Hard Questions

You might also like

Download as docx, pdf, or txt
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 14

Hard Questions

An Exegetical Exploration of Philippians 2:5-11

BIST 6220, History and Literature of the New Testament, Spring 2011
Dane Leitch
4/27/2011
5

Let the same mind be in you that was in Christ Jesus. 5Let the same mind be in you that was in Christ Jesus.
6
6
Who, though he was in the form of God,
Who, though he was in the form of God
did not regard equality with God
did not regard equality with God
as something to be exploited,
as something to be exploited
7
7
but emptied himself,
but emptied himself
taking the form of a slave,
taking the form of a slave,
being born in human likeness.
being born in human likeness.
And being found in human form,
And being found in human form,
8
8
he humbled himself
he humbled himself, obedient to death
9
and became obedient to the point of
Therefore God also highly exalted him
death
And gave him the name
even death on a cross.
That is above every name
9
11
Therefore God also highly
Lord Jesus Christ
exalted him
and gave him the name
Philippians 2:5-11 (Cerfaux-Jeremias structure,
that is above every name,
removing part of 8, all of 10, and part of 11)
10
so that at the name of Jesus
every knee should bend,
in heaven and on earth and under
the earth,
11
and every tongue should confess
that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father.
Philippians 2:5-11 (NRSV, which is an adaptation of
Lohmeyers structure, removal of even death on a
cross would be Lohmeyer)

Introduction
Few easy answers are discernable from Scripture. Every time the Bible clearly states is
uttered, somewhere an angel falls from grace out of frustration. Philippians 2:5-11 is the poster
child for difficult questions and even more difficult answers. Biblical scholarship has been
enamored with the poetic nature of these verses for generations and generations have yet to pass
before the last word will be spoken. Although answers are difficult to cull from these words
shared by Paul, each attempt peels another layer from the cocoon of uncertainty. A detailed look
at the conundrum that is Philippians 2:5-11 has filled volumes, but an overview of the primary
issues helps clarify the situation and leads toward answering some very hard questions.

Literary Criticism
The starting point for an exegetical overview of Philippians 2:5-11 must begin with the
most basic of literary questions. As far as the letter to the church in Philippi is concerned, Pauls
authorship of this letter has rarely been doubted.1 Immediately, this fact tempts a reader to
merely accept Pauline authorship of the section in question and let bygones be bygones. Such an
approach fails to deal with the issue of authorship adequately. Arguments have been made that
Paul has waxed poetic before (1 Corinthians 13) and could be doing so again here.2 A lack of
common Pauline language, however, suggests completely different authorship.3 The fact that this
text has been taken over by Paul and not written by the apostle has even been called obvious.4
Who then authored these words?

Morna Hooker, "Philippians," The Cambridge Companion to St Paul, Ed. James D. G. Dunn, (Cambridge
University Press, 2003), Cambridge Collections Online, 105.
2
Ralph P. Martin, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries: Philippians, (Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity,
1999), 112.
3
Ibid, 111.
4
Ibid, 34.

The text itself lends hints toward its original author. Use of kurioV iesouV cristo suggests
a Hellenistic creator as opposed to a Jewish author.5 Yet, a large list of possible authors have
been suggested, heterodox Judaism, Iranian religion, Greek epic tradition, political
circumstances, Gnosticism, all could be the tradition from which this text arose.6 Hints and
shadows do not fully identify the author. More information is necessary before a conclusion can
be reached.
Dating, perhaps, can lend the needed hint for authorship. The date of Pauls use of this
hymn is most easily identifiable. Two theories for dating Philippians hold water. Traditional
scholarship dates the letter to the Philippians during Pauls imprisonment in Rome at the end of
his life circa 56-60 CE.7 An alternative train of thought has suggested a dating for this letter of
the early 50s CE.8 If Paul is understood to have authored the piece of poetry, than the dating of
50-60 CE would be appropriate. If Paul merely used the work of another, the more likely
possibility, the piece must not only have been written before Pauls use, but must also have
established circulation in at least the Philippian church. Further detail than the broad 35-50 CE
range is currently impossible.
Since authorship and dating prove resistant to questioning, perhaps a different tact will be
fruitful. More solid decisions may be made in regard to the genre and audience. Study of the text
shows near universal acceptance of the hymnic nature these words possess. Although the use,
origin, and meaning are all widely disputed, lack of citation shows scholars to believe it common
knowledge that the poem is a hymn. Philippians 2:5-11 is a magnificent hymn, extolling many
5

Jean-Francious Collange, The Epistle of Saint Paul to the Philippian,. Translated from the First French
Edition by A.W. Heathcote, (London: Epworth Press, 1979), 92.
6
Ibid, 87.
7
McClendon, James W, Jr. "Philippians 2:5-11." Review & Expositor 88, no. 4 (September 1, 1991): 439444. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed April 11, 2011), 439; Morna Hooker,
"Philippians,"106.
8
Jerome Murphy-O'Connor, Paul: A Critical Life (Oxford: Oxford University Press, USA, 1998), 184.

distinctive doctrines of the Christian faith.9 Martin sees the stately and solemn ring of the
words and the way in which the sentences are constructed as undeniable evidence of the cultic
& confessional aspect of the text which lends itself to a Carmen Christi of the early church.10 As
far as genre is concerned, Philippians 2:5-11 is most certainly a hymn.
Paul, himself, points out the intended audience of his use of the text in the introduction to
Philippians (1:1). The letter is addressed specifically to the overseers and deacons, which
suggests that Paul wanted to not only contact the church as a whole, but sought to pass on
teaching to the leadership of the community.11 Knowing the genre and audience of the hymn
helps to clarify the purpose. Hooker follows her thoughts on the passing on of teaching with the
suggestion that there is a non-specific heresy floating around the Philippian church.12 Identifying
Pauls audience as the leadership of the church can be filed for later as the layers are slowly
stripped. The original audience of the hymn can be inferred as the early church. The
Christological and soteriological nature of the text, paired with poetic writing suggest an easily
memorized doctrine clarifying the stance of the newly forming Christian wing of Judaism.

Form Criticism
That same universal acceptance of the hymnic nature of Philippians 2:5-11 does not lead
scholars to a unified stance on the structure of the text. Two primary camps exist in regard to an
understanding of how the text comes together. Depending on which camp a student finds
themselves in will subsequently alter conclusions in regard to the extent of redaction to which

David J. MacLeod, "Imitating the incarnation of Christ: an exposition of Philippians 2:5-8," Bibliotheca
sacra 158, no. 631 (July 1, 2001): 308-330, ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed
April 11, 2011), 308.
10
Ralph P. Martin, Carmen Christi: Philippians 2:5-11 in recent interpretation and in the setting of early
Christian worship, (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1983), xxi; Ralph P. Martin, Tyndale New Testament
Commentaries: Philippians, 110.
11
Morna Hooker, "Philippians," 108.
12
Ibid, 106.

the text has been subjected. It should be noted that the New Revised Standard Version accepts a
variation of Lohmeyers structure.
Lohmeyer founded the first of the two schools of thought, while Cerfaux and Jeremias
are given dual credit for the second.13 Lohmeyer organized the hymn into six stanzas of three
lines each.14 The Cerfaux-Jeremias structure splits the text into three stanzas of four lines.15
Other suggests generally fall along the lines of these overarching themes. Although not a direct
part of this study, the first four verses of Philippians 2 also display a carefully crafted structure. 16
This observation helps to point out another hint toward answering some of the hard questions.
Even if Paul did not write the hymn of verses 5-11 his poetic introduction and the surrounding
text show him to have carefully selected this text for inclusion in his letter.
Much like the situation with authorship, more information is needed before a conclusion
on structure can be reached. For the moment, merely noting the possibilities of Lohmeyers six
stanzas, Cerfaux-Jeremias three stanzas, or an alternative is sufficient. The questions continue
with the text itself.

Textual Criticism
Manuscripts of Philippians 2:6-11 are remarkably consistent. Only a few slight
discrepancies exist and those can easily be regarded as inconsequential. Metzger records issues
in verses 7, 9, and 11.17
The word anqropoV in verse 7 is occasionally written plural and occasionally singular.
From an interpretative standpoint, if anqropoV is singular then Christ took the form of a man. If
13

Jean-Francious Collange, The Epistle of Saint Paul to the Philippians, 83 Lohmeyer and Cerfaux are not
directly referenced due to an inability to obtain an English translation of either of their works.
14
Ralph P. Martin, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries: Philippians, 112.
15
Jean-Francious Collange, The Epistle of Saint Paul to the Philippians, 83.
16
Todd D. Still, Philippians & Philemon (Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary), (Macon, GA: Smyth &
Helwys Publishing, 2010), 3.
17
Bruce Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, (Germany: Freiburger Graphische
Betriebe, 2007), 545.

plural then Christ took the form of men. Either translation leads to only a slight difference in
interpretation. The singular would suggest that Christ Jesus took the form of a specific man while
the plural offers a more general humanness. For non-specific reasons the committee chose the
plural formation.
To onomati in verse 9 also presents a minor difficulty. In Koine Greek, to is the definite
article. Some manuscripts omit the to. Omission suggests a non-specific name as opposed to a
very specific name. Due to to being the final syllable of the word immediately preceding
onomati, the omission may be dismissed as a clerical error.
CristoV in verse 11 is the final textual discrepancy. Some of the western manuscripts
omit CristoV entirely.18 The problem with its omission is that losing the title Christ greatly
reduces the overall effect of the name above every name. Metzger contends that the purpose for
this omission is unclear and the committee choice to retain the term due to a general lack of
compelling evidence as to why the word would be excluded.19
Although the manuscripts are mostly intact and agree with one another the manner in
which other terms should be translated causes great argument. Coincidentally, there are three
interpretive difficulties to match the three manuscript disagreements. Morphe, ekenosen, and the
aforementioned onomati.
Interpreting morphe requires a wider set of sources than just the biblical text. Lightfoot
goes into great detail distinguishing between morphe here and schema elsewhere.20 In
deciphering the word it seems clear that morphe is not just a resemblance or surface similarity,
but a very strong connection, the very essence of a thing.21 Collange is unconvinced by this

18

Bruce Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 545.


Ibid, 546.
20
J.B. Lightfoot, St. Pauls Epistle to the Philippians, (Peabody, MS: Hendrickson, 1987), 127.
21
Ibid.
19

argument yet does not address the extra biblical usage.22 Aristotle, the great philosopher,
described some great image that makes all things identifiable. An observer identifies an object as
a chair because it contains some intrinsic form that fulfills the essence of chair. Lightfoot
presents the word morphe with this same understanding.23 He continues by listing other uses
Paul made of the word morphe (Romans 8:29, Romans 12:2, 2 Corinthians 3:18, Galatians 4:19
and Philippians 3:10). 24 All these uses are referencing the deep change that Christ brings into a
persons life. Such an understanding of morphe and the idea that Jesus took on both the morphe
of God and the morphe of humanity solidifies a divine Christology of this hymn. Only God
could have the power to take on the very essence of more than one object. A brief additional
difficulty with morphe is that if it is understood as an equivalent of eikon, then the hymn would
reinforce Second Adam Christology.25 Doxa is also a suggested equivalent, but neither garners
sufficient support to take seriously.26
Ekenosen and to onomati cause issue due to the inability to specifically identify what it is
Jesus emptied himself of and what name, exactly, is being given. Paul has used ekenosen in other
texts to reference the idea of becoming powerless or emptying a thing of significance.27 Little
reason exists to think this use should be understood differently. Jesus emptying himself is best
understood in a relative sense as opposed to a literal complete sense. Compared to the fullness of
God, humanity is an empty shell. Jesus did not lose all that made him divine, but narrowed his
perspective to that of humanity. He moved from infinite to finite.

22

Jean-Francious Collange, The Epistle of Saint Paul to the Philippians, 98.


J.B. Lightfoot, St. Pauls Epistle to the Philippians, 130.
24
Ibid
25
Ibid
26
Ralph P. Martin and Gerald F. Hawthorne, Philippians: Revised (Word Biblical Commentary), 43 Rev
Exp ed. (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 2004), 82.
27
David E. Garland, Ephesians - Philemon (Expositor's Bible Commentary) Vol. 12, Revised ed., ed.
Tremper Longman III and David E. Garland (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2006), 220.
23

To onomati also lacks specificity. What name is being given? One possibility is the name
Jesus. Having been given to Jesus by his mother after being instructed to do so, that very name
Yeshua, savior, could be the name. Martin argues for kurioV being the name given.28 Since
kurioV is the LXX rendering of YHWH this interpretation places extremely high Christological
significance on the hymn. The salvific references in the hymn support the former understanding,
the name savior, to carry enough weight to make that interpretation plausible. Whoever authored
this poetic piece of literature could very well have intended the double meaning of savior and
YHWH. Combining these two theories is favorable and supportable by the nature of poetry.
Although insightful and necessary for interpretation, these textual issues only give a little
help toward answering the hard questions of authorship and structure. Patience is a vital virtue in
pulling these accounts together in order to reach answers. Again, more information is needed.

Redaction Criticism
What has been redacted requires a decision on structure and structure requires a decision
on what has been redacted. This catch twenty-two must be addressed in order to move forward in
the exegesis of Philippians 2:5-11. Fortunately, addressing redactions directly can answer some
of the structural questions. Lohmeyer and Cerfaux-Jeremias each present a structure that requires
additions of some kind to have been made. This editor was most likely Paul. Lohmeyers
structure needs to have verse 8 added by Paul; while Cerfaux-Jeremias see verses 8, 10, and 11
as Pauline additions.29
What then are glosses by Paul and what are original to the hymn? A brief look at verse 5
will show Pauls intentions for the hymn.30 Pauls use of the hymn is ethical in nature.31 This

28

Ralph P. Martin, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries: Philippians, 109.


Jean-Francious Collange, The Epistle of Saint Paul to the Philippians, 84.
30
Ralph P. Martin and Gerald F. Hawthorne, Philippians: Revised (Word Biblical Commentary, 80.
29

ethical use is not affected by the glosses, whatever they may be.32 Those facts suggest Paul had
no concern for the continuity of the piece. Any number of additions or subtractions may have
been made. Collange has attempted to bridge a gap by accepting verse 8 as original to the hymn.
He adapts Lohmeyers structure with verse 8 added.33 The hard question of redaction is
answerable by understanding the hymn to have some Pauline additions which maintain the gist
of the metric structure while reworking the hymn to make a specific point.
Although Paul uses a version of the hymn here to make a point, there are other places in
which these words are found. John 13:3-7 contains sufficient similarities to suggest either a
common liturgy or one author copying another.34 Gibbs sees this particular use of Philippians
2:5-11 as an attempt to explain the relationship between Gods redemptive work and Jesus; he
considers it the earliest homologia.35 If Gibbs is correct then it would only make since that both
the author of John and Paul would pick up on this for such important teachings. Since both the
Johannine use and the Pauline use contain the instruction to do this also, drawing on the same
source seems less likely than the author of John drawing on Pauls redacted version of the text.
This additional uses does not show significant differences, not even a move away from the
ethical understanding of the piece.
The only option is to accept the hymn as a whole. Even if Paul edited the original beyond
traceability, Johannine tradition upholds Pauls view. Such a close relationship between John 13
and Philippians 2 could not exist if the John source disagreed with any of Pauls glosses,
assuming that there are any glosses. As to the hard question of redaction, it is a moot point. Paul
31

John G. Gibbs, "Relation between creation and redemption according to Phil 2:5-11," Novum
testamentum 12, no. 3 (July 1, 1970): 270-283, ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed
April 11, 2011), 273.
32
David E. Garland, Ephesians - Philemon (Expositor's Bible Commentary) Vol. 12, Revised ed., 217.
33
Jean-Francious Collange, The Epistle of Saint Paul to the Philippians, 82.
34
Ralph P. Martin and Gerald F. Hawthorne, Philippians: Revised (Word Biblical Commentary, 78.
35
John G. Gibbs, "Relation between creation and redemption according to Phil 2:5-11," 272.

was a part of the first generation of Christianity. He was a formative leader in the early church.
For many of what would become the influential churches of Christianity, his word was law, so to
speak. Any additions made by Paul are accepted later in Scripture and thus become a part of the
original. There is no longer any tangible way to separate additions from original because it all
becomes original.
This conclusion has ramifications for the outstanding hard questions above. Pauline
glosses disregarded as unwelcome additions and instead accepted as part of the original impact
the understood structure of the hymn. The break in metric that so bothered Lohmeyer, must be
accepted as a kind of explanation point used to emphasize that aspect of the poem. Paul may then
be accepted as the author, perhaps not the original author, but the author so far as future use is
concerned. Textual concerns, especially in regard to non-Pauline language, are left as hard
questions, but through using the train of thought above, a reader may accept there to be a
previous groundwork on which Paul built this hymn. Further criticisms help to illustrate and
support these conclusions.

Source Criticism
Scripturally speaking there are obvious similarities between the Philippian hymn and the
Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53.36 This comparison could be used to suggest a Jewish-Christian
origin of the text. The comparison supports Pauline authorship. Having grown up as a Jew away
from Jerusalem and later receiving his education in that city easily explains the use of Old
Testament Scriptures. As pointed out in Redaction Criticism above, Paul continues to use the
themes presented in Philippians 2:5-11. His favored use of the themes and Old Testament
allusions further support Pauline authorship. Isaiah is not the only ancient text to be suggested as
being comparable to the Philippian hymn. The famous Wisdom in Proverbs 8, Sirach 24, and
36

Ralph P. Martin, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries: Philippians, 105.

Wisdom of Solomon 2-7 have been pointed out by Martin as a necessity for interpreting the
hymn.37 Less convincingly, Collange cites Deichgrabers comparison of the songs of Moses and
Deborah (Exodus 15 and Judges 5 respectively).38 Both suggestions complicate the matter by
saying loose similarities are needed for interpretation. Any association between the hymn and
those texts can just as easily be explained by Pauls intense knowledge and study of the Old
Testament and other Jewish texts.
Cultural sources suggest the work to be of, ancient Iranian-Jewish influence, Gnostic
influence, or Hellenistic origin. Supposing cultural influence is permitted to be deeply traced,
one can appreciate Lohmeyers conclusion that the Iranian-Jewish Son of Man mythos
influenced the Servant of the Lord in Isaiah, which subsequently influenced the Philippian
hymn.39 Such a cumbersome trail is difficult to follow. The statement that the Iranian-Jewish Son
of Man mythos had no direct influence over the Philippian hymn which was written some 700800 years after the former had any possible affect on Isaiah, can be safely made.
Gnostic influences are also cited. The use of morphe could be an allusion the heavenly
man in the Gnostic mythos, but Martin is unconvinced.40 Collange, however, sees the Gnostic
vocabulary within the hymn as an intentional attack on the ideas of Gnosticism.41 Paul could be
using the hymn as such with the edits he included. Although such glosses may be included to
combat Gnosticism, the original source of the hymn appears more doctrinal than apologetic.
Lewis understands the cultural ramifications of morphe differently. He supports the these
that morphe is the word used by Aristotle in his philosophical understanding of how a chair is

37

Ibid, 146.
Jean-Francious Collange, The Epistle of Saint Paul to the Philippians, 90.
39
Jean-Francious Collange, The Epistle of Saint Paul to the Philippians, 155.
40
Ralph P. Martin, Carmen Christi, 19.
41
Jean-Francious Collange, The Epistle of Saint Paul to the Philippians, 101.
38

10

recognized because of its essential chair-ness.42 Such an interpretation points toward strong
Hellenistic influence, which, subsequently, also supports the theory of Pauline authorship. Paul,
being raised as a Roman citizen, would have received not only the Jewish education of the time,
but also be well versed in Hellenistic literature and philosophy. Since both Jewish and
Hellenistic sources have been convincingly presented, who better to bridge the gap than Paul?
Scriptural and Cultural sources both support Pauline authorship.

Social Historical Criticism


Social Historical issues finalize Pauline authorship. Pliny describes the singing of hymns
as second in his list of descriptors of the First Century church.43 Paul, being a founder of so many
of these first churches, undeniably had influence over their mode of worship. Even if he allowed
his Jewish worship habits to dominate liturgical teaching, they too point toward the use of
hymns. Martin shows that the borrowing of Psalms from Judaism and singing them at gatherings
began in Palestine sometime in this same first generation of the Way.44 This adaptation could be
a Pauline use of cultural movements.
Further socio-historical implications are drawn from the composition of the city of
Philippi. Many of the people within this city would not have been Jewish, but proud citizens of
the Greco-Roman world.45 The lack of a Jewish synagogue, as pointed out in Acts 16, further
supports Hookers conclusion. These Philippian citizens would adhere to the Imperial Cult in the
same way as most of the Roman world. In their mind Caesar is kurioV.46 Pauls suggestion that
someone else is lord would have certainly grasped their attention. So too would verse 8s even
death on the cross, capture Philippian attention. The cross of the Roman world was a powerful
42

Edwin Lewis, "The humiliated and exalted son," Interpretation 1, no. 1 (January 1, 1947): 20-32, ATLA
Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed April 11, 2011), 22.
43
Ralph P. Martin, Carmen Christi, 3.
44
Ibid, 17.
45
Morna Hooker, "Philippians," 105.
46
Todd D. Still, Philippians & Philemon, 10.

11

symbol of the Empires strength and idea of justice. For Paul to suggest that the true kurioV was
crucified instead of crucifying is a jab at the Philippian mindset.47
What then of the church itself? Paul apparently sees dissent of some kind within the
church. His words in 1:15 and 4:2 clearly state divisions and competition amongst the leadership.
Their squabbling could even escalate to the point that the church itself dissolves.48 In such dire
straits, strong words that carry both ethical weight, to correct their actions, and doctrinal weight,
to pull them together under common teaching, is an elegant solution. Pauls excellent use of
double meaning, most notably proved throughout Galatians, show that no one meaning is needed
in the interpretation of Pauls works. Although his obvious use, as explained by his words in
Philippians 2:5, is an ethical correction, no strong reason to dismiss a second meaning of
teaching and guidance exists. Pauls brilliance is evidence in the bridging of the issues and
undercurrents in the Philippian church and the mindset of the proud Roman Provence.

Praxis
Hard questions have been addressed above, but what final answers may be given? In a
practical sense Paul wants the Philippian church to mimic Jesus in pouring themselves out and
allowing God to receive all the glory. Such a simple interpretation carries into modernity as an
exquisite teaching on humility. The issue of asking hard questions deserves greater attention. An
unwillingness to question the text of Scripture misses the purpose of this book. Understanding
the impact of words written thousands of years ago requires deep thought. Although the
Philippian hymn may be taken as ethical teaching and doctrine the most helpful practical use of
the text is the benefit of asking questions to which there may be no simple answers. The Bible
clearly states is terrible. Studying where Gods Word does not clearly state is what will grow,
develop, and solidify faith. That is a use of this hymn of which Paul would be proud.
47
48

David J. MacLeod, "Imitating the incarnation of Christ: an exposition of Philippians 2:5-8," 328.
Jean-Francious Collange, The Epistle of Saint Paul to the Philippians, 94.

12

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Collange, Jean-Francois. The Epistle of Saint Paul to the Philippians. Translated from the First
French Edition by A.W. Heathcote. London: Epworth Press, 1979.
Garland, David E., ed. Ephesians - Philemon (Expositor's Bible Commentary) Vol. 12. Revised
ed. Edited by Tremper Longman III and David E. Garland. Gand Rapids, MI: Zondervan,
2006.
Gibbs, John G. "Relation between creation and redemption according to Phil 2:5-11." Novum
testamentum 12, no. 3 (July 1, 1970): 270-283. ATLA Religion Database with
ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed April 11, 2011).
Hooker, Morna. "Philippians." The Cambridge Companion to St Paul. Ed. James D. G. Dunn.
Cambridge University Press, 2003. Cambridge Collections Online. Cambridge University
Press.
Lewis, Edwin. "The humiliated and exalted son." Interpretation 1, no. 1 (January 1, 1947): 2032. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed April 11, 2011).
Lightfoot, J.B. St. Pauls Epistle to the Philippians. Peabody, MS: Hendrickson, 1987.
MacLeod, David J. "Imitating the incarnation of Christ: an exposition of Philippians 2:5-8."
Bibliotheca sacra 158, no. 631 (July 1, 2001): 308-330. ATLA Religion Database with
ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed April 11, 2011).
Martin, Ralph P. Carmen Christi: Philippians 2:5-11 in recent interpretation and in the setting
of early Christian worship. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1983.
Martin, Ralph P. Tyndale New Testament Commentaries: Philippians. Leicester, England: InterVarsity, 1999.
Martin, Ralph P., and Gerald F. Hawthorne. Philippians: Revised (Word Biblical Commentary).
43 Rev Exp ed. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 2004.
McClendon, James W, Jr. "Philippians 2:5-11." Review & Expositor 88, no. 4 (September 1,
1991): 439-444. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed April
11, 2011).
Metzger, Bruce M. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. Germany: Freiburger
Graphische Betriebe, 2007.
Murphy-OConner, Jerome. Paul: A Critical Life. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998.
Kindle e-reader.
Still, Todd D. Philippians & Philemon (Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary). Macon, GA:
Smyth & Helwys Publishing, 2010.

13

You might also like