{"id":41555,"date":"2019-07-31T23:44:29","date_gmt":"2019-08-01T03:44:29","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/?p=41555"},"modified":"2021-03-22T17:06:48","modified_gmt":"2021-03-22T22:06:48","slug":"a-reading-of-philippians-25-11","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/a-reading-of-philippians-25-11\/","title":{"rendered":"a reading of Philippians 2:5-11"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

This exposition was originally written as part of my rebuttal in my debate book with Chris Date, <\/strong><\/em>Jesus is Human and Not Divine<\/a><\/strong>. 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:<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

I will now explain how I now understand the much-contested Philippians 2.[1]<\/a> Many see <\/strong>Philippians 2 as portraying the descent of a heavenly, divine Person to become also human. I side with those <\/strong>scholars who think this passage is about Jesus, the man \u2013 not a godman or a god or a divine Person \u2013 and his obedience to God during his earthly life.[2]<\/a> <\/p>\n\n\n\n

We should keep in mind some relevant and undeniable facts<\/strong>. First, the event which so many interpreters claim to find here (a divine Person becoming also human) is not a clear theme in Paul\u2019s writings. The closest parallel in Paul\u2019s surviving letters is 2 Corinthians 8:1-15, where he is encouraging his readers to be generous with their money.[3]<\/a>  Nothing in this passage\u2019s context suggests that the sacrifice in question was before his human life. This should make us wonder whether Paul\u2019s point in Philippians 2 might be understood without appealing to a hypothesized pre-human stage of Jesus\u2019s life; the man \u201cChrist Jesus\u201d is mentioned, but<\/strong> there is no clear reference here to any eternal divine Person. Second, just as in 2 Corinthians 8, Paul\u2019s point in Philippians 2 is practical, and does not obviously involve the metaphysics of Christ\u2019s \u201cnatures.\u201d[4]<\/a> Jesus\u2019s humble, self-sacrificing obedience is introduced as illustrating the \u201cmind\u201d (v. 5) that Paul wants his audience to obtain. Third, for nearly all of us, there is nothing in our experience<\/strong> much like the hypothesized decision of the pre-human Jesus to empty himself of something[5]<\/a> so as to become human. On the other hand, Jesus\u2019s earthly career, as portrayed in the gospels, provides many points of contact with our experiences.[6]<\/a> In sum, we should wonder whether instead of being a remarkable one-off in Paul\u2019s 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. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

I have defended one such reading elsewhere.[7]<\/a> But after more study, I now think there is a more compelling reading<\/strong>. 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]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

5 You should have the same attitude toward one another that Christ Jesus had,<\/p>

6 who though he existed[9]<\/a> in the form of God[10]<\/a> <\/p>

did not regard equality with God as something to be grasped,[11]<\/a><\/p>

7 but emptied himself[12]<\/a><\/p>

by taking on the form of a slave,<\/p>

by looking like other men<\/p>

and by sharing in human nature.[13]<\/a><\/p>

8 He humbled himself,<\/p>

by becoming obedient to the point of death[14]<\/a><\/p>

\u2013 even death on a cross<\/p>

9 As a result God highly exalted him[15]<\/a><\/p>

and gave him the name<\/p>

that is above every name,<\/p>

10 so that at the name of Jesus<\/p>

every knee will bow<\/p>

\u2013 in heaven and on earth and under the earth \u2013<\/p>

11 and every tongue confess<\/p>

that Jesus Christ is Lord<\/p>

to the glory of God the Father.[16]<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n\n

\u201cForm of God\u201d (<\/strong>morphe theou<\/strong><\/em>)<\/strong> is a unique phrase in the New Testament; it is plausible that it was composed to make a pair with \u201cform of a slave\/servant.\u201d[17]<\/a> In a philosophical context morphe<\/em> can mean essential nature, but generally it has to do with observable features.[18]<\/a> More broadly, it can refer to a condition which isn\u2019t<\/em> directly observed. And we know that Paul uses related terms to refer to moral character.[19]<\/a> Here the \u201cform of God\u201d is plausibly understood as<\/strong> Jesus\u2019s God-like \u201cmanner, demeanor, and behaviour,\u201d[20]<\/a> or I would suggest, his godly character from which these flowed. Another unseen condition was that Jesus was God\u2019s 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]<\/a> This \u201cform of God\u201d couldn\u2019t be the essence divinity, because <\/strong>this one died (v.8), whereas divinity was understood to imply essential immortality, as I showed above.[22]<\/a> <\/p>\n\n\n\n

            I agree with Date[23]<\/a> that \u201cform of God\u201d and \u201cequality with God\u201d are meant here as two descriptions of the same state<\/strong>. My opponent offers no reason, though, why \u201cequality with God\u201d must be taken in a metaphysical sense (i.e. equal in respect of essence\/nature).[24]<\/a> I also agree with many recent scholars that harpagmon <\/em>in v. 6 is best understood as meaning \u201csomething to be exploited.\u201d<\/strong> This has been much <\/em>contested,[25]<\/a> and the major translations are divided, but for me the most weighty consideration is not lexical but rather making sense of Paul\u2019s 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 <\/strong>in favor of self-sacrificial service to others:[26]<\/a> Paul himself, who lays aside his accomplishments as a Pharisee in order to imitate Jesus\u2019s suffering and death,[27]<\/a> the believers at Philippi who should lay aside their privileges as Roman citizens in order to embrace their \u201ccitizenship in\u2026 heaven,\u201d[28]<\/a> and perhaps also Paul\u2019s 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]<\/a> 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

            On the reading I\u2019m arguing for here, Paul has in mind Jesus\u2019s earthly obedience to God<\/strong>, 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\u2019s humiliation is his terrible death on the cross (v. 8), so we would naturally look prior to this in Jesus\u2019s earthly life for something Paul could have in mind in v. 7 \u2013 not to an unmentioned \u201cpre-existence\u201d as a \u201cdivine Person\u201d who is not a man. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"Painting<\/a><\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n\n

Two incidents immediately come to mind<\/strong>.[30]<\/a> First, Jesus prays to God in the garden, asking \u2013 but not demanding \u2013 to be spared from this terrible death.[31]<\/a> Did Jesus, as God\u2019s 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\u2019t say<\/em> 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\u2019s arrest.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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]<\/a>          <\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Here Jesus seems to imply that he has the right to ask God for an angelic rescue<\/strong>, 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\u2019s will.[33]<\/a> <\/p>\n\n\n\n

In sum, Paul picks an example that is relevant to his readers\u2019 lives<\/strong>: the sacrificial, humble, other-preferring obedience of the man Jesus. In response to this obedience God raised and exalted him,[34]<\/a> and the reader is to remember that we too will be raised and exalted,[35]<\/a> if we persevere in the faithful, self-sacrificing obedience.
<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

[1]<\/a> I do this to demonstrate my commitment to New Testament teaching,\nas it was originally meant (not necessarily how it\u2019s been interpreted by later\ntraditions), even though it is not relevant to this debate, since even on my\nopponent\u2019s reading, it falls far short of his desired conclusion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[2]<\/a> While many\nEnglish-speaking evangelicals associate this sort of reading with James Dunn (Christology\nin the Making<\/em>, 114\u201321; The Theology of Paul the\nApostle<\/em>, 281\u201388.), such readings have been held by\nmany recent scholars, both Catholic and Protestant. (Kuschel,\nBorn Before All Time<\/em>, 243\u201366.) These have independently arrived\nat readings broadly similar to those which many early modern unitarian\nChristians held. (e.g. Farley,\nUnitarianism Defined<\/em>, 107\u20138; Crellius et al., The Racovian Catechism<\/em>,\n119\u201321.) Date gives the impression that\nthis sort of Jesus\u2019s-earthly-life reading has been decisively ruled out, but\nthis is not so.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[3]<\/a> \u201c\u2026though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, so that by\nhis poverty you might become rich.\u201d (2 Corinthians 8:9.) Jesus\u2019s literal wealth\nand poverty are not the issue here, but rather his example in graciously giving\nup something, presumably his life, when he willingly went to the cross.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[4]<\/a> His overarching point is the exhortation to \u201cDo nothing from\nselfish ambition or conceit, but in humility regard others as better than\nyourselves.\u201d (Philippians 2:3)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[5]<\/a> Heavenly glory? Divine prerogatives? Typical but not essential\ndivine attributes? The exercise of divine attributes? Commenters who take the\npassage to be about Incarnation are divided here.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[6]<\/a> Like him, many of us are tested by the death of a friend, family\ntroubles, various temptations, persecution, or clashes between what we desire\nand what we believe to be God\u2019s will for us. Some of us even face a choice\nbetween disobedience and death.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[7]<\/a> \u201cTrinities\nPodcast 49.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[8]<\/a> As Date points out, some scholars reject any reference to Adam in\nthis passage (e.g. Fee, Pauline Christology<\/em>, 376, 390\u201393.) I agree with\nmany other commenters who see some allusions to Adam here, despite the lack of\ncommon words with the known Greek versions of Genesis. But nothing in the reading\nI present here depends on any allusion or reference to Adam in the passage.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[9]<\/a> As Perry\npoints out, \u201cbeing\u201d is a better translation here. (\u201cPhilippians\n2:5-11,\u201d 5.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[10]<\/a> \u201cMy servant\u201d (Isaiah 52:13); \u201cThe righteous one\u201d (Isaiah 53:11).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[11]<\/a> I think\n\u201csomething to be exploited\u201d makes more sense, for the reason given below.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[12]<\/a> \u201che poured\nout himself to death\u201d (Isaiah 53:12).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[13]<\/a> The NET translators observe that literally this line is \u201cand by\nbeing found in form as a man.\u201d I think \u201cby sharing human nature\u201d is a translation mistake; Paul is not\nmaking the point that Jesus (the man!) somehow gained human nature when he\nemptied himself. Rather, the point is that in this humble state he shared the\ntypical human condition, or at any rate, that Jesus was like other humans. Also,\nlike Perry (3.) and some other translators, I would take \u201cand by sharing in\nhuman nature\u201d to be the start of a new sentence which continues in v. 8. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

[14]<\/a> \u201cBy a perversion of justice he was taken away. Who could have\nimagined his future? For he was cut off from the land of the living, stricken\nfor the transgression of my people.\u201d (Isaiah 53:8)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[15]<\/a> \u201che shall\nbe exalted and lifted up, and shall be very high.\u201d (Isaiah 52:13)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[16]<\/a> Philippians\n2:5-11, NET. This compressed and repetitive passage is plausibly seen as\npre-composed, perhaps even a hymn which pre-dates Paul\u2019s ministry. In the end\nan interpreter has no choice but to treat these as Paul\u2019s words. In any case,\nits vocabulary is plausibly Pauline; nothing in it, despite its rare words and\nphrases, rules out Paul as the author. (Keown, Philippians 1:1-2:18<\/em>, 353, 367.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[17]<\/a> Perry,\n\u201cPhilippians 2:5-11,\u201d 3\u20134.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[18]<\/a> Keown,\nPhilippians 1:1-2:18<\/em>, 387; Hellerman, \u201cMorphe Theou<\/em>,\u201d 784\u201386.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[19]<\/a> E.g. Romans\n12:2 \u201cDo not be conformed to this world, but be transformed [metamorphousthe<\/em>]\nby the renewing of your minds\u2026\u201d; 2 Corinthians 3:18 \u201cAnd all of us, with\nunveiled faces, seeing the glory of the Lord as though reflected in a mirror,\nare being transformed [metamorphoumetha<\/em>] into the same image from one\ndegree of glory to another\u2026\u201d; Galatians 4:19 \u201cMy little children, for whom I am\nagain in the pain of childbirth until Christ is formed [morphothe<\/em>] in\nyou\u2026\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n

[20]<\/a> Perry,\n\u201cPhilippians 2:5-11,\u201d 7. Perry\npoints out that according to John Jesus said that \u201cHe who has seen me has seen\nthe Father.\u201d (John 14:9) (Ibid.) The \u201cseeing\u201d here is obviously not normal sight\n(revealing that, e.g. like God Jesus is 5\u20198\u201d tall) but rather perception of\ntheir inward resemblances such as character, wisdom, and intention. As Jesus\nsays elsewhere in this book, his teaching comes from God and he and God are\ncooperating together in action. (John 14:10, 24) <\/p>\n\n\n\n

[21]<\/a> Matthew 3:17.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[22]<\/a> Perry also observes, \u201cCommentators who accept that morphe<\/em> 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\u2019s pre-existent deity. The problem with this interpretative strategy is that it is the man Christ Jesus who is the \u2018form of God\u2019, and so the deity which Jesus showed was that of the Father. The \u2018form of God\u2019 is what is shown if a human being perfectly fulfils being an \u2018image of God\u2019 (Gen 1:26). Thus, \u2018form of God\u2019 cannot be indicative of Christ\u2019s own pre-existent deity. What could be seen in Christ was the Father, but this is not just a matter of accident; Paul\u2019s two participles are set in contrast, \u2018being\u2026taking\u2019 and \u2018being in\u2019 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\u2019t 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\u2019t any idea of pre-existence.\u201d (\u201cPhilippians 2:5-11,\u201d 9.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[23]<\/a> And many interpreters, e.g. Hellerman,\n\u201cMorphe Theou<\/em>,\u201d 788.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[24]<\/a> And to the contrary, Hellerman plausibly argues that \u201cA variety of\nsources specifically associates the idea of equality with God with the position\nof a king or emperor, using language similar to Paul\u2019s. And given the\ncentrality of the imperial cult in the social and religious life of the colony\nat Philippi, it is quite likely that Paul has emperor veneration directly in\nview in einai isa theo<\/em> [\u201cto be equal with God\u201d] in Phil 2:6. …the\nruler-to-god comparison relates to status, honor, and\/or the exercise of\nauthority \u2013 not to substance or essential nature. (788\u201389.) He goes on to cite examples from three second-century sources. He\nalso points out the contrary term in the context \u201cform of a servant\/slave,\u201d\narguably should be understood in the same ontological or non-ontological sense\nas \u201cform of God.\u201d Finally, he offers a garment-based argument, which in my view\nis unconvincing. (\u201cPhilippians\n2:5-11,\u201d sec. 5.) <\/p>\n\n\n\n

[25]<\/a> See the discussion in Perry,\n\u201cPhilippians 2:5-11,\u201d sec. 3.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[26]<\/a> I own this\ninsight to Dustin Smith. (Smith,\n\u201cBiblical Unitarian Podcast 13\u201d; Tuggy and Smith, \u201cTrinities Podcast 268.\u201d)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[27]<\/a> Philippians 3:4-11.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[28]<\/a> Philippians 3:15-21.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[29]<\/a> Philippians\n2:25-30. Paul\u2019s colleague Timothy too is held up as a model servant, although\nno loss or peril is mentioned in connection with him. (Philippians 2:19-23) (Keown,\nPhilippians 1:1-2:18<\/em>, 375\u201376.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[30]<\/a> In the gospels, self-sacrificing service and humility instead of\nself-aggrandizement are Jesus\u2019s normal way. We could cite his successful\nresistance of Satan\u2019s temptations, his foot-washing, and his refusals to defend\nhimself against his accusers, all of which would involve his not taking\nadvantage of his high position as God\u2019s Messiah and beloved Son.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[31]<\/a> \u201cMy Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from me; yet not\nwhat I want but what you want.\u201d (Matthew 25:39; also: Mark 14:36, Luke 22:42.) <\/p>\n\n\n\n

[32]<\/a> Matthew 26:52-54.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[33]<\/a> Which scriptures? Plausibly\nthese would include the passage Paul has in mind here: Isaiah 52-53. Perry also\nreads the unusual phrase in v. 7, which he would translate as \u201cbeing found in\nappearance as (a) man,\u201d as \u201cPaul\u2019s euphemism for the stripping naked of\nChrist,\u201d citing Matthew 27:28. (\u201cPhilippians\n2:5-11,\u201d 20\u201321.).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[34]<\/a> Notice that Paul doesn\u2019t in any way hint that Jesus is returning to\nan exalted state, or that he is worshiped because he is divine. Rather, he is\nexalted because of his faithful obedience, and he is worshiped because of the\nposition he\u2019s been given, to the glory of God.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[35]<\/a> Compare: 1 Corinthians 15; Revelation 3:18-22.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

It’s about the man Jesus, not about the eternal Logos.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":41557,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"neve_meta_sidebar":"","neve_meta_container":"","neve_meta_enable_content_width":"","neve_meta_content_width":70,"neve_meta_title_alignment":"","neve_meta_author_avatar":"","neve_post_elements_order":"","neve_meta_disable_header":"","neve_meta_disable_footer":"","neve_meta_disable_title":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[37,21,16,15,54,33,43],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-41555","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-apologetics","category-bible","category-books","category-christology","category-debates","category-incarnation","category-unitarianism"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/41555","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=41555"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"https:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/41555\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":43159,"href":"https:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/41555\/revisions\/43159"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/41557"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=41555"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=41555"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=41555"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}