a reading of Philippians 2:5-11

This exposition was originally written as part of my rebuttal in my debate book with Chris Date, Jesus is Human and Not Divine. But that rebuttal had to be cut for length. Even on Date’s own preferred reading, I don’t see that this passage assumes, states, or implies that Jesus is divine in the way the one God is divine. So I had to cut this discussion and focus on more relevant points. But these are my latest thoughts on the passage. I think the majority mistakenly impose Logos-theory-derived ideas onto this early text. Here’s my discussion:

I will now explain how I now understand the much-contested Philippians 2.[1] Many see Philippians 2 as portraying the descent of a heavenly, divine Person to become also human. I side with those scholars who think this passage is about Jesus, the man – not a godman or a god or a divine Person – and his obedience to God during his earthly life.[2]

We should keep in mind some relevant and undeniable facts. First, the event which so many interpreters claim to find here (a divine Person becoming also human) is not a clear theme in Paul’s writings. The closest parallel in Paul’s surviving letters is 2 Corinthians 8:1-15, where he is encouraging his readers to be generous with their money.[3]  Nothing in this passage’s context suggests that the sacrifice in question was before his human life. This should make us wonder whether Paul’s point in Philippians 2 might be understood without appealing to a hypothesized pre-human stage of Jesus’s life; the man “Christ Jesus” is mentioned, but there is no clear reference here to any eternal divine Person. Second, just as in 2 Corinthians 8, Paul’s point in Philippians 2 is practical, and does not obviously involve the metaphysics of Christ’s “natures.”[4] Jesus’s humble, self-sacrificing obedience is introduced as illustrating the “mind” (v. 5) that Paul wants his audience to obtain. Third, for nearly all of us, there is nothing in our experience much like the hypothesized decision of the pre-human Jesus to empty himself of something[5] so as to become human. On the other hand, Jesus’s earthly career, as portrayed in the gospels, provides many points of contact with our experiences.[6] In sum, we should wonder whether instead of being a remarkable one-off in Paul’s writings, which, oddly, briefly mentions what should be astounding news if true, and which is altogether not very apt as an example for us to imitate (this alleged descent of a heavenly divine Person) Paul is instead talking about the sorts of faithful obedience we see the man Jesus accomplish in the gospels.

I have defended one such reading elsewhere.[7] But after more study, I now think there is a more compelling reading. Here is the NET rendering, with footnotes added to express my disagreement with a few phrases and to show connections with what I and many commenters believe is a subtext, the famous suffering servant text of Isaiah 52:13-53:12.[8]

5 You should have the same attitude toward one another that Christ Jesus had,

6 who though he existed[9] in the form of God[10]

did not regard equality with God as something to be grasped,[11]

7 but emptied himself[12]

by taking on the form of a slave,

by looking like other men

and by sharing in human nature.[13]

8 He humbled himself,

by becoming obedient to the point of death[14]

– even death on a cross

9 As a result God highly exalted him[15]

and gave him the name

that is above every name,

10 so that at the name of Jesus

every knee will bow

– in heaven and on earth and under the earth –

11 and every tongue confess

that Jesus Christ is Lord

to the glory of God the Father.[16]

“Form of God” (morphe theou) is a unique phrase in the New Testament; it is plausible that it was composed to make a pair with “form of a slave/servant.”[17] In a philosophical context morphe can mean essential nature, but generally it has to do with observable features.[18] More broadly, it can refer to a condition which isn’t directly observed. And we know that Paul uses related terms to refer to moral character.[19] Here the “form of God” is plausibly understood as Jesus’s God-like “manner, demeanor, and behaviour,”[20] or I would suggest, his godly character from which these flowed. Another unseen condition was that Jesus was God’s unique Son, and God chosen Messiah, a king-in-waiting. Jesus enjoyed a unique standing with God his Father who begat him, called him to be the Messiah, and was well pleased with him.[21] This “form of God” couldn’t be the essence divinity, because this one died (v.8), whereas divinity was understood to imply essential immortality, as I showed above.[22]

            I agree with Date[23] that “form of God” and “equality with God” are meant here as two descriptions of the same state. My opponent offers no reason, though, why “equality with God” must be taken in a metaphysical sense (i.e. equal in respect of essence/nature).[24] I also agree with many recent scholars that harpagmon in v. 6 is best understood as meaning “something to be exploited.” This has been much contested,[25] and the major translations are divided, but for me the most weighty consideration is not lexical but rather making sense of Paul’s thinking in this passage and in the whole letter. In this book Paul discusses a series of people who chose to lay aside their privileges in favor of self-sacrificial service to others:[26] Paul himself, who lays aside his accomplishments as a Pharisee in order to imitate Jesus’s suffering and death,[27] the believers at Philippi who should lay aside their privileges as Roman citizens in order to embrace their “citizenship in… heaven,”[28] and perhaps also Paul’s colleague Epaphroditus, who presumably left behind a normal life in order to serve Paul and others, nearly at the cost of his own life.[29] In the passage at hand Paul praises Jesus, the greatest of these self-sacrificing servant-leaders, who lays aside the privilege he has because of his special standing with God.

            On the reading I’m arguing for here, Paul has in mind Jesus’s earthly obedience to God, his self-sacrificing decision to take on the form/condition of a slave/servant, and he cites this as an example for us to imitate. We already know that the culmination of Jesus’s humiliation is his terrible death on the cross (v. 8), so we would naturally look prior to this in Jesus’s earthly life for something Paul could have in mind in v. 7 – not to an unmentioned “pre-existence” as a “divine Person” who is not a man.

Two incidents immediately come to mind.[30] First, Jesus prays to God in the garden, asking – but not demanding – to be spared from this terrible death.[31] Did Jesus, as God’s beloved Son, have the right to demand a pass? (Perhaps this is why he clarifies that his is a humble and submissive request, not a demand?) The text, of course, doesn’t say that Jesus had that right. But for that idea consider this episode, where Jesus scolds the disciple who tried to use his sword to prevent Jesus’s arrest.

Put your sword back into its place; for all who take the sword will perish by the sword. Do you think that I cannot appeal to my Father, and he will at once send me more than twelve legions of angels? But how then would the scriptures be fulfilled, which say it must happen in this way?[32]         

Here Jesus seems to imply that he has the right to ask God for an angelic rescue, and that if he did ask, it would be sent. But he is willingly foregoing that privilege in order to fulfill the scriptures, following what he knows to be God’s will.[33]

In sum, Paul picks an example that is relevant to his readers’ lives: the sacrificial, humble, other-preferring obedience of the man Jesus. In response to this obedience God raised and exalted him,[34] and the reader is to remember that we too will be raised and exalted,[35] if we persevere in the faithful, self-sacrificing obedience.

---

[1] I do this to demonstrate my commitment to New Testament teaching, as it was originally meant (not necessarily how it’s been interpreted by later traditions), even though it is not relevant to this debate, since even on my opponent’s reading, it falls far short of his desired conclusion.

[2] While many English-speaking evangelicals associate this sort of reading with James Dunn (Christology in the Making, 114–21; The Theology of Paul the Apostle, 281–88.), such readings have been held by many recent scholars, both Catholic and Protestant. (Kuschel, Born Before All Time, 243–66.) These have independently arrived at readings broadly similar to those which many early modern unitarian Christians held. (e.g. Farley, Unitarianism Defined, 107–8; Crellius et al., The Racovian Catechism, 119–21.) Date gives the impression that this sort of Jesus’s-earthly-life reading has been decisively ruled out, but this is not so.

[3] “…though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, so that by his poverty you might become rich.” (2 Corinthians 8:9.) Jesus’s literal wealth and poverty are not the issue here, but rather his example in graciously giving up something, presumably his life, when he willingly went to the cross.

[4] His overarching point is the exhortation to “Do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility regard others as better than yourselves.” (Philippians 2:3)

[5] Heavenly glory? Divine prerogatives? Typical but not essential divine attributes? The exercise of divine attributes? Commenters who take the passage to be about Incarnation are divided here.

[6] Like him, many of us are tested by the death of a friend, family troubles, various temptations, persecution, or clashes between what we desire and what we believe to be God’s will for us. Some of us even face a choice between disobedience and death.

[7] “Trinities Podcast 49.”

[8] As Date points out, some scholars reject any reference to Adam in this passage (e.g. Fee, Pauline Christology, 376, 390–93.) I agree with many other commenters who see some allusions to Adam here, despite the lack of common words with the known Greek versions of Genesis. But nothing in the reading I present here depends on any allusion or reference to Adam in the passage.

[9] As Perry points out, “being” is a better translation here. (“Philippians 2:5-11,” 5.)

[10] “My servant” (Isaiah 52:13); “The righteous one” (Isaiah 53:11).

[11] I think “something to be exploited” makes more sense, for the reason given below.

[12] “he poured out himself to death” (Isaiah 53:12).

[13] The NET translators observe that literally this line is “and by being found in form as a man.” I think “by sharing human nature” is a translation mistake; Paul is not making the point that Jesus (the man!) somehow gained human nature when he emptied himself. Rather, the point is that in this humble state he shared the typical human condition, or at any rate, that Jesus was like other humans. Also, like Perry (3.) and some other translators, I would take “and by sharing in human nature” to be the start of a new sentence which continues in v. 8.

[14] “By a perversion of justice he was taken away. Who could have imagined his future? For he was cut off from the land of the living, stricken for the transgression of my people.” (Isaiah 53:8)

[15] “he shall be exalted and lifted up, and shall be very high.” (Isaiah 52:13)

[16] Philippians 2:5-11, NET. This compressed and repetitive passage is plausibly seen as pre-composed, perhaps even a hymn which pre-dates Paul’s ministry. In the end an interpreter has no choice but to treat these as Paul’s words. In any case, its vocabulary is plausibly Pauline; nothing in it, despite its rare words and phrases, rules out Paul as the author. (Keown, Philippians 1:1-2:18, 353, 367.)

[17] Perry, “Philippians 2:5-11,” 3–4.

[18] Keown, Philippians 1:1-2:18, 387; Hellerman, “Morphe Theou,” 784–86.

[19] E.g. Romans 12:2 “Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed [metamorphousthe] by the renewing of your minds…”; 2 Corinthians 3:18 “And all of us, with unveiled faces, seeing the glory of the Lord as though reflected in a mirror, are being transformed [metamorphoumetha] into the same image from one degree of glory to another…”; Galatians 4:19 “My little children, for whom I am again in the pain of childbirth until Christ is formed [morphothe] in you…”

[20] Perry, “Philippians 2:5-11,” 7. Perry points out that according to John Jesus said that “He who has seen me has seen the Father.” (John 14:9) (Ibid.) The “seeing” here is obviously not normal sight (revealing that, e.g. like God Jesus is 5’8” tall) but rather perception of their inward resemblances such as character, wisdom, and intention. As Jesus says elsewhere in this book, his teaching comes from God and he and God are cooperating together in action. (John 14:10, 24)

[21] Matthew 3:17.

[22] Perry also observes, “Commentators who accept that morphe is about what is manifest for seeing maystill consider that the outward appearance is indicative of an inner reality and see an affirmation of Christ’s pre-existent deity. The problem with this interpretative strategy is that it is the man Christ Jesus who is the ‘form of God’, and so the deity which Jesus showed was that of the Father. The ‘form of God’ is what is shown if a human being perfectly fulfils being an ‘image of God’ (Gen 1:26). Thus, ‘form of God’ cannot be indicative of Christ’s own pre-existent deity. What could be seen in Christ was the Father, but this is not just a matter of accident; Paul’s two participles are set in contrast, ‘being…taking’ and ‘being in’ indicates that Christ had in his human nature, and the outworking of that nature, what could be seen about God. The origin of his human nature is explained by the Gospel birth stories, which Paul doesn’t recount. Instead, he has an emphasis on God making his son (Gal 4:4) and it is this making that explains how the Son is in the form of God; necessarily, there isn’t any idea of pre-existence.” (“Philippians 2:5-11,” 9.)

[23] And many interpreters, e.g. Hellerman, “Morphe Theou,” 788.

[24] And to the contrary, Hellerman plausibly argues that “A variety of sources specifically associates the idea of equality with God with the position of a king or emperor, using language similar to Paul’s. And given the centrality of the imperial cult in the social and religious life of the colony at Philippi, it is quite likely that Paul has emperor veneration directly in view in einai isa theo [“to be equal with God”] in Phil 2:6. …the ruler-to-god comparison relates to status, honor, and/or the exercise of authority – not to substance or essential nature. (788–89.) He goes on to cite examples from three second-century sources. He also points out the contrary term in the context “form of a servant/slave,” arguably should be understood in the same ontological or non-ontological sense as “form of God.” Finally, he offers a garment-based argument, which in my view is unconvincing. (“Philippians 2:5-11,” sec. 5.)

[25] See the discussion in Perry, “Philippians 2:5-11,” sec. 3.

[26] I own this insight to Dustin Smith. (Smith, “Biblical Unitarian Podcast 13”; Tuggy and Smith, “Trinities Podcast 268.”)

[27] Philippians 3:4-11.

[28] Philippians 3:15-21.

[29] Philippians 2:25-30. Paul’s colleague Timothy too is held up as a model servant, although no loss or peril is mentioned in connection with him. (Philippians 2:19-23) (Keown, Philippians 1:1-2:18, 375–76.)

[30] In the gospels, self-sacrificing service and humility instead of self-aggrandizement are Jesus’s normal way. We could cite his successful resistance of Satan’s temptations, his foot-washing, and his refusals to defend himself against his accusers, all of which would involve his not taking advantage of his high position as God’s Messiah and beloved Son.

[31] “My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from me; yet not what I want but what you want.” (Matthew 25:39; also: Mark 14:36, Luke 22:42.)

[32] Matthew 26:52-54.

[33] Which scriptures? Plausibly these would include the passage Paul has in mind here: Isaiah 52-53. Perry also reads the unusual phrase in v. 7, which he would translate as “being found in appearance as (a) man,” as “Paul’s euphemism for the stripping naked of Christ,” citing Matthew 27:28. (“Philippians 2:5-11,” 20–21.).

[34] Notice that Paul doesn’t in any way hint that Jesus is returning to an exalted state, or that he is worshiped because he is divine. Rather, he is exalted because of his faithful obedience, and he is worshiped because of the position he’s been given, to the glory of God.

[35] Compare: 1 Corinthians 15; Revelation 3:18-22.