There are few New Testament passages that simultaneously provoke as much admiration and argumentation as this one. Given that entire books have been written about these verses, one can only scratch the surface of some of the most important issues in a short article. I will begin with matters on which there is substantial agreement before moving on to controversies. Two controversial matters, however, the unity of Philippians and the location of Paul’s imprisonment, will be bypassed entirely.

            There is some evidence of disagreement in the Philippian church between two women whom Paul calls his colleagues (Phil 4:2-3). They are probably important leaders in the church and Paul wants them “to be of the same mind.” As early as the thanksgiving section, Paul prays that the church will abound in “love . . . knowledge, and all discernment so that you may approve what is excellent” (1:9-10), all of which would be very helpful in the midst of a conflict. Nothing would indicate there are divisions of the intensity encountered at Corinth (cf. 1 Cor 1:10-12), but Paul is clearly concerned with unity. He even manages to use his present circumstances (1:12-26) as a reminder of why it is important “that you stand firm in one spirit, with one mind striving side by side for the faith of the gospel” (1:27c). The real “conflict” (v. 30) is with “the opponents” of the gospel outside the church (v. 28).

All this leads up to what is so often at the heart of Paul’s ethical admonitions, the example of Christ. The road to the unity spoken of in 2:2 (“of the same mind,” “same love,” “full accord,” “of one mind”) is a matter of putting away all selfishness and conceit, and having the sort of humbleness that regards others as more important than oneself, “looking not [only] to your own interests, but [also] to the interests of others” (vv. 3-4; the NRSV does not contain the bracketed words found in the RSV and NIV because they are not in the best manuscripts). Christ is offered as the ultimate example of such a mind. “Have this mind among you” he says (v. 5), the one expressed by Christ’s selfless conduct. Paradoxically, sacrificial servanthood is the road to success. When the purpose of vv. 5-11 is viewed this way, one cannot but think of several synoptic sayings of Jesus such as “For all who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted" (Luke 14:11).

            Before switching to matters of controversy, it is comforting to observe that the areas of substantial agreement pertain to Paul’s rhetorical goals in this letter. But the controversies are hardly inconsequential since the issues have to do with the source and form of these words and what Christological and theological assumptions are presupposed or implied by them.

            First, do these verses constitute a Carmen Christi, i.e., a Hymn to Christ? And if it is a hymn, was it pre-existing or did Paul compose it? Furthermore, if it was pre-existing, did he faithfully reproduce it or did he modify it to fit his own views and/or the situation at hand? He certainly freely adapts the LXX when advantageous.  It is unlikely that any of these issues will ever be settled. Most interpreters at least recognize the poetic qualities of the passage. More for convenience than from strong conviction, I will refer to the passage as “the hymn” from this point on.

            Second, what do some of the most important words in the hymn really mean? Several have created endless debate, especially morphē (“form, outward appearance, shape”) in vv. 6 and 7, harpagmos (usually “robbery”) in v. 6, and kenoō (“to empty”),  homoiōma (“likeness,” “image,” “form”), and schēma (“outward appearance,” “form,” “shape,” “way of life”), all in v. 7. How the difficult harpagmos is handled largely determines how morphē and the rest are construed. Translating harpagmos as “robbery” makes little sense in this context and is almost universally dismissed. The most popular alternative is to equate harpagmos with harpagma for which there is some support in both grammar and usage (see examples and discussion in BDAG).  Then it would mean “something claimed, grasped, seized, or exploited” either in the sense of “booty” or a “prize.” The RSV and many other translations opt for “something to be grasped” while the NRSV chooses “exploited.” The big question then becomes whether “equality with God” is something Christ already had but was willing to surrender, or was something he did not have and did not make the mistake of trying to seize. Particularly the latter possibility invites comparisons with Adam who tried to be like God (see below), but it also causes problems for interpreters who want the passage to agree with later Trinitarian orthodoxy. Was he not already “fully God”? Or was he divine but subordinate and so unequal to the Father? To be in the “form” of God could—though not necessarily—only mean that he was a spiritual being who then became flesh (“the form of a slave” in v. 7b). Subordinationism was later condemned as a heresy, but one wonders if Paul would have escaped this condemnation: “When all things are subjected to [God], then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things under him, that God may be everything to every one” (1 Cor 15:28). To avoid this uncomfortable scenario, some theologically conservative interpreters argue that morphē in Phil 2:6a really means something more like “nature, ” and thus the NIV’s highly interpretive rendition, “Who being in very nature God,” or the NLT’s even more bold, “Though he was God.” To be sure, that could be the best interpretation, but good translations should preserve the ambiguity of the original language when possible and let the reader decide.

            Third, is there an implicit Adam-Christ analogy in play here (cf. Rom 5)? The similarities are striking, but the matter of pre-existence complicates the picture. Assuming that the hymn was not composed by Paul, some have argued that while Paul himself probably understood it to imply Christ’s pre-existence (cf. 1 Cor 10:4; 2 Cor 8:9), the hymn may not. But others object that “being born/made in the likeness of human beings” (v. 7b) coming after “being in the form of God” (v. 6a) and “emptied himself” (v. 7a) strongly favors a pre-existence motif in the hymn itself. 

            Finally we should mention the issue of the name Christ received (vv. 9-11).  Is “a name above every name” Jesus or the title Lord? In terms of grammar it is most natural to take Jesus as the name referred to. And it is, after all, a name. But when one considers the intertextual relationship with Isa 45:23-25, especially with v. 23b, “To me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall confess,” and the possibility that “a name above every name” in v. 9—even without the definite article added in later manuscripts—would likely be heard as an echo of “the Name” by LXX readers, it seems more likely that the divine name “Lord” is intended. But then the question becomes whether he received what it represents for the first time at his exaltation, or received it back because he did not formerly “grasp” or “exploit” it . . . and the hermeneutical circle is complete.

Home Page