{"id":3264,"date":"2021-06-01T19:01:09","date_gmt":"2021-06-02T01:01:09","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/integritysyndicate.com\/?p=3264"},"modified":"2023-06-28T19:58:03","modified_gmt":"2023-06-29T01:58:03","slug":"philippians2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/integritysyndicate.com\/philippians2\/","title":{"rendered":"Analysis of Philippians Chapter 2"},"content":{"rendered":"\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

Introduction<\/h2>

The theme of Philippians 2 is \u201chaving the mind of Christ.\u201d (Phil 2:5). In verses 6-11, the testimony of Jesus Christ is provided as the principal example of the humility and obedience we should have. Also emphasized, is the reward that Jesus received from selfless service and obedience (Phil 2:8-11). However, Phil 2:6-7 has been traditionally used as a proof text for advocates of the doctrine of incarnation. This is because verses 6-7 are typically translated with a traditional bias that prejudices the reader into reading incarnation into the passage. However, this passage does not teach that Jesus was God and then became a man. Let’s start by looking at the popular ESV version.\u00a0<\/p>

Philippians 2:1-18 (ESV)
<\/h3>

1<\/sup> So if there is any encouragement in Christ<\/strong>, any comfort from love, any participation in the Spirit, any affection and sympathy, 2<\/sup> complete my joy by being<\/strong> of the same mind, having the same love, being in full accord and of one mind.<\/strong> 3<\/sup> Do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves.<\/strong> 4<\/sup> Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others.<\/strong> 5<\/sup> Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus<\/strong>, 6<\/sup> who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7<\/sup> but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant<\/strong>, being born in the likeness of men. 8<\/sup> And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross<\/strong>. 9<\/sup> Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, 10<\/sup> so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11<\/sup> and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.<\/p>

12<\/sup> Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed<\/strong>, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling<\/strong>, 13<\/sup> for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure. 14<\/sup> Do all things without grumbling or disputing<\/strong>, 15<\/sup> that you may be blameless and innocent<\/strong>, children of God without blemish in the midst of a crooked and twisted generation<\/strong>, among whom you shine as lights in the world<\/strong>, 16<\/sup> holding fast to the word of life<\/strong>, so that in the day of Christ I may be proud that I did not run in vain or labor in vain. 17<\/sup> Even if I am to be poured out as a drink offering upon the sacrificial offering of your faith<\/strong>, I am glad and rejoice with you all. 18<\/sup> Likewise you also should be glad and rejoice with me.<\/p>

What is the issue?<\/h2>

\u00a0<\/p>

The translation in the ESV above gives a powerful indication of how profound this passage is in emphasizing the message of humility and obedience; having the same mind that Christ had. The issue is that embedded within this passage is a traditional twisting of scripture to forward the doctrine of the incarnation. The principal issue is Phil 2:6-7 which is deceptively translated to infer Jesus first was in the form of God and then became a man. This is not at all what the Greek says.<\/p>

This passage is recognized by bible scholars as a poem that probably parallels Isaiah 53 pertaining to the suffering servant. It is not intended to be a theological treatise. The context is having the mind of Jesus, the human Messiah. The subject is not about a change in Jesus’s essence or nature. Nor is it referring to a time before Jesus was a man.\u00a0<\/p>

If the intent of Phil 2:6 is to indicate Jesus is God, why not say \u201cWho, being God\u201d rather than \u201cwho being in the form of God\u201d? \u2014 It is not necessary to say God is in the form of God because he is God. Phil 1:2 makes a distinction between Jesus and God. Best practices for Biblical hermeneutics disqualify Jesus from being identified as God in Phil 2:6.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

Outlining what is wrong with the ESV<\/h2>

The ESV translation of Phil 2:6-7 is provided below, and issues are outlined with respect to the emphasized portions of the verses.\u00a0<\/p>

Philippians 2:6-8 (ESV)
<\/h3>

\u00a06<\/sup> who, though he was in the form of God<\/span><\/strong>, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7<\/sup> but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant<\/strong><\/span>, being born in the likeness of men<\/strong><\/span>. 8<\/sup> And being found in human form<\/span><\/strong>, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.<\/p>

Issue #1: \u201cThough he was in the form of God\u201d<\/strong><\/h4>

The Greek verb hyparcho<\/em> is translated as \u201che was\u201d here. The Greek verb is in the present active voice (not the aorist) meaning \u201che is\u201d or \u201che has\u201d rather than \u201che was\u201d. That is, Jesus is\u00a0now<\/em>\u00a0in\u00a0<\/em>form of God \u2013 Not that he was in the form of God before he was made in the likeness of man. The first part of Phil 2:6 refers to the present circumstances of now being in the<\/em> form of God having been exalted and being given a name above every name (Phil 2:9-11). Some translations render this as \u201cbeing in the form of God\u201d which is more correct than \u201che was\u201d<\/p>

The word \u201cthough\u201d is not in the Greek text and is an interpretive interpolation. An interpolation is a new or spurious matter inserted into the text. In this case, it is used to bias the reader to give the impression that the statement is to be contrasted with what comes after in verse 6 \u201cdid not count equality with God a thing to be grasped.\u201d Adding the word \u201cthough\u201d to \u201che was\u201d is a biased interpretive decision that goes beyond what the actual text conveys.<\/p>

Issue #2, \u201cby taking the form of a servant\u201d<\/strong><\/h4>

There is no word \u201cby\u201d in Greek. This is added by the translators to imply that Jesus made the decision to become a man. \u201cBy\u201d in this case is another interpretive interpolation (new or spurious matter inserted into the text).\u00a0<\/p>

Issue #3, \u201cborn in the likeness of men\u201d<\/strong><\/h4>

The Greek word translated ‘born’ is \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u1f79\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 (ginomai<\/em>) means to be, become, happen; to come into existence, be born. The general meaning is to come into existence without any reference to any kind of preexistence.\u00a0<\/p>

Issue #4, \u201cin human form\u201d<\/strong><\/h4>

The Greek word translated \u201cform\u201d here is what something is rather than what something appears to be. That is, Jesus is a man in composition and not just in appearance. The ESV translates both the Greek words morphe<\/em> and schema<\/em> as \u201cform\u201d but these Greek words have a different meanings. Schema pertains more to what something is including the functional aspect of something (BDAG) rather than the outward appearance (morphe)<\/em>. The English translation conflates morphe<\/em> \u201cform\u201d (what something appears to be outwardly appearance) with scheme<\/em> \u201cform\u201d (what something is in its composition). Rendering these two words ‘form’ in English obscures the difference. To maintain the distinction that is in Greek it would be more accurate to translate morphe<\/em> as \u201cdisplay\u201d or \u201cappearance\u201d and schema<\/em> as \u201cfashion\u201d or \u201ccomposition\u201d (ontology). That is, Jesus is in the display of God but was brought into existence in the composition of a man.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>

<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

Literal Translation<\/h2>

Below is the literal rendering of Philippians 2:5-11 based on the interlinear table (Interlinear<\/a>). It closely matches the word order of the Greek. This translation, constant with the Greek meaning, does not suggest incarnation. It should also be evident that each statement within the passage makes perfect sense considering the context as a whole.<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

Philippians 2:5-11 Literal Translation<\/h3>

5<\/sup> This thinking in you<\/p>

that also in anointed, in Jesus,<\/p>

6<\/sup> who in form of God he subsists,<\/p>

not seizure,<\/p>

he ruled himself<\/p>

being equal to God,<\/p>

7<\/sup> rather himself he emptied,<\/p>

form of servile he received,<\/p>

in likeness of men he was caused-to-be,<\/p>

and in fashion<\/p>

\u00a0he was found as a man.<\/p>

8 <\/sup>He humbled himself<\/p>

having become obedient until death<\/p>

even on a cross.\u00a0<\/p>

9<\/sup> Therefore also the God himself he exalted<\/p>

and bestowed to him<\/p>

the name the beyond every name<\/p>

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

every knee would bow,<\/p>

of heaven and of earth and of under the earth,<\/p>

11<\/sup> and every tongue would confess<\/p>

that Lord Jesus anointed<\/p>

for glory of God, of Father.<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

Justification of words used<\/h2>

\u201cin Christ\u201d<\/h4>

The Greek word \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u1ff7\u00a0 (Christo) in the dative voice meaning the anointed one. The anointed one<\/em>\u00a0is the Greek term for the human Messiah (See John 1:41). The anointed one is the man (Son of Man) that God has appointed to judge the world in righteousness (Acts 17:31).\u00a0<\/p>

\u201cHe subsists\u201d<\/h4>

The word here \u1f51\u03c0\u1f71\u03c1\u03c7\u03c9\u03bd (hyparcho\u0304n) can also be understood as to be and also to be in possession. That is, Jesus has the appearance\/repute of God.\u00a0 Having the repute of God is not saying the same thing as being in very nature God.\u00a0 The following are verses illustrating the verb hyparcho\u0304 refers to possessing as attested by Acts 3:6 \u201cI have (hyparcho\u0304) no silver and gold\u201d and 2 Pet 1:8 \u201cFor if these qualities are yours (hyparcho\u0304).\u201d Correspondingly, the noun hyparchonta refers to possessions (See Matt 24:47, Matt 25:14, Luke 11:21, Luke 12:33, Luke 12:44, Luke 14:33, Luke 16:1, Luke 19:8, 1 Cor 13:3 and Heb 10:34)<\/p>

Again, the participle\u00a0hyparch\u014dn<\/i> is a present active participle. A present active participle could be used to refer to something in the past if the main verb is past tense, referring to a past event. However, participles are not necessarily contemporaneous with the main verb. The context clearly demonstrates that Jesus is now been given the expression of God because he first took the expression of a servant and humbly obeyed his God unto death.<\/p>

Assuming Jesus is God in an ontological sense, as Trinitarians believe, it makes no sense whatsoever that Paul would ever need to tell us God the Son didn’t regard plunder to be equal to God. Rather, if being or having the form\/appearance of God refers to the exalted and glorified Jesus, everything Paul says makes complete sense. It also fits perfectly with Paul’s concluding words in verses 9 to 11 where he explains that God highly exalted Jesus due to his humble obedience. That is, Jesus, who is now in the form of God, did not regard this equality with God as something to plunder for himself.<\/p>

\u201cForm\u201d<\/h4>

The Greek word used \u03bc\u03bf\u03c1\u03c6\u1fc7 (morphe\u0304 ) means form, outward appearance, shape. \u201cExpression,\u201d meaning something that manifests, embodies, or symbolizes something else (Merriam Webster) fits this definition well. \u201cForm\u201d is a less appropriate choice because the distinction between what something is and what something appears to be is lost. Rather, morphe<\/em> carries the notion of position and status, as in Tobit 1:13 of LXX (\u201cstatus\u201d). The comparison with the morphe<\/em> of a servant\u201d (v.7) enables us to understand morphe<\/em>\u00a0as used in the context of the passage is more like status, position, or rank. In British English, \u201cform\u201d is used interchangeably with \u201crank\u201d as a person can be spoken of as in being in good \u201cform\u201d or \u201cshape.\u201d<\/p>

From secular writings, we learn that the Greeks used\u00a0morph\u0113<\/em>\u00a0to describe when the gods changed their appearance. Kittel (TDNT<\/em>) points out that in pagan mythology, the gods change their forms (morph\u0113<\/em>), especially noting Aphrodite, Demeter, and Dionysus as three who did. This is clearly a change of appearance, not nature. Josephus, a contemporary of the Apostles, used\u00a0morph\u0113<\/em>\u00a0to describe the shape of statues (Bauer\u2019s Lexicon<\/em>).<\/p>

Other uses of\u00a0morph\u0113<\/em>\u00a0in the Bible support the position that\u00a0morph\u0113<\/em>\u00a0refers to outward appearance. The Gospel of Mark briefly references the well-known story in\u00a0Luke 24:13-33\u00a0about Jesus appearing to the two men on the road to Emmaus. Mark tells us that Jesus appeared \u201cin a different form (morph\u0113<\/em>)\u201d to these two men so that they did not recognize him (Mark 16:12). Although that section of Mark was likely not original, it indicates that the people of the time used the word\u00a0morph\u0113<\/em> to refer to a person\u2019s outward appearance. It is clear that Jesus did not have a different \u201cessential nature\u201d when he appeared to the two disciples, he simply had a different outward appearance. The Jews translating the\u00a0Septuagint<\/em>\u00a0used\u00a0morph\u0113<\/em>\u00a0several times, always referring to the outward appearance.<\/p>

Morph\u0113 does not refer to the essential nature of Christ, as some translations try to make it out to be. If the point of the verse is to say that Jesus is God, then why not just say that?\u00a0This verse does not say, \u201cJesus, being God,\u201d but rather, \u201cbeing in the form of God.\u201d It is in the same sense that Jesus was the morphe<\/em> of a servant; the activity or function of the title. Accordingly,\u00a0morphe<\/em> is not a classification of what someone is in an ontological sense (in their intrinsic being).\u00a0<\/p>

\u201cNot seizure\u201d<\/h4>

The Greek word \u1f01\u03c1\u03c0\u03b1\u03b3\u03bc\u1f78\u03bd (harpagmon) is a violent seizure of property, robbery; something to which one can claim or assert title by gripping or grasping; something claimed. That is, possessing the expression of God, is not something Jesus unjustly appropriated for himself. We see in verse 9 that it is God himself who exalted Jesus the Messiah.<\/p>

After saying that Christ was in the form of God,\u00a0Philippians 2:6\u00a0goes on to say that Christ \u201cconsidered being equal with God, not something\u00a0to be<\/em>\u00a0grasped.\u201d Translated that way, the phrase is a powerful argument\u00a0against<\/em> the Trinity. If Jesus were God, then it would make no sense to say that he did not \u201cgrasp\u201d equality with God because no one grasps at equality with himself. It only makes sense if he is not equal to God to begin with.<\/p>

\u201cHe ruled himself\u201d<\/h4>

The Greek word \u1f21\u03b3\u1f75\u03c3\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf (he\u0304geomato) means to be in a supervisory capacity, lead, guide; to engage in an intellectual process, think, consider, regard. The Greek is in the aorist middle voice indicating past tense and that he is both the subject and object of the verb \u201che asserted himself.\u201d<\/p>

\u201cEqual\u201d<\/h4>

The Greek word \u1f34\u03c3\u03b1 (isa) means equal, the same; in agreement. The meaning of proxy (1) is the agency, function, or office of a deputy who acts as a substitute for another and (2) authority or\u00a0 power to act for another and (3) a person authorized to act for another (Merriam Webster online). In light of the context of the passage \u201cproxy\u201d is a fitting word selection.<\/p>

\u201cHimself he emptied\u201d<\/h4>

The Greek word \u1f10\u03ba\u1f73\u03bd\u03c9\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd (kenoo\u0304) means to empty, deprive; (pass.) to be hollow, emptied, of no value. This is conveying the idea of depriving yourself of esteem (in the sense of expecting recognition and being highly valued others). This is constant with Isaiah.<\/p>

\u201cForm of a servant he received\u201d<\/h4>

The same Greek word morphe\u00a0<\/em>is used here as is used with respect to Jesus’ now being in the morphe\u00a0<\/em>of God in verse 6. It is clear from the context of these contrasting\u00a0morphes<\/em> that morphe<\/em> pertains to outward appearance, expression, role, or status rather than essential nature or ontology. The implication is that being in the morphe\u00a0<\/em>of God is not being God in an ontological sense but possessing the expression or role of God (by virtue of the divine power and authority he has been given).<\/p>

Accepting the\u00a0morphe <\/em>of a servant does not mean he was God and became man. Rather, as a man, he accepted his mission of being a servant and giving himself as an offering for all. There is no implication of preexistence in this passage, only that being brought into a state of conscious existence, he was a man who submitted himself to God’s will as a servant of God. The passage teaches us to have the same mind.\u00a0<\/p>

\u201cIn likeness of man he was caused-to-be\u201d<\/h4>

For many people, coming to be in the likeness of men automatically means he was not previously in the likeness of men, that is, he was not a man. In the Trinitarian mind, everything is about substance because that is the doctrine he wants to see in this verse. However, it is a function that Paul is talking about. The Greek word genomenos<\/i> is also used in the next breath when he says Jesus \u201cbecame\u201d obedient to death. Becoming in the likeness of men isn’t a way to tell us a non-human being became a human being. It is a way of telling us that Jesus conducted himself as a humble human being rather than an exalted divine being. He took the form of a servant, and the words \u201cin the likeness of humans\u201d clarify to us what is meant by his taking the form of a servant.<\/p>

\u201cIn fashion\u201d<\/h4>

The Greek word \u03c3\u03c7\u1f75\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9 (sche\u0304mati) is the generally recognized state or form of something; the functional aspect of something, according to the most highly esteemed BDAG lexicon. Composition is defined as the manner in which something is composed; general makeup (Merriam Webster) closely conveys this meaning.\u00a0 \u00a0<\/p>

\u201cHe was found\u201d<\/h4>

The Greek word\u00a0 \u03b5\u1f51\u03c1\u03b5\u03b8\u03b5\u1f76\u03c2 (heuritheis) is in the passive voice meaning \u201cto be found.\u201d\u00a0 To \u201cbe recognized\u201d conveys the meaning: to acknowledge or take notice of in some definite way (Merriam Webster).<\/p>

\u201cName above every name\u201d\u00a0<\/h4>

The Greek word translated is \u1f44\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1 (onoma) meaning name; title; reputation. in this context it refers to authority as Jesus is identified as Lord Messiah.<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

The contrast with Adam<\/h2>

Jesus did not grasp at an exalted position wrongly, as did Adam. The error of Adam was reversed in Jesus. Dr. Colin Brown at Fuller Seminary observed that Phil. 2 is not about pre-existence and post-existence, but about the contrast between Christ and Adam. Adam the man originally made in the image of God vainly sought to be like God. But Jesus did the opposite, being obedient to death \u2013 even on a cross. (Ernst Lohmeyer’s Kyrious Jesus Revisited) See also Dr. James Dunn, Christology in the Making. <\/em>Notable scholar\u00a0F.F. <\/em>Bruce also expressed that he did not think that Paul believed in a preexisting Son (The One God, the Father, One Man Messiah Translation<\/em>, 2nd Edition, p. 480, Anthony Buzzard, Restoration fellowship)<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

Quotes from Trinitarian Bible Scholars<\/h2>

James Dunn (Methodist NT Scholar) p115. Christology in the Making<\/h4>

\u201cMoreover it can readily be seen that the outline of thought in the Philippian hymn fully matches the two-stage Christology evident elsewhere in first generation Christianity. \u2013 free acceptance of man\u2019s lot followed out to death, and exaltation <\/strong>to the status of Lord over all.<\/strong>\u201d\u00a0<\/p>

J A T Robinson (Anglican NT Scholar), p166 \u201cThe Human Face of God\u201d<\/h4>

The picture is not of a celestial figure lowering himself to become a man, to be exalted still higher than he was before. Rather, it is that the entire fullness of God was enabled\u2026to find embodiment in one who was completely one of us<\/strong> as any other descendant of Abraham.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>

Jerome Murphy-O\u2019Connor (Catholic NT Scholar)<\/h4>

\u201cInevitably, those who begin their exegesis of this hymn with the assumption<\/strong> that it concerns a pre-existent divine being tend towards a docetic (gnostic) interpretation<\/strong> of these lines.\u201d<\/p>

James P. Mackey (Catholic Theologian). p52 \u201d The Christian Experience of God as Trinity\u201d<\/h4>

\u201cThe fact that in the context of the hymn in the actual epistle, there is no mention at all of this anonymous divine figure who becomes man<\/strong>\u2026\u201d<\/p>

Karl-Josef Kuschel (German Theologian) p250 \u201cBorn Before All Time\u201d<\/h4>

\u201cFrom this fact that the Jewish rather than Hellenistic syncretism may be the key to understanding the Philippians hymn, present day exegetes have drawn the radically opposite conclusion that the Philippians hymn does not speak of the pre-existence of Christ at all<\/strong>.\u201d<\/p>

Anton Vogtle (German Catholic NT Scholar) Freiburg exegete<\/h4>

“No pre-existence of Christ before the world with an independent significance can be recognized even in Phil. 2<\/strong>.”\u00a0<\/p>

Klaus Berger (German Catholic NT Scholar) Heidelberg exegete<\/h4>

“Philippians 2:6 is primarily concerned with making statements about high status and by no means necessarily concerned with pre-existence<\/strong>.”\u00a0<\/p>

Bas van Iersel (Dutch NT Scholar) p45. ‘Son of God in the New Testament’<\/h4>

“But of pre-existence and equality of being with God we cannot discover any trace in Paul’s letters<\/strong>”\u00a0<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

Better English Translations of Phil 2:6-7<\/h2>

Here is a sampling of some of the better English translations that are less prejudicial in basing the reader. They are translated more literally but yet with a bias to imply incarnation. In some cases, shown in italics, words are not translated accurately.<\/p>

Literal Standard Version (LSV):<\/strong> w<\/span>ho, being in the form of God, thought [it] not something to be seized to be equal to God, but emptied Himself, having taken the form of a servant, having been made in the likeness of men,<\/p>

Berean Study Bible (BSB)<\/strong>: <\/span>Who, existing in the form of God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in human likeness.<\/p>

English Revised Version (ERV): <\/span><\/strong>who, being in the form of God, counted it not a prize to be on an equality with God, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men;<\/p>

Tyndale Bible of 1526<\/strong>: Which beynge in the shape of god and thought it not robbery to be equall with god. Neverthelesse he made him silfe of no reputacion and toke on him the shape of a servaunte and became lyke vnto men<\/p>

Coverdale Bible of 1535: <\/span><\/strong>which beyinge in the shappe of God, thought it not robbery to be equall with God, but made him selfe of no reputacion, and toke vpon him the shappe of a seruaunt, became like another<\/em> man,<\/p>

Bishops’ Bible of 1568 <\/span><\/strong>Who beyng in the fourme of God, thought it not robbery to be equall with God. But made hym selfe of no reputation, takyng on him the fourme of a seruaut, and made in the lykenesse of men,\u00a0<\/p>

Geneva Bible of 1587<\/strong>: <\/span>Who being in ye forme of God, thought it no robberie to be equall with God: But he made himself of no reputation, & tooke on him ye forme of a seruant, & was made like vnto men, and was founde in shape<\/em> as a man.<\/p>

King James Bible of 1611<\/span><\/strong>\u00a0(KJV): <\/span><\/strong>Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:<\/p>

Young’s Literal\u00a0 Translation of 1898 (YLT):<\/strong> who, being in the form of God, thought [it] not robbery to be equal to God, but did empty himself, the form of a servant having taken, in the likeness of men having been made,<\/p>

American Standard Version of 1901 (ASV):<\/strong> who, existing in the form of God, counted not the being on an equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men;<\/p>

Lamsa Bible (Peshitta)<\/strong>: Who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation and took upon himself the form of a servant, and was in the likeness of men:<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

Erroneous presumptions and misconceptions<\/h2>

Here is a list of common erroneous presumptions and inferences regarding Phil 2:5-7<\/p>

  1. The word \u201cwas\u201d in reference to the mind of Christ biases the reader to suppose Paul is talking about a past time frame where Jesus had a certain mindset and into supposing that Christ had this mindset before he became human.<\/li>
  2. Presuming that Paul is talking about a pre-incarnate Son who \u201cwas\u201d in the \u201cform of God.\u201d<\/li>
  3. \u00a0Presuming that the term \u201cform of God\u201d means \u201cGod\u201d and falling to see that it makes no sense to refer God as being in the form of God. It only makes sense to refer to someone else as being in the image of God or the form of God.\u00a0<\/li>
  4. \u00a0Presuming that Jesus emptied himself of some of his divine prerogatives or his positional glory in heaven.<\/li>
  5. Presuming that not regard it to be a plunder to be equal to God is that Jesus had no problem being equal with God. In context, this makes no sense whatsoever since Paul’s point is to show the Philippians how to humble themselves and serve as Jesus served his God.<\/li>
  6. Taking Paul’s words to say that in verse 6, Jesus did not regard \u201cclinging to\u201d equality with God. However, that would mean the incarnate Jesus was not equal to God, which they deny.<\/li>
  7. Taking verse 6 to mean that Jesus did not exploit, or take advantage of his equality with God. However, if Jesus already had a harpagmos<\/i> where then are the words in verse 6 which refer to exploiting it? \u00a0harpagmos<\/i> hardly means exploitation. It refers to something snatched\/seized for one’s self, like plunder.<\/li>
  8. Presuming that \u201ctaking the form of a servant\u201d means \u201cadding a human nature\u201d to himself. The words \u201cbecoming in the likeness of men,\u201d or \u201ccoming to be in the likeness of men\u201d qualify the expression \u201ctaking the form of a servant.\u201d In context, the likeness of men is contrasted with the form of God. The Greek word here is saying that Jesus came into his existence in the likeness of humans.<\/li><\/ol>\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
    \n\t\t\t\t
    \n\t\t\t\t\t
    \n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
    \n\t\t\t\t
    \n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

    Worse English Translations of Phil 2:6-7<\/h2>

    Here is a sampling of some of the worst English translations that are highly prejudicial in basing the reader to not just imply incarnation but to assume it. The misleading content which deviates from the literal meaning of the text is in italics.\u00a0<\/p>

    New International Version (NIV)<\/strong>:\u00a0 <\/span>Who, being in very nature<\/em> God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage<\/em>; rather, he made himself nothing by<\/em> taking the very nature<\/em>\u00a0of a servant, being made in human likeness.<\/p>

    New Living Translation (NLT)<\/strong>: <\/span>Though<\/em> he was<\/em> God, he did not think of equality with God as something to cling to<\/em>.\u00a0 Instead, he gave up his divine privileges<\/em> ; he took the humble position<\/em> of a slave and was born as a human being. When he appeared in human form<\/em>,<\/p>

    The Message Bible (MSG):<\/strong>\u00a0 He had equal status with<\/em> God but didn’t think so much of himself that he had to cling to the advantages of that status no matter what<\/em>. Not at all. When the time came<\/em>, he set aside the privileges of deity<\/em> and took on the status of a slave, became<\/em> human!<\/p>

    New American Standard Bible 2020 (NASB 2020): <\/span><\/strong>who, as<\/em> He\u00a0already<\/i> existed in the form of God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but emptied Himself\u00a0by<\/i>\u00a0taking the form of a bond-servant\u00a0and<\/i>\u00a0being<\/em> born in the likeness of men<\/p>

    New American Standard Bible 1995 (NASB 95): <\/span><\/strong>who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men<\/span><\/p>

    Contemporary English Version (CVE): <\/span><\/strong>Christ was truly<\/em> God. But<\/em> he did not try to remain<\/em> equal with God. Instead he gave up everything<\/em> and became a slave, when<\/em> he became<\/em> like one of us<\/em>.<\/p>

    NET Bible (NET): <\/span><\/strong>who though<\/em> he existed<\/em> in the form of God did not regard equality with God as something to be grasped, but emptied himself by<\/em> taking on the form of a slave, by<\/em> looking like other<\/em> men, and by sharing<\/em> in human nature.<\/em><\/p>

    Revised Standard Version (RSV)<\/strong>: who, though<\/em> he was<\/em> in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness<\/em> of men.<\/p>

    New Revised\u00a0 Standard Version (NRSV)<\/strong>: who, though<\/em> he was<\/em> in the form of God, <\/span>did not regard equality with God<\/span><\/span>\u00a0<\/span>as something to be exploited, but emptied himself,<\/span>\u00a0<\/span>taking the form of a slave, <\/span>being born in human likeness. <\/span>And being found in human form<\/em>,<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>

    English Standard Version (ESV)<\/strong>: <\/span>who, though<\/em> he was<\/em> in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but\u00a0made himself nothing, taking the form of a\u00a0servant,\u00a0being<\/em> born in the likeness of men.<\/p>

    Christian Standard Bible (CSB): <\/span><\/strong>who, existing in the form of God, did not consider equality with God as something to be exploited. But he emptied himself by<\/em> taking the form of a slave and by becoming<\/em> like human beings. When<\/em> he found himself in the form of a human,<\/p>

    Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB): <\/span><\/strong>who, existing in the form of God, did not consider equality with God as something to be used for His own advantage. Instead He emptied Himself by<\/em> assuming<\/em> the form of a slave, taking on the likeness of men. And when He had come as<\/em> a man in His external<\/em> form,<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t

    \n\t\t\t\t
    \n\t\t\t\t\t
    \n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
    \n\t\t\t\t
    \n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

    The Ambiguous Punctuation of Philippians 2:7-8b<\/h2>

    Philippians 2:6-8 is perhaps the most contested passage in the New Testament. It has significant Christological implications and also a high level of syntactical ambiguity that presents a\u00a0conundrum\u00a0for interpretation.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>

    Robert Calhoun noted in his paper on Christological Punctuation, A note on Phil 2:3<\/a>, the syntactical ambiguity in the construal of three successive participial phrases in verse 7b-d. A punctuation variant in Phil 2:7 noted in the critical text of the 25th edition of the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Grace <\/em>(NA-25, 1964) was deleted in the 26th (NA-26, 1981), as well as the 27th and 28th editions. The deleted note says that Tischendorf puts a comma after \u1f61\u03c2 \u1f04\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2 instead of a colon after \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u1f79\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2. In fact, a closer inspection of modern printed editions of the Green NT reveals seven punctuation schemes of Philippians 2:7-8a, six of these devised prior to Lohmeyer’s study in 1928. More recently, Joachim Jeremias’ rendition of the poetic structure in 1963 has gained scholarly acceptance. The various renderings that are permitted by this ambiguity have significant consequences for the passage’s Christological implications.\u00a0<\/p>

    Let’s look at the Jeremias rendering that opens a path to explain the Christology in Neo-Aramaic terms, as Charles Talbert has done in his paper, The Problem of Pre-Existence in Philippians 2:6\u201311<\/a> (JBL 86 (1967) 141\u2013153). Jeremias proposes three strophes of four lines each, and he punctuates the end of the first strophe (6a\u20137b) with a period as follows.<\/p>

    \u00a0<\/p><\/blockquote>\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t

    \n\t\t\t\t\t\t
    \n\t\t\t\t\t
    \n\t\t\t
    \n\t\t\t\t\t\t
    \n\t\t\t\t
    \n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

    Philippians 2:7-8b, Greek, Jeremias punctuation\u00a0<\/h3>

    \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u2019 \u1f11\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba\u1f73\u03bd\u03c9\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd \u03bc\u03bf\u03c1\u03c6\u1f74\u03bd \u03b4\u03bf\u1f7b\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5 \u03bb\u03b1\u03b2\u1f7d\u03bd\u0387\u00a0<\/p>

    \u1f10\u03bd \u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9\u1f7d\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u1f7d\u03c0\u03c9\u03bd \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u1f79\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c3\u03c7\u1f75\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9 \u03b5\u1f51\u03c1\u03b5\u03b8\u03b5\u1f76\u03c2 \u1f61\u03c2 \u1f04\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c4\u03b1\u03c0\u03b5\u1f77\u03bd\u03c9\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd \u1f11\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03ba\u03c4\u03bb.<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t

    \n\t\t\t
    \n\t\t\t\t\t\t
    \n\t\t\t\t
    \n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

    Philippians 2:7-8b, English, Jeremias punctuation<\/h3>

    but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant.\u00a0<\/p>

    Being born in the likeness of men, and being found in human form, he humbled himself.<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/section>\n\t\t\t\t

    \n\t\t\t\t
    \n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

    Charles Talbert noted how dramatically this can impact interpretation. By accepting Jeremias’ placement of a period after 7b, he presses the case that what is not being described are successive stages in a chronological narration, but rather the two strobes of 6a-7b and 7c-8b are parallel. Christ emptied himself by taking the form of a slave by becoming obedient to the point of death, not by setting aside a celestial form and adopting a terrestrial one as those who read incarnation into the passage assume. Rather the passage exhibits a Christology that can be explained in neo-adamic terms. That is, the Adam Christology that Unitarians affirm.\u00a0<\/p>

    Several other scholars adopt or adapted this punctuation. Including Jeremias, these include:<\/p>