As argued in part one of this series, the Arian’s belief that Christ pre-existed his conception is contradicted by the scriptural testimony concerning how and when Christ’s existence began. According to Matt. 1:20 and Luke 1:35, Christ was generated (i.e., brought into existence) by God when his mother became pregnant with him. Thus, Arians are essentially claiming that Christ pre-existed his existence.
Of course, the Arian’s belief that Christ pre-existed his life on earth prevents him from understanding these verses as the revelation of Christ’s origin that they are. And the Arian insists that his interpretation of what’s being revealed in these verses is supported by other verses in which he thinks it’s revealed (or at least implied) that Christ existed long before he was supernaturally conceived. However, the burden of proof is on the Arian to prove that what’s said in the verses or passages to which he appeals in support of his position proves that Christ pre-existed his life on earth. That is, the Arian must show that a certain word or statement found in the verses/passages to which he appeals in support of his position necessitates his interpretation (and that the verses/passages are therefore incompatible with the non-Arian understanding of how and when Christ’s existence began).
If the Arian can’t do this – that is, if he can’t demonstrate that his interpretation is necessitated by what’s being said in a certain verse (and that the verse is thus incompatible with what the non-Arian believes) – then whatever verse or passage to which he’s appealing in support of his position is not a “proof-text” for his position. It can be placed in the same category of verses that Stephen J. places John 17:5 (i.e., verses that one used to consider to be compelling evidence for the Arian view).
One of the main verses to which Arians will appeal in defense of their view that Christ pre-existed as a non-human celestial being is Philippians 2:5-8. Here is how these verses read in the CLNT:
For let this disposition be in you, which is in Christ Jesus also, Who, being inherently in the form of God, deems it not pillaging to be equal with God, nevertheless empties Himself, taking the form of a slave, coming to be in the likeness of humanity, and, being found in fashion as a human, He humbles Himself, becoming obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
Stephen J. has stated the following concerning these verses:
“Paul actively points out that [i.e., Christ’s conception] wasn’t the beginning for Christ, but only for His time on earth, in Phil. 2:5-8.”
That which Stephen says Paul “actively points out” in Phil. 2:5-8 is, instead, a belief that he and other Arians are reading into the text.
Here is what the Arian needs to prove in order to prove that Phil. 2:5-8 is incompatible with the non-Arian understanding (and that these verses thus support the Arian view):
1. Christ wasn’t “inherently in the form of God” during his life on earth.
2. The words “empties himself” can’t refer to something Christ did at some point during his life on earth.
3. The words “taking the form of a slave” can’t refer to something Christ did at some point during his life on earth.
4. The words “coming to be in the likeness of humanity” can’t refer to something Christ did at some point during his life on earth.
If the Arian can’t prove this, then there’s no good reason to think that what Paul wrote in Phil. 2:5-8 supports the Arian view. So let’s consider each of these statements one at a time, and see if they necessitate the Arian interpretation (and are thus incompatible with the non-Arian understanding).
Regarding the words “being inherently in the form of God,” the word translated “form” (morphe) denotes “outward appearance.” Concerning this point, A.E. Knoch wrote the following:
“The other occurrences [of the word “form”] are most helpful and suggestive, for in each case there is a decided contrast. In Romans (2:20) the word form is used of the opposite of reality. The Jews did not actually possess the knowledge and truth in the law. All they had was the outward form. This usage of the word should be conclusive, yet it is no more so than Paul’s description of the men in the “last days” who have a form of devoutness, yet deny its power (2 Tim 3:5). If that “form” is not superficial, lacking the corresponding inward grace, it certainly would not be devoid of power. What could be more conclusive than these two contrasts? In each the form is in contrast to the reality. It does not correspond to that which is within.” Unsearchable Riches Volume 74 (page 101)
Now, according to what Arians believe, the phrase “inherently in the form of God” indicates that Christ was a celestial being before he emptied himself and took the form of a slave. The Arian’s assumption seems to be that a mortal human can’t be in the form/outward appearance of God. But why does he believe this? For according to what most (if not all) Arians believe, God himself is invisible in an absolute sense. And if God is absolutely invisible to every created being (having no visible, personal appearance whatsoever), then what, exactly, does someone have to “look like” to others in order to be in the form/outward appearance of a being who has no form/outward appearance? If – as Arians believe – God himself is absolutely invisible and thus doesn’t have an outward appearance, then for Christ to be “IN the form/outward appearance of God” has nothing to do with Christ’s appearance (i.e., what he looks like).
When an Arian thinks of Christ as being the “in the form of God” in a pre-existent state, they can’t think of Christ as somehow “looking like” God, or as visibly resembling God. They can’t say that, when God created Christ, he gave Christ a personal form/appearance that somehow resembles or approximates how God himself looks/appears (because, according to them, God is absolutely invisible, and doesn’t “look like” anything).
So regardless of what kind of visible, personal form that the Arian thinks Christ had in his pre-human state, it’s impossible for Christ to have visibly resembled or “looked like” a being who is absolutely invisible. There is no visible, personal form that can simulate – i.e., “imitate the appearance of” – a being who has no appearance at all. So if God himself is invisible in an absolute sense (and thus doesn’t actually “look like” anything), then Christ’s being “inherently in the form [outward appearance] of God” can only mean that Christ is God’s appointed, visible representative – i.e., the one whom God had appointed/authorized to visibly represent him to others (such that, when any other being saw and spoke to Christ, it was as if they were seeing and speaking to God himself).
Understood in this way, when Paul referred to Christ as “being inherently in the form [outward appearance] of God,” he had in mind the same status of Christ that he referred to elsewhere as “the Image of the invisible God” (2 Cor. 4:4; Col. 1:15). Concerning what it means for Christ to be “the Image of the invisible God,” consider the following from A.E. Knoch:
An Image, especially a living Image, is, in every possible way, an exact representation of its original. We speak of a picture or a statue as if it were the man himself. No one objects if we say, “This is Christopher Columbus” when we might be more literal and say, “'This is a statue of him.” When we see Christ we see God. In Him alone can we see the Father.
Many today are like Philip. Our Lord had said, “If you had known Me you would have known My Father also.” Yet he said, “Lord, show us the Father, and it is sufficing us.” But He replied, “I am so much time with you and you do not know Me, Philip! He who has seen Me has seen the Father…”
https://s3.amazonaws.com/unsearchablerich/urscans/Unsearchable+Riches+Volume+19++1928.pdf (page 73)
It should be noted that, 1 Cor. 11:7, Paul referred to men in general as being “inherently the image and glory of God.” This is in accord with the truth concerning mankind that we find first revealed in Genesis 1:26-27 (see also Gen. 5:1-3 and 9:6). Just as the first humans were created in God’s image, so their descendants also have this God-given status. Being “inherently the image of God” is inseparable from being human.[i]
Does this mean there’s no difference between Christ’s status as “the Image of the invisible God” and the status of humans in general? No. We know that Christ is the perfect, ideal example of what every human is by virtue of his or her created nature. Thus, if “being inherently the image and glory of God” is true of those who have “sinned and are wanting of the glory of God” (Rom. 3:23), how much more is it true of the only man who remained sinless and perfectly obedient to God his entire life? Being “inherently the image and glory of God” is a status and role that is fully/perfectly realized and manifested in Christ. What is naturally true of all humans is true of Christ in the fullest and most complete sense.
In his article “MAN AS GOD'S IMAGE AND LIKENESS” (Unsearchable Riches Volume 36, pages 35-48), A.E. Knoch presented a view concerning what it means for Christ to be “the Image of the invisible God” (and how this status differs from the image-bearing status of humans in general) that is worth mentioning here. In the article, Knoch argues that, because mankind was made “in the image and likeness of God,” humans represent God to the lower creation. In contrast, Christ represents God to mankind. According to this understanding, when Paul referred to men in general as “being inherently the image and glory of God,” he had in mind mankind’s status as God’s representative to the rest of the terrestrial creation. However, when he referred to Christ as “the image of the invisible God,” he had in mind Christ’s status as the representative of God to the rest of mankind.[ii]
In any case, since we know that Christ is “the Image of the invisible God” – i.e., the one who visibly represents God to mankind – it means that to see Christ is to see the Father. That is, Christ’s status as “the Image of the invisible God” is such that, when one sees Christ, one sees the Father. And since Christ is the visible representation of the Father, it necessarily means that Christ is in the outward appearance (or “form”) of God.
Now, for Christ to have been “the Image of the invisible God” (and thus “in the form [outward appearance] of God”) at any time in the past, it would mean that anyone who saw Christ could be said to have seen the Father as well. That is, it would mean that, whenever someone saw Christ (“the Image of the invisible God”), they would’ve indirectly seen the Father (“the invisible God”) as well. So if the non-Arian understanding of when Christ’s existence began is true, we would expect this to have been the case during Christ’s earthly ministry. So do we have reason to believe that, during Christ’s earthly ministry, those who saw Christ also saw the Father? Yes.
In John 12:45 we read that Jesus declared the following: ”He who is beholding Me is beholding Him Who sends Me.”
In John 14:8-9 we find Jesus re-affirming this truth in response to Philip’s request:
Philip is saying to Him, “Lord, show us the Father, and it is sufficing us.” Jesus is saying to him, “So much time I am with you, and you do not know Me, Philip! He who has seen Me has seen the Father, and how are you saying, ‘Show us the Father’?”
When Christ declared, “He who has seen Me has seen the Father,” the implication is that he was, at this time, “the Image of the invisible God” and “in the form [outward appearance] of God.” That is, Christ was declaring himself to be the one who visibly represents the Father to those who, by virtue of being human, are unable to see the Father. In other words, to have seen Christ during his life on earth was to see the divine person whom Christ referred to later as “My Father and your Father, and My God and your God” (John 20:17). The reason Christ could say that one saw God when one saw him is because Christ perfectly represented God to those who were unable to see God.[iii]
When Thomas declared what he did in John 20:28 (i.e., “My Lord and my God!”), he was simply affirming the truth that he had come to understand concerning Christ’s status as the one who represents and reveals the Father. Consider the following:
“He who is beholding Me is beholding Him who sends me” (John 12:45).
“He who has seen Me has seen the Father” (John 14:9).
“My Lord and my God” (John 20:28).
The one whom Thomas referred to as “my Lord” is, of course, Jesus Christ (John 14:5, 8; cf. 20:18, 20, 25; etc.). However, the one whom Thomas referred to as “my God” is the God of whom Jesus Christ is the Son (i.e., the same God to whom Christ was referring when he declared the following to Miriam Magdalene: “Lo! I am ascending to My Father and your Father, and My God and your God.”). Thomas’ God was (and is) the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. And it was Jesus’ God and Father who was being beheld/seen when one beheld/saw Christ during his life on earth. That is, Christ was, during this time, “the Image of the invisible God.”
What else could it mean for Christ to be the Image of the invisible God if it doesn’t mean that he is the one of whom it can be said, “He who has seen Christ has seen the Father”? Does Stephen think that Christ wasn’t the Image of the invisible God during his earthly ministry? Even A.E. Knoch – who believed that Christ pre-existed as the Image of God (and was seen by Adam, Abraham and others) – understood that Christ was the Image of the invisible God during his earthly ministry as well:
“In some cases, however, [God] is represented by His Image. Adam saw God in the garden, Abraham entertained Him in his tent, Moses met Him on the mount, Joshua encountered Him at Jericho. These were literal, tangible, material, visible visits of Him Who is the Image and the Word of God. They actually saw His appearance and heard His voice. This, says our Lord, is not possible of the Father (John 5:37). When Philip wished to be shown the Father, our Lord directed him to Himself. “He who has seen Me has seen the Father” (John 14:8-10). Then He goes on to show that He is not only the Image, but the Word of God. https://s3.amazonaws.com/unsearchablerich/urscans/Unsearchable+Riches+Volume+74++1983.pdf (page 8)
And since Christ was “the Image of the invisible God” during his earthly ministry, it follows that Christ didn’t have to pre-exist as a non-human being in order for him to be “the Image of the invisible God.”
We can also conclude that Christ was “in the form of God” during this time. There is no good reason to think that Paul was referring to some other status or condition in Phil. 2:6 than that which he had in mind when he elsewhere referred to Christ as the Image of the invisible God. The change in terminology – i.e., the use of the expression “in the form of God” rather than “the Image of the invisible God” – can easily be accounted for by the fact that Paul went on to use the expression “form of a slave” (making the expression “in the form of God” more suitable than “the image of God”).
Lest the Arian object that Christ’s being “the Image of the invisible God” and his being “inherently in the form of God” refer to two different states or conditions, he should be reminded that an image is a visual representation or likeness of something/someone else. And a representation is someone or something that represents something/someone else. So if the one of whom someone is an image (or visual representation) is invisible, then the following must be true: being his image/visual representation means representing him. That’s the only way someone could be the image of an invisible being. Here, again, is A.E. Knoch on the subject of Christ’s status as the Image of God:
Christ is the visible Image of the invisible God. Men can see Him and hear Him and feel Him. He manifests God. If He were invisible He could not be a Mediator. There is no such thing as an invisible image. It is a contradiction in terms. Liberty is invisible, but the statue of liberty in New York harbor would be a hoax if it could not be seen. As the dictionary says, an image is a visible representation of a person or thing. An invisible Christ is totally unfitted to mediate. He cannot reveal God to men. He is practically non-existent.
https://s3.amazonaws.com/unsearchablerich/urscans/Unsearchable+Riches+Volume+19++1928.pdf page 71
If, as the Image of the invisible God, Christ “manifested God” to other humans during his earthly ministry (and he did), then it necessarily follows that Christ was in the form/outward appearance of God during this time. When other humans saw Christ, they saw the Father.
Even A.E. Knoch seemed to regard Christ’s “being inherently in the form of God” as being inseparably connected with Christ’s representational status as the Image of the invisible God. Regarding the meaning of the words, “deems it not pillaging to be equal with God,” Knoch wrote the following:
The form of God was the material, visible representation of the invisible spiritual Deity. No one has ever seen God (John 1:18), for He is invisible (Col.1:15). In Colossians the Son of God supplies the needed link with creation because He is the Image of God. In Philippians we have the same thought with only a slight variation, to suit the context. Both the Form and the Image appeal to the eye.
https://s3.amazonaws.com/unsearchablerich/urscans/Unsearchable+Riches+Volume+74++1983.pdf (page 105)
As Knoch correctly points out, Christ’s being in the form of God means that he is “the material, visible representation” of God. And this was true of Christ during his earthly ministry.
In another article, Knoch wrote the following concerning Jesus’ being “in the form of God”:
God Himself is invisible (1 Tim.l:17; Heb.ll:27). To bring Him within the range of human comprehension He must be depicted by an Image, having a Form. The living God cannot be made known by lifeless representations. Hence He has chosen One, His creative Original, in Whom all was created, to represent Him, to be the visible Image of invisible Deity (Col.1:15). His shape or form must be that which is suggestive of God, especially of the character which He assumes on any occasion, in order to reveal Himself to His creatures. Christ Jesus was that Form. In Him God was seen in such a theophany as suited the weakness of the human frame. Yet in visions He appeared in soul dismaying splendor, as when Isaiah beheld His glory.
https://s3.amazonaws.com/unsearchablerich/urscans/Unsearchable+Riches+Volume+67++1976.pdf (page 248)
As is implied by what Knoch wrote here, Christ’s being the Image of the invisible God necessarily involves being “in the form [outward appearance] of God.” The former status (Christ’s being “the Image of the invisible God”) is inseparable from the latter condition (his being “in the form of God”). For Christ to be the Image of the invisible God is for him to be “in the form of God.”
Now, in one of his responses to me, Stephen stated the following in defense of his position:
“Every time you see Yahweh in the Old Testament, the form of Yahweh, the outward appearance, is Christ.”
In other words, according to Stephen, every time we read of certain people having seen Yahweh in the Old Testament, they were seeing and interacting with Christ in a pre-existent state. And from this question-begging assumption he concludes that Christ’s being “inherently in the form of God” means that he was in the form/outward appearance Yahweh before his life on earth began.
Aside from the fact that Stephen’s reason for thinking that the words, “inherently in the form of God” supports the Arian view is completely circular, his claim concerning appearances of Yahweh in the OT is simply wrong. It’s just one more assumption-based belief that the Arian has. But what’s interesting is that, according to Stephen’s understanding of what it means for Christ to have been “inherently in the form of God,” someone who has the outward appearance of a flesh-and-blood human couldn’t be “inherently in the form of God” even if they visibly represent God to others (as Christ did during his earthly ministry). But on most occasions when we read of “Yahweh” appearing to certain humans in the Old Testament, the one referred to as “Yahweh” appeared as a flesh-and-blood human being. In other words, the one referred to as “Yahweh” had the form/outward appearance of a human.
Again, it must be emphasized that Stephen doesn't think Yahweh himself has any kind of appearance (he doesn’t “look like” anything). So according to Stephen’s view, it's impossible for any celestial being to visibly resemble/look like Yahweh. Again, being “in the form of God” (or being God’s “image”) can only refer to one’s status as God’s visible representative. So Christ’s being “inherently in the form of God” has everything to do with his authorized status as God’s visible representative. Christ is the Image of the invisible God (and is thus in the form of God) because he visibly represents God to those who are unable to see God.
In accord with this understanding, we know that the equality with God that Paul had in mind in v. 6 is not an ontological equality (for Christ and God are not equal with regard to their being or nature/essence). Rather, it’s a representational/functional equality that’s based on Christ’s unique status as the Son of God (John 5:18). Regarding the meaning of the words, “deems it not pillaging to be equal with God,” Knoch wrote the following:
This statement concerning equality with God, however, does not identify Him with the Deity. Rather it distinguishes Him from His God. If He were, in substance, all that this form indicated, the question of pillaging the One Whom He represented could not arise. God cannot rob Himself. https://s3.amazonaws.com/unsearchablerich/urscans/Unsearchable+Riches+Volume+74++1983.pdf (page 104)
We know that Christ is the Son of God by virtue of the event of which we read in Luke 1:35 (that is, Christ is the Son of God because he was fathered by God, and he was fathered by God when God generated him and thereby caused Christ’s mother to become pregnant with him). And as the Son of God, Christ was given the authority and prerogative to speak and act on God’s behalf during his life on earth, and do what no other human had the power and authority to do (e.g., forgive sins, which led the scribes to reason in their hearts, “Blaspheming is he! Who is able to pardon sins except One–God?”). And both Christ’s status as the Son of God and the related authority that he had as the Son of God made him unlike every other human on the earth (i.e., all who comprised the “humanity” that Paul referred to in Phil. 2:7).
Thus, despite the assertions of Arians to the contrary, Christ was, in fact, “inherently in the form [outward appearance] of God” during his earthly ministry. But this isn’t because he “resembled God” in his outward appearance (even the Arian would have to agree with this, for they don’t think God has an appearance). It’s because he represented God to others (John 12:44-45; 14:8-9). And he did so in a way that no other being before him had ever done (such that Christ alone can be said to have “unfolded” the Father). It should also be emphasized that we’re not told that Christ stopped being “inherently in the form of God” when he took the form of a slave. Although the Arian is assuming this, Paul doesn't say it. There is no good reason to think that Christ’s being in the form of God and his later taking the form of a slave were mutually exclusive states of affairs.
Having demonstrated that there’s no good reason to think that the words “being inherently in the form of God” weren’t true of Christ during his earthly ministry, let’s now move on to the next point. As I stated earlier, the Arian needs to prove that the words “empties Himself” can’t refer to something Christ did at some point during his life on earth.
With regard to the words, “[Christ Jesus] empties Himself,” I wrote the following in one of my articles:
“The expression ‘empties Himself’ is not to be understood literally, for Christ did not literally “empty himself.” Strong’s defines the word translated “empties” (kenoō) as, “to make empty, that is, (figuratively) to abase, neutralize, falsify.”
In response to this, Stephen wrote:
“Well, it kind of could be taken literally, as in, “The inherent form of God has been abased, neutralized, made void, in Christ’s ‘taking the form of a slave.’” Again, simple sentence, doesn’t need addition, and is perfect the way it is.”
In other words, Stephen think the words “empties Himself” in Phil. 2:7 “kind of could be taken literally” if we just interpret these words in accord with the figurative meaning of the word “empties” (which, again, is “abase, neutralize, falsify”). And then – according to Stephen’s “literal” interpretation of the words “empties Himself” – we take the figurative meaning of “empties” and say that this is what happened to “the inherent form of God” that Christ Jesus was in (but not literally to Christ Jesus himself).
If this is what Stephen thinks understanding a word or expression “literally” means, then it’s no wonder he’s struggling to understand what Paul wrote in Phil. 2:7.
Again, “to abase, neutralize, falsify” are the figurative meanings of “empties.” It is the figurative meaning of “empties” – and not the literal meaning – that applies to what Christ did. That is, Christ “emptied himself” in a figurative sense (by “abasing himself”). To abase oneself means “to reduce or lower oneself in reputation, estimation, or office,” or “to lower oneself in rank, prestige, or esteem.” This is what Christ did. And when did he do this? Answer: When he “[took] the form of a slave.”
Earlier, I said that the Arian needs to prove that the words “empties himself” can’t refer to something Christ did at some point during his life on earth. Stephen hasn’t proven it, and I submit that no Arian can prove this.
Moving on to our third point: As stated earlier, the Arian needs to prove that the words “taking the form of a slave” can’t refer to something Christ did at some point during his life on earth. But once again, this is something that the Arian cannot prove. In fact, not only can the Arian not prove this, but he can’t even prove that his interpretation of “taking the form of a slave” – which is not in accord with the literal meaning of the word “slave” – is even what Paul had in mind.
The literal meaning of the word “slave” is as follows: “a person who is legally owned by someone else and has no personal freedom” (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/slave). In accord with this definition, the Greek-English Keyword Concordance defines “slave” as “one whose person belongs to another” (the verb “slave” is similarly defined as, “serve as the property of another”). It’s also worth noting that, in the Greek-English Keyword Concordance, the title “lord” is defined as follows (emphasis mine): “one who has authority over others, the opposite of slave.”
The literal use of the word “slave” is very common throughout the Greek Scriptures (see, for example, Matt. 8:9; 10:24-25; 13:27-28; 18:23, 26-27; etc.). Paul not only referred to himself as a slave of Christ (Rom. 1:1), but elsewhere implied that every believer in the body of Christ is a slave of Christ in the same sense that he was (1 Cor. 7:22), including those who, when called by God, were slaves of other men (v. 21). And when Paul referred to those in the body of Christ as “slaves and free” (1 Cor. 12:13; cf. Eph. 6:8) and exhorted believers who were slaves to be obeying their masters (Eph. 6:5; Col. 3:22) and to “deem their own owners worthy of all honor” (1 Tim. 6:1), he was obviously using the word “slave” in accord with its literal meaning (i.e., a person who is legally owned by someone else).
Now, it should be emphasized that Paul doesn’t qualify the term “slave” in Phil. 2:7. In contrast, when he uses the term “slave” elsewhere in his letters to mean something other than “a person who is legally owned by someone else,” he qualifies it by telling the reader what that person is a slave OF (or what one is enslaved TO). For example, in Rom. 6:16, 18 and 20 we read of people being “slaves for obedience,” “slaves of Sin for death,” “slaves of Obedience for righteousness,” “enslaved to Righteousness,” and “slaves of Sin.” And when Paul referred to himself or other believers as being slaves of Christ, he made sure to clarify this fact (even, as we see in 1 Cor. 7:21-22, distinguishing between slavery to Christ and the kind of slavery that everyone in his day was already familiar with – i.e., the slavery that involves one human being legally owned by another human). In other words, Paul made sure to clarify what he meant if he wasn’t using the words “slave” or “enslaved” in accord with the meaning of the words that everyone was already family with, and would’ve understood him to be referring to without any additional, clarifying words.
In light of these considerations, we can reasonably conclude the following: Had Paul meant something different than what the words “taking the form of a slave” literally mean, he would’ve said so. That is, if it had been Paul’s intention to express something other than the fact that Christ took the form of someone who is legally owned by someone else, we have good reason to believe that he would’ve made this clear in Phil. 2:7.
With this consideration in mind – and in accord with the literal, if possible interpretive principle – we can conclude the following: When Paul wrote that Christ took “the form [outward appearance] of a slave” in Phil. 2:7, he meant just what he said. At some point, Christ took the form (the outward appearance) of someone who is legally owned by someone else. And the clear implication is that, when Christ took the form/outward appearance of a slave, he wasn’t actually a slave. He only appeared as one. That is, just as the words “being inherently in the form of God” implies that Christ isn’t God, so the words “taking the form of a slave” imply that Christ wasn’t a slave. He simply allowed himself to be treated by others as if he was a slave (i.e., as if he was the property of others). But when did Christ outwardly appear as a slave without actually being a slave? Answer: Christ did this when, after affirming his submission to God’s will in the garden of Gethsemane, he humbly refrained from using his God-given authority (which he uniquely possessed as the Son of God) to prevent his own arrest, and allowed others to treat him like a slave so that God’s will would be done (Matt. 26:52-56).
In response to the view that it was by means of what Christ did in Gethsemane (i.e., refraining from using his authority to prevent his arrest and all of the subsequent evils to which he was later subjected) that Christ emptied himself and took the form of a slave, Stephen objects that “There is no evidence whatsoever that “Gethsemane” is what Paul had in mind when writing Phil. 2:5-8.” However, we have far more reason to think that Christ was in this terrestrial location when he emptied himself and “[took] the form of a slave” than we have reason to believe that he was in heaven when he did so. For we know that, when Christ was in Gethsemane, he did, in fact, take the form of a slave. The only man on the earth who could’ve entreated God to station twelve legions of messengers by his side to protect him (and even eliminate his opponents) refused to do so. Instead, he allowed those who lacked the God-given authority that he alone had to treat him like he was their slave.
Thus, we have far more reason to think that Paul had in mind something that occurred somewhere on the earth during the mortal lifetime of Christ than we have reason to think that Paul had in mind an event that occurred in heaven. In fact, we have no evidence whatsoever that Paul believed that Christ was in heaven when he did what we’re told he did in these verses. One has to be assuming that Christ pre-existed as a celestial being to think that Paul believed that Christ was in heaven when he emptied himself and took the form of a slave. When Paul referred to “Christ Jesus” in Phil. 2:5, he wasn’t referring to a non-human celestial being. Paul was referring to a certain human being who, prior to his death and resurrection, lived on the earth. And we have no reason to think that what Paul went on to write in the verses that follow have anything to do with what a non-human celestial being did or didn’t do. That is, there’s no good reason to assume that verses 5-8 have anything at all to do with what a non-human celestial being did in heaven sometime before the lifetime of the man whom Paul had in mind when he referred to “Christ Jesus.”
Now, as noted earlier, we’re not told that Christ stopped being “inherently in the form of God” when he took the form of a slave. Although the Arian is assuming this, Paul doesn't say it. There is no good reason to think that Christ’s being in the form of (i.e., his being the ideal, visible representative of) God and his later taking the form of a slave were mutually exclusive states of affairs. Did it cease to be true that Christ perfectly represented God (such that when one saw Christ they saw the Father) when he allowed himself to be arrested and treated like he was the property of others (rather than using his God-given authority to avoid the shame and mistreatment to which he was subjected)? No. Christ was still just as much the ideal, visible representative of God after he was arrested in Gethsemane as he was before his arrest.
In defense of his understanding of what it means for a pre-existent celestial being to have taken “the form [outward appearance] of a slave,” Stephen referred to the verses in which Paul referred to himself as “a slave of Christ Jesus.” But did Paul have this kind of slavery in mind in Phil. 2:7 when he wrote that Christ took “the form of a slave”? Was Paul saying that Christ took the form of a slave of Christ Jesus here? No. Stephen then references and quotes Rom. 6:16, 18 and 20 (where we read of people being “slaves for obedience,” “slaves of Sin for death,” “slaves of Obedience for righteousness,” “enslaved to Righteousness,” and “slaves of Sin”). But is this the kind of slavery that Paul had in mind when he said that Christ took “the form of a slave?” Again, no. Any sense in which humans can be considered “slaves” in the sense that Paul had in mind in these verses, (e.g., slaves of God, or slaves of Righteousness or of Sin) is the same sense in which all created celestial beings can be considered “slaves” as well. Even the celestial messenger to whom John spoke twice referred to himself as a fellow slave (Rev. 19:10; 22:9) – i.e., a fellow slave of God. And by virtue of being either obedient to God or not, every created, intelligent being – whether human or celestial – is either a slave to Sin or to Obedience.
Stephen then quotes Romans 8:21:
…the creation itself, also, shall be freed from the slavery of corruption into the glorious freedom of the children of God.
Is this the kind of slavery that Paul had in mind in Phil. 2:7? Again, no. There’s no good reason to think this (and the only reason Stephen does think this is that he’s presupposing the Arian view of Christ). Paul didn’t say that Christ took “the form of a slave of corruption,” or that he took “the form of slave of death.” Stephen is reading into the text what isn’t there.
The words “taking the form of a slave” in Phil. 2:7 are no more equivalent in meaning to “taking the form of a slave of corruption” than they’re equivalent in meaning to “taking the form of a slave of Righteousness” or “taking the form of a slave of Sin.” Just as “taking the form of a slave” isn’t equivalent in meaning to “taking the form of a slave of Sin” (or “a slave of Righteousness”), so “taking the form of a slave” isn’t equivalent in meaning to “taking the form of a slave of corruption.” Again, Paul doesn’t quality “slave” in Phil. 2:7. There is no reason to think that, when Paul used the term “slave” in Phil. 2:7, he had in mind something other than what he had in mind when he wrote, “Slaves obey your masters.”
Moving on to the last point: The Arian believes that a certain celestial being “[took] the form [outward appearance] of a slave” by transforming into (or allowing himself to be transformed into) a human, and that the words “coming to be in the likeness of humanity” implies that Christ previously existed as a non-human, celestial being. But there is nothing said in this passage about Christ pre-existing in heaven as a celestial being. The Arian is, once again, reading this into the text. Moreover, if Paul was referring to a celestial being that merely assumed a human body/appearance (and in this way came to be “in the likeness of humanity”), then this human-appearing being wasn’t truly human. For such a being as this, coming to be in the “likeness of humanity” would imply that he’s not actually a human. But we know that Christ was (and is) truly human. Thus, Paul couldn’t have been referring to a celestial being in Phil. 2:7.
Contrary to the Arian’s assumption, it is simply not the case that, in order for Christ to have “[come] to be in the likeness of humanity,” he had to pre-existent as a non-human celestial being. Even the Arian would agree that, during Christ’s earthly ministry, Christ was a human who was very much unlike all other humans in a certain way. As the Son of God, Christ had certain privileges that no other human had. In accord with this fact, we know that, at the start of Christ’s earthly ministry – which began when he was anointed by God “with holy spirit and power” (Acts 10:38) – he was invested with a certain degree of authority that no other human has ever had. And this distinguished him from every other human.
As already noted, Christ was the only man on the earth who had the authority to entreat God to station twelve legions of messengers by his side to prevent other men from harming him. This set him apart from all other humans. So how could a human being who was unlike the rest of humanity in this way (i.e., by virtue of the great authority with which he’d been invested by God) come to be in the likeness of all other humans? Answer: He could do so by refusing to use the God-given authority that set him apart from the rest of humanity at a time when he could’ve used it to save himself. And this is precisely what Christ did. That is, Christ came to be in the likeness of those who constitute the “humanity” or “mankind” referred to in Phil. 2:7 (and also in 1 Tim. 2:4-5) when he refused to use his authority as the Son of God to prevent his arrest, and allowed others to treat him like a slave (and thereby took “the form of a slave”). And in doing so, Christ was “found in fashion as a human” by those who apprehended him (and who went on to subject Christ to the mistreatment that he humbly endured for the remainder of his mortal lifetime on the earth).
As noted earlier, it’s up to the Arian to prove that the words “coming to be in the likeness of humanity” can’t refer to something Christ did at some point during his life on earth. And once again, we find that he is unable to prove this. There is, consequently, no good reason to understand what Paul wrote in Phil. 2:5-8 in a way that is contrary to the scriptural testimony of how and when Christ’s existence began (as found in Matt. 1:20 and Luke 1:35).
Part nine: That Happy Expectation: An Antidote to Arianism: Part nine
[i] The fact that Paul only appealed to the truth that man is “inherently the image and glory of God” in 1 Cor. 11:7 in order to support another point he was making about men and women tells us that he considered it a basic, fundamental truth. But what did Paul mean when he went on to write, “Yet the woman is the glory of the man” (v. 8)? Was he implying that women aren’t also “the image of God”? No. That would contradict the truth we find clearly affirmed in Genesis 1:26-27.
The contrast Paul was making between men and women in 1 Cor. 11:7-8 is a contrast involving whose glory men and women are, and not a contrast involving who is, and who isn’t, the image of God (notice that Paul didn’t refer to women as “the image and glory of the man,” but only as “the glory of the man”). Thus, Paul’s denial that women are “the glory of God” was not a denial of the truth that both men and women are the image of God.
[ii] The following are some excerpts from Knoch’s article in which this understanding is articulated:
“[Man] is created in the image and likeness of our Disposer, God. Many and varied are the interpretations of this statement, because the title used and the explanation that follows are usually ignored. These two vital factors agree in giving man a relation to the other creatures on the earth corresponding to that of God to humanity. Not that man was to be an actual “disposer” or god over the lower creatures, but to be an image, a representative, a material expression of a spiritual reality, apparently the same as the Disposer of all. Is not this confirmed by the words that immediately follow?
After quoting Genesis 1:26-28, Knoch went on to write the following:
“The animals cannot contact God, for He is spirit, so man is made as a material and tangible substitute of the great Disposer, and should control the creatures beneath him on the earth.
“It is generally supposed that humanity has utterly lost this position because of sin. That mankind’s disobedience to God does affect the mastery of the lower creatures in undoubtedly true. But the position is still given to humanity, though weakened and vitiated by sin. In James’ epistle (3:9) we read of “men who have come to be in accord with God's likeness.” Such men, he says, are cursed. The fact that they are being cursed shows clearly that James is speaking of mankind as a whole, and that God’s image is not reserved for some exceptionally good specimens.
“The usual reasoning that God is a spirit, therefore His image must also be found in spiritual qualities such as knowledge, righteousness and truth, is entirely beside the mark. An image must be visible. God’s Son is the visible image of the invisible God (Col. 1:15). Idols are the material representations of invisible spirit beings. Man, as the image of God, is His visible expression, in relation to the animal creation, especially as a disposer, swaying over them, and doing with them as he wills.
“Is it not remarkable that God, the Disposer, in giving mankind its place in His creation at the very beginning, uses the very same terms as are afterwards applied to Christ? He is God’s Image for mankind, while they are His image for the creatures beneath them. We view the illumination of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ, while the animals should see in man the likeness of their Disposer. God disposed them in their place in the beginning. Man should sway over them, as His image, in the course of the eons. His part was creation, but He delegates to man the part of revelation.
“It is an intermediary, a representative and revelator. Just as Christ, the ideal Man, comes between God and the dying race, and is His Representative to make Him known to humanity, so mankind as a whole represents the Disposer and reveals Him to His lower creation. The figure of an image does not set forth man's likeness to God, but his relation to God and creation. It is accomplished by means of likeness in some respects, but this is not essential to the term image, so the further fact is added that man is also in God's likeness. This addition is useless if this has been fully expressed before by the word image.
“The crowning consummation of God’s purpose in mankind can be seen in Christ. He is the chosen Image of the Disposer, so that all authority and power has been dele gated to Him. We would expect Him to take a visible form like the highest of the heavenly host in order to show what God is like. Not so! As the Image of God He is a Man. He entered into the race which was originally created to be an image of the Disposer, and made like Him. In Him we see the fulfillment of God’s creative purpose. In Him we see the consummation of the race.
[iii] Of all the things that Christ did while he was on the earth (i.e., when Christ was being seen by mankind), the one act that most clearly and definitively revealed the Father to us was Christ’s death. As God’s representative, Christ’s death for our sakes can thus be seen as revealing the depth of God’s love for sinners and his commitment to saving them (hence Paul could write in Rom. 5:8 that “God is commending this love of His to us, seeing that, while we are still sinners, Christ died for our sakes”). It is, I believe, for this reason that Paul twice referred to Christ as “the Image of the invisible God.” Knowing that Christ is the Image of the invisible God is a present benefit to the believer, for knowing this means knowing that, when Christ died for us, he did so as God’s perfect representative. And this fact alone would’ve made the truth of Christ’s being “the Image of the invisible God” a fact worth mentioning by Paul.
No comments:
Post a Comment