9 “Being in the Form of God” (Phil. 2)
“Jesus...being in the form of God, thought it not a thing to be
grasped at, to be equal with God; but made himself of no reputation,
and took upon him the form of a servant” (Phil. 2:5-11).
These verses are taken to mean that Jesus was God, but at his birth he
became a man. It is significant that this is almost the only passage which
can be brought forward to explain away the ‘missing link’ in trinitarian
reasoning - how Jesus transferred himself from being God in Heaven to
being a baby in Mary’s womb. The following analysis seeks to demonstrate
what this passage really means.
1. There are a number of almost incidental phrases within this passage
which flatly contradict the trinitarian idea.
a) “God also has highly exalted” Jesus “and given him a name” (v.9)
shows that Jesus did not exalt himself - God did it. It follows that he
was not in a state of being exalted before God did this to him, at his
resurrection.
b) The whole process of Christ’s humbling of himself and subsequent
exaltation by God was to be “to the glory of God the Father” (v.11).
God the Father is not, therefore, co-equal with the Son.
2. The context of this passage must be carefully considered. Paul does
not just start talking about Jesus ‘out of the blue’. He refers to the
mind of Jesus in Phil. 2:5. Back in Phil. 1:27 Paul starts to speak of
the importance of our state of mind. This is developed in the early
verses of chapter 2: “Being of one accord, of one mind...in lowliness
of mind...look not every man on his own things, but every man also on
the things of others. Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ
Jesus...” (Phil. 2:2-5). Paul is therefore speaking of the importance
of having a mind like that of Jesus, which is devoted to the humble
service of others. The verses which follow are therefore commenting
upon the humility of mind which Jesus demonstrated, rather than
speaking of any change of nature. Just as Jesus was a servant, so
earlier Paul had introduced himself with the same word (Phil. 1:1 cp.
2:7). The attitude of Jesus is set up as our example, and we are urged
to join Paul in sharing it. We're not asked to change natures; we're
asked to have the mind of Jesus- so that we may know the "fellowship of
sharing in his [Christ's] sufferings, becoming like him in his death
and so to attain to the resurrection from the dead" (Phil. 3:10,11).
3. Jesus was “in the form of God”. We have shown in an earlier study that
Jesus was of human nature, and therefore this cannot refer to Christ having
a Divine nature. The N.I.V. translation of this passage goes seriously
wrong here. In passing, it has to be noted that some modern translations
designed for ‘easy reading’, tend to gloss over the precise meaning of
the Greek text, and tend to give a paraphrase rather than a translation
in certain passages. Phil. 2:5-8 is a classic example of this. However,
this is not to decry their use in other ways.
That “form” (Greek ‘morphe’) cannot refer to essential nature is proved
by Phil. 2:7 speaking of Christ taking on “the form of a servant”. He
had the form of God, but he took on the form of a servant. The essential
nature of a servant is no different to that of any other man. In harmony
with the context, we can safely interpret this as meaning that although
Jesus was perfect, he had a totally God-like mind, yet he was willing
to take on the demeanour of a servant. Some verses later Paul encourages
us to become “conformable unto (Christ’s) death” (Phil. 3:10). We are
to share the ‘morphe’, the form of Christ which he showed in his death.
This cannot mean that we are to share the nature which he had then, because
we have human nature already. We do not have to change ourselves to have
human nature, but we need to change our way of thinking, so that we can
have the ‘morphe’ or mental image which Christ had in his death.
The Greek word ‘morphe’ means an image, impress or resemblance. Human
beings can have a ‘morphe’. Gal. 4:19 speaks of “Christ (being) formed in” believers. Because
he had a perfect character, a perfectly God-like way of thinking, Jesus
was “in the form of God”. Because of this, Jesus did not consider equality
with God “something to be grasped at”. This totally disproves the theory
that Jesus was God. Even according to the N.I.V. translation, Jesus did
not for a moment entertain the idea of being equal with God; he knew that
he was subject to God, and not co-equal with Him. There are many examples
in the Greek Old Testament of the Greek word morphe being used
to mean 'outward form' rather than 'essential nature'- e.g. Jud. 8:18
[men had the morphe , the outward appearance, of a king's sons];
Job 4:16 ; Is. 44:13 [a carpenter makes an idol in the morphe
or outward appearance of a human being- but not in the very nature of
a human being!]; Dan 3:19 [the king's morphe or appearance changed
because he got angry; his essential nature remained the same]. And likewise
in the Apocrypha: Tobit 1:13; Wis. 18:1; 4 Macc. 15:4. If Paul meant nature or essence he would have used the word ousia or physis- as he does in Gal. 2:16 where he speaks of "We who are Jews by nature [physis]...".
4. Christ “made himself of no reputation”, or “emptied himself” (R.V.),
alluding to the prophecy of his crucifixion in Is. 53:12: “He poured
out his soul unto death”. He “took upon himself the form (demeanour) of
a servant” by his servant-like attitude to his followers (Jn. 13:14),
demonstrated supremely by his death on the cross (Mt. 20:28). Is. 52:14
prophesied concerning Christ’s sufferings that on the cross “his visage
was so marred more than any man, and his form more than the sons of
men”. This progressive humbling of himself “unto death, even the death
of the cross” was something which occurred during his life and death,
not at his birth. We have shown the context of this passage to relate
to the mind of Jesus, the humility of which is being held up to us as
an example to copy. These verses must therefore speak of Jesus’ life on
earth, in our human nature, and how he humbled himself, despite having
a mind totally in tune with God, to consider our needs.
5. If Christ was God in nature and then left that behind and took human
nature, as trinitarians attempt to interpret this passage, then Jesus
was not “very God” while on earth; yet trinitarians believe that he
was. This all demonstrates the contradictions which are created by
subscribing to a man-made definition such as the trinity.
6. A point concerning the phrase “being in the form of God”. The Greek
word translated “being” does not mean ‘being originally, from
eternity’. Acts 7:55 speaks of Stephen “being full of the Holy Spirit”.
He was full of the Holy Spirit then and had been for some time before;
but he had not always been full of it. Other examples will be found in
Lk. 16:23; Acts 2:30; Gal. 2:14. Christ “being in the form of God”
therefore just means that he was in God’s form (mentally); it does not
imply that he was in that form from the beginning of time.
7.
"In the likeness of man... in human form" (Phil. 2:7) doesn't mean that
the Lord Jesus only appeared as a man, when He was in fact something
else. Rather the emphasis is upon the fact that He truly was like us.
Going deeper, F.F. Bruce has suggested that these terms "represent
alternative Greek renderings of the Aramaic phrase kebar-'enash ("like a son of man") in Daniel 7:13" (1).
Philippians 2 In First Century Context
It
has been shown that the hymn of Phil. 2:6-11 is alluding to various
Gnostic myths about a redeemer, the son and image of the "highest God",
who comes down to earth, hides himself as a man so as not to be
recognized by demons, shares human sufferings, and then disappears to
Heaven having redeemed them (2). I suggest that these allusions are in
order to deconstruct those myths. Paul's point is that the redemption
of humanity was achieved by the human Jesus, through His death on the
cross, and not through some nebulous mythical figure supposedly taking
a trip to earth for a few years. The hymn also alludes to the many
wrong ideas floating around Judaism at the time concerning Adam.
Messiah was not Adam; Adam is compared and contrasted with
Jesus in Phil. 2:6-11- he like Jesus was made in the image of God, yet
he grasped at equality with God ("you will be like God", Gen. 3:5),
which Jesus didn't do. The description of Jesus "being in the form of
God" was therefore to highlight the similarities between Him and Adam,
who was also made in the form of God. The choice Jesus faced was to die
on the cross or not, and it is this choice which Phil. 2:6-11
glorifies. The context of Phil. 2 shows that it was in this that He was
and is our abiding example in the daily choices we face. If His choice
was merely to come to earth or stay in Heaven, then there is nothing
much to praise Him for and He is not our example in this at all.
We
can understand 2 Cor. 8:9 in this same context- the choice of Jesus to
'become poor' for our sakes is held up as an example to the
Corinthians, to inspire their financial giving. The choice is whether
or not to live out the cross in our lives- rather than deciding whether
or not to come down from Heaven to earth. Jesus gave up the 'riches' of
His relationship with God, calling Him "abba", to the 'poverty' of the
cross, in saying "My God, Why have you forsaken me?" (Mt. 27:46).
Poverty was associated with crucifixion, rather than with a God coming
from Heaven to earth: "Riches buy off judgment, and the poor are
condemned to the cross" (3). It is Christ's cross and resurrection, and
not this supposed 'incarnation', which is repeatedly emphasized as
being the source of our salvation (Rom. 5:15,21; Gal. 2:20; 3:13; Eph.
1:6; 2 Cor. 5:21; 1 Pet. 3:18). This is a far cry from the teaching of
Irenaeus, one of the so-called 'church fathers', that Christ "attached
man to God by his own incarnation" (Against Heresies 5.1.1). The New Testament emphasis is that we were reconciled to God by the death of His Son. The whole of Phil. 2 is about the Lord's attitude in His death and not at His birth. It was after His birth but before His
death that the Lord could talk of his freedom of decision as to whether
or not to lay down His life (Jn. 10:18)- and it is this decision which
Phil. 2:9-11 is glorifying.
One of the dangers of the
Trinity is that it de-emphasizes the colossal human achievement of
Jesus as a man. It also makes God Himself somewhat of an irrelevancy,
if Jesus is our Saviour God. And thus it's been observed that the
history of Christian art shows icons etc. progressively giving
prominence to Jesus, with God Himself portrayed increasingly as an old
man with a white beard, somewhere in the background. Yet Jesus came to
bring us to God, living out a breathtaking partnership of God and man
which remains our constant pattern.
Trinitarian theology
sees God's salvation of humanity as being on account of His supposed
'incarnation' in Christ, and His sending of the [supposedly]
pre-existent Christ into the world. But the New Testament emphasis is
upon the death of Christ, His victory within Himself and
subsequent resurrection, as the crucial means by which our redemption
was enabled. And further, how He saved us through the cross and through
His own self-debasement is held up as our very real example in passages
like Phil. 2 and 2 Cor. 8:8-10. We are not pre-existent gods in Heaven
awaiting an incarnation on earth. We are very real, human guys and
gals. His pattern can mean nothing for us if it was all about saving
others through submitting to some kind of 'incarnation'. But the
Biblical emphasis makes His sufferings, death and victory in
resurrection our very real pattern, so real that we are to be baptized
into it (Rom. 6:3-5) and live according to this as a pattern for human
life every moment.
Paul Clifford pointed out to me that
we should remember that Philippi was in Macedonia, it was named after
Philip, the father of Alexander the Great. Alexander was some sort of
hero there. He was held to be successful in his exploits because after
conquering a people, he did not have a policy of ruling by suppression
but instead made all attempts to befriend them by making himself
a servant to the people. Alexander was perceived to have an hypostasis
(the substantial quality) of both master and servant. It seems that
Paul may be making a conscious connection between the Lord Jesus, and
Alexander the Great. But the Lord Jesus went so much further. He
emptied Himself of all pride and became a servant to all. In our
context, the point I take from this is that Alexander didn't change
natures when he, the master, became a servant to his people; and the
same is true of the Lord Jesus. His humiliation and self-deprecation
was specifically upon the cross; and as such He is our example. We too
are to have His spirit. We are unable to change natures; the challenge
rather is to change our minds. Peter says the same, perhaps alluding to
Paul's words here: "Humble yourselves, therefore, under God’s mighty
hand, that he may lift you up in due time".
The Acme Of Humility
Trinitarian theology uses Phil. 2 to justify their 'V-pattern'
view of Christ- that He was high in glory in Heaven, then descended
briefly to earth, and then returned to high glory in Heaven. All such
talk of a V-pattern, albeit on the lips of eloquent churchmen and
theologians (4), is frankly a serious missing of the point. Phil. 2- and
the whole teaching of Jesus- is that the true greatness is in humility,
the servant of all becomes Lord of all. The pinnacle, the zenith, the
acme- was in the humility of the cross. The New Testament presents the
death of Christ as His final victory, the springboard to a J-curve
growth, involving even literal ascent into Heaven. What seemed to be
defeat turned out to be the ultimate victory.
Notes
(1) F.F. Bruce, Paul And Jesus (London: S.P.C.K.,
1977) p. 77.
(2) Documented in Rudolf Bultmann, Theology Of The New
Testament (London: S.C.M., 1955) p. 166. Bultmann showed that many
of the 'difficult passages' in John have similar
connections (ibid p. 175). I would argue that John likewise was
alluding to these Gnostic [and other] redeemer myths in
order to deconstruct them.
(3) Quoted in Martin Hengel, Crucifixion In The Ancient
World (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1977) p. 60 note 15.
(4) The V-pattern analogy is to be found, e.g., in C.F.D.
Moule, Forgiveness And Reconciliation (London: S.P.C.K., 1998)
p. 36; C.K. Barrett, A Commentary On The Second Epistle To The
Corinthians (London: A. & C. Black, 1973) p. 336.
