I have always read preexistence into the Jesus hymn, and I may always have been wrong to do so. I have been reading Charles H. Talbert, The Development of Christology During the First Hundred Years, pages 45-59: an entire chapter about the Jesus hymn.Stefan Kristensen wrote: ↑Wed Oct 24, 2018 4:57 pm I think this is one possible reading of the hymn: Paul is only describing the earthly Jesus whom we know from the gospels. Not the pre-existent Jesus who was incarnated. I'm not saying that Paul didn't have a pre-existent Jesus (or Christ or whatever) or that he had, just that it's possible to read this hymn as exclusively about Jesus' earthly actions as a human.
My own preferred structure for this passage has followed the English versification, mainly because each phrase winds up containing a main verb in the Greek:
6 Ὃς ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ ὑπάρχων οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγήσατο τὸ εἶναι ἴσα θεῷ,
7 ἀλλὰ ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσεν, μορφὴν δούλου λαβών, ἐν ὁμοιώματι ἀνθρώπων γενόμενος,
8 καὶ σχήματι εὑρεθεὶς ὡς ἄνθρωπος ἐταπείνωσεν ἑαυτὸν γενόμενος ὑπήκοος μέχρι θανάτου [θανάτου δὲ σταυροῦ].
9 διὸ καὶ ὁ θεὸς αὐτὸν ὑπερύψωσεν καὶ ἐχαρίσατο αὐτῷ τὸ ὄνομα τὸ ὑπὲρ πᾶν ὄνομα,
10 ἵνα ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι Ἰησοῦ πᾶν γόνυ κάμψῃ ἐπουρανίων καὶ ἐπιγείων καὶ καταχθονίων
11 καὶ πᾶσα γλῶσσα ἐξομολογήσηται ὅτι κύριος Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς εἰς δόξαν θεοῦ πατρός.
6 Who, though existing in the form of God, did not regard it as plunder to be equal to God,
7 but rather emptied himself, having taken the form of a slave, in the likeness of humans having become,
8 and, having been found in shape as a human, he humbled himself, becoming obedient until death [even death on a cross],
9 and on this account God also exalted him highly and gifted him the name which is over every name,
10 so that in the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of the celestial and of the terrestrial and of the subchthonic,
11 and every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord unto the glory of God the Father.
Talbert, however, argues for the following structure:
6 Who, though existing in the form of God,
did not regard it as plunder to be equal to God, 7 but rather emptied himself,
having taken the form of a slave,
in the likeness of humans having become,
8 and, having been found in shape as a human, he humbled himself,
becoming obedient until death [even death on a cross],
9 and on this account God also exalted him highly
and gifted him the name
which is over every name,
10 so that in the name of Jesus
every knee should bow, of the celestial and of the terrestrial and of the subchthonic,
11 and every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord unto the glory of God the Father.
While I am not at all sure I buy his arguments for this structure, I am finding myself more persuaded by his exegesis of the hymn itself. I think I should probably quote him at length, lest any crucial detail be lost:
The first line of the second strophe reads: ἐν ὁμοιώματι ἀνθρώπων γενόμενος. How should this language be understood? It has been noted that wherever Christ is designated ἄνθρωπος in Paul’s letters (Rom 5:12ff; 1 Cor 15:20–40; Phil 2:7b–8), a contrast with Adam is intended. It is certainly the case in Rom 5 and 1 Cor 15. Philippians 2:6–11, however, is a non-Pauline hymn. Should it be interpreted in the same way as Rom 5 and 1 Cor 15. Two observations about Rom 5:12–14 incline us to view ἄνθρωπος used of Jesus in Phil 2 as another indication of the Adam/Christ typology. First, in Romans Paul is writing to a church which is independent of his influence. Throughout Romans the apostle takes pains to speak in terms of tradition which they have in common (1:3–4; 4:25; 6:3–5; 8:28–30, for example). In 5:12–14 there is no indication that the Adam/Christ parallel was new to the Romans. .... Indeed, in Hellenistic churches which used the LXX, such a reference to Jesus as second Adam would naturally have been made with the term ἄνθρωπος. Second, Rom 5:19 may possibly contain an echo of Isa 53:11 from the Hebrew text. This would point to the traditional character of the reference since Paul used the LXX. Since 5:19 is a unit, the reference to Isaiah which is tradition would have been made in the context of a contrast between the one man Adam and the one man Christ. In this case, the use of ἄνθρωπος in an Adam/Christ typology is clearly pre-Pauline. In the light of these two considerations, it seems entirely legitimate to see here in Phil 2:7b–8 the contrast between Adam and Christ indicated by the use of ἄνθρωπος for Christ.
Note, however, that the phrase does not say that Christ, like Adam, was in God’s image. Rather it says that Christ was ἐν ὁμοιώματι ἀνθρώπων. This can be understood in terms of the Adam/Christ parallel, however, if we reflect upon Gen 5:1–3. In v. 1b the passage speaks of God’s creation of Adam in his own image. In the Hebrew Bible the context makes it clear that Adam (man) is plural (men or mankind). In the LXX the Hebrew is understood in this sense, as v. 2 shows: ἄρσεν καὶ πῆλυ ἐποίησεν αὐτούς, καὶ εὐλόγησεν αὐτούς. καὶ ἐπωνόμασεν τὸ ὄνομα αὐτῶν Ἀδάμ, ᾗ ἡμέρᾳ ἐποίησεν αὐτούς. Then the passage says that Adam had a son, Seth, who was “in his own likeness” (בדמותו), “after his image” (כצלמו). Thus, the passage tells of one who is a son of Adam (plural) and is in his likeness. Though the LXX of Gen 5:1b translates בדמות by κατ’ εἰκόνα and 5:3 translates בדמותו by κατὰ τὴν εἰδέαν αὐτοῦ, that ἐν ὁμοιώματι ἀνθρώπων is a perfectly legitimate translation of בדמותו in Gen 5:3 may be seen from passages like 2 Kgs 16:10 where the LXX renders את־דמות by τὸ ὁμοίωμα and 2 Chr 4:3 where ודמות is rendered by καὶ ὁμοίωμα. It seems probably, therefore, that the phrase ἐν ὁμοιώματι ἀνθρώπων γενόμενος is a part of the Adam/Christ typology and is intended to speak of Christ as son of Adam.
The first line of the first strophe reads: ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ ὑπάρχων. Since the phrase is formally parallel to ἐν ὁμοιώματι ἀνθρώπων γενόμενος, the most natural reading of the phrase would be to take it also, if possible, as a part of the Adam/Christ typology. Is such a reading of the phrase possible? Three strands of evidence indicate that it is. (1) μορφῆ in the LXX is virtually a synonym for ὁμοίωμα since the LXX translators use them both to translate תבנית ,תאר and תמונה. Also, where the LXX has ὁμοίωμα in Deut 4:12, Symmachus has μορφήν. (2) καὶ ἡ μορφή is used in Dan 3:19 to translate the Aramaic וצלם while elsewhere ὁμοίωμα is used to translated the Hebrew צלם. (3) The Peshitta renders μορφή by “demoutha.” Moreover, the connection of μορφῇ θεοῦ with the expression οὐχ ἁπαργμὸν ἡγήσατο τὸ εἶναι ἴσα θεῷ, which almost certainly echoes Gen 3:4, indicates that an Adam/Christ parallel is intended. It seems probable, therefore, that the phrase ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ ὑπάρχων is also part of the Adam/Christ typology and is intended to speak of Christ as the second Adam who has reversed the decision of the first Adam.
The first lines of strophes 1 and 2 are both to be interpreted in terms of an Adam/Christ contrast. The two lines say that Christ is both the second Adam and the son of Adam. The LXX of Gen 5:1–3 certainly seems to have understood the creation of Adam in God’s image as parallel to the birth of Seth in Adam’s image. Witness the structure:
ἐποίησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν Ἀδάμ κατ’ εἰκόνα θεοῦ. . . .
ἐπωνόμασεν τὸ ὄνομα αὐτῶν Ἀδάμ. . . .
(Ἀδάμ) ἐγέννσεν κατὰ τὴν ἰδέαν αὐτοῦ καὶ κατὰ τὴν εἰκόνα αὐτοῦ. . . . ἐπωνόμασεν τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ Σήθ.
Moreover, early Christianity knew traditions which regarded Jesus as second Adam (Rom 5:12–21; Mark 1:13; Luke 4:1–13) and traditions which regarded Jesus as the son of Adam (Luke 3:23–38). That the two different views are found side by side in Luke indicates that the early Christians saw no conflict between them. It would seem, therefore, that the can be little doubt that the first two lines are paralleled in meaning as they are in form. But what of the ends of the second lines? Can the same be said for them?
The end of the second line of the first strophe reads: ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσεν. This phrase, attested nowhere else in Greek, is grammatically harsh. It is explicable, however, if understood as an exact rendering of the Hebrew “poured out his nephesh” (הערה . . . נפשו) in Isa 53:12. If so, then the phrase refers to the servant’s surrender of life. It is significant that this phrase (ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσεν) is explained by the short third line μορφὴν δούλου λαβών. Since δοῦλος and παῖς are both used in the LXX to render the עבד of Deutero-Isaiah, since δουλεύειν is found in the LXX at Isa 53:11, and since Aquila reads ὁ δοῦλος instead of ὁ παῖς at Isa 52:13, δοῦλος is fitting in this explanatory phrase. That the early church elsewhere in the sources available to us used παῖς and υἱός is not, therefore, decisive. The phrase “he emptied himself” is, thus, most probably a reference to Jesus as the servant who surrendered his life to God.
Strophe 2 has a second line which ends: ἐταπείνωσεν ἑαυτόν. Since this phrase is formally parallel to ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσεν of strophe 1, the most natural way to read the phrase would be to see in it also a reference to the servant’s surrender of life. Is such a reading of the phrase possible? Several facts show that it is. In the LXX ταπεινόω is used for ענה. In the niphal ענה can mean “humble oneself.” It is the niphal participle of ענה, moreover, which is used in Isa 53:7 with just such a meaning. “He was oppressed, yet he humbled himself.” This is the meaning of the Hebrew, though the LXX reads differently. Again it refers to the surrender of the servant’s life to God. These facts indicate that ἐταπείνωσεν ἑαυτόν can most certainly be read as parallel to ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσεν in meaning as well as in form. Also, ταπεινόω is used in early Christianity of Jesus in connection with Isa 53:1–12 as an illustration of his attitude (1 Clem. 16:2, 17, a passage which is almost certainly independent of Phil 2). This makes it likely that ἐταπείνωσεν, just as ἐκένωσεν, is an echo of the servant of Second Isaiah. Both phrases, “he emptied himself” and “he humbled himself,” are, therefore, to be read against the background of Isa 53. Both refer to the servant’s surrender of life. In this regard, it is significant that the short third line of strophe 2 reads γενόμενος ὑπήκοος μέχρι θανάτου. The two phrases are, therefore, synonymous in meaning as they are parallel in structure.
This looking back to a Semitic origin for the language of the hymn potentially changes my overall interpretation. If the hymn is of Hebrew origin, then its translation into Greek was obviously independent of the Old Greek or LXX. Here are the reference texts which Talbert uses above to demonstrate the fluidity of the Greek translations for the crucial Hebrew terms:
2 Kings 16.10: 10 Now King Ahaz went to Damascus to meet Tiglath-pileser king of Assyria, and saw the altar which was at Damascus; and King Ahaz sent to Urijah the priest the pattern [אֶת־דְּמ֧וּת, τὸ ὁμοίωμα] of the altar and its model, according to all its workmanship.
2 Chronicles 4.3: 3 And figures [וּדְמ֣וּת, καὶ ὁμοίωμα] like oxen were under it and all around it, ten cubits, entirely encircling the sea. The oxen were in two rows, cast in one piece.
He also explains the connection to Genesis 3.5 in a note:
In other words, every one of the main Greek words and phrases in this hymn, especially the weirdest or most obscure ones, may hearken back either (A) to the Hebrew manner of expressing the relationship of Adam to God and of Seth (and his descendants) to Adam or (B) to the Hebrew manner of describing the Suffering Servant in Isaiah 53. Thus to be "in the form/likeness of God" is to be a son of God in the same manner as Adam is/was a son of God (that is, a second Adam); to be "in the likeness of humans" is to be, like Seth, in the likeness of Adam (that is, a son of Adam); and to consider equality with God as something not to be snatched (οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν) is to refuse to repeat Adam's mistake of trying to be like God (in Genesis 3.5); instead, Jesus emptied himself (unto death). The overall effect is, if I may gloss for clarity:
6 Who, though being in the form of God (= made in the image of God as a second Adam, Genesis 5.1), did not regard it as something to be snatched to be equal to God (= reversed Adam's decision: did not try to become like God or as a god like Adam and Eve did, Genesis 3.5),
7 but rather emptied himself (= poured out his soul to death, Isaiah 53.12), having taken the form of a slave (= the Servant of Isaiah 53), in the likeness of humans having become (= born as a son and in the likeness of Adam, like Seth in Genesis 5.3),
8 and, having been found in shape as a human, he humbled himself (Isaiah 53.7), becoming obedient until death [even death on a cross],
9 and on this account God also exalted him highly and gifted him the name which is over every name (= a higher status than he previously held!),
10 so that in the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of the celestial and of the terrestrial and of the subchthonic,
11 and every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord unto the glory of God the Father.
This reading seems possible to me; if so, then all traces of an incarnation of a preexistent being vanish from sight. (I am not here dealing with the exact identity of "the name above all names" in verse 9, whether it be Jesus or Lord or Yahweh or what have you. That is a separate question, I think.)
Thoughts?