Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Subscribe: Spotify | Email | RSS
Does Paul’s letter to the Philippians, chapter 2 teach that Jesus is God himself, and that at certain point in time about 2,000 years ago, Jesus became a man, letting go of his equality with God, and thereby divesting himself of his glory, or the use of his attributes, to become a human like us, but obedient to the point of death?
In this episode we hear this interpretation, as preached by Dr. Timothy J. Keller, author and pastor of the Redeemer Presbyterian Church in New York City, in his sermon “Imitating the Incarnation.”
I lodge some objections against this interpretation, focusing on the passage’s theology, and on the meaning of two crucial Greek terms.
Next week, I’ll present a different understanding of what Paul means in this famous passage.
The commanding voice of Paul in this and previous episodes is Mr. Dominick Baldwin of Industry Audio. Be sure to contact him if your business or church is looking for an impressive voiceover.
You can also listen to this episode on Stitcher or iTunes (please subscribe, rate, and review us in either or both – directions here). It is also available on YouTube (scroll down – you can subscribe here). If you would like to upload audio feedback for possible inclusion in a future episode of this podcast, put the audio file here.
You can support the trinities podcast by ordering anything through Amazon.com after clicking through one of our links. We get a small % of your purchase, even though your price is not increased. (If you see “trinities” in you url while at Amazon, then we’ll get it.)
Hi,
I’m getting to these Philippians podcasts a little late for the initial conversation here.
I think it’s likely that Paul was using MORFH (“form” of God) in Philippians 2:6 to refer to “the glorious body” (Philippians 3:21) that Jesus Christ after he was resurrected and exalted (Philippians 2:9-11).
It’s evident in Philippians 2:7-8 that MORFE was being used synonymously with the words for “likeness” and “appearance” (which usually also refer to the observable outward form of someone or something).
This is also supported by Paul’s use of the Present Active Participle of ‘UPARXW (“existing”) when he refers to the time that Jesus is “in the form of God.” This could certainly be taken as a reference to the glorious appearance that Jesus had assumed after his ascension (which characterized Jesus at the time that Paul was writing the letter, Philippians 3:21).
Perhaps Paul was alluding to the way Jesus appeared to him at the time of his conversion which he described as “bright light” (Acts 22:8-11). Paul also spoke of the “unapproachable light” that characterized the place where God dwells (1 Timothy 6:16). Presumably, Jesus was dwelling there with God after he went away (John 14:2-3).
Hello again, Lee,
You had said:
“…Burke’s 2001 Dallas Seminary thesis…provides a supportable alterative view that ‘form of god’ was not being anaphorically connected to ‘being equal to God’ by Paul.”
I agree, but I would go even further, i.e. it’s not just a supportable alternative, but his thesis helps one recognize that there’s little to no reason to believe that there is an anaphoric link between the two phrases in the subject text. Not only does Burk point out that there are many infinitives in the NT that are not anaphoric, he offers the following in relation to the accusative specifically:
“There are many non-anaphoric examples of the articular infinitive in the accusative case as well–indeed, many more than in the nominative case. In fact, it is difficult to construe an anaphoric reference for the majority of the accusative examples of this construction.” (The Meaning of HARPAGMOS in Philippians 2:6), p. 47
If Burk is correct here, then the burden to demonstrate an anaphoric link falls on the proponent of that view. This is esp. the case since, as Burk points out, “…most articular infinitives indeed to not denote anaphora…” (ibid, p. 49). N.T. Wright doesn’t satisfy that burden, as Burk demonstrates in his thesis. It might be possible for proponents of Wright’s view to meet their burden if the article were seemingly otherwise unnecessary, but, as Burk demonstrates, the article was critical for a reason that had nothing to do with anaphora. As he explains:
“…the grammatical context of the sentence requires the presence of the article in this particular infinitive phrase. If the article were not present in Philippians 2:6, the sentence would make little if any grammatical sense…the article is required in this context as a grammatical function marker to distinguish the accusative object from the accusative compliment.” (ibid, p. 50)
And
“In such reversed order situations where neither of the accusatives is a proper name or pronoun, the presence of the article is syntactically required in order to indicate which accusative is functioning as the object. Such is the case at Philippians 2:6.” (ibid, p. 52).
So, at Philippians 2:6, Paul *had to* include the article to indicate which accusative is functioning as the object. Is it possible that the article is doing double duty here, i.e. marking the object and establishing an anaphoric link between “form of God” and “equality/likeness with God”? Perhaps, but those who would insist that this is the case have the burden to prove it, and I have yet to see anyone rise to meet that burden.
Conclusion: Until compelling evidence is offered to suggest otherwise, we have no reason to assume that “form of God” and “equality/likeness with God” speak of the same reality. We can therefore embrace a translation of Philippians 2:6 that incorporates the best of Hoover’s argument (the grammatical/syntactical features of the double-accusative view), with a meaning of HARPAGMOS that comports with its cognates, e.g.:
“Although he existed in God’s form, he did not consider equality with God as something to be seized/grasped for…”
~Sean
@Lee:
I provided links to two of Denny Burk’s articles above, housed on different sites, i.e.:
*http://98.131.162.170/tynbul/library/TynBull_2004_55_2_06_Burk_ArticularInfinitivePhil2_6.pdf
*https://bible.org/article/meaning-philippians-26-overlooked-datum-functional-inequality-within-godhead
Hi Sean,
Certainly I can clarify. What I meant was, since he does not have an agenda or underlying theological reason to interpret the passage in a nontrinitarian sense, this adds credibility to his conclusion because he isn’t forcing some kind of theological grid on top of the text. Hence, the fact that a Trinitarian would interpret this passage in such a way means he must have a very good reason to do so, which makes it all the more persuasive.
Hi Aaron,
You said:
“The fact that he says in the beginning that his Christology is reflective of mainstream orthodoxy adds credibility to his stance.”
Can you clarify what you mean? I’m not sure how being orthodox or not orthodox “adds credibility” to an argument. Is it because you think his interpretation goes against what one might expect him to prefer as an “orthodox” interpreter?
Hi John,
My pleasure:-) This has been a subject of great interest to me for some time.
~Sean
Hellerman gives a very well detailed argument. The fact that he says in the beginning that his Christology is reflective of mainstream orthodoxy adds credibility to his stance. Good read. Thanks for the link!
Sean,
Thanks, that was useful.!
Blessings
John
Hellerman makes reference to Fabricatore’s book “Form of God, Form of a Servant” which rather convincingly disputes with Kellers 19th century based contention that Morphe means essence of nature. denny Burke’s 2001 Dallas Seminary thesis “The Meaning of Harpagmos in Philippians 2: 6”, provides a supportable alterative view that “form of god” was not being anaphorically connected to “being equal to God” by Paul. (was available through tren.com, but they have not updated their security certificate which belongs to a totally different company hence I’m skeptical of downloading from this compromised site (hacked, per google)
BTW, a new thesis about Philippians 2 by Gerard Majella Ellis has been made available here:
http://otago.ourarchive.ac.nz/handle/10523/120/browse?value=Ellis%2C+Gerard+Majella&type=author
Warning: Set aside some time to peruse this one, as it’s over 700 pages long, though you can get through the meaty parts by about page 296.
The author’s preferred translation is itself enough to pique one’s interest in what grammatical/linguistic justifications will be offered to support it:
“…who, being in truth as one in the image of God, did not consider being as one divine as something appropriate, but made himself of no repute.”
His paraphrase of the entire account goes like this:
…who–being in truth he in the form of God–
considered being as one divine as something not appropriate,
but made himself of no repute,
having taken upon himself the form of one who serves,
having become one among the community of men.
He was found to be human by what was evident about himself;
he abased himself, having become as one who was obedient,
even to the extreme of death, death on a cross.
For this reason God set him above all on high,
and bestowed upon him the name:
the name exceeding every name,
so that in the Name of Jesus there should in worship be
the bowing of every knee: of those who dwell in heaven,
of those who dwell on earth, and of those who dwell beneath;
and the making of the confession by their very tongue that
JESUS CHRIST IS LORD,
to the glory of God the Father
Dale
So sorry,
‘The subject of every verb in verses 5 – 9 is Christ.. while the subject of subsequent verses is ‘God’.
Blessings
John
Dale,
Your analysis of Philippians 2(Part 2) representsthe only ‘sane’ take on the subject. -yet deperate trinitarians continue to perform gymnastics and peddle the old nonsense.
I first became suspicious of the trinitarian analysis when I realised that the subject of every verb in verses 5-9 , while the subject of subsequent verses is ‘God’.
The scripture is talking about TWO ‘selves’
Blessings
John
Hi Aaron,
One of the problems with taking MORFHi QEOU substantially was addressed by Joseph Hellerman, which I quoted above. How do you understand the function of hARPAGMON in this context? Do you side with Denny Burk and Dan Wallace (see [1] and [2] below) against N.T. Wright and others vis a vis the function of the articular infinitive? In other words, to you deny an anaphoric link between MORFHi QEOU and EINAI ISA QEWi, which then allows one to understand the ‘equality or likeness with God’ to refer to a different reality than what is assumed for MORPHi QEOU? This opens up the potential for understanding hARPAGMON to mean “seized” or “grasped for”, which comports with the word’s cognates, but which wouldn’t make sense if MORFHi QEOU and EINAI ISA QEWi refer to the same reality (i.e. one doesn’t attempt to “seize” or “grasp for” equality one already possesses).
Regarding Psalm 82, I don’t think this interpretative situation really helps here. At Psalm 82 the author is not deliberately developing a literary correspondence between one God, i.e. ELOHIM, which is used as a plural of majesty for a single referent, and the other ELOHIM, which is used as a simple plural for a group of “gods”. So, yes, the same word is used differently, but the difference is contextually necessary and there’s no literary devise being employed that might be understood to suggest correspondence in meaning.
I don’t think the different senses proposed for QEOS at John 1:1 really help either, because they are considered contextually and/or theologically and/or grammatically necessary by their various proponents. Ironically, Trinitarians are among the folks who argue most emphatically for understanding QEOS differently at John 1:1c, and Paul Dixon gave the game away by showing us all what the true motivation is for understanding QEOS “qualitatively”:
“The importance of this theses is clearly seen in the above example (John 1:1) where the doctrines of the deity of Christ and the Trinity are at stake. For, if the Word was ‘a god,’ then by implication there are other gods of which Jesus is one. On the other hand, if QEOS is just as definite as the articular construction following the verb because, ‘the dropping of the article…is simply a matter of word order,’ then the doctrine of the Trinity is denied.’” (The Significance of the Anarthrous Predicate Nominative in John), p. 2
So the two most natural understandings of John 1:1 are thought to be problematic by Dixon and others. It is assumed that understanding QEOS to be an indefinite noun (i.e. “The Word was a god”) implies polytheism, and that understanding QEOS to be a definite noun (i.e. “The Word was God”) “, denies the Trinity. Neither of these assumptions is valid. In pretty much all Jewish literature of the time, divine titles could be and were applied to agents of God without any implication that monotheism was thus in jeopardy. Calling an agent of God “God” or “a god” would therefore not be thought to suggest polytheism. Nor does calling the LOGOS “God” (definite) have the result that “the doctrine of the Trinity is denied.” All that results is a seeming paradox that cries out for interpretation. That Jesus is God but not the Father is one solution to the paradox. That Jesus is God representationally is another solution to the paradox. Which solution one chooses will depend on one’s presuppositions.
~Sean
*http://98.131.162.170/tynbul/library/TynBull_2004_55_2_06_Burk_ArticularInfinitivePhil2_6.pdf
*https://bible.org/article/meaning-philippians-26-overlooked-datum-functional-inequality-within-godhead
I think if we look at how we use the word “nature” and/or “form” when we speak today we might be able to get a sense as to whether or not Paul would have used the word “morphe” in 2 differing ways in this passage.
When you look at it and read it in English your mind has no trouble differentiating between the 2 natural senses of the word “nature” (or more literally “form”). I would even say that we do this all the time in English. “Jesus, being in very nature (essence) God…. took on the very nature (role) of a servant.” This is, I would say, a legitimate reading of the text.
So, I’m not saying that by any means seals the deal (far from it), but I don’t think it’s just ad hoc to say that the word is used with a certain semantic range just because the same word appears in 2 consecutive verses. After all, the Bible uses the word “theos” in the SAME verse (John 1:1) and certain groups and/or religions take it to mean 2 entirely different things. Or consider another example, in Psalm 82:1 where the word “elohim” appears twice and based on context and Hebrew grammar we are certain that the writer intended for us to understand these 2 occurrences of the word entirely differently.
Another possibility is that Paul is using the word “servant” here simply as a way of saying “human.” The whole of verse 7 says, “rather, he made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness…”
To me, Paul seems to be reiterating and even defining what he meant by the word “servant” here by saying that it means Jesus became a man. He took the form of a servant…how?…he took on a new essential nature, the nature of a man. In this case, we could even argue that the word “morphe” is essential in its usage by Paul in both verses.
Hi Greg,
There’s an interesting article by Joseph Hellerman that appeared in the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society (JETS) that you might find interesting, which can be read in PDF format, here:
http://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/52/52-4/JETS%2052-4%20779-797%20Hellerman.pdf
Like Dale, Hellerman feels that the correspondence between “form of God” and “form of a servant” decisively support taking the former non-substantially. It strike me as a compelling argument, but what I found particularly interesting is that Hellerman adopts the view of hARPAGMON that has become the majority view since Hoover’s article appeared in the Harvard Theological Review, and he argues that this view of hARPAGMON also supports taking “form of God” non-substantially. As he puts it:
“Given the meaning of [hARPAGMON] outlined above, it is somewhat difficult to discern how Christ could potentially have regarded his [OUSIA] or essential nature as ‘something to be exploited.’ How does one exploit one’s essence? The problem is immediately resolved by taking [EINAI ISA QEWi] (and, by extension, [MORFHi QEOU]) in a non-substantial sense, referring to rank or status. For it is quite easy to see how Christ could have regarded his position of power and prestige as ‘something to be exploited.’ And ‘position of power’ or ‘authority’ is precisely the way in which the idea ‘equality with God’ is used in several biblical and extrabiblical parallels” (ibid, p. 788)
~Sean
Hi Greg,
Thanks for the comment. Though I agree with all the steps in your argument except for (4), your analysis doesn’t really capture my argument.
No one thinks servanthood or slavehood is an essential nature. If there were a being like that, it’d be contradictory for it to lose that property, or to not have it. Of course, if you believe in properties, it may be one, and have necessary and sufficient conditions. Sure, if there’s such a thing as “servanthood,” then maybe it has an essence. But the issue is, how to take “form of a servant” here.
Thus, we should all agree, whatever our theology or christology, that in v. 7 “morphe” doesn’t mean essence or nature. It must mean a gainable and losable, non-essential property. So, Keller is just wrong in his assertion that morphe always means, or must in this passage always mean essence or nature.
More than that, it’d be strange if Paul used morphe in a metaphysical sense at the start of v. 6 and then again at the end of v.7 and in between used it in a looser sense, to just mean a condition or status, essential or not. It’s surely possible that Paul would do that, but it would be inept, and it is unlikely.
It’s just much more nature to take “morphe” in a non-metaphysically-loaded sense throughout. The ONLY reason I see to take it is a loaded sense in any of its occurrences here, is that one is over-eager to make a christological point. I say that’s ad hoc.
Hi Dale,
Let me begin by saying that your podcast is excellent! I’m very much enjoying it. That being said, I think your philosophical argument against the interpretation of Keller et al here is unsound. Simply put, your argument seems to be this:
(1) If a person can gain and/or lose servanthood without ceasing to exist then servanthood cannot be part of a persons nature.
(2) A person can gain and/or lose servanthood without ceasing to exist.
(3) So, servanthood cannot be part of a person’s nature.
(4) If servanthood cannot be part of a person’s nature then Keller et al must be mistaken in interpreting _morphe_ to mean “very nature.”
(5) So, Keller et al must be mistaken in interpreting _morphe_ to mean “very nature.”
The problem with your argument is premise (4). You seem to think that Keller et al mean to say that Jesus was by very nature God and by very nature a servant, i.e., that he was essentially God and essentially a servant. But I don’t think this is what they’re saying at all. I think you’ve got the first part right. They do seem to be saying Jesus is essentially God. However, I think you’ve got the second part wrong. They’re not saying that Jesus is essentially a servant. Rather, it seems to me that what they’re saying is that there is a nature/essence to servanthood, i.e., there are necessary and sufficient properties for being a servant, and Jesus had those properties for a bit of time. For as the NIV states, “Christ Jesus, who, _being_ in very nature God…made himself nothing, _taking_ the very nature _of_ a servant.” Notice that it doesn’t say “_being_ in very nature God…made himself nothing, _being_ in very nature a servant”, which is what it should say if the way you’re interpreting them is correct. Thus, it seems that for Keller et al the _“being”_ and _“taking…of”_ here are exegetically important. If this is right, then the interpretation of Keller et al is at least theoretically consistent and, thus, there’s no philosophical problem with rendering _morphe_ here as “very nature.” Right?
Cf. John Doe…_being_ in very nature human…turned 13 and snotty, _taking_ the very nature _of_ a teenager.
“Does Paul’s letter to the Philippians, chapter 2 teach that Jesus is God himself, and that at certain point in time about 2,000 years ago, Jesus became a man, letting go of his equality with God, and thereby divesting himself of his glory, or the use of his attributes, to become a human like us, but obedient to the point of death?”
I’m looking forward to your further comments on this. It seems to me that even if one accepts Hoover’s thesis regarding how verse 6 should be rendered (and his arguments are pretty compelling, though I still favor an alternative rendering by a slight margin), that doesn’t mean that Paul was teaching that the preincarnate one was God Himself. Indeed, the very anaphoric link between “morphe theou” and “to einai isa theoi” that is used to establish equality actually limits said equality/likeness to the the preincarnate one’s “form”. Whether one takes MORPHE as a reference to the stuff of which the preincarnate one is composed (he was “spirit” just as God is “spirit”) or to his appearance as one who reflects God’s glory, this verse doesn’t seem to be telling us that Jesus is God Himself.
Comments are closed.