The Historicity of Philippians 2:5-11

 Introduction

            In this discourse, the goal is to attempt a survey of Philippians, specifically the "hymn" embedded in the text. This portion of Scripture could be an early hymn or some type of liturgical device that was composed early in the church's birth. Some basic groundwork will be covered, such as attempting to establish authorship and dating of Philippians. These attempts will try to gain an understanding of where this insertion, made by Paul, has come from and if it is possible to know much about it. If certain aspects of this text can be confirmed (or at least reasonably known) then it is likely the modern person is looking at early creedal information about the nature and person of Jesus Christ. It is for this purpose that this hymn will be analyzed both historically and theologically. Suppose more evidence for the veracity of Christ can be established. In that case, it can be holstered in the apologetic belt for later use and hopefully point people to the truth and salvific purposes of Christ.

Dating and Authorship of Philippians

            Before formulating an argument, there is a need to establish some baseline information. First, the questions must be answered; is Philippians an early work, and did Paul write it? The intention is to survey some key scholars on the issue and see where the data lands. Discovering this information will provide a foundation to jump from when finding out if verses 6-11 are a creed or if it is even early. In addition, establishing this baseline will help determine if the early church used this Philippians text because it circulated before its writing or if it is a construction of Paul as he fills out his thoughts on the person of Christ.

            As with most historical inquiries, the authorship of Philippians is not airtight. However, "there is little serious doubt that Paul is the author of Philippians."[1] Even though there is little doubt that Paul did write this letter, there is still some debate as to what extent we have the most complete form of the letter. This debate offers little to the discussion of this writing, but it is information that can undermine the intention of this writing. To that end, this information is offered. The latest date offered for Philippians is the early '60s AD.[2] There are other dates on offer, which range from 54AD to 63AD, but the early '60s is the most agreed-upon dating of the text. The primary goal here is not to establish the earliest date possible but to show that it is not far removed from the cross. It is important to note that even at the latest date, this only places the letter (not the content of the letter, e.g., creedal data) thirty years after the cross. As this discourse continues, more details will come out about the composition of this letter. With these minor details out of the way, the focus can shift to the content of the letter, more specifically, verses 6-11.

What to Make of Verses Five to Eleven

            When reading through this section of Paul's letter, it is obvious that there is a change in the structure and composition. Ryrie makes a note of this change, "unlike the informal, conversational style of the rest of the letter, verses 5-11 are highly polished."[3] When there is a change in the structure of writing, notice should be given. Due to the letter (as a whole) being primarily an informal letter, finding a section as polished as verses 5 to 11 should cause the reader to pause. What are some possible reasons why this section has a change in style? The goal is to explore some of the possibilities below.

            It is possible that this section of Philippians is a later addition to the letter and was not even written by Paul. However, though this may seem like a good counterclaim against Scripture, this claim has very little to no support. Most scholars think that these verses are an early hymn regarding the person of Christ. This is not to say that it does not have debate or that the origin and dating of these verses is set in stone. With that said, many believe that this is not due to the composition of Paul but something that he borrowed from to bolster his overall argumentation within the letter.

            One component that is clearly agreed to by everyone is that this passage uses "exalted, lyrical, quasi-credal language."[4] Bockmuehl also notes that there is Hebraic-sounding parallelism.[5] Even though Paul describes himself as a Hebrew of Hebrews elsewhere in Scripture, structurally speaking, it would be a difficult sell to anyone that he was the composer of these verses. The evidence is lacking to support a confident conclusion as to the use of this "hymn" by Christians in everyday church life or worship. However, the compositional elements indicate to the modern reader that this was more than a simple writing by an early apostle. What should be done about this fact? It is hard to say what the modern inquirer should do with this information but with that structural data and the grammatical information contained in this passage, there is evidence to suggest that this section of Scripture is earlier than Paul and probably not a composition by him.

            If there is agreement that Paul borrowed this to help provide some foundation to his argument, then it can be safely assumed these verses are at least pre-Pauline. What exactly does it mean to be pre-Pauline? On the face of it, it seems easy enough to answer, it came before Paul. However, this only raises more questions. Who did it come from? When was it written? Many of these questions will remain unanswered simply because there is a lack of explicit, tangible evidence to support a decision in any direction. As historians, the best thing that can be done is to gather evidence about certain aspects of the text (e.g. structure, verbiage, etc.) and try to formulate a coherent effort at providing a theory.

            When it comes to the Philippians text, some find it difficult to say that it is a hymn or that even hymns played an important role in the early church. Martin tends to think in the other direction, "but there can be no doubt that the early believers in Jesus inherited the desire to express their gratitude to God in the offering of vocal praise, as their use of the Psalter in the early prayers in Acts and the references in Colossians, Ephesians, and James show."[6] The use of music and singing were popular in pagan Greek culture as well. This is not to suggest that Greek idol worship and Christian worship were the same. However, this does go to show where influence has come from, and singing has been both a part of Jewish and Greek worship for many centuries. The primary difference is the figure of Christ, who was seen (and still is) as God come in human flesh to redeem mankind and has interacted in human history in a meaningful way.

            The primary focus of this section is to decipher what to make of this portion of Paul's letter. Lohmeyer has provided an in-depth analysis of the text in his commentary which was later expanded by Martin. Lohmeyer makes four points as to this "hymn" section of Philippians. First, he states that these verses form a "self-contained unity."[7] Verses 5-11 has an introductory formula which indicates to the reader that there is something that came prior that is being referenced. This section also has a definite direction and a clear theme which tends to point to a solid piece of literature that has been in circulation for some time. This point is not definite, in the sense that, though it has a solid progression it must have come before Paul wrote it. But this does point to some form of writing which has deeply established roots. Lohmeyer also thinks that there is a prior Aramaic/ Semitic version of these verses. He notes that the "linguistic and stylistic evidence" shows that this hymn is both pre-Pauline and has come from the early church community.[8] As part of the text there are features which indicate to the reader that it was a translation. Some of these features are things that would otherwise be "impossible" in the Greek but could only be achieved via translating from a different language.[9] This is strong evidence that Philippians 2:5-11 has a very early foundation as set in the church community. This point is not without its detractors, but the linguistic evidence is there and must be addressed. The final point made by Lohmeyer (and expounded by Martin) is that the early "Jewish-Christian" community that would be credited with this hymn was in Jerusalem.[10] The evidence is somewhat scant on this front which makes this final point more speculative than concrete. However, with the evidence that there probably existed a Semitic form of this hymn would point to Jerusalem as the center (in all likelihood). If this is accepted as a general fact than the importance of this hymn goes to the sky. Not only does this make the hymn/ creed very early, pre-Pauline, it also goes straight back to where the church began and would imply that it is apostolic in nature.

            Fitzmyer weighs in on the discussion of the possibility of an Aramaic original. He (and others) seems to think that there was undoubtedly some Aramaic original but there have been some general linguistic mistakes in forming a transliteration of the text.[11] There is a consensus on the real possibility of this original but that there were probably Greek additions made to it. These Greek additions could be attributed to Paul. Paul would have been very interested in expanding this text to provide a fuller explanation of the gospel (e.g., death on a cross). These additions would not make the text less authentic but would simply point to the first edition not being comprised in a detailed fashion. The consensus on this matter is massive since the modern person can have relative confidence in Philippians 2 being a very early church document (be it written or oral). These potential additions do not detract from the heavy Christological elements contained in the hymn. As stated above, these additions simply expound on the nature of these deep Christological statements and seek to bring clarity that these statements are about Christ and that the gospel message is clearly understood. This is like an author writing a novel or reporting the news on some event, the information becomes more developed over time as the facts are better understood and all of the relevant information is gathered. So, these difficulties in the linguistic elements should not deter the modern reader from understanding that this is a well constructing and early composition by the first Christians. The authorship is still far too difficult a matter to settle in a discourse such as this (or even a book) but this is less relevant when the timing and the information contained in the writing can be solidly known.

            When Paul presents his writings to a church, he has a certain style and way in which he presents theology. There appear to be distinct differences in the Christology presented in this hymn and the typical way Paul discusses Christology. There is an apparent difficulty in trying to synchronize the normal theological writings of Paul and even John's gospel with the Christology presented in this hymn. This is not to say that they are disparate accounts or contradictory theologies. However, it seems as though John and Paul's theological thought is a development from what is presented in Philippians.[12] The language that is present in the hymn is not the normal Pauline language one expects when reading Paul. Fuller states, "Paul never makes use of any of the Servant language, except where he is quoting tradition which he has received from pre-Pauline Christianity."[13] Much like how modern people interact through social media and text messages, everyone has their own mark or manner of writing and interactions. The same can be said of writers, they use certain prose and language in their writing. This is a strong argument for non-Pauline authorship of this passage (except for the noted portions by Martin, "death on a cross"). Most of what has been presented up to this point has been primarily a linguistic argument. Based on the linguistic elements of the passage and Paul, it seems obvious that Paul is not the author of verses 5-11. There are some decent arguments in favor of an Aramaic original. But with these elements combined, we are on solid ground when it comes to the conclusion that this passage is both pre-Pauline and is probably of Jewish-Christian origin.

Theology of the Hymn

            As argued above, there are good reasons to think that this section of Philippians is a pre-Pauline, early, Jewish-Christian hymn (or liturgical device) developed in the first years of the church. With that in mind, it would be prudent to see what theological information can be gleaned from the text. The purpose for this is to discover (potentially) what the early church taught. If the historian can gain an understanding of the what the early church at least believed there are certain arguments from the opposing side that may be ruled out. The goal here is both theological and apologetical.

            The hymn is being inserted as a known example of the exhortation which Paul is conveying to the Philippian church. Paul is describing what not to be and then provides what the Christian should strive to be. After the hymn Paul goes back into certain things not to do and continually points back to the content of the hymn. Contextually, Paul admits that even though the hymn he just quoted is the goal there will be a continuous amount of work needing to be done on the part of the Christian.

            Philippians 2:5-11 has a focus, the intentional drawing of attention to the figure and person of Christ. In modern language, it would be described as a Christological hymn. What kind of Christology is presented here? Elia seems to think there is something of a slave Christology in the context by pointing out the phrase "form of a slave" and that the modern person must deal with "the enduring problem of the master."[14] When one reads these verses in context, it is plainly seen that Christ took the form of a slave. This is a contrasting statement which acknowledges that Christ was first existing in the form of God. At the beginning of the hymn the modern person is faced with the very real belief that the early church held to, Jesus Christ is preexistent and God. Within the first several words of the section, modernity is met with the crisis of understanding this claim within a Jewish context. As it was established above, this hymn is likely from Jewish-Christian origins and probably composed in Jerusalem. How is it that Jews are adding a human person to the position of God and preexistent with God? This is a conundrum to say the least. What is seen here is the very beginning of the development of a binitarian view of God.[15]

            This binitarian view of God is something that would be unprecedented in Judaism. There is some obvious theological truth that Paul and the writer(s) of this hymn were trying to portray. It speaks to what the early church thought about Jesus Christ. Not only was in the form of God (i.e., presumably pre-existent, and equal with God) but he was also in the form of a slave (i.e., very much possessing a human nature). Elia points out that when the church (or Jesus) made reference to the idea of in the form of a slave (or unequalness with the Father) it was in reference to his human nature (forma servi) and when speaking about Jesus' oneness with the Father it was with respect to his Divine nature (forma Dei).[16] This is not to suggest that in some way the early church was thinking that Jesus was a human that was somehow promoted within the kingdom of God. Jesus was not "a hybrid of divine and human that would be neither divine nor human. Jesus is both divine and human. For most Christian theologians, this surprising, unimaginably intimate union between divinity and humanity is possible because God is intimate."[17] So, the modern historian can gain the understanding that Jesus was equated with God in a special sense and this belief is solidified at a very early point.

            It is worth noting at this point that there could be a complaint that this hymn does not contain all the theological information required to solidly provide a gospel presentation or Christology. This complaint could be true and does possess some weight but only in a prima facie way. What this objection fails to realize is that there can be writings that are constructed for a specific purpose and not all purposes require the quality of "exhaustiveness." For clarity, if Jane were to explain to her friend Jeff that she had a nice pair of red shoes, would it be reasonable to assume that she "only" had a red pair of shoes? This inference seems unjustified (especially in modern western culture) because it is likely that she has other shoes. The primary reason for referring to only the red pair is because they are new, or they are her favorite pair. In much the same way, the early church did not have the goal of establishing an exhaustive or even complete view of Christ, the gospel, or of salvation. This hymn points to an example that Christians are to follow and provides some insights into the nature and character of God the Father and of Jesus Christ.

            For example, why does this text seem to leave out the resurrection of Christ? The resurrection of course is the centerpiece of Christian belief and one that is required for salvation (Rom. 10:9-10). To begin, it can be plainly seen within the context of this hymn that the early, critically attested fact of Jesus' death by crucifixion is recognized (v. 8). However, in the next verse the writer makes note of God the Father exalting Christ highly. Of course, this could be taken to simply mean a type of promotion or something of that kind. However, within the full context of this hymn and the New Testament (NT) it seems to implicitly be referencing the resurrection. It is common to understand that a writer can have different approaches to conveying information about a person or event. There is explicit and implicit meaning to information conveyance. If the reader has the vision to look deeply at the text the resurrection seems to be implied. If the death of Christ is acknowledged and it is a common understanding that the early church at least believed/ taught the resurrection, then this exaltation by God must point somewhere. It seems highly unlikely that a dead person could be exalted (or promoted if one were to take a subordination view of Christ) if they remained dead. There are of course a couple of ways to understand this, God could exalt Christ in some unembodied manner or an embodied manner. But as the reader continues through the passage it conveys the idea that Christ will be acknowledged as Lord over everything. The Lordship points to an actual kingdom over which to rule and that he must be living to do the ruling. If one were to remain consistent with the NT and with the Pauline corpus, then a living and physically resurrected Lord seems to be the most natural understanding of the hymn.

            Within the text there is an imbedded Old Testament (OT) reference which points to the Jewishness of the hymn. What is difficult to determine is if this is an insertion made by Paul or if this portion is due to the original author(s). To date, there are no NT scholars which would call this OT reference an "insertion" by Paul but there is not much literature in this area specifically. The modern person can rest easy in the basic assumption that this OT reference comfortably sits in the original author(s) hands. The OT reference is to Isaiah 45:23 which states that "every knee will bow, and every tongue confess." This is an interesting addition (by the early writers) to the hymn since contextually this is God speaking. Not only is this Yahweh speaking but it is a whole narrative touching on the power of God. Creation is an aspect of this OT chapter, and it speaks to the God of Israel as being the only true God. This is a powerful indicator of the position that the early church placed Christ in. Not only did they believe that he was exalted by God (Yahweh) but they are placing him in the place of Yahweh. This is an incredible depiction of the thoughts of the early church since Judaism is dogmatically monotheistic. Being monotheistic was, at the time, very counter-cultural since the Roman empire was syncretistic and throughout much of history humanity has been polytheistic (or at least recognized there was more than one possible divine being).

            Connecting Jesus to an OT passage such as the one listed above is an amazing depiction of what his early followers believed and thought of him. Making this connection is no small point. Indeed, it almost helps clarify the point of whether Christ was exalted in an unembodied or embodied state. If Christ is connected to Yahweh, the only true and living God, it stands to reason that Christ is also the living and true God. Jesus is depicted as the one messiah who lives forever just like Yahweh and is connected in such strong terms that he cannot be taken apart from the God of the universe. This small (but yet not so small) reference to the OT assists the modern person in seeing the semitic attitude behind this ancient hymn. This helps bolster the idea that it probably had roots in early the Jewish-Christian church and highly likely that it was written in Jerusalem.

Conclusion

            Based on the relatively in depth look at this ancient hymn in Philippians, it can be seen the early church had a high view of Christ. Paul, though used this section of text, is not the author of it. Paul simply used this hymn/ liturgical device to help bolster his point about Jesus and his connection to God. There was probably an original Aramaic version of this hymn based on the textual analysis conducted over the years. There are translation difficulties that would not be there had this text been originally written in Greek. By this, it means that some of the verbiage used in the Greek creates a somewhat awkward reading of the text which points to it being written in a different language. Also, this hymn points to some strong theological statements made about Jesus Christ that helps clarify what the early church believed. On the surface, it appears that the early church may have believed in some subordination view of Christ since he was simply exalted by God. But as noted above, with the OT reference made within the hymn this lowering of Jesus seems unlikely. This early writing conjoins Christ and Yahweh, the God of Israel, in such a way as they are the same. It is at the name of Jesus that every knee will bow, and every tongue confess. It is Jesus who is connected to the creation of the world as depicted in Isaiah. Yahweh and Jesus are being connected in this early hymn which points to a very high view of Jesus by the early church. Though this hymn does not cover every aspect of theological belief, this is not a requirement for it to be used as a source into the minds of early believers. Expecting a writing to encompass all possible aspects of a belief or event or person seems to high a standard to place on any writing that does not explicitly state this to be its intention. With the evidence above, the modern person is in safe territory in exclaiming that the early church saw Jesus as the true God that has come in human flesh. Jesus is the means by which God will receive glory and that it is in him that mankind finds its peace.

 

Bibliography

Bockmuehl, Markus. A Commentary on The Epistle to the Philippians. A & C Black: London, 1997.

 

Brown, Derek R. Lexham Research Commentary: Philippians. Lexham Press: Bellingham, 2013.

 

Elia, Matt. "Slave Christologies: Augustine and the Enduring Trouble with the 'Form of a Slave' (Phil 2:5-7)." Interpretation: A Journal of Bible and Theology 75, No. 1 (2020): 19-32.

 

Fitzmyer, Joseph A. "The Aramaic Background of Philippians 2:6-11." The Catholic Biblical Quarterly 50, no. 3 (July 1988): 470-483.

 

Fuller, R.H. The Mission and Achievement of Jesus. SCM Press: London, 1956.

 

Martin, R.P. Carmen Christi: Philippians 2:5-11 in Recent Interpretation and in the Setting of Early Christian Worship. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, 1967.

 

Ryrie, Charles. Ryrie Study Bible (NASB). Moody Press: Chicago, 1995.

 

Tonstad, Linn. Queer Theology: Beyond Apologetics. Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2018.

 

Foot notes

---

[1]  Derek R. Brown, Lexham Research Commentary: Philippians, (Lexham Press: Bellingham, 2013), ch 1. This source does not offer page numbers. Access through Logos Bible Software.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Charles Ryrie, Ryrie Study Bible (NASB), (Moody Press: Chicago, 1995), 1890. This comment is noted in a footnote to the section of verses.

[4] Markus Bockmuehl, A Commentary on The Epistle to the Philippians, (A & C Black: London, 1997), 116.

[5] Ibid.

[6] R.P. Martin, Carmen Christi: Philippians 2:5-11 in Recent Interpretation and in the Setting of Early Christian Worship, (Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, 1967), 17. Martin in this section is discussing the idea of song in the early Christian church. Judaism and Greek idol singing have some influence on how the church incorporated worship into their gatherings and Martin is highlighting this in his text from Chapter 1.

[7] Ibid, 26.

[8] Ibid, 27.

[9] Ibid. Martin points out that Lohmeyer thought there were “traits of style” that were impossible and that these features are “translation equivalents” one might expect to see when translating from a Semitic language to Greek.

[10] Ibid.

[11] Joseph A. Fitzmyer, “The Aramaic Background of Philippians 2:6-11,” The Catholic Biblical Quarterly 50, no. 3 (July 1988): 475-476.

[12] Martin, Carmen Christi, 52. Martin points out that seeing Pauline (and Johannine) theology as leading up to or developing into the hymn seems unlikely but rather that the reverse appears true. It is more of a primitive Christology presented in the hymn, Paul and John develop from it. 

[13] R.H. Fuller, The Mission and Achievement of Jesus, (SCM Press: London, 1956), 57.

[14] Matt Elia, “Slave Christologies: Augustine and the Enduring Trouble with the ‘Form of a Slave’ (Phil 2:5-7),” Interpretation: A Journal of Bible and Theology 75, No. 1 (2020): 22.

[15] For more information on binitarianism please reference Richard Bauckham’s Jesus and the God of Israel and Larry Hurtado’s Lord Jesus Christ.

[16] Elia, “Slave Christologies,” 23-24. Elia refers to Augustine’s writings and thoughts in this area. He provides insights and modern feedback to this ancient author.

[17] Linn Tonstad, Queer Theology: Beyond Apologetics (Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2018), 33.