Some Secondary Literature on the Kenosis Account
Bloomquist, L. Gregory. The Function of Suffering in Philippians. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993.
Hellerman, Joseph H. Reconstructing Honor in Roman Philippi: Carmen Christi as Cursus Pudorum. Society for New Testament Studies Monograph 132. New York: Cambridge University, 2005.
Hurst, L.D. "Re-enter the Pre-existent Christ in Philippians 2.5-11?" NTS 32 (1986): 449-457.
Martin, Ralph P. and Brain J. Dodd. Where Christology Began: Essays on
Philippians 2. Louisville, KY: John Knox Press, 1998.
O'Neill, J.C. "Hoover on hARPAGMOS Reviewed, with a Modest Proposal
Concerning Philippians 2:6." HTR 81:4 (1988): 445-449.
Osiek, Carolyn. Philippians, Philemon. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2000.
Reumann, John. Philippians : A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008.
Wannamaker, C.A. "Philippians 2.6-11: Son of God or Adamic Christology." NTS 33 (1987): 179-193.
7 comments:
Have you read Denny Burk's DTS thesis, "The Meaning of HARPAGMOS at Philippians 2:6"? DTS's scholarship can be a mixed bag, because one is required to affirm the Trinity doctrine as a condition of enrollment, but Burk does a nice job showing why there seems to be no compelling basis to assume that there's an anaphoric link between MORFHi QEOU (form of God) and EINAI ISA QEWi (equality/likeness with God):
“There are many non-anaphoric examples of the articular infinitive in the accusative case as well–indeed, many more than in the nominative case. In fact, it is difficult to construe an anaphoric reference for the majority of the accusative examples of this construction.” (ibid, p. 47)
“…most articular infinitives indeed do not denote anaphora…” (ibid, p. 49).
“…the grammatical context of the sentence requires the presence of the article in this particular infinitive phrase. If the article were not present in Philippians 2:6, the sentence would make little if any grammatical sense…the article is required in this context as a grammatical function marker to distinguish the accusative object from the accusative compliment.” (ibid, p. 50)
“In such reversed order situations where neither of the accusatives is a proper name or pronoun, the presence of the article is syntactically required in order to indicate which accusative is functioning as the object. Such is the case at Philippians 2:6.” (ibid, p. 52).
So, at Philippians 2:6, Paul had to include the article to indicate which accusative is functioning as the object. Is it possible that the article is doing double duty here, i.e. marking the object and also establishing an anaphoric link between MORFHi QEOU and EINAI ISA QEWi? Perhaps, but those who would insist that this is the case have the burden to prove it, and I haven't seen anyone rise to meet that burden, while Occam's razor may render such attempts simply superfluous.
Thanks, Sean. I have read his study and think he's on point. Carl Conrad and Richard Young (a grammarian) both seem to reject the anaphoric argument too.
Do you know if Carl is still around? If so, I think he'd have to be in his 90s now!
In Greek grammar, articles can serve to link phrases to a prior idea without needing to conform strictly to the conventions of English anaphora. The grammatical structure of Philippians 2:6-7—especially the parallel between “morphē theou” and “morphē doulou”—implies a conceptual unity within the sequence. Paul’s intent seems to present these phrases in a balanced, parallel construction to juxtapose Christ’s divine glory with His humility, suggesting that these two “forms” hold a meaningful connection within the same thought progression.
While “morphē” can denote "form" or "appearance," within this context it takes on a deeper connotation aligned with divine status or nature. Given that “form of God” refers to Christ’s divine pre-existence, His sharing in “equality with God” follows as a logical complement rather than a detached idea. The text uses “morphē theou” to denote Christ’s divine nature, while “einai isa theō” (“being equal with God”) emphasizes His equality in status or glory with the Father—a quality Jesus chose not to exploit selfishly.
If “morphē theou” and “einai isa theō” were entirely unrelated, the text would lose much of its intended rhetorical and theological impact. Paul’s language here emphasizes that Christ, though fully divine, chose a path of humility and service—“not grasping” at His status but humbling Himself for humanity’s sake. This emphasis on voluntary humility would lose coherence without a connection between “form of God” and “equality with God.”
A strictly grammatical analysis may inadvertently overlook the literary and theological weight that Paul employs in Philippians 2. The hymn’s structure highlights Christ’s humility in relinquishing His divine privileges. If “morphē theou” and “isa theō” were severed conceptually, the passage would read as if Jesus gave up something He did not actually possess. However, Paul’s point is precisely that Jesus possessed full equality with God and yet did not exploit it. Instead, He voluntarily took on the “form of a servant,” juxtaposing His divine right with His humility.
Furthermore, Carl Conrad and Richard Young’s reservations about an anaphoric link do not necessarily refute the connection between Christ’s form and equality with God in meaning; rather, they caution against reading these terms as strictly synonymous. This, however, does not negate the theological implication that “morphē theou” and “einai isa theō” reflect two aspects of Christ’s divine status: “morphē theou” as His divine nature, and “einai isa theō” as His inherent equality with God. This theological coherence is central to Trinitarian doctrine, where Christ is fully God yet distinct in His relational submission to the Father.
Applying Occam’s razor to Philippians 2 may actually favor an interpretation in which “morphē theou” and “einai isa theō” share a meaningful connection. Rather than multiplying entities by creating distinctions within these two phrases, it is simpler and more contextually consistent to see “morphē theou” (form of God) as expressing the divine nature of Christ, and “einai isa theō” (equality with God) as a reflection of that nature’s status and authority.
Paul’s context in Philippians 2 emphasizes humility and self-giving love. This meaning is amplified when we recognize that Christ’s equality with God was not seized or exploited but held as a mark of divine humility, culminating in His human incarnation. Severing “morphē theou” and “einai isa theō” would imply that Christ’s act of humility was not genuine renunciation but rather an ascent from a lesser status—contradicting the passage’s thrust.
I'm not sure if Carl is still living, but I can't find an obituary for him.
Once again Ninc responds anonymously so that s/he can bypass the request that s/he not interact with me. As I've said, Ninc has an unhealthy obsession and no self control.
Sean - can I ask you a question privately?
Post a Comment