RE: the form of God

It’s an interesting and valid point that you make about Jesus being glorified after death as the emperors were, especially given the strength of the imperial cult in Philippi. However, it seems that Paul is striking a contrast with those who try to exalt themselves in the present life. However, Nero was no small offender in this regard, I suppose that Paul could have had him in mind, given his aquaintence with the Caesar’s household (4:22). I think you’ve won me to your initial point after all. Nonetheless, I’d like to defend my reading here as an example of ’second Adam’ christology.

Though you correctly point out that this passage lacks the verbal parallels that would tie it to Genesis, the images and the narrative drawn up present a striking foil to Adam (and Eve), and would be in concert with Paul’s teaching elsewhere about Jesus as the second Adam, the succesful attempt at humanity. Paul’s (or his source’s) use of other words foreign to the fall account (of the Lxx) probably has to do this section being poetry. It’s a hymn, and constructing a parallel image with different words could be an intentional poetic device. This is a semetic mind, relying on image and story, rather than a western mind, relying on precision and definition.

While it is very likely that the tensions within the church stem, in part, from pressures outside, another important factor seems to be eritheia selfishness (2:3), especially among servants of the Gospel (1:17). It is also implied to some extent in Paul’s commendation of Timothy (2:21). I would tend to argue that this did not actually come from the external stress, but was merely manifested because of it. It root of the selfishness goes back much farther, and it’s cure is only found in Christ’s reversal thereof (I realize that the argument here is a little circular, but I don’t think it’s vicious; it simply makes sense within itself).

I believe James Dunn makes a similar argument in his Christology in the Making, but I’m not totally sure on that (I skimmed some of his arguments very quickly for a paper about the Incarnation, but I ended up approching the whole thing from below, so I didn’t use his section on Paul).

Aaron Christianson