Loading...There is a whole lot more that could be said about the Christ-poem in Philippians 2. You could literally write an entire book on just this passage. In fact, people *have* written books on just this passage. The most important one, a classic in the field, is by Ralph Martin, A Hymn of Christ (which in earlier editions was called Carmen Christi) (which is a Latin phrase that, unsurprisingly, means A Hymn of Christ 🙂 ). This passage has had more ink spilled over it by scholars over the last century than almost any other in the entire Bible (with the exception of John 1:1-18). In any event, to make sense of what I want to say here, it would help, if you haven’t done so, to read the other posts I’ve made on it.
Here I just want to mention briefly an interpretation that is sometimes floated for the passage which takes it in a very different way indeed, as not being about incarnation at all. In this alternative interpretation, the passage is not about a pre-existent divine being who becomes human and then is exalted to an even higher state. In this other interpretation the passage instead means to refer to the human Jesus from beginning to end (though he is exalted at the end). The poem, in this interpretation, is about how Jesus is a second Adam, who reversed the very bad consequences of the sin of the first Adam.
FOR THE REST OF THIS POST, log in as a Member. Click here for membership options. If you don’t belong yet, GET WITH THE PROGRAM!!!
Related to my comment on a previous post, what are the precedents for angelic beings being “exalted”. Are angels such as Metatron too late to be influencing early Christian thinking? Would the Books of Enich have influenced the ways in which people thought about angels acting?
Yes, I think Metatron is too late (3 Enoch). But Alan Segal, in his influential Two Powers in Heaven, argues that a divine angelic being sitting beside God on his throne was a “heresy” in Judaism, in Palestine, in the first century. So 3 Enoch is an outgrowth of that view.
From the description you are presenting, particularly with regard to the idea that Jesus is the second Adam and that what is described in the poem literally happened as historical events that made actual literal changes in man’s relationship with God. I have usually taken the creation story and the story of original sin metaphorically as a myth. Are you saying that those who read this hymn during the time of Paul understood this to be literal history?
Yes, I don’t think people at the time has a concept of myth the way we do.
Some people refer to this as the Big Bang of early high christology. To get around this, some people even consider this hymn to be a 2nd century interpretation.
I know this is a bit off topic and probably gets asked often, but does Paul ever encounter an early form of Docetism, i.e. how early do Docetists appear (no pun intended).
Not that we know of.
Your still my hero. Forgive my trying to sell my viewpoint, yet if you are researching for your book, I hope to have an effect. The viewpoint I hold is in this post except “and because of this he was made equal with God” This is not supported with this passage or any where else. It is an incorrect interpretation imported from elsewhere. Addressing #1. “Image/form of God” Think of Jesus as the “idol of God”. Idols were used to represent a socalled god. This socalled god was not the idol itself but was believed to be representing that god who was elsewhere in the heavens. Where Adam failed to represent God’s image/form/ character/etc, Jesus did so much that he was credited with being the “exact representation of that image”. Many consider this a diety proof text. But that would make Adam diety if that were so. #2. It does not matter if it is “the mother of all living” or Adam. Adam replied to God, “that woman you gave me” compared to Jesus as the second Adam who mediates for us rather than throw us under the bus as Adam did. #3. “became human”, misunderstood but much better than the previous “born human”. There is nothing in the greek to justify “born”. The mindset in the poem is that Jesus was different than those before him. Rather than use his status to gain all from this life that he could, making himself as a god on earth as the leaders before him had done by having the people serve them rather than serving the people, contrasting men/kings wanting to “be like God”, in the likeness of [common] man becoming, being found as a man, he Jesus, assessing that man was created to serve God, not rival God, so therefore he humbled himself, served our ultimate need. #4 1 Cor 8:6, “the Father from whom all things… one master, through all things came. “through implies “agent”. He is the agent of the new creation, the old has gone, the new has come”. 1 Cor 10:4 “drank from the spiritual rock and that rock was Christ”. See John 4:10, 7:38 and Matt 26:31. This is not the writer calling Jesus the literal rock or preexistant Jesus. It is a play on the Holy Spirit [living water] being given at the striking of the rock [shepherd]. 1 Cor 15:47, “from heaven”, consider John’s reply when asked by what authority, “John’s message, was it from heaven or from men”. This does not imply that Paul thought that Jesus was from heaven himself, but says that he was sent “from heaven”. The from being by what authority. 2 Cor 8:9 Jesus being “rich” is a play on “prophet likened to Moses”, who gave up the riches of Pharoah’s house. Understanding “rich” in the way we understand “rich” does not fit. If it did then Christians would all be millionares. [so that we might become rich]. The point is that this does not have to mean that he preexisted,. Rich could have many meanings other than preexistence. Such as “without sin”. That would be rich in God’s economy. Yet he bore the sins of us so that we might become rich. A word search of rich quickly reveals that it is used in many different meanings. “Blessing” being one example. Another to consider, Paul’s usuage , Col 2:2 “So that they might have the full riches of complete understanding”.
Bart,
Assuming that the historical Jesus had no intention of dying at all, let alone dying for sin. And assuming that “Plan B” was formed by his followers. Who was the religious genius that turned Jesus’ death into Christianity?
Jerry
My guess is that it was some of his disciples who had visions of him after his death. I’ll be dealing with this in my book.
As recently being a biblical unitarian,I learned to see this passage in the light of Christs humanity only.The form of God being interpreted as his divine acts as Gods representative on earth;in the forgiveness of sins and miracles of healing etc.So a point came in his ministry that he chose the way of humility or obedience unto death-the role of suffering servant,as opposed to seeking earthly exaltation.The argument being that as non preexistent beings how can we emulate Christ-having the same attitude he had as in vs5.
It’s hard to deny the idea of pre existence here though and I had always looked at it that way before as a trinitarian.
It’s a relief and far more fascinating to let these passages say whatever they appear to say and not seek to make them fit any system.Freedom from an inerrant bible is a miracle in itself for me.Praise God I’ve been born again,again!
I have a friend, a retired Methodist minister and one-time college professor of New Testament (who got me hooked on single-malt scotch) who used to say about me that I went from being born again to being dead again. 🙂
Fascinating! I suppose, re your point of the wording not matching Genesis (“form” vs. “image”), there weren’t any variant wordings of Genesis circulating in that era?
When I read these ideas about Adam’s (or Eve’s) great “sin,” I can’t help thinking of a (probably modern) interpretation of the symbolism that I’ve encountered somewhere. That it can be seen as a parable referring to a person’s attaining adulthood. At some point, the child *must* refuse to go along with arbitrary decisions made by the parent – must “rebel.” The parent typically resists. And attaining adulthood actually does involve some degree of loss: you become responsible for yourself, can’t rely on the parent’s protection. But standing up for yourself, demanding to be treated as an equal, is definitely the right move.
Was there any thought along these lines in the time period we’re discussing? Did anyone argue that Adam was right, and a just God should have recognized that and respected him?
No, no variants about this in the Septuagint. I don’t know of any interpretation like that about Adam, but the Gnostics did sometimes think such things about Eve. Elaine Pagels has a book about it: Adam, Eve, and the Serpent.
“So, as much as I would like the passage to be about the man Jesus (second Adam) behaving in a way opposite to the man Adam (first Adam), I just don’t think it is saying that”. Where I come from, this is called intellectual honesty. It’s a pleasure to read your posts.
Many years ago, in another life, I wrote a ThM thesis on the incarnation at Grace Theological Seminary. Like a number of people who read (and write!) this blog, I ended up losing my faith. As a result, I left the ministry and became an academic librarian. So, I have to say that I don’t believe most of what I wrote in my thesis.
Nonetheless, I did a lot of exegesis in my thesis, and from an academic standpoint, I think some of that may still hold up. In particular, I devoted 23 pages (of 150) to exegeting Phil 2:6-7. And yes, I did make good use of Martin’s book! But there was one particular linguistic point from my research that I’ve always remembered, and I’m curious, Bart, what you think about it.
I’m referring to the interpretation put forth by Roy Hoover in “The Harpagmos Enigma: A Philological Solution” (HTR Jan 1971). I felt then (and now) that his view made sense. In a nutshell, his view is that it is a mistake to ask what the word harpagmos means in isolation from its phrase. It is not a question of whether it refers to an active snatching (res rapta) or a passive thing snatched (res rapienda). Hoover argues that harpagmos is part of an idiomatic phrase, and should be translated as such. As a result, Hoover translates 2:6b as follows: “he did not regard being equal with God as something to…use for his own advantage” (p. 118).
Are you familiar with this approach–and do you think it has any merit?
I remember reading Hoover’s article and liking it when I first started looking seriously at the passage in 1981. But I haven’t looked at it since and can’t really comment on it now. The big question, of course, is whather Harpagmas means “greedily hold on to something you have” or “grasp for something you want.” Big difference! I’m not sure from your translation (Hoover’s) how he solves the problem, and can’t remember!
Say, I don’t think this is too off-topic, because it was the mention of “Adam” that got me thinking about it. Isn’t there a Christian doctrine that humans were in a bad relationship with God because of “original sin” (Adam’s disobedience), and the purpose of Jesus’s dying on the cross was to somehow make that situation better – even though we still, presumably, have the “stain of original sin” on our souls? I know the Catholics take the “original sin” business seriously enough that they went to the trouble of establishing a doctrine that Jesus’s mother Mary was the only person (aside from, presumably, Jesus himself) ever born *without* that “stain of original sin” on her soul.
But in all the things I’ve been hearing about what Jews expected the Messiah to be, there’s been no mention of that. Did the Jews in his era even believe in the “original sin” concept? When did the Christians come to associate that with the mission of Jesus?
No, the original sin idea is a later doctrine of the Catholic church. You won’t find it in Jewish writings. But you’ll find it in Augustine!
Bart, I agree with your point 3 above with respect to Jesus as a “pre-existent being becoming incarnate.” I would also add that all humans are exactly that – pre-existent beings, so it’s just a reiteration of a plain fact, to me at least. On the other hand, regarding point 1, “form” and “image” are indeed two different words, but I don’t think it matters much which word is used if we hold to the precept that all humans become incarnate the same way – as an “image,” geocentrically based, of the Cosmos (Gen. 1:26). This static image/form consists not of a “God” but rather “gods” plural. We could even capitalize them, as the author does in “Let Us make man in Our image.” He could have declared “Let Me make man in My image,” but he didn’t. So, to try to explain this Pauline “hymn” with a monotheistic mindset doesn’t work.
I had said elsewhere that “the phrase ‘did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped’ should not suggest to us that Jesus could have chosen, at any time, to be exalted.” I would add that it should not suggest either that he “refused” it, as you seem to be saying in point 3. In becoming “one with the Father,” of Whom is really just a part of this “image,” full exaltation requires a maturation process that takes time – yes, time – to unfold. It can’t be “grasped” prematurely, which Jesus understood. It would take his appointed death on a cross at a specific time in history, not to mention his resurrection to follow, to complete the mission.