Philippians 2:6-11

In the discussion of this crux interpretum it is impossible, within our limits, to do more than give a brief outline of the chief legitimate interpretations, laying special emphasis on that which we prefer and giving our reasons. As regards literature, a good account of the older exegesis is given by Tholuck, Disputatio Christologica, pp. 2 10. Franke (in Meyer 5) gives a very full list of modern discussions. In addition to commentaries and the various works on Biblical Theology, the following discussions are specially important: Räbiger, De Christologia Paulina, pp. 76 85; R. Schmidt, Paulinische Christologie, p. 163 ff.; W. Grimm, Zw. Th [97], xvi., 1, p. 33 ff.; Hilgenfeld, ibid., xxvii., 4, p. 498 ff.; W. Weiffenbach, Zur Auslegung d. Stelle Phil., ii. 5 11 (Karlsruhe, 1884); E. H. Gifford, Expositor, v., vol. 4, p. 161 ff., 241 ff. [since published separately]; Somerville, St. Paul's Conception of Christ, p. 188 ff. It may be useful to note certain cautions which must be observed if the Apostle's thought is to be truly grasped. (a) This is not a discussion in technical theology. Paul does not speculate on the great problems of the nature of Christ. The elaborate theories reared on this passage and designated “kenotic” would probably have surprised the Apostle. Paul is dealing with a question of practical ethics, the marvellous condescension and unselfishness of Christ, and he brings into view the several stages in this process as facts of history either presented to men's experience or else inferred from it. [At the same time, as J. Weiss notes (Th. LZ [98], 1899, col. 263), the careful rhetorical structure of the passage (two strophes of four lines) shows that the thought has been patiently elaborated.] (b) It is beside the mark to apply the canons of philosophic terminology to the Apostle's language. Much trouble would be saved if interpreters instead of minutely investigating the refinements of Greek metaphysics, on the assumption that they are present here, were to ask themselves, “What other terms could the Apostle have used to express his conceptions?” (c) It is futile to attempt to make Paul's thought in this passage fit in with any definite and systematic scheme of Christology such as the “Heavenly Man,” etc. This only hampers interpretation.

[97] Zeitschr. f. wissenschaftl. Theologie.

[98] Theologische Literaturzeitung.