Dale Tuggy & Dustin Smith Exegesis of Philippians 2:5-10

Dr. Dale Tuggy did a podcast with Dr. Dustin Smith on the topic of Philippians 2:5-10, attempting to harmonize this passage with Biblical Unitarianism (which denies any form of preexistence for the Son).

Philippians 2:5-11 (LGV)
5 Have this disposition in you which [was] also in Anointed Jesus
6 who, being in the form of God, did not consider to be equal with God a prize, 
7 but emptied Himself, taking the form of a slave, becoming in the likeness of men.  And having been found as human in design,
8 He suppressed Himself, becoming obedient unto death, even death of a cross.
9 Consequently, also, God highly exalted Him and gave to Him the name above every name,
10 so that at the name of Jesus every knee might bow, of celestial, of terrestrial, and of subterranean, 
11 and every tongue should acknowledge that Jesus Anointed is Master to the glory of God the Father.

Please listen to the following podcast before reading my comments below.

Podcast 268 – Another look at Philippians 2 with Dr. Dustin Smith

Here is my analysis of this discussion from our “Apostolic Monotheism” perspective.

1. Dale first acknowledged that the passage was “difficult” and that it could easily fit with a subordinationist view of preexistence (which is our view). Dustin attempted to draw connections and inferences from other passages, but those connections are not obvious from the text even after they were made. It seems highly unlikely that the Philippians would make those connections without Dustin explaining this to them.

2. Dustin seemed to contradict Himself regarding the alleged “Adam” connection. He first appeared to agree that in vs. 7 Paul was referring to Christ’s possibly “exploiting” what He already possessed (His equality with God), but later appeared to support the idea of grasping for Godhood which He did not yet possess. The “grasping for Godhood” concept presupposes that Christ thought achieving “equality with God” was an option open before Him, and that He would be more successful than Adam’s alleged attempt. But Jesus certainly knew that such was a fool’s errand. The fact that this is followed by a contrasting conjunction (“but”) shows that the option He rejected when He chose to empty Himself was a real and attainable option. This makes the comparison to Adam untenable. Besides, the serpent did not hold out “equality with God” as an option, only being “as gods” in the sense of acquiring a certain kind of knowledge. The correct interpretation is that the Son chose to empty Himself of His “equality with God” rather than exploiting it to His own advantage.

3. Jesus being “equal with God” is mentioned in one other place where it is clearly defined, John 5:18. Jesus’ claim of “equality with God” was assumed by the Jewish scholars from Jesus’ statement that God was His “own Father.” This kind of equality is not functional; it is ontological. A son does not have functionally equality with his own father. He has ontological equality. Kind begets like kind. Yet, Jesus had already “emptied Himself” and no longer shared God’s ontological nature when He made that statement. He was quick to point out in the next verse that He was unable to perform the miracles, but God was doing them through Him.

4. Dustin claimed that a preexistence interpretation would not be something Paul would indicate, apparently since he did not mention it elsewhere. Yet, that is not correct. The Son’s preexistence was mentioned by Paul also in 1 Cor. 8:6; 1 Cor. 10:4; 1 Cor. 15:47; 2 Cor. 8:9; Eph. 4:9-10; Heb. 1:2,10-11; & Heb. 2:9,17. Biblical Unitarians invent creative ways to make these statements disappear, so Dustin’s point is a circular argument.

Phil. 2:6 parallels exactly what Paul said in Col. 1:15.

Phil. 2 “being in the form of God” is parallel to
Col. 1. “He is the image of the invisible God” (visible as “God” as the Messenger of Yahweh)
Phil. 2.  “equal with God” is parallel to
Col. 1 “first-produced of all creation.” (ontological equality)

Phil. 2:6-7 also contrasts opposite things:
“In the form of God” is contrasted with “the form of a servant.”
“equality with God” is contrasted with “becoming in the likeness of men” and “fashion as a man.”

Since “equality with God” is juxtaposed with “the likeness of men” and “fashion as a man,” this informs the meaning of “equality with God” because the two contrasting clauses deal with ontological nature. Consequently, “equality with God” also deals with ontological nature. This also agrees with John who used procreative language, calling the Son “only-begotten of the Father” (John 1:14) as in Psalm 2:7 (“Today I have begotten You”). Sonship is by procreation out of God, exactly as Wisdom was “acquired” and “begotten” by God in Prov. 8:22-25. Jesus said in John 8:42 (Gk), “If God was your Father you would have loved Me, for I issued forth out of God and am come.” Again, His former ontological nature as the only-begotten of the Father was Jesus’ point. This was separated from “becoming in the likeness of men” by His self-emptying, a complete transformation of divinity to humanity.

5. Dustin claimed that Christ’s becoming human is not an ideal example for Christians because the Philippians were told to emulate Him, and such is impossible. But that is not what the text says. They were told to allow Christ’s mindset to also be in them, not to perform His specific actions. Otherwise, we would all need to be crucified in order to obey.

6. Dustin claimed that this passage cannot refer to a preexisting Son of God because He is called by His human name, “Christ Jesus.” But it was normal to call someone by their current name or title, which does not imply that such must describe that person since the beginning of their existence. This concept is clearly demonstrated by the NT writers referring to “Abraham” in statements that refer to his actions before his name was changed from Abram to Abraham (Acts 7:2; Rom. 4:2-9 {cf. Gen. 15:6}; Heb.11:8).

7. Neither Dale not Dustin defined the term μορφῇ (morphe – form), but only showed the parallel between “form of God” vs. “form of a servant.” Dustin attempted to portray “morphe” as something internal, related to attitude. Yet “morphe” always refers to external appearance (Job. 4:16 LXX; Isa. 44:13 LXX; Dan. 3:19 LXX; Mark. 16:12). It never refers to inward qualities. The real sense is found in the parallel in Col. 1:15, “He is the image of the invisible God.” This was true as the Messenger of Yahweh who always appeared to people visibly in the place of God, using God’s name and title. It was equally true of Jesus as Man (John 14:9).

8. Dustin emphasized that Christ possessed a “functional” equality with God during His ministry, and that the “self-emptying” was His setting this aside. But this is just not true. He was only promised a functional “equality” with God when He would be set as King on Mt. Zion (Ps. 2:6-8; Ps. 45:6-7). The functional equality was the ultimate goal, not His current possession. Therefore, He could not set this aside, but strove to attain it by submitting to what is described in this passage. Heb. 12:2 states: “looking unto Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith, who for the joy that was set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.” Thus Jesus “self-emptied” of His “equality with God” (ontological nature) to “become in the likeness of men” (ontological nature) and afterwards was obedient unto death, all in order to eventually obtain the “functional equality” which God promised to Him. He was then given the name above all names, and to Him every knee will eventually bow once He attains this by being installed as King on Mt. Zion. How could Paul expect the Philippians to set aside their own “functional equality” with God and follow Christ’s example? The entire epistle is about striving for the prize of the resurrection, immortality, and the inheritance by following Christ’s mind and attitude (Phil. 3:4-11). Jesus had no “functional equality” with God to give up during His earthly ministry. He had the prize held out to Him as promised in Psalm 2, which provided the motivation for Him to carry out His mission.

9. No reasonable explanation was offered for the clause “becoming in the likeness of men,” or “being found in fashion as a man,” which necessarily requires that before He emptied Himself He was not formerly “in the likeness of men.” Dustin’s connection to Rom. 8 “sinful flesh” does not help. Both passages refer to His ontological nature as man. “Sinful flesh” means being subject to the curse and death, the result of Adam’s sin. He had no “likeness” to sinful flesh in any other way, otherwise He would have been a sinner. The parallel to Isaiah 53 cannot be sustained in verses 6-7, but only in verses 8-11. There is no counterpart in Isaiah to His being “in the form of God” and “equality with God,” or “becoming in the likeness of men.”

10. The exaltation Jesus received in vss. 9-11 corresponds to Jesus’ prayer in John 17:4-5, “I have glorified You on the earth. I have finished the work which You have given Me to do. And now, O Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was.”

What was your opinion of the podcast? Did I miss anything?