The Importance of Philippians 2:5-11 in Theology and Apologetics
This article first appeared in the Christian Research Journal, Volume 22 / Number 3.
The two Jehovah’s Witnesses had obviously spent a lot of time preparing to address Christians about their belief in the Trinity and the deity of Christ. These were “Pioneer Ministers,” Witnesses who dedicate 20-30 hours a week going door-to-door, witnessing, doing “Bible studies” and the like. I turned to Philippians 2:5-11 and asked for just a few moments to explain the passage to them. As I worked through the text I asked them to keep in mind the context of the passage. When I finally came to the conclusion, I asked them a series of questions.
All at once the “quieter” of the two drew in a sharp breath and moved away from the Bible in her lap. Acting as if a snake had just materialized on the open book, her eyes got large as “the lights went on” and she saw exactly what I was talking about. Realizing that I was looking at her, she resumed the standard stoic expression of the Witnesses, but I knew she had gotten the message. She was going to leave that day with a Christian tract in her hand: not a printed tract (Witnesses almost never take such literature), but with her New World Translation and an understanding of the Trinity she never expected to gain.
ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT PASSAGES IN THE NEW TESTAMENT
There are only a few times when God’s Word grants to us creatures the opportunity to peer back before creation itself and delve into the very relationship of Father, Son and Spirit. These passages have formed the core of a precious treasure, entrusted to the Church, wherein we find the very definition of what makes Christianity completely unique. Few passages, however, provide us with the breadth of revelation, the depth of theology, and the weight of importance, as the “Carmen Christi,” the “Hymn to Christ as to God.” This section stands with John 1 and Colossians 1 as the pinnacle of Scriptural revelation on the eternal personality and deity of Jesus Christ and His relationship to the Father. The prepared apologist needs to know this passage intimately. But before we can provide an answer to false understandings of the passage, we must dive deep into the sparkling waters of truth provided by the Holy Spirit here in the words of the Apostle Paul.
The Glorious Description of Christ
I invite you to slowly, careful consider these words, dismissing any familiarity you may have with them, and read them as if Paul’s epistle had just arrived from Rome and has been given to you for its first reading:
You must have the same mindset among yourselves that was in Christ Jesus,
Who, although He eternally existed in the very form of God,
Did not consider that equality He had with God the Father something to be held on to at all costs,
But instead He made Himself nothing,
By taking on the very form of a slave,
By being made in human likeness.
And having entered into human existence,
He humbled Himself
By becoming obedient to the point of death,
Even the death one dies on a cross!
Because of this, God the Father exalted Him to the highest place,
And bestowed on Him the name which is above every name,
So that at the mention of the exalted name of Jesus
Everyone who is in heaven, on earth, and under the earth,
Bows the knee,
And every tongue confesses:
“Jesus Christ is Lord!”
All to the glory of God the Father!
PLEASE TURN TO HYMN….
The majority of modern scholarship believes that this section of Paul’s letter preserves for us a fragment, perhaps a stanza or two, of an ancient Christian hymn (which is why it is placed in poetic form by the NIV, NET, NRSV, etc.). Paul uses a section of a hymn—the common property of all Christians—as a sermon illustration par excellence. Just as the good communicator today might quote from a well known hymn, such as “Amazing Grace” or “Blessed Assurance,” to make a point, so too Paul makes reference to this hymn to press home his point. And it is just here that we find the most important key to this entire passage: the Carmen Christi is a sermon illustration! That is, Paul is not taking up a new subject at verse 5. He is still focused upon the heart of the exhortation found in verses two through four. It is vital to see this passage in its actual context. And what is that context? Let’s see:
Make my joy complete by being of the same mind, having the same love, spiritually united as one, focused on the same thing. Never do anything on the basis of selfish ambition or empty, groundless glorying. Instead, in humility of mind regard one another as more important than yourselves, not focusing upon your own personal interests only, but rather the interests of others.
The Apostle knows what causes disruption in the fellowship of the Church, and he knows the divine antidote to dissension. Living in love, united in one mind with one focus, serving one another in humility of mind – this is the Spirit-given means of maintaining unity and harmony in the Christian congregation. Acting out of selfishness or boastful attitudes is the certain means of introducing disharmony and friction into the fellowship. So how can the Philippians experience the kind of Christian unity that bears witness to the presence of Christ among us? Humility of mind. Serving others. Viewing others as more important than ourselves. To act in humility of mind is to have certain “rights” but to lay those rights aside in the service of others.
It has been well said, “The ground is level at the foot of the cross,” and believers are equal with one another in their relationship to God. There are no “super Christians” who are somehow “more important” to God than others. But, unlike so many in the modern American context, Christians are not to be focused upon the rights they have as equals, Instead, they are to lay aside their rights so that they can serve others. Service is a more precious thing in the Christian faith than personal rights.
It is to drive this point home in the minds of the Philippian believers that Paul exhorts them to live with the same kind of humility of mind seen in Jesus Christ, their Savior and example. And it is here that he then quotes from this ancient hymn of the Church. And although people often have missed the point, it is this context that determines the meaning of the following verses.
The Meaning of Philippians 2:6-7
The meaning of the entire passage depends on how one understands the twenty-seven Greek words found in Philippians 2:6-7. What does “form” (Gr: morphe) mean? When Paul says Jesus “existed” in this “form,” what does he mean? What is “equality with God the Father? What does it mean to “grasp” something, or should this be understood “to grasp at something”? And finally, and most importantly, what does “He made himself nothing” (literally, “emptied”) mean? How can God make himself “nothing”?
The “Form” of God
Most of the discussion of this passage has focused upon what it means that Christ existed in the “form of God.” Paul’s term is morphe, translated literally as “form.” The NIV renders the phrase “being in very nature God,” the NLT oversimplifies with, “though he was God,” but the majority of translations render it “being in the form of God.”[i] When we refer to the “form” of God, what do we mean? Is this saying nothing more than “Jesus was a spirit”? Or is there more to the word?
Part of the answer is found in the word “existing.” Paul does not say “came to exist” or “entered into existence,” but uses the present tense to indicate on-going existence. And since the time-frame of the passage is clearly eternity past,[ii] the beginning assertion is that the One we know as Jesus Christ eternally existed in the very form of God, that which communicates the inner reality to the outer senses. The “form of God” is not merely a category of existence (like “spirits” or “creatures”). The “form of God” presents a direct correspondence to reality itself: that which exists in the “form of God” is truly deity. Warfield was correct when he said:
Paul does not say simply, “He was God.” He says, “He was in the form of God,” employing a turn of speech which throws emphasis upon Our Lord’s possession of the specific quality of God. “Form” is a term which expresses the sum of those characterizing qualities which make a thing the precise thing that it is….When Our Lord is said to be in “the form of God,” therefore, He is declared, in the most express manner possible, to be all that God is, to possess the whole fulness of attributes which make God God.[iii]
The idea of temporarily existing in this form is inconceivable, which only emphasizes the continuous existing that we just mentioned. Paul makes it plain: the pre-incarnate Son who did not consider equality with God something to be held on to at all costs made the decision to make Himself nothing while existing in the very form of Deity itself.
Equality with God
The hymn speaks of “equality with God.” Is this merely another way of saying “in the form of God”? Many think so,[iv] some arguing on grammatical grounds.[v] But I suggest that this equality with God is the result of being in “the form of God.” Remember that Paul is here speaking to Christians who are “equal” with one another before God, all standing upon the same grounds of redemption, none superior to another. Even though the pre-incarnate Son had an equality with the Father on the basis of being, and hence had equal “rights” with the Father to the worship of the entire universe,[vi] He voluntarily laid aside the rights that naturally come from eternally existing in that state. By staying focused on Paul’s purpose (the illustration of what “humility of mind” means) we can see the heart of the hymn’s thrust. Christ did not descend from an inferior position, but from a position of equality with the Father.
To Grasp or to Hold?
Non-orthodox interpreters focus heavily on the next phrase up for consideration, that being the singular Greek term harpagmos. Literally it means “something to grasp after,” and this is its most natural translation. Taken in this way the term would indicate that Christ did not grasp after equality with God, and those interpreters who wish to avoid the deity of Christ conclude that the passage is plainly indicating an inferiority on Christ’s part. However, there are many reasons to reject this position.
First, the hymn has already asserted the deity of Christ in the strongest terms. Proponents of this view have to adopt the most unusual understandings of what “form of God” means to avoid this problem. Second, the phrase can be understood just as well in the passive sense of “something to be held on to or grasped,” and as in every other instance of proper interpretation, the context is the key to meaning. Third, to take the phrase in the active sense is to destroy the entirety of the example Paul is pressing. If Christ was not equal with the Father, but was in some sense a subordinate created being, the illustration of humility involving the voluntary renunciation of rights so as to serve others is abrogated. There is no “humility” in an inferior creature not seeking after equality with God. Such is a matter of not committing the heinous sin of blasphemy, nothing more. If we take harpagmos in its active sense as these interpreters suggest, the text is stood on its head and its meaning is destroyed.
This is why Christian interpreters down through the ages have seen this poetic use of the term in its passive sense. He who eternally existed in the form of God did not consider the resultant equality He had with the Father something to be held on to at all costs, but, instead, made Himself nothing.
He Made Himself Nothing
In modern times great emphasis has been placed upon the next important phrase in our ancient hymn, that being the term kenow, literally, “to empty.” The “Kenosis” refers to the “emptying” of Christ, based upon this very passage. But what is the text saying? Does it mean that Christ ceased to be in the form of God?
The first thing to realize is that Paul never uses this term in a literal fashion. In the four other places Paul uses this verb (Romans 4:14, 1 Corinthians 1:17, 9:15, 2 Corinthians 9:3) he uses it in a metaphorical, not a literal, sense. Most carry the meaning of making a boast “empty” or “vain.”
Next, this is something the Son does! This fact is often overlooked, even in scholarly discussions. There is no outside power “emptying” Christ of something, but instead this is an action He takes with reference to Himself. What condescension! Christ voluntarily and without compulsion undertakes this great act of humble servitude.
I have translated the term “made Himself nothing” to capture the thrust of Paul’s appeal: He who eternally existed in the form of God, the Creator and Maker of all things (Colossians 1:16-17), enters quietly into His very own creation so as to become a servant. The Incarnate One does not “stand out from the crowd,” does not appear with halo or angelic glow, “had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him, nothing in his appearance that we should desire him” (Isaiah 53:2, NIV). He makes Himself “nothing,” for in comparison to the infinite and eternal, mankind is “a vapor that appears for a little while and then vanishes away” (James 4:14).
But how was this action of making Himself “nothing” accomplished? It is just here that we must listen to this hymn from the balcony of heaven itself. We must hear the words from a divine and heavenly perspective. The Son makes Himself “nothing” by taking the form of a servant and being made in the likeness of man.[vii] From the human realm, “being made nothing” by taking does not seem right. But when we see the glory and majesty and power of the One who is here condescending to enter into creaturely existence when He Himself is the Creator, we can begin to appreciate how this act of being made nothing is properly described as taking the form of a servant and being made in the likeness of man. Daniel B. Wallace, an eminent Greek scholar, sees both terms “taking” and “being made” as the means by which the “being made nothing” is accomplished.[viii]
The biggest difficulty with seeing labwn (taking) as means is that emptying is normally an act of subtraction, not addition. But the imagery should not be made to walk on all fours. As an early hymn, it would be expected to have a certain poetic license….The Philippians were told not to puff themselves up with “empty glory,” because Christ was an example of one who emptied his glory. If this connection is intentional, then the Carmen Christi has the following force:
Do not elevate yourselves on empty glory, but follow the example of Christ, who, though already elevated (on God’s level), emptied his glory by veiling it in humanity.[ix]
So the means of the kenosis is the addition of a human nature, the veiling of the divine in the creaturely. This is important to understand, for many interpret Paul to mean that Christ abandons the “form of God” rather than seeing this as an addition of the human nature to the eternal divine nature that was Christ’s. It is this addition that “veils” the form of God. While there are certainly many who see this passage teaching that Christ did indeed lay aside the “form of God,” the words of Paul do not present such a concept.
Humiliation and Exaltation
Once we have a clear understanding of the tremendous condescension of Christ seen in his entering into creaturely existence as a man we can fully embrace the tremendous words that follow: Christ takes on the very form of a slave (not merely a servant), and upon entering human existence humbles Himself by becoming “obedient to the point of death,” even the excruciating death of the cross. We dare not rush by understanding that it is Christ who both makes Himself nothing (v. 7) and humbles Himself (v. 8). Christ was not made nothing nor humbled: these were sovereign actions of a powerful Savior who pursues His purpose and goal: the redemption of His people (Matthew 1:21).
The reward for patient obedience and suffering is exaltation. Here the faithful Messiah, the Suffering Servant, receives His rightful reward: exaltation to the “highest place,” the name which is “above every name,” and the common confession of His Lordship by every tongue in heaven and on earth and under the earth. All of this, we are told, results in the glory of God the Father, the fountainhead and source of the entire plan of salvation itself (Eph. 1:3-6). One can almost hear the hushed but faith-filled voices of the early Christians singing this last refrain as they gather in secret places, hidden from the persecution of the world, yet looking to a time when every tongue will join in their song.
Differing Views
But what of those who hold to different views of this passage? Let’s look at just a few so that we can be confident of the conclusions we have reached.
One view with much merit that is fully orthodox and worthy of consideration is presented by Daniel B. Wallace. He holds the view that while “form of God” emphasizes the deity of Christ in no uncertain terms (ontological equality with the Father), the phrase “equality with God” should be understood to refer to something different: to the hierarchical relationship of Father and Son. Therefore, he believes the passage is saying that while eternally God, the Son did not grasp at a functional equality with the Father. He writes:
Although Christ was truly God (morphe theou), two things resulted: (1) he did not attempt to “outrank” the Father, as it were (cf. John 14:28 for a similar thought: “The Father is greater than I am”); (2) instead, he submitted himself to the Father’s will, even to the point of death on a cross. It was thus not Christ’s deity that compelled his incarnation and passion, but his obedience.[x]
Surely this understanding has much to commend it. It has strong grammatical basis, affirms the deity of Christ, is consistent with Trinitarian theology, and is easily defensible. However, there are two reasons I prefer the interpretation given above. First, this is a poetic section. Terms are used in poetry/hymns in ways that transcend the strictly grammatical usage one would find in normal prose contexts. While usage in other contexts might favor the active sense of “grasping” at something one does not already possess, in this passage the over-all context has to take precedence. As Wallace noted above, poetic license is already present in this early hymn. Second, while Wallace’s interpretation still presents the element of humility, it focuses it solely upon the humility shown in the Messiah’s death on the cross. The element of humility in the Incarnation is still present, but I believe the intended contrast is weakened, for the exhortation to the Philippians is that they voluntarily lay aside the rights that are theirs so as to serve others. Christ voluntarily makes Himself “nothing,” and the emphasis is upon the freedom of that act.
Another position that must be addressed involves the assertion that this hymn does not take us back into eternity, and that the time-frame of the words “existing in the form of God” is actually in reference to the human ministry of Christ. This viewpoint is shared by a diverse group: Lutheran scholars have often presented this idea in support of their concept of the ubiquity of the body of Christ; Arian apologists have attempted to undercut the passage’s testimony to the eternity of Christ in this fashion; Oneness Pentecostals present this idea frequently because they deny the eternal existence of the Son as a divine Person; and others choose this path because they feel it helps to avoid “difficulties” in interpretation.[xi] In any case, no matter what the motivation, the result is the same: the text is turned on its head. Not only is the exhortation to humility lost, but there is no way to meaningfully interpret the phrase “being made in human likeness” if, in fact, this does not refer to the Incarnation event. Some attempt to say that the act of humility here is Christ’s obedience to the will of the Father in going to the cross, which is certainly true, as far as it goes. But this makes the entire description of Christ “making Himself nothing” a tautology with no inherent meaning. Clearly the passage speaks of the Incarnation and the humility of mind shown by the Son who voluntarily lays aside the divine privileges that are His and then enters into human existence.
Summary of Cultic Views
The best preparation for an apologetic defense of any passage of Scripture is a thorough familiarity with the text itself. But it is also helpful to know how various groups approach a passage so that you can provide a meaningful response. Here is a summary of the views of the major groups that might make reference to this passage.
Jehovah’s Witnesses
The Watchtower Society provides a tortured translation of Philippians 2:5-7 in their New World Translation:
Keep this mental attitude in YOU that was also in Christ Jesus, who, although he was existing in God’s form, gave no consideration to a seizure, namely, that he should be equal to God. No, but he emptied himself and took a slave’s form and came to be in the likeness of men.
Witnesses use this “translation” as evidence that Christ did not try to become equal with God. They assume that “form of God” simply means “in spirit form.” As we have seen, this interpretation is completely disconnected from the context and functionally does away with any exhortation to humility. Seemingly sensing this their field service ministry handbook says,
Which thought agrees with the context? Verse 5 counsels Christians to imitate Christ in the matter here being discussed. Could they be urged to consider it “not robbery,” but their right, “to be equal with God”? Surely not! However, they can imitate one who “gave no consideration to a seizure, namely, that he should be equal to God.”[xii]
Such an attempted “explanation” completely misses the nature of humility as having rights and laying them aside in service to others.
Mormonism
In-depth biblical exegesis is not the hallmark of Mormonism, and that remains true of the new group of scholarly apologists as well. Mormonism begins at such a radically different point with its view that “God became God by obedience to law”[xiii] that doing serious exegesis of the biblical text is really an impossibility. The Christian apologist needs to focus upon the more fundamental issue in Mormonism (its completely defective view of God) before any attempt is made to deal with such passages as Philippians 2.[xiv]
Oneness Pentecostalism
There is no single unified interpretation found in the writings of Oneness advocates. The leading Oneness theologian, David Bernard, while asserting that “the Son is not eternal, but was begotten by God almost 2000 years ago,” does interpret the passage to refer to a preincarnate time period. He maintains the Oneness emphasis on the idea that Jesus is, in reality, two persons:
From the Oneness point of view, Jesus is not God the Son, but He is all of God, including Father and Son. Thus, in His divinity, He is truly equal to, or identical to God. The word equal here means that the divine nature of Jesus was the very nature of God the Father.[xv]
Other Oneness advocates present the above-mentioned idea that this refers to Christ’s human existence, not to the period prior to the Incarnation.[xvi] The same comments made above refuting this idea would apply here as well.
Know Your Lord
Why should you work to understand this ancient hymn? In the final analysis, it is because we as Christians are to worship God in spirit and in truth (John 4:24), and to worship God truly requires that we know our God. And, since we are to grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ (2 Peter 3:18), we must embrace all the means He has given us to do so, and this ancient hymn of the faith is one of the most important jewels of revelation given to us.
Summary:
Philippians 2:5-11 is a fragment of an ancient hymn of the Christian church. Paul presents these verses as a great sermon illustration of what it means to act in humility of mind: to have certain rights and yet to voluntarily lay them aside in service to others.
This vital passage teaches us that the Son eternally existed in the very form of God. He did not enter into this state, but eternally existed as Deity, equal with the Father. His great humility is seen in the divine truth that He did not consider that equality He had with the Father a thing to be held on to at all costs, but, instead, as the greatest example of humility ever seen, veiled Himself in human flesh, entered into existence as the God-Man, and gave His life on the cross.
But to establish these truths one must look closely at the terms used in this ancient hymn. This is especially true in light of the myriad of differing interpretations that have been presented over the centuries, many of which are presented solely to undercut this passage’s testimony to the eternality and deity of Christ. There are some alternate possibilities worthy of our review, but in general, each involves compromising the testimony to humility that is part and parcel of Paul’s purpose in these words.
Having a firm understanding of the context of the passage will help the Christian apologist to provide a solid, biblically-based response to those who seek to present falsehood about the Person of Christ.
Endnotes
——————————————————————————–
[i] See Lightfoot, St. Paul’s Epistle to the Philippians (1913), 127-133.
[ii] See discussion below regarding those who reject this idea.
[iii] B.B. Warfield, The Person and Work of Christ (Presbyterian and Reformed, 1950), 39.
[iv] Alva J. McClain, “The Doctrine of the Kenosis in Philippians 2:5–8”, Grace Theological Journal, Spring, 1967, 8.
[v] N. T. Wright, “Harpagmos and the Meaning of Philippians 2:5–11,” JTS, NS 37 (1986) 34[v], but see response by Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics – Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament, (Garland, TX: Galaxie Software) 1999, 635.
[vi] As we see in Isaiah 6:1-4, a vision of the Son as John teaches in John 12:39-41.
[vii] Both participles, “taking” and “being made,” are describing the means of the “making Himself nothing,” that is, of the “kenosis.”
[viii] That is, the syntactical function of these two participles is circumstantial modal.
[ix] Wallace, 630.
[x] Wallace, 635.
[xi] Robert Reymond, A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith, (Thomas Nelson, 1998), provides an extensive discussion of the passage (253-264) and takes this view. I believe, however, this section isolates the passage and divorces it from the context: the issue of humility of mind is lost in the highly technical discussion of strophes and poetic parallels.
[xii] Reasoning from the Scriptures, 419-420.
[xiii] Achieving a Celestial Marriage Student Manual, (Church Educational System: Salt Lake City, 1992), 4.
[xiv] For examples of the complete misuse of this passage in LDS writings, see, Erastus Smow in Journal of Discourses, 19:328-330, and Bruce R. McConkie, Doctrinal New Testament Commentary, 2:531-533.
[xv] David Bernard, The Oneness of God (Word Aflame Press, 1983), 222.
[xvi] See the debate with Dr. Robert Sabin in Real Audio posted at www.aomin.org.
FURTHER READING
]]>The hymns sung by the church have always told of the faith that is hers. While few today dwell on what our hymns really say, the early church placed much more emphasis upon the content of her hymns. Fragments of the earliest “hymnal” are found in the text of the New Testament. We get a tantalizing glimpse at what the earliest Christians confessed in music. Probably the longest “song,” and certainly the most important, is provided by the apostle Paul in his letter to the Philippians.
Philippians 2:5-11 has been identified as the Carmen Christi, the “Hymn to Christ as God.” Some modern translations, such as the NIV, NRSV, TEV, and JB, set this passage apart in poetic form to indicate the fact that most scholars see in this passage something other than straight prose or teaching. Instead, what is found here may well be a section, maybe a verse or two, of an ancient Christian hymn.
If, in fact, Paul is referring believers to a commonly known song, we can imagine the effect his words had. In our day, it is common for a minister to incorporate a reference to a well-known and well-loved hymn so as to make a strong point. Many close a sermon on the grace of God, for example, by saying, “Amazing grace, how sweet the sound, that saved a wretch like me!” The minister doesn’t need to tell us what hymn number he is referring to. He doesn’t need to give us the name. Just a line or two is enough. “I once was blind, but now I see” is sufficient to bring to our minds the entire message contained in the song.
I believe that is exactly what Paul is doing in the second chapter of his letter to the Philippians. Verses 5 through 11 provide us with the “sermon illustration” Paul wishes to use. In these words he takes us to the highest points of scriptural revelation, speaking of great eternal truths. Yet he does so through the words of a familiar song.
A tremendous number of books and articles have been written concerning the meaning of Philippians 2:5-11. Yet many of them miss the most fundamental point of solid interpretation: context. Often the passage is separated from surrounding text and considered on its own. As we will see, the context of the passage will help us determine the key issue at stake here. And to that context we must first turn.
HUMILITY OF MIND
In this passage, Paul did not just break into a testimony to the greatness of Christ without a reason. He was trying to encourage the Philippians to live and act in a certain manner, and he gives as his example the Lord Jesus. To what kind of behavior was Paul exhorting his listeners? Let’s read:
Therefore if there is any encouragement in Christ, if there is any consolation of love, if there is any fellowship of the Spirit, if any affection and compassion, make my joy complete by being of the same mind, maintaining the same love, united in spirit, intent on one purpose. Do nothing from selfishness or empty conceit, but with humility of mind regard one another as more important than yourselves; do not merely look out for your own personal interests, but also for the interests of others. (Philippians 2:1-4)
How should Christians treat one another? This is what is being addressed in this passage. The apostle reminds his readers of the encouragement they have in Christ, the loving comfort they receive from Him, the fellowship of the Spirit they all enjoy. In light of these many benefits, Paul asks them to make his joy complete by living in a manner worthy of Christian people. They are to be of the same mind, not divided, going in different directions. They are to maintain godly love among themselves, being united in spirit, all moving toward the same goal. Now, how does one keep a diverse group of people together in this way? We all know that Christians sin against one another, and in so doing they disrupt the ideal of believing fellowship. So what is the key to contented and peaceful Christian community? Paul tells us.
“Do nothing from selfishness or empty conceit.” The peace of the fellowship will exist only when believers do not act in a selfish or conceited manner. That is, when we look outside of ourselves and serve others, the unity of purpose and love and compassion will be served. But when we turn in upon ourselves and seek our own good before the good of others, things will fall apart. The key is found in the next phrase: “but with humility of mind regard one another as more important than yourselves.” Here is the great secret of Christian fellowship: humble service toward others. Self-denial. Not “looking out for #1,” but “making everyone else #1, and looking out for them!” The Christian church is to be filled with people who, while equal with one another (“There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus,” Galatians 3:28), are willing to put aside their own rights in service to others. The ministry of Jesus Christ is a panoramic picture of what selfless service to others is all about. And this humility of mind is what Paul preaches to his beloved Philippian congregation.
It is in the midst of this exhortation that we find the key verses, 2:5-11. Most often, these verses are examined as a single unit, distinct from the context around them. But it is quite clear that Paul is in no way “changing topics” between verses 4 and 5. In fact, a quick glance at verse 12 shows us that upon completing his comments about Christ, he moves right on with the practical exhortation to humility and obedience in the Philippian assembly. Why is this so important? Because it tells us Paul’s purpose in setting forth this section of an ancient hymn. Paul is giving a “sermon illustration,” a reminder that if we are to be like Christ, we must imitate His humility as well. All of the Carmen Christi is, in fact, a means of illustrating what it means to act in “humility of mind,” to give one’s life in the service of others. This is why verse 5 says, “Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus.”
The attitude of humility of mind that the Philippians are to have is best illustrated in Christ, so Paul directs them to have the same manner of thinking, the same outlook, as seen in Christ. This will become determinative when we look closely at the meaning of the passage itself.
THE FORM OF GOD
The first “verse” of this ancient hymn, if we divide things along lines of thought, would comprise verses 6 and 7:
… who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men.
Here in a matter of just a few words, Paul provides us with some of the greatest insights into the nature of Christ before the Incarnation. Obviously, there are two ways to understand the passage, and one can find translations to fit either viewpoint. First, there are those who point to this passage as evidence that Christ is not truly God and was not divine prior to His coming to earth. Some of the translations that lean this direction include the Today’s English Version, the New English Bible,1 and, not surprisingly, the New World Translation. For example, the TEV says,
He always had the very nature of God, but did not think that by force he should try to become equal with God.
This translation assumes that Christ was not equal with God, and that the attitude to be emulated is that shown by His not trying to become equal with God.
The second, and much larger, group of translations sees things quite differently. These translations make it clear that Christ was eternally equal with God. These include the New International Version, the New Revised Standard Version, the Jerusalem Bible, Phillips Modern English, and The New Living Translation. Note how, for example, the NIV renders the passage:
Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness.
Likewise, the NRSV says,
… who, though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God as something to be exploited, but emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, being born in human likeness.
And the Phillips Modern English expresses the meaning by saying,
For he, who had always been God by nature, did not cling to his privileges as God’s equal, but stripped himself of every advantage by consenting to be a slave by nature and being born a man.
We will be able to decide which translations have properly understood Paul’s thrust shortly. First, a few specifics about the text itself.
Paul says that Jesus existed in the form of God. The Greek term used here,2 just as in John 1:1, does not point to a time when Christ entered into this state. This is brought out by Phillips’ translation, “who had always been God by nature.” Certainly those who attempt to see in Christ a mere creature can find no solace in an assertion such as this.
What does it mean to exist in the form of God? The range of translations show us that the term can express a wide variety of things. The Greek term “form”3 (morphe) means the “outward display of the inner reality or substance. Here it refers to the outward display of the divine substance, i.e., divinity of the preexistent Christ in the display of his glory as being in the image of the Father.”4 This is why a number of translations render the term “nature.” “God’s nature” would refer to the state of being God. This would not merely be referring to existence as a spirit, but to divine existence. It is hard to get away from the fact that Paul is plainly presenting the deity of the preexistent Christ. We shall see in a moment that, in fact, a later comment by the apostle leaves us with no doubt about this.
EQUALITY WITH GOD
Next Paul tells us that He who (eternally) existed in the form of God did not “regard equality with God a thing to be grasped” (NASB). What does this mean? The phrase “equality with God” is not difficult to understand. Paul is talking about full divinity, a status of equal power and glory with God. Obviously, if this status is something that Christ had, the discussion over the deity of Christ is pretty well over. But obviously, those who do not believe in the deity of Christ do not agree that the passage is saying this is something Christ ever really possessed. In fact, they strongly assert that the point of the passage is that Christ did not “grasp for” or attempt to obtain “by force” this very equality with God. And in all fairness, the Greek term translated “to grasp”5 can be translated in this way. So can we know with certainty how Paul would have us to understand this term? When the early Christians sang this hymn, what did they mean? We will put all of this together shortly.
THE EMPTYING
Before we come to some final conclusions about which way we should understand this passage, we need a few more pieces of the puzzle. The hymn says that Christ did not “grasp” His equality with God but instead did something else. He “emptied Himself” is the literal translation. What does this mean?
Note first that Jesus did this himself. The passage does not say that Christ was emptied, as if some outside force or person acted upon Him. This is voluntary. This is something Christ did himself. As we will see, this is vitally important.
Secondly, the term “emptied” is always used by Paul in a metaphorical sense. The term is used in such places as Romans 4:14, where Paul says, “For if those who are of the Law are heirs, faith is made void (literally, “emptied”) and the promise is nullified.” Paul is not talking about a literal “emptying” of faith, but a metaphorical “making empty,” i.e., making void.6 So it is here. The King James Version does an excellent job by rendering it “made himself of no reputation.” Paul is not saying Jesus ceased to be God, or in any other way stopped being equal with the Father, but that He voluntarily laid aside the privileges that were His.7 When the Lord walked this earth, men did not see Him as a glorious heavenly being, for His glory was hidden, veiled. With the single exception of the Mount of Transfiguration, where a chosen few saw Him in His true glory, the rest of mankind looked upon Him who, as Isaiah had said, “has no stately form or majesty that we should look upon Him, nor appearance that we should be attracted to Him” (Isaiah 53:2).
The act of emptying is followed by an act of taking. He “became flesh” (John 1:14) by taking the form of a bond-servant and being made in the likeness of men. It is no mere coincidence that Paul uses the very same term “form” here that he used in verse 6. Just as Jesus had the form of God in eternity past, so He took the form of a bond-servant in the Incarnation.8
He who had eternally been served by cherubim and seraphim now takes on the form of a slave so as to serve others! And what service is He called to? “Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.” Here is ultimate obedience, ultimate service.
SO, ETERNALLY GOD OR NOT?
We have enough of the puzzle now to go back and ask the most basic question: is this passage identifying Jesus Christ as God or not? There are two basic understandings:
1. Many liberal theologians, as well as groups that deny the deity of Christ, assert that here we have Paul saying that the Lord Jesus was not equal with the Father and did not give consideration to becoming equal with Him, but instead took on the form of a bond-servant to die upon the cross.
2. The majority of conservative scholars and historically orthodox groups believe that Paul is teaching the eternal deity of Christ. The Lord Jesus, though equal with the Father, lays aside His privileges so as to die upon the cross.
Can we determine which view is correct? I believe we can. Remember that I originally insisted that the context of the passage would be determinative to finding the real answer to this question. And it is just here that it unlocks for us the door to the understanding of this ancient hymn of the church.
TRUE HUMILITY
The apostle is presenting the grand act of humble service in the life of the Lord Jesus Christ as the example of what it means to walk in “humility of mind.” Remember, we defined humility along the lines of having certain rights, but giving up those rights in service to others. Among Christians, this means that we are to look out for others rather than jealously guard our own rights and privileges. We are to serve others, even though we are all equals before the Lord.
In light of this, look again at Paul’s example from the Lord Jesus. He tells us to “have this mind in you which was also in Christ Jesus.” So here we have the ultimate example of humility. But which of the two understandings of the passage give us true humility? Let’s look at each and find out.
The first viewpoint says that the Lord Jesus was not equal with the Father and did not attempt to become so. Yet, is this an example of humility? Do we regularly honor as “humble” those who hold an inferior position and do not seek to usurp the rights of someone in a superior position? Is it humble, for example, to be a newly hired employee who does not seek to immediately take over the position of the president of the company? Are you considered “humble” if you do not try to usurp your boss’s authority? Do we look at the janitor at the White House, for example, and say, “Oh my, what a humble man he is, for he did not today attempt to take over the president’s job!” No, of course not. Such is not humility, it is simple common sense.
In the same way, if the Lord Jesus were merely a spirit being, a creature, how would it be “humble” of Him not to seek to become equal with God himself? Do we say someone is “humble” if they do not claim to be God? Certainly not. So if Jesus was an inferior creature, and He did not try to become equal with God, that would be no more humble than any other angelic creature abiding by their own station and not seeking to become something they were never intended to be in the first place.
On the other hand, what about the second understanding of the passage? Here we have the eternal Son of God, existing in the very form of God. He is equal with the Father, enjoying the privileges of deity itself. But He does not consider that position He has of equality something to be held on to at all costs. Instead, out of the great love He has for His people, He voluntarily lays aside those privileges and takes on the form of man. He becomes a servant in the fullest sense, for He lives His entire life in service to the very ones He has come to redeem. And in the ultimate act of service, He is obedient to the very point of death upon a cross.
Now, if humility consists of having privileges, and laying them aside in service to others, can we think of any example of humility more thrilling, more challenging, or more clear than this one? Certainly not! Therefore, we can reach only one conclusion: Paul is presenting this great early hymn as his highest example of humility of mind, and because of this, we must understand the passage to present Jesus as having eternally existed in the very form of God, having eternally possessed equality with the Father, and yet, out of His great love for us, He voluntarily laid aside those privileges so as to give His life as a “ransom for many.” If context means anything at all, this is what the passage is teaching.
THE EXALTATION OF THE SON
But we are not left with only this assertion. Paul goes on to “seal the issue,” so to speak. If the direct assertion of the eternal deity of Christ wasn’t enough, he goes on to use a passage from the Old Testament to demonstrate the deity of the Father and the Son:
Therefore also God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus EVERY KNEE WILL BOW, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. (Philippians 2:9-11)
Some point to verse 9 and say, “See, God highly exalted Jesus, hence, Jesus can’t possibly be God.” Such a statement flows from a misunderstanding of the Trinity and the simple fact that normally Paul speaks of the Father simply as “God,” and the Son simply as “Lord.” Both are titles of deity, and since we are not in any way trying to confuse the Father and the Son, we can fully understand Paul’s language. It is the Father who exalted the Son, just as it was the Son, not the Father, who took on human flesh. But notice carefully what Paul does with his words. He quotes from an Old Testament passage, Isaiah 45:23, which reads,
“I have sworn by Myself, the word has gone forth from My mouth in righteousness and will not turn back, that to Me every knee will bow, every tongue will swear allegiance.”
In context, this passage is specifically about Yahweh, the God of Israel (see Isaiah 45:21). Yet Paul quotes from this passage and says that it is to Jesus that every knee shall bow (when in Isaiah it is to Yahweh), to the glory of God the Father! How can Paul say this? Does he believe in more than one God? Certainly not! But he realizes that both the Father and the Son are worthy of the name Yahweh! To bow the knee to the Son, Jesus, is to bow to Yahweh. To do so is in no way to slight the Father, who, like the Son, shares the one divine name, Yahweh. The glorification of the Son results in the glorification of the Father as well. Perfect balance, perfect consistency with the entirety of divine revelation.
And so we understand Paul’s exhortation to humility and take it to heart. As Christ laid aside His eternal privileges to serve His people, dying as the sacrifice for their sins, so we, too, are called to give ourselves in service to others. This is the primary meaning of the passage, but it comes to us only as we understand who Christ really was and is. The example only carries its weight when we realize that the Lord Jesus eternally existed as the Father’s equal and laid aside His divine privileges out of love for us. A quasi divine Jesus, or a mighty creature, does not fit this passage but instead destroys the entire thrust. Rather, we rejoice in the truth that the Son, though eternally equal with the Father, made himself “nothing” so that we–those who name His name, love Him, and obey Him–might have eternal life.
FURTHER READING
PHILIPPIANS 2: AN ADAM CHRISTOLOGY?
“The Form of a god”? The Translation of Morphē Theou in Philippians 2:6
Philippians 2:6 In Various English Translations
Carmen Christi: Worshiping Christ as God
Revisiting the Deity of Christ in Light of the Carmen Christi Pt. 1, Pt. 2
]]>