BEYOND THE VEIL OF ETERNITY / Dr. James R. White

The Importance of Philippians 2:5-11 in Theology and Apologetics

The two Jehovah’s Witnesses had obviously spent a lot of time preparing to address Christians about their belief in the Trinity and the deity of Christ. These were “Pioneer Ministers,” Witnesses who dedicate 20-30 hours a week going door-to-door, witnessing, doing “Bible studies” and the like. I turned to Philippians 2:5-11 and asked for just a few moments to explain the passage to them. As I worked through the text I asked them to keep in mind the context of the passage. When I finally came to the conclusion, I asked them a series of questions.

All at once the “quieter” of the two drew in a sharp breath and moved away from the Bible in her lap. Acting as if a snake had just materialized on the open book, her eyes got large as “the lights went on” and she saw exactly what I was talking about. Realizing that I was looking at her, she resumed the standard stoic expression of the Witnesses, but I knew she had gotten the message. She was going to leave that day with a Christian tract in her hand: not a printed tract (Witnesses almost never take such literature), but with her New World Translation and an understanding of the Trinity she never expected to gain. 

ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT PASSAGES IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

There are only a few times when God’s Word grants to us creatures the opportunity to peer back before creation itself and delve into the very relationship of Father, Son and Spirit. These passages have formed the core of a precious treasure, entrusted to the Church, wherein we find the very definition of what makes Christianity completely unique. Few passages, however, provide us with the breadth of revelation, the depth of theology, and the weight of importance, as the “Carmen Christi,” the “Hymn to Christ as to God.” This section stands with John 1 and Colossians 1 as the pinnacle of Scriptural revelation on the eternal personality and deity of Jesus Christ and His relationship to the Father. The prepared apologist needs to know this passage intimately. But before we can provide an answer to false understandings of the passage, we must dive deep into the sparkling waters of truth provided by the Holy Spirit here in the words of the Apostle Paul.

The Glorious Description of Christ

I invite you to slowly, careful consider these words, dismissing any familiarity you may have with them, and read them as if Paul’s epistle had just arrived from Rome and has been given to you for its first reading:

You must have the same mindset among yourselves that was in Christ Jesus,
Who, although He eternally existed in the very form of God,
Did not consider that equality He had with God the Father something to be held on to at all costs,

But instead He made Himself nothing,

By taking on the very form of a slave,

By being made in human likeness.

And having entered into human existence,

He humbled Himself

By becoming obedient to the point of death,

Even the death one dies on a cross!

Because of this, God the Father exalted Him to the highest place,

And bestowed on Him the name which is above every name,

So that at the mention of the exalted name of Jesus

Everyone who is in heaven, on earth, and under the earth,

Bows the knee,

And every tongue confesses:

“Jesus Christ is Lord!”

All to the glory of God the Father!

PLEASE TURN TO HYMN….

The majority of modern scholarship believes that this section of Paul’s letter preserves for us a fragment, perhaps a stanza or two, of an ancient Christian hymn (which is why it is placed in poetic form by the NIV, NET, NRSV, etc.). Paul uses a section of a hymn—the common property of all Christians—as a sermon illustration par excellence. Just as the good communicator today might quote from a well known hymn, such as “Amazing Grace” or “Blessed Assurance,” to make a point, so too Paul makes reference to this hymn to press home his point. And it is just here that we find the most important key to this entire passage: the Carmen Christi is a sermon illustration! That is, Paul is not taking up a new subject at verse 5. He is still focused upon the heart of the exhortation found in verses two through four. It is vital to see this passage in its actual context. And what is that context? Let’s see:

Make my joy complete by being of the same mind, having the same love, spiritually united as one, focused on the same thing. Never do anything on the basis of selfish ambition or empty, groundless glorying. Instead, in humility of mind regard one another as more important than yourselves, not focusing upon your own personal interests only, but rather the interests of others.

The Apostle knows what causes disruption in the fellowship of the Church, and he knows the divine antidote to dissension. Living in love, united in one mind with one focus, serving one another in humility of mind – this is the Spirit-given means of maintaining unity and harmony in the Christian congregation. Acting out of selfishness or boastful attitudes is the certain means of introducing disharmony and friction into the fellowship. So how can the Philippians experience the kind of Christian unity that bears witness to the presence of Christ among us? Humility of mind. Serving others. Viewing others as more important than ourselves. To act in humility of mind is to have certain “rights” but to lay those rights aside in the service of others.

It has been well said, “The ground is level at the foot of the cross,” and believers are equal with one another in their relationship to God. There are no “super Christians” who are somehow “more important” to God than others. But, unlike so many in the modern American context, Christians are not to be focused upon the rights they have as equals, Instead, they are to lay aside their rights so that they can serve others. Service is a more precious thing in the Christian faith than personal rights.

It is to drive this point home in the minds of the Philippian believers that Paul exhorts them to live with the same kind of humility of mind seen in Jesus Christ, their Savior and example. And it is here that he then quotes from this ancient hymn of the Church. And although people often have missed the point, it is this context that determines the meaning of the following verses.

The Meaning of Philippians 2:6-7

The meaning of the entire passage depends on how one understands the twenty-seven Greek words found in Philippians 2:6-7. What does “form” (Gr: morphe) mean? When Paul says Jesus “existed” in this “form,” what does he mean? What is “equality with God the Father? What does it mean to “grasp” something, or should this be understood “to grasp at something”? And finally, and most importantly, what does “He made himself nothing” (literally, “emptied”) mean? How can God make himself “nothing”?

The “Form” of God

Most of the discussion of this passage has focused upon what it means that Christ existed in the “form of God.” Paul’s term is morphe, translated literally as “form.” The NIV renders the phrase “being in very nature God,” the NLT oversimplifies with, “though he was God,” but the majority of translations render it “being in the form of God.”[i] When we refer to the “form” of God, what do we mean? Is this saying nothing more than “Jesus was a spirit”? Or is there more to the word?

Part of the answer is found in the word “existing.” Paul does not say “came to exist” or “entered into existence,” but uses the present tense to indicate on-going existence. And since the time-frame of the passage is clearly eternity past,[ii] the beginning assertion is that the One we know as Jesus Christ eternally existed in the very form of God, that which communicates the inner reality to the outer senses. The “form of God” is not merely a category of existence (like “spirits” or “creatures”). The “form of God” presents a direct correspondence to reality itself: that which exists in the “form of God” is truly deity. Warfield was correct when he said:

Paul does not say simply, “He was God.” He says, “He was in the form of God,” employing a turn of speech which throws emphasis upon Our Lord’s possession of the specific quality of God. “Form” is a term which expresses the sum of those characterizing qualities which make a thing the precise thing that it is….When Our Lord is said to be in “the form of God,” therefore, He is declared, in the most express manner possible, to be all that God is, to possess the whole fulness of attributes which make God God.[iii]

The idea of temporarily existing in this form is inconceivable, which only emphasizes the continuous existing that we just mentioned. Paul makes it plain: the pre-incarnate Son who did not consider equality with God something to be held on to at all costs made the decision to make Himself nothing while existing in the very form of Deity itself.

Equality with God

The hymn speaks of “equality with God.” Is this merely another way of saying “in the form of God”? Many think so,[iv] some arguing on grammatical grounds.[v] But I suggest that this equality with God is the result of being in “the form of God.” Remember that Paul is here speaking to Christians who are “equal” with one another before God, all standing upon the same grounds of redemption, none superior to another. Even though the pre-incarnate Son had an equality with the Father on the basis of being, and hence had equal “rights” with the Father to the worship of the entire universe,[vi] He voluntarily laid aside the rights that naturally come from eternally existing in that state. By staying focused on Paul’s purpose (the illustration of what “humility of mind” means) we can see the heart of the hymn’s thrust. Christ did not descend from an inferior position, but from a position of equality with the Father.

To Grasp or to Hold?

Non-orthodox interpreters focus heavily on the next phrase up for consideration, that being the singular Greek term harpagmos. Literally it means “something to grasp after,” and this is its most natural translation. Taken in this way the term would indicate that Christ did not grasp after equality with God, and those interpreters who wish to avoid the deity of Christ conclude that the passage is plainly indicating an inferiority on Christ’s part. However, there are many reasons to reject this position.

First, the hymn has already asserted the deity of Christ in the strongest terms. Proponents of this view have to adopt the most unusual understandings of what “form of God” means to avoid this problem. Second, the phrase can be understood just as well in the passive sense of “something to be held on to or grasped,” and as in every other instance of proper interpretation, the context is the key to meaning. Third, to take the phrase in the active sense is to destroy the entirety of the example Paul is pressing. If Christ was not equal with the Father, but was in some sense a subordinate created being, the illustration of humility involving the voluntary renunciation of rights so as to serve others is abrogated. There is no “humility” in an inferior creature not seeking after equality with God. Such is a matter of not committing the heinous sin of blasphemy, nothing more. If we take harpagmos in its active sense as these interpreters suggest, the text is stood on its head and its meaning is destroyed.

This is why Christian interpreters down through the ages have seen this poetic use of the term in its passive sense. He who eternally existed in the form of God did not consider the resultant equality He had with the Father something to be held on to at all costs, but, instead, made Himself nothing.

He Made Himself Nothing

In modern times great emphasis has been placed upon the next important phrase in our ancient hymn, that being the term kenow, literally, “to empty.” The “Kenosis” refers to the “emptying” of Christ, based upon this very passage. But what is the text saying? Does it mean that Christ ceased to be in the form of God?

The first thing to realize is that Paul never uses this term in a literal fashion. In the four other places Paul uses this verb (Romans 4:14, 1 Corinthians 1:17, 9:15, 2 Corinthians 9:3) he uses it in a metaphorical, not a literal, sense. Most carry the meaning of making a boast “empty” or “vain.”

Next, this is something the Son does! This fact is often overlooked, even in scholarly discussions. There is no outside power “emptying” Christ of something, but instead this is an action He takes with reference to Himself. What condescension! Christ voluntarily and without compulsion undertakes this great act of humble servitude.

I have translated the term “made Himself nothing” to capture the thrust of Paul’s appeal: He who eternally existed in the form of God, the Creator and Maker of all things (Colossians 1:16-17), enters quietly into His very own creation so as to become a servant. The Incarnate One does not “stand out from the crowd,” does not appear with halo or angelic glow, “had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him, nothing in his appearance that we should desire him” (Isaiah 53:2, NIV). He makes Himself “nothing,” for in comparison to the infinite and eternal, mankind is “a vapor that appears for a little while and then vanishes away” (James 4:14).

But how was this action of making Himself “nothing” accomplished? It is just here that we must listen to this hymn from the balcony of heaven itself. We must hear the words from a divine and heavenly perspective. The Son makes Himself “nothing” by taking the form of a servant and being made in the likeness of man.[vii] From the human realm, “being made nothing” by taking does not seem right. But when we see the glory and majesty and power of the One who is here condescending to enter into creaturely existence when He Himself is the Creator, we can begin to appreciate how this act of being made nothing is properly described as taking the form of a servant and being made in the likeness of man. Daniel B. Wallace, an eminent Greek scholar, sees both terms “taking” and “being made” as the means by which the “being made nothing” is accomplished.[viii]

The biggest difficulty with seeing labwn (taking) as means is that emptying is normally an act of subtraction, not addition. But the imagery should not be made to walk on all fours. As an early hymn, it would be expected to have a certain poetic license….The Philippians were told not to puff themselves up with “empty glory,” because Christ was an example of one who emptied his glory. If this connection is intentional, then the Carmen Christi has the following force:

Do not elevate yourselves on empty glory, but follow the example of Christ, who, though already elevated (on God’s level), emptied his glory by veiling it in humanity.[ix]

So the means of the kenosis is the addition of a human nature, the veiling of the divine in the creaturely. This is important to understand, for many interpret Paul to mean that Christ abandons the “form of God” rather than seeing this as an addition of the human nature to the eternal divine nature that was Christ’s. It is this addition that “veils” the form of God. While there are certainly many who see this passage teaching that Christ did indeed lay aside the “form of God,” the words of Paul do not present such a concept.

Humiliation and Exaltation

Once we have a clear understanding of the tremendous condescension of Christ seen in his entering into creaturely existence as a man we can fully embrace the tremendous words that follow: Christ takes on the very form of a slave (not merely a servant), and upon entering human existence humbles Himself by becoming “obedient to the point of death,” even the excruciating death of the cross. We dare not rush by understanding that it is Christ who both makes Himself nothing (v. 7) and humbles Himself (v. 8). Christ was not made nothing nor humbled: these were sovereign actions of a powerful Savior who pursues His purpose and goal: the redemption of His people (Matthew 1:21).

The reward for patient obedience and suffering is exaltation. Here the faithful Messiah, the Suffering Servant, receives His rightful reward: exaltation to the “highest place,” the name which is “above every name,” and the common confession of His Lordship by every tongue in heaven and on earth and under the earth. All of this, we are told, results in the glory of God the Father, the fountainhead and source of the entire plan of salvation itself (Eph. 1:3-6). One can almost hear the hushed but faith-filled voices of the early Christians singing this last refrain as they gather in secret places, hidden from the persecution of the world, yet looking to a time when every tongue will join in their song.

Differing Views

But what of those who hold to different views of this passage? Let’s look at just a few so that we can be confident of the conclusions we have reached.

One view with much merit that is fully orthodox and worthy of consideration is presented by Daniel B. Wallace. He holds the view that while “form of God” emphasizes the deity of Christ in no uncertain terms (ontological equality with the Father), the phrase “equality with God” should be understood to refer to something different: to the hierarchical relationship of Father and Son. Therefore, he believes the passage is saying that while eternally God, the Son did not grasp at a functional equality with the Father. He writes:

Although Christ was truly God (morphe theou), two things resulted: (1) he did not attempt to “outrank” the Father, as it were (cf. John 14:28 for a similar thought: “The Father is greater than I am”); (2) instead, he submitted himself to the Father’s will, even to the point of death on a cross. It was thus not Christ’s deity that compelled his incarnation and passion, but his obedience.[x]

Surely this understanding has much to commend it. It has strong grammatical basis, affirms the deity of Christ, is consistent with Trinitarian theology, and is easily defensible. However, there are two reasons I prefer the interpretation given above. First, this is a poetic section. Terms are used in poetry/hymns in ways that transcend the strictly grammatical usage one would find in normal prose contexts. While usage in other contexts might favor the active sense of “grasping” at something one does not already possess, in this passage the over-all context has to take precedence. As Wallace noted above, poetic license is already present in this early hymn. Second, while Wallace’s interpretation still presents the element of humility, it focuses it solely upon the humility shown in the Messiah’s death on the cross. The element of humility in the Incarnation is still present, but I believe the intended contrast is weakened, for the exhortation to the Philippians is that they voluntarily lay aside the rights that are theirs so as to serve others. Christ voluntarily makes Himself “nothing,” and the emphasis is upon the freedom of that act.

Another position that must be addressed involves the assertion that this hymn does not take us back into eternity, and that the time-frame of the words “existing in the form of God” is actually in reference to the human ministry of Christ. This viewpoint is shared by a diverse group: Lutheran scholars have often presented this idea in support of their concept of the ubiquity of the body of Christ; Arian apologists have attempted to undercut the passage’s testimony to the eternity of Christ in this fashion; Oneness Pentecostals present this idea frequently because they deny the eternal existence of the Son as a divine Person; and others choose this path because they feel it helps to avoid “difficulties” in interpretation.[xi] In any case, no matter what the motivation, the result is the same: the text is turned on its head. Not only is the exhortation to humility lost, but there is no way to meaningfully interpret the phrase “being made in human likeness” if, in fact, this does not refer to the Incarnation event. Some attempt to say that the act of humility here is Christ’s obedience to the will of the Father in going to the cross, which is certainly true, as far as it goes. But this makes the entire description of Christ “making Himself nothing” a tautology with no inherent meaning. Clearly the passage speaks of the Incarnation and the humility of mind shown by the Son who voluntarily lays aside the divine privileges that are His and then enters into human existence.

Summary of Cultic Views

The best preparation for an apologetic defense of any passage of Scripture is a thorough familiarity with the text itself. But it is also helpful to know how various groups approach a passage so that you can provide a meaningful response. Here is a summary of the views of the major groups that might make reference to this passage.

Jehovah’s Witnesses

The Watchtower Society provides a tortured translation of Philippians 2:5-7 in their New World Translation:

Keep this mental attitude in YOU that was also in Christ Jesus, who, although he was existing in God’s form, gave no consideration to a seizure, namely, that he should be equal to God. No, but he emptied himself and took a slave’s form and came to be in the likeness of men.

Witnesses use this “translation” as evidence that Christ did not try to become equal with God. They assume that “form of God” simply means “in spirit form.” As we have seen, this interpretation is completely disconnected from the context and functionally does away with any exhortation to humility. Seemingly sensing this their field service ministry handbook says,

Which thought agrees with the context? Verse 5 counsels Christians to imitate Christ in the matter here being discussed. Could they be urged to consider it “not robbery,” but their right, “to be equal with God”? Surely not! However, they can imitate one who “gave no consideration to a seizure, namely, that he should be equal to God.”[xii]

Such an attempted “explanation” completely misses the nature of humility as having rights and laying them aside in service to others.

Mormonism

In-depth biblical exegesis is not the hallmark of Mormonism, and that remains true of the new group of scholarly apologists as well. Mormonism begins at such a radically different point with its view that “God became God by obedience to law”[xiii] that doing serious exegesis of the biblical text is really an impossibility. The Christian apologist needs to focus upon the more fundamental issue in Mormonism (its completely defective view of God) before any attempt is made to deal with such passages as Philippians 2.[xiv]

Oneness Pentecostalism

There is no single unified interpretation found in the writings of Oneness advocates. The leading Oneness theologian, David Bernard, while asserting that “the Son is not eternal, but was begotten by God almost 2000 years ago,” does interpret the passage to refer to a preincarnate time period. He maintains the Oneness emphasis on the idea that Jesus is, in reality, two persons:

From the Oneness point of view, Jesus is not God the Son, but He is all of God, including Father and Son. Thus, in His divinity, He is truly equal to, or identical to God. The word equal here means that the divine nature of Jesus was the very nature of God the Father.[xv]

Other Oneness advocates present the above-mentioned idea that this refers to Christ’s human existence, not to the period prior to the Incarnation.[xvi] The same comments made above refuting this idea would apply here as well.

Know Your Lord

Why should you work to understand this ancient hymn? In the final analysis, it is because we as Christians are to worship God in spirit and in truth (John 4:24), and to worship God truly requires that we know our God. And, since we are to grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ (2 Peter 3:18), we must embrace all the means He has given us to do so, and this ancient hymn of the faith is one of the most important jewels of revelation given to us.

Summary:

Philippians 2:5-11 is a fragment of an ancient hymn of the Christian church. Paul presents these verses as a great sermon illustration of what it means to act in humility of mind: to have certain rights and yet to voluntarily lay them aside in service to others.

This vital passage teaches us that the Son eternally existed in the very form of God. He did not enter into this state, but eternally existed as Deity, equal with the Father. His great humility is seen in the divine truth that He did not consider that equality He had with the Father a thing to be held on to at all costs, but, instead, as the greatest example of humility ever seen, veiled Himself in human flesh, entered into existence as the God-Man, and gave His life on the cross.

But to establish these truths one must look closely at the terms used in this ancient hymn. This is especially true in light of the myriad of differing interpretations that have been presented over the centuries, many of which are presented solely to undercut this passage’s testimony to the eternality and deity of Christ. There are some alternate possibilities worthy of our review, but in general, each involves compromising the testimony to humility that is part and parcel of Paul’s purpose in these words.

Having a firm understanding of the context of the passage will help the Christian apologist to provide a solid, biblically-based response to those who seek to present falsehood about the Person of Christ.

Endnotes

——————————————————————————–

[i] See Lightfoot, St. Paul’s Epistle to the Philippians (1913), 127-133.

[ii] See discussion below regarding those who reject this idea.

[iii] B.B. Warfield, The Person and Work of Christ (Presbyterian and Reformed, 1950), 39.

[iv] Alva J. McClain, “The Doctrine of the Kenosis in Philippians 2:5–8”, Grace Theological Journal, Spring, 1967, 8.

[v] N. T. Wright, “Harpagmos and the Meaning of Philippians 2:5–11, ” JTS, NS 37 (1986) 34[v], but see response by Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics – Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament, (Garland, TX: Galaxie Software) 1999, 635.

[vi] As we see in Isaiah 6:1-4, a vision of the Son as John teaches in John 12:39-41.

[vii] Both participles, “taking” and “being made,” are describing the means of the “making Himself nothing,” that is, of the “kenosis.”

[viii] That is, the syntactical function of these two participles is circumstantial modal.

[ix] Wallace, 630.

[x] Wallace, 635.

[xi] Robert Reymond, A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith, (Thomas Nelson, 1998), provides an extensive discussion of the passage (253-264) and takes this view. I believe, however, this section isolates the passage and divorces it from the context: the issue of humility of mind is lost in the highly technical discussion of strophes and poetic parallels.

[xii] Reasoning from the Scriptures, 419-420.

[xiii] Achieving a Celestial Marriage Student Manual, (Church Educational System: Salt Lake City, 1992), 4.

[xiv] For examples of the complete misuse of this passage in LDS writings, see, Erastus Smow in Journal of Discourses, 19:328-330, and Bruce R. McConkie, Doctrinal New Testament Commentary, 2:531-533.

[xv] David Bernard, The Oneness of God (Word Aflame Press, 1983), 222.

[xvi] See the debate with Dr. Robert Sabin in Real Audio posted at www.aomin.org.

This article first appeared in the Christian Research Journal, Volume 22 / Number 3.

——————————————————————————–

CHRISTIAN SOLDIERS MINISTRIES was granted permission to post this article by the Christian Research Institute   www.equip.org