The deity of Christ is something which is found throughout all of the Bible. It has many proofs in many different places. One of the most significant and key passages for this issue is Philippians 2:6-11, which many scholars see as some sort of pre-Pauline hymn. If this is indeed the case, it may provide strong evidence for the fact that Christ was viewed and worshipped as God incarnate in the earliest stages of the Christian community.
Text: " 6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God 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 God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, 10 so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. "
Structure of the Hymn
A. The Command (2:5)
B. The Example: Christ (2:6-11)
1. His Humility (2:6-8)
a. His Deity and Pre-existence (2:6)
b. His “Emptying” (2:7a-b)
c. His Death (2:7c-8)
2. His Exaltation (2:9-11)
a. The Receiving of the “Name” (2:9)
b. The Purpose of Jesus’ Exaltation (2:10-11b)
i. Every Knee Will Bow (2:10)
ii. Every Tongue Will Confess (2:11a-b)
c. The Glory of God (2:11c)
Ralph Martin presents the following structure:
"It has become a sententia recepta of literary criticism that Philippians ii. 6-11 is clearly to be distinguished from the neighbouring verses of the Epistle; and its language and style must be treated as totally unlike the language and style of epistolary prose." (Ralph P. Martin, Carmen Christi: Philippians 2.5-11 in Recent Interpretation in the Setting of Early Christian Worship [Cambridge University Press 1967], pg. 28)
Is the Hymn pre-Pauline?
There are several arguments put forward by scholars who believe that Paul was not the author of this hymn.
- The language and structure of the hymn is very different from its surrounding context which suggests it is a different genre from the verses before and after vv. 6-11. The surrounding verses are a form of what has been called "ethical exhortation", which is of course, something which Paul does often in his letters.
- There are a lot of hapex legomena in this hymn (the Greek word harpagmos, which has been the subject of much debate, is a prime example of a hapex legomena in this hymn). which are by definition not found elsewhere in Paul's letters suggesting that he was not the author of this hymn.
- There are theological ideas in this hymn which are not put forth the same way that Paul does in his letters. For example, the threefold division of the cosmos ("heaven", "earth", "under the earth") in verse 10 is something which is not found elsewhere in Paul's letters (or at least this sort of terminology is not used).
"Our analysis of the Philippians 2:6-11 text demonstrates that there is a significant contrast between this text and the style, vocabulary, and content of Paul's letters. This contrast provides a reasonable basis for the claim that Paul was not the original author of this text. " (G. Walter Hansen, The Pillar New Testament Commentary - The Letter to the Philippians [William B. Erdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, MI 2009], pg. 131)
Gnostic Background?
Some liberal scholars say that there is some sort of Gnostic "myth" behind this hymn here. Some have trased it back to Hellenistic or "pre-Christian" Gnostic backgrounds. Ernst Kasemann has argued for this idea. He appeals to the Hermetic literature which (apparently) give an analogy of a sort of Urmensch-Savior. However, this is not plausible in light of the fact that there are differences between Christ as described here in the hymn and the Gnostic redeemer myths. G. Walter Hansen (more notably D. Georgi) has pointed out that in some forms of Gnostic thought, there was a conflict between the Redeemer and cosmic powers. This is not found in this hymn (though Christ did free us from "the present evil age" this is not the way that Gnosticism would likely have thought about their "Redeemer" myths at all due to their emphasis on things such as knowledge and the spiritual-physical antithesis which is not found here). However, this idea of a war with cosmic powers appears to be absent Philippians 2:6-11.
Judeo-Anthropological Background?
"The background to Philippians ii. 6 in the Genesis story has already been touched upon; and the various suggestions of the semantic equivalence of morphe, eikon, and doxa noted, in the light of their corresponding Hebrew terms in the Creation narrative. Some scholars have taken this discussion a stage farther than the proposal of a simple linguistic correspondence by maintaining that Philippians ii reflects dependence upon a Judaeo-Gnostic account of the first Man of Hebrew anthropology" (Ralph P. Martin, Carmen Christi: Philippians 2.5-11 in Recent Interpretation and in the Setting of Early Christian Worship [Cambridge University Press 1967], pg. 128)
J. Hering is the scholar who was done the most work in this area. He interprets the phrase (verse 6) "being in the form of God" from the background of the idea of a "Celestial Man". This is very related to Rabbinical ideas concerning this "Heavenly Man" and his relationship to God. We might even term it as their "Adamology".
"Paul's use of the Second Adam teaching is shown by W. D. Davies who argues that this doctrine was ' probably introduced into the Church by Paul himself. Whether this is a valid assumption or not, it cannot be doubted that Paul was familiar with the comparisons which were current (notably at Corinth) between Adam and Christ. It would then appear to be somewhat gratuitous to go to an unknown Jewish-Gnostic myth for the scaffolding when it is clear that the parallels between the first Man and the 'second Man from heaven' were current coin in the early Church. The suggested linguistic correspondences are impressive enough on their own; it seems unnecessary to add complications by introducing the evidence of a postulated myth as lying in the background." (Ralph P. Martin, Carmen Christi: Philippians 2.5-11 in Recent Interpretation and in the Setting of Early Christian Worship [Cambridge University Press 1967], pg. 130)
Verse-by-verse Exegesis
Part One of this two-part series of articles will focus on verse 6-8. Part Two will cover verses 9-11.
2:6-8 - Christ's Humiliation
6a: though he was in the form of God - ὃς ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ ὑπάρχων
- The meaning of the word μορφή
There has been much writing on the meaning of this particular word translated by many Bibles as "form". It generally does refer to an outward appearance, yet at the same time an outward appearance which signifies an internal reality of being:
“His [Paul] urgency is to say something about Christ’s ‘mindset,’ first as God and second as man. But in the transition from Christ’s ‘being God’ to his ‘becoming human,’ Paul expresses by way of metaphor the essential quality of humanity: he ‘took’ on the ‘form of a slave.’ Morphe was precisely the right word for this dual usage, to characterize both the reality (his being God) and the metaphor (his taking on the role of a slave), since it denotes ‘form’ or ‘shape’ not in terms of the external features by which something is recognized, but of those characteristics and qualities that are essential to it. Hence it means that which truly characterizes a given reality.” (Gordon Fee, The New International Commentary on the New Testament – Paul’s Letter to the Philippians [William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, MI 1995], pg. 204)
"Similarly, from the NT contexts where μορφή and its cognates appear (noted above) it is clear that the word group describes not simply external appearance or behavior but also that which inwardly corresponds (or is expected to correspond) to the outward....μορφῇ refers to that 'form which truly and fully expresses the being which underlies it'. The phrase ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ is best interpreted against the background of the glory of God, that shining light in which, according to the OT and intertestamental literature, God was pictured...The expression does not refer simply to external appearance but pictures the preexistent Christ as clothed in the garments of the divine majesty and splendour. He was in the form of God, sharing God's glory." (Peter T. O'Brien, The New International Greek Testament Commentary - The Epistle to the Philippians [William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, MI 1991], pg. 207, 210-11)
"By using this word Paul emphasizes that Christ is the visible expression of God Himself, a point made elsewhere in the New Testament (John 1:1-18; Col. 1:15; Heb. 1:1-3)." (Matthew Harmon, Philippians: A Mentor Commentary [Christian Focus Publications, Great Britain, 2015], pg. 207)
"The meaning of the line, existing in the form of God is clarified by the line to be equal with God...The form of God is not something different from God or less than God, just as the glory of God is not something different from God or less than God. So the one existing in the form of God is not different from God or less than God." (G. Walter Hansen, The Pillar New Testament Commentary - The Letter to the Philippians, [William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, MI 2009], pg. 138)
"μορφῇ always signifies a form which truly and fully expresses the being which underlies it." (Gerald F. Hawthorne, Word Biblical Commentary - Philippians [Word Books, Waco, TX 1983], pg. 83)
However, there is a bit more to the story than just that. For example, there are some scholars who think that this hymn had in mind an "Adam-Christ" sort of theology that we see elsewhere in the NT in places such as Rom. 5:12-21 and 1 Cor. 15 (James D.G. Dunn is well-known for arguing strongly for this view in his book Christology in the Making; but he also tries to eliminate any notion of pre-existence. This will be discussed later on). They often point to Genesis, which speaks of man being "made in the image of God". Some also that "form of God" is very similar in meaning to "glory of God" and "image of God". If that is the case, it seems that the case for the deity of Christ in this passage may be even further strengthed (to be clear: This phrase describing Jesus as being "in the form of God" is not in any way the only indication in this passage for Christ's deity. The language of vv. 9-11 which describe Christ's exaltation will be discussed later on).
A strong piece of evidence supporting the meaning of μορφῇ is the use of this same word in v. 7 which says that Christ took on "the form of a servant". If this meant merely outward appearance and not including also an internal aspect, then one would have to say that Christ only appeared to be human, but was not so by nature (Docetism).
"Unless Paul equivocates enormously, that is to say, μορφῇ must bear at least roughly the same meaning in verse 7 as it does in verse 6. Yet Christ certainly takes to himself more than the image of a servant; he becomes a servant, however one wishes to express that more precisely" (Dennis B. Jowers, "The Meaning of μορφῇ in Philippians 2.6-7," JETS 48/4 (2006), pg. 745)
"The important noun morphe is used with the same meaning as in v. 6. It is not as though Christ simply took on the external appearance of a slave or disguised himself as such. Instead, he became a slave, adopting the nature and characteristics of one." (Peter T. O'Brien, The New International Greek Testament Commentary - The Epistle to the Philippians [William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, MI 1991], pg. 218)
Thus, μορφῇ does give strong proof that Christ was God by nature (even if the word 'nature' is not used here). Thus, the interpretation of μορφῇ that I have argued for above is not simply based on a couple quotes from scholars (especially since when it comes to NT studies, you can find a scholar who says just about anything), though I consider the citing of scholarship to be very useful in some cases. The fact that μορφῇ does not mean only outward appearance is shown by the way the word is used in v. 7. A.T. Robertson says the following:
"Morphē means the essential attributes as shown in the form. In his preincarnate state Christ possessed the attributes of God and so appeared to those in heaven who saw him. Here is a clear statement by Paul of the deity of Christ." (A.T. Robertson, Word Pictures)
J.B. Lightfoot did much study on the meaning of this particular word. He analyzed it from a Greek philosophical background, showing that it has the idea of corresponding with its internal, true "nature" in some sense (I am paraphrasing somewhat his view based off of R.P. Martin's summary of it). ' Though morphe is not the same as physis or ousia, yet the possession of the morphe involves participation in the ousia also." (quote from secondary source [Martin]).
A basic definition of morphe could simply be that it is in reference to "outward appearance that at the same time corresponds to inner reality".
The Adam-Christ Background and Pre-Existence
Some scholars, in particular James D.G. Dunn, see in this hymn strong parallels to Adam in Genesis 1-3. One of the big arguments in favor of such a background is the assumed equivalence of eikon (image, which is used in Genesis 1-3) and morphe (which is used here in Philippians 2:6). However, other researchers, like Larry Hurtado, question the strict equivalence of these terms in their meaning. It may be granted that the two terms do overlap in their meaning in some ways. But here we are concerned with the issue of how the Adam-Christ parallel in this hymn relates to preexistence.
Dunn in particular says that "no implication that Christ was pre-existent may be intended." (Christology in the Making, pg. 119). Adam was not thought of as being pre-existent, so why should Christ be thought of as such in this hymn? Furthermore, Dunn seems to think that the choice of Christ to "not count equality with God as something to be grasped" parallels (in an opposite sense) Adam's snatching of the apple to "become like God". Thus there is contrast between the two here.
However, pressing these parallels so much onto the hymn so as to insist that this hymn does not teach the pre-existence of Christ is a baffling claim, for several reasons.
1) As we said above, morphe has the same being in both phrases in this hymn in which it is used ("form of God" / "form of a servant"). Thus, morphe must include more than just mere outward appearance in its meaning. There is no question that the hymn teaches that Christ was truly a human being.
2). If the choice of Christ to "not count equality with God as something to be grasped" was the choice of someone who already was a human being, then the rest of the hymn makes no sense. Here is why: Notice the heavy emphasis on Christ's humanity in v. 7 ("form of a servant"; "born in the likeness of men") and in v. 8 ("human form"). If v. 6 speaks of Christ as a human being in that point in time, then the entire hymn becomes redundant!
"When the parallels between Christ and Adam are pressed to this point of denying any reference in the hymn to the preexistence of Christ, the narrative of the hymn is neglected and lost. The narrative in the hymn collapses when the story is retold to depict the choice of Christ as the choice of a human being who emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, becoming in the likeness of human beings. The hymn emphasizes the decision to become a human being by adding the phrase, and being found in appearance as a human being. If the first line - the one existing in the form of God - portrays the choice of one who is already a human being without any reference to his pre-human existence, then the subsequent lines in the narrative - becoming in the likeness of human beings and being found in appearance as a human being (2:7, 8) are strangely redundant. What is the point of saying that a human being chose to become a human being and was found in appearance as a human being? But these repeated references to being made and found in human likeness are hugely significant if they depict the consequences of the one existing in the form of God before he became a human being." (G. Walter Hansen, The Pillar New Testament Commentary - The Letter to the Philippians, [William B. Erdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, MI 2009], pg. 141)
6b: did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, - οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγήσατο τὸ εἶναι ἴσα θεῷ
The meaning of ἁρπαγμός
The meaning of this particular word may perhaps be one of the most difficult questions in all of NT research and studies. Here is a survey of the views in NT scholarship:
I. Active (or abstract: the act of snatching. robbery, usurpation): "Precisely because he was in the form of God, he reckoned equality with God not as a matter of getting but of giving."
II. Passive (windfall, piece of good luck): "Jesus did not regard equality with God as a gain to be utilized."
B. Negative (booty, prize)
1. Res Rapta: "He, though existing before the worlds in the form of God, did not treat his equality with God as a prize, a treasure to be greedily clutched and ostentatiously displayed."
2. Res Rapienda: "He did not regard the being on an equality with God as a thing to be seized. violently snatched."
(taken from Moises Silva's commentary on Philippians, pgs. 102-103)
Werner Jaegar produced a passage from Plutarch which he claims to have closely resembled the structure of Phi. 2:6-7, which uses the form harpagma. It is concerning Alexander the Great. Here is the passage in both Greek and English:
Roy Hoover wrote a very influential paper ("The Harpagmos Enigma: A Philological Solution." Harvard Theological Review 64:95-119) which gives good reason for thinking that harpagmos is used in ancient literature often to refer to something that is "seized" upon, or more idiomatically "something to take advantage of".
In particular, Hoover went to some passages in Heliodorus' Aethiopica which use the word harpagmos in the sense given in the above paragraph. Here is one example:
(Aethiopica, 7.11)
Due to the fact that harpagmos has sometimes been interpreted in the sense of "luck", this passage might be used to support this interpretation, since it speaks of a "chance" meeting. However, as Hoover notes, the phrase ξυντυχίαν seems to already express that, thus to argue that this is the meaning intended by harpagmos may make this passage redundant. It might be objected that harpagma and harpagmos are not necessarily equivalent in their meaning to one another (i.e. synonymous). S.H. Hooke argued this idea. However, Ralph Martin notes the following:
"The evidence however, which Hooke doubts, is forthcoming, as Schumacher and Henry have amply demonstrated by comparing the usage of such words as φραγμός/φραγμα; βδέλυγμος/βδέλυγμα ; σταλαγμος/σταλαγμα. Their conclusions are clearly stated: 'Eine kurze Umschau bestatigt die Tatsache, daß die Bedeutung der Worter auf μος und μα ineinander tibergeht' (Schumacher), and 'II est constant d'ailleurs que le substantif en -μος signifie aussi bien que celui en μα , le resultat de Faction, et que bien des doublets en -μος et en μα sont employes dans le meme sens, passif et concret' (Henry)." (Ralph P. Martin, Carmen Christi: Philippians 2.5-11 in Recent Interpretation and in the Setting of Early Christian Worship [Cambridge University Press 1967], pg. 137)
Thus, it is best not to drive a wedge between the meaning of harpagma and harpagmos.
There is also a passage from the Commentary on Luke attributed to Eusebius (whether it was actually written by Eusebius is not relevant to our specific discussion here) which gives further insight into the meaning of harpagmos:
"And Peter considered death by means of the cross harpagmon on account of the hope of salvation." (Comm. in. Luc. 6)
This obviously does not mean that Peter considered death by means of the cross robbery. Neither does it mean he considered it to be "windfall" or "good luck". Rather, he considered death by crucifixion as something to be taken advantage of "on account of the hope of salvation."
There is another example in Eusebius' church history as well:
"Since some regarded death as harpagma in comparison with the depravity of ungodly men." (Hist. Eccl. 8.12.2) [taken from Hoover's paper]
There is one last example from Eusebius, this time from his biography of the Emperor Constantine. Here, Constantine is speaking to exiles on an island who now have the opportunity to return home:
"Those who have lived destitute lives for a long time attended by sordidness which no one should have to endure, if they consider such a return harpagma and if from now on they lay aside their anxieties, may live among us without fear." (Vita Constantini 31.2)
Eusebius also commended Constantine for his deeds here, something which does not work well with the idea that harpagmos means something that is a bit of "good luck". Rather, this accords with the meaning of harpagmos which the thing that is considered or is harpagmos to be "something to take advantage of".
Some view harpagmos as being synonymous with the word εύρημα in its meaning. However, many of the times that εύρημα occurs in ancient Greek literature it has the meaning of "windfall, godsend", a meaning which has been shown to not be likely for harpagmos specifically when it is used with the double accusative construction.
One of the things that Hoover emphasizes is the "idiomatic" nature of the harpagmos expression. He concludes that "in every instance which I [Hoover] have examined this idiomatic expression refers to something already present and at one's disposal. The question in such instances is not whether or not one possesses something, but whether or not one chooses to exploit something." (Hoover 1971: 118)
There are many scholars and commentators who have been convinced by Hoover's argument. Here are some examples:
"This essay [Hoover's], which reflects thoroughness and a clear-headed method, must be regarded as having settled this particular question." (Moises Silva, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament - Philippians [Baker Academic, Grand Rapids, MI 1992], pg. 104)
"The philological conclusions of Hoover appear to be correct, so that the sense of ἁρπαγμός, which is part of an idiomatic expression, is determined by the entire phrase: Jesus did not regard his equality with God as something to be used for his own advantage. ἁρπαγμός is here an active, abstract, word, with the idiom clearly assuming that equality with (τὸ εἶναι ἴσα θεῷ) is something already possessed." (Peter T. O'Brien, The New International Greek Testament Commentary - The Epistle to the Philippians [William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, MI 1991], pg. 215-216)
"After weighing all of the available evidence, it seems best to understand harpagmos as 'something to be selfishly exploited.'" (Matthew Harmon, Philippians: A Mentor Commentary [Christian Focus Publications, Great Britain, 2015], pg. 209)
v. 7a - but emptied himself, - ἀλλὰ ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσεν μορφὴν δούλου λαβών
The meaning of ἐκένωσεν
The notion of Christ "emptying himself" has sparked lots of theological debate. There are three main views concerning this today:
- The kenotic view: This view essentially teaches that Christ emptied himself of his divine attributes. It seeks to answer, "what" did Christ empty himself of? The usual answer given by those who hold to the kenotic view is that Christ "emptied" himself of His divine nature. To be clear, however, there are what are sometimes called "modified" versions of the kenotic theory which do not teach that Christ emptied Himself of His divine attributes but rather of the prerogatives of deity, or the "glories" of being "equal with God".
- The incarnation view: This view says that the meaning of "emptied himself" is elucidated by the following participial clauses, by taking the form of a servant and being born in the likeness of men. Thus, Christ's emptying was one of "addition" not of "subtraction".
- The Servant of the Lord view: This view sees Phil 2:7 as an allusion to Isaiah 53:12 (though it also would probably hold the entire chapter of Isa. 53 to be a background of the Phil 2 hymn), which speaks of the servant as "pouring out his soul unto death". This leads Joachim Jeremias to think that "emptied himself" then refers to Christ's death on the cross rather than His incarnation. The main argument against this idea is the fact that if "emptied himself" refers specifically to his death, then it would violate the structural order of the hymn. This is not completely conclusive. I think a better point is that verse 8 already puts great emphasis on his death (thus there is not necessarily a need for "emptying" to refer to it, especially in light of the participial clauses following it; which will be discussed below) : "...becoming obedient to the point of death, even [δὲ] death on a cross".
Now, we will begin our analysis of this particular verb in light of the kenotic theory in particular.
First, it is right to say that the following participial phrases after "emptied" do give meaning to the verb.
"...the verb emptied does not require a second object in addition to the pronoun himself. Thus, the question - Of what did he empty himself? - does not require an answer since the answer is already supplied in the pronoun himself. Second, the strong adversative but that introduces the verb emptied separates this verb from the phrase the form of God so that the phrase the form of God cannot be the object of the verb. Third, the verb emptied is defined by the participles that follow it: he emptied himself by taking and becoming. Thus, Christ's self emptying was accomplished "not by subtracting from but by adding to." Fourth, the verb emptied is used metaphorically; to press for a literal meaning of "emptying" ignores the poetic context and nuance of the word. For all these reasons the original version of the kenotic theory has been discredited." (G. Walter Hansen, The Pillar New Testament Commentary - The Letter to the Philippians, [William B. Erdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, MI 2009], pg. 147)
Hansen's comments (that kenoo does not necessarily require a second object) are confirmed by an analysis of the use of kenoo elsewhere in some places:
" For if it is the adherents of the law who are to be the heirs, faith is null and the promise is void [κεκένωται] . " (Romans 4:14 ESV)
"For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with words of eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied [κενωθῇ] of its power. " (1 Corinthians 1:17)
"But I have made no use of any of these rights, nor am I writing these things to secure any such provision. For I would rather die than have anyone deprive [κενώσει] me of my ground for boasting. " (1 Corinthians 9:15)
"But I am sending the brothers so that our boasting about you may not prove empty [κενωθῇ] in this matter, so that you may be ready, as I said you would be. " (2 Corinthians 9:3)
"V. 7b and c are formed in a parallel fashion to explicate the main clause in v. 7a (heauton ekenosen), since the two aorist participles labon and genomenos are coincident with the finite verb ekenosen and both are modal, describing the manner in which Christ 'emptied himself'" (Peter T. O'Brien, The New International Greek Testament Commentary - The Epistle to the Philippians [William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, MI 1991], pg. 217)
"The Person of the
Word of God became Person to the flesh, and in this way ‘the Word was made flesh’, and that
without any change." (John of Damascus, Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book III, Chapter 11)
Commenting on the participle labon as being used in the sense of "means", Greek scholar Daniel Wallace says the following:
"This text [Phil 2:7] satisfies the regular criteria for a participle of means: (1) The participle follows the verb; and (2) the verb is vague, almost begging to be defined. Taking it as a result participle is problematic, since it is aorist; leaving as temporal leaves the meaning of ekenosen unexplained (and such an act is not explained otherwise in the following verses). The biggest difficulty with seeing labon 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. Further, Paul seems to have hinted at this meaning in his instructions to the saints in v 3: "[Think] nothing from selfishness or conceit (κενοδοξίαν)."" (Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament [Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, MI 1996], pg. 630)
"These participles, although aorists, are nevertheless participles of simultaneous action (BDF 339,1) and express the means by which the action of the verb ἐκένωσεν was affected." (Gerald F. Hawthorne, Word Biblical Commentary - Philippians [Word Books Publisher, Waco, TX 1983], pg. 86)
Based off of the evidence, it seems proper to conclude that "emptied himself" refers to Christ's incarnation, specifically his taking the "form of a servant". Augustine apparently once said that Christ "emptied himself not by losing what He was, but by taking to Him what He was not." (cited in Matthew Harmon's commentary on page 213). Thus, the Lord Jesus did not lose any of His divine attributes when he took on a human nature.
Ralph P. Martin makes the following conclusion:
"The verb κενούν seems to carry in this context a metaphorical as distinct from a metaphysical meaning. It would be wrong then to insist that the text teaches the surrender of divine attributes and the exchanging of Christ's deity for His human nature." (Ralph P. Martin, Carmen Christi: Philippians 2.5-11 in Recent Interpretation and in the Setting of Early Christian Worship [Cambridge University Press 1967], pg. 194)
Note: Regarding the servant of the Lord view, I think there are some strong parallels in Philippians 2 with Isaiah 52:13-53:12. See Matthew Harmon's commentary (pgs. 202-203) for a chart listing many different parallels between the two texts.
v. 7b - being born in the likeness of men - ἐν ὁμοιώματι ἀνθρώπων γενόμενος
This clause further explains what it means that Christ "emptied himself". It modifies heauton ekenosen not "taking the form of a servant".
The aorist participle γενόμενος (from ginomai), according to O'Brien, stresses "the notion of 'beginning' or 'becoming', in the sense of 'coming into a position or state' (pg. 224 of his commentary, which is cited above in this article). This appears to be the case when examining its use elsewhere in the NT:
"and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became [γέγονεν] a transgressor. " (1 Timothy 2:14)
"And being in agony he prayed more earnestly; and his sweat became [ἐγένετο] like great drops of blood falling down to the ground. " (Luke 22:44)
"When I had returned to Jerusalem and was praying in the temple, I fell [γενέσθαι] into a trance" (Acts 22:17)
The word ὁμοίωμα is placed in contrast to the hyparchon in verse 6. There is no question that this portrays Christ as being truly man, yet at the same sinless (2 Corinthians 5:21). In this hymn, there is no comparison made between Christ and sinful human beings. The term ὁμοίωμα, then, guards against Docetism.
v. 8a - and being found in human form - καὶ σχήματι εὑρεθεὶς ὡς ἄνθρωπος
This phrase "sets the stage" for the next words which speak of Christ "humbling himself" (this is confirmed by the conjunction καὶ as it is used here) .
In classical Greek, σχήμα often denoted "the outward form or structure perceptible to the sense". Thus, those who saw Christ knew that he was a human being. The true humanity of Christ is a point stressed by the other NT writers (John 1:14; Galatians 4:4; Hebrews 2:17, etc).
v. 8b - he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death - ἐταπείνωσεν ἑαυτὸν γενόμενος ὑπήκοος μέχρι θανάτου
Christ's "humbling" of himself was a free and voluntary action on his part, hence the use of the reflex ἑαυτὸν in this verse (see Matthew 18:4 for a similar view).
What is notable here is that this calls back to Phil 2:3 (which of course is in the same chapter):
"Do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves. " (Philippians 2:3)
There may indeed be an echo hear to Isaiah 53:8 in this passage, yet there remain many differences. But, at the same time, there is probably, at best, allusion to the Servant Song that could be part of the background of this hymn.
"By becoming obedient to the point of death" explains how it was that Christ humbled Himself. Namely, he willingly (see above comment on the reflexive heauton in the earlier part of this verse) laid down His life.
The text here does not tell us specifically to whom Christ was obedient. In the larger scope of NT theology, the Father was the one to whom Christ showed obedience:
"Yet not what I will, but what you will." (Mark 14:36)
"Jesus said to them, “My food is to do the will of him who sent me and to accomplish his work. " (John 4:34)
"Although he was a son, he learned obedience through what he suffered. " (Hebrews 5:8)
"Although the hymn itself does not explicitly say so, Paul sets the hymn in a context to show that Christ's death was "his ultimate act of obe dience to God in his self-giving service to people. In his application of the hymn (2:12), Paul encourages his readers to express the life of Christ in their community by their obedience to God in their service to each other." (G. Walter Hansen, The Pillar New Testament Commentary - The Letter to the Philippians, [William B. Erdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, MI 2009], pgs. 156-57)
"To the point of death" (which is connected with the next phrase "even death on a cross") shows the extremity of Christ's obedience and self-humbling. This is fully put forth in the next phrase which we will now examine
v. 8c - even death on a cross - θανάτου δὲ σταυροῦ
The word "cross" (staurou) is the last line of the first part of the hymn (vv. 6-8) describing Christ's humiliation. In the world in which Philippians 2 was being written, this would have been very relevant to readers/listeners of the hymn. The particle δὲ (meaning "even") is "intensive" (O'Brien: 230).
Cicero said the following about the punishment of crucifixion:
"To bind a Roman citizen is a crime; to flog him is an abomination; to slay him is almost an act of murder; to crucify him is - what? There is no fitting word that can possibly describe so horrible a deed." (Cicero, Against Verres 2.5.64)
There are some scholars who argue that the words θανάτου δὲ σταυροῦ were a Pauline addition to the hymn. Regardless of whether that is true, the words θανάτου δὲ σταυροῦ actually serve as the climax of the first half of the hymn describing Christ's humiliation. Yet, even if Paul added the clause in there, this would not prove that there was some sort of "deception" going on on his part. In fact, Moises Silva in his commentary (though he takes these words to be a Pauline addition), says that this would actually affirm the integrity of the epistle.
"These words (θανάτου δὲ σταυροῦ) are the important rhetorical climax to which the preceding verses have been pointing." (Demetrius Williams, Enemies of the Cross of Christ: The Terminology of the Cross and Conflict in Philippians.[Journal for the Study of the New Testament: Supplement Series 223. London: Sheffield Academic Press. 2002] pg .113)
Thus, if Paul added these words in, it was not simply because it was not an original part of the hymn. The phrase fits quite well with the context.
"This hymn celebrates the death of a slave on a cross because, although he is forever the one existing in the form of God, he is on that cross by his own deliberate choice to empty himself and humble himself." (G. Walter Hansen, The Pillar New Testament Commentary - The Letter to the Philippians, [William B. Erdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, MI 2009], pg. 159)
So far, we have examined verse 6-8 of this wonderful hymn about the Lord Jesus Christ. In the next article, verse 9-11, describing Christ's exaltation will be analyzed and interpreted.
