Therefore, if there is any encouragement in Christ, any comfort provided by love, any fellowship in the Spirit, any affection or mercy, complete my joy by being of the same mind, by having the same love, being united in spirit, and having one purpose. Instead of being motivated by selfish ambition or vanity, each of you should, in humility, be moved to treat one another as more important than yourself. Each of you should be concerned not only about your own interests, but about the interest of others as well. – Philippians 2:1-4 (NET)
If we are at a meal table with the church in Philippi, and if we are well aware that Paul’s words are conjuring up a meal-table-based context for his use of what comes next in the Philippian letter, then Paul’s incorporation of what has long been considered to be an early Christian hymn gathers to itself an important dimension. The Christian meal table provides an amazing and enlightening context for the hearing of “You should have the same attitude toward one another that Christ Jesus had, who though He existed in the form of God did not regard equality with God as something to be grasped, but emptied Himself by taking on the form of a slave, by looking like other men, and by sharing in human nature. He humbled Himself, by becoming obedient to the point of death---even death on a cross! As a result God exalted Him and gave Him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee will blow---in heaven and on earth and under the earth---and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father” (2:5-11).
Yes, a glorious and familiar passage no doubt, seemingly given new life when considered in relation to that which came to represent the vision of the messianic banquet (the Lord’s Supper/communion). Having just heard these words, we note the honorific tone, but we cannot dismiss the subversive nature of the language. The Gospel (Jesus is Lord of all) is the thrust of the statement, and this world-power-challenging proclamation was at the heart of the messiah-based kingdom of God movement that would come to be called Christianity. As we bear in mind the growth of the Christian movement (kristianos), as it took its place alongside the movement of the Caesar cult (kaisarianos) in the Roman world, it is possible to hear the second portion of this song of praise as an aping of the language of the Caesar cult (as Paul does in his usage of “from faith to faith” in Romans 1:17). At the same time, it is not only the second half of the song that apes the cultic language, so too does the first half. The elevation of Caesar above his defeated or soon-to-be-defeated opponents would be a natural outgrowth of his apotheosis (deification-becoming a god). Yes, not only is Caesar exalted above all as divine, but Caesar’s enemies, who may think of themselves as gods in their own right, are actually slaves. They are ordinary men. They will die at Caesar’s hands.
Having said that, it is interesting to see how early Christians put all of this familiar language and imagery to use. Certainly it would have been said of the Caesar that “the gods exalted him and have given him the name above every name, and that at the name of Caesar every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that Caesar is Lord.” Unlike Caesar, however, it was said of Jesus that His Lordship over all (including Caesar) came about through a process that the rulers of the world would not have supposed. Whereas Caesar positioned himself as the son of god (divi filius), and laid claim to his rule according to this proclamation, Jesus “existed in the form of God” but “did not regard equality with God as something to be grasped.” Whereas Caesar exalted himself and enslaved others to extend and enrich the empire of the one referred to as the son of God, to bring about the kingdom of God, Jesus countered “by taking on the form of a slave.” Whereas Caesar and his sycophantic worshipers lauded him as being a man among men and therefore endowed by the gods with the right to rule because of the superiority of his very nature, the true Emperor, Jesus, came “looking like other men” and “sharing in human nature.”
Caesar, of course, inflicted his power (the pax Romana) upon the peoples of the world by the looming threat of death, whereas Jesus became “obedient to the point of death.” The Roman cross and its accursed death was the emblem of power of Caesar and of his right to unchallenged rule. All those that presumed to challenge his divinely appointed and sanctioned rule would meet their ends upon that emblem. So naturally, Jesus, as the anti-Caesar, went to “death on a cross,” with His Resurrection proving that the great powers of the world (Rome, Caesar, death) had no power over Him. Whereas the cross was meant to shame and humiliate, it was Jesus’ path to honor and exaltation (as the Philippian passage demonstrates the first becoming last and the last becoming first). This, of course, was contrary to all thinking in that day. The fact that the early church so freely employed the language of death by crucifixion, within a world that had a robust understanding of the explicit implications of such a death (you’re not a king), and within a Jewish world that saw such a thing as evidence of God’s highest cursing, gives tremendous weight to the firm belief in the fact of Jesus’ physical Resurrection. The Resurrection is the only explanation for the language here employed. If there was the smallest doubt that Jesus did not physically raise from the dead, then the church would certainly not give triumphant voice to the fact of His crucifixion at the hands of Rome.
No comments:
Post a Comment