Philippians 2:5-11 is often cited as a proof text for the concept of the Trinity, or at the very least, the divinity of Jesus. As a New Testament historian, I've always been puzzled by this since, in my estimation, this is one of the last passages I would go to personally if I were Trinitarian (which I am not). Allow me to explain why.
This particular set of verses is known as a "pre-literary tradition." These are usually creeds or statements of faith that were composed before we see them written down. Hence, one should consider the term "pre-literary" as a sort of "oral tradition" that would end up being written down after its composition by somebody quoting the oral tradition. There are many examples of Pre-literary traditions in the New Testament, most of them recorded by Paul the Apostle.
Pre-literary traditions
Pre-literary traditions are typically noticeable; they are highly structured and can often be extracted from the letter as a stand-alone passage. They tend to be poetic, easy to memorize, and most notably, they set themselves apart from the rest of the work as being noticeably not written by the letter writer. They use language, words, and structure that the author recording would not usually use. An excellent example would be quoting Shakespeare in conversation with friends. Usually, people can tell right away you're quoting Shakespeare because he speaks in a way that we usually do not, so it stands out.
Philippians 2:5-9 is just such a passage. It's a highly structured passage that speaks in a way Paul never does, using language and word order Paul doesn't use. Paul appears to be quoting this oral tradition as though he expects his readers to recognize it immediately (like us with Shakespeare). In other words, Paul didn't author this little creed here; he's quoting it.
New Testament scholars know this particular Pre-literary tradition as having a "low" Christology: The idea that Jesus was "merely a man" (which is, in my opinion, a very misleading phrase). The term "low Christology" was the name given to them by the Trinitarians to provide the perception that those who subscribe to this Christology are demeaning Jesus. A New Testament historian named Dr. Ehrman, calls this view "exaltation Christology," which is the idea that Jesus was an incredibly righteous human man and was therefore exalted to be messiah at the right hand of G-d. Whether it is using "exalted Christology" or the term "low Christology", the conclusion points to Jesus as a human. While still a human (albeit an extraordinary one) he is not G-d, but who, through his incredible humility and obedience, earned the position of exaltation at the hand of G-d. Because of this earned exaltation, Dr. Ehrman calls it "exaltation Christology."
Below is the text in question so you can read and be familiar with it as we explain the various parts. Once the complete understanding is realized, we will conclude with our amplified translation.
5. Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, 6. who, though he was in the form of G-d, did not count equality with G-d a thing to be grasped, 7. but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. 8. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. 9. Therefore G-d has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name (ESV)
Have this mindset
Most translations render these verses to something of this effect to remain consistent with their doctrines of divine Christology:
“You must have the same attitude that Christ Jesus had. Though he was God, he did not think of equality with God as something to cling to. Instead, he gave up his divine privileges; he took the humble position of a slave and was born as a human being. When he appeared in human form, he humbled himself in obedience to God and died a criminal’s death on a cross.” (NLT)
This translation is particularly problematic in many areas which we will cover later. However, this rendering that many translators prefer creates numerous issues. If we are to have the same mindset as Christ and this poem is the mindset we are to have, then by logical deduction we should think ourselves as G-d and not think it's robbery to be His equal (Heaven forbid). Is this really what Paul intended? If we understand the verses to serve as the mindset we should have, then we should expect to see an example of mindset which avoids blasphemy.
This very phrase which comes directly before the poem is meant to set the stage for exactly how we are to read it and understand its meaning. As we inspect the rest of the verses, we will see that Paul is not teaching us to think of ourselves as G-d's equals, but rather giving us an example mindset to follow and one of the many tools of worship we are to utilize to bring G-d glory.
The Form of G-d
"...who, though he was in the form of G-d..." (ESV)
Through the trinitarian lens, the phrase "Jesus, who...in the form of G-d" is a clear example of trinitarian Christology (the NLT example above even just leaves this word "form" out entirely). However, the Greek word translated to mean "form" is "morphe." In Bullinger's Critical Lexicon, morphe has a single-word definition, "form." However, the Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature by Walter Bauer defines morphe as "form, outward appearance, shape." The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, edited by Gerhard Kittel, has "form, external appearance." Kittel also notes that morphe and schema (appearance) are often interchangeable. Schema is also used in this passage in verse 8, which many translations, such as the ESV, translate as "being found in human form." If we insist these words are not interchangeable, the verse should read, "being found in human appearance." This rendition would create additional issues, particularly as it would appeal to Docetism, create contradictions within Paul's own writings, and invalidate Jesus as a Messiah.
We also see morphe before the word "servant" in verse 7. This verse also coincidentally uses another word for "image/form/appearance/likeness," and that's homoioma (homoiomati as it's written in this passage specifically). Homoioma is the same word the writers of the LXX (Greek Septuigant) decided to use for Genesis 1:26:
"Let us make man in our image after our own likeness."
Our passage uses it as "being born/made in the likeness of men." This is the exact wording that any descendant of Adam could use for themselves, as Adam was made in the image and likeness of G-d.
These statements are no longer statements of divinity, as these are the same statements made by G-d when speaking of Adam. If the poem wanted to call Jesus divine, it would refer to Jesus directly as G-d, which it does not. In fact, there are no scriptures that plainly state Jesus is G-d. Instead, it says, "Jesus is like G-d, just as Adam was."
Equal with G-d
"...did not consider equality with G-d something to be grasped”
Often, this verse is translated as "...did not consider it robbery to be G-d's equal". The Greek word harpagmos is often translated as "robbery" in trinitarian translations due to the anti-trinitarian notions it would present if translated and phrased differently. However, "robbery" doesn't capture the word's whole meaning. Paul never uses harpagmos except in this one verse. It's not Paul's ordinary language, proving this is a pre-literary tradition. Harpagmos means "to take what isn't yours. To seize, mostly in cases of a thing not had. To acquire what isn't owned." In all cases of the word used in Greek, it's talking about the taking of something that the taker doesn't have. To obtain, usually by stealing/robbery. To complicate it further, the usage of harpagmos is in the negative in this particular verse. The theological implications of translating it more faithful to the text would violate an existing bias, which is why many trinitarian translators opt for specific verbiage to skirt the issue.
A better translation would employ the fuller meaning of the word of taking what does not belong to him as something not achieved:
“...did not consider equality with G-d something he could obtain.”
In other words, being equal with G-d was not something Jesus ever even considered. It couldn't be taken/grasped/robbed.
Let's take a quick step back and put this all together in its context before continuing.
6. Who, although he was in the form/appearance of G-d, did not consider equality with G-d something to be obtained. 7. But emptied himself by taking the form/appearance of a slave, being born/made in the likeness of men 8. And being found in human appearance/form he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.
Jesus was made in the image/likeness of G-d, in the same way Adam was. This is why Paul also refers to Jesus as “the second Adam” in 1 Corinthians 15. Don’t get me wrong, we are ALL made in G-d’s image/likeness, but Adam was directly created in G-d’s image. Adam is “more so” in G-d’s image than we are. The same is true of Jesus since he directly reflects G-d like Adam did.
Jesus (like Adam) is a direct reflection of G-d, made in His image/likeness. And even though he existed in this perfect "Adam-like" state, he (unlike Adam) didn't consider equality with G-d something he could obtain. This is where Adam failed; Adam ate the fruit to "become like G-d" (Genesis 3:5). This "second Adam"/Jesus, however, did not fail. Instead, he emptied himself (which is just another way of saying "he humbled himself"), becoming like a slave/servant. Rather than failing like Adam, he lived in perfect obedience and never once thought of himself on G-d's level despite his perfection. He obeyed even to death on a cross, something he did not deserve.
The Biggest thing to note here, when it comes to these pre-literary traditions, is the poetic structure of the whole thing. Remember, all pre-literary traditions are highly structured; it's no mistake that all three available words for "likeness/form/appearance" are being used in the poem. There is a clear poetic repetition of the words for "form/appearance/likeness" being used as synonyms throughout the chiastic structure of the poem. They essentially say the same thing in different ways, including ways the Torah uses to describe all humans. The statements about Jesus are not statements of divinity; they are more like parallel statements about Adam and Jesus, contrasting one's failure to one's ultimate success.
G-d exalted him
Note the language at the end of our poem in verse 9:
“Therefore G-d highly exalted him and gave him a name above all names”
Here, we see where the name of this Christology comes from. G-d exalted him because of his humility and obedience. This statement doesn’t make sense if Jesus is already G-d. His exaltation is a direct result of his attitude, that regardless of his status he remained humble and became a servant, a mindset which Paul asks the Philippians to also have in verse 5:
“Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Jesus Christ.”
The other thing to point out in this passage is that “G-d gave him a name above all names.” Logically, this implies he had to be given this name by an external giver. If you are given something, you are taking something that you didn't create and you didn't originally own to give. This presents numerous divinity claim issues as well as polytheistic ones. As stated before, this is a direct result of his attitude of humility and obedience regardless of his status. He didn’t have it before. If he’s G-d then he doesn’t need to be exalted by G-d to be seated next to G-d, he should have been seated there the whole time, and he shouldn’t need to be given a name he already possesses.
This language is also fairly typical for Jewish theology; to be "in possession of G-d's name" is something we see angels sometimes have. But to put it in a more relatable sense, an agent is sent "in the name of" a person, and in a Jewish context, the agent is carrying that name. Rashi goes as far as to say, "The agent of the king is the king." Therefore, all agents in the Jewish world are to be called by their sender's name and treated as though they are the very person they represent.
"Name" in the Semitic context can also mean "authority." In the agency context, a person is also sent on the authority of his sender. Laws are written in the name/authority of a king or legislator. A sheriff deputizes others, granting authority in the sheriff's name. Even today, we still use fragments of this kind of language, though not to the same extent as the ancient world.
Lastly, this pre-literary tradition predates the idea that "Jesus is G-d," which doesn't pop up till about 70-75 AD, years after the temple's destruction. Every apostle is already dead, including Paul. The first version of the idea of the divinity of Jesus is found within a belief known as Docetism. In the views of Docetism, Jesus only appeared to be a human but wasn't actually a human; he was G-d in the form/appearance of a human, similar to that of an illusion.
The Docetists understood that G-d can't be a human and humans can't be G-d. But they read certain passages and understood Jesus to be portrayed as being G-d. This eventual misreading would force their hand to choose between Jesus being G-d or human, but they understood there was no in-between. Being Greek-minded, the Docetists adopted the idea that Jesus is G-d, seeing no real issue with making the centre figure of their religion into a god. This process is quite common in the Greek world, where many human figures are so great they eventually become a god added to the pantheon of Greek mythology.
The fact is, however, that this pre-literary tradition exists in a time when Docetism does not yet exist. If we keep things in their historical context, this oral tradition can only be about "adoption Christology" or "exaltation Christology". This particular pre-literary tradition does not tell us whether this "adoption" happens at his death, resurrection, or accession. However, all three ideas existed when this letter was written.
To the glory of G-d
Despite the various Christologies, G-d is still the object of worship at the very end of the passage, and Jesus is sort of like a tool of worship, but not the object of worship. The verse reads:
"so that at the name of Jesus every knee will bow…and every tongue confess that Jesus is lord/master to the glory of G-d the Father."
Firstly, notice how Kyrios is the Greek word for "lord/master," it doesn't always refer to the L-rd. It is a very general term for lord, no different from the ancient peoples calling everybody higher than them in the social standing "my lord." Today, we still use this word in a general sense, like referring to a "landlord." I prefer to translate the word "master" when it lacks the definite article (the) to show the apparent difference in English, which is frequently hard to accomplish.
Secondly, you can see that G-d is the object of worship with the phrase "to the glory of God the Father." In other words, confessing Jesus as the Messiah gives glory to G-d.
"so that at the name of Jesus every knee will bow…and every tongue confess that Jesus is lord/master to the glory of G-d the Father."
The word "at" in the very beginning of the phrase is the Greek word "en," which mean means "at/by/through/with." Any obedience can be a tool of worship. For example, I worship G-d through/by eating kosher, praying, keeping the Sabbath, to the Glory of God. This makes Jesus the tool of worship to G-d, not the object of worship. Worship belongs to G-d alone, and this oral tradition affirms that with Paul's closing words here.
Conclusion
When read correctly, this is far from a claim of divinity, which many people tend to think it is. Your translation is doing a lot of heavy lifting for you by choosing words to force your interpretation to be more in line with a Trinitarian one. If we are to assume a trinitarian position, it becomes a challenging passage to translate. The translator must decide how to present it to his audience without interfering with the presuppositions they want to clarify within the final translated text. Since most translators are Trinitarian, they make slight adjustments to definitions to align with their understanding of Christology, often unintentionally.
In conclusion, this would be a more accurate translation of the passages:
5. Let this attitude be in you, which was also in Jesus Christ: 6. Who, although he was in the form/appearance of G-d, did not consider equality with God something to be obtained. 7. But emptied/humbled himself by taking the form/appearance of a slave, being born/made in the likeness of men 8. And being found in human appearance/form he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. 9. Also, for this reason, G-d highly exalted him, and gave him an authority/name which is above all authorities/names, 10. so that through the authority/name of Jesus every knee will bow (of those in heaven and on earth and below the earth), 11. And every tongue will confess that Jesus is master to/for the glory of God the Father.
Kommentarer