BBI II-D #5 Philippians 2:5-8 & “Kenosis”
Philippians 2:5-8 provides a critical proof that Jesus literally preexisted as God’s divine Son before He “became in the likeness of men.” This passage, plus Colossians 1:15-20, and several from John are absolutely decisive as long as the interpreter sticks to the norms of lexical meanings of the Greek terms and the norms of the Greek grammar and syntax. Unfortunately, both modern Trinitarians and Unitarians fudge in this regard in order to prop up their theology, both denying what Paul’s “kenosis” (self-emptying). Paul’s language requires a complete transformation of the Son from a divine being to a human being which is incompatible with Trinitarianism’s Platonic “Hypostatic Union” (2 simultaneous natures). His language also absolutely requires that Christ existed as a conscious divine being before He “emptied Himself … becoming in the likeness of men,” contradicting Biblical Unitarianism.
Go to: BBI II-D #6 Preexistence & “Kenosis” in the Earliest Christian Writings
23 thoughts on “BBI II-D #5 Philippians 2:5-8 & “Kenosis””
Hello Tim,
The most basic, and fundamental gloss of the term μορφῇ has to do with that which strikes the vision, so to define this term was “status/roles” would seemingly need to retain that gloss unless there exists some example of this term being used figuratively without it. I am comfortable with the idea here being “status/roles”, but I believe we should include that He was recognizably in that status/role.
One might ask, how is it that Jesus was recognizably God. Remember when John was in prison, and he began to question, sending disciples to ask Jesus, “Are You the Coming One, or do we look for another?” Jesus answered, “Go and tell John the things which you hear and see: [The] blind see and [the] lame walk; [the] lepers are cleansed and [the] deaf hear; [the] dead are raised up and [the] poor have the gospel preached to them (Mat 11.4-5).” Messiah was to be recognized by the things He said and did.
Our Master Jesus was also recognized with the status/role of God by the things He both did and said. Jesus told Philip, “he that has seen Me has seen the Father (Jhn 14.9).” This did not mean that the Father looked like a 30ish year old Israelite, but that God was recognized by the words and works of Jesus, as finally recognized by Thomas, “my Lord and my God (Jhn 20.28)!”
Jesus was also recognizably a servant and said so, “the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many (Mat 20.28).
Just some thoughts,
Michael
I agree that “morphe” implies something visible and recognizable. Since Christ took “the form of a servant,” this would require observing more than just a static outward appearance as a human being. A servant would be recognized by observing him in his role, performing his duties.
The juxtaposed clause “in the form of God” describes the Son’s “morphe” prior to the incarnation. IMO, this is a reference to the Messenger of Yahweh who was seen acting in the role of God as His Agent. This is parallel to Paul statement in Col. 1:15 “He is the image of the invisible God.” Again, “eikon” (image) implies what can be observed, a likeness.
However, in vs. 8 the clause, “And being found in appearance as a man” the verb “schema” seems to imply more than merely an outward appearance, including the nature and essence of a thing as can be determined by all available means. I think this is the thought John indicated in 1 Jn. 1:1-3 when he said that the Apostles had seen, heard, and handled the “Logos of Life,” so as to testify that He was indeed fully human in every way.
Tim,
What in your opinion, demands “ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ” to be descriptive of the pre-incarnate Son, and not the incarnate Son? The reference to “εἰκὼν τοῦ θεοῦ” in Col 1.15 does not demand such, as “εἰκόνα θεοῦ” is the same terminology used of Adam’s creation in Gen 1.27. Adam was also described as being made after the “ὁμοίωσιν” (Gen 1.26), a similar noun as that found in Phil 2.7, but the same noun used by James on men being made likeness of God (3.9). If the Colossians passages is speaking of the incarnate Son of God, this would seem to allow the contexts of this and Col 2.9 to harmonize well in meaning, as both speak of Jesus as being the “πλήρωμα” (1.19; 2.9).
Thank you,
Michael
Tim,
I would like to for now, ignore my comment above concerning Adam being made “ὁμοίωσιν”, as I have not looked closely enough to its distinction from “ὁμοίωμα”. Regardless, it does not add nor take away from the question I pose being, “What in your opinion, demands “ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ” to be descriptive of the pre-incarnate Son, and not the incarnate Son? The reference to “εἰκὼν τοῦ θεοῦ” in Col 1.15 does not demand such, as “εἰκόνα θεοῦ” is the same terminology used of Adam’s creation in (Gen 1.27).”
Concerning “ὁμοίωσιν” and “ὁμοίωμα”, I am aware of the distinction of many of the Nicene period did draw, but I doubt to ever really know if they were merely post hoc rationalizations to stand against Arius or not.
Thank you,
Michael
Michael,
The grammar requires it. Verses 6 & 7 are two different sentences, each having an indicative verb in an independent clause. The two sentences are separated by the contrasting conjunction “but.”
The first sentence (v. 6) describes a state of being –“being (present participle) in the form of God” during which the action of the indicative verb occurred: “CONSIDERED (aorist indicative) equality with God a thing not to be grasped.”
The second sentence (v. 7) has the independent clause, “But emptied (aorist indicative) Himself.” This is immediately followed by two adverbial aorist participle clauses, “taking the form of a servant” and “BECOMING in the likeness of men.” The adverbial participle clauses occur immediately upon His “emptying Himself,” which is required by their aorist tense which is the same as the aorist of the indicative verb. As adverbial clauses, they modify the action of the indicative verb “emptied.”
Therefore, the pivotal point in time in this passage is the historical event in which He “emptied Himself.” Prior to that He was “in the form of God” while He contemplated His “equality with God.” Yet, at the point in time when He “emptied Himself,” resulting in His “BECOMMING (ginomai) in the likeness of men,” it follows that HE was NOT “in the likeness of men” before He “emptied Himself,” when He was “in the form of God.”
The key to this passage is in recognizing that “becoming in the likeness of men” is juxtaposed with “equality with God,” and that it requires that He was not “in the likeness of men” before He “emptied Himself” after contemplating His “equality with God.” This refers to a change in ontological nature just as in John 1L14, “and the Word BECAME flesh …”
For this reason this passage proves preexistence, because He existed “in the form of God’ BEFORE “becoming in the likeness of men.”
Tim,
In verse 6, “being in the form of God”, the present participle means that the timing of this “being” is contemporaneous to the timing of the main verbs (“considered” & “emptied”). It only means that at the time of “considering” & “emptied”, Jesus was “in the form of God”. This does not help answer the question of this timing as either pre-incarnate or incarnate. The adverbial dependent clause, “taking the form of a servant”, being an aorist participle is typically antecedent in time to the main verb, unless the main verb is also aorist, then it may be contemporaneous to the timing of the main verb. So far, the grammar only requires that, at the time of “contemplating” and “emptied”, Jesus was “in the form of God” and upon “emptied”, He “took the form of a servant”. Still not answering the timing of pre-incarnate or incarnate. On v6 & v7 being two sentences, I view them as certainly containing two independent clauses, but being a single complex sentence connected with the coordinating conjunction, “ἀλλά”, as you have translated it in the LGV.
Finally, you include a second clause, “being made in the likeness of men” as a dependent clause adverbially modifying “emptied”, but outside of the invention of Etienne’s verses which includes this dependent clause in verse 7, what of the grammar demands its connection to “emptied” and not “suppressed” v8?
If “being made in the likeness of men” is a dependent clause connected by the coordinating conjunction “καί” to the dependent clause “being found in fashion as man”, which seems likely due to the subject matter of both clauses, then both would be connected to the independent clause, “suppressed Himself”, removing a potential juxtaposition between “equal with God” and “likeness of men” which seems a bit forced, the grammar may allow it, to my understanding, does not require it.
This would then set the timing of the two dependent clauses as contemporaneous to the timing of the main verb, “suppressed,” meaning that when Jesus suppressed Himself, He was a man.
Thank you,
Michael
Michael,
Thanks for the challenge. 🙂
First, note that the two adverbial aorist participle clauses μορφὴν δούλου λαβών (form of a servant taking) & ἐν ὁμοιώματι ἀνθρώπων γενόμενος (in likeness of human becoming) are NOT separated by καὶ (and), but are placed in apposition, which is partly why the Nestle – Aland 28 text puts a period after this second clause showing the end of a sentence. Verse 8 then begins with καὶ (and) which traditionally begins a new thought. If the second clause was modifying the aorist indicative verb ἐταπείνωσεν (He humbled), we would expect καὶ (and) to be after the clause “the form of a servant taking,” thus beginning a new thought as follows: “AND becoming in the likeness of a human, being found in fashion as a man …”.
Second, the meaning of the second clause ἐν ὁμοιώματι ἀνθρώπων γενόμενος (in likeness of human becoming) itself requires a change to humanity. If He was already human He could not BECOME human. This clause must mark the “incarnation” when the Word became flesh.
Third, if the adverbial participle clause ἐν ὁμοιώματι ἀνθρώπων γενόμενος (in likeness of human becoming) was modifying the aorist indicative verb ἐταπείνωσεν (He humbled), then we would have a redundant clause as follows: ἐν ὁμοιώματι ἀνθρώπων γενόμενος (in the likeness of HUMAN becoming) & σχήματι εὑρεθεὶς ὡς ἄνθρωπος (being found in scheme as HUMAN). Note the use of ἄνθρωπος (human) twice rather than the usual term for an adult male – ἀνὴρ.
Fourth, the exegete must also take into account that Paul’s letter to the Philippians instructs them to have the same “mind” of Christ which was demonstrated in the actions He took in these verses. Also, the fact that the two actions described are both aorist indicative verbs indicates they were historical events. In order to “Let this mind be in you that was also in Christ Jesus” one must be able to easily identify the two historical actions which flowed from this “mind” based on prior teaching. It is easy to identify the second historical action when Christ “humbled Himself and became obedient unto death.” This occurred in the Garden of Gethsemane when He said, “Not My will but Yours be done.” But, if one punctuates the verses as you suggest, what historical event in Jesus’ HUMAN life fits the clause, “BECOMING in the likeness of a human?”
So aside from the questions of grammar and syntax, my question to anyone attempting to punctuate the verses as you suggest would be this: What event in Jesus’ human life was Paul referring to when He said that Jesus “emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant?” He was born in a stable, and as a human was always in a lowly position. Also, when in Jesus’ human life did He BECOME human?
Hello Tim,
To your second point:
I propose that the phrase “ἐν ὁμοιώματι ἀνθρώπων γενόμενος” can imply a preincarnational understanding, but this implication is implicit. Paul employs the aorist participle “γενόμενος”, a verbal form that does not emphasize the specific time of the change but simply indicates that the change occurred. If we translate “γενόμενος” as “BECOMING,” the aorist nuance is diminished, and this rendering more resembles the sense of a present participle.
The aorist focus of “γενόμενος” is better captured as “being” if its action is contemporaneous with the main verb, or as “after becoming” if its action is antecedent to the main verb “ἐταπείνωσεν” (“He humbled Himself”). Since the two dependent clauses containing precede the main verb, they likely describe actions antecedent to “ἐταπείνωσεν”, setting the context for Jesus’ self-humbling. This suggests that, as a Man, He humbled Himself in accordance with His prior disposition.
If we translate “γενόμενος” as “BECOMING” while focusing on the beginning of this action, we press for an ingressive aorist interpretation. However, this would shift the emphasis from the participial role of the verb toward an indicative verb, such as in John 1:14 (ἐγένετο).
My point here is that “ἐν ὁμοιώματι ἀνθρώπων γενόμενος” can demand attention to incarnation, but as a present participle or an ingressive aorist indicative. But, as an aorist participle that is acting adverbally to a main verb, the focus of “change” is not the focus at all, but rather the focus is “existing” in a changed form.
Michael,
2nd point: The aorist participle γενόμενος (becoming) does indeed indicate the TIME that the action occurred, rather than the resulting state (as the perfect tense would indicate). The aorist nuance is strictly punctiliar, a point in time. This adverbial participle clause is modifying the aorist indicative verb “emptied,” which again was completed at a point in time. By modifying the action of ‘self-emptied,’ “becoming in the likeness of men” is to be viewed as part of the larger action of the indicative verb, not divorced from it. If Paul meant to only indicate that a change occurred at some point not directly connected to the action and timing of the main indicative verb he would have used a perfect or present participle, or more likely another indicative verb. The resulting condition of His humanity from that point on is then stated in vs. 8, “And being found in fashion as a man.” But the completed action of “becoming” is critical, which occurred in conjunction with, at that same POINT in time, when He self-emptied. Also, keep in mind that “ginomai” (became/becoming) is an ACTION verb, not a state-of-being verb. His “becoming in the likeness of men” was not an ongoing process, but a complete CHANGE that occurred in time. This is not diminished at all in participle form.
Consider how this aorist participle is translated in virtually all English translations, as “COMING” in the likeness of men. The English word is clearly an action verb and also indicates a point in time in conjunction with the verb “emptied.” It is unfortunate that these Trinitarian translations render this participle as “coming” rather than “becoming,” no doubt because of the damage that would do to the concept of “hypostatic union,” that Christ merely ADDED human flesh rather than BECAME flesh.
Grace & Peace, Tim
Greetings Tim!
2nd point – clarification(s)
Having reread my post, I do not think I said that the aorist participle (γενόμενος) does NOT indicate TIME, but that it “does not EMPHASIZE the specific time of the change. I believe you capture the nuance of this word well at Acts 7.38 LGV, translated as “having come,” or even Gal 3.13 LGV as, “having become” (also see Heb 1.4). My point, as imperfect as it was made, is that yes, there is TIME involved in relationship to the TIME of the aorist indicative (ἐκένωσεν), but the snap-shot of γενόμενος at the TIME of the “self-emptying” – Jesus was not “becoming”, but “having come”. The English word, “becoming” is a present participle. As the aorist participle “USUALLY denotes antecedent time to that of the controlling verb,” but “if the main verb is also aorist, this participle MAY indicate contemporaneous time (Wallace, p.6.14). I believe that at the time of His “self-emptying”, Jesus was a man.
I agree with your assessment of the Trinitarian error, their error is one of bad theology preferring “coming” as to allow them wiggle room.
I have yet to read your other responses, but I must say that this time of discussion and study has been very satisfying! I will also say that I have always thought that “ἐν ὁμοιώματι ἀνθρώπων γενόμενος” could be a part of what we are calling the first sentence. I still do not see that grammatical necessity, but the grammatical latitude is certainly there. I am not yet convinced that there is a grammatical necessity for v6-7 to demand a preincarnate move to incarnation as the point of moving from one “form” to another.
Grace & Peace,
Michael
Michael,
Robertson’s Grammar makes it quite clear that neither antecedent nor subsequent action or state is the nuance of the aorist participle when modifying an aorist indicative verb, as in Phil. 2:7. Rather, the aorist participle describes completed action simultaneous with the action of the aorist indicative verb, QUALIFYING the action of the aorist indicative verb.
“The aorist participle of antecedent action does not denote antecedence; it is used of antecedent action, where antecedence is implied, not by the aorist tense as a tense, but in some other way.”371 Moulton372 is equally explicit: “The connotation of past time was largely fastened on this participle, through the idiomatic use in which it stands before an aorist indicative to qualify its action. As point action is always completed action, except in the ingressive, the participle naturally came to involve past time relative to that of the main verb.” It is probable that the original use of the aorist participle was that of simultaneous action. From this was developed quite naturally, by the nature of the various cases, the antecedent notion. Cf. nhsteu,saj evpei,nasen (Mt. 4:2) where the fasting expressed by the participle is given as the reason for the hungering expressed by the principal verb. For further examples of antecedent action see Mt. 2:14; 2:16; 27:3; 2 Cor. 2:13. For the articular aorist see Mt. 10:39; Lu. 12:47; Jo. 5:15. While this came to be the more common idiom from the nature of the case, the original use of the aorist participle for simultaneous action continued. One has no ground for assuming that antecedent action is a necessary or an actual fact with the aorist participle.373 The aorist participle of simultaneous, action is in perfect accord with the genius and history of the Greek participle.“ (Robertson, Grammar, p. 1114)
I agree that “BECOMING in the likeness of men” is the best translation, using the English present participle. But this is because this use in English the participle is relative to the time of the main verb, placing the action of “becoming” (present) WITHIN the time restraints of the tense of the main indicative verb, which being aorist indicative, is a pin-point in past time, thus QUALIFYING what is involved in His “self-emptying.” Likewise, “TAKING the form of a servant” also qualifies in part what was involved in the “self-emptying.” The idea of a timeless action (not anchored to and confined within the time constraints of the aorist indicative verb) or merely a state of being resulting from the action is definitely NOT what is conveyed here by this construction.
I would also like to point out for comparison exactly the same nuance in vs. 8 using the same aorist participle form of “ginomai.”
“8 And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself, BECOMING obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross.”
Note the parallels in the grammatical constructions between vss. 7 & 8.
In vs. 7 He “emptied Himself,” … “BECOMING in the likeness of men.”
In vs. 8 He “humbled Himself,” “BECOMING obedient unto death.”
In both of these the adverbial aorist participle (becoming) clauses we have coincident time with the main indicative verb, referring to completed action WITHIN the time constraints of the indicative verb these clauses modify.
Incidentally, the Trinitarian bias is glaring here when the aorist participle form of ginomai is translated as “coming” in vs. 7 but exactly the same participle is translated “becoming” in vs. 8.
Grace & Peace, Tim
Hello Tim,
To your third point:
The “καί” often signals additive or explanatory relationships, combining complementary aspects.
I agree that the nouns “ἀνθρώπων” and “ἄνθρωπος” both emphasize Christ’s humanity, but in distinct ways. To simply conclude that both are redundant expressions of Christ’s humanity overlooks important nuances, such as the plural and singular forms of the nouns, as well as the choice of the terms “ὁμοιώματι” and “σχήματι”. Such an oversimplification risks missing Paul’s point.
The words “ὁμοιώματι” and “σχήματι” have some semantic overlap, yet they carry different emphases. “ὁμοιώματι” seems to convey the perspective of an outside observer. The τρεῖς ἄνδρες who visited Abraham (Gen 18.2) certainly appeared as “men”, but they were not. Jesus appeared human—but more than mere appearance, in all aspects that engage the senses, including His figure, bearing, speech, actions, and manner of life, the “secret parts (Isa 3.17 LXX).”
The point here is clear: Jesus was genuinely and fully human. As Hebrews 2:17 states, “in all things He had to be made like His brethren.”
Thanks,
Michael
Michael,
3rd point: the clauses “coming in the likeness of men” vs. “And being found in appearance as a man”.
Certainly there are subtle differences. The clause in vs. 7 points to His actual completed transition from a divine being to a human being. The clause in vs. 8 refers to how He was perceived and observed by His disciples as described in 1 Jn. 1:1-3, as truly flesh and blood who they saw, heard, and handled, and even saw him bleed and die. However, if these verses are to be punctuated as you suggest, so that these two clauses are in apposition rather than the two clauses in vs. 7, Paul’s overall point, as illustrating the “mind of Christ” evident in His choices, becomes obscured by the apparent redundancy IMO.
IMO, the beginning clause of verse 8 sets up what follows, that even after the Apostles were completely convinced by observation and interaction that He was fully human, capable of suffering and death, He then humbled Himself to the point of death.
Grace & Peace, Tim
Hello Tim!
3rd point – final observations (from me at least, for I would not want a going back-and-forth to be taken or observed as nitpicking or disrespect! I will only respond again to this point if you ask me a direct question.)
As stated in my follow-up on the 2nd point, I certainly see how “having become in the likeness of men” could be the end of the first sentence. My issue here is primarily on the assumption of a “transition from a divine person to a human being” as front-and-center to Paul’s presentation here. This was the cause for my question: “What in your opinion, demands “ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ” to be descriptive of the pre-incarnate Son, and not the incarnate Son?”
My very first post in this conversation, put forth that the “form of God” had to contain a visual and recognizable component, to which you agreed. Your opinion here is that the recognizability of Jesus as the “form of God” was as the Angel of Yahweh. This was something never directly taught by Paul, and we would have to assume that various implication within Paul’s writings rise to the level of common teaching which would have been shared with the Philippians outside of Paul’s letter.
Perhaps it is naive, or even short-sighted on my part, but while I can see the connections used to link the Angel of Yahweh to a pre-incarnate Jesus, my belief in His preexistence does not hinge on it. And, my method of interpretation does not start with Systematic Theology, but first understanding the Biblical Theology of the letter to the Philippians. IMO, if the grammar allows the letter to be understood without having to go to other books to fill in the blanks, I am generally comfortable with that. But, sometimes we do need to go to other parts of the Inspired Text, to compare what has been taught as a whole, but always, “to discern, understand fully, then hold tightly to what Jesus and His Apostles actually taught, to avoid going beyond what Scripture explicitly teaches into speculations, and to keep points of doctrine or disagreements in their proper perspective so as not to destroy unity over frivolous disagreements (Foundational Beliefs, 4Winds Fellowship).” This is a most wonderful statement!
Grace & Peace,
Michael
Michael,
From my experience, taking Biblical Theology over Systematic Theology, or Systematic Theology over Biblical Theology are both incorrect. As one digs deeper into individual texts, and compares other texts, patterns emerge in which each approach is dependent on the other and each validates the other. Obviously, HARMONY with all Scripture is the key. And when we begin to develop a paradigm FROM the text, and then superimpose that paradigm over other texts, AND AS A RESULT difficulties DISSAPPEAR rather than difficulties EMERGE, we are definitely on the right track in confirming our developing Systematic Theology.
Yes, the connection to the “Messenger of Yahweh” may at first seem strained. However, we must always keep in mind that the teaching within the text of the NT is fragmentary. The NT contains a very small part of the Apostles’ teaching which was mostly oral and was absorbed by the next generation. This makes the opinions of the earliest writers very important to consider (albeit not inspired).
There are statements in Paul’s letters which if taken alone might be somewhat vague. Col. 1:15-18 is a case in point. A comparison to Prov. 8:22-31 makes it pretty certain that Paul was appealing to that passage AND he expected his readers to understand this. Also, the patristic material, such as Justin’s Dialogue, clearly make this connection to the Messenger of Yahweh. Yet, Paul did not specifically quote enough from that passage to make a definite textual connection for someone approaching the text strictly from a “Biblical Theology” framework. Both Trinitarian and Biblical Unitarian exegetes attempt to deny or obscure this connection because in both systems it is extremely problematic for their views. It seems that we and Arians (and the ECFs) are the only ones who want to emphasize that Paul was commenting on Prov. 8 in Col. 1. So, for those whose process is to emphasize Biblical Theology over Systematic Theology, this connection may be seen as unfounded. But not only is this connection rather obvious from the text (if one is not trying to explain it away because of the difficulty it presents to one’s presuppositions), but it gives by far the best explanation as to why this view was held by ECFs like Justin and others who had oral tradition from the Apostles within easy reach. So for me, the primary goal in the pursuit of TRUTH is to seek UNITY and HARMONY with ALL of the evidence, and to find the best (simplest – Occam’s Razor) explanations so that the big-picture increasingly comes into focus (Systematic Theology). Taking deep-dives into the Greek grammar is a part of this, especially when doing so brings harmony that might be missed from the English translations alone.
Without this approach, one might struggle to understand what Paul meant by “He is the image of the invisible God, first-produced of all creation.” If one LIMITS the understanding of this statement exclusively to previously recorded statements in Paul’s letters, this becomes a rather difficult statement. And because of this apparent difficulty, the temptation is to interpret it in conformity to one’s own theological paradigm, Trinitarianism, or Unitarianism, Modalism, etc. Yet, this is the wrong approach. It is better to attempt to understand it within the atmosphere of 2nd-century Christianity and looking to see whether their handling of the relevant Greek texts is actually superior to modern exegetes who are trying to make the text fit their own modern Systematic Theology.
The same can be said when comparing Paul’s earliest statements to John’s later statements. Clearly, John was reinforcing Paul’s earlier teaching against the Gnostic corruptions that were arising. So, it is also proper to view Paul’s apparently obscure statements (such as Col. 1:15-20; Phil. 1:5-8; Heb. 1-2) through the lens of John’s writings since John clearly understood both Paul’s letters and his oral teaching and was adding to it and clarifying misunderstandings of it.
Related to the “Messenger of Yahweh” question is Paul’s emphasis on the fact that no one has ever seen God, nor CAN anyone see God. These statements by Paul are extremely relevant to the question of exactly WHO was being seen throughout the OT when the text says that “God” and “Yahweh” appeared to someone. Yet it is clear from the OT that Yahweh’s Messenger was called both “God” and “Yahweh” on several occasions, yet because He was Yahweh’s “Messenger” He was not Yahweh Himself. While Paul may not have stressed unambiguously that Jesus was the “Messenger of Yahweh” in the OT (except perhaps in Gal. 4:14), John certainly did in John 1:18, and in John 8:58 John recorded that Jesus said that He was with Abraham, who was the “Messenger of Yahweh” who called to Abraham from heaven in Gen. 22.
With all of this information taken into account, (even without the ECFs), a necessary inference emerges that Yahweh’s Messenger who is called both “God” and “Yahweh” in the OT is the one who Paul referenced as “the image of the invisible God” (Col. 1:15) and again, “who being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person” (Heb. 1:3). These are perfect unique descriptions of this unique “Messenger” in the OT and would have been understood by Paul’s audience as synonyms for the “Messenger of Yahweh” even without Paul using the term “Messenger of Yahweh” in those passages.
Without making this connection we are faced with awkward loose ends such as how to reconcile the invisibility of God with the apparent contradictions in the OT, and in what sense Jesus was at times called “God” and is spoken of as the “image” of God. Sure, one can come up with individual alternate explanations for specific points. But these individual alternate explanations do not bring HARMONY to Scripture but raise more questions and difficulties. On the other hand, one extremely simple solution brings complete harmony to all of these issues. And this solution is confirmed in John 1:18 taken literally and at face value. No one has ever seen God at any time in history. However, Jesus Christ, God’s Son, is the one who has always appeared as “God” within the time-frame of this verse (all of history). And that statement can ONLY identify Jesus with the “Messenger of Yahweh” who is called both “God” and “Yahweh” and who spoke in the first person as God.
Grace & Peace, Tim
Good evening Tim,
To your fourth point:
Concerning your first sentence, I think you have hit the nail on the head! Concerning the command to “have this disposition in you“, no matter how disposed I am, I cannot follow a historical example of Jesus emptying Himself of His divine state, and becoming a man. If this is the example to be followed, I must moralize this teaching, taking it to mean that in whatever status/roles I sit, I should not think that status as something “to hold on to (ἁρπαγμὸν)”, but to empty myself (ἐμαυτόν ἐκένωσα) of such prerogatives, as Jesus Who, (ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσεν), taking on servanthood. But, I see no need to moralize this teaching, as I believe that this is exactly Paul’s point in stating “the disposition of Jesus.”
In v1-4, Paul gives the main teaching of this section; here he sets the theme. In v5, Paul then commands the Philippians, who lived in a Roman Colony city, and are very likely citizens of Rome (as the colony was established for/by many mustered out soldiers of the Republic), to see the disposition of Jesus as an example to follow, later reminding them that “our citizenship is in heaven (v3.20)”. I then see v6-7a as Paul’s explaining the “mind of Christ,” this is how our Master thought. And then 7b-8 as Jesus’ demonstration (action) based upon such a disposition.
The point here is that right-thinking produces right-actions!
What prior teaching would have easily set the context from which Paul draws in the passage (2.5-8)? The Jesus story itself! Luke, Paul’s traveling companion at Philippi, would later pen these facts likely learned from Paul, aying this of Jesus birth: “He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Highest; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David. And He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of His kingdom there will be no end (Luk 1.32-33).” Luke would later quote our Master, saying, “All things have been delivered to My by My Father (Luk 10.22).” All things had been turned over to Jesus (sovereignty – godhood), and Jesus clarifies when asked directly. Pilate asks Him, “Are you the King of the Jews?” And Jesus answers, “It is as you say (Luk 23.3, cf. Joh 18.37, Mat 27.11, Mar 15.2).” There can be no question that Jesus held the status/role of “God” (cf. Heb 1.8-9 & 1Co 15.24-28). And from the very lips of our Master we understand His servanthood: “For who is greater, he who sits as the table, or he who serves? Is it not he who sits at the table? Yet I am among you as the One who serves (Luk 22.27, cf. Mat 20:28; Jhn 13:4-17).”
Jesus was born to be King, the Scriptures clearly record His words here. But, He who was born to be King, emptied Himself of such prerogatives, becoming a servant.
Concerning your “aside”, I believe that the Scriptures clearly state that Jesus was born to be King, was given all authority on heaven and earth (under His Father, of course), even though He was born of meager beginnings.
Lastly, if the punctuation I suggest is possible, then why was Paul redundant concerning Jesus’ humanity in the dependent clauses, “ἐν ὁμοιώματι ἀνθρώπων γενόμενος καί σχήματι εὑρεθείς ὥς ἄνθρωπος ἐταπείνωσεν ἑαυτὸν…”? I think the primary reason is to plainly express that Jesus was man, and therefore, if Jesus, as a man, can be so disposed and act accordingly, then you as men (ἀνθρώπων) are able to follow in the footstep of your Master’s example.
Concerning “ἐν ὁμοιώματι ἀνθρώπων γενόμενος”, I think Paul is simply stating that, to look at Jesus, one would see a human. But, as you have stated, there is also a testimonial aspect here. Jesus did not simply appear to be human, He was heard, seen, handled and contemplated (1Jn 1.1-2). Three “men” appeared before Abraham, who were not men, though they appeared so. Paul seems to be using amplification of Jesus’ humanity to remove any doubt of His humanity, and to allow the testimony of witnesses to “prove”, that He “in all things had to be made like His brethren (Heb 2.17)”, therefore strengthening his own teaching to the Philippians.
Thank you for the opportunity to study, and converse with you on the Word of God! I am forever grateful that you are fearless in presenting conversations that others may learn from, interact with, and God willing grow!
Regards,
Michael
Michael,
4th Point: There is a great deal we agree upon, especially regarding the “mind of Christ” and how that sets a precedent mindset for us to reach for, a precedent that in specific actions is impossible for us to achieve (since we were never “in the form of God” or “equal with God”). However, holding up a precedent which for us must be hyperbole is not unique as illustrated by 1 Cor. 13. Paul’s point is to show that if Christ Himself did all of the following things, we have absolutely no excuse for NOT setting aside our own self-interests for the sake of others.
But let’s get to the crux of the matter which I believe absolutely REQUIRES a transformation from a divine being to a human being — the incarnation:
1. The clause “becoming in the likeness of men” describes an action (a transition from divinity to humanity) at a specific point in time because (a) the verb “ginomai” is an action verb, (b) because in participle form is aorist in tense, and (c) the clause the participle modifies is an aorist indicative verb. This REQUIRES that He was not human BEFORE this point in time but was human AFTER this point in time. This observation is critical to proving “preexistence” against the usual interpretations of this passage by Biblical Unitarians (which was the whole point of my making the video). This single clause forbids the BU interpretation and proves preexistence as a non-human. To BECOME human requires a pre-human existence. IMO, your interpretation requires diluting the force of the aorist adverbial participle (becoming) from a point in time within the time of the indicative verb (emptied), to a state of being. This IMO ignores the force of the verb “ginomai” as well as the syntactical relationship of this dependent clause to the independent clause.
2. Whether the clause “becoming in the likeness of men” is part of the sentence in vs. 7 or the sentence in vs. 8. I do not see how it can possibly be part of vs. 8, since “becoming in the likeness of men” would be the beginning of a new sentence, yet it would have none of the normal words typically used to begin a new sentence (kai, de, alla, gar, …). It would need some kind of a coordinating conjunction which is lacking.
3. The lack of a coordinating conjunction between the two adverbial aorist participle clauses in vs. 7 implies apposition, that both clauses in vs. 7 are modifying the same independent clause in vs. 7.
4. I have not found any English translations which punctuate vss. 7-8 as you suggest, which IMO ought to be taken into consideration.
Your explanation that “becoming in the likeness of human” is a reference to the man Jesus setting aside His place as King cannot explain the clause. Every “king” is human already. Abdicating the throne is not a transition to humanity. Furthermore, Jesus NEVER set aside His right to be King or the Messiah. He told Pilate that He was indeed a “King” and that for this reason He came into the world (Jn. 18:37). Jesus never gave up that right. In fact, according to Heb. 12:1-4, it was His having this future promise to reign as Messiah/King that gave Him the strength to persevere through His trials (“Who for the joy set before Him endured the cross…”). This is also implicit in Phil. 2:6-10, that Jesus’ “emptying Himself” to become human, and afterwards “becoming obedient unto death”, were motivated by the promise of His ultimate exaltation, having the name above every name. This is also part of the “mind” of Christ we are to emulate, keeping the PRIZE before us as we “empty” ourselves and as we “become obedient” even to the point of death if necessary. The promise to the Son in Psalm 2 of Jesus’ becoming King, His ultimate right to the throne upon the completion of His mission, was the primary driving factor throughout His ministry and in His perseverance in His trials. When He said, “all authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Me,” this was true throughout His entire ministry, from the time of His baptism, as is evident by His forgiving sin and speaking to the sea to become calm. Once the incarnation took place, Jesus “emptied Himself” of nothing, as He was already poor. He had nothing to lose and everything to gain. Thus He overcame temptation, and then He “became obedient unto death.” This is “the mind of Christ.”
Grace & Peace, Tim
Michael
I’m confused with using the word emptying and the word surpressed in
your comment. Which one is correct? Also GOD is Spirit. So “being in the form of GOD” would mean that Jesus was also Spirit before “emptying himself” which would mean preincarnate. Imo.
Thanks
Nicole
Hi Nicole, and thanks for the question!
I used “emptied” (v7) and “suppressed” (v8), because they reflect Tim’s translation (LGV).
As Tim presented in his teaching on Philippians 2.5-8, “being in the form of God” does not mean essence, as Trinitarians attempt to present. Tim, and I believe that “form” here means, being in some status or role, not essence of being. If “form” implies “essence”, then the phrase, “taking the form of a servant” would require us to define what the essence of a servant is. It is certainly true that men are servants, but Angels are also servants. So, essence is not a good definition here.
I appreciate your opinion!
Thank you,
Michael
Hello Tim,
The holidays are over, and I now can continue with this challenge which is great opportunity to study!
As you have presented 4 points, and a 5th as an aside, I will be as concise as possible by addressing only a single point per post. The purpose of my answers is to attempt to present evidence that your statement, “the grammar requires” that this passage (2.5-8) “must” include a pre-incarnate state, is potentially overstating the weight of the grammar.
To your first point:
I am not sure why NA28 puts the period after “ἐν ὁμοιώματι ἀνθρώπων γενόμενος”. If you have some historical reference as to this decision, I would really enjoy the read! My guess would be that the decision was likely made out of theological tradition, and not so much from grammatical necessity.
Concerning “μορφὴν δούλου λαβών” and “ἐν ὁμοιώματι ἀνθρώπων γενόμενος” being placed in apposition, what exactly in each phrase is in apposition? In the Grammars I own, I could not find a category for appositions in participles, unless they are acting as substantives. Concerning “λαβών” & “γενόμενος”, if they are substantive in nature, then they modify the nouns (dependent), “ὁμοιώματι” & “μορφὴν”, respectively, or they are independent of these nouns (unlikely), regardless, they would not be adverbial, modifying the main verb, “ἐκένωσεν”. I tend to agree that these participles are adverbial*. Perhaps the substantives in apposition are “δούλου” & “ἀνθρώπων”? A singular genitive & a plural genitive? But, if you are proferring that the entire “idea” of each dependent clause as appositive, I might need to dig a bit deeper into my Greek studies to understand such a category!
*Wallace places “μορφὴν δούλου λαβών” as an adverbial, participle of means, with the caveat that “λαβών” would be an odd modifier of the main verb, “ἐκένωσεν”, which would seem to mean something like, “by taking on, He emptied“? I tend to believe that it is more likely a participle of purpose, in that “He emptied for the purpose of taking on…“, but that is another topic!
Concerning the “καὶ”, it certainly can be used to begin a new sentence, (e.g. Phil 1.9, 1.25, 4.3, 4.19), but when used as such, it does not express a “new thought”, but seems to continue on an already established theme. To express a new thought, “δὲ” seems more appropriate? Regardless, “καὶ” does not necessitate the expressing of a new thought, but is primarily used as a coordinating conjunction (e.g. Phil 1.23). And Paul does use the “καὶ” conjunctively between participle phrases, to show coordination of thought or action (e.g. 1Thess 2.2, “προπαθόντες καὶ ὑβρισθέντες” & 1Thess3.6, “ἐλθόντος Τιμοθέου πρὸς ἡμᾶς ἀφ᾽ ὑμῶν καὶ εὐαγγελισαμένου ἡμῖν…”). My point is that grammatically, the “καὶ” is not so limited in its function.
Concerning this point, I think that it would be helpful to explain how two, adverbial participle dependent clauses are acting is apposition categorically, or how two genitives of apposition include singular and plural nouns. And if “γενόμενος” & “λαβών” are in apposition, does this imply that by “becoming in the likeness of men” means acting as a slave?
I will attempt to post on your second point tomorrow!
Thanks,
Michael
Michael,
We had company from Florida staying with us for the last several days. Now that they have left, I will try to respond point by point.
First Point: The NA 28 puts a period after vs. 7 and begins a new sentence with vs. 8 for the same reasons that the English translations end the sentence with vs. 7 including the NKJV, NASB, NIV, ESV, RSV, NRSV, etc. I have no special knowledge as to their reasoning except that it agrees with the patterns that I have observed as I have translated most of the NT. Vs. 8 has the earmarks of a new sentence, as you no doubt have observed, new sentences within a paragraph usually begin with kai, de, alla, or gar. If these verses are to be punctuated as you suggest, then the new sentence which you propose would lack any of these indications and would begin very abruptly.
RE apposition, here is Webster’s definition: (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/apposition)
“Apposition – noun
1a: a grammatical construction in which two or more usually adjacent words, phrases, or clauses (especially nouns or noun equivalents) that have the same referent stand in the same syntactical relation to the rest of a sentence (such as the poet and Burns in “a biography of the poet Burns”)
b: the relation between such words, phrases, or clauses.”
“Apposition” is common in many languages, not only Greek. What is in apposition are the two entire clauses:
μορφὴν δούλου λαβών (form of a servant taking)
ἐν ὁμοιώματι ἀνθρώπων γενόμενος (in likeness of man becoming).
Both clauses have the same referent, and both clauses stand in the same syntactical relationship being adverbial clauses modifying ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσεν (self-emptied). It is very important to note that the participles are both aorist and the verb these clauses modify is aorist indicative verb. This means that the action involved in “emptied Himself” is virtually simultaneous with the action of the adverbial participle clauses. Whether this implies purpose or result is really not relevant for our discussion, only the TIMING. These two adverbial participle clauses are modifying the action of the main verb, so all of verse 7 should be viewed as a single complex action.
When I said that “kai” here beings a new thought, I did not mean it is an unrelated idea. Clearly, the main idea begins in vs. 5 and continues through verse 8, all referring to the “mind” of Christ demonstrated by His actions described in vss. 6-8. Vs. 7 begins with “but” a contrasting conjunction, thus a new aspect of Christ’s actions is introduced. The same is true with “kai” beginning vs. 8, a coordinating conjunction. Vs. 8 gives us something ELSE that Christ did, which is consistent with the “mind” we are to emulate but is not the same ACTION as found in vs. 7 but is in addition to it.
Regarding your last paragraph, it seems that you are misunderstanding the point of apposition. It is not that the two participles or entire clauses have the same meaning. They do not. It is ONLY that they have the same referent AND that they have the same syntactical relationship in the larger sentence, in this case both are adverbial participle clauses modifying the independent clause (But emptied Himself).
Grace & Peace, Tim
Tim,
I will attempt to post my response to your fourth point at another time, but wanted to point out another thought I had concerning your notes on the teaching of Phil 2.5-8.
At point IB4b3b, you state, Jesus had become fully human and was “emptied” of the
divine nature. While imprecise language has plagued the Christological controversies for centuries, causing even the necessity to include language not found in the Scriptures, what do you mean when you say Jesus was “emptied” of the divine nature? I am an adherent of the doctrine that Jesus preexisted His incarnation, so my question is not one of doubting preexistence, but Peter uses this exact phrase “θείας φύσεως” saying, “you may be partakers of the divine nature (2Pe1.4)”.
Certainly, we can not become partakers of that which Jesus was emptied? Could you please clarify your understanding here?
Thank you,
Michael
Michael,
The “divine nature” is a biblical term and is found in Acts 17:29, 2 Pet. 1:3-4. But there is a major difference between these.
As you know, adjectives do not have a fixed gender like nouns and are inflected to match the fixed gender of the noun they modify. However, when used as substantives (without modifying another noun) the writer/speaker CHOOSES the gender to reflect the IMPLIED noun that the adjective was meant to modify. This is why substantive adjectives like “the all” when inflected in the neuter plural means “all things,” and when inflected in the masculine plural means “all people.” A similar example is found in Jn. 1:11 where His “own” is first τὰ ἴδια (neuter plural – His own things) and then again His “own” is οἱ ἴδιοι (masculine plural – His own people). In Acts 17:29 τὸ θεῖον (the divine nature) is an adjective used as a substantive, inflected in the NEUTER singular. It refers to that which is “divine” that is neuter, non-personal, WHAT God is concretely.
Now consider 1 Pet. 1:3 where the clause is τῆς θείας δυνάμεως (the divine power), whereas θείας (divine) is feminine in gender modifying “power” which is a feminine noun (as are most abstract nouns). Then in vs. 4 we again have the adjective θείας (divine) but used as a substantive, without modifying a noun. Again, θείας is feminine thus implying an abstract noun to modify. The literal English translation is “you may participate in the divine.” The word “nature” is supplied by the translator both in Acts 17 & 1 Pet. 1, but it is a different KIND of “nature” in these two passages reflected by the chosen gender, one concrete (neuter – what God is) which we can never share in, and one abstract (feminine – God’s abstract qualities, love, goodness, justice, etc.) which we indeed can share in.
That Paul was referring to God’s concrete (ontological) nature in Acts 17 is also apparent in the context where he compares God’s “divine nature” to the stone, wood, and metal of the pagan idols, all (concrete, non-personal nouns). He also implicitly references God’s uncreated / unbegotten ontological essence by contrasting that of the pagan idols crafted by the hands of men. This distinction between ontological nature and abstract moral qualities of nature should also be understood in the difference between God and man when Scripture relates that we were created in the “image of God.” This is a reference to abstract qualities of nature not concrete qualities.
I am with you on the point that we ought to use biblical terms to describe biblical concepts. But God’s impersonal “divine nature” (concretely) is indeed mentioned, though not defined. Also, by virtue of the Son being “the only-begotten of the Father,” it is appropriate to apply the normal meaning of “begotten” from a father which is consistent throughout Scripture, that “kind” begets like “kind.” For these reasons I believe using the term “divine nature” in reference to Christ’s emptying Himself in Phil. 2 is legitimate. And since He “emptied Himself” and thus “became in the likeness of men” (a statement about ontological nature), He was not previously human. That is He “emptied Himself” of the contrasted ontological nature. Therefore, being first “in the form of God” and “equal with God”, then He “emptied Himself” to “become” human, it is clear that He formerly possessed the “divine nature” that Paul spoke about in Acts 17. I would consider this a necessary inference.
Grace & Peace, Tim