The story of Christ in the Ethics of Paul: An Analysis of the Function of the Hymnic Material in the Pauline Corpus 9781474213981, 9781850752202

Citation preview

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS In the course of this project, I have accumulated many debts. Most of them are not the sort that are easily repaid. Nevertheless, I would like to take some space here to acknowledge and thank some of those to whom I feel most grateful. First, thanks are due to the Rev. Dr A.C. Thiselton and Dr A.T. Lincoln. Dr Thiselton supervised this research during my first two years in Sheffield. Indeed, it was his interest in hermeneutics and encouraging correspondence that originally brought me to Sheffield. Dr Lincoln had the unenviable task of taking over supervision of this thesis when it was already well under way. In spite of this, he has helped greatly to improve my work, and I am thankful for his open mind and sharp eye for detail. Needless to say, I take full responsibility for any errors of omission or commission in this thesis. Less tangibly, I have benefitted from the stimulating atmosphere in the Department of Biblical Studies in Sheffield. In particular I must thank Alan Winton and Mark Brett for countless cups of coffee and hours of conversation. One does not complete a Ph.D. without financial support. I want to acknowledge the assistance of the Overseas Research Student Scholarship Scheme and the Tyndale Fellowship. In addition, my parents and my parents-in-law have provided support that went well beyond monetary aid. Lastly, I must thank Melinda who has had to live with this project as well as her own research. Her love and companionship have been a sustaining influence on me, and it is to her that I dedicate this book.

ABBREVIATIONS ANRW BGD

BDF

Bib BTB BZ BJRL CBQ Corp. Herm. EvTh ExpT FRLANT HNT HTR Herders TKNT ICC Int JAC JBL

Aufstieg und Niedergang der romischen Welt Bauer, W., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 2nd edn, trans., rev., and augmented by F.W. Gingrich and F.W. Danker (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1958) Blass, F. and Debrunner, A., A Greek Grammar of the New Testament, trans, and rev. R. Funk (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961) Biblica Biblical Theology Bulletin Biblische Zeitschrift Bulletin of the John Rylands Library Catholic Biblical Quarterly Corpus Hermeticum in the 2nd edition of A. Nock, trans. A.-J. Festugiere (Paris: «Les Belles Lettres», 1960) Evangelische Theologie Expository Times Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments Handbuch zum Neuen Testament Harvard Theological Review Herders theologischer Kommentar Neuen Testament International Critical Commentary Interpretation Jahrbuch filr Antike und Christentum Journal of Biblical Literature

zum

10

JJS JR JSNT(S) JSOT(S) JSS JTS o.s/n.s. LSJ

NCB NICNT NTC NTS NTD NovT RB RQ RHPR SJT SBLDS SNTSMS SBT SNT StTh VF VT WMANT WUNT WBC (B)ZNW

The Story of Christ in the Ethics of Paul Journal of Jewish Studies Journal of Religion Journal for the Study of the New Testament (Supplements) Journal for the Study of the Old Testament (Supplements) Journal of Semitic Studies Journal of Theological Studies old/new series Liddell, H.G. and Scott, R., A Greek-English Lexicon, new edn, rev. and augmented by H.S. Jones aided by R. McKenzie (Oxford: Clarendon, 1940) New Century Bible New International Commentary on the New Testament New Testament Commentary (as in Black's NTC) New Testament Studies Das Neue Testament Deutsch Novum Testamentum Revue biblique Revue de Qumran Revue d'histoire et de philosophie religieuses Scottish Journal of Theology Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series Studies in Biblical Theology Studien zum Neuen Testament Studia Theologica Verkilndigung und Forschung Vetus Testamentum Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament Word Biblical Commentary (Beihefte zur) Zeitschrift fur die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft

Abbreviations ZTK

11

Zeitschrift fur Theologie und Kirche

We hope that abbreviations of biblical books, Qumran material and all other abbreviations are self-explanatory. Citations from Hellenistic texts are from the relevant editions of the Loeb Classical Library unless otherwise noted.

INTRODUCTION This work ultimately says something about a certain form of moral discourse in Paul's epistles. It does this through a detailed analysis of the function of specific hymnic texts focussed on Christ. In this light, it may be useful to begin by briefly discussing the ways in which this work differs from previous works on NT hymns1 (particularly the older works of J. Weiss, A. Seeberg, E. Norden, J. Kroll and E. Lohmeyer).2 This will also provide an opportunity to explain the way in which we will use certain terms. First, however, we should establish the limits of our discussion: we shall be concerned only with hymnic material focused 1 R. Deichgraber in his book Gotteshymnus und Christushymnus der friihen Christenheit (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1967), pp. 11-21, provides a detailed account of the development of scholarship on NT hymns. 2 See J. Weiss, 'Beitrage zur paulinischen Rhetorik', in Theologische Studien fur B. Weiss (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1897), pp. 165-247. Weiss is primarily concerned with noting different rhetorical forms in the Pauline epistles. A. Seeberg, Der Katechismus der JJrchristenheit (Leipzig: Teubner, 1903). Seeberg's interest was in reconstructing an early Christian catechism from the earliest missionary proclamations of the NT. He was, thus, involved in isolating traditional materials. E. Norden, Der antike Kunstprosa, 2 vols. (Leipzig: Teubner, 1898) and Agnostos Theos (Stuttgart: Teubner, 1912, 31956) (see text for comments on Norden.) J. Kroll, Christliche Hymnodik bis zu Clemens von Alexandria (Konigsberg: Harlung, 1921). Kroll sought to further Norden's work into the origin and construction of hymns in the first century. Of Lohmeyer's numerous works, two that will be of particular interest to us are Kyrios Jesus, Sitzungsbericht der Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften Phil.-hist. Kl. Jahr 1927-28 (Heidelberg: Winter, 1961) and Die Briefe an die Philipper, an die Kolosser und an Philemon, Meyer's NTK (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1930).

14

The Story of Christ in the Ethics of Paul

on Christ. There are at least two reasons for what may at first sight appear to be an arbitrary limitation. The first reason is a practical one related to space constraints. Secondly, we believe that the three passages we discuss (Phil. 2.6-11; Col. 1.15-20; 1 Tim. 3.16b) are sufficiently alike and sufficiently different from other passages to justify examining them as a separate group. The arguments for this are set out in Chapters 1 and 2.1 The first respect in which our work differs from previous work on NT hymns concerns the question of the form and definition of a hymn. Most of the previous work on this question is indebted to E. Norden's philological research into the Tormengeschichte' of religious speech in antiquity.2 More recently, two works have appeared which, based on criteria largely derived from Norden, are primarily interested in formally identifying NT hymns.3 The first is G. Schille's Friih1 For a variety of reasons we do not examine material outside those epistles traditionally ascribed to Paul. It may, however, prove useful to note briefly two texts whose form, content and function display similarities to those of the passages we are considering. The first is 1 Pet. 2.22ff. While this passage shares some of the formal characteristics of the passages we discuss, we would probably not include it in our discussion for the same reasons we do not include Col. 2.9fF. and Eph. 2.14. That is, as they stand now, all of these passages are so firmly integrated into the discourse of their respective epistles that it is difficult to see them as separate units. (See our discussion of this point in Chapter 1.) Having said this, the function of 1 Pet. 2.22ff. is most like that of Phil. 2.6-11. In both cases Christ's activity is presented as a norm to which believers should conform. In the case of 1 Pet. 2.22ff. the problem would be to show how 2.24ff., which would have to be included in the passage on formal grounds, could be applied to the activity of believers. The other non-Pauline passage we might have discussed is Heb. 1.3. Again, formally, there are similarities between this text and those we will discuss. To a greater degree than 1 Pet. 2, however, this text conforms completely to its present context and one would be hard pressed to see it as a separable piece of discourse. 2 See particularly Norden, 1956, pp. 253fF. For an evaluation of Norden's influence see Deichgraber, pp. 14ff. 3 It is not our intention to ignore the pioneering work of Lohmeyer in regard to Phil. 2.6-11 and Col. 1.15-20. It should be noted, however, that Lohmeyer's work has not had the enduring influence of Norden's. For example, see Kasemann's evaluation of Lohmeyer on

Introduction

15

christliche Hymnen.1 Schille's study reflects standard formcritical interests in that its goal is to establish and to define more specifically the various types of NT hymns, and to determine what role these hymns played in the life of the early church. Schille notes three problems in regard to this enterprise: 1. There is a paucity of materials on which one can base such a project. 2. The materials which do exist are secondary. They exist only as parts of larger texts and must, therefore, be reconstructed. 3. We have little knowledge of Christian festivals in which hymns would have been used.2 Nevertheless, using stylistic criteria derived primarily from Norden,3 Schille identifies thirty hymns in the text of the NT. He situates all of these hymns in either the baptismal or the eucharistic services of the earliest church.4 The second of these works is R. Deichgraber's Gotteshymnus und Christushymnus in der friihen Christenheit.5 Deichgraber is critical of the way Schille applies various criteria in order to identify the hymns of the NT.6 Deichgraber thinks that a more judicious application of these criteria is needed in Phil. 2.6-11 in 'Kritische Analyse von Phil. 2.5-11', ZTK 47 (1950),

pp. 313-60, trans. A. Carse in Journal for Theology and the Church

5 (1968), pp. 46-59. All future citations will be from the English. 1 (Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1962). A work roughly contemporary with Schille's, J. Schattenmann's Studien zum neutestamentlichen Prosahymnus (Munich: Beck, 1965), has always been considered idiosyncratic because it identifies hymns by counting words and syllables to see if one can reconstruct balanced strophes. Schattenmann justified this by stating the Pythagorean dictum that 'Number and Rhythm are spiritual principles' (see his preface). 2 See Schille, p.ll. 3 These criteria include the use of second or third person singular pronouns to begin the hymn, participial predications and relative clauses, celebratory and elevated style, and the use of parallelismus membrorum. See Norden, 1956, pp. 253ff.; appendix 5 and 1898, pp.811ff. 4 See Schille, p.21. 5 See above, p. 13 n. 1. 6 'Schille hat freilich eine entscheidende Schwache: in dem Verlangen, hymnisches Gut aufzuspiiren, geht Schille viel zu weit und gerat immer wieder an prosische Texte, die er aber als poetisch strukturiert auffaBt' (Deichgraber, p. 18).

16

The Story of Christ in the Ethics of Paul

order to circumscribe the exaggerated results of Schille's work. In spite of the numerous criticisms he makes of Schille's work, however, Deichgraber conceives of his task in much the same way. His interests are primarily form-critical.1 Deichgraber carefully applies to the NT the same basic criteria for identifying a hymn that Schille used. The result of this care is that Deichgraber identifies one hymn to God (Rom. 11.33-36) along with several hymn fragments in the NT. In addition, he locates five hymns to Christ (Phil. 2.5-11; Col. 1.15-20; 1 Tim. 3.16b; Heb. 1.3; 1 Pet. 2.21ff.) along with some smaller hymn fragments. Further, Deichgraber recognizes that there is virtually no evidence that would allow one to establish a Sitz im Leben for these hymns that is any more specific than simply the worship of the earliest church.2 As a result of his rigor and cautious use of evidence, Deichgraber's work has become the standard form-critical discussion of NT hymns. We generally accept the basic formal observations of Schille and Deichgraber in regard to the passages we discuss. That is, we agree that there are certain stylistic features of these passages that both link them to one another and separate them from the discourse of the epistles in which they appear. These formal criteria provide us with reasons for examining these passages as a separate group. What we reject is the notion that, based on these formal criteria, there is any reason to call these passages hymns in any of the senses of 'hymn' used by Schille, Deichgraber and others (i.e. a formalized expression of praise from the worship of the earliest church). Further, the principles used in reconstructing the original 'hymns' behind these passages and in situating them in some sort of Sitz im Leben of the earliest church are unconvincing. For our part, the only claim we make in calling these passages 'hymns' or 'hymnic' is that these passages represent reflection on an exalted religious figure in language that could justifiably be 1 See Deichgraber, p. 19. Deichgraber consciously avoided discussing the hymns in the Apocalypse as he felt it was a large enough task to be covered on its own. K.-P. Jorns took up this task in Das hymnische Evangelium, SNT 5 (Giitersloh: Mohn, 1971). 2 See Deichgraber, p. 132.

Introduction

17

called poetic. Our disagreement on this point, however, is more than just semantic. This is because, once a passage has been identified as a hymn, one often finds that various claims are then made on behalf of such a passage that would otherwise be unsubstantiated. Again, arguments for this position will be advanced in Chapters 1 and 2. Concerning the content of these passages, our agreements and differences with previous work will be evident in our discussions of particular exegetical issues. At a more general level, however, it is not our intention to follow the paths charted by two recent writers on NT hymns, J.T. Sanders and K. Wengst. In his 1971 monograph The New Testament Christological Hymns: Their Historical Religious Background1 Sanders shows little interest in the form-critical issues which occupied Deichgraber and Schille.2 As his title suggests, Sanders is primarily interested in the history of religions backgrounds to these texts. Sanders finds a convergence of different mythical motifs in the NT hymns. These motifs have their background in pre-Christian Judaism.3 Sanders reconstructs a myth of cosmic reconciliation that had become part of a developing redeemer myth in pre-Christian Judaism. This myth provided Christianity with a convenient explanation for the Christ-event.4 The Wisdom circles of Judaism, then, where the thanks1 SNTSMS 15 (Cambridge: CUP, 1971). 2 Sanders does very little formal or form-critical analysis. He does, however, try to rely on the precise form-critical use of the term 'hymn' found in form-critical analyses of the Psalms (see pp. 2ff.). This could have moved the formal and form-critical work on NT hymns in a different direction from that of Deichgraber and Schille. As it turns out, however, Sanders was unwilling to pursue this point at length (see below p. 18 n. 7), and actually adopts a list of hymns virtually identical to Deichgraber's. The two additions Sanders makes are Eph. 2.14-16 which Deichgraber called a small fragment of a Christ-hymn (pp. 164ff.) and the prologue to John's Gospel, which Deichgraber chose not to discuss because of its particular difficulties (p. 21). 3 See Sanders, p. 97. 4 See Sanders, p. 98.

18

The Story of Christ in the Ethics of Paul giving hymn was most at home, seem to have provided the most convenient point of entry for redeemer motifs from other religions into Judaism, or to have provided the best possibility of a merger. The NT christological hymns reflect one stage in this process, at which time the aspect of cosmic redemption was added to the role of the variously named mythical beings of Judaism.

Coming after Sanders' book is K. Wengst's Christologische Formeln und Lieder des Urchristentums.2 Wengst attempts to look at a wide variety of material including traditional formulas and larger 'Lieder'. This places him both in the tradition of hymn research and in a tradition which is interested in confessional formulas, characterized by the work of O. Cullmann and V. Neufeld.3 Wengst starts from the premise, I t has long been recognized that early Christianity was not a monolithic group. Therefore, one must inquire after the theological and historical background behind each individual formula.'4 By studying various shifts in motifs and vocabulary among the traditional materials in the NT Wengst hopes to determine whether a formula comes from an Aramaic-speaking Jewish church, a Greek-speaking Jewish church or a Greek-speaking Gentile church.5 As might be expected, Wengst is critical of Sanders for seeking a monolithic background for the NT hymns in Judaism. 6 According to Wengst, Sanders seems to have assumed that because all of the hymn texts he discussed followed, at a formal level, the conventions of Hebrew psalmody, the content of these passages also emerged from a Jewish milieu. While this might be true as a matter of contingent fact, it cannot be assumed a priori as Sanders seems to do.7 1 See Sanders, p. 139. 2 (Gutersloh: Mohn, 1972). 3 See O. Cullmann, The Earliest Christian Confessions, trans. J.K.S. Reid (London: Lutterworth, 1949) and V.H. Neufeld, The Earliest Christian Confessions (Leiden: Brill, 1963). 4 See Wengst, p. 11. 5 See Wengst, p. 11. 6 See Wengst, p. 24. 7 At this point we may find an indication of the reason for Sanders' interest in the Psalms. He was not really interested in formal com-

Introduction

19

In spite of their differences, it will be clear that both Sanders and Wengst are primarily interested in the content of these passages as a basis from which to dig into the background of each text, enabling them to make claims about the very earliest stages of Christianity (assuming the relative antiquity of these passages). Without attempting finally to arbitrate this dispute in favor of Sanders or Wengst (or neither),1 and without denigrating the type of historical interests their works reflect, we merely wish to point out that our work is not interested in this particular issue. It is not necessary for our examinations of the content or the function of these passages in their epistolary contexts to determine their history of religions background. We will rely on a variety of texts to help illumine the texts in which we are interested, but in order to do this we do not need to fit all of these texts into a specific historical matrix. In addition, our work on the form of these passages in Chapters 1 and 2 will indicate that we do not believe there is sufficient evidence to situate these texts in another historical context that would be specific enough to sustain the sorts of history of religions examinations carried out by Sanders and Wengst. For, while neither of them engages in much formcritical work, their reconstructions depend on the very formcritical conclusions which we think are unsubstantiated. Finally, all of the works we have mentioned here (and they are paradigmatic of work in this area) have concentrated on abstracting these passages from their present context in order to explore some aspect of the history of these passages. Very little attention has been devoted to understanding these passages within the context of the epistles in which they appear.2 parisons as such. Rather, he was looking for evidence of a Jewish background for the texts he examines. 1 See, for example, J. Murphy-O'Connor, 'Christological Anthropology in Phil. 2,6-11', RB 83 (1976), pp. 25-50. 2 Deichgraber offers some comments on the paraenetic use of hymnic material (pp. 186-96). This, however, is a relatively brief attempt, concentrating mainly on Phil. 2.5-11. Another exception to this is C. Burger's discussion of Col. 1.15-20 in Schopfung und Versohnung, WMANT 46 (Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 1975). We will discuss Burger's work at greater length in our own discussions of Col. His examination of the function of Col. 1.15-20, however, is primar-

20

The Story of Christ in the Ethics of Paul

Even the commentaries on these epistles, because of their rather larger interests, have not thoroughly explored the role that each of these hymnic passages plays in the argument of their respective epistles. This is what we will attempt to do in our discussions of the function of the Christ-focussed hymnic material in Paul. We hope to show that none of these passages is directly concerned with christology in the sense of later creeds and definitions. That is, Paul does not use these passages to argue for one christological position over another. From the way in which Paul presents these stories about Christ and employs them in his discourse, it is clear he does not expect there to be any argument over their content. Rather, Paul relies on these poetic pictures of Christ to support what might generally be called ethical positions, countering the influence of false teaching (though not explicitly false teaching about Christ) in each of the epistles. This, then, is an outline of the specific issues we will cover in our discussion of the form, content and function of the Christfocused hymnic material in the Pauline corpus. We should, however, make some final remarks about the scope of this work. We use the term 'Pauline corpus' to refer to those letters traditionally ascribed to Paul. Likewise, Paul' will be used to refer to the author ascribed to these epistles without making any judgment about whether or not it refers to the apostle Paul. As the authorship of both Colossians and 1 Timothy is disputed, none of our claims will depend on a precise identification of the author of those epistles. ily founded on noting the repetition of lexical items from 1.15-20 in the rest of the epistle. This is also true of M. Hooker's work on Phil. 2.6-11. See Thilippians 2.6-11' in Jesus und Paulus, Festschrift for W.G. Kiimmel, ed. E. Grasser and E.E. Ellis (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1975), pp. 152ff. While these sorts of observations are potentially useful for a discussion of the function of the passages we are interested in, they are not adequate in themselves, and can be misleading (see Chapter 4, p. 77 note 1). Rather, what is needed is a close examination of the argumentation of each epistle. It is this element which we believe is lacking in attempts to examine the function of the hymnic material within their respective epistles.

Chapter 1 THE SCOPE OF THE PROJECT The aim of this chapter is to establish which texts will be considered in our examination of hymnic material in Paul, and why. We will first look at the three passages which will count as hymns for our purposes, Phil. 2.6-11, Col. 1.15-20 and 1 Tim. 3.16b. Having looked at the characteristics which make it reasonable to group these texts together we will look at some passages which we might have included in this group, but for various reasons we will not consider. Philippians 2.6-11 The first passage we discuss is Phil. 2.6-11. The particular formal characteristics of this passage have made it an object of discussion for several generations of scholars.1 This passage represents a sharp break in the discourse of the epistle. The focus shifts from the Philippian church in v. 5 to Christ Jesus in v. 6, returning to the Philippians in v. 12. This shift is introduced by a relative pronoun, bq. The passage then goes on to describe certain aspects of Christ's activity. This description employs a large number of participles and exhibits a sort of parallelism similar to that noted by J. Kugel in Hebrew poetry.2 Kugel's view is a revision of the idea of parallelisrnus membrorum first presented by R. Lowth in 1753, and most familiar 1 For a summary of research on this passage see R.P. Martin, Carmen Christi, rev. edn (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983). 2 J. Kugel, The Idea of Biblical Poetry (New Haven: Yale U.P., 1981). The fact that these conventions appear in Greek texts is not unusual. See Sir. 51; Judith 16; the Greek additions to Daniel; also S. Segert, 'Semitic Poetic Structures in the New Testament', ANRW II, 25.2 (1984), pp. 1438ff.

24

The Story of Christ in the Ethics of Paul

to NT scholars through the work of E. Norden.1 Kugel's view of parallelism is characterized by the notion of 'seconding*. The sentence 'A is so, and what's more, B is so' provides a model for this seconding process.2 That is, clause B is a continuation of clause A, or a going beyond clause A in force or specificity.3 The virtue of Kugel's description of parallelism is that it accounts for numerous, different ways that B can second A. This is opposed to the three ways (antithetic, synonymous and synthetic) described by Lowth.4 A good example of this seconding in Phil. 2.6-11 is v. 6 where the first clause, oq ev Geou i)7cdp%cov, is seconded by the next clause, ot>% fiyriaaxo TO elvai i'aa Gew.5 This sort of style is repeated throughout w . 6-11 in sharp contrast to the surrounding verses. Our aim here is not to develop a detailed stylistic analysis of this passage. Rather, we are merely interested to show that Phil. 2.6-11 is a distinct unit within the epistle both because of its shift in focus from the Philippians to Christ and because of its particular formal and stylistic characteristics, which could reasonably be called poetic. To move beyond this minimal claim would involve us in a host of very contentious issues. For now, we will be content with this limited claim, which is acceptable to virtually all scholars who have written on this passage.

1 R. Lowth, De Sacra Poesi Hebraeorum Praelectiones Academicae (Oxford: Clarendon, 1821); E. Norden, Agnostos Theos, 4th edn (Stuttgart: Teubner, 1956), pp. 260ff. 2 See Kugel, pp. Iff. 3 See Kugel, p. 7. 4 Kugel's classic comment in regard to this is, 'Biblical parallelism is of one sort, "A, and what's more, B" or a hundred sorts; but it is not three' (p. 58). 5 The fact that one clause is longer than the other is of little consequence as this sort of parallelism is based primarily on relations between the content of each clause. Nor does this sort of parallelism need to be limited to the relationship of two clauses to each other. Three and four clauses can stand in a parallel relationship. See W.G.E. Watson, Classical Hebrew Poetry, JSOTS 26 (Sheffield: JSOT, 1984), pp. 177ff.

1. The Scope of the Project

25

Colossians 1.15-20

Moving on to Col. 1.15-20 we find that this passage as a distinct unit also has a long history of scholarly interest.1 Like Phil. 2.6-11 this passage represents a shift in the focus of the epistle's discourse. From 1.9ff. the discourse is directed at the Colossians in the form of Paul's prayer for them. Even in w. 12-14 where Paul begins to thank the Father for his saving activity in Christ, the focus is still on how this activity has affected the Christian church of which the Colossians are a part.2 In v. 15, however, the focus is solely on Christ and his activity. This continues until v. 21 where the Colossians are again directly addressed. As in Phil. 2.6-11 the shift in focus is introduced by the relative pronoun, OQ, which is repeated in v. 18. This passage contains several predications about Christ. Hence, there are fewer participial constructions than in Phil. 2.6-11, which is more interested in describing Christ's activity. There is, however, a similar degree of parallelism in the clauses of this passage which is not characteristic of the surrounding verses. An additional stylistic feature of this passage is the use of lists in v. 16.3 Hence, as with Phil. 2.6-11, we find in Col. 1.15-20 a distinctive passage poetically describing certain aspects of Christ's person and work. 1 Timothy 3.16b There is one other passage in the Pauline corpus that is similar to these two passages, 1 Tim. 3.16b. In many ways this passage is the most stylized of those we have looked at. It is also 1 See J. Gabathuler, Jesus Christus, Haupt der Kirche—Haupt der Welt: Der Christushymnus Kolosser 1,15-20 in der theologischen Forschung der letzten 130 Jahre (Zurich: Zwingli, 1965), who traces the beginning of scholarly interest in this passage back to Schleiermacher. 2 See iKavcooavxi -b|xag (r^iac), v. 12; o exojiev, v. 14. 3 The use of lists seems to have been an acceptable poetic convention in both hellenistic Greek and in Hebrew. See K. Berger, 'Hellenistische Gattungen im Neuen Testament', ANRW, II, 25.2 (1984), pp. 1152ff.; also Watson, pp.351ff.; B. Kittel, The Hymns of Qumran, SBLDS 50 (Missoula: Scholars Press, 1981), pp. 160-61.

26

The Story of Christ in the Ethics of Paul

the passage which is most easily separated from the surrounding discourse. Verse 16a provides an introduction which stresses the distinctiveness of the following clauses. 1 By the beginning of 1 Tim. 4 Paul has returned to addressing Timothy personally. This passage, like the previous two, is introduced by oq.2 Unlike the other two passages, the antecedent of oq is only implied. There is, however, little doubt that the implied subject of the following verbs is Christ. 3 As we noted above, this passage is the most stylized of the three. This is reflected in the use of six aorist passive verbs followed by six dative nouns (in all but one case preceded by the preposition ev). Further, scholars have long recognized the parallelism of the clauses in this passage.4 With the inclusion, then, of 1 Tim. 3.16b we have a group of three texts which all poetically describe various aspects of Christ's person and work. They all represent distinct shifts in both the focus and style of the discourse of their respective epistles. Their focus is on Christ, and they exhibit similar formal characteristics. As a result, we would claim that we are justified in examining them as a distinct group. Nor would we be the first to do so.5 Other Passages which Might Have Been Included One might wonder, however, whether other texts in Paul should also be included in this group. Certainly, other Pauline 1 We will cover the exegetical complexities of this verse in Chapter 6. 2 See our discussion in Chapter 7 of the text-critical issues involved here. 3 See W. Stenger, Der Christushymnus 1 Tim. 3,16: Eine strukturanalytische Untersuchung (Frankfurt: P. Lang, 1977), p. 51; J.N.D. Kelly, The Pastoral Epistles, Black's NTC (London: A. & C. Black, 1963), p. 89. 4 See Norden, 1956, pp. 254ff.; Stenger, pp. 54ff.; also R. Gundry, The Form, Meaning and Background of the Hymn Quoted in 1 Tim. 3:16', in Apostolic History and the Gospelt Festschrift for F.F. Bruce, ed. W. Gasque and R.P. Martin (Exeter: Paternoster, 1970), p. 205. 5 Schille, Deichgraber, Sanders and Wengst all discuss these passages, although they also include other passages in their discussions.

1. The Scope of the Project

27

passages are sometimes mentioned in the same breath with the three we have looked at. At this point we will turn to discuss some of those texts which we might have included. We would argue, however, that based on the criteria we have used, there are no other Pauline passages which we should include in this group. Clearly, one would have to call a passage like 1 Cor. 13 poetic. Just as clearly, however, the focus of this passage—the superiority of dydTcri—is quite different from the passages we have noted. The same reason could also hold for rejecting those Pauline passages which Deichgraber calls 'Gotteshymnen', Rom. 11.33-36; Eph. 1.3-14; 2 Cor. l.Sf.1 There are, however, at least two Pauline passages whose focus is directed more towards Christ, and which scholars have occasionally called hymns: Col. 2.9(13)-15 and Eph. 2.14-(16)18.2 In Col. 2.9-11 there is some repetition of the vocabulary of 1.15-20. In fact, we will argue later that the primary function of 1.15-20 is to support the argument carried out in 2.8-23. This repetition, however, is not a necessary or sufficient reason for placing this passage with the three we have already examined.3 In addition, based on the criteria we have used in distinguishing Phil. 2.6-11, Col. 1.15-20 and 1 Tim. 3.16b, there are 1 See Deichgraber, pp. 60-87. This is not to deny that these passages could be called hymns in some senses of the word. Rather, we are only making a claim about an essential difference between these passages and the ones we are interested in. 2 See Schille, pp. 24ff.; C. Burger, Schopfung und Versohnung (Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 1975), pp. 79ff., 144ff. Wengst calls Col. 2.13-15 a piece from a baptismal liturgy (pp. 186ff.), and Eph. 2.14-18 a Redemption song (pp. 18Iff.). Sanders argues that Eph. 2.14-16 is a hymn in 'Hymnic Elements in Ephesians 1-3', ZNW 56 (1965), pp. 214-32. 3 This is not to deny that there is some very unusual vocabulary in these verses. We have, however, consciously avoided relying on unusual vocabulary as a criterion of relevance for the work we are doing. There are two reasons for this. First, there seems to be no necessary reason to link any particular word to a particular form of utterance. Secondly, in the particular language system we are concerned with we do not have a large enough sample to indicate scientifically that a particular word is conventionally found in a certain type of utterance.

28

The Story of Christ in the Ethics of Paul

several elements lacking in Col. 2.9-15. First, while w. 9-15 often speak of Christ's person and work, the focus of the discourse is on the Colossians and their relationship to those who might deceive them by means of philosophy and vain speculation (v.8). All of the statements about Christ and his work are made in regard to their applicability to the Colossians. This is in sharp contrast to the concentrated picture of Christ presented in 1.15-20. These verses in Col. 2 do not stand apart as a distinctive piece of discourse. Rather, they form part of a continuous argument beginning at v. 6 and extending through the rest of the chapter. In addition, it would be difficult to demonstrate any great degree of parallelism in these clauses. One way of countering this lack is by reconstructing an 'original' hymn in which the clauses are parallel by excising later 'redactional glosses'.1 While particular manifestations of this procedure may or may not be convincing, it is not particularly relevant for our purposes. In theory, it is certainly possible to construct a text from Col. 2.9-15 which would be sufficiently similar to the three passages we have already noted to warrant inclusion with these passages. In fact, no such text exists in the extant Pauline corpus, which is'what we are interested in at the moment. Hence, Col. 2.9-15, as it stands now, should not be included in our examination. A similar case may be made against Eph. 2.14-18. Clearly, both the syntax and vocabulary of this text are unclear in places.2 This, however, is not unique to the passages we are discussing and is not a sufficient reason to view this text as a distinct unit in the same way that Phil. 2.6-11, Col. 1.15-20 and 1 Tim. 3.16b are. Without attempting to solve the exegetical problems of this passage, there are several reasons for not including this text with those we are considering. The first is purely formal. Verse 14 begins with amoq. The other passages use oq. While this difference makes no semantic difference to one's understanding of the text, it is a departure from one of the formal criteria we have used to isolate the other three texts. 1 See Schille, p. 33; Burger, pp. 79ff. 2 See Burger, pp. 117ff.

1. The Scope of the Project

29

Further, it is possible to point to several elements which firmly connect the discourse of this passage with that of w. 1113 and 19ff. Verses llff. focus on the alienation that existed between Paul's Gentile audience and the 'circumcision'. This alienation has been overcome, and the Gentiles have been brought near' through Christ's blood. Verse 14 continues this thought by explaining how Christ's activity brought this situation about. The conjunction firmly links w. 14ff. with v. 13.l This activity is immediately related to the Ephesians in w. 1718.2 The picture presented in w. 17-18 is then used as a basis for further statements in vv. 19ff. This move, however, depends on the connection of vv. 19ff. to w. 17-18. Even Burger, who sees a pre-existing hymn behind this passage, concedes that, as they stand now, w. 14-18 correspond completely to their context.3 Schille, Sanders and Burger all proceed to reconstruct an 'original' hymn from this passage. Regardless of the relative merits of these various attempts, we would conclude that the present text of Eph. 2.14-18 should not be included with the other three texts we have noted. This claim would also apply if one only considered 2.14-16. The advantage to circumscribing the passage in this way is that w. 14-16 are more sharply Christ-focussed than w. 1418.4 Nevertheless, the conjunction still links v. 14 to v. 13 in a way not found in the other three passages. Further, the formal difference between the demonstrative ccuxoq and the relative oq is still a problem. 1 See Deichgraber, p. 166. 2 Burger (p. 120) recognizes this phenomenon which Schille (p. 25) believed helped to show that this passage quoted from a hymn. Further, while the alternation between 'we' and 'y°u' in this passage is confusing, the phenomenon occurs throughout Eph. 3 See Burger, p. 119. 4 While this passage does focus on Christ as its main character its concern is with how Christ's activity relates to the salvation of sinful (alienated) humanity. This will further distinguish this passage from those we are interested in. The passages we discuss are not soteriological in that they do not explain the process of how humanity attains salvation (see our concluding comments to find this point argued in more detail). At this point, however, this claim remains to be shown exegetically. In any case, it should not serve as a reason for excluding this passage from those which we are to examine.

30

The Story of Christ in the Ethics of Paul

In isolating these three Pauline texts we have, thus far, made a rather limited claim: within the Pauline corpus Phil. 2.6-11, Col. 1.15-20 and 1 Tim. 3.16b are distinct units which uniquely share both a common focus and common stylistic characteristics. Hence, it is reasonable to group them together for the purposes of further examination. It is important to make this claim and the rationale behind it clear. First, this discussion has helped us to isolate a stable field of enquiry consisting of texts that, at a formal level, are all alike. Secondly, it will be important to reflect on the reasons for grouping these texts together if we are to call them hymns. This is because the term 'hymn' can be used in a number of ways. Therefore, there is the possibility that in using the term hymn to describe these passages one might invoke wider claims than the passages themselves can sustain.1 The issue this raises concerns the sense in which these passages can be called hymns. It is to this issue that we will now direct our attention.

Deichgraber (p. 106) provides an excellent example of this. He first defines a Christ-hymn according to the same basic criteria we have used, focus on Christ, and poetic style. From these criteria he makes the assumption that these Christ-hymns are 'Lieder' from the worship service of the earliest church. In the following chapter we will see how many unsubstantiated assumptions are involved in the move from observations about poetic style to claims about the role a poetic passage played in the earliest church.

Chapter 2 WHAT IS A HYMN? In this chapter we will try to answer the question, I n what sense are these passages hymns?' Answering this question is important because scholars have customarily used the term 'hymn' to describe these passages. It is apparent to us, however, that 'hymn' is a very slippery term. Occasionally scholars use it to justify claims regarding these passages that would otherwise be unsubstantiated. Therefore, in this chapter we will examine several ways in which one might use the term 'hymn' in regard to these passages in order to clarify our use of the term. 'Hymn' as \5|ivoq One way of using the term hymn is in a sense that would have been intelligible to a first-century, non-Jewish speaker of Greek. That is, one could use 'hymn' in the same way such a person would have used x>\ivo\ivoq generally indicated a song or poetic composition in praise of the gods.1 The rhetoricians of the Hellenistic world used the term V\LVO8fi 7cveD|xaxiKf|, for some sort of formal expression addressed to God would indicate that it is this second sense of v\ivoc, which is in view here. Further, if the only criterion for designating a passage as a ^jxvoq in this second sense is that it is addressed to God, then none of the passages we are discussing could be called \)^tvoi, even in this general sense.2 This in no way invalidates the use of the term hymn in regard to these passages. Rather, it means that in calling these passages hymns we are using a term that is the construction of a later, critical community, and not a straightforward translation of iSjivo^ in either its specific or generic sense. It 1 Kroll was one of the first to suggest that it would be impossible to distinguish what exactly these three words refer to. See Kroll, p. 8. 2 If, on the other hand, it is merely coincidence that all these \)|ivoi are addressed to God, then, based, on the examples we have noted in the Psalms, there do not seem to be any useful criteria by which a passage might be called a \>nvoA,o\) taxpcov is clear to the extent it represents a change in Christ's status. In emptying himself and taking on the appearance of a servant, Christ moved from a position of equality with God to one of obedience to the will of another. This phrase, however, is somewhat ambiguous in that it does not specify to whom and in what sense Christ appeared as a servant. Was Christ's appearance as a servant manifested in taking on a human body or in being seen to be obedient to God? By not explicitly resolving this ambiguity the passage is able to draw on both possibilities. As the two clauses immediately following this firmly situate Christ's activity in the human realm, Kasemann is right to 1 J. Jeremias, 'Zu Phil, ii.7: eounov eicevcocev', NovT 6 (1963), pp. 18289, argues that the phrase eavtov eicevcoaev is a translation of... m m T0S3 in Isa. 53.12. While in theory it may well be possible to translate the Hebrew this way, there is no Greek text of Isaiah that does so. Secondly, when KEVOCO is used to translate mo in Gen. 24.20 and 2 Chron. 24.11, KEVOCO has the literal sense of emptying an object of its contents, which is a far different use from that of Phil. 2.7 or Isa. 53.12. See also Gnilka, p. 118 and Bornkamm, 1963, p. 180 for further criticisms of Jeremias's view. 2 See Schweizer, 1955, p. 54. 3 See Kasemann, 1968, p. 66.

3. Philippians 2.6-11

59

note that Christ's taking the form of a servant is a reference to Christ's incarnation in which he subjected himself to the things to which humanity is subject.1 Michaelis is manifestly wrong in rejecting this view on the claim that there is no notion in the Bible that humanity is in bondage.2 One need only look to Rom. 6.12ff.; Gal. 4.3; Col. 2.20, etc., to find in Paul the notion that pre-Christian existence is characterized as servitude. 3 Further, passages like Rom. 6.10 and 8.3 indicate that Paul considered the human Christ to have lived under various powers. There is, however, a more specific aspect to Christ's acceptance of the form of a servant which is taken up in v. 8. That is, in his obedience unto death Christ was being obedient to God, and thus manifesting the appearance of a servant. Here we would disagree with Kasemann that Christ's obedience unto death was obedience to the things that hold humanity in bondage. 4 We will explore the exegetical reasons for this reading of v. 8 in due course. For now we need only point to a passage like Rom. 5.18 where Christ's obedience is clearly obedience to God. The presence of Rom. 5.18 and 8.3 in the same epistle would indicate that there are several aspects to Christ's obedience and that these two are not incompatible. Hence, rather than polarize the issue and force an inadequate reading of either v. 7 or v. 8, we would claim that |iop(pTiv 8o\)Xo\) XafJcov is able to support the view that Christ appears as a servant by taking on a human body, subject to the things that bind humanity, and that Christ has the appearance of a servant in being seen to be obedient to God in his death. Situated in the Human Realm: ev OJIOICOJKXTI avBpcorccov yevo\Lzvoq KOC! cxr\\ioixi eupeGelq ox; avOpcojuo^ The next two clauses, ev b\ioid)\iaxi dvGpcojccov yew6\izvoq m l CXWOLZI eipeGeiq (oq avGpcorcoc;, describe the earthly manifestation of Christ's decision to give up his exalted position in 1 See Kasemann, 1968, p. 67. 2 See W. Michaelis, Der Brief des Paulus an die Philipper Deichert, 1935), pp. 36ff. 3 See Kasemann, 1968, p. 67. 4 See Kasemann, 1968, pp. 67ff.

(Leipzig:

60

The Story of Christ in the Ethics of Paul

favor of one of obedience. One of the main issues this verse raises is a dogmatic one, concerning the extent of Jesus' humanity. This, however, is not our main interest and we would agree with Kasemann that These sentences are not intent on giving a definition of the essence in the sense of the christology of the later church. They speak rather about the sequence of occurrences in an event unified in and of itself: He emptied himself, took the form of a servant, appeared in the essence of a human being... In this way, it could be said, he had become man. The text is not concerned with the identity of a person in various developmental phases, but with the continuity of a miraculous event.

The force of these two lines is obscure in that a term like 6^o(cop.a is used to reflect a range of relationships, from those that border on identity (Deut. 4.16), to those that reflect loose analogy (Rev. 9.7).2 Likewise the term A,o\) Xocpcov discussed above, and will lead him to view w . 9-11 as an account of Christ's triumph over these hostile powers.2 In regard to Kasemann's view of v. 8 we would note several objections. First, Christ's obedience is jieXP19av(*xo\) and not 9dvcreep or eic, Odvaxov (cf. Rom. 6.2ff.).3 Death is not portrayed as a personalized power to whom Christ is subject. Rather, death, to be more specific, death on a cross, is the extent to which Christ is obedient. To whom is Christ obedient? The text is not explicit.4 There are, however, both intrinsic and extrinsic reasons which make it reasonable to assume that God is the one to whom Christ is obedient. The fact that God is the one who exalts Christ in v. 9 lends credence to the notion that Christ's obedience was obedience to God. This is especially so as there seems to be a causal relationship between Christ's humiliation and obedience and God's exaltation of Christ. 5 Further, in Rom. 5.18 when Christ's obedience is also mentioned it is clearly obedience to God as opposed to Adam's disobedience. Christ's obedience unto death is the ultimate testimony to 1 See Kasemann, 1968, pp. 73-76. 2 See Kasemann, 1968, pp. 77ff. 3 This seems to be the most common way to express obedience to something. See Acts 7.39; 2 Cor. 2.9; also Rom. 1.5; 6.12, 16; 16.19; Eph. 6.2, 5; Col. 3.20; 2 Thess. 1.8; 3.14; Heb. 5.9; 11.18. 4 K. Barth, The Epistle to the Philippians (London: SCM, 1962), p. 65, makes a great deal of this. See also Kasemann, 1968, p. 71 and Gnilka, p. 122. 5 Note the use of 5io KCU in v.9; and also in Lk. 1.35; Acts 10.29; 24.26; Rom. 4.22; 2 Cor. 1.20; 4.13; 5.9. See also L.W. Hurtado, 'Jesus as Lordly Example', in From Jesus to Paul, Festschrift for F.W. Beare, ed. P. Richardson and J.C. Hurd (Waterloo: Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 1984), p. 172.

64

The Story of Christ in the Ethics of Paul

his appearance as a servant. That this death took place on the cross emphasizes the extent of Christ's humiliation.1 This is because in addition to being an unspeakably painful death, the goal of crucifixion was to subject the victim to great indignity.2 As Hengel notes, in the Greco-Roman world the cross was 'obscene in the original sense of the word'.3 Crucifixion was also a common way of executing slaves.4 That this should be Christ's fate bears witness to his appearance as a servant. The contrast between the one who was in the form of God and the one who died on a cross could not be sharper. At this point in the passage we have seen Christ exchange his exalted position for that of a servant. He has entered the human realm in which he gave testimony to his position as a servant by humbling himself and by his obedience even to the extent of dying on the cross. In w. 6-8 Christ's position has moved steadily downward, and at his death on the cross he reached the very bottom. In v. 9 God reverses this movement. A Reversal of Fortunes: 2.9-11 The phrase 5io KOCI indicates that the exaltation related in the following verses is a direct result of the humiliation and obedience related in the previous verses.5 This raises the issue of whether Christ's exaltation is a reward for his obedience or 1 The phrase Gavaioi) 8e oiaupov is taken to be a Pauline gloss by those who view this passage as a previously formulated composition. As a result, scholars have tended either to overemphasize or to ignore this phrase, depending on their interests. Within the passage as it stands now this is just one element in the total picture of Christ. It is clear that Christ's death, particularly his death on the cross as a testimony to the extent of his humiliation, is a theme taken up elsewhere in Paul. This should not cause us, however, to give this phrase a significance out of proportion to its place in this passage. For a thorough discussion of the relation of this phrase to an original hymn see O. Hofius, Der Christushymnus Philipper 2,611, WUNT (Tubingen: Mohr, 1976), pp. 3-17. 2 See M. Hengel, Crucifixion, trans. J. Bowden (London: SCM, 1977), p. 24. 3 See Hengel, 1977, p. 24. 4 See Hengel, 1977, pp. 54ff. 5 See p. 63 n. 5 above.

3. Philippians 2.6-11

65

not.1 Predictably, this issue has split Catholic and Protestant scholars. Without resolving the wider theological issues involved in this dispute, it seems clear from the text that exaltation is the result of humiliation. A further issue concerns the extent of Christ's exaltation. Some scholars have tried to read the verb i)7cep\)\j/6co comparatively, reflecting the idea that Christ is exalted to a higher position than he had in v.6.2 There is no linguistic evidence to indicate that i)rcep'u\|/6co by itself has a comparative force like 'hyper-exaltation'.3 Rather, it is used consistently in a superlative sense to indicate exaltation to the loftiest heights. As the rest of v. 9 will show, this is also the force of vrcep-uxj/oco in regard to Christ.4 As part of this exaltation process we read that God bestowed on Christ the name above all other names.5 An important point to note in this phrase is that God is the one who grants the name.6 The actual name that God gives is not specified. The fact that it is above all other names indicates that the function of the name is to indicate Christ's position or office as opposed to indicating personal identity.7 This would tend to make knowledge of the actual appellation unnecessary. Clearly, however, the highest name would be the name of God, and would correspond to the universal acclamation of Christ asKuriosinv.il. Kasemann proposed that as Kurios Christ was free to exercise power in a way he could not do when he was in the form of 1 See Martin, 1983, pp. 231ff. 2 Some who hold this view are E. Lohmeyer, Die Briefe an die Philipper, an die Kolosser und an Philemon (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1964), p. 97; Bonnard, p. 46; Kennedy, p. 438. 3 See the use of \)7cep\)y6oo in Ps. 96(97).9; throughout the 'song of the three young men' in Dan. 3; 4.34; 11.12. When \)7cepi)\|/6a) is used to talk of God's superiority to any other exalted being the preposition is used to make the comparison (see Ps. 96(97).9). 4 Some who read it this way are Gnilka, p. 125; Collange, p. 106; Beare, p. 85. 5 Reading xo 6'von.a with ?>46, R, A, B, C, against D, F, G, et al.> which omit the article. 6 See Martin, 1983, p. 236. 7 For this use of ovo^a see Lightfoot, p. 113; BGD, p. 576.

66

The Story of Christ in the Ethics of Paul

God in v. 6. This view recognizes that Christ's exaltation is not a higher state than that reflected in v. 6. Rather, the revelation of Christ as the ruling power in the cosmos is the 'more' implied in {mepinj/oco.1 As we have noted, however, there is no need to view urcepDyoco as implying anything more than exaltation to a supreme position. Nor is there any indication that Christ's position in v. 6 is in any way hidden or limited in the way Kasemann's reading implies. From v. 6, which describes Christ's position in relation to God in terms of appearance (jxopcpf|), his position is now described in terms of authority, office (ovo^ia). To describe the latter position as higher than the former is difficult as the two descriptions employ images from two different realms, and describe Christ's relationship to two different entities, God and all other names. Verse 9 reflects a dramatic reversal of fortunes. God has vindicated the humiliated, obedient one and exalted him to a position of supremacy. The drama, however, does not end here. In w. 10-11 we read of the universal acclamation of God's vindication and exaltation of Christ. These verses move on from God's exaltation of Christ in v. 9 to expound a consequence of that exaltation.2 That is, 'At the name of Jesus every knee will bend... and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord...' The action here is viewed from the perspective of an observer of heavenly activity as in Revelation 4-5.3 Unlike the detail of Revelation 4-5, however, these verses present a narrow scene with little detail. The verse begins with the name of Jesus being recognized. That is, not the name, Jesus, but the supreme name above all names which God has bestowed on Jesus.4 The phrase ev x© 1 See Kasemann, 1968, p. 76. 2 The conjunction ivcc could indicate either consequence or purpose. In fact, these two possibilities often run together (see BDF, §319). We would not wish to exclude the notion that the purpose of God's exaltation of Christ was so that Christ might receive universal acclaim, yet even within his notion the idea that acclamation is a consequence of exaltation is implied. Hence, we have employed the term 'consequence'. 3 See Lohmeyer, 1964, p. 97 n. 4. 4 See Martin, 1983, pp. 253ff.

3. Philippians 2.6-11

67

ovouocxi 'IHGOS initiates the response to God's act of bestowing the name on Jesus.1 We are not told how this response is provoked, but most commentators assume that it is by some sort of universal proclamation.2 Nor does the text provide an account of the temporal relationship between the 'naming" of Jesus in v. 9 and the response to that in w. 10-11. Even if one reads e^o^o^oynaexai (with A, C, D, F, G, et al.) it is still most likely that the verb form is indicating the achieved consequence of a previous event rather than providing a temporal reference.3 The acclamation that follows the recognition of God's exaltation of Jesus is reminiscent of Isa. 45.23. In that passage this image of every knee bending and every tongue confessing to God is used to justify the claims made in the previous verses about God's power to save those who repent. It conveys the idea of God's omnipotence and humanity's universal submission. The image is used in this text in the same way, to indicate submission to Jesus Christ as Kurios, as the name above all names.4 The term e^ouoXoyeco often carries the sense of public praise and acclamation.5 As Mt. 11.25 and Lk. 10.21 show, however, there is nothing in this term that would necessarily link this praise to a cultic context.6 1 The phrase ev T(p 6v6\iax\ is not a formula of invocation here, as though the cosmic powers were invoking that name which Jesus has. Rather, its meaning is that when the name is uttered they prostrate themselves in subjection and acknowledgement that this is the name over air (Martin, 1983, p. 251). The alternative view (cited by Martin, 1983, p. 250) is that the proclamation of the name of Jesus is the accompanying circumstance of the submission. This view tends to make either the proclamation at the beginning of v. 10 or that at the beginning of v. 11 redundant. 2 See Martin, 1983, p. 251; Gnilka, p. 127. 3 This is particularly likely in the light of the subjunctive KOCH^U to which the reading k^o\ioXoyx\or\ia\ may have been made to conform. 4 In Rom. 14.11 Paul quotes this verse to emphasize universal submission to God's judgment. 5 It is also used in regard to the confession of sin (Mt. 3.6; Mk 1.5; Acts 19.18; Jas 5.16) and in Lk. 22.6 to indicate the act of coming to an agreement. 6 Against Michel, TDNT, 5.213-14 and Neufeld, 1963, pp. 13-17.

68

The Story of Christ in the Ethics of Paul

In regard to the three terms, ercovpavicov, erciyeicov and scholars have generally abandoned the older view that these terms describe heavenly beings, earthly beings and the dead.1 The majority view now is that these terms designate spiritual powers.2 The uncertain issue is whether these are hostile powers or not. There is no mention of cosmic conflict in the previous verses, nor is it even implied as in Col. 1.15-20. One the other hand, the closest linguistic parallels to the terminology of this verse refer to demonic powers (Ign. Trail. 9.1). There does not seem to be a clear way to adjudicate between these two competing pieces of evidence. As a decision bn this issue is not essential for our purposes we will leave this question open. We would add, however, that the ambiguity here may play upon the ambiguity in v. 7, implying that underlying the exaltation scene played out in w.9-11 is the notion that Christ has somehow subdued those powers to which he would have been subject upon entering the human realm. These powers acclaim Jesus Christ as Lord. This phrase clarifies Jesus' position as the one with the name above all names. 3 Following this acclamation, which appropriately culminates the action, we find the phrase eiq 86^ocv Qtov 7caxpo KOCI ev xp6jj.(p in 1 Cor. 2.3.

4. The Function of Philippians 2.6-11

97

idiomatic expression for a virtuous attitude of submission that people exhibit towards those over them. The placement of this phrase in 2.12, however, makes it somewhat ambiguous. It may refer to the sort of attitude the Philippians are to have towards one another, considering one another more important than themselves (2.3) as they work out their salvation.1 On the other hand, in the two other cases noted above, the phrase u£ia cpoPoi) mi xpouoa) modifies verbs which are used to talk about the interaction of a superior person (group) and a subordinate person (group). In fact, in Eph. 6.5 the verb i)rcaico\)G) is used, the same verb as in 2.12. It may, then, be more plausible to read U^TOC cpopoi) mi xpouou as a reference to the sort of obedience the Philippians had shown Paul (and, indirectly, God) rather than a description of the way they are to work out their own salvation. While the syntax of the phrase would allow for either possibility, the advantage to the latter view is that it conforms to the sorts of conditions under which the phrase is used elsewhere in Paul. Bornkamm calls the next clause, v. 13, an 'oddly paradoxical sentence'.2 It is, however, a main point in Paul's whole argument. If God were not at work among the Philippians, then the suffering they will face at the hands of their opponents as a result of their steadfast faithfulness to the gospel would be senseless. In the same way as God worked to exalt the humiliated and obedient Christ and vindicated his suffering, God will also work to bring about the salvation 'worked out' by the Philippians in obedience to Paul's commands. This is just as much God's good pleasure in regard to the Philippians as it was in regard to Christ.3 In 2.14-18 Paul goes on to add some personal remon1 See Collange, p. 110; Hawthorne, p. 100; Beare, p. 90. 2 See G. Bornkamm, 'Der Lohngedanke im Neuen Testament*, in Studien zum Antike und Urchristentum (Munich: Kaiser, 1963), p. 92. 3 Collange, p. I l l and Hawthorne, p. 101 are among those who read i)7cep TTIQ e\>8oida\ia is used in Rom. 1.3-4 and 1 Pet. 3.18. That is, these two antonyms are used to contrast two different spheres of Christ's existence. These two realms are not necessarily opposed to each other. Rather, they complement each other in presenting a two-stage pattern— heavenly existence temporally following earthly existence.5 Returning, then, to 1 Timothy we would read eSiKocicoBri ev Kvtv\Laii as a statement of Christ's justification or vindication in the heavenly, spiritual realm. Dibelius/Conzelmann are right in suggesting that e8iKaico9r| should not be read in the narrow sense of a reference to the forgiveness of sins.6 Rather, 1 See Gundry, p. 211.

2 See Gundry, p. 213. 3 In fact, we will argue that it is just this 'abstract' distinction which is important for the function of the passage in Paul's argument. 4 See Gundry, p. 211. 5 See Schweizer, 1962, p. 125. Kelly's 1963 view that adp^/jcvev^a is a reference to Christ's dual nature seems to contradict the position he later took in regard to 1 Pet. 3.18, which he explicitly links to 1 Tim. 3.16. See above p. 161 n. 3. 6 See Dibelius/Conzelmann, p. 62; Hanson, p. 85; Schweizer, 1955, p. 82.

7. 1 Timothy 3.16b

163

an English word like 'vindicated' conveys the sense here of being declared acceptable in the spiritual realm.1 This judgment is most clearly manifested in Christ's resurrection and exaltation (cf. Rom. 1.4).2 On the other hand, a term like eSncaicoOn would indicate that there was some sort of question mark standing over Jesus which his resurrection and exaltation removed, something needing vindication. The immediate context, with its adp^/ Kvex>\ia contrast, would indicate that it is Christ's appearance in the realm of the flesh which required vindication in the realm of the spirit. This implies that there was something unrighteous about this fleshly realm (though not necessarily about Jesus' human body). The text, however, does not indicate what makes the fleshly realm unrighteous. Presumably Paul and his original readers would know what makes the fleshly realm ungodly. We, however, are left to draw inferences. This is made more difficult by the fact that there are no further references to odp^ in the Pastorals. From looking at the rest of the Pauline corpus we may, however, find numerous reasons for why the realm of the flesh was ungodly. The flesh is the realm in which sin operates (cf. Rom. 7.5, 25). Nothing good dwells in theflesh(cf. Rom. 7.18). It is the source of evil desires (cf. Rom. 13.4; Gal. 5.13ff.). The flesh is mortal and corruptible (cf. 2 Cor. 4.11; Gal. 6.8). Thefleshis the realm of (moral) weakness (cf. Rom. 6.19; and particularly 8.3ff. which discusses Christ's appearance in the realm of the flesh). Any one of these characteristics of the realm of the flesh would raise questions about Jesus' appearance in this realm, and might require heavenly vindication. Hence, while we cannot say exactly why Jesus' appearance in the realm of the flesh needed heavenly vindication, we can reasonably claim that elsewhere Paul gives enough indications of the ungodly nature of the flesh to support the view that Jesus' appearance in the flesh is the sort of event that would require heavenly vindication. How had the realm of the flesh fallen into this ungodly state 1 See Dibelius/Conzelmann, p. 62, citing Ign. Phld. 8.2; Lock, p. 45; Schweizer, 1955, pp. 63,136. 2 See Hanson, p. 85.

164

The Story of Christ in the Ethics of Paul

after being created by God? Unfortunately, the text does not say. The ungodly nature of the flesh seems to have been such an uncontroversial notion that it could be assumed by both Paul and his audience, and the causes of this did not need to be elaborated. We must be content to say that underlying this story of Christ, as in Col. 1.15-20, is a larger story which accounts for how the realm of the flesh came to be ungodly. As we noted in regard to Col. 1.15-20, several of these larger stories were prevalent in the world of the NT, and there is no necessary reason to assume Paul and his readers would have presupposed the same story. It does, however, appear that some account of how the realm of the flesh came to be unrighteous is assumed in this text. In whatever way the fleshly realm came to be ungodly, Paul's point in this second clause is to assert that Christ has been justified in the heavenly realm. This assertion raises a question concerning what it would mean for Christ to be justified or vindicated. Nowhere else does Paul use 8iKai6co with Christ as the object. The immediate context of this clause, however, would strongly indicate that it was Christ's appearance in the ungodly realm of the flesh which required justification. It is Christ's entrance into this realm in which sin rules, in which weakness and corruptibility reign, which requires God's justification. Any or all of these elements which make the fleshly realm ungodly would also serve to alienate those who dwell in this realm from God. It would be reasonable to assume, then, that Christ's appearance in thisfleshlyrealm would require God's justification. Justification, in this context, would not be required for any specifically sinful act Christ committed. Rather, justification would overcome the more comprehensive alienation between one who existed in the ungodly realm of the flesh and God.1 As we noted above, then, an English word like 'vindication' might be more appropriate to describe the heavenly acceptance of the one who was manifested in the flesh. 1 This usage of 8IKOU6G) seems to parallel that of Rom. 6.7. In fact, one may well press the implications of this passage to claim that Rom. 6.7 would also apply to Christ.

7. 1 Timothy 3.16b

165

This statement of Christ's vindication in the spiritual realm is followed by the somewhat obscure phrase ©cpGri dyyeAx)ixccpi in this way (against Hanson, p. 86). See Jeremias, p. 24. 4 See Fee, p. 62. 5 See Hanson, 1968, p. 104. 6 See Hanson, 1968, pp. 103f. 7 See Hanson, 1968, p. 98. 8 See Jeremias, p. 24. Houlden, p. 88, also supports this view.

8. The Function of 1 Timothy 3.16b

191

not sanctify creation. It is the instrument of creation.1 On the other hand, the occurrences of X,6yo