
cal reality. Rather, in terms of the epistle's argument, this
verse provides the rationale for the epistle.3 Paul is writing
because he hopes to come soon, but cannot be sure that he will

1 See Dibelius/Conzelmann, p. 60. Kelly, p. 86, claims that this pas-

sage provides a 'theological basis for the rules and regulations of the
epistle*.
2 See Brox, p. 117; Hanson, 1982, p. 82; Dibelius/Conzelmann, p. 60;
Kelly, p. 42; Spicq, 1.465.
3 See Verner, pp. 107ff.
 8. The Function of 1 Timothy 3.16b 181

be able to. Hence, the need for written instructions.1 The goal of
these instructions is to inform Timothy how one should act in
the household of God.2 The use of dvaaxpecpco indicates that
these instructions are primarily concerned with practice. 3
Further, dvaaxpecpco indicates the activities which character-
ize one's existence and not merely isolated acts.4
The oiKoq Qeov is the realm in which these instructions are
practiced. It might be possible to read OIKO<;, in the light of the
metaphors cxvXoq and e8pa(coua, as a reference to a dwelling.5
This reading would indicate that these instructions are con-
cerned with behavior in the place of worship—which is clearly
not the case. Further, it is difficult to conceive of a structure as
a pillar and foundation of truth. On the other hand, in 3.4, 5,12
OIKOQ is used to describe a social entity, a household rather than
a dwelling.6 The OIKOC; Qeov in 3.15 is the "household of God",
and the issue with which the author is concerned is the way of
life which Christians follow as a part of this "household" \ 7
The household of God is further defined as the church of the
living God and the GXVXOC, m i e8pa{cojia of truth. The prob-
lematic word here is e8pa(co^a. This is, as far as we know, the
first occurrence of the word in Greek. Later occurrences of
this word indicate that when it is used in regard to a structure
it indicates a foundation or base.8 As v. 15 pairs £8pa{couoc with
cxvXoq it seems we have the sort of architectural context in
which the notion of a foundation or base would be relevant.
This reading is supported by the use of the possible cognate

1 Taking xaiixa as a reference to the whole epistle (with Brox, p. 156;

Kelly, p. 86; Spicq, 1.464).
2 While this may be the goal of all of the Pastorals, as Spicq claimed
(1.32), one would have to show this from an examination of all three
epistles and not merely from this verse.
3 See Verner, pp. 108-109.
4 See 2 Cor. 1.12; Eph. 2.3; Heb. 13.18; 1 Pet. 1.17; 2 Pet. 2.18. Also Ign.
Mag. 9.1; 1 Clem. 21.8; Hermas Mand. 11.12 (cited by Verner,
p. 109).
5 This is suggested as a possibility by Lock, p. 42; Dibelius/Conzel-
mann, p. 60; Hanson, 1982, p. 82. All of these reject this reading and
fail to cite anyone who actually supports it.
6 See Kelly, p. 87; Dibelius/Conzelmann, p. 60.
7 See Verner, p. 110.
8 See BGD, p. 218.
182 The Story of Christ in the Ethics of Paul

t§pao\ia in some versions of 1 Kgs 8.13.1 Further, 1QS 5.5 uses

a similar image of a 'foundation of truth' to refer to a social
entity. The image, then, is of the household of God, the church
of the living God, as a pillar and foundation of truth.
Hanson's attempts to move beyond this image to show that
this verse is a midrash on the Hebrew text of 1 Kgs 8.10-13
adds a level of speculation, complexity and abstraction to an
architectural metaphor that is relatively straightforward as it
stands. 2 The social entity which comprises the household of
God is a pillar and foundation of truth. In the context of a
polemic against teachers of falsehood it is reasonable to point to
one group (the household of God) as supporters of truth as
opposed to another group proposing demonic teaching. The
metaphor helps to demarcate the lines of battle.
In v. 16a the truth of which the household of God is the pillar
and foundation receives elaboration and definition. The verse
begins by asserting, 'and by common consent the mystery of
piety is great (mi 6M.oX,oyo-o|ievco^ niya eaxiv TO TTJQ euaePeiaq
M/oaxf|piov)\ In relation to 3.16b b\ioXoyov\iiva><; should not be
considered to be the introduction of a confession.3
Alternatively, the use of this term in 4 Maccabees may be
more relevant. Here 6n.ota>yoi)nivco<; is used three times, all in
connection with 6 evaePrig Xoyxciioc,.4 In each case
oiioXoyounivcix; is used polemically to assert the superiority of
rational piety over the passions. In these cases it would have
the force of 'demonstrably' or 'conclusively'.5 This seems
much closer to the use of oiio^oyo'o^evcog in 1 Timothy. Han-
son claims that the writer of the Pastorals had read
4 Maccabees and was using some of the vocabulary of this

1 See Spicq, 1.467; A.T. Hanson, Studies in the Pastoral Epistles

(London: SPCK, 1968), pp. 5-7.
2 See Hanson, 1968, pp. 7ff.
3 Against Michel, TDNT, 5.213. The adverb has a somewhat technical
meaning in stoicism, reflecting the idea of living in conformity with
nature. This, however, is clearly not the sense in which the word is
used here. See Epict. Diss. 3.1.25; also G. Bornkamm, 'Homologia:
Zur Geschichte eines politischen Begriffes', in Geschichte und
Glaube (Munich: Kaiser Verlag, 1968), pp. 152ff.
4 See 6.31; 7.16; 16.1; cf. also Hanson, 1968, pp. 21ff.
5 See Hanson, 1968, p. 22.
 8. The Function of 1 Timothy 3.16b 183

philosophical work to give his own writing an academic

flavor. 1 The author of 1 Timothy may well have known 4
Maccabees, but his motives in using o^o^oyo-u^evcoq are cer-
tainly lost to us.
In any case, whatever the origin of the vocabulary of 1
Timothy, our point is that the use of b\ioXoyo\)\iev(o<; in 3.16 is
different from that of 4 Maccabees and much more like
Josephus' use of the term. The writer of 4 Maccabees is
engaged in a sustained argument in which b\ioXoyo\)[iev(O(; is
used to assert a conclusion based on examples cited previously.
This is not the case in 1 Timothy. Paul cannot be asserting that
the mystery of piety is 'demonstrably' or 'conclusively' great.
Paul has not argued for this point; he has merely asserted it as
if it were a notion that would be readily agreed to. This is pre-
cisely the way Josephus uses o^o^oyoD^evcoc;. In Ant. 1.180 and
2.229 it indicates a notion that is accepted by common consent.
This seems to fit the context of 1 Tim. 3.16 much better than 4
Maccabees in spite of the latter's use of the term et>aepf|<;.
Calling this mystery of piety great (by common consent)
would indicate that, as in Philippians and Colossians, Paul
assumed the acceptability of the picture of Christ in 3.16b.
Hence, we can assume that christology proper was not a
major issue in Paul's conflict with the false teachers. Rather,
we will see that, as in Philippians and Colossians, Paul will rely
on this element of common ground to attack those putting
pressure on his audience. Less directly than Phil.2.5, but in a
similar way, this phrase serves to connect Paul's audience to
the story of Christ about to be presented.
The mystery of piety (n/uarripiov xr\q evce^eiac), which is
commonly recognized to be great, is generally understood to be
the same as the mystery of faith in 3.9.2 The content of this
mystery of piety is reflected in the revelation of Christ as it
unfolds in v. 16b, stressing the vindication of Christ's appear-
ance in the earthly realm and the universal recognition of this
event. As Paul turns from an explication of this truth, upheld

1 See Hanson, 1968, pp. 22f.

2 See Dibelius/Conzelmann, p. 61; Kelly, p. 89; Brox, p. 159; Hanson,
1982, p. 84. Cf., however, W. Foerster, 'EYZEBEIA in den Pastoral-
briefen', NTS 5 (1959), pp. 213-18, esp. 217.
184 The Story of Christ in the Ethics of Paul

by the household of God, to attack the practices of the false

teachers in 4.1-5, he will rely on this picture of Christ to draw
some analogous implications for the practice of the church.1
In 4.1-5 Paul's argument jumps from a poetic interpreta-
tion of traditions about Christ to a direct attack on the false
teachers. The prophetic style of v. 1 combined with the pres-
ence of the apostasy and false teaching gives the impression
that these 'later times' are now at hand. Kelly notes that 'the
belief that false teaching resulting in apostasy would have to be
reckoned with in the period before the parousia was deeply
embedded in primitive Christian thought'.2 The issue of
whether this is an actual prophetic word given at a particular
point in history, while legitimate, should not deflect attention
from the argument of the passage.3
Paul claims that those who fall away adhere to the spirit of
deceit and the teachings of demons propagated by those whose
consciences are seared.4 While Paul directs several insults at
this teaching it seems to be the practices resulting from the
teaching that are of most concern to him. These practices are
the prohibition of marriage and the demand that one abstain
from certain foods. There is general agreement that these
prohibitions are ascetic, reflecting the idea that existence in
the material world is a hindrance to either a knowledge of God
or redemption.5 Unfortunately, there is evidence that Chris-
tian, Jewish and pagan groups held anti-materialist views and
subscribed to ascetical practices. As we have noted, this makes

1 Kelly, p. 93, calls v. 16 a digression. We would like to show that the

specific comments Paul makes in regard to the practices of those
who teach falsehood depend on this 'digression' for some of their
force.
2 Kelly, p. 93; see also Mk 13.22; 2 Thess. 2.3, 11. This also seems to
have been a concern at Qumran (lQpHab 2.5f.).
3 See, for example, Hanson, 1982, p. 87; Kelly, p. 93.
4 J.M. Ford sees 4.1 as an attempt to refute the false teachers' claim to
be inspired by the Spirit CA Note on Proto-Montanism in the Pas-
toral Epistles', NTS 17 [1971], p. 340). Karris, p. 558, however, notes
parallels in the polemic of 2 Cor. 4.4; 11.3, 13-15 and Qumran (1QS
3.19-21; 1QH 4.9; CD 12.2-3) and calls this a traditional form of
argument.
5 See Kelly, p. 95; Brox, p. 167; Spicq, 1.497.
 8. The Function of 1 Timothy 3.16b 185

a precise identification of this group difficult. It does not, how-

ever, hinder us from understanding Paul's argument against
such practices.
Paul's argument begins to take shape at v. 3 when he claims
that God has created these things to be gratefully received by
the faithful ones who know the truth. The relative pronoun a
is generally taken to refer just to Ppcojiocia.1 This, of course, is
grammatically possible. It does, however, leave the prohibition
of marriage unanswered. Dibelius/Conzelmann argue that
this is because Paul's positive view of marriage is already clear
in 1 Timothy (cf. 2.15).2 While a positive view of marriage
might be inferred from Paul's earlier comments, the way in
which he makes these comments would not necessarily count
as an argument against those who would prohibit marriage as
detrimental participation in the material world. The issue
here is not whether marriage is good or eating certain foods is
good. These are just symptoms of a view that the material
world is a hindrance to knowledge of God. Paul recognizes
that the essential goodness of creation is the crucial issue here
and carries out his argument at that level. This is why we
would argue that even if the relative pronoun a solely refers to
PpcopxxTa,3 the argument of the passage must, by implication,
be extended to marriage.
Further, the use of KT{£CD would not necessarily rule this out.
The verb is never used elsewhere to speak of God creating
marriage, but one must admit that the verb is never used
elsewhere to speak of God's creation of food. In fact, elsewhere
ppcona is never created; it is made (2 Kgs 13.5f.), collected (Jos.
Ant. 3.29) and given (Prov. 31.15), but not created. Therefore,
this is a new application of the verb in regard to both nouns.
Clearly the notion of God creating makes sense in regard to
food, but does it not also make sense in regard to marriage,

1 See Kelly, p. 96; Dibelius/Conzelmann, p. 64.

2 See Dibelius/Conzelmann, p. 64.
3 Under these circumstances it may well be possible that the relative
a is used to refer to marriage and foods. While this is not likely on
purely grammatical grounds, it may be justified by the logical
demands of the context. Lock, p. 48, notes that this is a possible read-
ing, while B.S. Easton, The Pastoral Epistles (London: SCM, 1948),
p. 139, accepts this view without reservation.
186 The Story of Christ in the Ethics of Paul

particularly in the light of a passage like Mt. 19.3-12? Hence, it

seems reasonable to take the argument of w . 3ff. as applying
to both of these ascetical practices (as well as, perhaps, to
asceticism in general).
The argument against these practices notes that these
things are God's creation to be shared gratefully by those who
know the truth. The notion that these things are God's cre-
ation is a powerful claim for their acceptability. This claim
goes some way towards supporting Paul's audience in their
struggle against the asceticism of the false teachers. Such a
claim, however, would have to be supplemented if such teach-
ers held to some form of the view that, in spite of any original
virtue inherent in the material world as the result of God's
creative activity, the material world at present had become
estranged from God. For someone holding this view, the point
would be that the creator had become estranged from creation
to such a degree that existence in the material realm is a posi-
tive hindrance to knowledge of the creator. Therefore one
must engage in ascetic practice to overcome the separation
from God inherent in one's existence in the material world.1
We have already noted that some notion of the questionable
nature of the realm of the flesh underlies 3.16b. This would
indicate that some view of the estrangement between creator
and creation was held by Paul's audience (if not Paul himself).
If, however, Christ's appearance in the material realm was
vindicated by God, then Christ's existence in the material
realm was not an insuperable barrier between him and God.
Further as the rest of 3.16b indicates, this fact is recognized in
heaven and earth. Those who recognize this truth about
Christ can then draw an analogy to their own existence in the
material world to see that it is not the sort of necessary barrier
to a knowledge of God that needs to be overcome through
ascetic practices. Clearly, the believer's earthly existence will
not be vindicated in exactly the same way Christ's was. Paul's
point would be that the similarity between Christ's appear-
ance in the earthly realm and the believer's earthly existence
is such that the believer can confidently expect to be similarly
vindicated without recourse to asceticism. This confidence

1 See Brox, p. 167; also p. 179 nn. 2, 3 above.

 8. The Function of 1 Timothy 3.16b 187

would, in part, be based on the fact, related in 3.16b, that

Christ's vindication is recognized by heaven and earth.
This seems to be the point Paul makes in 4.3, asserting that
those who understand the truth can partake of God's creation.
The truth mentioned here reflects the truth mentioned in 3.15
which is most immediately expressed in 3.16b.1 This verse
relates that the appearance of Jesus in the earthly realm was
vindicated by God and recognized throughout the cosmos.
God's activity in Christ affirms Christ's presence in the mate-
rial world as does the recognition this vindication receives in
heaven and earth. On analogy with Christ's activity, those
who understand this truth can also positively enjoy God's
creation knowing that it is not an insuperable barrier to God.
The God who vindicated Christ's appearance in the earthly
realm can also vindicate the faithful believer without the need
for asceticism.
The ascetics' claims presuppose a story in which God is sep-
arated from creation. To counter this, Paul employs a story of
how God vindicated the earthly existence of Christ (3.16b) to
supplement his assertion that God has created the world.
These dual assertions provide Paul's audience with the rea-
sons they need to address the asceticism of the false teachers.
Paul's claim does not necessarily limit participation in
marriage and the eating of certain foods to believers. Rather,
this passage is polemically addressing believers who are under
pressure to adopt an ascetic lifestyle. Those faithful ones who
understand the significance of God's creative act and the truth
encapsulated in the tradition about Christ in 3.16b will realize
that, by analogy with that normative tradition, they need not
adopt an ascetic lifestyle. The whole issue of participation in
God's creation is formulated with this particular situation in
view, and should be read in this light.
Based on this, v. 4 goes on to extend the argument about
particular ascetic practices to cover one's attitude to all of
creation. One might question whether the claim in v. 4 that all
creation is good is not in itself an answer to the ascetic, false
teachers.2 To answer this one has to clarify the force of the

1 See Lock, p. 44.

2 See Kelly, p. 96.
188 The Story of Christ in the Ethics of Paul

phrase concerning the goodness of God's creation. If this

phrase conveys an assertion about the goodness of the world as
God created it,1 then this verse alone would not suffice for
Paul's audience. For Paul's audience, the present goodness of
creation is in question. Therefore, a reference to the original
goodness of creation on its own would not be sufficient. An
ascetic might well concede that, in the light of Gen. Iff. or Sir.
39.16, all of creation was good at a certain point in time. At any
number of points, however, the ascetic would claim that God
became separated from creation to the extent that ascetic
practices were now necessary to attain a knowledge of God.
There is the need for Paul to point out in the immediately pre-
ceding paragraph that Christ's appearance in the material
world received universally recognized divine vindication.
Here Paul can point to God's activity in Christ as related in
3.16b to support his claim that all God's creation is good.
On the other hand, one can read this phrase in v. 4 as an
assertion about the present goodness of creation without
specific reference to God's act of creation. In this case, the ref-
erence to God would emphasize God's present rule over cre-
ation and not God's role as creator. In fact, it might be argued
that this is the more precise way of rendering the phrase nav
Kiia^ia 9eoi) KCCA,6V (e.g. 'All of God's creation is good' as
opposed to 'Everything God created is good' [NEB]). In this
light, and in the light of the questionable nature of creation for
Paul's audience, such an assertion must draw its support from
the story of God's universally recognized activity in Christ in
3.16b, rather than an account of God's original act of creation.
That is, the only thing actually mentioned in the context of this
argument that could reasonably sustain Paul's claim about
the present goodness of creation is 'the truth' presented in
3.16b.
Verse 4 closes with a corollary to the notion that all of God's
creation is good. That is, 'nothing is to be thrown away if it is
1 Easton, p. 139, sees this phrase as a direct reference to Gen. 1.31.
Fee, p. 62, and Hanson, 1982, p. 88, are explicit in seeing this as a
reference to God's original act of creation. Kelly, p. 96, implicitly
presents this view by accepting the translation 'For everything
created by God is good'. See also Hasler's translation, 'Alles von
Gott Geschaffene ist gut' (p. 35).
 8. The Function of 1 Timothy 3.16b 189

received with thanksgiving'.1 Some scholars reject the notion

that e\>xccpi(ma signifies an attitude of thankfulness. Rather,
they claim that it refers to a specific form of gratitude
expressed in the grace said at meals.2 If this were the case it
would damage our view that the issues of marriage and food
are both in view here. There is, however, no particular lin-
guistic evidence to support this view. None of the NT uses of
£\)%apiGTia refer to grace said at meals (cf. 1 Tim. 2.1). All of
the Gospel examples cited by Kelly in which Jesus blesses food
use the verb eMoyeo).3 In addition, Paul uses £i>xccpi<ma in 1
Cor. 10.30 in regard to eating, but it is not clear that this is a
special reference to saying grace as opposed to a general atti-
tude of thankfulness. There is, then, no necessary reason to
read e\)%apiax(a in v. 4 as anything more than a general
attitude of thankfulness.
Verse 5 summarizes this notion, asserting that 'the creation
is made usable by the word of God and by prayer'.4 Here we
find further argument to persuade those who believe that the
present state of creation needs sanctifying before being used.5
The means by which the creation is made usable is through

1 The meaning of drcopAriTcx; in this context seems to be most like that

of Lucian, Timon 37, in which anofiXriioq has the sense of 'to be
thrown away*.
2 See Kelly, p. 96; Fee, p. 62; Brox, p. 169.
3 See Mk 6.41; 8.6; 14.22; Lk. 24.30. There is a variant reading in Mt.
24.26 using e\>xapiaxr|aa<; instead of e\)Xoyr\oa<;, but this has inferior
support.
4 The term dyidCexai here reflects the notion of making something
acceptable for use (cf. Exod. 29.37; Mt. 23.17, 19). It is not surprising
that the use of ayid^exai and dyid^co in this passage leads some
scholars to think of the eucharist in regard to these verses (e.g.
Hasler, p. 35). Hanson, 1968, pp. 97-109, presents the most detailed
account of the linguistic parallels between 1 Tim. 4.3-5 and descrip-
tions of the eucharist in the Didache and Justin. One must admit
that these linguistic parallels exist, but, as Hanson himself notes
(p. 98), these references in the Pastorals do not occur in eucharistic
contexts. This would indicate that these terms can be used in both
eucharistic and non-eucharistic contexts, and not, as Hanson
claims (p. 108), that the author of the Pastorals is using the exis-
tence of the eucharist as an argument against his opponents.
5 See Kelly, p. 96.
190 The Story of Christ in the Ethics of Paul

'the word of God and by prayer'. Scholars have not formed any
consensus regarding the use of the phrase 5ia ^oyoi) 9eou, and
all of the views seem arbitrary to some degree. There is a view
that this is a reference to Christ, the word of God in a Johan-
nine sense.1 Of all the views this seems the most arbitrary and
has been rejected by modern commentators.
Several hold the view that this phrase is a reference to a
blessing said over food, which included portions of Scripture.2
These scholars base this view on the contextual link between
e\)%apiax{a in v. 4 and Xoyoq 9eoi) m i evxeu^iq in v. 5. As they all
read eiixapiaxia as a reference to grace said over meals, the
context makes it logical to read Xoyoc, Qzov as a similar sort of
reference.3 We have already tried to undermine this reading
of euxotpuma. We will not repeat those arguments here, but
we will note that if this view is undermined, there is no real
reason to read Xoyoc; 0eo5 in this way. Further, as Fee notes,
Taul does not use the term word of God to refer to the OT as
an objective inscripturated reality*.4
Hanson views this phrase as a reference to Jesus' words
instituting the eucharist. 5 Clearly, there are some linguistic
parallels between this text and the vocabulary Justin uses in
his description of the consecration of the eucharist.6 There is,
however, no real justification for reading the meaning of the
words used by Justin in a eucharistic context back into 1
Timothy which, as Hanson admits, is not a description of the
eucharist.7
A further alternative is that ^oyo^ Qzov is a reference to the
creative word of God reflected in passages like Gen. 1.31; Ps.
33.6; Wis. 9.1. 8 In response to this view we would note that only
Wis. 9.1 uses ^6yo<; Geou. Further, in Wis. 9.1 God's word does

1 Lock, p. 46, suggests this view but does not uphold it.
2 See Dibelius/Conzelmann, p. 64; Brox, p. 169; Kelly, p. 96.
3 Interestingly, Jeremias, who seems to equate e\>xapiax(a with a
Tischgebet' does not viewtaSyoq0eo\> in this way (against Hanson,
p. 86). See Jeremias, p. 24.
4 See Fee, p. 62.
5 See Hanson, 1968, p. 104.
6 See Hanson, 1968, pp. 103f.
7 See Hanson, 1968, p. 98.
8 See Jeremias, p. 24. Houlden, p. 88, also supports this view.
 8. The Function of 1 Timothy 3.16b 191

not sanctify creation. It is the instrument of creation.1

On the other hand, the occurrences of X,6yo<; elsewhere in 1
Timothy indicate that'kjoyoqQeox> is a traditional teaching or
proclamation. 2 More specifically, the phrasetaSyog0eoC, both
in 2 Tim. 2.9 and Tit. 2.5, seems to be teaching about Christ. 3
To take 'word of God' in 1 Tim. 4.5 in this way would be
supported, then, by both the use of AxSyoc; in 1 Timothy and the
use of X6yo<; 6eo\) elsewhere in the Pastorals. While there is
linguistic evidence for reading 'word of God' this way, would it
make sense to do so in this context? Claiming that creation is
rendered usable by the teaching about Christ would indicate
that Paul is alluding to the story of Christ narrated in 3.16b.4
This argument provides Paul with a complementary element
to his assertions about the goodness of the God's world in v. 4,
affirming the goodness of creation as it stands now in the light
of Christ's activity. That is, the teaching about Christ's
appearance in the earthly realm and subsequent vindication
supports the claim that God's creation is good. The additional
mention of prayer emphasizes the general attitude of thank-
fulness which believers are to have as they partake of cre-
ation.5

1 A final alternative view is that the 'word of God' is an allusion to the

word God spoke in Gen. 1 that all creation was good. This is
supported by Fee, p. 63, and Houlden, p. 88. This possibility,
however, opposes the linguistic evidence regarding the use of A.6yo<;
in 1 Timothy and Xoyog Seofi in the Pastorals (see below). The option
also fails to answer the question regarding the present state of
creation.
2 See 1.5; 3.1; 4.6; 5.17; 6.3. In 5.17 and 6.3 A,6yo<; is explicitly linked to
8i5aoKaA.(a. The occurrence of Xoyo^in 4.12 is usually understood to
be a reference to Timothy's speech. The context, however, could lead
one to view this speaking in the light of Timothy's ministry of
'exhortation and teaching'. This use of A.6yo<; is also found in 2 Tim.
1.13; 2.9, 11, 17 (for false teaching); 4.2; Tit. 1.3, 9; 2.5; 3.8.
3 The NEB translates the phrase 'the Gospel' in Tit. 2.5.
4 Although general teaching may be in view here (cf. Hasler, p. 35),
3.16b is the nearest explicit example of that teaching and is relevant
to the point at issue.
5 The contextual link between euxapuma and wxev^iq seems generally
accepted. See Jeremias, p. 24; Kelly, p. 97; Dibelius/Conzelmann,
p. 64 n. 5. The various uses of evTcu^iq make it clear that there is no
192 The Story of Christ in the Ethics of Paul

In 4.6 Paul moves on to offer other advice to Timothy

regarding Timothy's faith and practice before making further
comments concerning the life of the church. Paul picks up his
dispute with his opponents again in 6.2ff. One might read his
statements about sound teaching in 6.3 as an allusion to the
specific teaching in 3.16b. These statements, however, would
simply place 3.16b within the realm of the sound teaching
Timothy should uphold. They do not reflect on the actual con-
tent of 3.16b.
We would conclude, then, that the primary role of the story
of Christ narrated in 3.16b is to support the argument of 4.1-5.
It does this by providing a commonly accepted (oixoXoyoD^e-
vcog) interpretation of the universally recognized divine vindi-
cation which Christ's appearance in the realm of the flesh
received. By analogy, then, Paul's audience, as followers of
Christ, can view their own existence in the realm of the flesh
as something which God will vindicate without the need for
asceticism.

Can the Function of 1 Timothy 3.16b be Described in Terms of

Exemplars'?
As we mentioned at the start of this Chapter, the role of 3.16b
in the argument of the epistle is not explicitly indicated as it is
in the cases of Phil. 2.6-11 and Col. 1.15-20. We have tried to
show, however, that in a situation in which the present
goodness of creation is in question, Paul requires some sort of
account about how the gap between creation and creator can
be bridged if he is to counter the claims of the ascetic false
teachers. The story of Christ in 3.16b is one such account. In
fact, it is the only concrete expression of such an account in the
epistle. It seems reasonable to assume, then, that it is this par-
ticular account on which Paul relies in his argument with the
false teachers. The issue we must now address is whether one
can use a term like exemplar to describe the role that 3.16b
plays in the argument of the epistle.
Without question this verse is a concrete formulation which
is normative for Paul's audience. The term

more necessary link between this word and 'grace said over meals'
than with evxapumot. See 1 Tim. 2.1; cf. also BGD, p. 268.
 8. The Function of 1 Timothy 3.16b 193

indicates this. Because of the very real differences between the

story narrated in 3.16b and the situation of Paul's audience,
Paul must present the similarity-in-difference between the
situation of 3.16 and that of his audience if he wishes to apply
that concrete story to the life of the church. This requires the
use of analogy. Briefly, Paul claims that if Christ's appearance
in the questionable realm of the flesh received universally rec-
ognized divine vindication, then, analogously, Paul's audience
can confidently expect God to vindicate their existence in the
material realm. Clearly, believers cannot expect the same sort
of glorious vindication Christ received. Nevertheless they can
be confident, as followers of Christ, that God will overcome any
barrier that existence in the material realm raises for a
knowledge of God. Such confidence can be based on the uni-
versal recognition of what God did in Christ. It will be clear
that this is not the same sort of analogy that Paul has drawn in
Philippians and Colossians. This would not, however,
undermine any description of the function of this passage in
terms of exemplars. The vital point for such a description is
that analogy is the means of reasoning required to move from
exemplar to situation, not that the analogies are all of the same
type and of equal strength.
As was the case with Colossians, Paul has focussed on a key
theme of 1 Tim. 3.16b in the analogy he draws. This theme is
derived from the first two lines of 1 Tim. 3.16b. As with
Colossians, however, this does not mean that the rest of the
passage is superfluous in the argument of the epistle, nor does
it undermine our claim that 3.16b functions as an exemplar.
The universal recognition of Christ's vindication supports
Paul's claims in regard to Christ's vindication by providing a
host of witnesses. Paul's is not an idiosyncratic view. More
importantly, the heavenly and earthly recognition of God's
vindication of Christ provides this event with its particular
significance. It is a point at which the gulf between heaven and
earth is bridged. The universal recognition of God's
vindication of Christ is proof that in the Christ-event God
overcame the barrier between material existence and
heavenly status. This recognition provides those who are in
Christ with the confidence they need to enjoy their material
existence, knowing that, on analogy with God's activity in
194 The Story of Christ in the Ethics of Paul

regard to Christ, such existence will receive heavenly

vindication. While these latter four clauses are not employed
in Paul's argument with the same force as the first two
clauses, they do play an essential supporting role in the
concrete formulation comprising 1 Tim. 3.16b. Therefore, as it
is this normative concrete formulation which Paul extends by
analogy to address the specific situation faced by his audience,
we feel justified in using a term like exemplar to describe the
function of 1 Tim. 3.16b in the argument of the epistle.
With this discussion of the function of 1 Tim. 3.16b in the
argument of the epistle we come to the end of the exegetical
part of this study. In the following section we will attempt to
summarize our findings and to draw some conclusions from
them.
 Chapter 9

CONCLUDING COMMENTS

Neither Christology nor Soteriology

Perhaps we should begin by reiterating a point we have made
in regard to each individual passage. That is, Paul makes no
attempt to justify the pictures of Christ narrated in each
hymnic passage against any competing picture of Christ. The
content of the hymnic passages is not in dispute. Paul takes it
for granted that Phil. 2.6-11, Col. 1.15-20 and (explicitly)
1 Tim. 3.16b are all acceptable interpretations of the traditions
about Christ to which each community was heir. Further, as
our previous discussions have shown, these passages are not
used to present pictures of Christ for their own sake. Paul does
not present these pictures as christological definitions to be
mastered by all believers, or to be used to counter alternative
views of Christ, in a manner similar to the later creeds.
Rather, our findings have indicated that Paul employs these
Christ-focussed passages to argue for ethical positions.
The role of such Christ-focussed reflection in Paul's epistles
stands in sharp contrast to the christological weight these pas-
sages have had to bear in the course of later Christian reflec-
tion. This is not to say that applying such christological inter-
ests to these passages is wrong a priori. It may, however, raise
the question of whether these texts should or can bear the
christological weight they have borne.1 This, of course, is a
complex and multi-layered question and we will be content
merely to raise it as an issue for further consideration.

1 See, for example, the role these passages play in recent debates
about the incarnation in such works as Dunn's Christology in the
Making; The Myth of God Incarnate, ed. J. Hick (London: SCM,
1977); Incarnation and Myth, ed. M. Goulder (London: SCM, 1979).
198 The Story of Christ in the Ethics of Paul

Neither are these texts 'soteriological'. They are not soterio-

logical because they do not reflect on the process by which
humanity attains salvation. We have already made this point
at length in regard to Phil. 2.6-11.1 We should add that when
Col. 1.18-20 speaks of cosmic reconciliation, sinful humanity
is, presumably, also included here. Our point, however, is that
this passage does not explain how humanity can partake of
this cosmic reconciliation. Such an explanation is only found in
1.21ff. Further, when 1 Tim. 3.16b says that what is 'preached
to the nations' is Relieved in the world' there is no indication of
how this relates to the means by which actual persons attain
salvation.

The Function of Hymnic Material in Paul and the Relation-

ships between Narrative and Ethics
Given, however, that these texts as they stand are not pre-
sented as repositories of christological definitions or soteriolog-
ical explanations, how should we conceive of their role in their
respective epistles? Perhaps we should begin by briefly review-
ing our conclusions in regard to each passage. Phil. 2.6-11 pre-
sents Christ as an exalted figure who humbles himself in obe-
dience to God. God vindicates Christ's obedience unto death by
exalting him to the highest of positions. Paul uses this story
about Christ to urge the Philippians to adopt an attitude of
steadfast obedience to the gospel and humble concern for one
another in the face of persecution. Paul claims that any
humiliation and suffering they encounter because of their
steadfast adherence to the gospel will be vindicated. This claim
is based on the precedent provided by God's action in the case
of Christ.
In Col. 1.15-20 Paul narrates a story about Christ, the
image of the invisible God. This Christ is the supreme source of
all fulness by virtue of his preeminence in 'all things'. This
story provides the basis for Paul's attack on certain false
teachers who wanted the Colossians to adhere to certain
beliefs and practices with the aim of attaining a fuller experi-
ence of God.
Finally, 1 Tim. 3.16b tells of the Christ's appearance in the

1 See above, p. 60 n. 6.
 9. Concluding Comments 199

realm of the flesh and God's universally recognized vindica-

tion of Christ in the realm of the spirit. Paul relies on this story
to counter the ascetic demands of certain false teachers.
Each of these passages narrates (albeit briefly and poeti-
cally) a story in which Christ is the main character. This
Christ is the foundation of the communities to which each
epistle is written. We have already noted, however, that there
is no compelling reason to assume these particular formula-
tions were already known to the communities to which they
were addressed. Nevertheless, because these communities are
founded on traditions about Christ, they stand in a distinct re-
lationship to each of the stories we have discussed. These sto-
ries are their stories to the extent that these communities are
founded on and draw their identity from traditions about
Christ and to the extent that these passages represent accept-
able interpretations of those traditions.
It becomes clear from our discussion of the function of each
passage that Paul's aim is to present each community with a
story of its founder—a story to which they are committed by
virtue of their community membership—and then to spell out
the implications of this story for their everyday faith and
practice (particularly in the light of the false teaching threat-
ening each community).
These texts provide concrete examples of the relationship
between narrative and ethics which is also a current topic in
scholarly debates in ethical theory.1 A cursory examination of
1 The most substantial work in this area is A. Maclntyre's After
Virtue, 2nd edn (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press,
1984). Maclntyre laid the theoretical ground work for After Virtue
in 'Epistemological Crises, Dramatic Narrative and the Philosophy
of Science', The Monist 60 (1977), pp. 453-72. For two incisive reviews
of Maclntyre's work see J. Stout, 'Virtue among the Ruins: An
Essay on Maclntyre', Neue Zeitschrift fiir systematische Theologie
und Religionsphilosophie 26 (1984), pp. 256-73, and L.G. Jones,
'Alasdair Maclntyre on Narrative, Community and the Moral Life',
Modern Theology 4 (1987), pp. 53-69. The primary proponent of these
views in Christian ethics is S. Hauerwas. See his Vision and Virtue
(Notre Dame: Fides, 1974); Character and the Christian Life (San
Antonio: Trinity University Press, 1975); Truthfulness and Tragedy,
with R. Bondi and D. Burrell (Notre Dame: University of Notre
Dame Press, 1977); A Community of Character (Notre Dame: Uni-
200 The Story of Christ in the Ethics of Paul

this issue, as it is seen by some ethicists, may well provide some

insights for understanding the function of hymnic material in
Paul.
Briefly, several ethicists have come to see that moral dis-
course does not draw its coherence from its relationship to
ahistorical, universally recognized concepts such as goodness
and justice. Rather, these concepts, and the moral discourse
which they sustain, are themselves sustained by the narra-
tives employed by any given community to render an account
of the way the world is and how the community fits into that
world.1 The intelligibility of any community's moral discourse
will, then, depend on the power of its narratives to provide a
truthful account of the community's existence and identity,
and on the community's faithfulness in ordering its own

versity of Notre Dame Press, 1981); 'Casuistry as a Narrative Art',

7^37 (1983), pp. 377-88.
This is not to imply that these narratives are necessarily straight-
forward. Their importance and meaning are always open to discus-
sion and dispute within the communities which accept them as
truthful accounts (see below, p. 201 n.3). This is particularly true in
the case of epistemological crises (Maclntyre, 1977, p. 455).
Nevertheless, these accounts must, at the end of the day, be
narrative accounts. This position is persuasively argued in
Maclntyre, 1977. To reproduce that detailed argument here would
take an undue amount of space. It may, however, be helpful to use
some of Paul's own terms to make this general point. Take, for
example, the statement, 'Jesus Christ is Lord'. Here we have a non-
narrative account of a foundational element in the tradition to
which Paul and his fellow Christians were heirs. This statement,
however, draws its coherence from a larger narrative account of the
life, death and resurrection of Jesus. As long as the understanding
of this statement remained unproblematic, Paul would be able to
concentrate on spelling out its ethical implications for any Christian
community that accepted this as a truthful account of the way the
world is. Should the meaning of this assertion ever be disputed, this
would constitute an epistemological crisis (on a small scale). Paul
would ultimately have to return to the narrative of the life, death
and resurrection of Jesus in order to make his view of this
statement intelligible before basing any moral demands on such a
statement. He could not simply repeat 'Jesus Christ is Lord' to a
group who did not understand this phrase in the same way as he
did and still expect agreement concerning its practical force.
 9. Concluding Comments 201

practice in a manner appropriate to such narratives.

In this light, much moral discourse can be seen as the
attempt to understand the practical force of one's convictions
about the way the world is.1 The practical force of a narrative,
however, is much more difficult to discern than the practical
force of a universal ethical principle. Hence, because the rela-
tionship between the narratives which a community tells
about the world (and its position in the world) and a particular
course of action is not necessarily self-evident, there is a need
for moral discourse, for narrative casuistry.
There is, however, no privileged method for insuring that
one will formulate this relationship adequately. One can only
judge such matters in the light of specific attempts to formu-
late the relationship between a community's narratives and
its ethical practices. On the other hand, we can say generally
that forging such a relationship will require a critical correla-
tion between an interpretation of a community's foundational
narratives, its concrete normative formulations and the
specific situation faced by each community.2
Broadly speaking, Paul's activity can be seen in this light.
That is, in deploying the hymnic passages as he does, Paul
makes a critical correlation between an interpretation of the
traditions to which he and his audience are heirs, cast in the
form of a narrative about Christ, and the specific situation
faced by each audience.3 In this sense the Paul of these epistles
1 See Hauerwas, 1983, p. 380.
2 This is also D. Tracy's view of what constitutes an adequate first
order theology. See Tracy, 1980, pp.59flf., 339-51, etc. Tracy makes
more explicit, but briefer comments about this activity in
'Lindbeck's New Program for Theology: A Reflection', Thomist 49
(1985), pp. 460-72, esp. p. 470.
3 In the case of Paul, there may be some ambiguity between the tradi-
tions about Christ, which he critically interprets in the form of the
hymnic passages under discussion, and each community's founda-
tional narratives. The communities Paul addresses are founded on
traditions about Christ. Ultimately, these traditions must have been
cast as narratives (see p. 200 n. 1 above). Paul's critical interpreta-
tions of these foundational narratives, represented by the hymnic
passages, are an attempt to understand what those foundational
narratives mean in a particular context. To the extent that these
hymnic passages are acceptable interpretations of Christ, they are
202 The Story of Christ in the Ethics of Paul

is a thoroughly contextual theologian. Each of the interpreta-

tions of Christ represented by the hymnic passages is rendered
and deployed in the light of a concrete situation (or, at least, in
the light of Paul's perception of the situation).
The tool which Paul consistently uses to make these par-
ticular correlations between tradition and situation is anal-
ogy.1 As we noted in Chapter 4, Tracy explains the workings of
analogy in the following way: 'Analogy is a language of
ordered relationships articulating similarity-in-difference.
The order among relationships is constituted by the distinct
but similar relations of each analogue to some focal meaning,
some prime analogue'.2 This is what Paul has done in each of
the cases we have examined. He has noted the similarity-in-
difference between an specific interpretation of traditions
about Christ—who is the founder and foundation of each
community—and the particular situation faced by that com-
munity. This perception on Paul's part is essential for the
hymnic passages to be useful in the particular contexts to
which he applies them. This is because the hymnic passages
on their own are not immediately relevant to the particular
situation of each community. Neither can the relationship
between the Christ of the hymnic passages and Paul's audi-
ences be isomorphic. As W. Meeks notes in regard to Pauline
theology in general, '... the implications of belief were not
automatic. The spelling out of the meaning of even so central a
belief as the resurrection of Christ was a dialectical process.'3
It depends on Paul to construct connections between the inter-
pretation of the tradition and the situation by drawing the
proper analogies. He does this by first providing a concrete
portrayal of Christ. He then sets it alongside the experience of
the church he is addressing and spells out the implications for
their practice as he sees them.

added to or revise the community's narratives.

1 Analogy, however, is not the only means at Paul's disposal for mak-
ing the sorts of correlations we are talking about (see below).
2 See Tracy, 1980, p. 408; also all of this chapter entitled 'A Christian
Systematic Analogical Imagination*.
3 See W. Meeks, The Social Context of Pauline Theology', Int 37
(1982), p. 275.
 9. Concluding Comments 203

Some Final Thoughts on Exemplars and their Relevance to

Paul
In the light of this general description, our more specific point
is that the Christ-focussed hymnic passages in Paul function
as exemplars in the sense we discussed in Chapter 4.1 They
are a concrete normative formulation which can be extended
by analogy to address particular situations by noting the simi-
larity-in-difference between the situation and the exemplar.
There is, however, no necessary reason to think that the sorts
of analogies one draws between exemplar and situation will be
the same. In fact, in the cases of the hymnic passages we have
discussed, the sorts of analogies Paul draws between each pas-
sage and the particular situations addressed in each epistle are
all different. This in no way undermines the application of the
term 'exemplar' to describe the function of these passages. The
important point to note here is that exemplars need to be
applied through analogy, not that the sorts of analogies used
will always be the same.
Clearly, there are differences between T. Kuhn's explication
of exemplars in his philosophy of science and Paul's use of
hymnic material. Kuhn's exemplar is likely to be a fairly fixed
standard experiment or formula applied by students learning
the practices of a specific science. The situation in which the
exemplar is applied is the classroom. Relatively clear stan-
dards exist for determining the success or failure of the stu-
dent's application of the exemplar.2
There is, however, no particular reason to think of each
hymnic passage as a problem or experiment, widely accepted
beyond the bounds of the community addressed in each epistle.
Rather, they are more like concrete accounts of a particular
situation. They all share a focus on Christ, but the content of
the passages differs markedly in each case. Nevertheless, they
are offered as (authoritative) interpretations of the traditions
about Christ, which Paul assumes will be accepted by each
community. As such they are able to serve as a normative
formulation in the sense of Kuhn's exemplar.
Further, the environment in which these exemplars are

1 See our original discussion of exemplars in Chapter 4.

2 Kuhn, pp. 187ff.
204 The Story of Christ in the Ethics of Paul

applied to specific issues is not the classroom, although it could

be argued that each community is engaged in a process of
learning what it means to be followers of Christ.1 Their con-
text, however, is the daily life of believers in the first century.
In spite of the differences between a scientific exemplar and
a story about Christ, we would claim that the faculty of judg-
ment and pattern of reasoning which allows one to apprehend
the analogous relation between exemplar and situation is the
same for Paul and the student of science. It is the virtue of
apprehending the appropriate similarity-in-difference that
makes for a correct, truthful, persuasive analogy between
exemplar and situation. To this extent, then, we would con-
clude that this notion of exemplar is a most adequate way of
conceiving of the function of the hymnic passages we have
discussed.
In the case of Paul, however, the questions of the appropri-
ateness, truthfulness and persuasiveness of the analogies must
remain open. While Paul was clearly the one to draw the
analogies, we are left wondering who provided the standards
for judging them. Was it Paul himself? the leaders of the
churches addressed? the community as a whole? What sort of
standard of truthfulness would have applied? If, as A. Verhey
asserts, the earliest Christian communities were 'reason-giv-
ing* and 'reason-hearing', then such questions may have been
decided in an open communal discussion, and for relatively
rational reasons.2 Unfortunately, we have no way of knowing
whether and on what basis each community accepted Paul's
interpretation of the tradition or his application of it to their
common life. One might claim, however, that the fact that
these particular epistles were incorporated into the Christian
canon indicates that some community of faith at some time

1 In this case, the difference between teacher and student, master

and disciple is their facility in effectively deploying exemplars. For
further reflections on this process see K.J. Surin, The Weight of
Weakness: Intratextuality and Discipleship', in The Turnings of
Darkness and Light (Cambridge: CUP, 1989), pp. 201-21.
2 See A. Verhey, The Great Reversal (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1984), p. 1. For a different view about the freedom and openness of
discussions in the early Christian communities, see £. Schussler
Fiorenza, In Memory of Her (New York: Crossroad, 1983).
 9. Concluding Comments 205

found these passages to offer both faithful interpretations of

traditions about Christ and to have made a truthful analogy in
applying them to the life of a particular community. This,
however, may be all that our present knowledge would allow
us to claim.
It may seem that linking Paul and T. Kuhn is a gross
anachronism. We would answer this charge on two levels,
historical and methodological. As a matter of historical fact the
type of practical reasoning outlined above goes back to Aristo-
tle and his concept ofphronesis.1 Its history extends through
Cicero, Aquinas, numerous Renaissance philosophers and into
present day hermeneutical philosophers and ethicists such as
H.-G. Gadamer and A. Maclntyre.2 In addition, the notion of
exemplars is deeply embedded in Christian theology from its
earliest stages.3
Even if this were not the case, we would argue there is no a
priori reason why Kuhn's notion of exemplars should not be
seen as heuristically useful for understanding a particular
aspect of the Pauline corpus, as long as certain qualifications
are recognized. We are not claiming that language about
exemplars and analogy would have been intelligible to Paul
and his audience. Rather, this is a description we have
imposed from our own contemporary perspective on our
exegetical findings. Our exegetical work in section II is an
attempt to understand Paul on his own terms. Our concluding
comments here are attempts to understand Paul on our
terms. For this to be the case, our formulations need only be

1 See, for example, Nicomachean Ethics 6.5 (1140a, 24ff.); 6.7 (1141b,
8ff.) and throughout Book 6 generally.
2 For a treatment of phronesis (prudence) from Aristotle to Hobbes,
see V. Kahn, Rhetoric, Prudence and Skepticism in the
Renaissance (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1985). See also H.-G.
Gadamer, Truth and Method (New York: Continuum, 1975),
pp.20ff., 278ff., 376f., 409; also 'Hermeneutics as Practical
Philosophy* in Reason in an Age of Science, trans. F. Lawrence
(London: MIT Press, 1981), pp. 88-112; and A. Maclntyre, 1984,
pp. 222ff.
3 See, for example, H.-R. Jauss, 'Levels of Identification of Hero and
Audience', trans. B. & H. Bennet, New Lit. Hist. 5 (1973), pp. 285-317,
esp. pp. 292-96.
206 The Story of Christ in the Ethics of Paul

intelligible to a modern reader and not to a first century

reader. Describing something on Paul's terms and describing
the same thing in contemporary terms are two separate tasks
(although the latter task may presuppose some degree of the
former). There is no a priori reason for ruling out a
description as invalid simply because it does not describe
Paul's discourse in Paul's terms.1
There is one further advantage in seeing the relationship
between the hymnic passages and their role in the argument
of their respective epistles in this way. It circumvents many of
the problems raised by Kasemann in regard to the notion of
imitatio. In Chapter 4 we noted Kasemann's objections to the
position that Phil. 2.6-11 posed an example to be imitated by
believers. Kasemann noted that it would be impossible for any
human to imitate Christ's activity in these verses, particularly
the exaltation of w. 9-11. Hence, Phil. 2.6-11 could have no
concrete ethical force for a believer (past or present).2 Our
emphasis on analogy, however, allows one to recognize the
very real differences between Christ and the believer, while
still allowing this story about Christ to exert some normative
force on the practice of the believer. This is achieved by noting
various points of similarity between the story of Christ and the
situation of the believer. We would claim that our view is both
a true description of the way Paul employs this narrative in
his admonitions to the Philippians and a useful way to under-
stand how contemporary believers might apply such a pas-
sage to their own practice.3

1 For a vigorous defence of the separability of these two issues in

response to the meaning/significance distinction of E.D. Hirsch
(Validity in Interpretation [New Haven: Yale University Press,
1967]) see R. Rorty, Texts and Lumps', New Lit. Hist. 17 (1985),
pp. 1-17.
2 See Chapter 4, pp. 79-81. One who has recently used Kasemann's
work as a starting point for discussing the notion of imitation in
regard to Rom. 6.1ff. and Phil. 2.6-11 is J. Webster, 'Christology,
Instability and Ethics', SJT 39 (1986), pp. 309-26. For our response to
Webster see S.E. Fowl, 'Some Uses of Story in Moral Discourse:
Reflections on Paul's Moral Discourse and Our Own', Modern The-
ology 4 (1988), pp. 293-309.
3 See our essay noted above for a proposal of how Paul's work might be
 9. Concluding Comments 207

We would, however, add two qualifications here. First, it is

highly doubtful that anyone ever argued for the type of imita-
tio Christi which Kasemann ridiculed, in which the relation-
ship between the believer and Christ is to be isomorphic. For
any notion of the imitatio Christi to have ever been coherent it
would have had to account for some minimal degree of differ-
ence between Christ and the believer.1
Secondly, the practice of offering an interpretation of tradi-
tions about Christ as an exemplar, which is extended analogi-
cally to the life of believers in order to guide their practice, is
not the only way in which a community's foundational nar-
ratives relate to ethics. One need only look as far as Rom. 6.1-
11 to see this. Here Paul uses a series of metaphors to narrate
how Christians have been transferred from the realm of sin
into Christ, and to identify what this new identity entails for
their relationship to the realm of sin.2

A Suggestion for Re-casting the Indicative I Imperative Prob-

lem in Paul
Notions such as exemplar and the general recognition of the
ways narrative relates to ethics may provide a new perspec-
tive on that old problem of the indicative/imperative relation-
ship in Paul, that is, the problem of how Paul's indicative, theo-
logical statements relate to his moral demands.3 It may well be
fruitful to recast the question in terms of how the various
foundational narratives Paul employs in his discourse relate to
his specific moral demands. In the case of our work, we have

employed in contemporary ethical reflection.

1 See V. Kahn's reading of the notion of imitatio Christi in Erasmus
(whose view was forged in his dispute with Luther). For Erasmus,
imitatio Christi entails the rhetorical principle of decorum, for it is
decorum that enables one to accommodate oneself to different
circumstances as Christ accommodated himself to this world. In
essence, 'an absence of Christ is required to make room for the
practice of interpretation and the ethical praxis that constitutes a
true imitatio Christi' (p. 92).
2 A closer exegesis of Romans 6 along these lines can be found in our
essay cited above.
3 See V.P. Furnish, Theology and Ethics in Paul (Nashville: Abing-
don, 1968), pp. 242ff., for a history of this debate.
208 The Story of Christ in the Ethics of Paul

shown how three (indicative) stories about Christ are related

to the moral demands (imperative) Paul makes of three par-
ticular churches. If this is to be done on a larger scale, several
considerations will need to be observed.
First, although our work has dealt with three cases in which
the relationship betwen narrative and ethics is similar, there is
no particular reason to think this relationship will be the same
in all cases. In fact, one need only look at a passage like Rom.
6. Iff. to see a different type of this relationship. Further, as our
work has tried to show, this relationship can only be fruitfully
explored by attempting to clarify as far as possible the particu-
lar aims towards which Paul's arguments move and by pay-
ing close attention to the discourse of each argument.1
By conceiving of the issue in this way, we may recognize
that there is no necessary tension inherent in the relationship
between Paul's indicative statements and his imperative
demands.2 Rather, Paul's ethics necessarily draw their force
and coherence from a common narrative tradition which he
shares with his audience.3 The only tensions will be of a con-
tingent nature, concerning the adequacy of the ways Paul
formulates any particular narrative and the ways he relates it
to a specific ethical demand. This, of course, will not make the
move from a description of Paul's moral discourse to pre-
scriptions for the contemporary believer's moral life any
easier. One will still have to take account of the particularity of

1 If Paul's writings are to be faithfully employed in ethical reflection,

people will have to find ways of taking account of these particulari-
ties. Some who have stressed this point are W. Schrage, Die
konkreten Einzelgebote der paulinischen Pardnese (Giitersloh:
Mohn, 1961); also Ethik des Neuen Testaments, NTD Erganzungs-
reihe 4 (Gbttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1982); V.P. Fur-
nish, The Moral Teaching of Paul (Nashville: Abingdon, 1979).
2 It is this presumed tension which Bultmann originally relied on to
set this indicative/imperative debate formally in motion. See 'Das
Problem der Ethik bei Paulus', ZTK 23 (1924), pp. 123-40. Bultmann
was responding directly to P. Wernle, Der Christ und die Siinde bei
Paulus (Leipzig: Mohr, 1897), and H. Weinel, Biblische Theologie
des Neuen Testaments, 3rd edn (Tubingen: Mohr, 1921).
3 As we indicated above (p. 200 n. 1, p. 201 n. 3), any particular
formulation of a tradition need not be cast as a narrative, but it must
be sustained by a narrative as the ground of the tradition.
 9. Concluding Comments 209

Paul's moral discourse, its historical distance from our own,

and all the other issues involved in using the Bible in ethics
today.
The Hymnic Passages as Pre-Formed Material
Our discussion of the function of the hymnic material in Paul
might lead one to the following conclusion: Since Paul does not
specifically take up each element of each hymnic passage, one
might be justified in assuming that these passages represent
pre-formed material which Paul incorporated as a whole into
his epistle even though parts of the material were not relevant
to the situations he v/as addressing. We have tried to show,
particularly in relation to the function of Col. 1.15-20 and
1 Tim. 3.16b, that, while only certain elements of each passage
are emphasized in the analogies Paul draws to the specific sit-
uations he addresses, the emphasized elements in each pas-
sage receive precision and elaboration from the passage as a
whole. That is, the intelligibility of the key phrases in each pas-
sage depends on the passage as a whole. Nevertheless, one
must admit that Paul could have (and elsewhere has) argued
his case more succinctly. Therefore it may be plausible to
think that, in the cases of the hymnic passages under consid-
eration, Paul has relied on pre-formed material. Given that
this is a plausible (but by no means necessary) conclusion, how
might it affect our findings?
First, we must note that any judgment about the prior
nature of these passages based on an examination of their
function is of a very different type from the sort of judgments
based on formal characteristics criticized in Chapter 2.1 Fur-
ther, the plausibility of a judgment based on function does not
make any formal reconstruction of these passages any more
or less convincing. That is, one has no more reason for calling
these passages hymns in the senses of the term discussed in
Chapter 2.
Secondly, the possibility that these passages existed before
they were incorporated into the epistle would not necessarily
alter our reading of each passage nor our discussion of its

1 All of the points in this section are made in greater detail in Chapter
2 and we would direct the reader's attention to the arguments there.
210 The Story of Christ in the Ethics of Paul

function within the argument of the epistle. As we pointed out

in Chapter 2, words and phrases only have meaning in the
specific contexts in which they are used. Further, these
meanings are independent of any meanings such words and
phrases may have had in another context. As we noted before,
however, the one exception to this is the case where previous
knowledge of a word, a phrase or a passage is presupposed by
both parties involved in a conversation. We have argued, how-
ever, that one's assertion that some piece of mutual knowledge
is assumed by the parties involved can be justified only if such
an assumption makes sense of something that would other-
wise not make sense, or if such an assumption makes more
comprehensive sense of a passage. Given that our exegesis of
each hymnic passage and analysis of its function is, at least,
plausible, we would argue that we have been able to make
relatively comprehensive sense of these passages in their pre-
sent context. Hence, one would not be justified in concluding
that these passages were already known to Paul's audience
(unless, of course, one were able to accompany that judgment
with a more comprehensive and cogent exegesis of the pas-
sages in their present context). If this condition of mutual
knowledge is not met, then there is no necessary reason for
any judgment about the previous life of these passages to affect
the particular readings we have given.

The Function of Hymnic Material and the Authorship of

Colossians and 1 Timothy
Another area to which our research may make a small con-
tribution is the question of the authorship of Colossians and 1
Timothy. It has not been necessary for our work to make any
judgments about the historical Paul. We do, however,
recognize that the authenticity of Colossians and 1 Timothy
are disputed points. Decisions about authorship are usually
finely balanced, being based on an accumulation of arguments
none of which is decisive on its own. Such arguments usually
include a comparison of an epistle's vocabulary and style with
so-called Pauline vocabulary and of an epistle's ideas or
themes with 'Pauline' themes or ideas.1 Without commenting

1 See Lohse on Colossians, pp. 84ft\, 177ff., and Dibelius/Conzelmann

 9. Concluding Comments 211

on the theoretical adequacy of these arguments, or how they

are applied to Colossians and 1 Timothy, we merely wish to
add another consideration to the scale. That is, our work has
shown a consistency in the way in which hymnic material
functions in Philippians and in the questionable epistles of
Colossians and 1 Timothy. In this respect, at least, there is a
line of continuity between these three epistles. What scholars
will make of this in regard to the question of authorship is an
issue for further research. It would have to be incorporated
into a larger argument, which takes other factors into
account. In the course of such an argument this continuity
may be just as attributable to a Pauline disciple, faithfully
replicating Paul's style, as to Paul himself.

Paul and the History of Practical Reason

Finally, an area of further research which might not be of
immediate interest to Biblical scholars, but could be of impor-
tance in current hermeneutical and ethical discussions, con-
cerns the notion of practical reason. We have indicated that
we think the function of the hymnic material in Paul can be
seen as an example of practical reasoning at work. It may well
prove interesting to try to situate Paul in a larger history of the
concept of practical reasoning from Aristotle to the present. All
of these areas of research, however, are projects for another
day.

on 1 Timothy, pp. Iff.

 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Alford, H., The Greek New Testament, vol. 3 (London: Rivingtons, 1865).
Andrews, M.E., 'Motive in the Ethics of Paul', JR 13 (1923), pp. 200-13.
Austin, J.L., How to Do Things with Words (Oxford: Clarendon, 1962).
Aytoun, R.A., The 10 Lucan Hymns of the Nativity in their Original Lan-
guage', JTS o.s. 18 (1917), pp. 274-88.
Balz, H.R., Methodische Probleme der neutestamentlichen Christologie,
WMANT 25 (Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 1967).
Bammel, E., 'Versuch zu Col. 1.15-20', ZNW 52 (1961), pp. 88-95.
Bandstra, A.J., The Law and the Elements of the World: An Exegetical Study
in Aspects of Paul's Teaching (Kampen: Kok, 1964).
Barr, J., The Meaning of "Mythology" in Relation to the OT, VT 9 (1959),
pp. Ml.
Barrett, C.K., 'Myth in the New Testament', ExpT 68 (1957), pp. 34548,359-62.
—The Epistle to the Romans, Black's NTC (London: A. & C. Black, 1957).
—The Pastoral Epistles (Oxford: OUP, 1963).
—A Commentary on the Second Epistle to the Corinthians, Black's NTC
(London: A. & C. Black, 1973).
—'Pauline Controversies in the Post-Pauline Period', NTS 20 (1973-74),
pp. 229-45.
Barth, G., Der Brief an die Philipper (Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 1979).
Barth, K., The Epistle to the Philippians (London: SCM, 1962).
Beare, F.W., A Commentary on the Epistle to the Philippians (London: A. &
C. Black, 1959).
Beasley-Murray, G.R., Baptism in the New Testament (London: Macmillan,
1962).
Bedale, S., The Meaning of KecpaXf| in Paul's Epistles', JTS n.s. 5 (1954),
pp. 211-15.
Beker, J.C., Paul the Apostle (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1980).
Benko, S. The Magnificat: A History of the Controversy', JBL 86 (1967),
pp. 263-75.
Berger, K., 'Hellenistische Gattungen im Neuen Testament', ANRW II. 25.2
(1984), pp. 1032-1431.
Best, E., One Body in Christ (London: SPCK, 1955).
Betz, H.D., Nachfolge und Nachahmung Jesu Christi im Neuen Testament
(Tubingen: Mohr, 1967).
Blanchette, O., 'Does the Cheirographon of Col. 2:14 Represent Christ Him-
self?', CBQ 23 (1961), pp. 306-12.
Bonnard, P., L'Epitre de Saint Paul aux Philippiens (Neuchatel: Delachaux
et Niestle, 1950).
214 The Story of Christ in the Ethics of Paul

Bornkamm, G., 'Zum Verstandnis des Christus-Hymnus Phil. 2,5-11', in

Studien zu Antike und Urchrlstentum (Munich: Kaiser Verlag, 1963),
pp. 177-87.
—T)er Lohngedanke im Neuen Testament', in Studien zu Antike und
Urchristentum, pp. 188-201.
—'Lobpreis, Bekenntnis und Opfer', in Apophoreta: Festschrift fiir Ernst
Haenchen, ed. W. Eltester, BZNW 30 (Berlin: Topelmann, 1964), pp. 46-
63.
—Taufe und neues Leben bei Paulus', in Das Ende des Gesetzes (Munich:
Kaiser Verlag, 1966), pp. 34-50.
—'Der Lobpreis Gottes', in Das Ende des Gesetzes, pp. 70-75.
—'Homologia: zur Geschichte eines politischen Begriffes', in Geschichte
und Glaube (Munich: Kaiser Verlag, 1968), pp. 140-56.
—Paul, trans. D.M.G. Stalker (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1971).
Bousset, W., Die Offenbarung Johannes (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck und
Ruprecht, 1906).
—Kyrios Christos (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1913).
Brewer, R., The Meaning of Politeuesthe in Philippians 1:2T, JBL 73 (1954),
pp. 76-83.
Brockington, L.H., 'The Septuagintal Background of the New Testament Use
of 56£a\ in Studies in the Gospels, Festschrift for R.H. Lightfoot, ed. D.
Nineham (Oxford: Blackwell, 1955), pp. 1-8.
Brown, R.E., The Birth of the Messiah (Garden City: Doubleday, 1977).
Brox, N., Die Pastoralbriefe (Regensburg: Pustet, 1969).
Bruce, F.F., The Epistle to the Colossiansf NICNT (London: Marshall, Mor-
gan and Scott, 1957).
Bultmann, R., 'Das Problem der Ethik bei Paulus', ZNW 23 (1924), pp. 123^0.
—Theology of the New Testament, trans. K. Grobel, 2 vols. (London: SCM,
1952).
—'Der Begriff der Offenbarung im Neuen Testament', in Glauben und Ver-
stehen, vol. 3 (Tubingen: Mohr, 1965), pp. 1-34.
Burger, C, Schbpfung und Versohnung, WMANT 46 (Neukirchen:
Neukirchener Verlag, 1975).
Campenhausen, H. von, 'Early Christian Asceticism', in Tradition and the
Church, trans. A.V. Littledale (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1968), pp. 99-
122.
Carmignac, J., 'L'Importance de la place d'une negation: OYX APIIArMON
HrHZATO (Philippiens ii.6)', NTS 18 (1971), pp. 131-66.
Carr, W., Angels and Principalities, SNTSMS 42 (Cambridge: CUP, 1981).
Cerfaux, L., Christ in the Theology of St. Paul, trans. G. Webb and A. Walker
(New York: Herder and Herder, 1959).
Charlesworth, J.H., 'Prolegomena to a New Study of the Jewish Background
of the Hymns and Prayers of the New Testament', JJS 33 (1982), pp. 265-
85.
Childs, B., Myth and Reality in the Old Testament (London: SCM, 1960).
Cohen, T., 'Metaphor and the Cultivation of Intimacy', in On Metaphor, ed.
S. Sacks (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979), pp. 1-11.
 Bibliography 215

Collange, J.H., The Epistle of Saint Paul to the Philippians, trans. A.W.
Heathcote (London: Epworth, 1979).
Colpe, C, Die Religionsgeschichtliche Schule (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck und
Ruprecht, 1961).
Conzelmann, H., 1 Corinthians, Hermeneia, trans. J. Leitch (Philadelphia:
Fortress, 1975).
Craddock, F.B., 'All Things in Him: A Critical Note on Col. i.l5-20\ NTS 12
(1966), pp. 78-80.
Craven, T., Artistry and Faith in the Book of Judith, SBLDS 70 (Chico: Schol-
ars Press, 1983).
Cross, F.M., The Ancient Library at Qumran and Modern Biblical Study,
rev. edn (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980).
Cullmann, O., The Earliest Christian Confessions, trans. J.K.S. Reid
(London: Lutterworth, 1949).
—The Christology of the New Testament, trans. S. Guthrie and C. Hall
(London: SCM, 1959).
Dahl, N.A., 'Anamnesis', in Jesus and the Memory of the Early Church
(Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1976), pp. 11-30.
Davies, P.R., 1QM. The War Scroll of Qumran, Biblica et Orientalia 32
(Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1977).
Davies, W.D., Paul and Rabbinic Judaism, 4th edn (Philadelphia: Fortress,
1980).
Deichgraber, R., Gotteshymnus und Christushymnus in der friihen Chris-
tenheit (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1967).
Deidun, T.J., New Covenant Morality in Paul, Analecta Biblica 89 (Rome:
Biblical Institute Press, 1981).
Delling, G., 'Zum gottesdienstlichen Stil der Johannes Apokalypse', NovT 3
(1959), pp. 107-37.
Dibelius, M. and H. Conzelmann, The Pastoral Epistles, Hermeneia, trans.
P. Buttolph and A. Yarbro (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1972).
Dreyer, A.J.G., An Examination of the Possible Relation between Luke's
Infancy Narrative and the Qumran Hodayot (Amsterdam: Rotext,
1962).
DeVries, S., 'Syntax of Tenses and Interpretation in the Hodayot', RQ 19
(1965), pp. 375-414.
Dinkier, E., 'Zum Problem der Ethik bei Paulus', ZTK 49 (1952), pp. 167-200.
Dodd, C.H., The Epistle to the Romans, Moffatt NTC (London: Hodder and
Stoughton, 1932).
—Gospel and Law (Cambridge: CUP, 1951).
—'ENNOMOI XPIITOY', in Studia Paulia in Honorem Johannes de Zwaan,
ed. J.N. Sevenster and W.C. van Unnik (Haarlem: Bohn, 1953), pp. 96-
110.
Doty, W., Letters in Primitive Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1973).
Dunn, J.D.G., Christology in the Making (London: SCM, 1980).
Easton, B.S., The Pastoral Epistles (London: SCM, 1948).
Eltester, F.-W., Eikon im Neuen Testament, BZNW 23 (Berlin: Topelmann,
1958).
216 The Story of Christ in the Ethics of Paul

Eltester, W., 'Schopfungsoffenbarung und natiirliche Theologie im friihen

Christentum', NTS 3 (1956), pp. 93-114.
Enslin, M., The Ethics of Paul (New York: Harper Bros., 1930).
—and M. Zeitlin, The Book of Judith (Leiden: Brill, 1972).
Ernst, J., Pleroma und Pleroma Christi (Regensburg: Pustet, 1970).
Farris, S., The Hymns of Luke's Infancy Narratives: Their Origin, Meaning
and Significance, JSNTS 9 (Sheffield: JSOT, 1985).
Fee, G., 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus, Good News Commentary (San Francisco:
Harper and Row, 1984).
Feuillet, A., Le Christ Sagesse de Dieu (Paris: Gabalda, 1966).
Fiorenza, E. Schiissler, 'Wisdom Mythology and the Christological Hymns of
the New Testament', in Aspects of Wisdom in Judaism and Early
Christianity, ed. R. Wilken (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame
Press, 1975), pp. 17-41.
—In Memory of Her (New York: Crossroad, 1983).
Foerster, W., 'EYIEBEIA in den Pastoralbriefen', NTS 5 (1959), pp. 213-18.
Ford, J.M., 'A Note on Proto-Montanism in the Pastoral Epistles', NTS 17
(1971), pp. 33846.
Fowl, S.E., 'Some Uses of Story in Moral Discourse: Reflections on Paul's
Moral Discourse and Our Own', Modern Theology 4 (1988), pp. 293-309.
Francis, F. and W.A. Meeks, Conflict at Colossae (Missoula: Scholars Press,
1975).
Frankowski, J., 'Early Christian Hymns Recorded in the New Testament',
BZ 27 (1983), pp. 183-95.
Frei, H., The Identity of Jesus Christ (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975).
Fuller, R.H., The Foundations of New Testament Christology (London: Lut-
terworth, 1965).
—and P. Perkins, Who is This Christ? (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983).
Furnish, V.P., Theology and Ethics in Paul (Nashville: Abingdon, 1968).
—The Moral Teaching of Paul (Nashville: Abingdon, 1979).
Gabathuler, J., Jesus Christus, Haupt der Kirche—Haupt der Welt: der
Christushymnus Kolosser 1,15-20 in der theologischen Forschung der
letzten 130 Jahre (Zurich: Zwingli, 1965).
Gadamer, H.-G., Truth and Method (New York: Continuum, 1975).
—'Hermeneutics as Practical Philosophy', in Reason in an Age of Science,
trans. F. Lawrence (London: MIT, 1981), pp. 88-112.
Georgi, D., 'Der vorpaulinische Hymnus Phil. 2,6-11', in Zeit und
Geschichte, Festschrift for R. Bultmann, ed. E. Dinkier (Tubingen:
Mohr, 1964), pp. 263-93.
German, H., 'Jesus ben Siras Dankgebet und die Hodayoth', Theologische
Zeitschrift 19 (1963), pp. 81-87.
Gibbs, J.G., Creation and Redemption, NovTSup 26 (Leiden: Brill, 1971).
Glasson, T.F., 'Two Notes on the Philippian Hymn (ii.6-11)', NTS 21 (1974-75),
pp. 133-39.
Gloer, W.H., 'Homologies and Hymns in the New Testament', Perspectives
in Religious Studies 11 (1984), pp. 115-32.
Glombitza, O., 'Mit Furcht und Zittern, zum Verstandnis von Phil. 2,12',
NovT 3 (1959), pp. 100-108.
 Bibliography 217

Gnilka, J., T>er Hymnus des Zecharias', BZ N.F. 6 (1962), pp. 215-38.
—Der Philipperbrief, Herders TKNT (Freiburg: Herder, 1968).
—Der Kolosserbrief, Herders TKNT (Freiburg: Herder, 1980).
Goguel, M., The Primitive Churchy trans. H.C. Snape (London: Allen and
Unwin, 1964).
Goulder, M., ed., Incarnation and Myth (London: SCM, 1979).
Gray, G.B., The Forms of Hebrew Poetry (London: Hodder and Stoughton,
1915).
Grelot, P., 'Deux expressions difficiles de Philippiens 2,6-7', Bib 53 (1972),
pp. 495-507.
Grenfell, B., and A. Hunt, Oxyrhynchus Papyri (Oxford: OUP, 1915).
Gryglewicz, F., 'Die Herkunft der Hymnen des Kindheitsevangeliums des
Lukas', NTS 21 (1975), pp. 265-73.
Gundry, R. 'The Form, Meaning and Background of the Hymn Quoted in 1
Tim. 3:16', in Apostolic History and the Gospel, Festschrift for F.F.
Bruce, ed. W. Gasque and R.P. Martin (Exeter: Paternoster, 1970),
pp. 202-27.
Gunkel, H. 'Die Lieder in der Kindheitsgeschichte Jesus bei Lukas', in Fest-
gabe von Fachgenossen und Freunden A. von Harnack zum 70.
Geburtstag dargebracht, ed. K. Holl (Tubingen: Mohr, 1921), pp. 43-60.
—'The Historical Movement in the History of Religion', ExpT 38 (1926-27),
pp. 532-36.
—and J. Begrich, Einleitung in die Psalmen (Gdttingen: Vandenhoeck und
Ruprecht, 1966).
—The Psalms, trans. T. Homer (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1967).
Gunther, J.J., St. Paul's Opponents and their Background, NovTSup 35
(Leiden: Brill, 1973).
Hall, B., 'Colossians 2:23', ExpT 36 (1924-25), p. 285.
Hamerton-Kelly, R.G., Wisdom, Pre-existence and the Son of Man, SNTSMS
21 (Cambridge: CUP, 1973).
Hartlich, C. and W. Sachs, Der Ursprung des Mythosbegriffes in modernen
Bibelwissenschaft (Tubingen: Mohr, 1952).
Hanson, A.T., Studies in the Pastoral Epistles (London: SPCK, 1968).
—The Pastoral Epistles, NCB (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982).
Hasler, V., Die Briefe an Timotheus und Titus (Zurich: Theologischer Ver-
lag, 1978).
Hauerwas, S., Vision and Virtue (Notre Dame: Fides, 1974).
—Character and the Christian Life (San Antonio: Trinity University Press,
1975).
—Truthfulness and Tragedy, with R. Bondi and D. Burrell (Notre Dame:
University of Notre Dame Press, 1977).
—A Community of Character (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press,
1981).
—'Casuistry as a Narrative Art', Int 37 (1983), pp. 377-88.
Hawthorne, G.F., Philippians, WBC (Waco: Word, 1983).
Hazelton, R., Theological Analogy and Metaphor', Semeia 13 (1978), pp. 155-
76.
218 The Story of Christ in the Ethics of Paul

Hegermann, H., Die Vorstellung vom Schopfungsmittler im hellenistischen

Judentum und Urchristentum (Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1961).
Henderson, I., Myth in the New Testament, SBT 7 (London: SCM, 1952).
Hengel, M., Judaism and Hellenism, trans. J. Bowden (Philadelphia:
Fortress, 1978.
—Crucifixion, trans. J. Bowden (London: SCM, 1977).
—'Hymn and Christology', in Studia Biblica 1978. III. Papers on Paul and
Other New Testament Authors, ed. E.A. Livingstone, JSNTS 3
(Sheffield: JSOT, 1978), pp. 173-97.
Hering, J., 'Kyrios Anthropos', RHPR 16 (1936), pp. 196-209.
Hick, J. ed., The Myth of God Incarnate (London: SCM, 1977).
Hockel, A., Christus der Erstgeborene (Diisseldorf: Patmos, 1965).
Hofius, O., Der Christushymnus Philipper 2,6-11, WUNT 17 (Tubingen:
Mohr, 1976).
Holladay, C, 'New Testament Christology: Some Considerations of Method',
NovT 25 (1983), pp. 257-78.
Hollenbach, B., 'Which Things Lead to the Fulfillment of the Flesh', NTS 25
(1978-79), pp. 254-61.
Holm-Nielsen, S., 'The Importance of Late Jewish Psalmody for the Under-
standing of Old Testament Psalmodic Traditions', StTh 14 (1960), pp. 1-
30.
—Hodayot—Psalms from Qumran (Aarhus: Universitetsforlaget, 1960).
Hooker, M., Jesus and the Servant (London: SPCK, 1959).
—Were There False Teachers in Colossae?', in Christ and Spirit in the New
Testament, Festschrift for C.F.D. Moule, ed. B. Lindars and S. Smalley
(Cambridge: CUP, 1973), pp. 315-31.
—'Philippians 2:6-11', in Jesus und Paulus, Festschrift for W.G. Kummel,
ed. E. Grasser and E.E. Ellis (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht,
1975), pp. 151-64.
Hoover, R.W., 'The Harpagmos Enigma: A Philological Solution', HTR 64
(1971), pp. 95-119.
Houlden, J.L., The Pastoral Epistles (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1976).
Howard, G., 'Phil. 2:6-11 and the Human Christ', CBQ 40 (1978), pp. 368-87.
Hunter, A.M., Paul and his Predecessors (London: SCM, 1961).
Hurtado, L.W., 'Jesus as Lordly Example', in From Jesus to Paul,
Festschrift for F.W. Beare, ed. P. Richardson and J.C. Hurd (Waterloo:
Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 1984), pp. 113-26.
Jaeger, W., 'Eine stilgeschichtliche Studie zum Philipperbrief, Hermes 50
(1915), pp. 536-53.
Jauss, H.-R., 'Levels of Identification of Hero and Audience', trans. B. & H.
Bennet, New Lit. Hist. 5 (1973), pp. 285-317.
Jeremias, J., 'Zur Gedankenfuhrung in den paulinischen Briefen', in Studia
Paulina, Festschrift for J. de Zwaan, ed. J. Sevenster and W.C. van
Unnik (Haarlem: Bohn, 1953), pp. 146-54.
—'Chiasmus in den Paulusbriefen', ZNW 49 (1958), pp. 145-56.
—'Zu Phil. ii,7: eamov eicevwaev', NovT 6 (1963), pp. 182-89.
—Die Briefe an Timotheus und Titus, NTD (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck und
Ruprecht, 1963).
 Bibliography 219

Jervell, J. Imago Dei: Gen. 1,26 im Spdtjudentum, in der Gnosis und in den
paulinischen Briefen (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1960).
Jewett, R., 'Conflicting Movements in the Church as Reflected in Philippi-
ans\ NovT 12 (1970), pp. 362-90.
Jones, L.G., 'Alasdair Maclntyre on Narrative, Community and the Moral
Life', Modern Theology 4 (1987), pp. 53-69.
Joms, K.-P., Das hymnische Evangelium, SNT 5 (Giitersloh: Mohn, 1971).
Kahn, V., Rhetoric, Prudence and Skepticism in the Renaissance (Ithaca:
Cornell University Press, 1985).
Karris, R., 'The Background and Significance of the Polemic in the Pastoral
Epistles', JBL 92 (1973), pp. 549-64.
Kasemann, E., 'Kritische Analyse von Phil. 2.5-11', ZTK 47 (1950), pp. 313-60;
trans, by A. Carse in Journal for Theology and the Church 5 (1968),
pp. 45-88.
—'A Primitive Christian Baptismal Liturgy', in Essays on New Testament
Themes, trans. J. Montague (London: SCM, 1964), pp. 149-68.
—'The Righteousness of God in Paul', in New Testament Questions of Today,
trans. J. Montague (London: SCM, 1969), pp. 168-82.
—Commentary on Romans, trans. G. Bromiley (London: SCM, 1980).
Keck, L.E., 'Justification of the Ungodly and Ethics', in Rechtfertigung,
Festschrift for E. Kasemann, ed. J. Friedrich, W. Pohlmann and P.
Stuhlmacher (Tubingen: Mohr, 1976), pp. 199-209.
Kehl, A., 'Beitrage zum Verstandnis einiger gnostischer und fruh-
christlicher Psalmen und Hymnen', JAC 12 (1972), pp. 92-119.
Kehl, N., Der Christushymnus im Kolosserbrief (Stuttgart: Katholisches
Bibelwerk, 1967).
Kelly, J.N.D., The Pastoral Epistles, Black's NTC (London: A. & C. Black,
1963).
Kennedy, H.A.A., The Epistle to the Philippians, Expositors' Greek New
Testament (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1903).
Keysser, K., Gottesvorstellung und Lebensauffas sung im griechischen
Hymnus (Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 1932).
Kim, S., The Origin of Paul's Gospel (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1981).
Kittel, B., The Hymns of Qumran, SBLDS 50 (Missoula: Scholars Press,
1981).
Kittel, H., Die Herrlichkeit Gottes, BZNW 16 (Giessen: Topelmann, 1934).
Knox, J., The Ethic of Jesus in the Teaching of the Church (London:
Epworth, 1962).
—Myth and Truth (London: Carey Kingsgate, 1964).
Koester, H., 'The Purpose of the Polemic of a Pauline Fragment', NTS 8
(1961-62), pp. 317-32.
Kraft, C, 'The Poetic Structure of the Qumran Thanksgiving Psalms', Bibli-
cal Research 2 (1957), pp. 1-18.
Kramer, W., Christ, Lord, Son of God, trans. B. Hardy (London: SCM, 1966).
Kroll, J., Die christliche Hymnodik bis zu Klemens von Alexandria
(Konigsberg: Harlungsche Buchdruckerei, 1921).
Kummel, W.G., 'Tcdpeoig und ev5ei£i<;', ZTK 49 (1952), pp. 154-67.
220 The Story of Christ in the Ethics of Paul

Kugel, J.L., The Idea of Biblical Poetry (New Haven: Yale University Press,
1981).
Kuhn, T., The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 2nd rev. edn (Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1970).
Kurz, W., 'Kenotic Imitation of Paul and Christ in Philippians 2 and 3', in
Discipleship in the New Testament, ed. F. Segovia (Philadelphia:
Fortress, 1985), pp. 103-26.
Lahnemann, J., Der Kolosserbrief (Giitersloh: Mohn, 1974).
Lane, W.L., '1 Tim. iv.1-3: An Early Instance of Over-Realized Eschatology',
NTS 11 (1964), pp. 164-66.
Larsson, E., Christus als Vorbild, Acta Seminarii Neotestamentici
Uppsaliensis 23 (Uppsala, 1962).
Lemaire, A., The Pastoral Epistles: Redaction and Theology', BTB 2 (1972),
pp. 25^2.
Lightfoot, J.B., St. Paul's Epistle to the Colossians, reprint of 1875 edn (Lynn,
MA: Hendrikson, 1981).
—St. Paul's Epistle to the Philippians, reprint of 1898 edn (Lynn, MA: Hen-
drickson, 1981).
Lincoln, A.T., Paradise Now and Not Yet, SNTSMS 43 (Cambridge: CUP,
1981).
Lock, W., The Pastoral Epistles, ICC (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1936).
Lohfink, G., Die Himmelfahrt Jesu (Munich: Kosel Verlag, 1971).
Lohmeyer, E., Kyrios Jesus, Sitzungsbericht der Heidelberger Akademie der
Wissenschaften, Phil.-hist. Kl. Jahr 1927-28 (Heidelberg: Winter, 1961).
—Die Briefe an die Philipper, an die Kolosser und an Philemon, HNT
(Gottingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1964).
Lohse, E., Colossians and Philemon, Hermeneia, trans. W. Pohlmann and
R. Karris (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971).
—'Christologie und Ethik in Kolosserbrief, in Apophoreta: Festschrift fur
Ernst Haenchen, ed. W. Eltester, BZNW 30 (Berlin: Topelmann, 1964),
pp. 156-68.
Longenecker, R., The Christology of Early Jewish Christianity (London:
SCM, 1970).
Losie, L.A., 'A Note on the Interpretation of Phil, ii.5', ExpT 90 (1978), pp.52-
54.
Lowth, R., De Sacra Poesi Hebraeorum Praelectiones Academicae (Oxford:
Clarendon, 1821).
Liihrmann, D., Das Offenbarungsverstdndnis bei Paulus, WMANT 16
(Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 1965).
MacDonald, J.I.H., Kerygma and Didache, SNTSMS 37 (Cambridge: CUP,
1980).
Maclntyre, A., 'Epistemological Crises, Dramatic Narrative and the Philos-
ophy of Science', The Monist 60 (1977), pp. 453-72.
—After Virtue, 2nd edn (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1984).
Mclntyre, J., The Shape of Christology (London: SCM, 1966).
Mansoor, M., The Thanksgiving Hymns (Leiden: Brill, 1961).
Marshall, I.H., The Christ Hymn in Philippians 2:5-11', Tyndale Bulletin 19
(1968), pp. 104-27.
 Bibliography 221

Martin, R.P., Colossians and Philemon, NCB (London: Oliphants, 1974).

—Philippians, NCB (London: Oliphants, 1976).
—'Some Reflections on New Testament Hymns', in Christ the Lord: Studies
Presented to Donald Guthrie, ed. H.H. Rowland (Leicester: IVP, 1982),
pp. 37-49.
—Carmen Christi, rev. edn (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983).
Mayser, G., Grammatik der griechischen Papyri aus der Ptolemderzeit, 2.1
(Berlin: De Gruyter, 1934).
Meeks, W.A., The Social Context of Pauline Theology*, Int 37 (1982), pp. 266-
77.
Menander, ed. D.A. Russell and N.G. Wilson (Oxford: Clarendon, 1981).
Mengel, B., Studien zum Philipperbrief (Tubingen: Mohr, 1982).
Merk, O., Handeln aus Glauben (Marburg: Elwert, 1968).
Metzger, B., A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (London:
United Bible Societies, 1975).
Metzger, W., Der Christushymnus 1 Tim. 3,16 (Stuttgart: Calwer, 1979).
Michael, J.H., 'Work Out Your Own Salvation', Expositor (9th series) 12
(1924), pp. 439-50.
— The Epistle to the Philippians, Moffatt's NTC (London: Hodder and
Stoughton, 1946).
Michaelis, W., Der Brief des Paulus an die Philipper (Leipzig: Deichert,
1935).
Michel, O. 'Zur Exegese von Phil. 2,5-11', in Theologie als Glaubenswagnis,
Festschrift for K. Heim (Hamburg: Furche, 1954), pp. 79-95.
Middendorp, T., Die Stellung Jesus Ben Siras zwischen Judentum und Hel-
lenismus (Leiden: Brill, 1973).
Morawe, G., Aufbau und Abgrenzung der Loblieder von Qumran (Berlin:
Evangelische Verlaganstalt, 1960).
Moule, C.F.D., The Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Colossians and Phile-
mon, Cambridge Greek Testament (Cambridge: CUP, 1957).
—'The Influence of Circumstances on the Use of Christological Terms', JTS
n.s. 10 (1959), pp. 247-63.
—'Obligation in the Ethic of Paul', in Christian History and Interpretation,
Festschrift for J. Knox, ed. W. Farmer, C.F.D. Moule and R.R. Niebuhr
(Cambridge: CUP, 1967), pp. 389-406.
—'Further Reflections on Phil. 2:5-11', in Apostolic History and the Gospel,
Festschrift for F.F. Bruce, ed. W. Gasque and R.P. Martin (Exeter:
Paternoster, 1970), pp. 264-76.
—Review of Sanders' The New Testament Christological Hymns, JTS n.s. 23
(1972), pp. 212-14.
—The Origin of Christology (Cambridge: CUP, 1977).
—The Birth of the New Testament, Black's NTC, 3rd rev. edn (London: A. &
C. Black, 1981).
Mowinckel, S., The Psalms in Israel's Worship, 2 vols., trans. D.R. Ap-
Thomas (Oxford: Blackwell, 1962).
Mowry, L., 'Revelation 4-5 and Early Christian Liturgical Use', JBL 71
(1952), pp. 75-84.
222 The Story of Christ in the Ethics of Paul

Miinderlein, G., 'Die Erwahlung durch die Pleroma: Bemerkungen zu Kol.

i.19', NTS 8 (1961-62), pp. 264-76.
Murphy-O'Connor, J., 'Christological Anthropology in Phil. 2,6-11', RB 83
(1976), pp. 25-50.
Nagata, T., Thil. 2:5-11: A Case Study in the Contextual Shaping of Early
Christology' (Unpublished PhD Dissertation, Princeton Theological
Seminary, 1980).
Neufeld, V., The Earliest Christian Confessions (Leiden: Brill, 1963).
Nieder, L., Die Motive der religiosen-sittlichen Paranese der paulinischen
Gemeindebriefen (Munich: Karl Zink, 1956).
Nilsson, M.P., Geschichte der griechischen Religion, 2 vols. (Munich: Beck,
1950).
Norden, E., Die antike Kunstprosa vom VI. Jahrhundert v. Christus bis in
die Zeit der Renaissance, vol. 2 (Leipzig: Teubner, 1898).
—Agnostos Theos: Untersuchungen zur Formengeschichte der religiosen
Rede (Stuttgart: Teubner, 1956).
—Die Geburt des Kindes (Stuttgart: Teubner, 1958).
O'Brien, P., Colossians, Philemon, WBC (Waco: Word, 1982).
O'Rourke, J.J., The Hymns of the Apocalypse', CBQ 30 (1968), pp. 399-409.
Osborne, E., Ethical Patterns in Early Christian Thought (Cambridge: CUP,
1976).
Overfield, P.D., 'Pleroma: A Study in Content and Context', NTS 25 (1978-79),
pp. 384-96.
Percy, E., Die Probleme der Kolosser- und Epheserbriefe (Lund: Gleerup,
1946).
Perkins, P., 'Paul and Ethics', Int 38 (1984), pp. 268-80.
Piper, O., The Savior's Eternal Work', Int 3 (1949), pp. 286-98.
Pohlmann, W., 'Die hymnischen All-Pradikationen in Kol. 1,15-20', ZNW 64
(1975), pp. 53-74.
Raisanen, H., Paul and the Law (Tubingen: Mohr, 1983).
Ramsey, A.M., The Glory of God and the Transfiguration of Christ (London:
Longmans and Green, 1949).
Reese, J.M., Hellenistic Influences on the Book of Wisdom and its Conse-
quences (Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1970).
Rese, M., 'Formeln und Lieder im Neuen Testament', VF 2 (1970), pp. 75-95.
Ricoeur, P., 'The Metaphorical Process as Cognition, Imagination and Feel-
ing', in On Metaphor, ed. S. Sacks (Chicago: University of Chicago
Press, 1979), pp. 141-59.
Ridderbos, H., Paul: An Outline of his Theology, trans. J.R. De Witt (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975).
Robbins, C.J., The Rhetorical Structure of Philippians 2:6-11', CBQ 42 (1980),
pp. 73-82.
Robinson, J.M., 'Die Hodayot-Formel in Gebet und Hymnus des Fnihchris-
tenturns', in Apophoreta: Festschrift fur Ernst Haenchen, ed. W.
Eltester, BZNW 30 (Berlin: Topelmann, 1964), pp. 194-235.
—'A Formal Analysis of Col. 1:15-20', JBL 76 (1967), pp.27O87.
—and H. Koester, Trajectories through Early Christianity (Philadelphia:
Fortress, 1971).
 Bibliography 223

—ed., The Nag Hammadi Library (New York: Harper and Row, 1981).
Rogerson, J., 'Slippery Words: Myth', ExpT 90 (1978), pp. 10-14.
Rorty, R., Texts and Lumps', New Lit. Hist. 17 (1985), pp. 1-17.
Sanders, E.P., Paul and Palestinian Judaism (London: SCM, 1977).
—Paul, the Law and the Jewish People (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983).
Sanders, J.A., 'Dissenting Deities and Phil. 2:1-11', JBL 88 (1969), pp. 279-90.
Sanders, J.T., 'Hymnic Elements in Ephesians 1-3', ZNW 56 (1965), pp. 214-
32.
—The New Testament Christological Hymns, SNTSMS 15 (Cambridge: CUP,
1971).
—New Testament Ethics (London: SCM, 1975).
Sandmel, S., Tarallelomania', JBL 81 (1962), pp. 1-13.
Schattenmann, J., Studien zum neutestamentlichen Prosahymnus
(Munich: Beck, 1965).
Schille, G., Friihchristliche Hymnen (Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt,
1962).
Schillebeeckx, E., Jesus: An Experiment in Christology, trans. H. Hoskins
(London: Collins, 1979).
Schnackenburg, R., Baptism in the Thought of St. Paul, trans. G.R. Beasley-
Murray (Oxford: Blackwell, 1964).
—The Moral Teaching of the New Testament, trans. J. Holland-Smith and
W.J. O'Hara (London: Burns and Oates, 1975).
Schrage, W., Die konkreten Einzelgebote in der paulinischen Paranese
(Glitersloh: Mohn, 1961).
—Ethik des Neuen Testaments, NTD Erganzungsreihe 4 (Gottingen: Van-
denhoeck und Ruprecht, 1982).
Schubert, P., The Form and Function of the Pauline Thanksgivings, BZNW
20 (Berlin: Topelmann, 1939).
—'Paul and the New Testament Ethic of John Knox', in Christian History
and Interpretation, Festschrift for J. Knox, ed. W. Farmer, C.F.D.
Moule, R.R. Niebuhr (Cambridge: CUP, 1967), pp. 363-88.
Schulz, A., Nachfolge und Nachahmen (Munich: Kosel, 1962).
Schiiperhaus, J., Die Psalmen Salomos (Leiden: Brill, 1977).
Schwartz, G., 'Der Lobgesang der Engeln', BZ N.F. 15 (1971), pp. 260-64.
Schweizer, E., Erniedrigung und Erhohung bei Jesus und seinen Nachfol-
gern (Zurich: Zwingli, 1955).
—'Rm. l,3f. und der Gegensatz von Fleisch und Geist vor und bei Paulus', in
Neotestamentica (Zurich: Zwingli, 1963), pp. 180-89.
—'Die Kirche als Leib Christi in den paulinischen Antilegomena', in
Neotestamentica, pp. 293-316.
—'Two New Testament Creeds Compared', in Current Issues in New Tes-
tament Interpretation, Festschrift for O. Piper, ed. W. Klassen and G.
Snyder (London: SCM, 1962), pp. 16&-77.
—'The Lord of the Nations', Southeast Asia Journal of Theology 13 (1972),
pp. 13-21.
—Traditional Ethical Patterns in the Pauline and Post-Pauline Letters and
their Development', in Text and Interpretation, Festschrift for M.
224 The Story of Christ in the Ethics of Paul

Black, ed. E. Best and R.McL. Wilson (Cambridge: CUP, 1979), pp. 195-
210.
—The Letter to the Colossians, trans. A. Chester (Minneapolis: Augsburg,
1982).
Scott, E.F., The Pastoral Epistles, Moffatt's NTC (London: Hodder and
Stoughton, 1947).
Scott, R.B.Y., Wisdom in Creation: The AMON of Prov. viii 30*, VT 10 (1960),
pp. 213-23.
Scroggs, R., 'Romans vi.7\ NTS 10 (1963), pp. 104-108.
—The Last Adam (Oxford: Blackwell, 1966).
Searle, J., Speech-Acts (Cambridge: CUP, 1969).
—Expression and Meaning (Cambridge: CUP, 1969).
Seeberg, A., Der Katechismus der Urchristenheit (Leipzig: Teubner, 1903).
Segert, S., 'Semitic Poetic Structures in the New Testament', ANRW II.25.2
(1984), pp. 1432-62.
Selwyn, E.G., The First Epistle of St. Peter, Thornapple reprint (Grand
Rapids: Baker, 1981).
Silberman, L., The Language and Structure of the Hodayot', JBL 75 (1956),
pp. 96-106.
Silva, M., Biblical Words and Their Meaning (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1983).
Soden, H. von, 'Sacrament and Ethics in Paul', in The Writings of St Paul,
Norton Critical Edition, ed. W. Meeks (London: Norton, 1972), pp. 257-
68.
Soskice, J.M., Metaphor and Religious Language (Oxford: Clarendon, 1985).
Smith, J.Z., Map is Not Territory (Leiden: Brill, 1978).
Snaith, J., Ecclesiasticus (Cambridge: CUP, 1974).
Spicq, C, Les Epltres Pastorales, 2 vols., 4th rev. edn (Paris: Gabalda, 1969).
—'Note sur MOPOH dans les papyrus et quelques inscriptions', RB 80 (1973),
pp. 37-45.
Stanley, D.M., 'Become Imitators of Me', Bib 40 (1959), pp. 859-77.
—'The Divinity of Christ in the New Testament Hymns', in Studies in Salva-
tion History, ed. C. Salm (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, 1963),
pp. 190-201.
Stanton, G., Jesus of Nazareth in New Testament Preaching, SNTSMS 27
(Cambridge: CUP, 1974).
Stauffer, E., New Testament Theology, trans. J. Marsh (London: SCM, 1955).
Stenger, W., Der Christushymnus 1 Tim. 3.16: Eine strukturanalytische
Untersuchung (Frankfurt: P. Lang, 1977).
Stout, J., 'Virtue Among the Ruins: An Essay on Maclntyre', Neue
Zeitschrift fur systematische Theologie und Religionsphilosophie 26
(1984), pp. 256-73.
Strecker, G., 'Redaktion und Tradition im Christus-Hymnus Phil. 2', ZNW
55 (1964), pp. 63-78.
Stuhlmacher, P., 'Christliche Verantwortung bei Paulus und seinen
Schulern', EvTh 28 (1963), pp. 165-86.
—'Zur paulinischen Christologie', ZTK 74 (1977), pp. 449-64.
 Bibliography 225

Styler, G.M., 'The Basis of Obligation in Paul's Christology and Ethic', in

Christ and Spirit in the New Testament, Festschrift for C.F.D. Moule,
ed. B. Lindars and S. Smalley (Cambridge: CUP, 1973), pp. 175-87.
Surin, K., The Weight of Weakness: Intratextuality and Discipleship', in
The Turnings of Darkness and Light (Cambridge: CUP, 1989), pp. 201-
21.
Talbert, C.H., The Problem of Pre-Existence in Philippians 2:6-11', JBL 68
(1967), pp. 141-53.
Tannehill, R.C., Dying and Rising with Christy BZNW 12 (Berlin: Topel-
mann, 1967).
—The Magnificat as Poem', JBL 93 (1974), pp. 263-75.
Theissen, G., Psychologische Aspekte paulinischer Theologie, FRLANT 131
(Gottingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1983).
Thiering, B., The Poetic Forms of the Hodayot', JSS 8 (1963), pp. 189-209.
Thiising, W., Per Christum in Deum (Minister: Aschendorf, 1969).
Tracy, D., The Analogical Imagination (London: SCM, 1980).
—'Lindbeck's New Program for Theology: A Reflection', Thomist 49 (1985),
pp. 460-72.
Verhey, A., The Great Reversal (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984).
Verner, D.C., The Household of God, SBLDS 71 (Chico: Scholars Press, 1983).
Vincent, M.R., Philippians and Philemon, ICC (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark,
1961).
Watson, F., Paul, Judaism and the Gentiles, SNTSMS 56 (Cambridge: CUP,
1986).
Watson, W.G.E., Classical Hebrew Poetry: A Guide to its Techniques, JSOTS
26 (Sheffield: JSOT, 1984).
—Review of Kugel's The Idea of Biblical Poetry, JSOT 28 (1984), pp. 89-98.
Webster, J., 'Christology, Instability and Ethics', SJT 39 (1986), pp. 309-26
Wegenast, K., Das Verstdndnis der Tradition bei Paulus und in den
Deuteropaulinen, WMANT 8 (Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag,
1962).
Weiss, H., 'Law in the Epistle to the Colossians', CBQ 34 (1972), pp. 294-316.
Weiss, J., 'Beitrage zur paulinischen Rhetorik', in Theologische Studien fur
B. Weiss (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1897), pp. 165-274.
—Paul and Jesus, trans. H.J. Claytor (New York: Harper Bros., 1909).
Wendland, H.D., Ethik des Neuen Testaments, NTD Erganzungsreihe 4, 3rd
edn (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1977).
Wengst, K., Christologische Formeln und Lieder des Urchristentums, SNT 7
(Giitersloh: Mohn, 1972).
Westermann, C, The Praise of God in the Psalms, trans. K. Crim (London:
Epworth, 1965).
—'Alttestamentliche Elemente in Lucas 2.1-20', in Tradition und Glaube,
Festschrift for K.G. Kuhn, ed. J. Jeremias (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck
und Ruprecht, 1971), pp. 317-27.
Whiteley, D.E.H., The Theology of St. Paul (Oxford: Blackwell, 1970).
Wilder, A.N., 'Kerygma, Eschatology and Social Ethics', in The Background
of the New Testament and its Eschatology, Festschrift for C.H. Dodd,
ed. W.D. Davies and D. Daube (Cambridge: CUP, 1956), pp. 509-36.
226 The Story of Christ in the Ethics of Paul

—Early Christian Rhetoric (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press,

1971).
Wiles, G., Paul's Intercessory Prayers, SNTSMS 24 (Cambridge: CUP, 1974).
Williams, N.P., 'Great Texts Reconsidered: Agnostos Theos\ ExpT 51 (1940),
pp. 277-308.
Williamson, L., 'Led in Triumph', Int 22 (1968), pp. 317-32.
Windisch, H., 'Das Problem des paulinischen Imperativs', ZNW 23 (1924),
pp.265-81.
—'Zur Christologie der Pastoralbriefe', ZNW 34 (1935), pp. 213-38.
Wink, W., Naming the Powers (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984).
Winter, P., 'Magnificat and Benedictus—Maccabean Psalms?', BJRL 37
(1954),pp.32&47.
—'Some Observations on the Language in the Birth and Infancy Stories of
the Third Gospel', NTS 1 (1955), pp. 111-21.
Wragg, J., 'St. Luke's Nativity Narrative, with Special Reference to the Can-
ticles in the Light of Jewish and Early Christian Backgrounds' (PhD
Dissertation, University of Manchester, 1965).
Wright, N.T., 'Adam in Pauline Christology', SBL Seminar Papers 1983
(Chico: Scholars Press, 1983), pp. 373-84.
—'apicaYnog and the Meaning of Phil, ii.5-11', JTS n.s. 37 (1986), pp. 321-52.
Yadin, Y., The Scroll of the War of the Sons of Light against the Sons of
Darkness, trans. B. and C. Rabin (Oxford: OUP, 1962).
Zeilinger, F., Der Erstgeborene der Schb'pfung (Vienna: Herder, 1973).
 INDEX

INDEX OF BIBLICAL REFERENCES

OLD TESTAMENT

Genesis Joshua 10.10 56

1.26 51, 52 2.1 165n5 11.12 56
1.27 104n6 13.12 56
1.31 188nl, Judges 13.28 56
190 5 35, 41 15.16 56
9.1 104n6 24.20 56
24.20 58nl 1 Kings 27.16 56
49.3 114 7.33 56 28.2 56
8.10-13 182 29.14 56
Exodus 8.11 54 30.19 56
15 35, 41 8.13 182 40.4 56
16.3 151nl 18.23 88 40.10 56
16.8 151nl 18.28 99nl
16.10 54 Psalms
24.16 54 2 Kings 6 32
29.37 189n4 13.5f. 185 8 34
33.17 54 9 34
40.34 151nl 1 Chronicles 23.1 115
13.32 115 29 34
Leviticus 23.31 146 33 34
10.9 146nl 33.6 190
11.34 146nl 2 Chronicles 53 32
21.5 99nl 2.3 146 54 32
25.19 151nl 7.6 32 60 32
26.5 151nl 24.11 58nl 65 34
31.2 146 65.9 35
Numbers 67 34
6.3 146nl Nehemiah 68 34
12.12 56 12.24 32 75 32
12.46 32 75.10 35
Deuteronomy 12.47 32 77.25 151nl
4.16 60 88.28 108n6
10.6 139n4 Job 95.11 115
21.17 114 5.14 56 96.9 65
228 The Story of Christ in the Ethics of Paul

97.12 35 51.23 56 32.15 115

97.17 115 52ff. 171 43.3 54
96 34 52.3 61, 62 44.4 54
98 34 52.12- 44.7 139n4
100 34 53.12 73 45.17 146
103 34 53.3 61
104 34 53.8 62 Daniel
105 34 53.12 58 3 65
111 34 54.4 64 3.1-18 51
113 34 3.19 50, 51
114 34 Jeremiah 4.34 65
117 34 4.4 139n4 9.13 61n4
135 34 8.16 115 11.12 65
136 34 14.2 157
145-150 34 15.9 157 Hosea
2.13 146
Proverbs Ezekiel 7.14 99nl
31.15 185 1.26 61n4
1.28 54 Haggai
Isaiah 8.2 61n4 1.6 151nl
2.11 88 12.19 115
6.3 54 17,24 115 Malachi
29.13 149 19.7 115 3.1 165n5
45.23 67 30.12 115

NEW TESTAMENT

Matthew 7.22 98n2 9.31 170

3.6 67n5 8.6 189 9.51 169n3
7.6 98n2 8.39 170 10.21 67
9.37ff. 99nl 13.22 184n2 22.6 67n5
10.10 99nl 14.22 189 24.30 189
11.10 165n5 14.58 139n4 24.34 165
11.25 67 16.9 169n3
15.1-20 132n3 16.12 50 John
19.3-12 186 8.58 60
21.26 61 Luke 17.5 111
23.17 189n4 1-2 35, 36 17.25 111
23.19 189n4 1.35 63n4
24.26 189 2.1 143n2 Acts
2.7 107 1.2 165
Mark 2.9 54 1.14 41
1.5 67n5 4.1 160nl 1.11 169n3
2.1 165n5 7.24 165n5 1.23 169n3
6.41 189 7.27 165n5 2.42 41
7.8 132 9.26 170 3.19 143
 Index of Biblical References 229

4.24-30 32 8.3 59, 60, 5.21 71nl

7.2 165nl 163 9.3 57
7.39 63n3 8.9 160nl 10.2 61
7.48 139n5 8.29 108, 114 11.3 184n4
9.17 165 8.38 110 11.13-15 184n4
10.29 63n4 10.10 168n3 11.13 99nl
13.31 165 11.33-36 17, 27,
16 78 36, 37 Galatians
16.3 79 11.36 108n5 3.10 37
16.4 143n2 13.4 163 3.27 140
16.7 160nl 16.17-20 124 4.3 49, 133,
16.20 79 16.18 101n4 134
16.40 79 16.19 63n3 4.4 71nl
17.7 143n2 4.8-10 133
17.24 139n5, 1 Corinthians 4.9 148
168 1.17 57 5.13ff. 163
19.18 67n5 2.3 96n5 6.8 163
20.13 169n3 4.2 60
24.26 63n4 7.18 142nl4 Ephesians
26.16 165 8.1 147n3 1.3-14 27
26.23 114 8.6 108n6 1.21 110
9.15 57 1.22 138n2
Romans 10.30 189 2.3 181n4
1.3-4 159, 160, 11.3ff. 112 2.11-13 29
162, 163 11.3 138nl 2.14-18 28
1.3 60 11.7 54 2.14-16 17, 27
1.4 163 11.23 37 2.14 29
1.5 63n3 13 27 2.15 143n2
2.25-27 142n4 14.26 41 2.18 29
4.9 142n2 15 73 219f. 29
4.14 57 15.3-5 41 3.4-6 157
5 73 15.5-8 165 3.8-12 157
5.12 72 15.20 114 4.15 138n2
5.14 146 15.43 170 5.19-20 33
5.18 59, 63 15.44ff. 72 5.23 138n2
6. Iff. 52, 81, 6.5 96, 97
207, 208 2 Corinthians
6.3-4 142 1.3f. 27 Philippians
6.7 63, 164nl 1.22 63n4 1.15ff. 787
6.10 59 2.9 63n3 1.27ff. 77nl, 78,
6.12 59, 63n3, 3.18 54 79, 83,
71nl 4.4-6 105 85, 89,
6.16 63n3 4.4 104, 184 90, 95,
6.19 163 4.6 54 98, 100,
7. Iff. 134nl 4.11 163 101
7.5 163 4.13 63n4 1.27-
7.24 140 4.16-18 101n5 2.18 75
5.9 63n4 1.27 81, 86, 91
230 The Story of Christ in the Ethics of Paul

1.28-30 78 2.11 66 138nl,

1.28 78, 89, 96 2.12 96, 97 150
1.29 78, 89, 96 2.13 97 1.18-20 113, 130,
1.30 78, 89, 96 2.14-18 97 144, 146
2.1 89, 96 3. Iff. 77, 78, 1.19 114, 115,
2.2-4 92 83, 85, 136, 139,
2.3 83, 88 101 153
2.4 88 3.2 98, 124 1.21-23 130, 142,
2.5-11 16, 82, 89 3.3 99 154, 157,
2.5 23, 49, 3.4ff. 99 198
82, 84, 3.7-8 99 1.21 25
89, 90, 3.17-20 77nl, 124 1.22 130, 140,
123, 130, 3.20 77nl, 141,
131, 183 83 n 3, 86 148n3,
2.6-11 14, 19n2, 3.21 72 161
23-25, 27, 1.23 130
28, 30, Colossians 1.26 157
32, 33, 1.3-8 124 2.5 124
36, 60nl, 1.9ff. 25, 130 2.6-23 135
63, 69, 1.9-10 131 2.6-15 145
70, 80-82, 1.9 129 2.6 131
91-95, 97- 1.12 142 2.7 131
99, 101, 1.13 104 2.8-15 144, 152,
103, 118, 1.15-20 14, 16, 153
123, 130, 19n2, 23, 2.8 124, 132
152, 155, 25, 27, 2.9-15 27, 28
171, 172, 28, 30, 2.9 115, 116,
192, 197, 36, 68, 136, 153
198, 206 69, 103, 2.10 110, 112,
2.6-8 64, 71, 107, 117- 113, 138,
83, 84 19, 123, 138nl,
2.6 23, 51, 129-31, 144, 147,
52, 55, 136, 153
56, 65, 138nl, 2.11-14 151nl
66, 105 140, 144, 2.11 139, 142,
2.7 52, 58, 145, 152- 151
59, 68, 73 55, 164, 2.12 141
2.8 59, 62, 175, 192, 2.13-15 110n5
63, 83, 197, 209 2.13 139, 142
100 1.15 25, 103- 2.14 142, 143
2.9-11 63, 64, 106, 144 2.15 142-44
68, 72, 1.16 25, 110, 2.16-23 134
77nl, 80, 111, 138, 2.16 124, 125
82, 84, 153 2.18 124-26,
85, 100, 1.17 111-13 128, 138,
206 1.18 25, 103, 147, 149,
2.9 64-67 113, 116, 150
2.10-11 66 137,
 Index of Biblical References 231

2.19 113, 137, 155, 158, Hebrews

147 160, 161, 1.3 14nl, 16
2.20-23 148 165-67, 1.6 108
2.20 135 170, 175, 5.9 63n3
2.21 125, 146, 180, 183, 5.12 133
148, 149 186-88, 8.5 146
2.22 148 192-94, 9.11 139n5
2.23 128, 146, 197, 198, 9.24 139n5
149, 150 209 10.1 146
3.4 170 4.1-5 178, 180, 11.18 63n3
3.9 140 184 13.18 181n4
3.12 126 4.1-3 178n5
3.16-17 33 4.1 176 James
4.3f f. 186 2.9 61
1 Thessalonians 4.3 185, 187 2.25 165n5
1.6 80n3 4.4 187, 188 5.5 111
2.2 78 4.5 190 5.16 67n5
4.6 191n2,
2 Thessalonians 192 1 Peter
1.10 168 4.7 178 1.17 181n4
1.18 63n3 4.12 191n2 1.20-21 157
2.3 184 5.1-3 177 2.22ff. 14nl, 16
2.11 184 5.17 191n2 3.18 159-62,
3.14 63n3 5.18 37, 99nl 167
3.15 61 5.19 177 3.22 110
6.1-2 177 4.8 111
1 Timothy 6.2 192
1.3-11 176 6.3 192 2 Peter
1.3 176 2.18 181n4
1.4 178 2 Timothy 3.10-12 133
1.5 191n2 1.9-10 157, 158
1.7 176, 178 1.13 19 In 2 Revelation
1.10 177 2.9 191 1.3 61n4
2.1 189, 2.11 191n2 1.5 108, 114
191n5 2.12 178n5 3.5 143
2.7 168 2.17 191n2 3.14 114
2.8f f. 177 2.18 178n5 4-5 66, 128
2.15 185 4.2 19 In 2 9.7 60
3.1 191n2 4.11 169n3 15.8 54
3.4 181 19.10 129n2
3.5 181 Titus 21.23 54
3.9 183 1.2-3 157, 158 22.8-9 129n2
3.12 181 1.3 191n2
3.14ff 180 1.6-9 177
3.16 14, 16, 1.9 191n2
23, 25-28, 1.14 178
30, 32, 2.5 191
36, 43nl, 3.8 19 In 2
232 The Story of Christ in the Ethics of Paul

APOCRYPHA

Tobit 3.1-9 73 24.1 118

1.13 50 5 73 24.5 118
5.15ff. 73 39.16 188
Judith 7.3 56 43.26 111
9.11 88 7.22 119 44.1 32
15.16 32, 35 7.26 106, 119 51 23
16 23. 41 8.5ff. 119 51.1-12 35
8.6 119
Wisdom of Solomon 12.3 88 1 Maccabees
2ff. 171 18.1 50 4.33 32
2-5 73
2.1-20 73 Sirach 2 Maccabees
2.13 73 24 118. 119 2.8 54
 INDEX OF AUTHORS

Alford, H. 159nl
Austin, J.L. 42 Dahl, N. 85n2
Deichgraber, R. 13, 14n2, 15,16, 17n2,
Bammel, E. 104n2 26n5, 27, 29nl, 30nl, 39nl, 41nl,
Bandstra, A.J. 132n3, 133nl, 134, 135 90n2, 156nl
Barrett, C.K. 105n2, 156nl, 160n3, Delling, G. 31nl
165nl, 168nl, 169n2, 178n3 Dibelius, M. 125, 126, 156nl, 159n4,
Barth, G. 88nl 162, 163nl, 166, 172n2, 176nl,
Barth, K 63n4 178nl, 180n3,181n5,183n2,185n2,
Beare, F.W. 55n3, 60n4, 65n3, 79nl, 190n2,190n5,210nl
86n4,88n2,96nl, 97n3,100n4 Doty, W. 38nl
Beasley-Murray, G.R. 141n3 Dunn, J.D.G. 70-72, 106nl, 118nl,
Bedale, S. 112n3 120nl, 197nl
Behm, J. 50n2
Berger,K. 25n3, 31n2, 32, 39,40nl Easton, B.S. 185n3, 188nl
Best, E. 113n2,146n5,148nl Eltester, F.-W. 50n5, 52, 104, 105nl,
Betz, H.D. 83 106nl
Blanchette, O. 143n6 Ernst, J. 115n3, 136n3
Bonnard, P. 54n5, 65nl, 79n3, 86n4
Bornkamm, G. 51n7, 55n2, 58nl, Fee, G. 159n4, 167n2, 168n2, 177nl,
73n2,97,182n3 178,188nl, 189n2,190n4,190nl
Brewer, R. 86nl Feuillet, A. I l l n 4
Brockington, L.H. 54n2 Fiorenza, E.S. 118n2, 204n2
Brox, N. 156nl, 158n2, 168n5, 176nl, Foerster, W. 183n2
180n2,181nl, 183n2,186nl, 189n2 Ford, J.M. 184n4
Bruce, A.B. 49 Fowl, S.E. 206n2
Bruce, F.F. 109n4, 110n5, 113n2, Francis, F. 125, 127, 127n7, 128n2,
132nl, 135n4,146n5 140n3,147nl, 149,150n2
Bultmann, R. 208n2 Furnish, V.P. 207n3, 208n2
Burger, C. 19n2, 27n2, 28nl, 29,
103n2, 105, 109n4, 110n3, 139n3, Gabathuler, J. 25nl, 104
141n2,143nl, 144nl, 152nl Gadamer, H.-G. 205
Georgi, D. 69, 70nl, 74
Campenhausen, H. von 179n2 Germann, H. 35n7
Carmignac, J. 55n4 Gibbs.J.G. 112n2, 114n2
Carr, W. 110n4 Glasson, T.F. 51nl
Cohen, T. 44nl Gloer, W.H. 38n2
Collange, J.F. 56n5, 57n3, 65n3, Glombitza, O. 96
69nl, 79n3, 86n4, 86n5, 88n3, 96n3, Gnilka, J. 56n7, 58nl, 63n4, 65n3,
97n3 67n2, 68n2, 78nl, 79n3, 86n5, 88n3,
Craddock, F.B. 108 97n3,100n4, 109n6, I l l n 5 , 113n3,
Craven, T. 35n7 114nl, 116n4, 123nl, 130n4, 139nl,
Cullmann, O. 18, 51n2, 72n2 141n5,142nl, 143n3,146nl, 148n2
234 The Story of Christ in the Ethics of Paul

Grelot, P. 56n5 l, 183n2,184nl, 185nl, 187n2,

Grundmann, W. 89nl 188nl, 189,190n5
Gundry, R. 26n4, 156nl, 157nl, Kennedy, H.A.A. 55n3, 65nl
159n3,160-62,165,168n5,169 Kim, S. 37,38n3, 51n7,104,118nl
Gunkel, H. 34, 35, 40, 44 Kittel, B. 25n3,35n6
Gunther,J.J. 123n2 Koester, H. 78n2, 98nl, 99nl, lOOnl
Rroll,J. 13, 14,33nl,41n4
Hall, B. 149nl Kugel,J. 23,24,39
Hanson, A.T. 155nl, 156nl, 157nl, Kuhn,T. 92,93,94,95,203,205
162n6,167n2, 176nl,180n2,181n5, Kurz, W. 82nl, 92n2
182,183nl, 184n3,188nl, 189n4,190
Hasler, V. 156nl, 159n4 Lahnemann, J. 136n5, 137nl, 138nl,
Hauerwas, S. 199nl, 201nl 140nl, 146n5,152nl, 154nl
Hawthorne, G.F. 68n2, 79n3, 86n5, Lane, W. 178n5
88n2,97n3 Larsson, E. 51n2, 55n2, 82, 86n2,
Hazelton, R. 92nl 90n2
Hegermann, H. 103n2, 116nl Lemaire, A. 178n2
Hengel, M. 34nl, 41n2, 64n2, 179n2 Lightfoot, J.B. 49, 50, 55n2, 65n6,
Hiring, J. 50n7, 51n2, 70 68nl, 86n4, 88n6, 97n3, 104, 114n4,
Hockel, A. 104nl 132nl, 141nl
Hofius, 0. 64nl, 68nl Lincoln, A.T. 86n3, 98nl, 99nl,
Hollenbach, B. 149, 150 lOOnl, lOlnl, 143n4,149n5
Hooker, M.D. 20n2, 49nl, 57n3, Lock,W. 155n2, 158n2, 159n4, 163nl,
73n2, 77,83n3,124 166n4,176nl, 181n5,185n3, 186nl,
Hoover, R.W. 55, 56nl, 70n5 190nl
Houlden,J.L. 179nl, 190nl Lohfink, G. 169nl
Howard, G. 51nl, 70nl Lohmeyer, E. 13, 14n3, 53, 61, 65nl,
Hurtado, L.W. 63n5, 83-85 66n3,69nl, 79n3, 80nl, 137n2
Lohse, E. 108n2, 109, 110n2, Illn3,
Jaeger, W. 55 113nl, 114nl, 115nl, 127n3,128n2,
Jauss, H.-R. 205n3 130n3,131nl, 134n6,135n4,139n2,
Jeremias, J. 58nl, 68n4, 156nl, 166, 144nl, 146n2, 147n4, 149, 150n4,
176nl, 179nl, 190n5 151n3,210nl
Jervell, J. 50n7, 55n2, 105n2 Losie, L.A. 89n2
Jewett, R. 82n5, 98nl, 99nl, 100n4 Lowth,R. 23,24
Jones, L.G. 199nl
Jorns, K-P. 16nl MacDonald, J.I.H. 131n2
MacIntyre.A. 199nl, 200nl, 205
Kahn,V. 205nl, 207nl Marshall, I.H. 52
Karris, R. 176n3, 177n4, 178n2, Martin, R.P. 23nl, 34nl, 37n2, 38n2,
184n4 41n2, 43, 49, 51nn7,l, 54n6, 55,
Kasemann, E. 14n3, 52, 53, 55n2, 58- 57n2, 61nl, 62, 63, 65nnl,5, 66n4,
60, 63,66nl, 69, 79n4, 80, 81, 83, 85, 67nl, 68n2, 78nl, 79nl, 79n3, 80,
86n2, 90, 91, 95, 104n2, 112nl, 86n5, 90n4, 96nl, 97n3, 99n3,
160n3,206,207 100n4,109n7, l l l n l , 127n3,130n2,
Kehl, A. 50n6 135n4, 139n3, 140n2, 142n4, 146n5,
Kehl, N. 103n2, 108n2, 112nl, 115nl, 149
116n4,117nl Mayser, G. 169
Kelly, J.N.D. 26n3, 155nl, 157nl, Meeks, W. 202
158n2,159n4,161nl, 162n5,166n5, Mengel, B. 78nl
167n3,168n5,169n4, 176nl, 180nl, Metzger, B. 155nl
Metzger,W. 157nl, 159nl, 165nl
 Index of Authors 235

Michael, J.H. 55n3, 96nl Schweizer, E. 54n5, 55n2, 58n2, 73n3,

Michaelis, W. 59, 68nl 109n4, l l l n l , 115nl, 117nl, 130n2,
Michael, O. 61, 62nl, 67n6 134n3, 136nl, 137, 138n2, 139n2,
Moule, C.F.D. 38n3, 55n4, 57nl, 142nl, 144nl, 154nl, 156nl, 160,
89n2, 90, 110n5, 112n2, 115n5, 162n5,163nl, 173nl
139nl, 142n4,146n5,150n4 Scott, E.F. 155nl, 167n3,168n5
Mowinckel, S. 35n4 Searle,J. 42, 44nl
Munderlein, G. 115nl, 116n3 Seeberg,A. 13
Murphy-O'Connor, J. 19nl, 51nl, Selwyn, E.G. 168
70nl Silva, M. 51n4
Spicq, C. 157nl, 169n4, 176nl, 180n2,
Nagata, T. 68n3, 73n3 184n5
Neufeld,V. 18, 67n6 Stanley, D.M. 82nl, 157nl
Norden, E. 13-15, 24, 26n4,39, 104n2, Stauffer, E. 40nl
108,166,168n4,171 Stenger, W. 26n3, 155nl, 156n2, 157,
158,159n4,161n4,167n2,169
O'Brien, P.T. 104, 108n2, 109n6, Strecker, G. 80n3, 91n2
l l l n l , 112nl, 113n2,114n2,130n2, Stout, J. 199nl
131nl, 133nl, 134nn2,6,135,137n2, Surin, K.J. 204nl
139n5,141n2,142n2,143nl, 144nl,
146nl,147n4,148n3,149n4,150n3, Tracy, D. 92, 201n2, 202
151n3,154nl
Overfield, P.D. 115n2, 136n3 Verner, D. 176n2, 177, 178nl, 180n3,
181n7
Percy, E. 125nl, 127n7, 129nl, 134n4, Verhey, A. 204
135n3,138n2 Vincent, M.R. 55n2, 68nl, 86n5,
Pohlmann, W. 109 88n6
Ramsey, A.M. 54n2 Watson, W.G.E. 24n5, 25n3, 39
Rese, M. 36n2 Webster, J.B. 206n2
Ricoeur, P. 44nl Wegenast, K. 81n4
Robinson, J.M. 103n2 Weiss, H. 133n3
Rorty, R. 206nl Weiss, J. 13
Wengst, K. 17-19, 26n5, 27n2
Sanders, J.A. 80n2 Williamson, L. 144n2
Sanders, J.T. 17-19, 26n5, 27n2, 29, Wink, W. 110n4
36nl, 39nl, 41n3, 70nl, 74,84n2 Wright, N.T. 55nnl,2, 56n4, 57nl,
Schattenmann, J. 15nl 72n2,92n2
Schille, G. 14-16, 17n2, 26n5, 29nl,
29,36nl,41n4 Zeilinger, F. 140n2, 146n5
Schneider, J. 60n2
Schrage, W. 208nl
 JOURNAL FOR THE STUDY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
Supplement Series
1 THE BARREN TEMPLE AND THE WITHERED TREE
William R. Telford
2 STUDIA BIBLICA 1978
II. Papers on the Gospels
E.A. Livingstone (ed.)
3 STUDIA BIBLICA 1978
III. Papers on Paul and Other New Testament Authors
E.A. Livingstone (ed.)
4 FOLLOWING JESUS
Discipleship in Mark's Gospel
Ernest Best
5 THE PEOPLE OF GOD
Markus Barth
6 PERSECUTION AND MARTYRDOM IN THE
THEOLOGY OF PAUL
John S. Pobee
7 SYNOPTIC STUDIES
The Ampleforth Conferences 1982 and 1983
CM. Tuckett (ed.)
8 JESUS ON THE MOUNTAIN
A Study in Matthean Theology
Terence L. Donaldson
9 THE HYMNS OF LUKE'S INFANCY NARRATIVES
Their Origin, Meaning and Significance
Stephen Farris
10 CHRIST THE END OF THE LAW
Romans 10.4 in Pauline Perspective
Robert Badenas
11 THE LETTERS TO THE SEVEN CHURCHES OF ASIA
IN THEIR LOCAL SETTING
Colin J. Hemer
12 PROCLAMATION FROM PROPHECY AND PATTERN
Lucan Old Testament Christology
Darrell L. Bock
13 JESUS AND THE LAWS OF PURITY
Tradition History and Legal History in Mark 7
Roger P. Booth
14 THE PASSION ACCORDING TO LUKE
The Special Material of Luke 22
Marion L. Soards
15 HOSTILITY TO WEALTH IN THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS
T.E. Schmidt
16 MATTHEW'S COMMUNITY
The Evidence of his Special Sayings Material
S.H. Brooks
17 THE PARADOX OF THE CROSS IN
THE THOUGHT OF ST PAUL
A.T. Hanson
18 HIDDEN WISDOM AND THE EASY YOKE
Wisdom, Torah and Discipleship in Matthew 11.25-30
C. Deutsch
19 JESUS AND GOD IN PAUL'S ESCHATOLOGY
L J. Kreitzer
20 LUKE: A NEW PARADIGM
M.D. Goulder
21 THE DEPARTURE OF JESUS IN LUKE-ACTS
The Ascension Narratives in Context
M.C. Parsons
22 THE DEFEAT OF DEATH
Apocalyptic Eschatology in 1 Corinthians 15 and Romans 5
M.C. De Boer
23 PAUL THE LETTER-WRITER
AND THE SECOND LETTER TO TIMOTHY
M. Prior
24 APOCALYPTIC AND THE NEW TESTAMENT:
Essays in Honor of J. Louis Martyn
J. Marcus & M.L. Soards
25 THE UNDERSTANDING SCRIBE
Matthew and the Apocalyptic Ideal
D.E. Orton
26 WATCHWORDS:
Mark 13 in Markan Eschatology
T. Geddert
27 THE DISCIPLES ACCORDING TO MARK:
Markan Redaction in Current Debate
C.C. Black
28 THE NOBLE DEATH:
Greco-Roman Martyrology and Paul's Concept of Salvation
D. Seeley
29 ABRAHAM IN GALATIANS:
Epistolary and Rhetorical Contexts
G.W. Hansen
30 EARLY CHRISTIAN RHETORIC AND 2 THESSALONIANS
F.W. Hughes
31 THE STRUCTURE OF MATTHEW'S GOSPEL:
A Study in Literary Design
D.R. Bauer
32 PETER AND THE BELOVED DISCIPLE:
Figures for a Community in Crisis
K.B. Quast
33 MARK'S AUDIENCE:
The Literary and Social Setting of Mark 4.11-12
M.A. Beavis
34 THE GOAL OF OUR INSTRUCTION:
The Structure of Theology and Ethics in the Pastoral Epistles
P.H. Towner
35 THE PROVERBS OF JESUS:
Issues of History and Rhetoric
A.P. Winton
36 THE STORY OF CHRIST IN THE ETHICS OF PAUL:
An Analysis of the Function of the Hymnic Material in the Pauline
Corpus
S.E. Fowl
37 PAUL AND JESUS:
Collected Essays
A.J.M. Wedderburn
38 MATTHEW'S MISSIONARY DISCOURSE:
A Literary Critical Analysis
DJ. Weaver
39 FAITH AND OBEDIENCE IN ROMANS:
A Study in Romans 1-4
G.N. Davies
40 IDENTIFYING PAUL'S OPPONENTS:
The Question of Method in 2 Corinthians
J.L. Sumney
41 HUMAN AGENTS OF COSMIC POWER IN HELLENISTIC
JUDAISM AND THE SYNOPTIC TRADITION
M.E. Mills
42 MATTHEW'S INCLUSIVE STORY:
A Study in the Narrative Rhetoric of the First Gospel
D.B. Howell
43 JESUS, PAUL AND TORAH:
Collected Essays
H. Raisanen
44 THE NEW COVENANT IN HEBREWS
S. Lehne