The Philippians Hymn and Pauline Theology

Introduction

The hymn[1] in Philippians 2 (vv. 6-11) is usually employed to establish both the pre-existence and incarnation of Christ. Scholars believe that the hymn is based either on Adam (Adam Christology) or on Isaiah’s Suffering Servant. The following article suggests an incident that inspired Paul to write the hymn and examines whether the hymn draws on Servant Theology or Adam Christology.

The Setting

The NT background to the Philippians hymn can be found in John 13:3-7 a suggestion first noted by Hawthorne: [2]

Jesus, knowing that the Father had given all things into His hands, and that He had come from God and was going to God, rose from supper and laid aside His garments, took a towel and girded Himself. After that, He poured water into a basin and began to wash the disciples’ feet, and to wipe them with the towel with which He was girded. Then He came to Simon Peter. And Peter said to Him, “Lord, are You washing my feet?” Jesus answered and said to him, “What I am doing you do not understand now, but you will know after this” John 13:3-7 (NKJV)

The entire hymn in Philippians preserves the descent-ascent motif that is prominent in the Gospel story (John13:3-17//Luke 22:24-30). Moreover, the context is complementary, for the background to the gospel story is rivalry among the disciples. A struggle for leadership and pre-eminence had been a continuing cause of friction amongst the disciples (Mark 9:34; 10:37), so much so that Jesus warned against power struggles and the desire for prominence (Luke 14:7-11; cf. Mark 9:34, 35). And later this very incident is referred to by Peter (1 Pet 5:3, 5). It is suggested that Jesus washed the disciples’ feet because they were arguing about the priority of the seating arrangements at the Last Supper. Unlike the selfish attitude of the disciples, fired as it was by personal ambition, Jesus voluntarily took the position of a servant. This is a key theme in Philippians and the context of the hymn, “Look not every man on his own things, but every man also on the things of others. Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus” (vv. 4, 5).

You call me Teacher and Lord, and you say well, for [so] I am. If I then, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another’s feet. For I have given you an example, that you should do as I have done to you. Most assuredly, I say to you, a servant is not greater than his master; nor is he who is sent greater than he who sent him. John 13:13-17 (NKJV)

The Greek of John 13:13 (le,gete\ eivmi. ga,r) does not contain the adverb so (placed here between parenthesis) and is the more emphatic I am – translated by Young’s Literal Translation as, “ye call me, The Teacher and The Lord, and ye say well, for I am”.[3] Significantly, Jesus does not rebuke them for calling him ‘Teacher and Lord’. Is Jesus claiming to be God?  Obviously not, because “A servant is not greater than his lord; neither he that is sent greater than he that sent him”.

Jesus Christ is not claiming to be God, but rather he is the covenant manifestation and embodiment of the divine character revealed in the name. Hence, he can affirm ‘I am’ and confirm what is implicitly anticipated in Yahweh’s use of ‘I will be’—he is the present (‘I am’) and full manifestation (phanerosis) of the promised covenant self-revelation (“I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion”, Rom 9: 15).

Jesus’ use of ‘I am’ in John is a circumlocution linked to the revelation of the divine name and Philippians expressly notes that, “at the name of Jesus every knee should bow…and confess that Jesus Christ is Lord” (Phil 2:10, 11). Jesus was the perfect embodiment of the name of Yahweh but both Philippians and John 13 stress his subordination to the Father.

It is this future manifestation that R. Bauckham latches onto and for which he coins the phrase ‘eschatological monotheism’:

This means that it is often in scriptural texts that refer to the final and universal manifestation of the unique identity of the one God that Paul understands Jesus to be YHWH. Jesus himself is the eschatological manifestation of YHWH’s unique identity[4] to the whole world, so that those who call on Jesus’ name and confess Jesus as Lord are acknowledging YHWH the God of Israel to be the one and only true God.[5]

Bauckham has sensed something correct in his analysis of the application of the Yahweh name to Jesus (as the “eschatological manifestation of YHWH’s unique identity”); however, he then proceeds to negate the implications of his analysis by forcing it into a Trinitarian paradigm:

It [the name] is given to Jesus in recognition of his identity as Lord of all creation, but at the same time it rebounds to the glory of God the Father ([Phil]2:11) because Jesus is not an alternative object of worship in competition with the one God but himself belongs to the unique identity of that one God. Thus the passage ([Phil]vv 9-11), to which we have so far confined our comments, refers to the incarnate and risen Christ exercising the divine sovereignty not simply as such, but as the eschatological role of achieving and receiving the recognition of that unique sovereignty by all creation. Rather only one who already belonged to the divine identity could occupy this position of eschatological supremacy. It is part of the function of the opening words of the passage ([Phil]2:6), which I understand, with the majority of scholars, as depicting the pre-existence of Christ, to make clear his identity with the one God from the beginning.[6],[7]

The reading of pre-existence into the hymn is caused by a failure to correctly recognise the typology that forms the basis of Pauline thought.

Is the Hymn based on the Suffering Servant or on Adam?

Both viewpoints are represented in scholarship but J. D. G. Dunn, who proposes an Adam Christology as the basis for the hymn, found that he had to defend his position[8] because the Adam paradigm challenges the notion of a pre-existent Christ. New Testament scholar N. T. Wright offers the following critique on ‘Adam Christology’:

To begin with, this background [Adam Christology] depends heavily on a rejection of pre-existence in the hymn (see Hurst, 449). Therefore, if one accepts pre-existence, its appeal diminishes greatly. Even if one does not, there are still problems, such as why Adam’s fall should prompt the idea of slavery in 2:7 (see Hurst, 451-52; Wanamaker, 181-83). Also, the language of 2:7-8a suggests something more comprehensive even than Adam’s fall (Hurst, 451). Similarly, how would the general idea of Adam’s disgrace prompt the particulars of Phil 2:9-11? For instance, what is the connection between Adam speculation and Isa 45:23, which Phil 2:9-11 clearly reflects? In the end, he [Dunn] seems almost to abandon Adam speculation by concluding that “the nearest antecedents” to a Christology of pre-existence are personifications of Wisdom or Torah”. [9]

Dunn observes the following connections with Adam in Phil 2:6-11:

v.6a – in the form of God (cf. Gen 1.27);
v.6b – tempted to grasp equality with God (cf. Gen. 3.5);
v.7 – enslavement to corruption and sin – humanity as it now is (cf. Gen 2.19, 22-24; Ps 8.5a; Wisd 2.23; Rom  8.3; Gal 4.4; Heb  2.7a, 9a);
v.8 – submission to death (cf. Wisd 2.24; Rom 5.12-21; 7.7-11: 1 Cor  15.21-22)
vv.9-11 – exalted and glorified (cf. Ps 8.5b-6; I Cor.15.27, 45; Heb.2.7b-8, 9b)

Dunn concludes that, “It is the Adamic significance of Christ which the hymn brings out, of his life and death and exaltation (as in Rom. 5, I Cor. 15 and Heb. 2), not necessarily a chronological parallel phase by phase. This is why it still seems to me an open question as to whether the hymn carries any thought of pre-existence, other than the pre-existence involved in the paradigm – that is, the metahistorical character of the Adam myth”.

Other scholars contend that the basis of the hymn is not Adam Christology but rather the Suffering Servant of Isaiah. They are no doubt correct in this insight, but there is no reason why one paradigm should preclude the other. In fact even Dunn recognizes the limitations of his Adam Christology when he states that the “fit is not exact or precise”, but there is no reason why both models cannot operate in a complementary fashion. It is therefore entirely plausible that Paul combined Adam Christology with Suffering Servant theology. The following connections are suggested:

Isaiah (NKJV) Philippians 2 (KJV)
Thus says the LORD, the King of Israel, And his Redeemer, the LORD of hosts: ‘I am the First and I am the Last; Besides Me there is no God’ (44:6 cf. 40:18). He did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped (v.6 RSV)
My righteous servant (53:11)… His visage was marred more than any man, And His form more than the sons of men (52:14 cf. 53:2) But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men (v.7)
…. He poured out His soul unto death, And He was numbered with the transgressors, and He bore the sin of many, And made intercession for the transgressors (53:12). I will ….give thee for a covenant of the people…. (49:8) And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. (v.8)
Behold, My Servant shall deal prudently; He shall be exalted and extolled and be very high. (52: 13) Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: (v.9)
I have sworn by Myself; The word has gone out of My mouth in righteousness, And shall not return, That to Me every knee shall bow, Every tongue shall take an oath. (45:23) And that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; (v.10) that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. (v. 11)

The connections with the Suffering Servant of Isaiah are obvious although there are different languages involved (Hebrew and Greek).

P. Martin detects a parallelism in the lines of verse 7 in which morfh.n dou,lou [form of a slave] is parallel with evn o`moiw,mati avnqrw,pwn [in the likeness of a man].[10] This parallelism is a good example of how Adam Christology is subtly combined with Suffering Servant terminology. Genesis narrates how Adam, who was ‘created in the likeness of God’ (Gen 5:1) ‘begat a son in his own likeness, after his image’ (Gen 5:3).  The son of Adam inherited the sin-prone nature of his father and became metaphorically a ‘servant’ to sin.

The phrase “made himself of no reputation” is literally “emptied (keno,w) himself” and has given rise to kenotic theology, now almost universally rejected. Martin comments that, “linguistically the self-emptying is related to the taking of the form of a servant and the verse teaches nothing about the abandonment of divine attributes”. He also adds that, “the phrase…which is found nowhere else in Greek, and is grammatically harsh, may go back to a Semitic original in Isaiah 53:12, ‘he poured his soul unto death  (RV)’”.[11]

Conclusion

Philippians 2 employs the Hebrew Scriptures in a characteristically Pauline manner which is complex, subtle and polyvalent by combining Adam Christology with Suffering Servant theology. L. D. Hurst and C. A. Wanamaker also favour a combined model as the basis of the hymn.[12]  Paul deliberately contrasts the actions of Adam with the actions of the Suffering Servant. The Suffering Servant offered himself as an atoning sacrifice for the nation. Adam joined his wife in sin (instead of atoning for her). The Suffering Servant (although Yahweh’s agent) humbled himself and was numbered with the transgressors. Adam exalted himself by seeking equality with God. The contrast is between “my righteous servant” and the “servant of sin”…for, “Whosoever commits sin is the servant of sin” (John 8:34). The apostle Paul illuminates the Genesis “fall” through the lens of Isaiah and presents the reader with a number of contrasts.  This begs the question of the historical identity of the Suffering Servant a question that has been completely obfuscated by a liberal scholarship that asserts that the Servant Songs in Isa 42:1-53:12 are the product of an unknown post-exilic author styled “Deutero-Isaiah”.   However, the correct setting of the Servant Songs is the reign of Hezekiah,[13] and failure to correctly contextualize the oracles leads to aberrant understandings. The oracles seem to admit of both a collective and an individual role for the Servant. Collectively, the Servant is the faithful Judean remnant but the passages that speak of individual suffering are based on Hezekiah.  As the king, he was not only the divine agent, but also the representative of the people; in other words, a mediator and type of the messiah.

No one would insist that either Adam or the Suffering Servant pre-existed. The ideas of agency and God manifestation (not incarnation) are integral to both roles—especially in the account of Adam’s “fall”.  Even though Paul types Christ as the “second Adam” (1 Cor 15:47), Trinitarians fiercely resist “Adam Christology” because the parallel with Adam places Christ in a role that is subordinate to the Father. However, it is the “natural” that is first and then the “spiritual” (1 Cor 15:46). If Christ existed before Adam the contrast breaks down.  As the “second Adam” Jesus refused to follow in the footsteps of the “first Adam” instead embracing the role of the suffering servant.

The Philippians are not being exhorted to forego a pre-existent “god-like” status in exchange for a humbler “human” form.[14]  Instead, the community, who already had an exalted status in Christ and the powers of the future age, should follow his example (not the example of Adam’s overweening ambition), who although made in the express image of God, did not snatch at divinity. Nor did he selfishly abuse his powers, nor did he claim his rightful place as King of the Jews, nor did he lord it over his brethren. He put to one side the privileges of a son for those of a servant. Adam blamed God for his fall; “The woman whom You gave to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I ate” (Gen 3:12) but Christ declared; “Those whom You gave Me I have kept….” (John 17:12).  Jesus humbled himself to death on the cross in order to save his bride…be ye likeminded.

An Aside

Theologians, and especially philosophical theologians, are fond of categories like “reality” and “being” in their descriptions of God. Paul Tillich, a New York theologian popular in the 1960s, affirmed that God was the “ground of all being”. You may hear theologians say that God is “Ultimate Reality” or a “necessary being”. The Bible does not have this kind of language. The nearest you get is “Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord God Almighty, who was and is and is to come!” (Rev 4:8, RSV), which uses the verbs “to be” and “to come” of God. To use the verb “to be” in relation to God does not involve the notion of reality or make a comment about God’s being. Scripture does not elaborate very much upon the nature of God. Instead, Scripture presents God as a person to whom we can relate. To think of God as a person whom we can trust and who makes promises to us is far better thinking than any description of him in terms of the concepts of “being” or “reality”. (AP)

[1] It is beyond the scope of this article to discuss whether the text is a hymn; we just assume this common designation.

[2] G. F. Hawthorne, Philippians (WBC 43; Waco: Word, 1983), 65.

[3] UBS/GNT places a full stop after le,gete; the BYZ text has a comma. By this device, UBS/GNT are placing Jesus’ saying within the scope of the other Johannine ‘I am’ sayings.

[4] [Ed. AP]: R. Bauckham’s popular book, God Crucified: Monotheism and Christology in the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999) introduced the phrases ‘unique identity’ and ‘include in the unique identity’ for Jesus’ relation to God. It is a lamentable failing of the book that he does not include an elementary discussion of his notion of identity; he entirely ignores the work of logicians.

[5] R. Bauckham, “Paul’s Christology of Divine Identity” (paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature, Toronto, Canada, November 25, 2002), 1-26 (11). Available online [cited 21/03/2010]:    www.forananswer.org/Top_JW/Richard_Bauckham.pdf.

[6] Bauckham, “Paul’s Christology of Divine Identity”, 12: However, some scholars (besides J. D. G. Dunn) do argue that pre-existence and incarnation have no place here (for bibliography, see L. D. Hurst, “Re-enter the Pre-existent Christ in Philippians 2.5-11?” NTS 32 (1986): 449-57.

[7] [Ed. AP]: In this quote we have a formulation of the “worship argument” for the deity of Christ, one which has been popular in academic theology in the last two decades.

[8] J. D. G. Dunn comments, “The dialogue has probably been more fierce over the christological hymns, Phil 2.6-11 and Col 1.15-20, than anywhere else. It is clear from comment and conversation that some regard the questions I pose and suggestions I make in relation to these texts as insubstantial and wholly implausible, if not absurd, if not perverse”. See his foreword to the second edition of Christology in the Making (2nd ed.; London: SCM Press, 1989), xviii-xix and xxxiii-xxxiv.

[9] N. T. Wright, The Climax of the Covenant (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992), 91-92, 97. See also P. O’Brien, The Epistle to the Philippians (NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991) 263-68.

[10] R. P. Martin, An Early Christian Confession (Tyndale Press,1961), 57 fn. 48; see online at www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/confession_martin.pdf  [cited 20/03/2010].

[11] Martin, An Early Christian Confession, 23-24. [Ed. JWA]: Re “poured out”. The precise form of Isa 53:12’s Hebrew term hr”Þ[/h,/h`rh translated ‘poured out’ connects with ‘make bare’ or ‘expose’ in Lev 20:18-19 related to ‘uncovering’ (cf. hlg) nakedness.  ‘Exposed his soul’ – what Jesus did to himself – would then profoundly benefit from connecting with Col 2:15 and thus better measure the ironic counterpoint in that NT text re Christ’s ‘undressing’ principalities and powers also in his death.

[12] Hurst, “Re-enter the Pre-existent Christ in Philippians 2.5-11?”, 457 n. 39; C. A. Wanamaker, “Philippians 2.6–11: ‘Son of God or Adamic Christology’?” NTS 33 (1987): 179-193 (182).

[13] See H. A. Whittaker, Isaiah (Cannock: Biblia, 1988), G. Booker and H. A. Whittaker, Hezekiah the Great: The Songs of Degrees (Birmingham: CMPA, 1985).

[14] “For all seek their own, not the things which are of Christ Jesus”. (Phil 2:21 NKJV)