In Phil. 2:5-11 we read the following:
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. Wherefore, also, God
highly exalts Him, and graces Him with the name that is above every
name, that in the name of Jesus every knee should be bowing, celestial and
terrestrial and subterranean, and every tongue should be acclaiming that
Jesus Christ is Lord, for the glory of God, the Father.
According to how verses 6-7 of the above passage are commonly
understood by Christians, Christ pre-existed his life on earth as a non-human,
celestial being, and “emptied himself” by divesting himself of his heavenly
glory and transforming himself into a human zygote. In contrast with this view,
I will be arguing in this article that what Paul wrote in these verses pertains
exclusively to what was true of Christ during his lifetime on earth (particularly the
final twenty-four hours with which his mortal life concluded – i.e., the span
of time that began with his betrayal and arrest in Gethsemane, and which ended
with his sacrificial death on Golgotha).
In v. 6 we read that Christ Jesus is
“inherently in the form of God,” and that he did not deem it “pillaging to be
equal with God.” But what kind of being did Paul have in mind when he referred
to “Christ Jesus?” Answer: Paul had in mind a human being – specifically, a man
(Rom. 5:15; 1 Tim. 2:5). In other words, Paul had in mind someone who belongs
to the race of beings that began with the creation of “the
first man, Adam” (1 Cor. 15:45, 47). It is because human nature has been
perfected/completed in Christ (and because all humanity will ultimately be
perfected in him) that Paul referred to Christ as “the
last Adam” and “the second man” (1 Cor.
15:45, 46).
What Paul wrote concerning Christ’s
humanity is in accord with a number of prophecies concerning Christ in the
Hebrew Scriptures (e.g.,
in Genesis 3:15; 12:3; 22:18; 28:14; 49:10; Numbers 24:17-19; Deuteronomy
18:15; 2 Samuel 7:12-13; 1 Chronicles 17:13; Psalm 45:2-7, 17; 72:1; 89:3-4;
110:1; 132:11; Isaiah 7:14; 11:1-5; 52-53; Jeremiah 23:5; 30:21; Daniel 7:13;
Zechariah 6:12-13; Micah 5:2). In fact, in the very first prophecy concerning
Jesus, it’s foretold that the “seed of the woman” will bruise the head of the
serpent (Gen. 3:15). The implication of this prophecy is that the one who would
ultimately defeat the serpent would be just as human as the first two humans to
exist (and it should go without saying that, as the “seed of the woman,” Christ
did not yet exist at the time the prophecy was given; hence we read in 1 Peter
1:20 that Christ was “foreknown” before being “manifested in the last times”).
Thus, from the very beginning,
Christ’s prophesied existence and identity has been tied to his essential
humanity. There is no indication that Christ ever had a non-human nature, or
that he “pre-existed” as a non-human being.
In addition to revealing that Christ
would be just as human as Adam and Eve, it’s also evident from prophesy that Christ
would be uniquely fathered by Yahweh himself. In Hebrews 1:5 the author of this
letter quoted Psalm 2:7 and 2 Samuel 7:1 as follows:
For to which of the
messengers did God ever say, “You are my Son, today I have begotten you?” Or
again, “I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son?”
The implication of these verses is
that there was a time before Christ Jesus was begotten by God and thus came
into being as God’s Son. So when, exactly, did God become the Father of his Son?
That is, when did God beget – and thus give life and existence to – Jesus
Christ? The short answer is that this occurred when God caused Jesus’ mother to
become pregnant with him. As far as a more in-depth answer goes, I was considering
just referring the reader to what I wrote concerning this subject in my last
article; however, given the
importance of this subject, I’ve decided to include much of the same information
concerning when Christ’s existence began in this article as well (however, for
additional arguments provided in defense of this understanding, the reader is
encouraged to check out what I wrote in part two of my previous study: That
Happy Expectation: Who created the heavens and the earth? (part two)).
In Matthew 1:20-21 we read the
following words of Gabriel to Joseph:
“Joseph, son of David, you
may not be afraid to accept Miriam, your wife, for that which is being generated [gennaō] in her is of holy spirit. Now she shall be bringing forth a Son, and you shall be
calling His name Jesus, for He shall be saving His people from their sins.”
Consider,
also, the following words of Gabriel to Miriam in Luke 1:35:
“Holy spirit shall be coming on you, and the power of the Most High
shall be overshadowing you; wherefore also the holy
One Who is being generated shall be called the Son of God.”
According
to what we read in these verses, Jesus – i.e., the “holy One” and “Son
of God” to whom Gabriel referred – was “generated” by God when Jesus’ mother,
Miriam, became pregnant with him by God’s holy spirit (cf. Matt. 1:18). The word
translated “generated” in these verses (gennaō) is the same word translated
“begotten” elsewhere, and refers to the
event by which a father brings his child into existence, and thereby becomes the
father of that child (see, for example, all of the
examples of “begetting” that we find in the genealogy of Christ recorded in
Matt. 1:1-16). When a
father begets his child he becomes the father of his child. This being the
case, it follows that the generating (or begetting) of Christ that’s referred
to in Matt. 1:20 and Luke 1:35 was the event by which God became the
Father of Jesus (and thus brought his Son into existence, giving him life).
In fact, according to the words of Gabriel in Luke
1:35, the very fact that Jesus was generated/begotten by God when Jesus’
mother became pregnant with him is
the very reason why
Jesus would be “called the Son of God”
(this is indicated by the use of the word translated “wherefore”).
Since God became Jesus’ father when the words of Luke 1:35 were fulfilled, it
follows that Jesus Christ was brought
into existence as the Son of God when
he was conceived. God was not, therefore, Jesus’ Father – and Jesus
was not God’s Son – until the supernatural event referred to in these
verses occurred. God became the Father of his Son when Jesus was
generated, or begotten, by God. And this took place when Jesus’ mother Miriam
became pregnant with him.
But what did Paul mean by his use of the
title “God” in Phil. 2:6? Answer: Paul was referring to the being who he
referred to in the opening and closing verses of his letter, as follows:
“Grace to you and peace from God, our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ. I am thanking my God at every remembrance of you…”
“Now my God
shall be filling your every need in accord with His riches in glory in Christ
Jesus. Now to our God and Father be
glory for the eons of the eons! Amen!”
Perhaps the clearest and
most concise statement by Paul explaining how he understood and used the term
“God” in his letters is found in Ephesians 4:6. In this verse Paul affirmed that there
is “one God and Father
of all, Who is over all and through all and in all.”
Here the “one God” who is “over all” is identified as the Father.
Moreover, as Paul makes clear elsewhere, the “all” of whom the Father is God
(and whom he is “over”) includes
Christ. For example, in Ephesians 1:1-2 we read the
following:
“Grace to you and peace from God, our Father, and the
Lord Jesus Christ. Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ…”
That Paul was referring
to the same divine being referred to in the above verses (i.e., “the God and
Father of our Lord Jesus Christ” and the “one God and Father of all”) when he
used the term “God” in Phil. 2:6 is made clear by his next two uses of the same
term in verses 9 and 11. In these latter verses, it’s evident that the title
“God” refers to the Father alone. It is the Father who highly exalted Christ,
and it is for his glory that every knee shall bow and every tongue acclaim that
Jesus Christ is Lord.
We can thus conclude
that, when Paul referred to Christ as being “inherently in the form of God,” he
meant that Christ is inherently in the
form of the Father (i.e., the God and Father of all, including Jesus
Christ). And when Paul wrote that Christ “deems it not pillaging to be equal
with God,” he meant that Christ did not
deem it pillaging to be equal with his God and Father.
Having identified the One
to whom Paul referred as “God” in Phil. 2:6, we’re now in a better position to
understand what Paul meant when he referred to Christ as “being inherently in the
form of God.” The word translated “form” in v. 6 denotes “outward appearance.” In
support of this understanding, we read in 2 Timothy 3:5 of certain people who
would be “having a form of
devoutness, yet denying its power” (that is, they would
have an outward appearance of
devoutness). Paul was thus affirming that Christ inherently has the “outward
appearance” of the Father. But what, exactly, does this mean?
Answer: When Paul
referred to Christ as “being inherently in the form of God,” he was simply affirming
the truth that Christ is “the Image of the invisible God” (2 Cor. 4:4; Col. 1:15;
cf. Heb. 1:3). But this is a fact about Christ that was just as true during his
earthly ministry as it is now. In John 12:44-45 we read the following:
Now Jesus cries and said, “He who is believing in
Me is not believing in Me, but in Him Who sends Me. And 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’?”
Since
the Father is “the invisible God,” Christ was essentially claiming to be the
image of the invisible God in these verses. Not only was Christ given
more power and authority than any other human had ever received (and which he
received from God when he was baptized), but – as God’s only-begotten Son – he
was given the privileged authority to be his Father’s representative on the
earth (such that, when he spoke and acted, he spoke and acted on
God’s behalf).
With regard to Paul’s
use of the word translated “inherently” (huparchō), it should be noted that
Peter used the same word when he declared that David was “inherently a prophet”
(Acts 2:30; see also Acts 21:20 and Rom. 4:19 for other examples of this word
being used). Just as David was “inherently a prophet” during his life on
earth, so Christ is inherently the
representative of his God and Father (and thus “in the form of God”).
As far as Christ’s being
“equal to God,” this was also true of Christ during his life on earth, and was
based on his unique status as the Son of God (see John 5:18). It was as God’s
Son that Christ possessed the authority and prerogative to speak and act on
God’s behalf during his life on earth, and to 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?”).
Thus, contrary to the
understanding of most Christians, there is nothing about the words “being inherently
in the form of God” and being “equal with God” that in any way requires the
belief that Christ is either the same being as (or shares the same divine
nature and status as) his God and Father. Nor do these words reveal or suggest
that Christ had a “pre-human existence” before he was generated/begotten by God
(and previously existed in some other form than that which he had during his
lifetime on earth).
Moving on to Paul’s
words in Phil. 2:7, we read that Christ “…nevertheless empties
Himself, taking the form of a slave, coming to be in the likeness of humanity.”
We know that 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.” The first definitions provided by Bill Mounce
(a scholar of New Testament Greek) are, “to empty, evacuate; ἑαυτόν, to
divest one’s self of one’s prerogatives, abase one’s self, Philippians 2:7.”
As we’ll see, the idea
that Paul most likely had in mind here is expressed in the final definitions
provided by Mounce, above (i.e., “to divest one’s self of one’s prerogatives,
to abase one’s self). What Paul went on to say immediately after declaring that
Christ “empties Himself” further clarifies what he had in mind here: Christ
took “the form of a slave.” But what does it mean for Christ to have taken “the
form of a slave?” As noted earlier, the term “form” refers to “outward
appearance.” But when, exactly, did
Christ take the outward appearance of a slave?
As noted at the beginning
of this article, the most commonly-held understanding among Christians is that
Christ originally existed as a celestial, non-human being before transforming
himself into a human zygote. But it’s evident from what Paul wrote that Christ
emptied himself by taking the form, or outward appearance, of a slave. So does
a human zygote or embryo have the form, or outward appearance, of a slave? No. Nor
would it be true to say that human beings in a general sense – whether they’re
pre-born, children or adults – have “the form of a slave.” While certain human
beings can, of course, be referred to as “slaves” (in both a literal and
figurative sense), it’s not the case that human beings are, essentially and
categorically (i.e., without exception, and as a particular kind of being
created by God), “slaves.”
In light of these
considerations, we can conclude the following: when the Man, Christ Jesus, was
generated in the womb of his mother, he was not in “the form of a slave”
(and the event of Christ’s being conceived/generated by his God and Father thus
did not constitute his “taking the form of a slave”). Nor would it be true to
say that, during his childhood, adolescence or (most of) his adult life, Christ
was in “the form of a slave.” But when, then, did Christ “empty himself” (i.e.,
divest himself of his prerogatives/abase himself) and “take the form of a
slave?” Answer: Christ emptied himself and took the form of a slave when he
allowed himself to be arrested in Gethsemane.
Despite Christ’s
superior, elevated status as the Son of God (a status which, again, was
expressed in the words “being inherently in the form of God” and
being “equal with God”), our Lord emptied himself
– i.e., abased himself/divested himself of his prerogatives – when, after
having yielded his will to the will of his Father (Matt. 26:36-44), he allowed
himself to be arrested and treated like a slave, and as one who had no rights. It
was by doing so that the Son of God “took the form of a slave.” And by thus
refusing to use his God-given authority to save himself from the shame and
suffering that characterized the final 24 hours of his mortal life, Christ came
to be “in the likeness of humanity.”
One objector to the view
that’s being defended in this article has mocked the idea that Paul’s words
“coming to be in the likeness of humanity” refer to something that took place
during Christ’s lifetime on earth. However, it should be emphasized that Paul
didn’t say that Christ “became human,”
or that Christ “came to be a human.”
Becoming a human is not the idea being expressed in the words “coming to be in
the likeness of humanity.” Rather, the “humanity” in
whose likeness Christ came to be when he took “the form of a
slave” is comprised of the same individuals who constitute the “mankind” of
whom we’re told Christ is the Mediator in 1 Tim. 2:5 (the word translated
“humanity” in Phil. 2:7 is the same word translated “mankind” in 1 Tim. 2:5).
In other words, the
“humanity” in whose likeness Christ came to be when he took “the form of a
slave” is comprised of individuals who inherently lack the God-given
authority and prerogatives that Christ alone had possessed and enjoyed as the
Son of God. Had any of the humans for whom Christ died been in the
same situation that Christ was in just prior to his arrest, they (we) would’ve
been unable to do anything at all to avoid the shame and suffering that Christ willingly endured. It was in the
likeness of this category of people
that Christ came to be when he emptied himself and took the form of a slave. That
is, Christ came to be “in the likeness of humanity” by divesting himself
of his prerogatives as the Son of God (prerogatives that included the right to
summon “twelve legions of messengers” to his aide and thereby deliver him from
such a shameful ordeal; see Matt. 26:52-54).
On the other hand, had
Christ not emptied himself and taken
the form of a slave in Gethsemane (i.e., had Christ opted to use his God-given
authority to prevent his arrest and all that followed as a result of it), he wouldn’t
have shared the likeness of those comprising the humanity he came to save. For Christ to have used his authority
at this time to thwart the will of his enemies (and thereby avoid the shame,
suffering and death that he knew he would have to endure in order to fulfill
prophecy) would’ve set him apart from every human he came to save; rather than
“coming to be in the likeness of humanity” at this time, Christ would’ve
appeared as someone completely distinct from (and elevated far above) the rest
of mankind. But that, of course, was not God’s will for Christ at this time
(and, as is clear from what we read in Matt. 26:36-44, Christ had already
yielded his will to the will of God).
Finally, we read in Phil.
2:8 that, “being found in fashion as a human, [Christ] humbles Himself, becoming
obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.” From the
time of his arrest in Gethsemane to the moment of His death on the cross,
Christ willingly endured what every other human would’ve had no choice but to
endure had they been in Christ’s place, and in the circumstances in which
Christ found himself. But not only did Christ willingly endure the suffering
and shame that led to the cross, he became “obedient unto death, even the
death of the cross.”
Christ’s death was, of
course, only possible because he was just as human as those who crucified him.
But Christ was not a passive victim (as some have erroneously claimed would’ve
been the case if Christ didn’t pre-exist his earthly life as a celestial being).
Christ’s death was a willing act of obedience to God. Everything that
occurred to Christ during the final twenty-four hours of his mortal lifetime on
earth (as well as prior to it) involved his obedience to God’s will. Christ’s tearful and heartfelt yielding to God’s
will while praying in Gethsemane cannot, for example, be understood as anything
other than an act of obedience, apart from which the prophecies
concerning him would not have been fulfilled:
Then Jesus is coming with them into the
freehold termed Gethsemane, and He is saying to His disciples, “Be seated, till
I come away and should be praying there.” And taking along Peter and the two
sons of Zebedee, He begins to be sorrowful and depressed. Then He is saying to
them, “Sorrow-stricken is My soul to death. Remain here and watch with Me. And
coming forward a little, He falls on His face, praying and saying, “My Father,
if it is possible, let this cup pass by from Me. However, not as I will, but as
Thou!” (Matt.
26:36-39)
We go on to read in verses 42-44:
Again, coming away a second time, He
prays, saying, “My Father, if this can not pass by from Me if I should not
drink it, let Thy will be done!” And, coming again, He found them drowsing, for
their eyes were heavy. And, leaving them, again coming away, He prays a third
time, saying the same word.
In Luke’s account Christ explicitly
acknowledged that what he was about to do would fulfill prophecy (Luke 22:37),
which means that Christ was very much aware of the fact that his actions were completely necessary to the fulfilling of prophecy (and apart from
which prophecy wouldn’t have been fulfilled). We’re also told in this same
account that, while praying to God to let the “cup” pass by from him, our Lord
came “to be in a struggle,” and that “His sweat became as if clots of blood
descending on the earth.” What could this struggle have involved if not the
choice to be “obedient unto death, even the death of the cross” rather than
avoiding it? Christ even acknowledged that, had he chosen to, he could’ve
exercised his authority to avoid being arrested (and thereby avoid the “death
of the cross”’):
Then Jesus is saying to him, “Turn away
your sword into its place, for all those taking the sword, by the sword shall
perish. Or are you supposing that I am not able to entreat My Father,
and at present He will station by My side more than twelve legions of
messengers? How, then, may the scriptures be fulfilled, seeing that thus it
must occur?
In that
hour Jesus said to the throngs, “As for a robber, you come out with swords and
cudgels to apprehend Me! Daily was I seated with you, teaching in the
sanctuary, and you do not hold Me. Now the whole of this has occurred that
the scriptures of the prophets may be fulfilled.” Then all His disciples,
leaving Him, fled. (Matt. 26:52-56)
In John 10:17-18, Christ affirmed that his death – and, by implication, the events in which he was directly involved that led up to it – was not something that was forced upon him against his will by those who wickedly plotted his murder:
“Therefore the Father is loving Me, seeing that I am laying down My soul that I may be getting it again. No one is taking it away from Me, but I am laying it down of Myself. I have the right to lay it down, and I have the right to get it again. This precept I got from My Father.”
In other words, Christ was not a “passive victim” during the 24 hours leading up to, and culminating in, his death on the cross.
Notwithstanding what we read in the above passages,
there are some who believe that, unless Christ pre-existed his life on earth as
a celestial being who volunteered to become a human, his obedience unto death
would’ve been nothing more than a “forced sacrifice,” and would’ve had no more redemptive
value than the death of a common martyr. According to this understanding, it is
Christ’s pre-existence as a celestial being – and his agreement to be
transformed into a human zygote – that gives his death its infinite value, and
which makes it the supremely beautiful truth that it is.
This understanding is, I believe, so far removed
from what Scripture actually reveals about Christ’s sacrifice for our sins that
I find it bewildering that one could seriously hold to it. Consider what such a
view actually implies: To whatever extent Christ’s decision to “become human”
makes his sacrificial death something of greater value, beauty and consequence
than the death of a common human martyr (and more than a “forced sacrifice”),
any acts of obedience performed by Christ after his
“incarnation” (and which led to his being crucified) are, to that
extent, trivialized and emptied of their intrinsic value and significance.
If it was Christ’s decision in a pre-existent state
to “become human” that makes his sacrifice on the cross something more than a
“forced” sacrifice (and which gives it the great value and beauty that it has), then
every act of obedience made by Christ as a human – including the acts of obedience to God’s
will that Christ performed during the final 24 hours of his mortal lifetime – was
insufficient to give Christ’s death its great value and beauty, and insufficient to have made Christ’s
death the willing (rather than forced) sacrifice that it was. What this
position inevitably ends up doing, then, is belittling and trivializing the acts of obedience that Christ performed on the earth, and which led
to (and culminated in) his final act
of obedience on the cross.
What those holding to this view seem to completely
overlook is that Christ wasn’t a passive victim during the
final few years of his mortal lifetime on the earth. As already noted, everything
that occurred to Christ during this time (as well as prior to it) involved his willing obedience to God’s will. This included the time from his betrayal and
arrest in Gethsemane to the moment he committed his spirit to God and breathed
his last on the cross. Everything that Christ allowed to happen to him during
this dark time fulfilled prophecy, and was done in humble obedience to
God. Christ had to die in the exact way and in the exact circumstances
in order to remain obedient to God, and to fulfill all that was written
concerning him.
