2. Majority Readings and Notable Exceptions

Although this text has spurred extensive discussions, most contemporary commentators agree on the general idea of the second stanza. It describes with superlative terminology the high status Jesus received after and because of his obedience and self-giving to the point of death. As the now exalted κύριος, every living being will bow to him who has received YHWH’s title and name. This, in turn, will bring (further) glory to God the Father. Although many quickly pass over it, the vast majority of scholars agree that the willingness of those bowing and confessing in v.10–11 is not to be understood as worship or adoration, i.e. an expression of salvific faith, but rather as an acclamation or an admission to his divine status and authority.Footnote ⁵

Every now and then, this view is challenged.Footnote ⁶ Among those voices, Tübingen theologian Otfried Hofius has published the most rigorous and innovative interpretation of the passage.Footnote ⁷ In his monograph, he argues (among other issues) against the then (and now) prevailing interpretation of two important parts of the second stanza in the hymn: first, he understands the triad (v.10b) as denoting all knowledgeable created beings; knowledgeable because being an intelligent creature for Hofius is the central premise to participate in universal, eschatological adoration of the Father. Only those who are intelligent are also able to truly share in eschatological worship. Second, Hofius tries to argue from Isa 45.23 that v.10–11 should be understood in terms of the universal reconciliation of all created, knowledgeable beings, thereby decidedly disagreeing with the majority view that these verses describe eschatological acclamation, not universal voluntary worship (i.e., universalism).Footnote ⁸

Until now, Hofius’ interpretations have not been interacted with in detail.Footnote ⁹ In the following, I will offer a detailed analysis to challenge his and some prevailing majority views. After briefly summarising the context of the hymn (3.), the triad (4.) and the allusion to Isaiah (5.) need to be interpreted in light of the two research questions stated above. A thorough analysis of Phil 2.9–11 (6.) will lead to the conclusion that although stimulating, Hofius’ universalistic reading of Phil 2.9–11 (i.e., the salvific reconciliation of all) is untenable, which is also supported by Paul’s only other use of Isa 45.23, namely in Rom 14.11 (7.).

3. The Context of the Hymn

If we look at the context of Phil 2.6–11, we see that by invoking this hymn, Paul wants to paint (or remind his readers of) a colourful picture of Christ’s sacrifice. The Reformers fittingly understood this rhetorical figure in terms of a Christus exemplum Footnote ¹⁰ – his ultimate sacrifice is the ground by which selfless sacrificial life is encouraged and is simultaneously its ideal model (2.5).Footnote ¹¹ Although fitting, this understanding of the entire hymn provokes the question of the second stanza’s (Phil 2.9–11) role.Footnote ¹² It seems counter-intuitive to view the described action, especially in v.9–10 as exemplary. Surely, such a response was not to be expected when emulating Christ’s self-sacrificial example by looking to the interests of others (2.4). Instead, the second stanza enlarges the vision of the first. Because (διό) Christ suffered death on the cross, God (note the change of subject) highly exalted him. Therefore, what is in view here is not Christ’s sacrificial ὑπακοή worthy of our (identical) imitation, but the result of his ὑπακοή: he is now the highly exalted κύριος worthy of all praise. The hymn emphasises the (unique) effect Christ’s obedience had. Paul attempts to inject an ethical conviction into the Philippians that Fowl calls ‘non-identical repetition’Footnote ¹³ by showing the salvific implications of Christ’s sacrificial actions. This of course presupposes a proper understanding of the unique position awarded to Christ in the hymn’s second stanza. Based on Isa 45.23, the second stanza concludes the hymn with the scenery of a universal acclamation of Jesus Christ as κύριος, who because of his obedience has been awarded ‘the name above all names’.Footnote ¹⁴

4. The Triad in v.10b

Despite the repeated emphasis on ‘all’ (πᾶν γόνυ; πᾶσα γλῶσσα), our hymn inserts a more detailed description of the figures involved in the eschatological actions described. Philippians 2.10c – framed by v.10b and v.11a – claims that every knee will bow that is ἐπουρανίων καὶ ἐπιγείων καὶ καταχθονίων. This triad is not easy to understand, since it has no parallel in any of Paul’s letters or even the NT. Generally, two interpretations have emerged:Footnote ¹⁵ the majority of interpreters opts for an inclusive understanding of the triad. Thus, v.10c is read as a formula to encompass all beings, even evil ones who will admit to Christ’s sovereignty.Footnote ¹⁶ Then, the tripartite view of the triad refers to ‘heaven, earth, and hell’Footnote ¹⁷ and their respective inhabitants: angels, humans and demons. The other interpretation reads v.10c as an explanation of all animate beings who can (and eschatologically will) worship, who are thus part of God’s plan of redemption, therefore excluding all evil spirits and Satan himself. According to this view, the triad refers to celestial and human beings in heaven, on earth and the dead.Footnote ¹⁸

4.1 Ignatius, Trall. 9.1

A thorough exegesis of this triad has been attempted in the past, but its exact meaning remains evasive because of the lack of context and inability to compare it with similar texts. Still, many overburden these few words by comparing them to the only extant parallel passage, Ignatius, Trall. 9.1. These interpreters presuppose that Ignatius, Trall. 9.1 represents a legitimate parallel with respect to both form and content:

The context here is clearly motivated by docetic tendencies concerning the veracity of Jesus’ death, which Ignatius is addressing. In addition to the fact that this verse is a formal parallel to Phil 2.10c, the entire passage of Trall. 9.1–2 is in a ‘quasi-credal form’Footnote ¹⁹ and in a not unusual ‘Oriental hymnic style’Footnote ²⁰. So, both texts seem to stem from or represent a hymn. Both have almost identical phrasing concerning the triad.Footnote ²¹ And in both, our phrase remains unclear.

The context in Trallians does not inform us about what is meant by the three dimensions, perhaps because Ignatius himself simply took the expression from Philippians.Footnote ²² If Ignatius is using a formula here, it only informs us that this tripartite view of the world existed but not how it was understood. Of course, the passage in Trallians could reflect Christ’s descent into Hades (cf. Ignatius, Magn. 10.1; Ignatius, Eph. 19.1 [?]). Still, elsewhere the author is content with a cosmic division into ἐπουρανίων καὶ ἐπιγείων, whereby he envisions Satan’s and his angels’s fight against the unity of the church on earth.Footnote ²³ These expressions do not ‘distinguish sharply separated realms’Footnote ²⁴. It seems that Ignatius generally envisions the cosmos as unified containing two or three dimensions: heaven as the realm not accessible to earthly human beings, earth as the currently inhabited space of the church and humans in general, and sub-earth which he does not specify anywhere.Footnote ²⁵ It is certainly possible to imagine Ignatius envisioning a space where the dead reside or await their trial. An in-depth study of Ignatius’ cosmology is still a scholarly lacuna, probably because these themes are as elusive in Ignatius as seen in our case. To simply state that ‘it is generally accepted that [the triad in Phil 2:10, MR] refers, respectively, to heavenly beings, angels and demons; those living on earth at the parousia; those who are dead but awaiting resurrection at the parousia’Footnote ²⁶ is misleading at best. Also, to refer to Ign. Trall. 9.1 and suppose that Phil 2.10 refers to ‘spiritual powers’ or ‘demonic powers’Footnote ²⁷ because of the similar phrasing falls short of both texts.Footnote ²⁸ Trallians 9.1 can neither verify nor falsify a particular view, for there is not enough evidence to decide clearly and unambiguously in favour of one of the two interpretations.Footnote ²⁹ Hofius is thus right that ‘how the triad in Trall. 9:1 is to be understood in terms of content […] remains an unresolved and probably also unsolvable problem’.Footnote ³⁰ Curiously, later on, he strongly votes against the interpretation of demonic powers.

4.3 Psalm 148 as a Key Reference

If things and not just people can (figuratively) bend their knees, does a neuter reading of the triad not sound foreign and far-fetched? Lightfoot rightly refers to Ps 148, which is a crucial parallel to Phil 2.9–11 that has not yet been analysed in the exegetical discussion.Footnote ⁴¹ In Ps 148, the psalmist calls on all creation to praise YHWH, including humans (v.11–12), celestial beings (v.2), but also stars (v.3), waters (v.4), fire, hail, winds (v.8), animals (v.7, 10) and even mountains and trees (v.9). But that is not all. The psalm’s last paragraph (v.13–14) is most illuminating for our text in Philippians. There, in the LXX-text, the psalmist says that the object of the cosmos’ praise is τὸ ὄνομα κυρίου (v.13a). He states that the reason for creation’s praise is the exalted status of his name (ὅτι ὑψώθη τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ, v.13b). The argument as well as the lexemes correspond to one another and are at times even identical:

Concerning the argument that the lexical similarities support, one could say the following: although different words, both texts (in Ps 148 10x) describe praise offered to the κύριος. Such praise is due because of the exalted position of his ; even more so, his name is , or his name is to such a position .Footnote ⁴³ Therefore, all creation is to him and Footnote ⁴⁴ his exalted position.Footnote ⁴⁵ Every part of the Lord’s creation is to give him praise. Again, this certainly includes people but at the same time, it goes far beyond this part of creation to include every created entity. The neuter form aptly communicates this universality.

Although, as far as I can see, this connection has not yet been explored in depth, the similarities with Phil 2.9–11 are striking.Footnote ⁴⁶ From the broader context of Ps 148, it is an undeniable fact that those praising the exalted κύριος are every part of creation.Footnote ⁴⁷ Additionally, note the allusions to Gen 1.1 and Gen 2.4b by mentioning exemplary parts of all of creation in v.2–4 and v.7–12, and repeating verbatim the act of creating by speech in v.5 and the emphasis on order in v.6. All of creation, not just created beings, has been called into existence and order by the κύριος. This is what γῆ καὶ οὐρανóς (v.13) includes and comprises. Therefore, this is most likely what the close parallel in Phil 2.9–11 does as well. That the creation including inanimate entities can in fact react, respond and comport oneself, is also clearly visible from Rom 8.22. Therefore, a reading of the triad as neuter adjectives is not just the most straightforward reading in connection with the superlative, but also well attested and therefore preferable according to Ockham’s razor.Footnote ⁴⁸

5. The Background: Isa 45.20–5

As Stephen Fowl has demonstrated, Phil 2.10–11 could easily be understood without the audience’s awareness of any allusions to or knowledge of Isaiah at all.Footnote ⁴⁹ Still, our brief investigation into the identification of the entities in the triad has hinted at the difficulty of interpreting the scope of what is being said especially in v.10–11. Therefore, a detailed look at the allusion to Isa 45.23 must provide important exegetical clues. Hofius’ reading of this exact passage is the foundation of his reading of Phil 2.9–11. As we will argue below, all the exegetical arguments in Isa 45.20–5 point in the opposite direction of what Hofius contends.

As we can see in the table below, there are only a few essential changes in the wording of Philippians as opposed to the LXX, which in turn fits the overall wording and meaning of the MT. First, while Isaiah uses simple future tenses to describe what will happen, Philippians uses two . Second, and most notably, there is a shift in perspective from the , which is YHWH in Isaiah, but is Jesus in Philippians. This second part is the object of an elaborate argument both in terms of salvation history and also concerning the relationship between the Father and the Son, which our verses express in a formal chiastic structuring that reflects the chiasm in the LXX.Footnote ⁵⁰ All in all, Phil 2.10–11 is certainly no ‘quotation’Footnote ⁵¹ but qualifies as ‘overt allusion’Footnote ⁵². Henceforward, we will primarily refer to the MT for two reasons: (1) Hofius is almost exclusively interested in the MT. To challenge his arguments, we need to work with the Hebrew text. (2) The LXX fittingly renders the MT,Footnote ⁵³ and we are primarily interested in the original meaning of the Hebrew text of Second Isaiah before later analysing whether Phil 2.10–11 is faithful to the context and meaning of Isaiah.

First, let us have a look at an argument that many scholars in the wake of Ernst Käsemann have raised. They reason that our hymn dropped the future tenses ‘not without reason’,Footnote ⁵⁴ but to show via the use of an aorist that the exaltation and the subsequent acclamation has already happened (by subjecting all evil spirits and/or humans at the cross). Although daunting, there is quite an obvious reason for this shift that has nothing to do with ‘a sense of uncertainty’Footnote ⁵⁵ whether what is described in Phil 2.10–11 will actually come to pass, and that is grammar. It is a widespread consensus that even at the time of the NT, classical Greek was still influential in several areas, particularly in the language’s syntax. According to Greek grammar, the verb in the ἵνα clause needs to be in a subjunctive form. Now, neither in classical Greek nor in Koine is it possible for the future tense to develop into a subjunctive form. Thus, if one wanted to express a future event in a ἵνα clause, the obvious choice would be the punctual aspect of the aorist subjunctive, found here.Footnote ⁵⁶ Also, even if these forms were deliberately put in the aorist tense, our futuristic understanding of the text would still be possible as passages like Rom 8.17, 1 Cor 5.5 and 1 Pet 4.13 attest. Therefore, we can conclude that our hymn is faithful to the future-oriented sense of Isa 45.23 (both in the MT and LXX) and does not think of any subjection of evil spirits and/or humans in the past, namely the Christ-event.

If then what is described in Phil 2.10–11 is still to happen in the future, let us now turn to the context of Isa 45.23. There, we find what many might call a typical discursive passage on the oneness and grandeur of YHWH for Israel at first and then for all the peoples (Isa 44.14–25). In Isa 44–5, we find numerous polemics against foreign cults and deities whom YHWH rejects as false and even idle.Footnote ⁵⁷ The immediate context of verse 45.23 portrays YHWH-God who disputes with the worshippers of idols who wish to present their case against YHWH’s counsel (v.21). This is followed by the author’s invitation to turn to YHWH and be saved because there is no salvation in any other (false) god. Clearly, gentiles are the primary addressees of this passage.Footnote ⁵⁸

Hofius reads Isa 45.22–4a with Hellmuth Frey as God’s ‘final world victory’Footnote ⁵⁹. He states that God ‘achieves this goal not by violently subduing or even destroying his opponents, but by convincing and winning them over.’Footnote ⁶⁰ To support his view, he offers no more additional exegetical reasons than to simply pointing to v.24b: ‘to him shall come [עדיו יבוא] and be ashamed [ויבשׁו] all who were incensed against him’. With only a few words, he interprets the coming to YHWH and being ashamed as some sort of salvific turn, before he moves on to numerous other texts (many much later) that supposedly all serve as thematic parallels (and therefore evidence) for his reading of this short passage. Furthermore, he claims to adhere to Westermann’s interpretation, which in turn does not offer any exegetical reasons or support a universalistic reading.Footnote ⁶¹ Besides his many (pseudo-)parallels, the only real argument is that בושׁ supposedly needs to be read in the context of Ezek 16.63 where it does not mean damnation, but is a simple reproach of Jerusalem by YHWH. If we look at the most important dictionaries, we find that בושׁ can in fact refer to a variety of ideas. The connection with Ezekiel, which Hofius invokes, is nowhere to be found. Instead, the dictionaries agree that בושׁ is also used in Second Isaiah in conjunction with judgement and the ‘annihilation of the enemy’ in Isa 45.24.Footnote ⁶² The most striking passage in this regard is Isa 41.10–11, where being ashamed parallels not an emotion of remorse but ‘they shall be as nothing and shall perish’ (v.11b). Henk Leene has meticulously analysed the passage in Isa 45 in terms of universalism and notes correctly concerning the parallel to Isa 41: ‘since Yahweh supports Israel with the right hand of his righteousness […], those who are incensed against it will be put to shame and confounded’Footnote ⁶³. Also, Isa 50.7–8 assures the Servant that he will not be put to shame, but his justifier is nearby. This combination of בושׁ and צדק, which is also the central structuring element in the antithetical parallelisms both in Isa 41.10–11 and 54.24–5, appears numerous times in the Psalms (by which Second Isaiah is strongly influenced) which leads to the conclusion that they ‘are directly opposed and mutually exclusive’.Footnote ⁶⁴

In addition to challenging Hofius’ arguments, it is necessary for us to analyse the passage ourselves. Isaiah 45.20–4 belongs to Isaiah’s ‘trial speeches’Footnote ⁶⁵. Verses 20–1a are an invitation to commence trial proceedings as the imperative and the direct address in v.20a reveal. Of course, in the argument of Second Isaiah, as idol-worshippers, they have no case to make, and the evidentiary proceedings begin and finish in v.21 with God’s sovereignty triumphing over the wooden idols. The trial speech does not follow with a verdict. As a righteous God and Saviour (אל צדיק ומושׁיע), YHWH issues an invitation to salvation (v.22). All (כל) shall come and thus be saved (ישׁע). It would be a misunderstanding to interpret the trial speech finishing here. Second Isaiah puts the invitation to salvation before the verdict in order to emphasise his message.Footnote ⁶⁶ The fundamental claim that there is no other god serves as a bracket for the central scope of the text: salvation for all. Therefore, the text emphasises YHWH’s uniqueness twice (v.21c, 22c). He is evidently their only hope. This is why it is necessary to come to him for salvation. Why would he need to utter this invitation if, in the end, all will evidently come and bow their knees as v.23 claims? Because the verdict is clear: all will come, but not all will come and be justified. Some will come and be ashamed (v.24). This verdict clearly marks two mutually exclusive options, a dualism so to speak. Verses 24–5 form an antithetical parallelism where all confess that ‘in the Lord are righteousness and strength’. Yet, this is not a prayer of salvific worship but a confession about YHWH. Namely that YHWH is not simply unlimited power that is not unbound by any ethical and moral principles, but is committed to the implementation of salvation and justice which he does by separating the two groups: those who will be ashamed (v.24) and those who will be justified (v.25).Footnote ⁶⁷ The invitation to all in v.23a is therefore not about an irresistible compulsion, but about rescuing those willing to be rescued.Footnote ⁶⁸ Those unwilling will come (יבוא) not as those forced to enjoy YHWH’s salvation (there is no indication in the text whatsoever). They will come to their shame which parallels v.20a (בוא + בושׁ) and v.16–17, where Isaiah invokes a comparable absolute antithesis between those saved and those put to shame.Footnote ⁶⁹ The dualism remains throughout the entire passage. A congruence of these two groups would be the exact antithesis of the structure and purpose of this section.

At the centre of this passage is the promise of Isa 45.23de. There, it says that YHWH has sworn by himself that every knee shall bow and every tongue תשׁבע. The MT can mean multiple things with תשׁבע, even though most likely (because of the niphal) it means allegiance to God.Footnote ⁷⁰ The LXX is not mistaken here when it translates תשׁבע with ἐξομολογήσεται, because confessing is central to YHWH’s promise as v.24a shows (לי אמר).Footnote ⁷¹ All knees will bow means all will admit his uniqueness (v.21c, 22c) and grandeur (v.24a). All tongues will confess then refers to unrestricted confession. The bowing of the knees stands in direct opposition to the collapse of the Babylonian deities Bel and Nebo and their cultic images (Isa 46.1–2), which underscores YHWH’s uniqueness and omnipotence in contrast to their impotence.Footnote ⁷² The promise therefore ‘aims to ensure that all will one day have to acknowledge YHWH as the only God, which will result in a final divorce’.Footnote ⁷³ Isaiah 45.20–5 portrays no happy worship in a universal dimension, that is only one group of people, namely all, since all will be saved whether they want to or not as Hofius wants to argue. Rather, according to Isa 45.22, it is imperative that those willing to submit to YHWH join ‘Israel in good time’,Footnote ⁷⁴ as Leene rightly puts it. Later, when the verdict has been read and is executed (v.24–5), there will a separation that puts to shame those who were unwilling to turn to him earlier. Or as Blenkinsopp puts it: ‘Gentiles [sic] are invited to submit willingly – to turn to Yahveh and away from their own gods – and accept the salvation held out to them. But, whether willingly or unwillingly, they will submit.’Footnote ⁷⁵

6. Reading Phil 2.10–11 Against the Background of Isa 45.23

Returning to Phil 2.10–11, we need to note some differences before commenting on the congruencies. First, as we briefly mentioned earlier, YHWH (LXX: κύριος) is the object of acclamation in Isaiah, whereas in Philippians it is the exalted Jesus. Both are rejoined by the κύριος-title, thereby combining the binitarian Christology of Paul (Phil 2.11, cf. 1 Cor 8.6) and the high view of the κύριος in Isa 45.Footnote ⁷⁶ Second, the aim for which the texts have been written differ extensively. The God of Isa 44–5 is mainly interested in turning the people(s) away from idols – for he portrays himself as the only living and thus truly powerful God worthy of all praise. Philippians uses the hymn and our verses for a different reason: Christ as the ultimate example of obedience and sacrificial love for others who [sc. Jesus] in return will receive eternal acclamation. Also, we find a difference in scope. Isaiah focuses on Israel and particularly in Isa 45.20–5 on non-Israelites. Our hymn expands this narrow focus to all and everything belonging to its tripartite world.

Although these differences exist, both texts are united by an eschatological vision of the exalted κύριος receiving universal acclamation.Footnote ⁷⁷ According to, Phil 2.11 means confessing that κύριος Ἰησοῦς Χριστός (ὅτι is a ὅτι-recitativum). This parallels exactly what we have seen in the court speech in Isa 45.20–5. It would be a mistake to read the passage in Isa only up until v.23 as Hofius repeatedly does. Phil 2.10–11 does not have much to do with YHWH’s generous invitation in Isa 45.22a. Philippians only enters Isaiah’s train of thought after the invitation has already been extended. Our text picks up the thread when the verdict has been read, and the eschatological vision of a dual outcome is in view. Hence, we should not interpret the ἵνα in Phil 2.10a as purposive. The context of Isa 45.20–5 makes clear that the bowing of the knees and the confessing of the tongues will without doubt and without alternative happen. It is not a missiological statement, nor is Isa 45.23–5 as a close reading of that text reveals. The point is the timing. As we have seen above, the events described in Phil 2.10–11 are eschatological, and the subjunctive should not ‘be read with a sense of uncertainty’Footnote ⁷⁸. What YHWH has promised will happen. The only question in Isaiah is whether the idol-worshippers turn to the living God before the ultimate verdict and punishment (Isa 45.24b). This question is decided in Phil 2.10–11. The acclamation will happen willingly or unwillingly. Of course, since this acclamation concerns the entire cosmos including demonic beings, submission cannot be volitional and – again coming from Isa 45.24 – does not have to be. Fee correctly notes, ‘There is in this language no hint that those who bow are acknowledging his salvation; on the contrary they will bow to his sovereignty at the End, even if they are not now yielding to it.’Footnote ⁷⁹ Thus, the context of Isaiah is clear. The wording of Philippians fits seamlessly into Isaiah’s train of thought. Therefore, ἵνα is not an expression of an uncertain future hope that leads to ‘missions’Footnote ⁸⁰ (i.e. a purposive ἵνα) but of an inevitable reality based on the character and promise of the κύριος (i.e. a ἵνα describing a resultFootnote ⁸¹ ). Wallace rightly reads ἵνα as ‘both the intention and its sure accomplishment’.Footnote ⁸²

To interpret this text otherwise would necessarily force the reader to understand God’s calling as irresistible. In Isa 45.20–5, the emphasis is on the inclusion of non-Israelites into the realm of salvation (v.22, 25). Yet, all who are unwilling to enjoy YHWH’s promise earlier will not be forced to do so in the eschaton; they will submit, and they will be put to shame. This is what YHWH inextricably combined with his uniqueness and his superior status that he has bestowed upon Christ in Phil 2.9. This is not what Hofius calls the locus classicus of universalismFootnote ⁸³ in the Hebrew Bible, but the locus classicus of God’s ‘unique deity’Footnote ⁸⁴. Hofius is right, of course, that there is in fact an entanglement of acknowledging and honouring one’s status within early Jewish thought.Footnote ⁸⁵ But that is exactly the point of Isa 45.20–5! The mistake is that to come to YHWH and to confess to his δικαιοσύνη καὶ δόξα is not (any longer) a salvific action, but one of acknowledgement. This confession honours YHWH, but not the one uttering it. There is simply no emphasis on those believing, and no emphasis on the individual neither in Isaiah and even less so in Philippians.Footnote ⁸⁶ All will pay homage to the κύριος, but in the end, some willingly and salvifically, others unwillingly and shamefully.Footnote ⁸⁷ In that sense, it is highly implausible that Paul wanted to deviate from the original idea of Isa 45.23 without clear indication. Certainly, from a methodological perspective, he is not bound to adhere to the original meaning of his source text. He could radically reinterpret the passage in Isa 45.20–5 and even turn it into its complete opposite. However, if Paul sticks so closely to the wording of Isaiah and does not make a clear and fundamental reinterpretation in the few words of Phil 2.9–11, it is reasonable to assume that the fundamental original meaning of the passage in Isaiah has been retained in Philippians. As we will also see in Romans 14.11, Paul’s use of Isa 45.23 is evidence of the continuing validity of the statement in Isaiah into the time of Paul and – in his view – into the eschaton. Therefore, Philippians 2.10–11 can plausibly be viewed as a faithful ‘intertextual, metonymical allusion’Footnote ⁸⁸.

7. Isa 45.23^LXX in Rom 14.11

It does not matter whether the hymn was originally composed by Paul or just cited by him. In any case, it is not plausible to assume that he incorporated a hymn into Philippians that expresses views contrary to his own. Briefly, then, let us consider the only other instance where Paul alludes to Isa 45.23. In Rom 14.11, he cites the exact same words as the LXX renders for the later part of Isa 45.23 with a slight change in the word order. All major elements correspond to the allusion in Phil 2. Therefore, we are fortunate enough to be able to gain a glimpse of Paul’s reading of Isa 45.23 in yet another passage and context. Here, too, we will see that Isa 45.23 highlights the inevitability of divine judgement for all.

In Rom 14.1–12, Paul’s aim is to address conflicts and divisions within the Christian community in Rome, particularly regarding differences in religious observances and dietary practices. He emphasises the need for mutual acceptance and respect among believers, regardless of differing convictions on non-essential matters. In the immediate context, Paul reminds believers that they will all stand before God’s judgement seat, and thus should refrain from condemning one another. By quoting from Isaiah with the formulaic γέγραπται γάρ in Rom 14.11, Paul aligns his teaching with the prophetic tradition of the Hebrew Bible. The imagery underscores the comprehensive nature of God’s authority as opposed to the somewhat equal parts of the Christian community in Rome. This includes not only believers but all individuals, regardless of their beliefs or background. It signifies a future eschatological reality where all creation will acknowledge God’s lordship. There is no indication that Paul’s use of πᾶσα γλῶσσα simply refers to Christian believers. The πάντες in Rom 14.10 is, as with the later addition of the omnes in Isa 45.23, an explanatory addition ruling out any overly exclusive readings. It seems that Paul was concerned that some might exclude themselves from his eschatological vision for all.Footnote ⁸⁹ Therefore, he employs a considerable number of words referring to numerals: πάντες (v.10), πᾶν γόνυ (v.11), πᾶσα γλῶσσα (v.11) and the overly superfluous ἕκαστος (v.12).Footnote ⁹⁰ Thus, the verse highlights the inevitability of divine judgement for all. All, not just some, will have to come and acknowledge ‘God as Sovereign and Judge of all’. It is mistaken to understand ἐξομολογέω in the sense of confession of one’s sin.Footnote ⁹¹ The verb κάμπτω with a dative is a sign of submission.Footnote ⁹² In accordance with Phil 2, the emphasis is once again on the eschatological acclamation of all.

Unlike in Phil 2.10–11, the object of this acknowledgement is not Christ, but God and those doing the acclamation are quite possibly humans.Footnote ⁹³ The emphasis shifts a little from the possibility of salvation in Isa 45.22 to Rom 14.11, where the focus is clearly on an end-time judgement scene (more like Phil 2.10–11).Footnote ⁹⁴ Curiously, Paul does not insert a pastoral phrase to the effect that faith will save them. It is obviously enough for him to support his paraenesis from v.10 and v.13 with this scriptural quotation without further explanation. Since he uses Isa 45.23 only as a proof-text, it is intended to express exactly what he had previously made clear (v.10):Footnote ⁹⁵ all will have to appear before the judgement seat of God and receive their judgement. Not a trace of universalism.

8. Summary

The Christ-hymn in Phil 2.5–11 portrays Christ as the ultimate example of self-giving love. His actions lead to the exaltation of his person as the eschatological κύριος over all creation, in heaven, on the earth, and under the earth including but not limited to humans as Ps 148, a close key reference to the triad in Phil 2.10, suggests. This very creation in return will bow before him. This bowing, however, does not mean yielding to Christ. It is an expression of the eschatological acclamation of the κύριος as described in Isa 45.23–4. Although to confess Christ as κύριος is the ultimate salvific confession of faith here and now (Rom 10.9; cf. 1 Cor 12.3), this does not apply to the eschatological acclamation described in Phil 2.10–11 which mainly refers to the verdict of Isa 45.23–5 and not to the invitation in Isa 45.22. This reading also coincides with Paul’s use of Isa 45.23 in Rom 14.11. According to Isa 45.21–5 all are invited, and all will come to the κύριος and to his mountain. But in Isa 45 and in Phil 2.10–11, not all will come and worship as an expression of their faith in the κύριος which for Paul is inextricably tied to faith in Christ.Footnote ⁹⁶ Nevertheless, all will submit to Christ and pay homage to his grandeur and justice. They will bend their knees as an expression of their submission to his rule and sovereignty. In that sense, Christ will ultimately reign over all irrespective of their willing or unwilling submission to him (cf. 1Cor 15.24–8). Thus, God will ultimately be all in all (1Cor 15.28). Everyone and everything will pay homage to Christ as κύριος to the Father’s glory and to their shame. Or in the words of Johann Albrecht Bengel: the bending of everyone’s and everything’s knees will happen, ‘vel cum plausu, vel cum tremore’,Footnote ⁹⁷ either with applause or with trembling.