The normative reading of Philippians 2:7 focuses on theological aspects relating to Christ’s incarnation. This passage is regarded as an early Pauline formulation of Christology.[1] While this is Paul’s main purpose in writing the text, there also exists a theo-political subtext which is often ignored. This can be found in his use of slave terminology and metaphor in the passage. While Paul is not necessarily “anti-imperial” in any revolutionary sense[2], the slave language in his description of Christ suggests an inversion of socio-political status in the Roman imperial context.[3] This use of metaphor provides a distinctive contrast between the Roman tendency toward self-aggrandizement and the expected Christian ethic of self-sacrifice in the interest of others.
This form of interpretation is given some credence upon a cursory review of Paul’s historical context. G. F. Hawthorne notes, “Philippians is a letter the Apostle Paul wrote to the church in the city of Philippi in Macedonia , the first church he founded in Europe .”[4] At the time of Paul’s writing, Philippi was already an ancient city. It was a Roman colony, with a history that extended back to the period marked by the early development of the Macedonian Empire.[5] Due to its strategic location along the Via Egnatia[6], it had been rebuilt by the Roman Emperor Octavian, who granted it “the ius italicum – the highest privilege obtainable by a provincial municipality.”[7] Significantly, access to Roman culture and citizenship were privileges enjoyed by the city’s population as a result of Philippi ’s colonial status.[8] Consequently, the members of the Philippian church (along with Paul who was also a citizen of Rome
Slavery in the Roman Empire was, like all systems of slavery, a process of domination. Yet, slavery was not just one aspect of Greco-Roman society; the Roman Empire was a slave society. Slavery pervaded materially and ideologically the whole sociocultural domain and therefore was integral to social functions and cultural productions that in nonslaveowning societies are implemented in other ways.[9] (emphasis added)
Due to the fact that “Roman hegemony and Caesar’s dominion stood all over,”[10] it is easy to understand why Paul would “couch [his] message in language appropriate in the Roman colonia.”[11]
Aside from historical Roman power dynamics, an examination of the style of Paul’s letter-writing sheds light on contextual details of the passage. The style and genre of the Pauline corpus has been debated. One of the pressing questions relates to scope and audience which Paul intended for his letters. Some scholars like Adolf Deissmann have emphasized the similarity that exists between the Pauline letters and other private and occasional letters written by Greco-Roman contemporaries.[12] Deissmann argued that this would indicate that they were intended only for the individuals or communities that are the named recipients, and were not intended to express general theological motifs.[13] In contrast, biblical scholars E. Randolph Richards and Luther Stirewalt have suggested that Deissmann carries his assessment too far. Richards and Stirewalt argue that usage of common Greek, and the address to particular persons in a particular context need not exclude the fact that a “letter” was also intended for general use (e.g. for the purposes of communal instruction).[14] Richards suggests that there is a similarity that exists between Pauline letters and those written by other Greco-Roman teachers and philosophers, such as Cicero, and Seneca. He subsequently concludes that Greco-Roman letter writing in the time of Paul “was still a flexible form, which could be altered to meet the needs of a creative individual and could be used to discuss ‘theology,’ not in the form of a treatise but by casting it against the backdrop of daily life matters.”[15] Paul’s letter to the Philippians is generally held to follow this Greco-Roman rhetorical style.[16]
Philippians 2:7 occurs within the section of the letter which a number of scholars have designated as a Pauline recapitulation of an early Christian hymn which focuses on the paradoxical nature of Christ’s exaltation.[17] Several critical biblical commentators, noting the apparent composite nature of the letter, also believe that this portion of the text is likely part of a second letter written to the Philippian Christian community.[18] This letter was written by Paul while he was incarcerated by the Roman state.[19] It is likely that his intention is to comfort the community of believers in Philippi in the face of persecution, to address their concerns regarding Paul’s imprisonment, and to reaffirm their belief in the sovereignty of Jesus Christ, over and against Roman authority.[20] Paul included this Christ-hymn to assure the Philippian community that while it may appear antithetical to the norm of Roman civil society, the self-sacrificing way of Christ is the true way to freedom and honor.[21] Professor of New Testament Studies Gordon Fee points out that Paul’s use of this hymn “serves both to exalt Christ and prod the Philippians to emulation (the issue of vv. 1-4), while reassuring them of Christ’s exalted position – including over Caesar himself.”[22] Recognizing this fact, a careful examination of the wording which Paul uses in his version of this hymn is very important, especially in Philippians 2:7.
Philippians 2:7 is central to Paul’s understanding of Christology. In Philippians 2:6 Paul begins his description of Jesus who shares in the nature of God (the Greek morphē theou translated roughly as “in very nature God”).[23] This concept would have been in the common vernacular of the Philippian people.[24] The idea that a man shared his nature with a divine being was also applied to the Roman Caesars.[25] John Reumann points out in his commentary on Philippians, “Roman Emperors are the foil for 2:6-11.” Contrary to Greco-Roman expectation, however, Jesus does not use his “shared nature with God” (Reumann speaks of Jesus being in a shared mode of existence, or sphere of God) to exalt himself and exploit the weakness of others for his own benefit. Rather, in v. 7a Paul describes Jesus as having emptied himself (ekenōsen) in order to, in v. 7b, take “the form of a slave.”[26] The noun morphē is repeated here indicating that following his self-emptying Jesus is now “in very nature” a slave (morphē doulou).[27] In vv.7c-7d, Paul makes it clear that this should not be understood in some mystical, pseudo-philosophical, or Gnostic sense. The narrative of this portion of Philippians indicates that Jesus was “born in human likeness” (v.7c) and was “found in human form” (v.7d). Fee states that the most probable reason for the inclusion of these phrases is to indicate the “factual” nature of the description of Jesus’ self-emptying.[28]
It is of no minor significance that this description of Jesus’ incarnation is followed in v.8 with a description of His crucifixion and in vv.9-11 with a description of His exaltation by God. According to these verses Jesus is crucified, not in spite of, but due to His obedience to divine will. His exaltation is also integrally linked to this self-abasing obedience. This description would have scandalized a Greco-Roman audience. Reumann succinctly explains this reality stating that “[t]he katabasis of the godlike figure, from advantaged to disadvantaged existence, by choice, was not the typical cursus honorum or career path of the Roman world, but a path to ignominies (Hellerman) and slavery.”[29] In an essay entitled “Phil 2:6-11 and Resistance to Local Timocratic Rule: Isa theō and the Cult of the Emperor in the East,” New Testament Greek scholar Erik M. Heen argues that the hymn in Philippians actually represents an example of esoteric resistance to Roman imperial rule within early Christian scripture:
In Philippians 2:6-11, the exaltation of Jesus comes as a result of his choosing to live a life of submission (for others) and not one of dominance (over others). Hidden here, I believe, is a pointed critique of those who chose the opposite, i.e., those who grasped after honors on both the civic and imperial level. In the first place, this critique points a finger at the emperor. It was, after all, only the emperor who was awarded the status of being isa theō in the early Empire. In the enthronement picture Phil 2:6-11 draws, it is Jesus rather than the Princeps who is depicted as the true cosmocrator…In other words…the hymn characterizes the emperor as a pretender to a throne that rightfully belongs to Jesus.[30]
Thus Paul, in representing Jesus as he does in Philippians 2:7, is admonishing those who claim allegiance to Jesus to follow his self-sacrificing example in opposition to human culture which pursues self-aggrandizement.
It should be readily apparent that Philippians 2:7, properly read, contains themes which are both theological and socio-political. To be sure, the kénōsis described by Paul, in relation to Jesus’ incarnation, is essential to Pauline Christology. However, in order to understand the full significance of this theological development, one must view Paul’s word choice in light of its historical and social context. When this is done, what emerges bears the marks of a direct challenge to both Roman imperial society and human ambition in general.
Sources Cited
Beck, Norman A. Anti-Roman Cryptograms in the New Testament: Symbolic Messages of Liberation and Hope (New York: Peter Lang Publishing, 1997).
Briggs, Shelia “Paul on Bondage and Freedom in Roman Imperial Society,” in Richard Horsley, ed., Paul and Politics (Harrisburg , Pennsylvania
Elliot, Neil “The Apostle Paul and Empire,”in Richard Horsley, ed., In the Shadow of Empire: Reclaiming the Bible as a History of Faithful Resistance (London : Westminster
Fee, Gordon Paul’s Letter to the Philippians: The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Michigan: W. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1995).
Heen, Erik M. “Phil 2:6-11 and Resistance to Local Timocratic Rule: Isa theō and the Cult of the Emperor in the East,” in Richard Horsley, ed., Paul and the Roman Imperial Order (London
Oakes, Peter “God’s Sovereignty over Roman Authorities: A Theme in Philippians,” in Peter Oakes, ed., Rome in the Bible and the Early Church (Grand Rapids , Michigan
Osiek, Carolyn “Introduction to Philippians,” in The New Oxford Annotated Bible: New Revised Standard Version with the Apocrypha (Oxford : Oxford University
Reumann, John Philippians: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (New Haven and London : Yale University
Richards, E. Randolph Paul and First-Century Letter Writing: Secretaries, Composition and Collection (Downers Grove , Illinois
Wanamaker, Charles A. “Philippians” in James D. G. Dunn and John W. Rogerson, eds., Eerdmans Commentary on the Bible (Grand Rapids , Michigan
[1] Charles A. Wanamaker, “Philippians” in James D. G. Dunn and John W. Rogerson, eds., Eerdmans Commentary on the Bible (Grand Rapids , Michigan
[2] The idea that “anti-Roman” cryptograms exist in the Pauline textual corpus has been suggested by scholars such as Norman A. Beck in his book Anti-Roman Cryptograms in the New Testament: Symbolic Messages of Hope and Liberation, and Neil Elliot in “The Apostle Paul and Empire,” in the book In the Shadow of Empire: Reclaiming the Bible as a History of Faithful Resistance.
[3] John Reumann, Philippians: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (New Haven and London : Yale University
[4] G.F. Hawthorne, “The Letter to the Philippians,” in The Dictionary of Paul and His Letters (Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1993), 707.
[5] Ibid., 707.
[6] Carolyn Osiek, “Introduction to Philippians,” in The New Oxford Annotated Bible: New Revised Standard Version with the Apocrypha (Oxford : Oxford University
[7] Hawthorne
[8] Ibid., 707
[9] Shelia Briggs, “Paul on Bondage and Freedom in Roman Imperial Society,” in Richard Horsley, ed., Paul and Politics (Harrisburg , Pennsylvania
[10] John Reumann, Philippians, 365.
[11] Ibid., 365
[12] E. Randolph Richards, Paul and First-Century Letter Writing: Secretaries, Composition and Collection (Downers Grove , Illinois
[13] Ibid., 125.
[14] Ibid., 126-127.
[15] Ibid., 127.
[16] Charles A. Wanamaker, “Philippians,” 1394.
[17] Gordon Fee, Paul’s Letter to the Philippians: The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids , Michigan
[18] Charles A. Wanamaker, “Philippians,” 1394.
[19] Ibid., 1394.
[20] Peter Oakes, “God’s Sovereignty over Roman Authorities: A Theme in Philippians,” in Peter Oakes, ed., Rome in the Bible and the Early Church (Grand Rapids , Michigan
[21] Gordon Fee, Philippians, 192 and 196-197.
[22] Ibid, 192.
[23] Ibid., 198.
[24] John Reumann, Philippians, 367.
[25] See both Peter Oakes, “God’s Sovereignty,” 135, and John Reumann, Philippians, 369.
[26] John Reumann, Philippians, 368.
[27] Ibid., 367.
[28] Gordon Fee, Philippians, 213.
[29] John Reumann, Philippians, 368.
[30] Erik M. Heen, “Phil 2:6-11 and Resistance to Local Timocratic Rule: Isa theō and the Cult of the Emperor in the East,” in Richard Horsley, ed., Paul and the Roman Imperial Order (London
No comments:
Post a Comment