Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Subscribe: Spotify | Email | RSS
In Philippians 2 Paul famously holds up Jesus as an example because he traded the “form of God” for the “form of a slave.” Is he here, as many readers think, describing an eternal divine Person who decides to become human and be born on the earth? Or is Paul rather praising Jesus’s humility as shown in his earthly ministry?
In this episode we take a deep dive into this passage with Dr. Dustin Smith, host of The Biblical Unitarian Podcast.
I think the sort of reading explained here is on the whole better than the one I defended in podcast 49.
Passages discussed include: Philippians 2; Philippians 3:4-11; Philippians 3:15-21; Philippians 3:25-30; 2 Corinthians 8:9; Galatians 4:19; 2 Timothy 3:5; Isaiah 52:13-53:12; Genesis 1:26-27; Genesis 3:6-8; Psalm 8; Romans 5:12-21; Romans 8:3; 1 Corinthians 15:25-28; Matthew 28:18; Zechariah 12.
Links for this episode
- Allegiance to the King
- The Biblical Unitarian podcast: episodes on Philippians 2
- podcast 119 – The Son of God 3 – Dr. Dustin Smith’s “Socinian” view of Jesus
- podcast 49 – 2 interpretations of Philippians 2 – part 2
- James Dunn, Christology in the Making
- Philippians 2 Greek-English Interlinear
- harpagmon; morphe; eikon; genomenos; doulou
- podcast 227 – Who Should Christians Worship?
- This week’s thinking music is “Hidden Blues” by Pitx.
Paul knows how to say Adam and he didn’t. Paul wrote a letter that didn’t need a team of philosophers to decode. When the Master serves and appears among his subjects as a servant in order to serve, that is humility. The relations contrasted are master /slave and God /man. The form of Master (God) is “all authority in heaven, on earth and under the earth.” An amazing case of simple and plain language from Paul, the master logician.
Hello Dr. Tuggy,
Is there any reason why you guys read from the NRSV in this episode?
Thank you
Not really. It does avoid some mistakes of other translations here, but is not perfect. I tend to default to it because (1) it is a sort of standard in English-language academic work, and (relatedly) (2) because it tends to be a bit more literal, and to make fewer bold choices (and fewer mistakes) than other translations. Also, (3) it is less theologically partisan than many evangelical-originated versions, e.g. ESV, NIV, NLT. But again, it is neither perfect nor clearly the best overall.
Comments are closed.