Philippians 2:5-11 sets forth Jesus as an example for us to emulate:
“In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus: Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage; rather, he made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to death— even death on a cross! Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.”
Interestingly, Christ is also an example of how our obedience can be meritorious, that God rewards our obedience by glorifying us. Note the way the following versions render v. 9:
“Therefore God also has highly exalted Him, and has graciously given(echarisato) Him a name which is above every name,” Complete Apostle’s Bible (CAB)
“Wherefore, also, God highly exalts Him, and graces Him with the name that is above every name,” Concordant Literal Version (CLV)
“So Elohim also supremely exalted him and granted him charism – a name above every name:” exeGeses Companion Bible (ECB)
“For this reason, God also lifts Him up above (or: highly exalted Him; elevates Him over) and by grace gives to Him (or: joyously favors on Him) the Name – the one over and above every name! –”Jonathan Mitchell New Testament (JMNT)
“Wherefore God has also exceedingly exalted him, and favored him as a gift with a name above every name:” JuliaSmith Translation
“Therefore also God exalted him and graciously granted him the name above every name,” Lexham English Bible (LEB)
“And for this God highly exalted him, and graciously bestowed upon him the name which is above every name;” Montgomery New Testament (MNT)
“Therefore, God has highly exalted him and has graciously given him the name which is above every name,” Riverside New Testament
“Wherefore also, God, uplifted him far on high, and favoured him with the name which is above every name,––” Rotherham‘s Emphasized Bible
And here’s the definitions given for this key term according to the lexicons/concordances:
Strong’s Concordance
charizomai: to show favor, give freely
Original Word: χαρίζομαι Part of Speech: Verb Transliteration: charizomai Phonetic Spelling: (khar-id’-zom-ahee) Definition: to show favor, give freely Usage: (a) I show favor to, (b) I pardon, forgive, (c) I show kindness.
HELPS Word-studies
Cognate: 5483 xarízomai (from 5485/xáris, “grace, extending favor“) – properly, to extend favor (“grace“), freely give favor to grant forgiveness (pardon).
5483/xarízomai (“favor that cancels”) is used of God giving His grace to pardon. This is freely done and therefore not based on any merit of the one receiving forgiveness.
[5483 (xarízomai) literally means, “to exercise grace, freely show favor,” i.e. willingly (“graciously”) bestow.]
NASB Translation bestowed (1), forgave (2), forgive (3), forgiven (4), forgiving (2), freely give (1), gave (1), given (1), graciously forgave (1), granted (4), hand (2), things freely given (1).
Thayer’s Greek Lexicon
STRONGS NT 5483: χαρίζομαι
χαρίζομαι; deponent middle; future χαρίσομαι (Romans 8:32; Lucian, d. mar. 9, 1, for which Greek writers commonly use the Attic χαιουσμαι (cf. WHs Appendix, p. 163f; Buttmann, 37 (32); Winer’s Grammar, § 15, under the word)); perfect κεχάρισμαι; 1 aorist ἐχαρισάμην; 1 aorist passive, ἐχαρίσθην (Acts 3:14; 1 Corinthians 2:12; Philippians 1:29 (cf. Buttmann, 52 (46))); future passive, χαρισθήσομαι with a passive significance (Philemon 1:22); (χάρις); often in Greek writings from Homer down; to do something pleasant or agreeable (to one), to do a favor to, gratify;
a. universally, to show oneself gracious, kind, benevolent: τίνι, Galatians 3:18 (others, (supply τήν κληρονομίαν and) refer this to c. below).
c.to give graciously, give freely, bestow: τίνι τί, Luke 7:21; Romans 8:32; Philippians 2:9; passive, 1 Corinthians 2:12; Philippians 1:29; where a debt is referred to, to forgive (cf. b. above), Luke 7:42f; τίνι τινα, graciously to restore one to another who desires his safety (e. g. a captive (R. V. grant)), passive, Acts 3:14; Philemon 1:22; or to preserve for one a person in peril,Acts 27:24; τινα τίνι, to give up to another one whom he may punish or put to death, Acts 25:11 ((cf. R. V. marginal reading)); with the addition of εἰς ἀπώλειαν, Acts 25:16.
Now I highly doubt any protestant would argue that God gave Jesus something he did not deserve or did not merit. Similarly, as in the case of Christ God rewards our works of obedience by exalting and glorifying us in his presence (Cf. Matthew 23:12; John 17:22; 2 Thessalonians 1:12; 1 Peter 5:6).
The doctrine of the Real Presence asserts that in the Holy Eucharist Jesus is literally and wholly present—body and blood, soul and divinity—under the appearances of bread and wine. Many Protestants attack this doctrine as “unbiblical,” but the Bible is forthright in declaring it (cf. 1 Cor. 10:16–17, 11:23–29; and, most forcefully, John 6:32–71).
The early Church Fathers interpreted these passages literally. In summarizing the early Fathers’ teachings on Christ’s Real Presence, renowned Protestant historian of the early Church J. N. D. Kelly, writes: “Eucharistic teaching, it should be understood at the outset, was in general unquestioningly realist, i.e., the consecrated bread and wine were taken to be, and were treated and designated as, the Savior’s body and blood” (Early Christian Doctrines, 440).
From the Church’s early days, the Fathers referred to Christ’s presence in the Eucharist. Kelly writes: “Ignatius roundly declares that . . . [t]he bread is the flesh of Jesus, the cup his blood. Clearly he intends this realism to be taken strictly, for he makes it the basis of his argument against the Docetists’ denial of the reality of Christ’s body. . . . Irenaeus teaches that the bread and wine are really the Lord’s body and blood. His witness is, indeed, all the more impressive because he produces it quite incidentally while refuting the Gnostic and Docetic rejection of the Lord’s real humanity” (ibid., 197–98).
“Hippolytus speaks of ‘the body and the blood’ through which the Church is saved, and Tertullian regularly describes the bread as ‘the Lord’s body.’ The converted pagan, he remarks, ‘feeds on the richness of the Lord’s body, that is, on the Eucharist.’ The realism of his theology comes to light in the argument, based on the intimate relation of body and soul, that just as in baptism the body is washed with water so that the soul may be cleansed, so in the Eucharist ‘the flesh feeds upon Christ’s body and blood so that the soul may be filled with God.’ Clearly his assumption is that the Savior’s body and blood are as real as the baptismal water. Cyprian’s attitude is similar. Lapsed Christians who claim communion without doing penance, he declares, ‘do violence to his body and blood, a sin more heinous against the Lord with their hands and mouths than when they denied him.’ Later he expatiates on the terrifying consequences of profaning the sacrament, and the stories he tells confirm that he took the Real Presence literally” (ibid., 211–12).
Here are examples of what early Christian writers had to say on the subject of the the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist:
Ignatius of Antioch
“I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ . . . and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible” (Letter to the Romans 7:3 [A.D. 110]).
“Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1 [A.D. 110]).
Justin Martyr
“For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus” (First Apology 66 [A.D. 151]).
Irenaeus
“If the Lord were from other than the Father, how could he rightly take bread, which is of the same creation as our own, and confess it to be his body and affirm that the mixture in the cup is his blood?” (Against Heresies 4:33–32 [A.D. 189]).
“He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own body, from which he gives increase unto our bodies. When, therefore, the mixed cup [wine and water] and the baked bread receives the Word of God and becomes the Eucharist, the body of Christ, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal life—flesh which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord, and is in fact a member of him?” (ibid., 5:2).
Tertullian
“[T]here is not a soul that can at all procure salvation, except it believe whilst it is in the flesh, so true is it that the flesh is the very condition on which salvation hinges. And since the soul is, in consequence of its salvation, chosen to the service of God, it is the flesh which actually renders it capable of such service. The flesh, indeed, is washed [in baptism], in order that the soul may be cleansed . . . the flesh is shadowed with the imposition of hands [in confirmation], that the soul also may be illuminated by the Spirit; the flesh feeds [in the Eucharist] on the body and blood of Christ, that the soul likewise may be filled with God” (The Resurrection of the Dead 8 [A.D. 210]).
Hippolytus
“‘And she [Wisdom] has furnished her table’ [Prov. 9:2] . . . refers to his [Christ’s] honored and undefiled body and blood, which day by day are administered and offered sacrificially at the spiritual divine table, as a memorial of that first and ever-memorable table of the spiritual divine supper [i.e., the Last Supper]” (Fragment from Commentary on Proverbs [A.D. 217]).
Origen
“Formerly, in an obscure way, there was manna for food; now, however, in full view, there is the true food, the flesh of the Word of God, as he himself says: ‘My flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink’ [John 6:55]” (Homilies on Numbers 7:2 [A.D. 248]).
Cyprian of Carthage
“He [Paul] threatens, moreover, the stubborn and forward, and denounces them, saying, ‘Whosoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily, is guilty of the body and blood of the Lord’ [1 Cor. 11:27]. All these warnings being scorned and contemned—[lapsed Christians will often take Communion] before their sin is expiated, before confession has been made of their crime, before their conscience has been purged by sacrifice and by the hand of the priest, before the offense of an angry and threatening Lord has been appeased, [and so] violence is done to his body and blood; and they sin now against their Lord more with their hand and mouth than when they denied their Lord” (The Lapsed 15–16 [A.D. 251]).
Aphraahat the Persian Sage
“After having spoken thus [at the Last Supper], the Lord rose up from the place where he had made the Passover and had given his body as food and his blood as drink, and he went with his disciples to the place where he was to be arrested. But he ate of his own body and drank of his own blood, while he was pondering on the dead. With his own hands the Lord presented his own body to be eaten, and before he was crucified he gave his blood as drink” (Treatises 12:6 [A.D. 340]).
Cyril of Jerusalem
“The bread and the wine of the Eucharist before the holy invocation of the adorable Trinity were simple bread and wine, but the invocation having been made, the bread becomes the body of Christ and the wine the blood of Christ” (Catechetical Lectures 19:7 [A.D. 350]).
“Do not, therefore, regard the bread and wine as simply that; for they are, according to the Master’s declaration, the body and blood of Christ. Even though the senses suggest to you the other, let faith make you firm. Do not judge in this matter by taste, but be fully assured by the faith, not doubting that you have been deemed worthy of the body and blood of Christ. . . . [Since you are] fully convinced that the apparent bread is not bread, even though it is sensible to the taste, but the body of Christ, and that the apparent wine is not wine, even though the taste would have it so, . . . partake of that bread as something spiritual, and put a cheerful face on your soul” (ibid., 22:6, 9).
Ambrose of Milan
“Perhaps you may be saying, ‘I see something else; how can you assure me that I am receiving the body of Christ?’ It but remains for us to prove it. And how many are the examples we might use! . . . Christ is in that sacrament, because it is the body of Christ” (The Mysteries 9:50, 58 [A.D. 390]).
Theodore of Mopsuestia
“When [Christ] gave the bread he did not say, ‘This is the symbol of my body,’ but, ‘This is my body.’ In the same way, when he gave the cup of his blood he did not say, ‘This is the symbol of my blood,’ but, ‘This is my blood’; for he wanted us to look upon the [Eucharistic elements] after their reception of grace and the coming of the Holy Spirit not according to their nature, but receive them as they are, the body and blood of our Lord. We ought . . . not regard [the elements] merely as bread and cup, but as the body and blood of the Lord, into which they were transformed by the descent of the Holy Spirit” (Catechetical Homilies 5:1 [A.D. 405]).
Augustine
“Christ was carried in his own hands when, referring to his own body, he said, ‘This is my body’ [Matt. 26:26]. For he carried that body in his hands” (Explanations of the Psalms 33:1:10 [A.D. 405]).
“I promised you [new Christians], who have now been baptized, a sermon in which I would explain the sacrament of the Lord’s Table. . . . That bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the body of Christ. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the blood of Christ” (Sermons 227 [A.D. 411]).
“What you see is the bread and the chalice; that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread is the body of Christ and the chalice is the blood of Christ” (ibid., 272).
Council of Ephesus
“We will necessarily add this also. Proclaiming the death, according to the flesh, of the only-begotten Son of God, that is Jesus Christ, confessing his resurrection from the dead, and his ascension into heaven, we offer the unbloody sacrifice in the churches, and so go on to the mystical thanksgivings, and are sanctified, having received his holy flesh and the precious blood of Christ the Savior of us all. And not as common flesh do we receive it . . . but as truly the life-giving and very flesh of the Word himself.” (Session 1, Letter of Cyril to Nestorius [A.D. 431]).
NIHIL OBSTAT: I have concluded that the materials presented in this work are free of doctrinal or moral errors. Bernadeane Carr, STL, Censor Librorum, August 10, 2004
IMPRIMATUR: In accord with 1983 CIC 827 permission to publish this work is hereby granted. +Robert H. Brom, Bishop of San Diego, August 10, 2004
The Apostle Paul incorporates either a hymn or poem (commonly referred to as the Carmen Christi) that celebrates Christ’s divine prehuman existence, subsequent physical resurrection and heavenly exaltation to reign as YHWH Incarnate over all creation, and which claims that every creature must and will eventually worship Jesus Lord:
“In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus: Who, being in very nature God (en morphe theou hyperchon), did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage; rather, he made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to death— even death on a cross! Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.” Philippians 2:5-11 New International Version (NIV)
Agnostic/atheist NT scholar Bart D. Erhman explains that,
“Some scholars have had a real difficulty imagining that a poem existing before Paul’s letter to the Philippians – a poem whose composition must therefore date AS EARLY AS THE 40s CE – could already celebrate AN INCARNATIONAL UNDERSTANDING OF JESUS…” (Ehrman, How Jesus Became God: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee [HarperOne, First edition 2014], 7. Jesus as God on Earth: Early Incarnation Christologies, p. 259; bold and capital emphasis mine)
Hence, within less than 10 years of Jesus’ death and resurrection the very first Christians were already worshiping Christ as the human incarnation of God!
However, there are certain scholars such as the late James D.G. Dunn, which deny that this hymn/poem actually speaks of Christ’s incarnation. They take the view that the hymn/poem is merely contrasting the human Jesus with Adam, choosing not to do what the latter in attempting to become something he was not, namely, to be God’s equal.
There are problems with this assertion, as Ehrman himself notes. Here are his reasons for rejecting the assertion that the Carmen Christi does not speak of the prehuman existence of Christ, but rather focuses on his humanity in order to contrast him with Adam:
“I have long thought that this was an intriguing interpretation of the passage, and for many years I wished it were correct. That would help solve the problem I had in understanding Paul’s Christology. But I’m afraid I’ve never been convinced by it—even when I wanted to be—for three reasons. First, if Paul (or the author of the poem) really wanted his reader to make the connection between Jesus and Adam, he surely would have done so more explicitly. Even if he chose not to call Adam by name, or to call Jesus the second Adam, he could have made verbal allusions to the story of Adam (and Eve) more obvious. In particular, rather than saying that Christ was ‘in the form of God,’ he would have said that Christ was ‘in the image of God.’ That is the word used in Genesis, and it would have been quite simple for the author to use it here in the poem if he wanted his reader to think of Genesis.
“Second, in the Adam and Eve story in Genesis, it is not Adam who wants ‘to be like God’—it is Eve. Adam eats the fruit only when she gives it to him, and we are not told why he does so. But this means in his desire not to be equal with God, Christ would be the counter not to Adam, but to Eve. Nowhere in his writings does Paul make a connection between Christ and Eve.
“Third, and possibly most importantly, from other passages in Paul it does indeed appear that he understands Christ to have been a preexistent divine being. One example comes from a very peculiar passage in 1 Corinthians, in which Paul is talking about how the children of Israel, after they escaped from Egypt under Moses, were fed while they spent so many years in the wilderness (as recounted in the books of Exodus and Numbers in the Hebrew Bible). According to Paul, the Israelites had enough to drink because the rock that Moses struck in order miraculously to bring forth water (Num. 20:11) followed them around in the wilderness. Wherever they went, the water-providing rock went. In fact, Paul says, ‘the rock was Christ’ (1 Cor. 10:4). Just as Christ provides life to people today when they believe in him, so too he provided life to the Israelites in the wilderness. That would not have been possible, of course, unless he existed at the time. And so for Paul, Christ was a preexistent being who was occasionally manifest on earth.
“Or take another passage, one in which Paul actually does speak of Christ as a second Adam. In 1 Corinthians, Paul contrasts Christ’s place of origin with that of Adam: ‘The first man was from the earth, and was made of dust; the second man is from heaven’ (15:47). What matters here is precisely the difference between Adam and Christ. Adam came into being in this world; Christ existed before he came into this world. He was from heaven.
“And so, the interpretation of the Philippians poem that takes it as an indication that Christ was a kind of ‘perfect Adam’ does not work, on one hand, because the passage has features that do not make sense given this interpretation. And on the other hand, this interpretation is completely unnecessary. It does not solve the problem of an Incarnational Christology–because Paul clearly says in other passages that Jesus was indeed a preexistent divine being who came into the world. That’s what this poem teaches as well.” (Ibid., pp. 261-262; bold emphasis mine)
The late renowned NT scholar Larry W. Hurtado also rejected Dunn’s interpretation, and for good reason:
To help address this question, we have to see what else Paul’s letters tell us about views on Christ’s self-abasement current in his churches. The most important (and most contested) passage is Philippians 2:6-n.95 In particular, how are we to understand verses 6-8, which refer to Christ being “in the form of God” and having been able to demur from exploiting for his own advantage “being equal with God”? Most scholars take these verses to reflect a belief in the personal preexistence and incarnation of Christ.96 But Dunn contends that they allude to the Genesis accounts of the creation and disobedience of Adam, and that the Philippians passage simply contrasts the self-sacrifice of the human Jesus with the hubris of Adam in reaching for divinity. That is, Philippians 2:6-8 refers solely to the actions of the earthly Jesus, and no preincarnate state is in view.97 Because Philippians 2:6-11 is recognized as a key passage for assessing the Pauline view of Christ, and the key passage on whether Pauline Christianity held an idea of Christ’s preexistence, we should take some time to examine these verses.
It is true that, when they are suggested by scholars, we can see contrasts between Jesus’ self-humbling in verses 6-8 of this passage and the serpent’s claim that if they eat of the forbidden tree Adam (and Eve) will be “like gods” (LXX: hos theoi) in Genesis 3:1-7. But Dunn’s claim that Philippians 2:6-8 is a clear and direct allusion to the Genesis account and is thus intended to be read simply as “Adam Christology” greatly exceeds the warrants of the passage.98 To cite a crucial matter, with a good many others Dunn asserts that en morphe theou (in the form of God) in 2:6 is simply a variant way of saying “image of God” (eikon theou), basing his assertion entirely on the partial overlap of the lexical range of meanings of the two words morphe (form, outward appearance, shape) and eikon (image, likeness, form, appearance).99 But, as modern linguistics has demonstrated, words acquire their specific meanings and denotations when used in phrases and sentences with other words. So the question is not whether the general meanings of morphe and eikon have resemblances, but whether the specific expression en morphe theou is actually used interchangeably with eikon theou in Greek texts.100
The answer is clearly negative. In the Genesis passages eikon theou is used to express the status and significance of the human creature (Gen. 1:26-27; 5:1; 9:6), and when subsequent writers wish to make allusions to this idea, they consistently use the eikon theou phrase (Wisd. of Sol. 2:23; 7:26; Sir. 17:3; and as Paul himself does in 1 Cor. 11:7; cf. also Col. 3:10). Moreover, New Testament writers consistently use eikon in statements that seem to make explicit christological appropriations of this theme (2 Cor. 4:4; Col. 1:15), and in other passages as well where the allusion/appropriation is less direct but still likely (1 Cor. 15:49; 2 Cor. 3:18). By contrast, morphe theou is never used elsewhere in any allusion to Adam. In fact, morphe theou is not used at all in the Greek Old Testament, nor, to my knowledge, in any other pre-Pauline Greek writing.
So the alleged use of en morphe theou as an allusion to Adam in Philippians 2:6 would be a singular phenomenon, and a particularly inept one as well. For allusions to work one must use, or at least adapt, at least a word or two from the alluded-to text so that readers can catch the allusion.101 In Philippians 2:6-8, other than ” God,” there is not a single word from the Greek of the Genesis 1:26-27 description of God’s creation of the human in “the image of God” or from the Genesis 3 temptation story.102
The phrase “being equal with God” (to einai isa theo) is never used elsewhere in any identifiable allusion to Adam. It is used, however, in several texts, and always negatively to describe the hubris of human efforts to become or be seen as divine: e.g., a Jewish accusation against Jesus in John 5:18; the dying lament of Antiochus over his own hubris in 2 Maccabees 9:12; and Philo’s scornful reference to human vanity in Legum allegoriae 1.49.103
In Philippians 2:6, however, “being equal with God” seems to be presented as something already held by Christ or really within Christ’s grasp, for he is pictured as refusing to exploit this status for selfish advantage.104 It appears also that “being equal with God” is here equivalent or linked to “being in the form of God,” the latter presented as the basis or condition for Christ being able to make a choice about not taking personal advantage of “being equal with God.”105
Furthermore, given that 2:8 explicitly refers to the earthly Jesus’ self-abasement and obedience to death on the cross, it would be somewhat redundant if 2:6-7 were simply recounting the same action. I suggest that the more plausible way to read 2:6-8 is as a narrative sequence, with Jesus’ earthly obedience in 2:8 as the apex of a set of actions of selflessness that are then answered by God’s exaltation of Jesus (2:9-11). All this means, as astonishing as it may be that the idea developed so early, that Philippians 2:6-7 should be read as describing the action of the “preincarnate” or “preexistent” Christ.
This raises the likelihood that Paul’s Corinthian readers also would have been expected to think of Jesus’ self-impoverishment in 2 Corinthians 8:9 as involving the range of actions that seem to be referred to in Philippians 2:6-8, which includes the selfless readiness of the preexistent Jesus to give himself over to costly obedience. To be sure, 2 Corinthians 8:9 is a reminder to readers of Jesus’ generosity and self-impoverishment from some prior position of advantage (“you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that, being rich, for your sakes he impoverished himself”); so Paul does not explain what he expects his first readers to know already. But, with other scholars, I contend that various references in Paul’s letters indicate that among the ideas he expected his converts to be acquainted with and to appreciate was the belief that Jesus had really come from God, and that the story of Jesus’ own involvement in redemption extended back beyond his earthly existence and his crucially redemptive death and resurrection.
95. Dunn seems to have thought so as well, for he devotes nearly twice as many pages to this passage as to any of the others he addresses in his discussion of preexistence in Theology of Paul, 266-93 (discussion of Phil. 2:6-11 on 281-88). See also my other discussions of this passage: “Philippians 2:6-11,” in Prayer from Alexander to Constantine: A Critical Anthology, ed. Mark Kiley (London: Routledge, 1997), 235-39; a °d ” Jesus as Lordly Example in Philippians 2:5-11.” Among recent commentaries, see esp. Gordon D. Fee, Paul’s Letter to the Philippians, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 191-229, and G. F. Hawthorne, Philippians, WBC (Waco, Tex.: Word, 1983), 71-96.
96. E.g., Habermann, 91-157.
97. Dunn proposes, however, that the passage “set in motion the thought of Christ’s preexistence” and that the idea of the preexistent Christ making “an Adamic choice . . . in effect to become man” was “the almost inevitable corollary” (Theology of Paul, 288).
98. Indeed, it seems to me that in general Dunn attributes far too much to a supposed “Adam Christology” in Paul’s letters.
99. E.g., BAGD, s.v. eikon (222), morphe (528).
100. See also David Steenburg, ” The Case against the Synonymity of Morphe and Eikon,” JSNT34 (1988): 77-86, who shows that the two words are not simply interchangeable. My argument, however, makes use of modern linguistics principles to focus on the two Greek constructions, en morphe theou and eikon theou. On semantics, see, e.g., John Lyons, Language and Linguistics: An Introduction (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981), 136-78; Moises Silva, Biblical Words and Their Meaning (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1983).
101. See, e.g., Richard B. Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989), 29-32.
102. Among the eight Old Testament allusions in Philippians identified by E. E. Ellis (Paul’s Use of the Old Testament [1957; reprint, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1981], 154), there are none to Genesis.
103. Note also Philo, Somn. 2.130-31; Decal. 61; and see my discussion of John 5:18 and related references later in chap. 6.
104. On the phrase oux harpagmon hegesato, see esp. Roy W. Hoover, “The Harpagmos Enigma: A Philological Solution,” HTR 64 (1971): 95-119.
105. The structure of the Greek of Phil. 2:6 indicates this. Hos en morphe theou hyparchon is an adverbial clause giving the circumstance for the action of the main clause, oux harpagmon hegesato to einai isa theo [he did not regard being equal with God as an opportunity to be exploited]. (Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity [William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., Grand Rapids, MI/Cambridge U.K. 2003], 2. Early Pauline Christianity, pp. 120-123; bold emphasis mine)
In fact, there are scholars who take the position that the hymn/poem does contrast Jesus and Adam while arguing that it also affirms Christ’s divine preexistence and incarnation. Case in point:
Christ
Adam
Existing in the form of God Did not grasp equality with God Took the form of a slave Obedient to death
created in the image of God tempted to be like God enslaved to sin death after disobedience
The parallels drawn between Christ and Adam lead some to assert that the hymn does not make any reference to a preincarnate, personal preexistence of Christ. Here is Dunn’s logic: Since the narratives of Adam and Christ are parallel and since “Adam was certainly not thought of as preexistent,” and therefore, “no implication that Christ was pre-existent may be intended.”146 Similarly, Brown concludes that the phrase refers to “one whose earthly life was a manifestation of God.”147 In this interpretation of the hymn, the hymn presents Christ’s narrative against the backdrop of Adam’s narrative. As human beings bearing the image of God, Adam and Christ made very different choices. Adam succumbed to the temptation to be like God (Gen 3:5), but Christ did not consider equality with God something to be grasped (Phil 2:6). Instead of grasping for equality with God, Christ “freely embraced the outcome which Adam’s grasping and disobedience brought upon humankind. He freely embraced the lot of humankind as a slave to sin and death, which was the consequence of Adam’s grasping.”148 Dunn stresses that the hymn draws these parallels between Christ and Adam in order to focus on the choices that they both made and the consequences of their choices. According to him, questions about the historicity of Adam or the preexistence of Christ are not addressed by the hymn.149
When the parallels between Christ and Adam are pressed to this point of denying any reference in the hymn to the preexistence of Christ, the narrative of the hymn is neglected and lost. The narrative in the hymn collapses when the story is retold to depict the choice of Christ as the choice of a human being who emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, becoming in the likeness of human beings. The hymn emphasizes the decision to become a human being by adding the phrase, and being found in appearance as a human being. If the first line – the one existing in the form of God – portrays the choice of one who is already a human being without any reference to his pre-human existence, then the subsequent lines in the narrative – becoming in the likeness of human beings and being found in appearance as a human being (2:7, 8) are strangely redundant.150What is the point of saying that a human being chose to become a human being and was found in appearance as a human being? But these repeated references to being made and found in human likeness are hugely significant if they depict the consequences of the choice of the one existing in the form of God before he became a human being.
Our recognition of the relation between the phrases the form of God and the “image of God” and between the parallels of Adam and Christ in the hymn does not necessarily lead to a denial of any reference to the preexistence of Christ in the hymn. Wright strongly agrees with Dunn that the terms of the hymn must have their sense determined by the contrast between Christ and Adam, but then effectively argues that this contrast requires the preexistence of Christ. “The contrast between Adam and Christ works perfectly in my view: Adam, in arrogance, thought to become like God; Christ, in humility, became human.”151 G. B. Caird maintains that the incarnation is the main point of the Adam/Christ contrast in the hymn: “The whole balance of Philippians 2:5-11 depends on the reversal of Adam’s conduct by the incarnation: Adam being created in human form, grasped at equality with God; Christ, ‘though he was in the form of God,’ stooped to accept equality with the human race.”152 Theological reflection on the parallels between the Christ hymn and Genesis 1-3 led Ridderbos to observe that the hymn “describes Christ’s pre-human, divine mode of existence and his disposition shown in it with the features that make him known to us already in his pre-existence as the second Adam.”153 Thus, even before his incarnation as the one existing in the form of God he was already the divine original for the creation of humanity in the image of God. Humanity is a copy of the divine original. By his incarnation, death, and exaltation, Christ opens the way for humanity to share in the glory of the original. Paul eagerly anticipated the time when the Lord Jesus Christ will “transform our lowly bodies so that they will be like his glorious body” (Phil 3:21). (G. Walter Hansen, The Letter to the Philippians (The Pillar New Testament Commentary (PNTC)) [William B. Eerdmans Publishing, Co., Grand Rapids, MI 2009], pp. 140-142; bold emphasis mine)
150. I. H. Marshall, “Incarnational Christology in the New Testament,” in Christ the Lord: Studies in Christology Presented to Donald Guthrie (ed. H. H. Rowdon; Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press, 1982), 6; Martin, A Hymn of Christ, xxi: “The hymn’s thought cannot start from Adam of Genesis but must go behind that Adam to Him who was the archetype of Adam. Only on this basis can the symmetry be established, and any real meaning given to the choice of Christ (in verse 6) which brought Him into the stream of humanity.” (Ibid., p. 141)
Hence, the contextual evidence is explicit that this hymn/poem does indeed speak of Christ’s prehuman divine existence and his willingness to humble himself to become a slave by being born as a man.
THE EXALTATION OF YHWH INCARNATE
Hansen shows how the second part of the hymn/poem highlights Jesus’ being enthroned as Lord after his physical resurrection and heavenly exaltation, which will eventually result in all creation worshiping him as YHWH Incarnate:
“The verb exalted is an unusual compound word found only here in the NT. By adding the prefix above to the verb exalt, the word designates the highest possible exaltation. TNIV conveys the meaning of the word, to ‘raise someone to the loftiest height,’261 by adding the words to the highest place. The word exalted has a superlative, not a comparative sense: the thought is not that God exalted Christ to a higher position than he possessed before his incarnation, but that God exalted him to the highest position after his humiliation.262 This superlative sense of the word hyper-exalted is confirmed by the rest of the sentence. Christ is given a name above (the preposition hyper is the prefix in the verb hyper-exalted) every name; every knee in heaven and on earth and under the earth will bow to him. The word hyper-exalted stresses the incomparable transcendence and absolute majesty of Christ. The same word hyper-exalted is found in the Greek text of Psalm 97:9: ‘For you, O LORD, are the Most High over all the earth; you are exalted [hyper-exalted] far above all gods.’ As O’Brien comments on this text, ‘The point is not that Yahweh is one stage higher than other deities, but that he is a class by himself. He is truly the incomparable one.’263…
“Solid evidence, however, leads most interpreters to advocate the view that the name that God gave Jesus is the name Lord. The narrative sequence of the hymn points to the name that was given at the exaltation: at the incarnation the name Jesus was given; when God exalted Jesus he then gave him the name Lord. The name of a person can have the sense of a title that ‘is rightfully borne and encodes what a person really is.’267 The sense of title applies especially to the divine names that express ‘qualities and powers.’268 The hymn dramatically postpones the announcement of the divine name given to Jesus until the last line, which declares that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord. The echo this line gives of Isaiah 45:23-24 confirms that the divine name Lord is the name that is above every name:
‘Before me every knee will bow;
By me every tongue will swear.
They will say of me, “In the LORD alone are righteousness
And strength.”’
“Isaiah 41-45 stresses the uniqueness of the divine name LORD (Yahweh).269 ‘I am the LORD your God’ (41:13); ‘I am the LORD; that is my name’ (42:8); ‘I, even I, am the LORD, and apart from me there is no savior’ (43:11). ‘This is what the LORD says–Israel’s King and Redeemer, the LORD Almighty: I am the first and the last; apart from me there is no God’ (44:6); ‘I am the LORD, and there is no other’ (45:18). By quoting Isaiah 45:23 in Philippians 2:10-11, the hymn appropriates the unique divine name LORD for Jesus. The parabolic shape of the hymn can be followed by tracing the names or titles of Jesus: the one existing in the form of God goes down to the lowest place by taking the form of slave and back up to the highest place when God gives Jesus the name that is above every name so that every tongue will confess that he is Lord.
“Consideration of the context for Paul’s letter to the Philippians provides another reason for the view that the name Lord is the name that God gave Jesus. In a Roman colony, Philippians would hear the acclamation that Jesus is Lord as a shocking allusion to the declaration of the Roman imperial cult that Caesar is Lord.270 In the ideology of the imperial cult, Jupiter and the gods gave divine authority and divine names to Augustus Caesar. In the theology of the hymn of Christ, God gave the divine name to Jesus so that he will be the LORD acclaimed and worshipped by all. By quoting this hymn, Paul presents the exaltation of Jesus as Lord in language that reflects and subverts the Roman imperial cult.271” (Ibid., pp. 161-163; bold emphasis mine)
“… God exalted the crucified Jesus and gave him the divine name Lord so that ALL CREATION would worship Jesus as Lord… The hymn celebrates the bowing of every knee before the exalted Lord Jesus. By bowing before the Lord Jesus to worship him, the church anticipates the bowing of ALL CREATION: every knee in heaven and on earth and under the earth. In ancient cosmology these three spheres of the universe were under the control of invisible spirit-powers. An amalgam of Egyptian, Greek, and Jewish sources sets forth a list of names and formulas for use in the deliverance of those possessed by demons… The hymn of Christ puts all three realms of the universe under the authority of the Lord Jesus Christ. All angels and demons, all human beings, and, indeed, ALL CREATION will bow at the name of Jesus. The WHOLE UNIVERSE will openly express total submission before the Lord Jesus Christ… So the picture given by the hymn of every tongue acknowledging that Jesus Christ is Lord is not a picture of the universal church worshiping Jesus but of EVERY CREATURE IN ALL CREATION acknowledging that Jesus Christ is Lord. And yet, the hymn leads Christians to worship Jesus by expressing their faith that the crucified and exalted Jesus would receive universal acknowledgment from ALL CREATURES that Jesus Christ is Lord. When the church worships Jesus as Lord, they give a preview of the universal acknowledgement of his Lordship by ALL CREATION celebrated in the hymn.” (Ibid., pp. 164-165; capital emphasis mine)
“… First, God’s exaltation of the crucified servant to the highest position of absolute authority over ALL CREATION invests the name Lord with the meaning of divine sovereignty.283 The way that the hymn expands the allusion to Isaiah 45:23 (‘before me every knee shall bow, by me every tongue swear’) by adding the phrase encompassing all three realms of creation (every knee will bow, in heaven, and on earth, and under the earth) emphasizes that the sovereignty of Jesus is a divine sovereignty that surpasses ALL HUMAN AND ANGELIC SOVEREIGNTY. As Bauckham observes, ‘For Jewish monotheism sovereignty over all things was definitive of who God is. It could not be seen as delegated to a being other than God. Angels might carry out God’s will, as servants subject to his command in limited areas of his rule, but God’s universal sovereignty itself was intrinsic to the unique divine identity as sole Creator and Ruler of all.’284 When every knee bows in heaven and on earth and under the earth at the name of Jesus, ALL CREATION is thereby acknowledging that divine sovereignty belongs to Jesus who has been given the name that is above every name, the name Lord. The second commandment in the Decalogue explicitly prohibits bowing before anything in the heavens above or on the earth below or in the waters under the earth because the Lord God is a jealous God (Exod 20:4-5; Deut 5:8-9). Only the Lord God exercises universal sovereignty over all of creation; only to the Sovereign Creator will every knee bow (Isa 45:23). God gave Jesus divine sovereignty over ALL CREATION so that every knee in ALL OF CREATION would bow to him.” (Ibid., p. 166; capital emphasis mine)
“Second, by giving Jesus the name Lord, God DECLARED THE DIVINE IDENTITY OF JESUS. Some scholars, observing the parallels between the Christ hymn and Hellenistic myths of the descent and ascent of gods in the Greek religion, have asserted that the enthronement of Jesus as Lord is similar to the coronation of a deity in the context of Hellenistic polytheism. But the use of the language from Isaiah 45:23 demonstrates that Jewish monotheism is the background for this hymn. Hence, an understanding of the Jewish context of the name Lord is needed to appreciate the significance of that name. In the Jewish religion, the name Lord (kyrios) is actually a substitute name for the Hebrew divine name YHWH (Yahweh). Whenever Jews saw the divine name YHWH in their Hebrew text, they would not pronounce it for fear of blaspheming or taking in vain the unique divine name of God. Instead they would say a substitute name, the Hebrew name ‘adon, meaning ‘Lord,’ for the unpronounceable divine name YHWH. As a result, when the Jews translated their Hebrew scriptures into Greek, in the third century B.C. (that translation is called the Septuagint or LXX), they used the Greek name kyrios (‘Lord’) at least 6,156 times for the unique divine name YHWH. Since YHWH was the unique proper name for God, that was the name that was above every name (Phil 2:9). The Jewish prophets proclaimed God’s exclusive claim to his own unique name: ‘I am the LORD, and there is no other; apart from me there is no God” (Isa 45:5-6, 18, 21). Jesus was given the name that belonged TO GOD ALONE. By bearing the name Lord, Jesus was not identified as one of many lords in the pantheon of Hellenistic gods and lords nor as merely a political rival to Caesar. The name Lord identified Jesus WITH THE ONE AND ONLY GOD OF JEWISH MONOTHEISM, THE CREATOR AND SUSTAINER OF ALL.” (Ibid., p. 167; capital emphasis mine)
“… All that God did in exalting Jesus and giving him the name Lord to be worshipped by ALL CREATION led to the glory of God the Father because the Lordship of Jesus Christ expresses the very nature of God: God is Lord because God the Lord creates all and rules over all.
“The hymn offers no explanation of the mystery of the unity of God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. The Jewish monotheistic belief that ‘the LORD our God, the LORD is one’ (Deut 6:4) is maintained, but in a revised form: now the one God IS THE LORD JESUS CHRIST AND GOD THE FATHER. The renaming of both God as God the Father and the Lord AS THE LORD JESUS CHRIST turns the ancient Jewish monotheism into a new Christological monotheism. The hymn asserts THE FULL EQUALITY OF JESUS WITH GOD (2:6) and proclaims that Jesus bears the unique proper name of God, the name Lord (2:9-11). Yet, there is no division or competition between the Lord Jesus and God the Father, for the Lord Jesus obeys the will of God the Father, and the universal worship of Jesus as Lord fulfills the will of God the Father… ‘The meaning of the word “God” includes not only Jesus, but specifically, the crucified Jesus.’ The worship of God includes the worship of Jesus, who died as a slave on the Roman cross and now sits on the highest throne as LORD OF ALL CREATION.” (Ibid., pp. 168-169; capital emphasis mine)
The foregoing citations highlight the fact that within less than 20 years of Jesus’ resurrection, Christ’s Jewish followers were already glorifying and worshiping him as YHWH God Almighty that became flesh, being the unique divine Son of God who is essentially one with the Father.
In this post I will be giving a summation of the arguments made in some of my previous posts where I cite specific Islamic sources which candidly admit to the fact that the reason why the Quran has Muhammad’s deity employing plural nouns, verbs etc., is because of his desire to include his angelic servants in his actions and statements. This in turn shows that the Muslim doctrine of tauhid, that Allah is absolutely singular in his mode of being and characteristics, is false.
Note what the following reputable Salafi website states in respect to the Quran’s use of divine plurals. All emphasis will be mine:
This is something that is well known among the Muslims, and they are unanimously agreed that the Christians are kaafirs, and even that those who do not regard them as kaafirs are also kaafirs. Shaykh Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhaab said concerning the things which are unanimously agreed to nullify Islam:
“Whoever does not regard the mushrikoon as kaafirs, or doubts that they are kaafirs, or thinks their religion is correct, is himself a kaafir.” (See also question no. 31807)…
With regard to the word “trinity” (tathleeth) it is not mentioned in either the Quran or the Sunnah, rather the word tathleeth (in the sense of doing something three times) is mentioned by the scholars when they discuss cleaning oneself with pebbles after relieving oneself, or when discussing wudoo’, ghusl, washing the dead, saying tasbeeh when bowing and prostrating, asking permission to enter a house, etc.
What is meant in all of these cases is doing something three times, and it has nothing to do with the trinity of the Christians, which Allah mentions describing their words and commanding them to believe that He is One (Tawheed) and to believe that ‘Eesa (Jesus) is a Messenger and not a god.
Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah said…
Allah says (interpretation of the meaning):
Some Christians – because of their ignorance – think that the plural pronoun which is used to show respect in verses such as “Verily, We have given you (O Muhammad) a manifest victory” [Al-Fath 48:1] and “Verily, We have sent it down as an Arabic Quran…” [Yoosuf 12:2] is proof of their false belief in trinity.
Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah said:
The view of the salaf (early generations) of this ummah and of its imams and later generations is that the Prophet heard the Quran from Jibreel, and Jibreel heard it from Allah. The use of plural forms in such phrases is the style of Arabic speech used to refer to one who is of high standing AND HAS HELPERS WHO OBEY HIM. So if his helpers do something by his command, he says, “we did it”. This is like when a king says, “We conquered this land, we defeated this army” and so on. Because he did that through the actions of his helpers. Allah is the Lord of the angels and they speak not until He has spoken, and they act in accordance with His commands; they do not disobey the commands of Allah, rather they do what He commands. Moreover He is their Creator and the creator of their deeds and their power. But He has no need of them; He is not like a king whose helpers do things by their own strength. So what He says when He does something THROUGH HIS ANGELS IS, “WE DID IT”, this is more appropriate and He is more entitled to say it than some king.
THIS PLURAL FORM IS AMBIGUOUS and the Christians try to use it as evidence against the Prophet, when they find such phrases in the Quran as “Verily, We have given you (O Muhammad) a manifest victory” [al-Fath 48:1], etc. But Allah condemned them for ignoring the clear verses in the Quran which state that God is One, but they cling to the ambiguous verses which may be interpreted as referring to one who has a peer with him, or to one who has helpers who are his slaves and creation. They follow the ambiguous verses, seeking to stir up confusion in this manner. This is confusion in the heart, by thinking that there are many gods, and seeking to twist the meaning. No one knows the true interpretation except Allah and those who are well versed in knowledge.” (Majmoo’ al-Fatawa, 5/233, 234) (Islam Question & Answer, Is the trinity that the Christians believe in mentioned in Islam?)
And:
These words, inna (“Verily We”) and nahnu (“We”), and other forms of the plural, may be used by one person speaking ON BEHALF OF A GROUP, or they may be used by one person for purposes of respect or glorification, as is done by some monarchs when they issue statements or decrees in which they say “We have decided…” etc. [This is known in English as “The Royal We” – Translator].
In such cases, only one person is speaking but the plural is used for respect. The One Who is more deserving of respect than any other is Allah so when He says in the Quran inna (“Verily We”) and nahnu (“We”), it is for respect and glorification, not to indicate plurality of numbers. If a verse of this type is causing confusion, it is essential to refer to the clear, unambiguous verses for clarification.
If a Christian, for example, insists on taking verses such as “Verily, We: it is We Who have sent down the Dhikr (i.e., the Quran)” [al-Hijr 15:9 – interpretation of the meaning] as proof of divine plurality, we may refute this claim by quoting such clear and unambiguous verses as (interpretation of the meanings): “And your god is One God, there is none who has the right to be worshipped but He, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful” [al-Baqarah 2:163] and “Say: He is Allah, the One” [al-Ikhlas 112:1] – and other verses which can only be interpreted in one way.
Thus confusion will be dispelled for the one who is seeking the truth. Every time Allah uses the plural to refer to Himself, it is based on the respect and honour that He deserves, and on the great number of His names and attributes, AND ON THE GREAT NUMBER OF HIS TROOPS AND ANGELS.” (See Al-‘Aqidah al-Tadmuriyyah by Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah, p. 109)
Now this assertion that the plural refers to Allah and his hosts immediately poses a massive problem for Muslims. There are instances in the Quran where the speaker is supposed to be Allah, and yet the one communicating is clearly subordinate to another being/person whom s/he/they refer to as Muhammad’s Lord.
Note, for instance, what the following verses states:
What, shall I seek after any judge but God? For it is He who sent downto youthe Book well-distinguished; and those whom We have given the Book know it is sent down from thy Lord with the truth; so be not thou of the doubters. S. 6:114
The one that is supposedly addressing Muhammad is clearly subject to Allah, Muhammad’s lord, since he claims to be a part of the group that gave the book (i.e., the Quran) to the people. However, since the verse plainly states that Allah is the one that gave the book unto mankind this means that he is the one speaking in this text. And since he is the speaker then this means Allah is clearly admitting that he is subject to another divine being or person whom he answers to!
This fact is explicitly brought out by the following ayat:
That is Paradise which We shall give as an inheritance to those of Our servants who are godfearing. We come not down, save at the commandment of thy Lord. To Him belongs all that is before us, and all that is behind us, and all between that. S. 19:63-64
The group speaking here most definitely includes Allah since he is the one who gives paradise as an inheritance to his servants. And yet he clearly states that he and the rest only come down whenever Muhammad’s lord orders them to do so, since he is the one that encompasses all that they do.
However, the Islamic expositors interpret this passage as a case where it is actually Gabriel speaking to Muhammad!
(We (angels) come not down) from heaven (save by commandment of thy Lord) O Muhammad. Gabriel said this when Allah withheld the revelation from him for a while after being asked by the Quraysh about the spirit, the two-horned (Dhu’l-Qarnayn) and the people of the Cave. (Unto Him belongeth all that is before us) of the matter of the Hereafter (and all that is behind us) of the matter of this worldly life (and all that is between those two) between the two blowings of the Trumpet, (and thy Lord was never forgetful) your Lord has not forgotten you since He first sent you the Revelation. (Tanwîr al-Miqbâs min Tafsîr Ibn ‘Abbâshttps://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=0&tTafsirNo=73&tSoraNo=19&tAyahNo=64&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=2; emphasis mine)
(We (angels) come not down save by commandment of thy Lord…) [19:64]. Isma’il ibn Ibrahim ibn Muhammad ibn Hamawayh informed us> Abu Bakr Muhammad ibn Ma’mar al-Shami> Ishaq ibn Muhammad ibn Ishaq al-Rus’ani> his grandfather> al-Mughirah> ‘Umar ibn Dharr> his father> Sa’id ibn Jubayr> Ibn ‘Abbas who said: “The Messenger of Allah said [to Gabriel]: ‘O Gabriel, what prevents you from visiting us more often than you do?’ And so this verse was revealed (We (angels) come not down save by commandment of thy Lord. Unto Him belongeth all that is before us and all that is behind us and all that is between those two, and thy Lord was never forgetful). This was a response to Muhammad, the Messenger of Allah, Allah bless him and give him peace”. This was narrated by Bukhari from Abi Nu’aym from ‘Umar ibn Dharr. Mujahid said: “The angel [Gabriel] took quite a while to come to the Messenger of Allah. When he finally came to him he said: ‘Did I take too long to come to you?‘ The Prophet said he did, upon which the angel said: ‘Why should I not delay my coming when you [the community of the believers] do not polish your teeth by using small sticks (siwak), do not cut your nails and do not clean the joints of your fingers’. And then he added (We (angels) come not down save by commandment of thy Lord…)”. ‘Ikrimah, al-Dahhak, Qatadah, Muqatil and al-Kalbi said: “Gabriel failed to come to the Prophet when his people asked him about the people of the Cave, Dhu’l-Qarnayn and the Spirit. He did not know what to answer them and was hoping that Gabriel would come to him with an answer. When his coming was delayed, the Messenger of Allah was very aggrieved. When Gabriel finally came, the Prophet said to him: ‘You delayed your coming so much that I had some misgivings, and I have missed you’. Gabriel said: ‘I have missed you more but I am only a slave who obeys orders. When I am sent, I come; and when I am kept back, I remain where I am kept‘. Allah, exalted is He, then revealed (We (angels) come not down save by commandment of thy Lord…)”. (‘Alī ibn Ahmad al-Wahidi, Asbab al-Nuzulhttps://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=0&tTafsirNo=86&tSoraNo=19&tAyahNo=64&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=2; emphasis mine)
Note the problems this causes for the Islamic doctrine of monotheism:
According to the context of the aforementioned passage, the group that only comes down by the order of Muhammad’s lord are the same individuals who grant paradise as an inheritance to their servants.
The Muslim exegetes state that the one speaking in Q. 19:64 is Gabriel, who only descends when Muhammad’s lord commands him to do so.
This means that Gabriel has the ability to grant paradise to believers.
This also means that Muslims such as Muhammad are the slaves of Gabriel.
Since it is Allah alone who rewards Muslims with heavenly bliss, and since he alone has servants who serve him, this means that Gabriel is one with Allah and inseparable from him.
Moreover, if these are the actual words of Gabriel then this means that the Quran is not just the speech of Allah. Rather, it is the revealed words of both Muhammad’s lord and an angel.
Here’s another Quranic ayah which further corroborates this:
And Mary Amran’s daughter who remained chaste (protected) her genital parts between her legs, so WE BLEW in it from Our Soul/Spirit, and she confirmed/was truthful with her Lord’s words/expressions, and His Books, and she was from the worshipping humble. S. 66:12 (Muhammad Ahmed–Samira https://www.islamawakened.com/quran/66/st19.htm)
The obvious meaning of this text is that it is Allah who is supposed to be speaking in the plural since he alone possesses the spirit and breathes him out of himself and into others in order to either animate them, or cause them to conceive life. Case in point:
And (remember) when thy Lord said unto the angels: Lo! I am creating a mortal out of potter’s clay of black mud altered, So, when I have made himand have breathed into him of My Spirit, do ye fall down, prostrating yourselves unto him. S. 15:28-29 Pickthall
When thy Lord said unto the angels: Lo! I am about to create a mortal out of mire, And when I have fashioned him and breathed into him of My Spirit, then fall down before him prostrate, S. 38:71-72 Pickthall
However, the sunni commentators all state that Allah actually sent Gabriel to blow the spirit into Mary!
(And We breathed into it (private part) through Our Ruh,) meaning, through the angel Jibril. Allah sent the angel Jibril to Maryam, and he came to her in the shape of a man in every respect. Allah commanded himto blow into a gap of her garment and that breath went into her womb through her private part; this is how `Isa was conceived. This is why Allah said here…
And Mary wa-Maryama is a supplement to imra’ata Fir‘awna daughter of ‘Imrān who preserved the chastity of her womb so We breathed into it of Our Spirit namely Gabriel — when he breathed into the opening of her shirt by God’s creation of this action of his which reached her womb thus conceiving Jesus — and she confirmed the words of her Lord His prescriptions and His revealed Scriptures and she was of the obedient one of the obedient folk. (Tafsir al-Jalalaynhttps://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=0&tTafsirNo=74&tSoraNo=66&tAyahNo=12&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=2; emphasis mine)
(And Mary, daughter of Imran, whose body was chaste, therefore We breathed therein something of Our Spirit) and so Gabriel breathed inside her garment and she became pregnant with Jesus. (And she put faith in the words of her Lord) she believed in what Gabriel told her that he was the Messenger of Allah entrusted with giving her a holy son (and His Scriptures) and she also believed in His Scriptures: the Torah, the Gospel and all other Scriptures; it is also said this means: she believed in the words of her Lord that Jesus the son of Mary will come into being by Allah saying “Be!” and he became a human being, and she also believed in His Scripture: the Gospel, (and was of the obedient) in times of hardship and comfort; and it is also said that this means: and she was obedient to He Who is far transcendent and majestic’. (Tanwîr al-Miqbâs min Tafsîr Ibn ‘Abbâshttps://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=0&tTafsirNo=73&tSoraNo=66&tAyahNo=12&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=2; emphasis mine)
Again, note all the problems this raises for the Islamic conception of tauhid:
The group speaking in this passage says that they blew their spirit into Mary’s private part.
According to the commentators, Allah sent Gabriel to blow into Mary’s garment in order to cause her to conceive.
Gabriel is, therefore, included in the group mentioned in this Quranic text.
This means that the spirit belongs to both Allah and Gabriel equally.
This further means that Gabriel can create and give life in the same way that Allah does.
The Muslim woes are far from over, since these next two passages are just as bewildering and chaotic:
Glory be to Him, who carried His servant by night from the Holy Mosque to the Further Mosque the precincts of which We have blessed, that We might show him some of Our signs. He is the All-hearing, the All-seeing. S. 17:1
The ones speaking here are they that blessed the precincts of the further mosque in order to show the individual in question some of their signs/miracles. Since it is Allah who blesses and performs miracles then he must be the one speaking in the plural. However, the speakers actually praise the one who took his slave on a journey by night to these sacred places, which means Allah is actually glorifying himself for what he did!
Yet the same entity/entities also state that s/he/they is/are the one(s) who showed the person in question some of his/their miracles, and then describes this person as being the all-hearing and the all-seeing!
Since the only one that can be described in this manner is Allah this, therefore, means that Allah is claiming to have showed himself some of his own miracles. Or if it is the servant that is being referred to, then this means that Allah just attributed to this an unnamed creature the divine qualities of omniscience and omnipresence!
Finally:
And heaven — We built it with might, and We extend it wide. And the earth — We spread it forth; O excellent Smoothers! And of everything created We two kinds; haply you will remember. Therefore flee unto God! I am a clear warner from Him to you. And set not up with God another god; I am a clear warner from Him to you. S. 51:47-51
We again have a text where Allah is supposed to be speaking in the plural, since he is the one that created the heavens, earth and things in pairs. But Allah then goes on to refer to himself in the singular in order to highlight the fact of his being a clear warner sent by Allah to the people!
The foregoing leaves Muslims in a dilemma. Either the Quran posits multiple divine beings working together as a unit, thereby nullifying the Islamic belief that the Muslim deity is absolutely singular. Or the grammatical structure of the Islamic text was produced in a rather incoherent, unintelligible and haphazard manner since the author(s) and/or editor(s) ended up contradicting the very point they were trying to relay.
Either scenarios mean that the Quran cannot be the revealed word of God, Muhammad cannot be a true prophet, and Muhammad’s deity cannot be the only true God.
Answering Islam Blog 