[1] Lohmeyer, E., Der Brief an die Philipper (KEK; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1930; 9th ed. revised by Schmauch, W., 1953) 90.Google Scholar

[2] For Lohmeyer's complete discussion of Phil 2. 5–11 see his monograph entitled Kyrios Jesus: Eine Untersuchung zu Phil. 2, 5–11 (Sitzungsberichte der Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaft, Phil.-hist. KI., Jahr. 1927–28, 4 Abh.; Heidelberg, 1928). For more recent literature on the passage we Martin, R. P., Carmen Christi: Philippians 2 5–11Google Scholar in Recent Interpretation and in the Setting of Early Christian Worship (SNTSMS 4; Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1967) 320–39Google Scholar and Murphy-O'Connor, J., ‘Christological Anthropology in Phil.II, 6–11’, RB 83 (1976) 25–6.Google Scholar

[3] Fuller, R. H., The Foundations of New Testament Christology (London: Lutterworth, 1965; Fontana Library, 1969) 235, n. 9.Google Scholar

[4] Credit for re-launching the debate goes to Talbert, C. H., ‘The Problem of Pre-existence in Philippians 2:6–11’, JBL 86 (1967) 141–53.Google Scholar Some of the more important contributions since Talbert include Bartsch, H-W., Die Konkrete Wahrheit und die Lüge der Spekulation: Untersuchung über den vorpaulinischen Christushymnus und seine gnostische Mythisierung (TW1; Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 1974)Google Scholar; Murphy-O'Connor, , ‘Christological Anthropology’, 25–50; Howard, ‘Phil 2:6–11 and the Human Christ’, CBQ 40 (1978) 368–87Google Scholar; and Dunn, J. D. G., Christology in the Making: An Inquiry into the Origins of the Doctrine of the Incarnation (London: SCM, 1980) 114–21.Google Scholar

[5] Murphy-O'Connor, ‘Christological Anthropology’, 31. Cf. Dunn, , Christology, 114.Google Scholar

[6] See Talbert, ‘Problem of Pre-existence’, 149–51; Howard, ‘Human Christ’, 375–7; Bartsch, , Konkrete Warheit, 21–2Google Scholar and 32–7; and Dunn, , Christology, 114–8.Google Scholar Murphy-O'Connor comes to the same general conclusion by means of his interpretation of Phil 2.6–7 in light of Wis 2.23 (‘Christological Anthropology’, 41).

[7] Cf. Kramer, W., Christ, Lord, Son of God (SBT 1/50; London: SCM 1966) 122–3Google Scholar; Käsemann, E., An die Römer (HNT 8a; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck) 1973) 206Google Scholar; and Conzelmann, H., An Outline of the Theology of the New Testament (London: SCM, 1969) 79–80.Google Scholar

[8] For this and further helpful comments on the correct methodological approach to Phil 2. 6–11 see Hooker, M. D., ‘Philippians 2.6–11’, Jesus und Paulus. Festschrift für W. G. Kümmel, ed. Ellis, E. E. and Grässer, E. (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1976) 151–2.Google Scholar Hooker is also correct when she observes, ‘The fact that different scholars produce different poetic structures makes one slightly hesitant about the value of this exercise’ (157). The lack of a convincing explanation regarding the poetic structure of the passage, and the problematic character of determining what kind of poetry is involved preclude the possibility of interpreting the text on the basis of its supposed poetic structure.

[9] E.g. Lightfoot, J. B., Saint Paul's Epistle to the Philippians (London: Macmillan, 4th edition 1878, reprinted 1908) 110, 127–33Google Scholar; Käsemann, E., ‘Kritische Analyse von Phil.2, 5–11’, ZTK 47 (1950) 328–31Google Scholar; and Spicq, C., ‘Note sur MORPHĒ dans les Papyrus et quelques Inscriptions’, RB 80 (1973) 44–5.Google Scholar For a history of the interpretation of this passage we Martin, , Carmen Christi, 99–133Google Scholar who also seems to hold this position.

[10] Schweizer, E., Erniedrigung und Erhöhung bei Jesus und seinen Nachfolgern (ATANT 28; 2nd ed.; Zürich: Zwingli, 1962) 95–6.Google Scholar He is followed in this interpretation by Hofius, O., Der Christushymnus: Philipper 2, 60–11 Untersuchungen zu Gestalt und Aussage eines urchristlichen Psalms (WUNT 17; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1976) 56–8Google Scholar and Grelot, P., ‘Deux expressions difficiles de Philippiens 2, 6–7’, Bib 53 (1973) 502.Google Scholar

[11] See supra note 4.

[12] For an extensive discussion of the background of είκών in Hellenistic and Jewish thought see Jervell, J., Imago Deio Gen. I, 26f im Spätjudentum, in der Gnosis und in den paulinischen Briefen (FRLANT 76; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1960).Google Scholar

[13] Cf. Moule, C. F. D., The Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Colossians and to Philemon (CTGC; Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1957) 214CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Lohse, E., Colossians and Philemon: A Commentary on the Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971) 142.Google Scholar

[14] Dunn, J. D. G., ‘1 Corinthians 15:45 – Last Adam, Lifegiving Spirit’, Christ and Spirit in the New Testament (C. F. D. Moule Festschrift) ed. Lindars, B. and Smalley, S. S. (Cambridge: Cam-bridge University, 1973) 140.Google Scholar He goes on to say: ‘Christ's role as “second man” does not begin either in some pre-existent state, or at incarnation. The “man” of Phil.2:7f, “that one man” of Rom 5:15ff, strictly speaking is not identical with the “last Adam” of 1 Cor.15:45. It was not by incarnation that Christ became the image of God or sanctified humanity.’ Dunn seems to have changed his mind in his more recent work Christology, see below.

[15] Talbert, ‘Problem of Pre-existence’, 151–2.

[16] Murphy-O'Connor, ‘Christological Anthropology’, 41–2.

[17] ibid., 41.

[18] ibid., 41–2.

[19] See the powerful criticism which Howard, ‘Phil.2:6–11’, 369–72 directs at Murphy-O'Connor over this issue.

[20] Murphy-O'Connor, ‘Christological Anthropology’, 42, tries to counter this problem by arguing that vs. 8 provides the motive (obedience) for the suffering of one who need not have suffered. But this is not based on Wis 2–3 where the righteous man suffers because he is righteous. Suffering and physical death are not options but facts of the present order of existence for the righteous man in Wis 2–3.

[21] See Bartsch, , Konkrete Wahrheit, 21–43.Google Scholar The quotation is from 43.

[22] Dunn, , Christology, 117.Google Scholar

[23] Cf. Conzelmann, , Theology, 201.Google Scholar

[24] Glasson, T. F., ‘Two Notes on the Philippians Hymn (II.6–11)’, NTS (1974–1975) 138.Google Scholar

[25] Spicq, , Note on MORPHĒ, 44.Google Scholar

[26] According to Scroggs, R., The Last Adam (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1966) 34Google Scholar the Rabbis from as early as the Tannaitic period spoke of Adam's loss of lustre and stature. Paul himself used the idea that mankind still possessed the imago Dei in 1 Cor 11.7.

[27] For an example of an individual who was said to change forms where the word μορφή clearly applies to outward appearances see Philo's, Legatio ad Gaium 80.Google Scholar

[28] Kramer, , Christ, 123.Google Scholar For my purposes it does not matter whether two Sonship traditions have coalesced as Kramer maintains.

[29] Käsemann, , An die Römer, 206.Google Scholar

[30] References to God as the Father of Jesus Christ occur in several other Pauline texts. Cf. Rom 15. 6; 2 Cor 1. 3; 11. 31; and Col 1. 3. In the creedal formula of 1 Cor 8. 6 the one God is called ‘the Father’ and the one Lord is named as Jesus Christ. It appears as though the term ‘Father’ is used of God in order to spell out the relationship between the one God and the one Lord thereby insuring the subordination of Christ to God. The same pattern can be found in 1 Cor 15. 24–28. This text clearly refers to Christ's Lordship which is then limited by his participation in a sonship relation with God who is spoken of as Father in vs. 24.

[31] Conzelmann, , Theology, 79–80.Google Scholar

[32] von Rad, G., Old Testament Theology, vol. 1 (London: SCM, 1975), 240.Google Scholar

[33] The LXX of Ezek 1. 26–28 uses two different words to translate the Hebrew word (form). In vs. 26 it uses the word είδος, which is a very close synonym for μορφή, and in vs. 28 it uses the word òμοίωμα which actually occurs in Phil 2. 7 in parallel to μορφή.

[34] See e.g. Kim, S., The Origin of Paul's Gospel (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982) 137–268.Google Scholar

[35] This translation and the one from Philo's Vita Mosis which follows are taken from the Loeb editions of these works.

[36] The root meaning of the Hebrew word the word normally translated by δόξα in the LXX, is in fact ‘weight’, ‘standing’, or ‘honour’ (see Rad, von, Theology, vol. 1, p. 239Google Scholar) and therefore Josephus may be giving his own Greek translation for the Hebrew word when he uses the term μέγεθος.

[37] On the close relationships between Phil 3. 21 and Phil 2. 6–8 see Hooker, ‘Philippians 2:6–11’, 155 ff. and Petersen, N. R., Rediscovering Paul. Philemon and the Sociology of Paul's Narrative World (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985) 245–6.Google Scholar

[38] On the glorious or luminous character of Christ's resurrection body in Paul we Robin-son, J. M., ‘Jesus: From Easter to Valentinus (or to the Apostles' Creed)’, JBL 101 (1982) 7 ff.Google Scholar

[39] Cf. Petersen, , Rediscovering Paul, 232, 245–6.Google Scholar

[40] On the debate regarding this phrase we Martin, , Carmen Christi, 134–64Google Scholar; Moule, C. F. D., ‘Further Reflexions on Philippians 2:5–11’, Apostolic History and the Gospel: Biblical and Historical Essays Presented to F. F. Bruce on his 60th Birthday, edited by Gasque, W. W. and Martin, R. P. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1970) 266 ff.Google Scholar, and Hoover, R. W., ‘The Harpagmos Enigma: A Philosophical Solution’, HTR 64 (1971) 95–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

[41] See Blass, F. and Debrunner, A., A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature, translated and revised by Funk, R. W. (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1961), sect. 434, no. 1.Google Scholar

[42] Martin, , Carmen Christi, 151.Google Scholar Cf. Gnilka, J., Der Philipperbrief (Freiburg: Herder, 1976 ² ) 163Google Scholar who maintains of the ίσα, ‘Sie spricht nicht von der Eigenschaft der Göttlichkeit, sondern von der gottgleichen Würdestellung.’

[43] E.g. Glasson, ‘Two Notes’, 137.

[44] E.g. Käsemann, ‘Phil.2,5–11’, 329–33.

[45] E.g. Beare, F. W., A Commentary on the Epistle to the Philippians (London: A. & C. Black, 1959) 80.Google Scholar

[46] Moule, ‘Philippians 2:5–11’, 267 offers a decisive criticism against those who hold a res rapta interpretation which maintains that ‘to be equal with God’ refers to an existing possession in vs. 6: ‘Whatever appropriateness to the context it [a res rapta interpretation] may have is derived from that … quite arbitrary addition to the meaning–namely, “not to be let go of”. What is meant by the exegetes who adopt it is really not res rapta (which ρπαγμός might conceivably mean) but res retinenda – a desirable thing which is clung to; and it is questionable whether this sense of retaining inheres in ρπαγμός at all.’

[47] See Petersen, Rediscovering Paul, ch. 3 where he gives a detailed exposition of human existence as a form of enslavement in Paul's symbolic world. See also Käsemann, ‘Phil.2, 5–11’, 342–5, though his Gnostic framework is unnecessary.

[48] ibid., 339–40.

[49] This conclusion follows from our understanding of the expression ‘taking the form of a slave’. For an alternative understanding of the obedience of Christ in Phil 2. 8 we Martin, , Carmen Christi, 211–28.Google Scholar

[50] See my article ‘God's Agent in Paul's Thought’, SJT 39 (1986).Google Scholar

[51] Murphy-O'Connor, ‘Christological Anthropology’, 46–7.

[52] According to Martin, , Carmen Christi, 245Google Scholar it is now generally agreed that it refers to the term ‘Lord’.

[53] See Hofius, , Christushymnus, 41–5Google Scholar who demonstrates that Isa 45. 23 and ‘die Erwartung der universalen eschatologischen Huldigung vor Jahwe’ stand in the background of Phil 2. 9–11.

[54] Cf. Martin, , Carmen Christi, 245–6Google Scholar and Cullmann, O., The Christology of the New Testament (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1963) 177–80.Google Scholar