Imitating the Incarnation of Christ: An Exposition of Philippians 2:5-8

By David J. MacLeod

[David J. MacLeod is a member of the faculty of Emmaus Bible College, Dubuque, Iowa, and is associate editor of The Emmaus Journal.

This is part one in a two-part series, “The Christological Hymn of Philippians 2:5–11.”]

Philippians 2:5–11 is a magnificent hymn,[1] extolling many distinctive doctrines of the Christian faith. These include the preexistence of Christ, His deity, His equality with God the Father, Christ’s incarnation and true humanity, His voluntary death on the cross, His glorious exaltation by God the Father, and His ultimate triumph over evil.[2] This passage is “one of the most conspicuous and magnificent of the dogmatic [i.e., theological] utterances of the New Testament.”[3] Martin has entitled his monumental study of this passage Carmen Christi (“A Hymn of Christ”).[4]

Of significance is the fact that this passage with its several affirmations about Christ was written about thirty years after the death of Jesus Christ in Jerusalem.[5] These statements were made openly, and not in a controversial way as if Paul were trying to make a case against false teachers who were denying those truths. Paul’s tone suggests just the opposite—that these doctrines were the settled, common certainties of the whole Christian community.[6]

The hymn,[7] then, presents much doctrinal or theological truth about the person and work of Christ. Yet it is included in Paul’s letter to the Philippians for practical reasons. It is addressed to Christians who were tempted to be unloving, divisive, selfish, arrogant, and overly concerned about their own rights.

The congregation was “in danger of disintegration because of a competitive spirit creeping in among the members.”[8] In verses 1–4 Paul urged them to practice humble, self-sacrificing, self-denying, and self-giving service. In verse 5 he reinforced his instruction by pointing to Christ as the Christians’ model for behavior.[9] Jesus’ humility and self-abnegation, begun in heaven and completed at Golgotha, sets forth a grand example for Christians.[10]

Paul’s Introduction of His Hymn: An Exhortation to Follow Christ’s Example (v. 5)

Verse 5 forms a link between verses 1–4 and verses 6–11. It is a transition from Paul’s exhortation to his illustration. The attitude he hoped the Philippians would adopt (the disposition or frame of mind he described in vv. 2–4) is the attitude exhibited by Christ as recorded in verses 6–8. The demonstrative τοῦτο (“this”) points back to verses 1–4. It is followed by the present imperative φρονεῖτε, of which it is the object (“think”).[11] In short, they were to have among themselves the frame of mind, disposition, or mindset that he had just described.[12] They could develop this attitude by following Jesus’ example.[13]

Paul’s Recitation of His Hymn: A Song That Traces Christ’s Career (vv. 6-8)

Stanza 1: The Preeminent Place He Enjoyed (V. 6)[14]

“Because He was in the form of God, He did not regard His divine prerogatives as something to use for His own advantage.”[15]

His preexistence in heaven (v. 6a). In verse 6 the apostolic hymn writer took his readers into eternity past. The subject (ὅς, “who”), as most students of Philippians agree, is the preexistent Christ,[16] the λόγος ἄσαρκος,[17] that is, Christ in His preincarnate or prehuman state. Why did Paul refer to Christ’s existence in eternity past? Paul wanted his readers to know that the humble self-sacrificing, self-denying, self-giving behavior of Christ on earth merely displayed what He had always been like.[18]

He “existed in the form of God” (ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ ὑπάρχων). Of these four words in the Greek text Sabatier said that they “form the most exalted metaphysical definition ever given by Paul to the Person of Christ.”[19] Almost every word of the entire section must be examined carefully. Lightfoot argued that the word “existed” (ὑπάρχων, NASB; “being,” KJV) denotes “prior existence.”[20] In the present context it “clearly implies a state existing prior to the point in time at which our Lord took upon Him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men.”[21]

His essential deity. The meaning of the phrase “the form of God” is highly debated. The best discussion is still that of Lightfoot, written well over a century ago.[22] While some modifications may be in order, the basic thrust of his work is correct.[23] In both classical and Hellenistic Greek the term μορφή pointed to “the metaphysical property of an object so that it refers to nature or essence.” The English word form is misleading here.[24] Plato quoted Socrates as saying that the μορφή of a thing persists even if the εἶδος (“form” or “shape”) changes.[25] Μορφή, then, refers to the “specific character” or “nature” of something.[26] It speaks of “the essential nature” of something or someone.[27]

Paul, of course, was not fundamentally concerned here to establish an abstract, philosophical description of the nature of Christ. Yet as an educated man he was aware of the nuances of Greek thought in the words he used. He chose them because they said something specific about the subject at hand. He did not intend to define God’s essence or nature, but he did intend to say that Christ had that nature.[28]

A number of modern renderings capture the sense: “He, who had always been God by nature” (Phillips). “From the beginning He had the nature of God” (Weymouth). “He was existing in the nature of God” (Williams). In short, in His deepest being Christ has the “essential nature and character of God,”[29] the “essential attributes of deity.”[30]

His preincarnate choice (v. 6b, c). The New American Standard Bible reads, He “did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped.” Martin writes that the interpretation of this clause is “one of the most thorny questions in the whole field of New Testament exegesis.”[31] The King James Version renders it, He “thought it not robbery to be equal with God.” The New International Version has, He “did not consider equality with God something to be grasped.” The New English Bible has, “he did not think to snatch at equality with God.” Phillips’s paraphrase reads, He “did not cling to his prerogatives as God’s equal.”

The clause may be examined in its two parts. First, the phrase “equality with God” (τὸ εἶναι ἴσα θεῷ) needs to be defined. Grammatically this phrase is closely connected to the phrase “in the form of God.”[32] It is something that Christ possessed in His preincarnate state, and it was not something He would achieve in the future.[33]

Some writers have suggested that the expression is identical to the phrase “in the form of God.”[34] More likely, however, the expressions differ.[35] “The form of God” (μορφῇ θεοῦ) speaks of His essence or nature as Deity, that is, His attributes, whereas “equality with God” (τὸ εἶναι ἴσα θεῷ) speaks of the glories or “prerogatives” of Deity. “Form of God” refers to Deity; “equality with God” speaks of the honors pertaining to that state.[36] The translation “equality with God” is not precise.[37] A better translation would be “in a manner of equality.”[38] It speaks of the manner of His existence in eternity past. In heaven He enjoyed the prerogatives of deity. Together the two expressions, “form of God” and “equality with God” are “among the strongest expressions of Christ’s deity in the New Testament.”[39]

Second, the expression “a thing to be grasped” (ἁρπαγμός) needs to be defined. A rare word, it appears only here in the New Testament, never in the Septuagint, and very seldom in pagan Greek literature. A translation that is somewhat different from the traditional ones is gaining wide acceptance today.[40] Instead of translating “a thing to be grasped” (NASB), or “He thought it not robbery” (KJV)[41] scholars have recently suggested that the word should be translated “something to be taken advantage of.”[42]

The expression does not mean to cling to something in a grasping way. Nor does it refer to grasping something aggressively or robbing something. Rather, it has the idiomatic meaning, “to regard as something to be taken advantage of.” And the words translated “although He existed,” should be rendered “because He existed.”[43] Thus the verse can be rendered, “Precisely because He was in the form of God He reckoned equality with God not as a matter of getting but of giving,” or “He did not regard His divine prerogatives as something to use for His own advantage.”

Christ saw Godlikeness essentially as giving Himself. Being equal with God did not mean taking everything to Himself, but just the opposite—giving everything away. “The preexistent Son regarded equality with God not as excusing Him from the task of (redemptive) suffering and death, but actually as uniquely qualifying Him for that vocation.”[44]

Stanza 2: The Lowly Place He Accepted (V. 7)

“But He poured out Himself, by taking the form of a slave, by being made in the likeness of men.”

His incarnation. The second stanza of Paul’s great hymn begins with the words, He “emptied Himself” (NASB; ἀλλὰ ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσεν), a phrase that has engendered a great deal of discussion. The translation of the NASB reflects the literal sense of the verb κενόω (“to empty”).

The New Testament uses the verb κενόω both literally and metaphorically. The literal usage (“He emptied Himself”) is found in the ASV, NASB, and the RSV. The verb is used this way in the Septuagint (e.g., Gen. 24:20; 2 Chron. 24:11). If this translation is accepted, the question may be asked, “Of what did Christ empty Himself?” How far did this self-renunciation go, this “self-disglorification,” to use Forsyth’s phrase?[45]

Two answers have been offered. Some have asserted that Christ emptied Himself of the “form of God,” that is, He emptied Himself of His attributes of deity. This is the view of nineteenth-century Swedish Lutheran scholars, who became known as the Kenotic theologians.[46] But this view is exegetically and logically impossible.[47] To say that Christ emptied Himself of His divine attributes is to say that He ceased to be God.[48] La Touche called this “incarnation by divine suicide.”[49]

Some commentators have inadvertently expressed erroneous theology because of their reading of this verse. For example Brethren commentator William Kelly clearly suggests that “He emptied Himself of His deity.”[50] And Charles Wesley, in his hymn “And Can It Be?” has these lines:

He left His Father’s throne above,
So free, so infinite His grace!
Emptied Himself of all but love,
And bled for Adam’s helpless race![51]

Most likely, however, neither of these men, erudite theologians that they were, meant anything along the lines of the Kenotic Christology.

A second way of understanding the literal usage is the view that Christ emptied Himself of “equality with God” (τὸ εἶναι ἴσα θεῷ), in the sense of emptying Himself of the prerogatives of deity.[52] Phillips paraphrases, “He stripped Himself of all privilege.”

There is some truth to the idea that the Lord surrendered the use of the prerogatives of deity. But grammatically that idea is not related to the verb κενόω.[53] That idea is certainly suggested, however, by the phrase “taking the form of a bond-servant” (v. 7). Paul, however, did not say in this verse that Christ emptied Himself of anything.

The metaphorical usage of the verb κενόω is found in the KJV (“He made Himself of no reputation”) as well as the NEB and NIV (“He made Himself nothing”). Warfield translated the clause, “He made no account of Himself,” and Hooker has, “He made Himself powerless.”[54] Perhaps the best translation is that of Warren, who opted for a literal translation with a metaphorical sense. He translated, “He poured out Himself.”[55] In favor of this interpretation is the poetic or hymnlike nature of Philippians 2:6–11 and the usage of the verb κενόω elsewhere by Paul (Rom. 4:14; 1 Cor. 1:17; 9:15; 2 Cor. 9:3). In these other Pauline passages it has the metaphorical sense “to make null and void.”

The thought is not that Christ emptied Himself of something. Paul did not say that Christ discarded His divine essence or substance.[56] The thought, rather, is a poetic one. Christ “poured out Himself,” that is, He put Himself totally at the disposal of people (cf. 1 John 3:16). He became poor that He might make many rich (2 Cor. 8:9; cf. Eph. 1:23; 4:10). “The emptying denotes taking on a new, lower status.”[57] He emptied Himself by taking on the form of a slave.[58]

His humiliation. Theologians speak of the first coming of Christ to earth as an act of humiliation. The words of Paul’s hymn help explain why. He used three participial phrases to define more precisely the self-humiliation of the Lord Jesus: “taking” (λαβών), “being made” (γενόμενος), and “being found” (εὑρεθεὶς).[59] At the time of His incarnation Christ poured Himself out “by taking the form of a slave, by being made in the likeness of men, and by being found in appearance as a man.”[60] As Motyer wrote, “It is not ‘Of what did he empty himself?’ but ‘Into what did he empty himself?’ ”[61] Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274) wrote, “He emptied Himself, not by laying down the divine nature, but by taking human nature.”[62] And Augustine (354–430) had written, “Thus He emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant, not losing the form of God. The form of a servant was added; the form of God did not pass away.”[63]

The first of these phrases is “taking the form of a slave” (μορφὴν δούλου λαβών). “Form” (μορφή) is the same word used in verse 6, “form of God.” There is no reason to assume that the term means anything different in verse 7 than it does in verse 6. Paul was not saying that Christ possessed the external appearance of a slave; nor was he saying that the Lord disguised Himself as a slave. Rather he meant that Christ adopted the nature or characteristic attributes of a slave. In other words He became a slave.[64]

The word δοῦλος, “slave,” graphically describes what it meant for Christ Jesus to “pour out Himself.” Slavery in the Roman Empire meant the extreme deprivation of rights.[65] A slave was a piece of property to be bought and sold. Slavery denied a person the right to anything—even his own life. Unlike other people, a slave had no inherent rights. Christ was like a slave in that He stripped Himself of all rights and securities.

Christ’s taking the form of a slave must be understood in light of the phrase “equality with God” in verse 6. As suggested earlier, this phrase means “in a manner of equality.” In eternity past Christ enjoyed the prerogatives of deity. As Gifford pointed out, the essential nature of Christ (“the form of God”) is immutable. He is and always will be God. But His mode of existence (“in a manner of equality with God”) may be exchanged for another. As stated in 2 Corinthians 8:9—“though He was rich, yet for your sake He became poor”—Christ exchanged the rich and glorious mode of existence of heaven for an infinitely lower and poorer mode of existence. When a rich man becomes poor, his manner of existence is changed, but not his nature as a person.[66]

In Mark Twain’s novel The Prince and the Pauper, Tom Canty, a young beggar, lingered outside Westminster Abbey, hoping to get a glimpse of the Prince of Wales. A guard grabbed him for loitering, but Canty was rescued by young Edward Tudor, the Prince of Wales himself. The two boys looked exactly alike. They began to joke and exchange clothing, but the game ended when the guards mistook the prince for the beggar and drove Edward out into the streets. Both boys were still the same. Tom was still Tom and Edward was still Edward, but each had exchanged his mode of existence. Tom now enjoyed the prerogatives of royalty, but Edward knew the poverty of a beggar.[67] So, too, it was with Jesus Christ.

He never ceased to be the divine Son of God. Yet He gave up the riches and prerogatives of heaven for the lowliness and poverty of a life in Palestine.

Perhaps the perfect picture of this is found in John 13, which records Jesus’ putting Himself in the place of a slave[68] and washing the disciples’ feet. In the upper room He laid aside His garments, just as He had laid aside His royal splendor. He took a towel and girded Himself, as with the garment of a slave.[69]

The term δοῦλος, then, emphasizes that Christ entered the stream of human life as a slave, a person without advantage, with no rights or privileges of His own, for the express purpose of placing Himself completely at the service of all humankind (Mark 10:45; Luke 22:27).[70] Christ’s pouring out of Himself involved the surrender of His position in heaven. “He left His Father’s throne above,”[71] gave up His riches (2 Cor. 8:9), and left behind the glories of heaven (John 17:4–5).

R. T. Kendall, successor to D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones as pastor of London’s Westminster Chapel, has said that Christ’s taking the form of a slave implies that He was dependent, deprived, discredited, degraded, and demeaned.[72] (1) He was dependent in that He relied on His Father and the power of the Holy Spirit for His great works. He said, “The Son can do nothing of Himself, unless it is something He sees the Father doing.. .. I can do nothing on My own initiative.. .. The Father abiding in Me does His works” (John 5:19, 30; 14:10; cf. Acts 2:22; 10:38). (2) He was deprived. He said, “The foxes have holes, and the birds of the air have nests; but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay His head” (Matt. 8:20). (3) He was discredited. Several lies were told of Him (26:61; John 2:19; 7:12). (4) He was degraded. At His trial they spat on Him and beat Him (Matt. 27:30; John 19:3). A slave has no protection against such abuse. (5) He was demeaned. More than once He was treated with rudeness and contempt (see, e.g., Luke 7:44–45).

His true human nature. In the next line of his hymn Paul drew attention to the true human nature of Christ. He was “made in the likeness of men” (ἐν ὁμοιώματι ἀνθρώπων γενόμενος). The participle γενόμενος, from γίνομαι, suggests the “beginning” or “becoming” of something. Like the term “taking” (λαβών), it stands in sharp contrast to the expression “existed” (ὑπάρχων) in verse 6.[73] At the time of His incarnation Christ poured Himself out by taking the form of a slave and by being made in the likeness of men.

Christ always existed in the form of God, but He came into existence (or “was born”) “in the likeness of men.” The word for “men,” ἀνθρώπων, means “humankind” or “humanity.”[74] ̔Ομοίωμα suggests similarity but not identity.[75] Paul did not use the term μορφή here, which would have stressed the reality of His humanity, just as μορφὴ θεοῦ stresses the reality of His deity.[76] He used a term that suggests, Martin says, hesitancy and caution.[77] Why such care? Paul was probably suggesting two things.[78] First, he suggested that Jesus was really like men in that He had a true human nature. That is, there is no trace of Docetism here.[79] Christ was “no mere phantom, no mere incomplete copy of humanity.”[80] His human nature possessed “all the potential for physical, mental, social and spiritual growth that is proper to humanity (Luke 2:52).”[81] Second, the term also suggests “that the human likeness is not the whole story.”[82] He is also distinct from men,[83] and He is more than other individuals.[84] The verse does not deny the true humanity of Jesus; it simply suggests that He is not exactly the same as other people.[85]

How is He different? The New Testament suggests two things. First, He was sinless (Heb. 4:15). Christ’s humanity was different in that it was “the genuine, uncorrupted article!”[86] Christ differed from all other individuals by virtue of His consistent obedience to God the Father.[87] Second, in the present context Christ differs from others in that He is also God. He is still “in the form of God.” He is “like” men,[88] for He possesses a true human nature (Rom. 5:15; 1 Cor. 15:21; 1 Tim. 2:5). Yet He also possessed—more precisely, He was—true deity.[89] While affirming Christ’s true humanity, Paul safeguarded the fact of His continued deity.[90]

Stanza 3: The Absolute Abasement He Endured (V. 8)

“Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself, by becoming obedient to death—even death on a cross.”

His earthly life. The third stanza of the apostle’s hymn focuses on the abasement endured by Jesus Christ as a man. The verse begins with another participial phrase that further defines the clause “He emptied Himself.” Paul wrote, “being found in appearance as a man” (καὶ σχήματι εὑρεθεὶς ὡς ἄνθρωπος).[91] The two participles in verse 7, “taking,” and “being made,” refer to the Incarnation itself. This one (“being found,” εὑρεθεὶς) speaks of Christ once He became incarnate, that is, once He had assumed human nature.[92] The participle may be rendered “discovered to be.” This was the verdict of His fellow men. His appearance was altogether human.[93] This speaks generally of His entire earthly life: as an infant, as a child, as a boy, as a youth, as a man. As Warfield observed, there is no age-group that cannot find its example in Him.[94]

The word σχῆμα (“appearance”) “always denotes the outward form or structure perceptible to the senses.”[95] Μορφή indicates that which is essential and permanent, suggesting the nature or essence of something. But σχῆμα indicates that which is external and changeable,[96] that is, the outward appearance.[97]

Paul’s careful wording suggests two things:[98] First, Christ had the appearance of a man. There is no suggestion here that the appearance was different from the underlying reality. It neither affirms nor denies reality. The New Testament writers elsewhere wrote of the genuineness and completeness of Christ’s humanity (Luke 2:52; John 1:14; Rom. 8:3; Gal. 4:4; Col. 1:22; Heb. 2:17; 4:15; 5:7–8; 1 John 4:2–3). All the attributes of genuine humanity were His. (1) He had a genuine human physique (body) and a genuine human physiology (organic processes and functions; Matt. 26:26; Heb. 2:14), as opposed to the ancient heresy of Docetism, which denied that Christ had a genuine human body. (2) He had a genuine human psychology as opposed to the ancient heresy of Apollinarianism, which denied that Christ had a true human spirit and replaced it with the Logos. He had a human soul (Matt. 26:38) and a human spirit (Luke 23:46). He experienced human emotions (Matt. 9:36; Mark 3:5; Heb. 5:7) and affections (Mark 10:21; John 11:3). He had a human mind and will (Luke 22:42). “There is a human volitional process. He thinks humanly. He gathers information. He organizes it. He assimilates it. He memorizes it. He recalls it. He makes inferences from it.”[99] His human will suggests there was decision-making (Matt. 4:1–11; 26:36–46).[100] (3) Of course He also had human limitations and weaknesses.[101] He could grow hungry (Matt. 4:2), thirsty (John 19:28), and weary (Matt. 8:24; John 4:6). His knowledge was limited, as seen in His assertion that He did not know the time of His return to earth (Mark 13:32).[102]

Yet Philippians 2:8 simply states what He appeared to be when people looked at Him. They saw “the appearance of a man and that was all. They saw ordinariness. They saw nothing to distinguish Him physically. There were no insignia [i.e., no aura, no halo] of His unique divine status. There was only ordinariness, poverty, frailty, unpopularity and human rejection.”[103]

Second, the word σχῆμα (like ὁμοίωμα, “likeness,” v. 7) leaves room for the thought of something more within the human frame.[104] His true humanity was the veil of deity.[105] Evangelicals reject the Kenotic Christology. There was no κένωσις, no emptying of Jesus’ divine attributes. Yet there was a κρύψις, a hiding, veiling, or hiddenness of the divine attributes and nature.[106] The human eye could not see the Deity beneath the veil. People could see only the “veil” of human nature, of ordinariness, of frailty and dependence.[107] Without faith no one can ever see beyond the veil and the appearance of humanity.

Lightfoot summarized the three important clauses in verses 6–8 as follows: (1) The phrase μορφὴ θεοῦ implies the true divine nature or deity of Christ. (2) The phrase μορφὴ δούλου implies His true human nature. (3) The phrase σχήματι ὡς ἄνθρωπος points to the “externals” of human nature.[108]

His resolute obedience. In the next line of the hymn Paul spoke of the resolute obedience of Christ. Earlier He spoke of the decision of the preexistent Christ; now he wrote of the decision of the incarnate Jesus to obey His Father completely.[109] “He humbled Himself” (ἐταπείνωσεν ἑαυτὸν).[110] The verb ταπεινόω means “to make small or little,” then, “to humiliate,” “to assign to a lower place” or “to expose to shame.”[111] Here the practical implications of Paul’s lesson become clear, for in verse 3 he used ταπεινοφροσύνη (“humility”) from the same word group to encourage humility of mind among believers.

The hymn, in short, “provides the basis for the preceding exhortation (2:1–5).”[112] In the local church in Philippi a battle was being fought for personal honor, for personal rights, and for personal credit. Jesus’ life, on the other hand, was characterized by self-surrender, self-renunciation, and self-sacrifice.[113]

His degrading death. The apostle then explained that Jesus humbled Himself “by becoming obedient to the point of death.”[114] As noted earlier, Paul here referred to the decision of the incarnate Christ. Many Christians may be inclined to think of the humiliation or abasement of Christ as that time when He, as God, became man. Jesus did not take the nature of an angel. He assumed human nature. Nor did He become a kingly man; He became a lowly person, a slave (Isa. 53:2–3).[115]True, His incarnation was an act of humiliation. But here in verse 8 Paul was speaking of Christ’s humiliation in His status as a man. His humbling was manifested not in self-flagellation or false piety, but in obedience. To whom was He obedient? Philippians 2:9 makes it clear that He was obedient to God (cf. John 6:38; 8:29; 14:31; 15:10; Heb. 10:7).[116] To what extent was He obedient? He was obedient to the point of accepting death.[117]

Paul’s hymn at this point suggests an answer to an important theological question: What is the nature of Christ’s human nature? Paul implied that His human nature was mortal, that He was able to die. He also suggested that it was unfallen human nature. There is no indication that death was inevitable for Christ. All men die whether they want to or not, because death is the “wages of sin” (Rom. 6:23). Yet death was not inevitable for Him in His humanity. His human nature was like Adam’s before the Fall in the sense that it was unfallen.[118] Adam became disobedient unto death. Christ, however, obeyed unto death. Of no one else was this possible (Rom. 5:19).[119] Incidentally this also suggests that Christ’s death was vicarious (i.e., for others), for He did not need to die for Himself.

The concluding words of the third stanza are “even death on a cross” (θανάτου δὲ σταυροῦ). This, says Robertson, is “the lowest rung in this Jacob’s ladder of Christ’s humanity.”[120] The conjunction δέ (“even”) has here an intensive force,[121] calling attention to the special nature of Christ’s death,[122] to the extent of His abasement. It was not a common death. It was a “cross death.”[123]

For the members of the Roman colony in Philippi Paul’s remark would be striking. Crucifixion was considered a barbaric form of execution of the utmost cruelty. Origen called crucifixion mors turpissima crucia (“the utterly vile death of the cross”),[124] and Cicero called it, “that most cruel and disgusting penalty.”[125] It was reserved for rebellious foreigners, violent criminals and robbers, and it was considered the typical punishment for slaves.[126] It was a death on which the Mosaic Law had uttered a curse (Deut. 21:23).[127] “Jesus did not die a gentle death like Socrates, with his cup of hemlock, much less passing on ‘old and full of years’ like the patriarchs of the Old Testament. Rather, he died like a slave or a common criminal, in torment, on a tree of shame.”[128]

The contrast of Paul’s own position must have deepened his sensitivity to the nature of his Master’s humiliation. Paul was a Roman citizen, and the punishment was considered so degrading that it could not be imposed on citizens.[129] The vileness of crucifixion is often lost on modern Christians who use crosses as personal jewelry and appendages to religious buildings. But the “Prince of glory” did not die on a shiny piece of gold. Rather He was nailed on a cross of rough hewn wood, a criminal’s gibbet, stuck into a hole on Jerusalem’s common crucifixion ground.[130]

Paul said the cross of Christ was foolishness (μωρία) to the Greeks, and to the Jews a cause for stumbling (σκάνδαλον; 1 Cor. 1:23–24). In short, death on a cross was “the lowest stage of humiliation” possible.

Conclusion

Paul’s great hymn offers three great lessons for believers.

The Person Of Christ

Theologians and Bible teachers sometimes refer to the Christ hymn of Philippians 2 as the locus classicus (“central passage”) on the hypostatic union, that is, the doctrine that the divine and human natures were joined in the one person of Jesus Christ. The eternal Son of God, a divine person, took to Himself a real human nature.

The Christology of the passage may be summarized as follows: (1) The subject throughout the hymn is the divine person, the eternal Son of God. (2) He poured Himself out by taking an additional nature, a human nature. (3) His pouring out consisted in the surrender of His heavenly mode of existence. This included the veiling of His personal glory. (4) His pouring out involved the voluntary nonuse of His divine attributes—He lived His life on earth as a man.[131] (5) Therefore His pouring out involved His total dependence on the will of God and the power of the Holy Spirit (Matt. 12:28; Luke 4:14–18).

The Death Of Christ

The hatefulness, humiliation, and degradation of the cross—mentioned emphatically in the last line of stanza three of the hymn— must not be watered down. The Savior died like a slave or a common criminal, in torment, on a tree of shame. The scandal of it cannot be blunted, removed, or domesticated.[132] It was a horrible experience for Jesus. There were moments of anguish that tore His soul when He was almost overwhelmed by the thought of it (Matt. 26:39; Mark 14:35–36; John 12:27–28). There was a time when He sweat drops like blood (Luke 22:44) and when there were tears in His eyes (Heb. 5:7). Yet for the believer there is a glory to the cross (John 13:31–32). It expresses the wisdom and power of God (1 Cor. 1:23–24). Jesus endured the cross for the sake of the joy that would follow (Heb. 12:2), and so because of the cross believers have eternal life (5:9).

At the cross Jesus won a great victory. And at the cross He demonstrated that He did not regard His divine prerogatives as something to be used for His own advantage. Equality with God does not mean snatching, grasping, taking. It means giving. At the Cross people see what God is really like!

The Example Of Christ

Jesus’ supreme example of selflessness and obedience beckons believers to lead lives of selfless living and obedience. Seeing Him abandoning the glories and prerogatives of heaven, pouring Himself out for others, should encourage Christians to abandon their self-serving attitudes.

Notes

1. Almost all scholars view this passage as a hymn because of several factors: (1) the opening relative pronoun (ὃς), which is paralleled in other New Testament passages that are also understood as Christological hymns (Col. 1:15, 18; 1 Tim. 3:16); (2) the abundance of participles (ὑπάρχων, λαβών, γενόμενος, εὑρεθεὶς, γενόμενος); (3) the general absence of the article; (4) the rhythmic structure; (5) the internal coherence that separates it from the discourse of the epistle itself; and (6) the doxological conclusion (Jack T. Sanders, The New Testament Christological Hymns [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1971], 11). On the criteria for distinguishing hymns and confessions in the New Testament, see Ethelbert Stauffer, New Testament Theology, trans. John Marsh (New York: Macmillan, 1955), 338–39; Markus Barth, Ephesians 1–3, Anchor Bible (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1974), 6–10; W. Hulitt Gloer, “Homologies and Hymns in the New Testament: Form, Content, and Criteria for Identification,” Perspectives in Religious Studies 11 (Summer, 1984): 115-32; Richard N. Longenecker, New Wine into Fresh Wineskins: Contextualizing the Early Christian Confessions (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1999), 10–11. Peter T. O’Brien groups the various elements of hymnic material into two criteria: “(1) stylistic: a certain rhythmical lilt when the passage is read aloud, the presence of parallelismus membrorum [i.e., an arrangement into couplets], the semblance of some meter, and the presence of rhetorical devices such as alliteration, chiasmus, and antithesis; and (2) linguistic: an unusual vocabulary, particularly the presence of theological terms, which is different from the surrounding context” (The Epistle to the Philippians: A Commentary on the Greek Text, New International Greek Testament Commentary [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991], 188–89).
2. James Montgomery Boice, Philippians: An Expositional Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1971), 126.
3. H. C. G. Moule, Philippian Studies (London: Pickering & Inglis, 1927; reprint, Fort Washington, PA: Christian Literature Crusade, 1975), 96–97.
4. Ralph P. Martin, Carmen Christi: Philippians 2:5–11 in Recent Interpretation and in the Setting of Early Christian Worship (London: Cambridge University Press, 1967; 2d ed., Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983), now revised and entitled A Hymn of Christ (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1997). Not all expositors are convinced the passage is a hymn. See, for example, Gordon D. Fee, “Philippians 2:5–11, Hymn or Exalted Pauline Prose?” Bulletin for Biblical Research 2 (1992): 29-46; idem, Paul’s Letter to the Philippians, New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 192–94; and Gerald F. Hawthorne, “In the Form of God and Equal with God (Philippians 2:6),” in Where Christology Began: Essays on Philippians 2, ed. Ralph P. Martin and Brian J. Dods (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1998), 105, n. 2. Compare Martin’s response in A Hymn of Christ, xliv-xlvi.
5. The epistle was most likely written in Rome around A.D. 60-62 (O’Brien, The Epistle to the Philippians, 19–26).
6. Moule, Philippian Studies, 97. Martin Hengel is of the opinion that in the first two decades of the church (A.D. 30-50) there was more Christological development, that is, understanding of the person of Christ, including His deity, than in the next seven centuries (The Son of God, trans. John Bowden [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976], 2). This, Robert J. Karris says approvingly, is a remarkable claim when one remembers that the years A.D. 50-700 included the councils of Nicea and Chalcedon (A Symphony of New Testament Hymns [Collegeville, MN: Liturgical, 1996], 24).
7. In answer to the question “What is a Christ-hymn?” Reinhard Deichgräber wrote, “We understand by this such passages whose contents speak of Christ and His work (especially His humiliation and exaltation) and because of whose vocabulary, style and construction can truly be described as poetic” (Gotteshymnus und Christushymnus in der frühen Christenheit, Studien zur Umwelt des Neuen Testaments [Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1967], quoted in Martin (A Hymn of Christ, xliii, n. 8). Stephen E. Fowl wrote, “These passages [such as Phil. 2:5–11; Col. 1:5–10; 1 Tim. 3:16] are hymns in the very general sense of poetic accounts of the nature and/or activity of [Jesus Christ]” (The Story of Christ in the Ethics of Paul: An Analysis of the Function of the Hymnic Material in the Pauline Corpus, Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 36 [Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1990], 45). Martin and Hengel, among others, go further in asserting that the passages are quotations of worship songs that were used in the meetings of early Christians (Ralph P. Martin, “Hymns in the New Testament: An Evolving Pattern of Worship Responses,” Ex Auditu 8 [1992]: 33-44; Martin Hengel, “Hymn and Christology,” in Studia Biblica 1978, III, ed. E. A. Livingstone, Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 3 (Sheffield: University of Sheffield Press, 1980), 173–97 (esp. pp. 173–77); and idem, “The Song about Christ in Earliest Worship,” in Studies in Early Christology (Edinburgh: Clark, 1995), 227–91.
8. Jean-François Collange, The Epistle of Saint Paul to the Philippians, trans. A. W. Heathcote (London: Epworth, 1979), 94.
9. Gerald F. Hawthorne, Philippians, Word Biblical Commentary (Waco, TX: Word Books, 1983), 77; see also Moisés Silva, Philippians, Wycliffe Exegetical Commentary (Chicago: Moody, 1988), 107.
10. Scholars differ on the purpose of the hymn in its immediate context. In the traditional “ethical example” view verse 5 is a link between verses 2–4 and verses 6–9. The hoped-for attitude outlined in verses 2–4 corresponds with that exhibited by Christ in verses 6–9. Paul urged the divisive Philippians to follow the example of Christ, who humbled Himself. In the “soteriological” view Paul said that the Philippians were to act in the way that is proper for those who are “in Christ.” “The Apostolic summons is not: Follow Jesus by doing as He did—an impossible feat. .. rather: become in your conduct and church relationships the type of persons who, by that kenosis, death and exaltation of the Lord of glory, have a place in His body, the Church” (Martin, Carmen Christi, 85, 290–91). The New English Bible reflects this second view: “Let your bearing towards one another arise out of your life in Christ Jesus.” The exposition in this article follows the traditional “ethical example” view (F. F. Bruce, Philippians, Good News Commentary [San Francisco: Harper, 1983], 42–43); and Robert B. Strimple, “Philippians 2:5–11 in Recent Studies: Some Exegetical Conclusions,” Westminster Theological Journal 41 [1979]: 252-55).
11. Hawthorne follows the majority text reading, which is passive (φρονείσθω: “Let this be thought in you”; Philippians, 76, 80), but most commentators accept the active form as genuine. See Richard R. Melick Jr., Philippians, Colossians, Philemon, New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman, 1991), 100, n. 138.
12. The phrase “which was also in Christ Jesus” is elliptical in the Greek text (ὃ καὶ ἐν Χριστῷ ᾿Ιησοῦ). The NASB supplies the verb ἦν (“was”). See Fee, Paul’s Letter to the Philippians, 200, n. 29.
13. The prepositional phrase “in yourselves” or “among yourselves” (ἐν ὑμῖν) expresses what must take place in the Philippian assembly as a whole. Such an attitude, of course, must first take place on the individual level (Fee, Paul’s Letter to the Philippians, 200).
14. While most scholars believe that the basic structure of the passage is hymnic, they disagree on the precise division of the stanzas or strophes. The well-known breakdown by Ernst Lohmeyer (six three-line stanzas), following the usual verse divisions, is still widely accepted (Kyrios Jesus. Eine Untersuchung zu. Phil. 2, 5–11 [Heidelberg: Carl Winters, 1928], 5–6); see also Silva, Philippians, 106.
15. Translations from Philippians 2 are those of the author.
16. An exception to this interpretation among orthodox interpreters is the older Lutheran tradition. Many Lutheran writers felt that the subject of verses 6–8 was the incarnate Christ throughout (e.g., Francis Pieper, Christian Dogmatics [St. Louis: Concordia, 1950], 2:287–88). However, Christ, who was in “the form of God” and who lived in a manner of “equality with God,” is said to have subsequently “emptied Himself” and “been born/made in human likeness.” This is certainly the language of preexistence and Incarnation (Fee, Paul’s Letter to the Philippians, 203, n. 41). A number of more recent scholars also reject the three-stage incarnational Christology presented in this article. They argue that Philippians 2:6–11 contains a two-stage adoptional (“thoroughgoingly anthropological”) Christology (James D. G. Dunn, Christology in the Making [Philadelphia: Westminster, 1980], 114–21); Jerome Murphy-O’Connor, “Christological Anthropology in Phil. 2:6–11, ” Revue biblique 83 [1976]: 30-31). These scholars argue that the human Jesus, not the preexistent Son of God, is the subject of all the actions in verses 6–8. They assert that the hymn employs an Adam-Christ parallel, and that the basis of the contrast is the action of Adam in “snatching at equality with God.” This thesis also assumes that “the form of God” (μορφῇ θεοῦ) in verse 6 is a synonym for “the image of God” (εἰκὼν θεοῦ) in Genesis 1:26–27. The thesis of Dunn and others is rejected for a number of reasons. (1) Although Paul did draw parallels between Adam and Christ elsewhere (Rom. 5:12–21; 1 Cor. 15:21–22, 45–49), Adam is not mentioned in this passage. (2) Genesis 3 nowhere states that Adam desired to be equal with God. Rather the serpent declared that Adam and Eve would be like gods if they ate the fruit. (3) It is highly unlikely that εἰκών is synonymous with μορφή. In the Septuagint of Genesis 1:26 the Hebrew צֶלֶם (“image”) is translated εἰκών. Only once in the Septuagint (Dan. 3:19) is μορφή used to translate צֶלֶם, and there it has neither the sense of “image” nor “likeness.” Furthermore μορφή is never used in the Septuagint to translate דְּמוּת (“likeness”). Fee flatly states that the thesis that εἰκών is interchangeable with μορφή is nothing more than “scholarly mythology” (Paul’s Letter to the Philippians, 209, n. 73). For an able defense of the traditional view see Paul D. Feinberg, “The Kenosis and Christology: An Exegetical-Theological Analysis of Phil. 2:6–11, ” Trinity Journal 1 (1980): 21-36; and the discussion by Hawthorne, Philippians, 81–84. See also David H. Wallace, “A Note on morphē,” Theologische Zeitschrift 22 (1966): 19-25; C. A. Wanamaker, “Philippians 2:6–11: Son of God or Adamic Christology?” New Testament Studies 33 (1987): 179-93; Dave Steenburg, “The Case against the Synonymity of Morphē and Eikōn,” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 34 (1988): 77-86; and Lincoln D. Hurst, “Christ, Adam, and Preexistence Revisited,” in Where Christology Began: Essays on Philippians 2, 84–95.
17. H. A. W. Meyer, Critical and Exegetical Hand-Book to the Epistles to the Philippians and Colossians, and to Philemon (New York: Funk and Wagnalls, 1884; reprint, Winona Lake, IN: Alpha, 1979), 8:66.
18. Ernest F. Scott, “The Epistle to the Philippians,” in The Interpreter’s Bible, ed. George W. Buttrick (New York: Abingdon, 1955), 11:47.
19. A. Sabatier, The Apostle Paul (London: Hodder and Stoughton, n.d.), 259. C. A. Briggs wrote, “The epistle distinctly sets forth three different states of the Messiah: pre-existence in heaven, humiliation on earth, and enthronement in heaven. Each of these is presented with a wealth of meaning beyond anything taught in [Paul’s earlier epistles]” (The Messiah of the Apostles [New York: Scribner’s, 1895], 179).
20. J. B. Lightfoot, St. Paul’s Epistle to the Philippians (London: Macmillan, 1868; reprint, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1968), 110. In classical Greek this participle would mean “being by nature” or “being originally.” In later Greek it frequently meant “to be” (J. Hugh Michael, The Epistle of Paul to the Philippians, Moffatt New Testament Commentary [New York: Harper, 1927], 86). In New Testament Greek, however, the context sometimes suggests one who already exists (Acts 7:55; 8:16). The context of Philippians 2:5–11 suggests that ὑπάρχων has a fuller meaning than simply “to be,” for two reasons. First, the fact that Paul used three words to express existence suggests that his usage observes their nuances of meaning: εἶναι (“to be,” v. 6), ὑπαρχών (“to be essentially,” v. 6), γίνομαι (“to come to be,” “become,” vv. 7–8). See Alfred Plummer, A Commentary on St. Paul’s Epistle to the Philippians (London: Robert Scott, 1919; reprint, Old Tappan, NJ: Revell, 1980), 42. Second, it is clear that verse 7 (“being made in the likeness of men”) is subsequent in time to verse 6. The choice to humble Himself preceded His incarnation.
21. E. H. Gifford, The Incarnation: A Study of Philippians 2:5–11 and a University Sermon on Psalm 110 (London: Longmans, Green and Co., 1911), 7 (italics his). Gifford’s argument that ὑπάρχων means “continued existence” is an attempt to prove too much (ibid., 8-12). That Christ continued in “the form of God” even after the Incarnation is assumed by the passage, but it is not explicitly suggested by this participle.
22. Lightfoot, St. Paul’s Epistle to thePhilippians, 110, 127–33. A. Harnack once wrote that the works of Lightfoot were of imperishable value. He spoke of Lightfoot’s patristic studies, but his words also apply to Lightfoot’s commentaries. See T. F. Glasson, “Two Notes on the Philippian Hymn (2:6–11),” New Testament Studies 21 (1974–1975): 133.
23. Wallace, “A Note on morphē,” 19–25.
24. In the earliest Greek texts μορφή expressed the way a thing is perceived by the senses (J. Behm, “μορφή,” in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich, trans. and ed. Geoffrey W. Bromiley [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1967], 4:745). “Μορφή always signifies a form which truly and fully expresses the being which underlies it” (James Hope Moulton and George Milligan, The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament [1930; reprint, Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1997], 417). When applied to God, it must refer to His deepest being, to that which cannot be reached by human understanding or sight, because He is invisible (Hawthorne, Philippians, 83–84).
25. Plato, Phaedo, quoted by Wallace, “A Note on morphē,” 22.
26. Wallace, “A Note on morphē,” 22.
27. Marvin R. Vincent, The Epistles to the Philippians and to Philemon, International Critical Commentary (Edinburgh: Clark, 1897), 57.
28. Lightfoot noted that μορφή is not the same as φύσις (“nature”) or οὐσία (“essence”), yet the possession of the μορφή involves participation in the οὐσία also (St. Paul’s Epistle to the Philippians, 110).
29. Vincent, The Epistles to the Philippians and to Philemon, 57–58; and Hawthorne, Philippians, 84.
30. Lightfoot, St. Paul’s Epistle to the Philippians, 110.
31. Martin, Carmen Christi, 134 (commenting specifically on ἁρπαγμός).
32. The articular infinitive (τὸ εἶναι) refers “to something previously mentioned or otherwise well known” (R. W. Funk, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature [Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961], 205, § 399); and N. T. Wright, “ἁρπαγμός and the Meaning of Philippians 2:5–11, ” Journal of Theological Studies 37 (1986): 332, 344.
33. H. A. A. Kennedy, “The Epistle to the Philippians,” in The Expositor’s Greek Testament, ed. W. Robertson Nicoll (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1903; reprint, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1970), 3:436–37; Michael, The Epistle of Paul to the Philippians, 87–89; and F. W. Beare, The Epistle to the Philippians, Harper New Testament Commentary (New York: Harper, 1959), 79–81. R. W. Hoover noted that in every instance in which this idiomatic expression occurs (those he examined) it refers to something already present and at one’s disposal (“The Harpagmos Enigma: A Philological Solution,” Harvard Theological Review 64 [1971]: 118).
34. For example Hawthorne, Philippians, 84.
35. J. J. Müller, The Epistles of Paul to the Philippians and to Philemon, New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1955), 79, n. 4; Vincent, The Epistles to the Philippians and to Philemon, 58–59; and A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament (Nashville: Broadman, 1931), 4:444.
36. Wright, “ἁρπαγμός and the Meaning of Philippians 2:5–11,” 344.
37. This translation (“equality with God,” NASB, NIV, NEB) reflects the view of Lightfoot thatἴσα is a predicate (St. Paul’s Epistle to the Philippians, 111–12).
38. The term ἴσα is the neuter plural form ofἴσος (“equal”), used here adverbially (Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, 4:444; and Walter Bauer, William F. Arndt, and F. Wilbur Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 2d ed., rev. F. Wilbur Gingrich and Frederick W. Danker [Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979], 381). It does not therefore denote, “equality of being,” that is, it is not identical to ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ ὑπάρχων. Rather, it means “in such a way or manner” (Müller, The Epistles of Paul to the Philippians and to Philemon, 79, n. 4; and Vincent, The Epistles to the Philippians and to Philemon, 58–59).
39. Fee, Paul’s Letter to the Philippians, 207–8.
40. Hawthorne, Philippians, 84–85; Silva, Philippians, 117–18; and O’Brien, The Epistle to the Philippians, 212–16.
41. These translations of the NASB and the KJV reflect the interpretations of Greek and Latin fathers. The Latin fathers understood the term ἁρπαγμός in an abstract or active sense, that is, an act of aggression, robbery, or usurpation. The Greek fathers understood the term in a passive sense, that is, a prize or treasure. The thought is that Christ did not regard the rank and privileges of His equality with God as something to be clung to greedily (Wright, “ἁρπαγμός and the Meaning of Philippians 2:5–11, ” 321–23).
42. Here Wright (ibid., 336-37, 344-52) has nicely woven together the views of H. C. G. Moule and R. W. Hoover (C. F. D. Moule, “The Manhood of Jesus in the New Testament,” in Christ Faith and History, ed. S. W. Sykes and J. P. Clayton [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1972], 97; idem, “Further Reflections on Philippians 2:5-11,” in Apostolic History and the Gospel, eds. W. W. Gasque and Ralph P. Martin [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1970], 271-74; and Hoover, “The Harpagmos Enigma,” 117-19.
43. The participle ὑπάρχων is usually taken as concessive (Melick, Philippians, Colossians, Philemon, 102, n. 146). Moule argues that it should have a causative force (“The Manhood of Jesus in the New Testament,” 97). Daniel B. Wallace defends the concessive translation “although He existed” (Greek Grammar beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996], 634–35).
44. Wright, “ἁρπαγμός and the Meaning of Philippians 2:5–11, ” 345.
45. P. T. Forsyth, The Person and Place of Jesus Christ (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1910), 300.
46. A. B. Bruce, The Humiliation of Christ, 4th ed. (1894; reprint, Grand Rapids; Eerdmans, 1955), 133–91.
47. The exegetical reason is that μορφῇ θεοῦ is part of the participial phrase ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ ὑκπάρχων (“existing in the form of God”). This participial phrase modifies the ὃς (“who”) that begins Philippians 2:6 and is the subject of the verb ἡγήσατο (“did. .. regard,” NASB). Moreover, the phrase μορφῇ θεοῦ is separated from the verb ἐκένωσεν (“He emptied”) by the strong adversative ἀλλά (“but”). Therefore it is grammatically impossible that the μορφῇ θεοῦ is the object of ἐκένωσεν. In short, Paul did not say that Christ “emptied Himself” of the “form of God.” The words μορφῇ θεοῦ mean the divine nature of Christ. If Christ emptied Himself of the μορφῇ θεοῦ, then He emptied Himself of His deity and ceased to be God (Feinberg, “The Kenosis and Christology,” 41.
48. “Nothing in the text suggests that being human required Him to be less than God” (Melick, Philippians, Colossians, Philemon, 103, n. 152).
49. Everard Digges La Touche, The Person of Christ in Modern Thought (London: James Clarke, 1912), 355.
50. William Kelly, Lectures on Philippians and Colossians (reprint, Denver: Wilson Foundation, n.d.), 39.
51. One edition of this hymn has changed the third line to read, “Emptied Himself in matchless love” (Hymns of Truth and Praise [Fort Dodge, IA: Gospel Perpetuating Fund, 1971], 37).
52. Gifford, The Incarnation: A Study of Philippians 2:5–11, 25.
53. The expression ἴσα θεῷ is not the object of ἐκένωσεν. Rather, the phrase τὸ εἶναι ἴσα θεῷ is an accusative articular infinitive object of ἡγήσατο (Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, 4:444; and Feinberg, “The Kenosis and Christology,” 41). Furthermore the phrase ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγήσατο is idiomatic, meaning “to regard as something to be taken advantage of” (Hoover, “The Harpagmos Enigma,” 95–119).
54. Benjamin B. Warfield, The Person and Work of Christ (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1950), 569; and Morna D. Hooker, “Philippians 2:6–11, ” in Jesus und Paulus, ed. Earle E. Ellis and E. Grässer (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1975), 162.
55. W. Warren, “On ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσεν,” Journal of Theological Studies 12 (1911): 461-63. Warren’s view has been adopted by a number of commentators, including Michael, The Epistle of Paul to the Philippians, 90–91; Hawthorne, Philippians, 86; O’Brien, The Epistle to the Philippians, 217; and Fee, Paul’s Letter to the Philippians, 210, n. 77.
56. Hawthorne, Philippians, 86. The pronoun “Himself” (ἐαυτόν) is the direct object of the verb “emptied” (ἐκένωσεν). It is not necessary, therefore, to insist that the phrase ἐαυτὸν ἐκένωσεν demands some genitive of content.
57. Darrell L. Bock, “A Theology of Paul’s Prison Epistles,” in A Biblical Theology of the New Testament, ed. Roy B. Zuck (Chicago: Moody, 1994), 323.
58. “The participle [‘taking’] explains how the emptying [took] place” (ibid., 323, n. 20).
59. Hawthorne, Philippians, 86; Vincent, The Epistles to the Philippians and to Philemon, 59; and Michael, The Epistle of Paul to the Philippians, 91.
60. These are adverbial participles of means, that is, the participles explain the means by which Christ poured Himself out (Michael, The Epistle of Paul to the Philippians, 91; Nigel Turner, Syntax, vol. 3 of James H. Moulton, A Grammar of New Testament Greek [Edinburgh: Clark, 1963], 153; and Wallace, Greek Grammar beyond the Basics, 630).
61. Alec Motyer, The Message of Philippians, The Bible Speaks Today (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1984), 113 (italics added).
62. Thomas Aquinas, quoted in E. R. Fairweather, “The ‘Kenotic’ Christology,” in Beare, The Epistle to the Philippians, 164–65.
63. Augustine, quoted in ibid., 165.
64. Hawthorne, Philippians, 86.
65. For this understanding of δοῦλος see Moule, “Further Reflections on Philippians 2:5–11, ” 268. It is needless to ask, “To whom was He a bondservant?” (Plummer, A Commentary on St. Paul’s Epistle to the Philippians, 45), for Paul did not ask that question. He simply stated that Christ assumed the condition of a slave (Kennedy, “The Epistle to the Philippians,” 437).
66. Gifford, The Incarnation: A Study of Philippians 2:5–11, 23.
67. Mark Twain, The Prince and the Pauper (1882; reprint, New York: Dell, 1985).
68. Some have objected to the thought that Christ accepted the condition of slavery, arguing that He always was Lord and that He spoke with authority (Vincent, The Epistles to the Philippians and to Philemon, 59; and H. C. G. Moule, The Epistle to thePhilippians, Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1897], 39). Yet surely Paul’s point was that Christ lived without asserting the advantages, rights, and privileges of deity.
69. Guy King, Joy Way (Fort Washington, PA: Christian Literature Crusade, 1952), 46; and Hawthorne, Philippians, 78. In John 13:14 believers are encouraged to serve each other, just as Paul emphasized in Philippians 2:4–5.
70. Paul did not say to whom Christ was a slave (i.e., whether to God or to humanity). But “in taking the role of slave toward others, He was acting in obedience to the will of God” (Hawthorne, Philippians, 87).
71. Charles Wesley, “Amazing Love,” in Hymns of Truth and Praise, 37.
72. R. T. Kendall, Meekness and Majesty (Fearn, U.K.: Christian Focus, 1992), 52–54.
73. Hawthorne, Philippians, 87. Like λαβών the term γενόμενος marks the assumption of something new (Lightfoot, St. Paul’s Epistle to the Philippians, 112).
74. Kennedy, “The Epistle to the Philippians,” 438; and Lightfoot, St. Paul’s Epistle to the Philippians, 112.
75. Hawthorne however, does argue for the meaning of “identity” for ὁμοίωμα (Philippians, 87).
76. Lightfoot, St. Paul’s Epistle to the Philippians, 112; Vincent, The Epistles to the Philippians and to Philemon, 59; Meyer, Critical and Exegetical Hand-Book to the Epistles to the Philippians and Colossians, and to Philemon, 75–76; Michael, The Epistle of Paul to the Philippians, 92; Beare, The Epistle to the Philippians, 83; A. T. Robertson, Paul’s Joy in Christ (1917; reprint, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979), 130–31; Martin, Philippians, 98; and Johannes Schneider, “ὁμοίωμα,” in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, 5 (1967), 197–98.
77. Ralph P. Martin, Philippians, New Century Bible (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976), 98.
78. Moule, The Epistle to the Philippians, 39.
79. Meyer, Critical and Exegetical Hand-Book to the Epistles to the Philippians and Colossians, and to Philemon, 76, n.1.
80. Kennedy, “The Epistle to the Philippians,” 438.
81. Hawthorne, Philippians, 88.
82. Beare, The Epistle to the Philippians, 83.
83. Martin, Philippians, 98.
84. Moule, The Epistle to the Philippians, 39.
85. The word ὁμοίωμα “allows for the ambiguity, emphasizing that He is similar to our humanity in some respects and dissimilar in others” (Fee, Paul’s Letter to the Philippians, 213).
86. Wright, “ἁρπαγμός and the Meaning of Philippians 2:5–11, ” 344, n. 85.
87. Schneider, “ὁμοίωμα,” 197.
88. J. A. Bengel distinguishes three key terms in this passage as follows: “Μορφή signifies something absolute; ὁμοίωμα denotes a relation to other things of the same condition; σχῆμα refers to the sight and sense” (New Testament Word Studies, [Philadelphia: Perkinpine & Higgins, 1864; reprint, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1971], 2:434). See also R. C. Trench, Synonyms of the New Testament (London: Macmillan, 1880; reprint, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1973), 49–53.
89. The word ὁμοίωμα is used “primarily because of Paul’s belief (in common with the rest of the early church) that in becoming human Christ did not thereby cease to be divine.. .. He was God living out a truly human life” (Fee, Paul’s Letter to the Philippians, 213).
90. W. E. Vine, Epistles to the Philippians and Colossians (London: Oliphants, 1955), 59.
91. The NASB places this clause in verse 8. However, some other versions place the line in verse 7, but this seems to miss the rhythm of the passage.
92. Müller, The Epistles of Paul to the Philippians and to Philemon, 86, n. 10; Lightfoot, St. Paul’s Epistle to the Philippians, 112; and Vincent, The Epistles to the Philippians and to Philemon, 60.
93. Kennedy, “The Epistle to the Philippians,” 438.
94. Warfield, The Person and Work of Christ, 563.
95. Johannes Schneider, “σχῆμα,” in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, 7 (1971), 954; cf. Lightfoot, St. Paul’s Epistle to the Philippians, 127–33.
96. Plummer, A Commentary on St. Paul’s Epistle to the Philippians, 46.
97. In spite of etymology and usage Hawthorne insists that σχῆμα is basically synonymous with μορφή (Philippians, 87–88). It occurs one other time in the New Testament (1 Cor. 7:31) where it refers to the present form of the world, which is passing away.
98. Moule, The Epistle to the Philippians, 40.
99. Donald MacLeod, Philippians 2 and Christology (Leicester, UK: TSF, 1976), 15–16.
100. Ibid.
101. The limitations and weaknesses of Christ’s human nature were not because He assumed fallen humanity, but because He assumed true humanity.
102. There are other indications of His limited knowledge. He prayed for guidance (Luke 6:12–13). He asked questions for the sake of gaining information (Mark 5:9, 30; 6:38; 9:21). He could be amazed, astonished, or surprised (Mark 6:6, 30–34; 11:13; 14:33; John 14:9). However, Christ was always a divine person. Because of His human nature He was limited in various ways, but because He was God He was infallible.
103. MacLeod, Philippians 2 and Christology, 17.
104. Beare, The Epistle to the Philippians, 84.
105. Moule, The Epistle to the Philippians, 40.
106. MacLeod, Philippians 2 and Christology, 17; cf. R. A. Muller, Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms, 170. Emil Brunner spoke of the incognito or disguise of Christ (The Mediator [Philadelphia: Westminster, 1947], 346). Such a term can be misleading if it is understood to mean that Christ’s humanity was unreal (which Brunner would have emphatically rejected).
107. MacLeod, Philippians 2 and Christology, 17.
108. Lightfoot, St. Paul’s Epistle to the Philippians, 133.
109. G. B. Caird, Paul’s Letters from Prison (London: Oxford University Press, 1976), 122. In verse 7 Paul spoke of the κένωσις (“pouring out”) of the λόγος ἄσαρκος, the preincarnate Word. Now in verse 8 he wrote of the ταπείνωσις (humiliation, abasement) of the λόγος ἔνσαρκος, the incarnate historical Christ (Müller, The Epistles of Paul to the Philippians and to Philemon, 86).
110. A significant change of word order is seen in verses 7 and 8. Verse 7 has ἑαυτον ἐκένωσεν, the emphasis falling on “Himself.” Verse 8 has ἐταπείνωσεν ἑαυτὸν, the emphasis falling on “humbled.” In other words verse 7 emphasizes the subject and verse 8 emphasizes the action (Meyer, Critical and Exegetical Hand-Book to the Epistles to the Philippians and Colossians, and to Philemon, 77).
111. Walter Grundmann, “ταπεινός,” in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, 8 (1972), 4. In the New Testament the term is also used in a commendable sense, that is, “to humble oneself” (Matt. 18:4). In Philippians 2:8 it has a more demeaning sense.
112. Ibid., 18, 21.
113. Hawthorne, Philippians, 89.
114. As in the case of the participles in verse 7 this participle (γενόμενος, “by becoming,” v. 8) is an adverbial participle of means.
115. S. Lewis Johnson Jr., “The Hypostatic Union, part 3” (audio tape, Dallas: Believers’ Chapel, 1978).
116. Lightfoot, St. Paul’s Epistle to the Philippians, 113; Kennedy, “The Epistle to the Philippians,” 438; Vincent, The Epistles to the Philippians and to Philemon, 60; Moule, The Epistle to the Philippians, 40; Michael, The Epistle of Paul to the Philippians, 93; and Caird, Paul’s Letters for Prison, 122. Hawthorne noted that Christ was also obedient to the wishes of the people (Philippians, 89). This is certainly true in other New Testament contexts (Mark 10:45; Luke 2:51; 19:10), but it is not the point here. Beare felt that the thought here is Christ’s submission to the power of the elemental spirits (The Epistle to the Philippians, 84). That idea, however, is extraneous to the present context. The ambiguous phrase “obedient unto death” (KJV) suggests to some that He obeyed death. Later versions (e.g., NASB’s “obedient to the point of death”) make it clear that the preposition μέχρι is intended to indicate the extent to which Christ was obedient.
117. Caird, Paul’s Letters from Prison, 122.
118. William Kelly argued that there are three distinct phases of human nature—innocent (Adam before the Fall), fallen (Adam and the human race after the Fall), and holy (Jesus Christ). (Christ Tempted and Sympathising [London: T. Weston, 1906; reprint, Sunbury, PA; Believers Bookshelf, 1975], 13). Kelly’s point, of course, is that the man Jesus Christ, by virtue of His deity, was an impeccable person, while the state of the man Adam before the Fall may be described as innocence, peccability, or “unconfirmed creature holiness” (Charles C. Ryrie, Basic Theology [Chicago: Moody, 1999], 231).
119. Kelly, Lectures on Philippians and Colossians, 39. It is startling to find evangelical scholars asserting that Christ assumed fallen human nature. See for example Müller, The Epistles of Paul to the Philippians and to Philemon, 82–83; and Alan Johnson, Romans: The Freedom Letter, rev. ed. (Chicago: Moody, 1985), 2:16–17. W. G. T. Shedd wrote, “The Redeemer of sinful men must be truly human. .. [but] not fallen” (Dogmatic Theology [Edinburgh: Clark, 1889; reprint, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, n.d.], 2:59, 301–2). Christ’s human nature was weak because He was human, not weak because He was fallen.
120. Robertson, Paul’s Joy in Christ, 134; cf. King, Joy Way, 44.
121. Hawthorne, Philippians, 89; Vincent, The Epistles to the Philippians and to Philemon, 60; and Kennedy, “The Epistle to the Philippians,” 438.
122. Kennedy, “The Epistle to the Philippians,” 438.
123. The term σταυρός simply means “an upright stake.” As an instrument of torture it was originally a post thrust into the ground. It eventually took three shapes: a vertical pointed stake, an upright post with a cross beam above it (T, crux commissa), or two intersecting beams of equal length (crux immissa). The Persians invented it, the Greeks used it, and from the Greeks it came to the Romans, who called it the crux (“cross”). See Johannes Schneider, “σταυρός,” in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, 7 (1971), 572–74.
124. Origen, Commentary on Matthew (27:22–26), quoted in Martin Hengel, Crucifixion (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977), xi.
125. Cicero, Against Verres 2.5.165, quoted in Hengel, Crucifixion, 8, n. 15.
126. Hengel, Crucifixion, 22, 46, 51, and passim.
127. Jewish law, of course, did not prescribe crucifixion. However, idolaters and blasphemers who were stoned to death were to be later hanged on a tree, not in execution, but as an additional penalty (Schneider, “σταυρός,” 574).
128. Hengel, Crucifixion, 90.
129. Some autocratic governors ignored the law and did crucify citizens (Schneider, “σταυρός,” 573). According to tradition the apostle Peter was crucified, and Paul was executed by a sword (Lightfoot, St. Paul’s Epistle to the Philippians, 113).
130. King, Joy Way, 48.
131. John F. Walvoord, Jesus Christ Our Lord (Chicago: Moody, 1969), 143.
132. Hengel, Crucifixion, 90.