Semanturol: The Sower.: Journal of Ministry and Biblical Research

By Apostolos Publishing Ltd

This present publication comprises Volume 2 No. 1 of Sem?n?torul (The Sower): The Emanuel Journal of Ministry and Biblical Research. It incorporates the Proceedings of the Bi-Annual International Theological Conferences of the Department of Theology held in Emanuel University, Oradea, April and November 2017. The titles of the Conference were: &

• Language: English
• Publisher: Apostolos Publishing Ltd
• Release date: Aug 13, 2018
• ISBN: 9781912120185

Book preview

JESUS’S WAY TO THE CROSS AND FROM THE CROSS: THE INTERPRETATION OF THE CHRIST HYMN FROM DIFFERENT THEOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES

Peter Balla¹*

ABSTRACT: For all Christians, the symbol of the cross is the center of faith. We can find the essence of our salvation in Christ’s action on the cross, but Christ’s work did not start at Golgotha. It work started when Jesus came to the earth and became human, and culminated in his absolute obedience to death, the death of the cross. The Christ Hymn is a precious source of doctrine and as we focus on the text from Philippians 2:5–11, we see the whole picture of Jesus’s messianic mission. The text is rich in keywords: for example (mind, form of God, robbery, emptied himself and so on). It will be important to discover the meanings of these words, because our body of divinity cannot be stable and clear if we do not approach the theme exegetically, examining these concepts seriously. There are very strong connections between the different disciplines of theology. From this text, we can see that Paul was presenting ethical guidelines on the basis of his dogmatic teaching. The article avoids using stereotypes and introduces the Christ Hymn from different theological perspectives.

KEY WORDS: Christology, self emptying, salvation, Christ-like attitude.

It is clear that the Christ Hymn can be given three smaller divisions:

the first is Jesus’s way from heaven TO the cross

the second is Jesus AT the cross

the third is Jesus’s way FROM the cross to heaven.

These three points can be distinguished chronologically. The suggested distinction above helps us see the evolvement of Paul’s teaching and clarifies somewhat the complexity. This study begins with the exegesis of verse five, without expounding the Sitz im leben of Philippians.

After this short prelude, the methodology is to engage with certain exegetical commentaries, adding personal comments at the end. The whole action from the coming of Jesus Christ until the cross stands out from the order of the verses in the text, so it would be superfluous to change the order.

The Characteristic of the Hymn Form

Recent scholarship has drawn attention to two criteria for discerning hymnic material in the New Testament: stylistic and linguistic.²

Within the linguistic section two fundamental principles needs to be emphasized:

Sensitivity to contextual demands of the passage should discourage us from focusing excessively on the meaning of one word.³

The hymn form cautions against building a doctrine on any single statement to be found in it. For like a poem the hymn is composed not to be analyzed word by word, but to be understood in its entirety.⁴

Etymological investigation is just one part of the whole work of lingual analysis. Sometimes it helps us to find the true meaning of the word in a certain passage, but at other times the contextual research or the historical context is the key. It is challenging to make decisions as to how to read such a unique composition as the Christ Hymn. Whilst we must try to understand the everlasting message from the text, and exclusively pay attention to what it means for us, we must also try to grasp the original meaning and the primary goal of the Hymn at the time or occasion when the letter was first written. So for the question of the genre, the background is significant. In the next section, I introduce briefly the possibilities. C. H. Talbert says: a proper delineation of form leads to a correct interpretation of meaning.⁵ This statement harmonizes with Robert B. Strimple’s opinion who concludes that the proper exegesis of Phil 2:5–11 must be based on its literary setting.⁶ In addition to these proposals the historical description cannot be neglected.

The Background of the Interpretations

Scholars have long been divided over the actual background to the Christ-hymn, and arguments centre mainly over the question of whether it was written by Paul (e.g. Silva)⁷ or was a pre-Pauline text utilized by Paul (e.g. Lohmeyer).⁸ Indeed, it was Silva’s view that, ’Much of the present exegetical confusion, in fact, may be blamed on the tendency to overemphasize the pre-Pauline setting of our passage.’

Peter T. O’Brien list six potential backgrounds:⁹

Gnostic background

Old Testament background

The righteous sufferer of postbiblical Judaism

Jewish wisdom background

Adam-second Adam contrast

Terminology of early Christianity

The Gnostic background interpretation is represented by Ernst Käsemann. O’Brien explains that for Käsemann:

the hymn was the creation of the Christian community and included specifically Christian components, such as the Kyrios-acclamation and the motif of the second Adam, but for Käsemann the schema of the Gnostic redemption saga provided the integrity of the hymn as a unified whole.¹⁰

The old International Critical Commentary quotes Isaak August Dorner, and Ernesti, who developed the parallel between Christ and Adam. Adam would be God; Christ renounces his godlikeness. Adam suffered death as a doom; Christ voluntarily. Adam incurred the divine curse; Christ won the approval of God, and the reward of exaltation to equality with God.¹¹ Gerald F. Hawthorne in the Word Biblical Commentary recounts the advocates of this view: O. Cullman, Ridderbos, Hooker, Héring, Schweizer.¹²

From the six backgrounds two alternatives are highlighted, and at this point it is important to note the opinion of L. W. Hurtado. Hurtado has argued that "the language used to describe Jesus’ actions qualitatively in 2:6–8 is drawn from the language of early Christian paraenesis and possibly from the Jesus tradition of the Pauline period."¹³ So, rather than turning to supposed Graeco-Roman parallels – particularly those of a mythological kind (and here Hurtado has Kāsemann’s work especially in view) – we ought not to ignore the context of the New Testament itself.¹⁴ For many this is the most acceptable and reasonable point of view.

Following these brief comments, we begin with the exegesis of verse 5. A. T. Robertson called this section a piece of popular theology, rather than a formal discussion of Christ. However, some scholars call this verse a crux interpretum.¹⁵

Verse 5

tou/to fronei/te evn u`mi/n o] kai. evn cristw/ vIhsou/

Scholars have tried to interpret this verse in a wide variety of ways. One solution is to add to the verse the substantive verb in the past tense. In this way, the translation is the following: Have this mind in you which was also in Christ Jesus. This approach takes evn u`mi/n in the sense of within you and supplies the verb h=n in the second part of the verse. According to Deissmann, the verb which needed to be added to the verse is fronei/te. In this way, the translation is: Think among yourselves as it is necessary to think in view of your corporate union with Christ.¹⁶ In the New International Greek Testament Commentary we can read a very explicit translation: Adopt towards one another, in your mutual relations, the same attitude that was found in Christ Jesus.¹⁷ The noun attitude can be found in the King James Version, in the NASB and also in the NIV. The problem is that neither the word attitude nor adopt occur in the Greek text. fronei/te is a plural imperative verb (if we accept this form of the text instead of the passive form) not a noun. The demonstrative pronoun tou/to is the keyword. Gerald F. Hawthrone’s interpretation can be noted: Thus tou/to (this), that begins the verse, points backward to Paul’s exhortation and not forward to the Christ Hymn.¹⁸

If we would like to understand which way tou/to is pointing, we need to get acquainted with the context. And if we choose this way, we accept Hurtado’s guideline to interpret the text on early Christianity’s ground. Because if we glossed the Hymn and separated it from its context, it would not make sense to study the surrounding words. This tou/to is the transition from exhortation to illustration.¹⁹

Although E. Käsemann, R. P. Martin, and other advocates of the ’kerygmatic’ interpretation reject the notion of a link with the preceding exhortation … the present imperative form which dominates this verse, has already appeared twice in the preceding exhortation.²⁰ The authors of both commentaries agree that tou/to points backward. In my opinion, this tou/to may point backward to the exhortation and also to the Christ Hymn. There is a cause and effect relation between Paul’s encouragement and Christ’s object-lesson. In other words, the apostle encourages the members of the Philippian church to be selfless because in Jesus’s salvation act they got everything, and admonishes them as well to be like Christ as they seek to follow Him. The verse is a typical example of the transition St. Paul uses, in which he summarizes the preceding exposition by an imperative.²¹

Käsemann can maintain: Paul did not understand the hymn as though Christ were held up by the community as an ethical example. The technical formula ‘in Christ,’ whatever else might be said about it, unquestionably points to the salvation event.²² In my opinion, the salvation event and the Christian ethic are intertwined. Notably the obedience of Christ is an example, and the power of His resurrection is made ours so that we may live a life like He lived.

There is one more question that we have to answer. Is fronei/te evn u`mi/n individual (in you) or ecclesiastical (among you)?

Before we try to answer this question, we ought to pause in the midst of the study, because we have just arrived at the most important part. In the preamble, six backgrounds were outlined. I would prefer to draw the different interpretations of the Christ Hymn at the end of this study, but some reference to the alternatives at this point seems unavoidable. The New International Greek Testament Commentary offers five interpretations:²³

The Ethical Interpretation

The Kerygmatic Interpretation

An Evaluation of the Kerygmatic Interpretation

The Adam-Christ Parallel and Christ’s Preexistence

The Servant of the Lord

This classification helps to see the motivation behind the different translating methods and the explanations. In verse 5, evn u`mi/n is a very problematic expression. Deissmann invokes Phil 4:2 where the context is the same: an appeal to unity and humility, qualities that must come to expression by virtue of our fellowship in Christ.²⁴ According to this opinion evn u`mi/n does not mean in you but among you. So evn u`mi/n and evn cristw vIhsou have different meanings. Silva notes the opinion of the Greek Fathers that supported the individual sense of evn u`mi/n.²⁵ In the International Critical Commentary, we can read: evn u`mi/n in you not among you. Therefore, evn u`mi/n with the active fronei/te presents no difficulity if it is remembered frone,w signifies the general mental attitude or disposition.²⁶

Using a grammatical parallel, Hawthorne explains why adopt is a good translation: A translation that is more in keeping with the clear grammatical parallelism – evn u`mi/n evn cristw/ vIhsou – and that reflects the reconstructed text suggested above is the following: ‘This way of thinking must be adopted by you, which also was the way of thinking adopted by Christ.’²⁷ The problem of course, is the phrase adopted by Christ. But can this attitude not be seen as part of his submission to the Father?

Verse 6

o]j evn morfh/ qeou/ u`pa,rcwn ouvc a`rpagmo.n h`gh,sato to. ei=nai i;sa qew/|

The expression o]j evn morfh/ qeou/ is a keyword in this text. Before the exposition of the meaning of morfh/ we should note that Hawthorne handles the two parts of the sentence as synonyms. Therefore to. ei=nai i;sa qew/ should be understood thus: ‘the equality with God’ of which we have just spoken equivalently by saying evn morfh/ qeou/ u`pa,rcwn.²⁸ According to Lightfoot morfh/ qeou/ may correctly be understood to stand for the essential nature and character of God.²⁹ Marvin R. Vincent says, Lightfoot has fallen into the error just mentioned in his excursus on the synonyms sch/ma and morfh/. Prior to the philosophical period of Greek literature, the predominant sense of morfh/ was shape or figure.³⁰ J. B. Lightfoot claimed that Paul here uses morfh/ with the sense it had acquired in Greek philosophy, particularly Aristotelian … morfh/ implies not the external accident but the essential attributes."³¹

Examining other occurrences may help to solve the problem, or just see the picture more clearly. The LXX instance refers to the visible form or appearance of something.³² The closest occurrence, of course, is in verse 7: morfh.n dou,lou. According to Moises Silva, the expression morfh/ qeou/ is set in antithetical parallelism to morfh.n dou,lou.³³

In Rom 12:1–2, the two affinitive words can be found: the imperative verb metamorfou/sqe in contrast with sunschmati,zesqe. The verb metamorfo,w is combined with noo,j which is not an outward attribute. Here suschmati,zomai (to have the same shape) is more an expression for outward acts and features than morfh/. As O’Brien says: Similarly, from the NT contexts where morfh/ and its cognate appear it is clear that the word group describes not simply external appearance or behaviour but also that which inwardly corresponds (or is expected to correspond) to the outward.³⁴

Marvin R. Vincent, maintains: The idea of some embodiment of the divine personality was not altogether absent from his (Paul’s) mind, but morfh/ qeou/ was chiefly a rhetorical antithesis to morfh.n dou,lou.³⁵ Some scholars suggest that this morfh/ qeou/ is to be equal to God’s glory. Weiss claimed that ‘the divine form’ which Jesus possessed before becoming human was nothing other than the Doxa, of God himself, the glory and radiation of his being.³⁶ Weiss quotes John 17:5: the glory I had with you before the world began." We cannot accept two statements at the same time, because if we regard morfh/ to be doxa, the parallel μορφὴν δούλου is difficult to interpret.

Eduard Schweizer says: Thus these two … together demand a new and fresh meaning for morfh/ … and this new meaning must be one that will apply equally well to both phrases, since morfh/ qeou/ was obviously coined in antithesis to morfh.n dou,lou.³⁷

Käsemann and Bultmann distinguish between fundamental essence and appearance. They say: the ’form of God’ in which the preexistent Christ existed is no mere form but the divine mode of being; similarly the ’form of a servant’ is the mode of being of a servant.³⁸ If we follow this interpretation we accept that the expression morfh/ qeou talks about the preexistent Christ and the morfh.n dou,lou talks about the incarnate Jesus. Not everybody reads the verse this way. The majority of the Lutheran and rationalistic expositors on the other hand explained verse 6 of the incarnate Son. According to this view, form of God was retained by him in his incarnate state, and was displayed in his miracles and words of power.³⁹ The King James Version uses this interpretation. A very unique interpretation is that of F. D. Moule, who wrote, because he was in the form of God he reckoned equality with God not as a matter of getting but giving.⁴⁰ So Jesus did not grab what he had, but emptied Himself. This sight leads our attention to the next verse, where the opposite of a`rpagmo.n can be found: the abstruse evke,nwsen.

Verse 7

avlla. e`auto.n evke,nwsen morfh.n dou,lou labw,n evn o`moiw,mati avnqrw,pwn geno,menoj kai. sch,mati eu`reqei.j w`j a;nqrwpoj

The seventh verse is inseparable from the sixth because avlla is a strong contrary conjunction. Each usage shows two opposite sides, unlike de. which is not accented on every occasion. In this case it is evident because the border of the two verses is within one sentence. I have already mentioned that I read the whole passage as an integrated unit. The situation here is very similar to verse 5. to separate vv. 1–5 from what follows is also incorrect.⁴¹ So we should understand the verb evke,nwsen together with the surrounding phrases. The e`auto.n evke,nwsen is an active form with a reflexive pronoun. As Deichgraber wrote: the participles are coincident in time with the main verb evke,nwsen and explains its meaning.⁴² Of what did Christ empty himself? He emptied himself:

of his glory

of his independent exercise of authority

of the prerogatives of deity