Following Ernst Lohmeyer’s seminal study (Kyrios Jesus: eine Untersuchung zu Phil. 2, 5-11, 1928) the majority in the twentieth century judged Phil 2:6–11 a pre-Philippians and pre-Pauline hymn. That consensus has broken down since many now insist that the passage is simply exalted prose, penned by Paul as he writes this letter. They contend that, rhetorically, the passage is an encomium, or “praise (ἔπαινος),” not a “hymn,” since it lacks the typical features of a Greek hymnos (meter and a three-part structure) and (some think) it is not clear that Christ is praised as a divine being.
This chapter attempts a comprehensive assessment of the passage’s genre and origin, setting out some new proposals for a modified, chastened, version of Lohmeyer’s model. After reviewing the usual arguments for the pre-Philippians (and pre-Pauline) hymn thesis and all the recent criticisms of it, seventeen reasons are adduced to accept a version of that model.
- The passage is a literarily self-contained piece, that praises Christ as a divine being. So according to classical generic conventions (that were known and adopted by Greek-speaking Jews) it is a particular kind of encomium—a hymn.
- The foregoing chapters have provided new reasons to be confident that Phil 2:6–11 and 3:20–21 are two parts of the same hymnic tradition. So many are the linguistic and conceptual connections between 2:6–11 and 3:20–21 that it strains credulity to think Paul composed the latter to match the former whilst writing this letter.
- Both passages contain language and ideas that, judging by his extant letters, are untypical of Paul (which of course does not mean that, for the purposes of this letter he was not happy to agree with those ideas).
- In a letter lacking scriptural citations, allusions, and echoes, two of the clearest examples are the midrashic quotation of Isa 45:23 in 2:10–11 and the theologically freighted citation of Psalm 8:7 in 3:21. Both the fact that, in this letter, the clearest examples of scriptural language appear in 2:6–11 and 3:20–21 and the manner in which these quotations appear suggests Paul is citing traditional material known to the audience. The scriptural portions of 2:6–11 and 3:20–21 suggest composition by a leader of the new messianic movement in the orbit of a flourishing Jewish community in a large, cosmopolitan city, such as Antioch, Ephesus, Corinth, Rome, or Alexandria.
- Philippians 2:6–11 is poetic. It has a two-part macro-structure (vv. 6–8, 9–11), with (almost) equal numbers of words. It contains numerous poetic devices that, for both biblically literate and educated Greek readers, make it recognizable as a piece of poetic prose. I note poetic features hitherto not noticed: merisms in vv. 9–11 and the absence of the definite article in the first half. Also as a distinct poetic bloc, it begins and ends with “God,” who appears also in the middle (v. 6a, 9a, 11c), in a way that may reflect Greek poetic and hymnic conventions. The poetic features are so dense in 2:9–11 they suggest a traditional piece, not Paul’s own elevated prose style. They also imply a conscious effort to create a piece to be memorized.
- Generically, because it praises the divine beings, or persons, LORD Jesus Christ and God the Father, Phil 2:6–11 is best classified (in terms of both Greek and Jewish formal categories) as a “hymn”. Specifically, it is hymnic praise in what classicists label the third person “Er-Stil,” as opposed to the second person “Du-Stil”. As a hymn, it might, or might not, have been sung or performed corporately. In the first century, hymns were variously categorised according to subject matter and form. In classifying Philippians 2:6–11 as a “hymn” (or portion of a hymn) I mean that it is a (non-metrical) poem—adiscrete literary piece, dense in rhythmical and other rhetorical figures—in praise of a divine being. The lack of an opening invocation and closing prayer, which usually appear in Greek hymns, can be accounted for in various ways and is not at all surprising.
- The arguments of the foregoing chapters now strengthen the case that what Phil 2:6–11 says—not just how, in form, it says it—is typical of a hymn. The philosophical, (anti-)erotic, and ideal ruler themes are all appropriate for a hymn. Christ’s self-transformation is especially indicative of a hymn since it illustrates the expectation that praise of a deity will include biographical accounts of the god’s appearances to particular communities. The role of the supreme name in Phil 2:11 is also indicative of the way names and epithets of gods and goddesses appear and are explained in hymns. Biblical and pagan hymns often provide a cultic aetiology and so too, in several ways, does our Philippians passage. Perhaps, also, it is not a coincidence that two biblical Psalms have influenced the Christ Hymn: Greek Ps 96:9 (cf. Phil 2:9) and Psalm 8 (Phil 3:21). Certainly, the final doxological εἰς δόξαν θεοῦ πατρός “for the glory of God the Father” is a fitting ending for a (section of) a hymn (cf. Vergil Aeneid 8.301–302).
- The Christological narrative begins with a “hymnic relative” (ὃς) (Phil 2:6a), in a way that is probably indicative of the genre (cf. Col 1:15; 1 Tim 3:6).
- As Michael Martin and Bryan Nash have argued, from a comparison between Phil 2:6–11 and the instructions in rhetorical treatises, handbooks and exercises, “in general vindication of the older scholarly consensus, … the so-called ‘Christ-hymn’ displays all the generic markers the ancient educated deemed essential to the hymnos genre.”[1] Albeit, in some ways, what the ancients typically regarded as worthy of praise or blame, is subverted in Christ’s life and there is a noticeable disinterest in place—the hymn is silent about Christ’s earthly origins (his country, citizenship, native city, parental/family relationships, and so forth).
- The syntax, vocabulary, and subject matter of the first stanza evoke archaic Greek poetry and classical literature (Chapters 3, 4 and 5). These features contribute further to the impression that 2:6 is the beginning of a distinct literary bloc, that is carefully crafted and that requires patient reflection and study. The profound, if challenging, combination of the Platonic and the Homeric would have won the author the admiration of an educated first-century audience. Of such readers, there were surely not many in Philippi. This suggests the piece was originally composed in some other place, for a more well-educated audience.
- Although Loymeyer’s critics have complained that the alleged citation is unmarked (it has no “as you have received,” “as I received,” or “as is sung in all the churches” before 2:6 or at 3:20), the lack of an introduction is perfectly intelligible. The lack of any introduction to 2:6–11 to alert intended readers to a heightening of the semiotic volume is best explained if Paul knows that his readers will at once recognize a traditional piece of early Christian hymnody, and one which he had studied with them in times past. It is a piece that speaks encouragingly and affirmatively to multiple segments of the Philippian community, so it is likely a version of the Christ story to which his readers were emotionally attached and in which they took pride—as a story that enabled them “to boast in Christ Jesus” (3:3). As such, the hymn cited in 2:6–11 needs no introduction in a letter to this audience.
- The passage’s opacity (esp. in v. 6) and its ambiguities make a significant contribution to its meaning and purposes. These features also require the reader to slow down and figure out. They are best explained if Paul knows his audience have already encountered and worked through the puzzles and interpretative possibilities of the poem.
- Although critics of the traditional hymn thesis point out that there is no obvious reference to a liturgical setting (baptism, the Lord’s supper, or similar), the exhortations that follow are consistent with the hypothesis that 2:6–11 is a hymn and that it is a traditional piece. In the immediately following section, Phil 2:12–18 closes with a call to rejoice and the image of a libation offering during an act of sacrificial worship. That is a fitting setting for a hymn. And as many as three times in 2:12–16 Paul echoes biblical texts that have liturgical or hymnic resonances: Ps 2:11 in Phil 2:12; Deut 32:5 (from the Song of Moses) in Phil 2:15b and Exod 30:22–33 with Gen 1:14–19 in 2:15c. The language of 2:15 is also typically used of sacrificial victims and Israel’s priesthood. All this suggests, after 2:6–11, Paul remains conscious of the hymnic character of his story of Christ.
- There is an ambiguity in 2:9–11 and an apparent oddity in the relationship between 2:6–11 and its literary context that can be explained if 2:6–11 reflects the form and function of a particular kind of hymn—a mimetic one. First the oddity. In the paraenetic context (2:1–5, 12–17) Paul makes statements that emphasize divine presence with believers in the present, not the past or the future, but many have thought 2:10–11 describes an event (of cosmic presence) in the future, beyond the time horizon of Paul’s letter (cf. the returning presence of Christ in 3:20–21). The accent on present divine immanence is stronger in 2:1–5, 12–17 than in other parts of the letter. If, as many now argue, 2:6–11 is not a hymn but rather elevated, encomiastic, prose, composed for this letter, why does Paul not tell the Christ story in a way which serves his pastoral concern for believers’ experience of God in the present?
The issue of this apparent mismatch between the second part of the hymn and its paraenetic context shines a spotlight on the problem of the ambiguity of the temporal perspective in 2:9–11, which has received some attention in the modern period. Is the scene of cosmic acclamation in vv. 10–11 one that will take place in the future, or is it one that has already taken place, perhaps from the heavenly perspective, in the immediate aftermath of Christ’s death and resurrection? The Greek allows for both possibilities. Contextual considerations suggest verses 10–11 are, from the perspective of Christ followers like Paul, already in place. The scene of worship in heaven Rev 5:13–14 has many similarities to Phil 2:10–11 and suggests that Paul expects his readers to think what is described in the latter is already a reality, that can be accessed in corporate worship (or in the individual’s ecstatic mode—cf. Rev 4:1 with Phil 3:3), as Ralph Martin pointed out in his monograph-length study of our passage.[2]
What Martin saw, but did not realize, was that Philippians 2:6–11 is, what classicists would call, a mimetic hymn, not a diegetic one. With diegetic Greek hymns, the speaker or narrator is removed, temporally and spatially, from the mythic activities described. With mimetic hymns, by contrast, the mythic horizon merges with that of the speaker(s). What is narrated is a myth that is reflected in a cultic event, in such a way that the hymn’s telling of the myth puts the speaker and the audience right there at the time and place of that which is narrated. Philippians 2:6–11 may also be such a mimetic hymn, in which case Paul assumes that his readers know that the temporal perspective of verses 9–11 is the present “now” of the paraenesis in 1:27–2:5 and 2:12–18. If it is such a mimetic hymn an apparent mismatch between Christological narrative and paraenetic context is removed.
- Insofar as Christ is praised as an imperial figure (following a proposal by Adela Yarbro Collins), its form and function can be compared to prose hymns to the emperor (as to a god), which were a feature of emperor worship in the first century C.E. (in Asia Minor, at least). This fits the letter’s concern to set out what a life worthy of the gospel of Christ, according to the “governing constitution” that is in heaven means in practice (1:27; 3:20).
- Rhetorically, the account of Christ’s life functions as an exemplum that supports and inspires an exhortation towards a particular manner of life. As Peter-Ben Smit has pointed out, its exemplary function implies that it is both widely known and pre- or para-Pauline, since exempla typically took the form of shared, authoritative, tradition.[3]
- Lastly, I put forward a counterfactual thought experiment. If we entertain the proposal that Phil 2:6–11 was composed by Paul for this letter, then an unlikely scenario follows. One attraction of such a proposal is that it respects Paul’s creativity and his abilities as an author and speaker. But therein lies the proposal’s flaw. Paul the speaker and pastor must have been confronted with individuals and groups with the issues to which Phil 2:6–11 speaks on countless occasions. If he could compose our hymn for this letter, he surely had had many other opportunities so to do. Why now? Why create a new piece for this occasion, not at some earlier time?
For all these reasons, I reckon we can be confident that Phil 2:6–11 (with 3:20–21) is the kind of “hymn” that is in view when readers are told in Eph 5:18–19 to “be filled with the Spirit” and to “address one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs” (cf. Col 3:16–17). Generically, Paul’s Macedonian gentile converts would likely have judged it a hymn that employs non-metrical, rhetorically elevated, poetry.
However, some recent criticisms of the older consensus should be heeded. Firstly, we should avoid speculative theories and dogmatism about the text’s pre-Philippians life. The only concrete evidence for its meaning and function is the one given by Paul in this letter. And the character of the Greek of vv. 6–8 rules out the possibility that there was ever an Aramaic version. Secondly, given its complexities and the creative interaction with philosophical categories, it is highly unlikely that Phil 2:6–11 + 3:20–21 was composed spontaneously in a state of spirit-fuelled enthusiasm. Rather, its composition process surely attests the kind of discernment and understanding that Paul espouses in 1:9–10.
Thirdly, we have no way of knowing whether it was composed by Paul or somebody else, only that it was composed by someone before Paul wrote this letter. Fourthly, no interpretation of Phil 2:6–11 is possible without careful attention to its role in Paul’s argument in this letter (on which see Chapters 1, 7 and, further, Chapters 11–14). And this letter confirms the impression in Col 3:16 that for the earliest believers hymnic pieces like this one had a formative, catechetical, role.
Fifthly, the passage’s generic categorisation must be expressed in relation to both its Greco-Roman setting and its avowedly Jewish, and scriptural, content. Good arguments can be made for thinking it invites classification as both a kind of Greek hymn and a biblical psalm. The lack of both poetic meter and the three-part structure typical of Greek hymns can be easily explained. For example, the three-part structure of Greek hymns reflects a do ut des religiosity—for which this Christian piece, understandably, has no need. And, in the first century, metrical poetic composition was part of the culture of competitive honour which, throughout the letter and especially in this passage, Paul is at pains to subvert. Some ways in which the passage is indebted to biblical psalms have also been missed.
In two respects it is possible to refine the generic categorisation. It is not just recognisable to both Gentiles and Greek-speaking Jews as a “hymn”. It is a prose hymn that probably reflects first-century prosaic praise of the emperor for his divine status (as several commentators have recently suggested). It is also a hymn in the sense in which Greek-speaking Jews labelled some biblical psalms in praise of God “hymns”. Philippians 2:6–11, is (the main body of) a prose hymn that combines the language typical of both Jewish and Greco-Roman expressions of praise to a divine being. From the biblical perspective, it is poetic, from the Greco-Roman it is only elevated prose. So, it is a poetic, non-metrical, prose hymn. And it is a narrative, didactic, hymn that reflects the common pedagogical function of hymns in the ancient world (recently explored by Matthew Gordley and others). As a narrative hymn, it recalls biblical psalms that retell events in creation and salvation history (Pss 68:7–18; 78:9–72; 81:6–16; 105:5–45; 106:6–46; 135:8–12; 136:10–24).
As a prose hymn, it is unusually short. That may be because it is an epitome that was written to introduce a longer (gospel or gospel-like) narrative of Christ’s life. We know that Greek hymns to the gods (such as the Homeric Hymns) sometimes served as a prelude to a longer epic narrative. (John 1:1–18 at the start of the Fourth Gospel, may reflect that convention). As an epitome of a gospel biography, it may be that it was originally written to provide condensed theological reflection on the meaning of an early story about Christ and the application, or translation, of that story into recognisably Greek and pagan language.
[1] M. W. Martin and B. A. Nash, “Philippians 2:6–11 as Subversive Hymnos: A Study in the Light of Ancient Rhetorical Theory,” JTS 66 [2015]: 90–138 (92–93).
[2] Martin, Hymn of Christ, 266–7, 268–69.
[3] Smit, Paradigms, 85.