Chiasmus in Philippians 2:7-8?

[leonardjayawardena]

The clauses in Philippians 2:7-8 appear to be chiastically arranged as follows: 

v. 5--Τοῦτο φρονεῖτε ἐν ὑμῖν ὃ καὶ ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ,
6ὃς ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ ὑπάρχων
οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγήσατο
τὸ εἶναι ἴσα θεῷ,

A--ἀλλ’ ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσεν
μορφὴν δούλου λαβών,
B--ἐν ὁμοιώματι ἀνθρώπων γενόμενος·

kai

B1--σχήματι εὑρεθεὶς ὡς ἄνθρωπος
A1--ἐταπείνωσεν ἑαυτὸν
γενόμενος ὑπήκοος μέχρι θανάτου,
θανάτου δὲ σταυροῦ.

A and A1 correspond as do B and B1. If such a chiamus does exist and it was intentional on the part of Paul, its exegetical significance is that the "kenosis" took place in the human Jesus, not in some pre-existent state, as widely held in Christendom.

What do others think?

Leonard Jayawardena

[timothy_p_mcmahon]

Agree on chiasmus. Believe your exegesis is viable but in no way necessitated by the chiastic structure.

[Stephen Hughes]

The clauses in Philippians 2:7-8 appear to be chiastically arranged as follows:

I think that there is a double chiastic structure. Let me change the colour so as not to confuse between our designations.

v. 5--Τοῦτο φρονεῖτε ἐν ὑμῖν ὃ καὶ ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ,
6ὃς
A ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ ὑπάρχων
B οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγήσατο
τὸ εἶναι ἴσα θεῷ,

ἀλλ’
B1--ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσεν
μορφὴν δούλου λαβών,
A1--ἐν ὁμοιώματι ἀνθρώπων γενόμενος·

kai
A2--σχήματι εὑρεθεὶς ὡς ἄνθρωπος
B2--ἐταπείνωσεν ἑαυτὸν
γενόμενος ὑπήκοος μέχρι θανάτου,
θανάτου δὲ σταυροῦ.

If such a chiamus does exist and it was intentional on the part of Paul, its exegetical significance is that the "kenosis" took place in the human Jesus, not in some pre-existent state, as widely held in Christendom.

μέχρι only specifies an end point, not a beginning, so the starting point of the κένωσις is not specified. The earlier part of the passage that I've put in the double chiasm (ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ ὑπάρχων) has more to do with the starting point. Looking at the descriptive part of the double chiasm through ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ ὑπάρχων - ἐν ὁμοιώματι ἀνθρώπων γενόμενος - σχήματι εὑρεθεὶς ὡς ἄνθρωπος one can see why many people might believe that this passage suggests that the κένωσις started earlier. That however depends on the meaning of μορφή in ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ ὑπάρχων - either living an earthly life in conformity to God in some way, or as a reference to him pre-incarnation.

Following the part of the double chiasm with full verbs, οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγήσατο τὸ εἶναι ἴσα θεῷ, - ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσεν μορφὴν δούλου λαβών, - ἐταπείνωσεν ἑαυτὸν γενόμενος ὑπήκοος μέχρι θανάτου, one is also not surprised that many readers would have taken the first part in reference to him pre-incarnation. As with μορφή in the first weave, so with ἴσα (not ἴσον) here. It depends how it is taken - either / both character and / or power. λαβεῖν in the μορφὴν δούλου λαβών may not be as simple as it seems either. The reference works basically suggest that λαβεῖν means get something that was not had before. Going on from that basic meaning, I think that in the case where there is no external acquisition, but rather an independent change, the organic development of another characteristic, then λαβεῖν is closer to our understanding of "become". The corresponding participle in this chiasm is from γένεσθαι. Looking at ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ ὑπάρχων - ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσεν μορφὴν δούλου λαβών, the obvious question is whether a person can have two μορφὰς at the same time or just the one that is changed in some characteristics by the use of the verb λαβεῖν.

[leonardjayawardena]

Agree on chiasmus. Believe your exegesis is viable but in no way necessitated by the chiastic structure.

Why not? Here's a definition of chiasmus I found on the web: "In its most general sense, chiasmus involves inverted parallelism between two or more (synonymously or antithetically) corresponding words, phrases or units or thought."

Reproduced below is the chiasmus as I see it:

Τοῦτο φρονεῖτε ἐν ὑμῖν ὃ καὶ ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ,
ὃς ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ ὑπάρχων
οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγήσατο
τὸ εἶναι ἴσα θεῷ, ἀλλ’

A--ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσεν
μορφὴν δούλου λαβών,
B--ἐν ὁμοιώματι ἀνθρώπων γενόμενος·

kai

B1--σχήματι εὑρεθεὶς ὡς ἄνθρωπος
A1--ἐταπείνωσεν ἑαυτὸν
γενόμενος ὑπήκοος μέχρι θανάτου,
θανάτου δὲ σταυροῦ

Now the parallelism between the related clauses in the above chiasmus is synonymous. That being so, since B1 and A1 undisputedly relate to the human Jesus, should not A and B, too, relate to the human Jesus in inverted order?

I understand ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ ὑπάρχων as describing Jesus' divine nature (=moral nature of God) as an adult and perfected human. Paul's point is that unlike Adam, who was created in the "image of God" (this would correspond to Jesus being ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ) and wanted to be "like God," Jesus, though sharing God's (moral) nature, did not consider being ἴσα θεῷ as something to be grasped, equality with God in this context meaning something that Jesus did not possess. Instead, as befits his station as a human, ἐταπείνωσεν ἑαυτὸν (=ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσεν) and became ὑπήκοος μέχρι θανάτου, θανάτου δὲ σταυροῦ (=μορφὴν δούλου λαβών). God rewarded his humility and obedience by making him "Lord" (kurios, representing adhonai in Psalm 110:1).

Your comments?

Leonard Jayawardena

[cwconrad]

Agree on chiasmus. Believe your exegesis is viable but in no way necessitated by the chiastic structure.

Why not? Here's a definition of chiasmus I found on the web: "In its most general sense, chiasmus involves inverted parallelism between two or more (synonymously or antithetically) corresponding words, phrases or units or thought."

Reproduced below is the chiasmus as I see it:

Τοῦτο φρονεῖτε ἐν ὑμῖν ὃ καὶ ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ,
ὃς ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ ὑπάρχων
οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγήσατο
τὸ εἶναι ἴσα θεῷ, ἀλλ’

A--ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσεν
μορφὴν δούλου λαβών,
B--ἐν ὁμοιώματι ἀνθρώπων γενόμενος·

kai

B1--σχήματι εὑρεθεὶς ὡς ἄνθρωπος
A1--ἐταπείνωσεν ἑαυτὸν
γενόμενος ὑπήκοος μέχρι θανάτου,
θανάτου δὲ σταυροῦ

Now the parallelism between the related clauses in the above chiasmus is synonymous. That being so, since B1 and A1 undisputedly relate to the human Jesus, should not A and B, too, relate to the human Jesus in inverted order?

I understand ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ ὑπάρχων as describing Jesus' divine nature (=moral nature of God) as an adult and perfected human. Paul's point is that unlike Adam, who was created in the "image of God" (this would correspond to Jesus being ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ) and wanted to be "like God," Jesus, though sharing God's (moral) nature, did not consider being ἴσα θεῷ as something to be grasped, equality with God in this context meaning something that Jesus did not possess. Instead, as befits his station as a human, ἐταπείνωσεν ἑαυτὸν (=ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσεν) and became ὑπήκοος μέχρι θανάτου, θανάτου δὲ σταυροῦ (=μορφὴν δούλου λαβών). God rewarded his humility and obedience by making him "Lord" (kurios, representing adhonai in Psalm 110:1).

Your comments?

I think this moves beyond discussion of a stylistic feature into the area of theological interpretation of the text -- a questionable procedure in this forum.

[Eeli Kaikkonen]

I think this moves beyond discussion of a stylistic feature into the area of theological interpretation of the text -- a questionable procedure in this forum.

I agree, and this was to be expected from the beginning. But Timothy is right:

Believe your exegesis is viable but in no way necessitated by the chiastic structure.

and this is about the linguistic feature and about language/exegesis interface, although not just of Greek.

Chiasmus is a rhetoric device and as such can't be interpreted as a mathematical formula. First, we can't say that A and A' must be analogical or symmetrical because they are in a chiasmus. Chiastic structures are flexible and open to different interpretations as is evident in exegetical literature. Second, even if A and A' correspond to each other, chiasmus in itself doesn't tell what the correspondence is. It's like in metaphor: some interpreters see one analogy, others see other. Some see more analogy, others see less, and in my opinion a general tendency is to see too much, especially in the world of biblical exegesis. (We also have to remember that analogy is generally a dangerous thing in rhetorics - your opponents usually misinterpret your meaning and say you said something you didn't. This may have happened to Paul, too, and not just in ancient times...)

[leonardjayawardena]

I think this moves beyond discussion of a stylistic feature into the area of theological interpretation of the text -- a questionable procedure in this forum.

My intention was to just explain my understanding of the passage as applied to the human Jesus to those to whom it might not be clear. There was no intention to invite comments on the interpretation itself, but only on the issue of the chiasmus. In hindsight, I think the interpretation was really not necessary.

Leonard Jayawardena

[leonardjayawardena]

I think this moves beyond discussion of a stylistic feature into the area of theological interpretation of the text -- a questionable procedure in this forum.

I agree, and this was to be expected from the beginning. But Timothy is right:

Believe your exegesis is viable but in no way necessitated by the chiastic structure.

and this is about the linguistic feature and about language/exegesis interface, although not just of Greek.

Chiasmus is a rhetoric device and as such can't be interpreted as a mathematical formula. First, we can't say that A and A' must be analogical or symmetrical because they are in a chiasmus. Chiastic structures are flexible and open to different interpretations as is evident in exegetical literature. Second, even if A and A' correspond to each other, chiasmus in itself doesn't tell what the correspondence is. It's like in metaphor: some interpreters see one analogy, others see other. Some see more analogy, others see less, and in my opinion a general tendency is to see too much, especially in the world of biblical exegesis. (We also have to remember that analogy is generally a dangerous thing in rhetorics - your opponents usually misinterpret your meaning and say you said something you didn't. This may have happened to Paul, too, and not just in ancient times...)

I think there is parallelism between the elements of this ABBA chiasmus not only in the thoughts expressed but also in grammar. Let us look at the chiasmus again.

Τοῦτο φρονεῖτε ἐν ὑμῖν ὃ καὶ ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ,
ὃς ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ ὑπάρχων
οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγήσατο
τὸ εἶναι ἴσα θεῷ, ἀλλ’

A--ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσεν
μορφὴν δούλου λαβών,
B--ἐν ὁμοιώματι ἀνθρώπων γενόμενος·

kai

B1--σχήματι εὑρεθεὶς ὡς ἄνθρωπος
A1--ἐταπείνωσεν ἑαυτὸν
γενόμενος ὑπήκοος μέχρι θανάτου,
θανάτου δὲ σταυροῦ

σχήματι εὑρεθεὶς ὡς ἄνθρωπος (B1) is a circumstantial participial clause describing Jesus' state contemparaneous with the action described by ἐταπείνωσεν (A1), which is modified by the adverbial pariciple clause γενόμενος ὑπήκοος μέχρι θανάτου, θανάτου δὲ σταυροῦ. Similarly, ἐν ὁμοιώματι ἀνθρώπων γενόμενος (B) is a circumstantial participial clause describing Jesus' state contemparaneous with the action described by the aorist verb ἐκένωσεν (A), which is modified by the adverbial participial clause μορφὴν δούλου λαβών. All the participles are aorists. Therefore on the interpretation of a chiasmus with synonymous parallelism, there is perfect symmetry of grammar.

On the other hand, an interpretation which applies ἐκένωσεν to a pre-existent state of Jesus compels its advocates to take both the following participial clauses adverbially.

Are there compelling reasons to reject a chiasmus with synonymous parallelism between its corresponding elements?

Leonard Jayawardena

[leonardjayawardena]

I write to make a correction.

The last two paragraphs of my last post on the above subject should be amended to read as follows:

As I construe this passage, σχήματι εὑρεθεὶς ὡς ἄνθρωπος (B1) is a causal participial clause explaining the cause of the action described by the aorist verb ἐταπείνωσεν (A1), which is modified by the participle clause of manner γενόμενος ὑπήκοος μέχρι θανάτου, θανάτου δὲ σταυροῦ. Similarly, ἐν ὁμοιώματι ἀνθρώπων γενόμενος (B) is a causal participial clause explaining the cause of the action described by the aorist verb ἐκένωσεν (A), which is modified by the participial clause of manner μορφὴν δούλου λαβών. All the participles are aorists. In an interpretation which applies ἐκένωσεν to a pre-existent state of Jesus, both the following two clauses are participial clauses of manner. Therefore an interpretation that sees synonymous parallelism between the elements of the chiasmus gives it greater symmetry even grammatically.

My apologies for the error.

Leonard Jayawardena

[leonardjayawardena]

In my last post I pointed out the grammatical symmetry that results from an interpretation that takes the two halves of the chiasmus in Philippians 2:7-8 synonymously. I would like to know if others think whether this fact (a) tilts the balance in favour of a chiasmus with synonymous parallelism, (b) at least strongly suggests the presence of such a chiasmus or (c) is inconclusive in determining the type of chiasmus present in vv. 7-8.

Reproduced below is the chiasmus with a brief description of the types
of clauses that result on an interpretation that takes the two halves synonymously:

Τοῦτο φρονεῖτε ἐν ὑμῖν ὃ καὶ ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ,
ὃς ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ ὑπάρχων
οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγήσατο
τὸ εἶναι ἴσα θεῷ, ἀλλ’

A--ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσεν (main clause)
μορφὴν δούλου λαβών, (adverbial clause of manner)
B--ἐν ὁμοιώματι ἀνθρώπων γενόμενος· (causal clause)

kai

B1--σχήματι εὑρεθεὶς ὡς ἄνθρωπος (causal clause)
A1--ἐταπείνωσεν ἑαυτὸν (main clause)
γενόμενος ὑπήκοος μέχρι θανάτου,
θανάτου δὲ σταυροῦ (adverbial clause of manner)

An interpretation which applies the clause ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσεν to a pre-existent Jesus has to take both the following clauses (μορφὴν δούλου λαβών and μορφὴν δούλου λαβών) as adverbial clauses of manner (as NASB translators do, joining the two clauses with "and": "taking the form of a bond-servant and being made in the likeness of men").

Leonard Jayawardena