Keesmaat on Philippians 2

Sylvia Keesmaat’s paper was uneven, beginning with some suggestive observations on Philippians 2 and then descending into self-contradiction.

First, the good stuff: She suggested that the Christic “hymn” in Philippians 2 is not merely contrasting Jesus and Adam, but Jesus and the emperor. Jesus attains to imperial status, but does not do so by seizure. “Equality with God” was apparently a Roman imperial claim. Thus, Jesus sets the path toward true imperium, which is the path of suffering service.

Keesmaat also noted that there is an allusion to Isaiah 45:23, that every knee will bow. This comes at the end of an idol polemic in Isaiah 45, and suggests that Paul is picking up on that idol polemic. Being that the emperor is a false deity, Phil 2 is insisting that this idol too is nothing and less than nothing before Jesus. Though she did not mention it, this also brings together Wright’s “return from exile” theme with the Roman imperial theme, since Isaiah 45 is a passage about the return from exile and the consequent humiliation of the idols of the nations.

The bad stuff: From this, Keesmaat argued that Paul was subverting not only the Roman imperial mythology and soteriology, but also Isaiah himself. Paul presents not a “conquest” over the idols or the nations, but a savior who wins by absorbing violence. The cross becomes the one and only form of the victory of Jesus. She seemed to be emptying the NT of any notion of vengeance and wrath, of God’s victory over enemies, saying things like “we have gone completely beyond questions of victory and conquest” and Phil 2 rejects any kind of conquest. This is hard to make out. She talks of wrath against those who are in darkness, but somehow resists the idea that this wrath means that God is going to take vengeance against enemies. In the end a very unsatisfying paper.