Smoodock's Blog

Paul’s letter to the Philippians contains one of the strongest proofs of Jesus’ eternal existence as God before he became man. The Biblical Unitarian (hereafter BU) approach to this Scripture is unusual but contradictory, because their interpretation does not adhere to the Scriptures or even to their own logic.

Philippians 2:5-8 NASB  Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus,  (6)  who, although he existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped,  (7)  but emptied himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men.  (8)  Being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.

This Scripture claims Jesus at one time existed in the form (morphe G3444) of God, but later took the form (morphe G3444) of a bondservant. In other words, for a reason expressed in the context of Philippians chapter 2, Jesus exchanged forms. Trinitarians are divided over the meaning of morphe (G3444). Some believe it refers to the divine nature, while other Trinitarians believe it refers to the outward form. The BUs agree with the latter faction of Trinitarians that it deals with one’s outward form as opposed to an inner essential nature. I agree with the point of view of the latter also.

In the Septuagint morphe (G3444) is used in Daniel 4:36 for the king’s honor (KJV) or majesty (ASV); in Daniel 5:6, 9, 10 it is used for the king’s countenance. In Isaiah 44:13 the same Greek word is used for the figure of a man, which a carpenter carves out of wood.

Whatever may be said about Jesus being in the form of God in Philippians 2:6, it is used in contrast with his being in the form of the bondservant in verse-7. In other words he existed or was in one form, but he set it aside to take to himself the other form. This is what the second chapter of Philippians claims. Whatever Jesus did in verses 6 & 7 was done out of love to agree with the context expressed in Philippians 2:1-5, otherwise Paul’s words make no sense at all. Paul was telling the Philippians not to act from selfish motives, or be obsessed with their own profit, but to look out for the interests of others who may not be able to act to help themselves. For verse-5 says that it was this attitude of mind that Jesus had in doing what verses-6 through 8 describe. That is, whatever Jesus did through exchanging forms, was done so he could help others. He was motivated by a desire to help others more than the desire to retain whatever the form of God means. Knowing this will put us in a better frame of mind to understand what Jesus actually did.

It doesn’t make any sense to say that Jesus set aside the essential nature of God that he might have possessed in order to take upon himself a human nature. How would this express love or an outward concern for others less fortunate? For example, it does not make sense to become a drug addict so one could eradicate drug addiction in others. Human nature subjects a person to sin. It does not make sense to weaken the essential being (the character) of God, so he could help those who haven’t the character to overcome their weakness and serve God. If Jesus took upon himself our human nature, he would be taking upon himself the judgment of Eden, darkness, deafness, paralysis, etc. with regard to a relationship with the Father. Retaining his divine nature is essential to saving mankind. When I speak of human nature here, what I mean is man’s sin nature (cp. Romans 7). I don’t mean to imply Jesus did not take to himself the essential characteristics of our humanity when he became a man.

If it doesn’t makes sense for Jesus to have exchanged natures, then the Greek word morphe (G3444) cannot refer to his divine nature. That was never set aside. According to the examples of the Septuagint above, Jesus could have set aside the majesty (honor) of God, the countenance (face) of God or the figure (shape) of God and take upon himself the majesty (honor), the countenance (face) or the figure (shape) of a bondservant. Would this express love for others in the context of the Scripture above? Yes, if this were true, it would certainly express Jesus’ love for mankind. If he truly existed in the figure of God, or owned the majesty (honor) of God, or possessed the face (countenance) of God and exchanged that to become a bondservant in order to die a humiliating death, so you and I could live, yes, I must say that this would express love in the context of Paul’s command to the Philippians.

The BU point of view on this passage is that Philippians 2:6-7 has nothing to do with Jesus’ prior existence as God (they don’t believe he existed before his human birth), but refers to his earthly ministry only. They claim Jesus always did the will of the Father, being moral and obedient. However, this view does not seem to fit the context, since the context calls for Jesus setting aside one form to take another, as an expression of his love for mankind. What form of God did Jesus set aside in exchange for the form of a bondservant? He certainly did not set aside being the “exact representation of his (God’s) nature” (Hebrews 1:3 NASB), for he told the apostles that whoever saw him saw the Father (John 14:7, 9). This image of God was not set aside. If the context is that Jesus was moral and submissive to the Father, what did he set aside? Is it the nature of a bondservant to be moral and submissive? If so, why would Jesus have to redeem man in the first place, since we all would already be moral and submissive to God? Indeed Jesus was moral and submissive to the Father, but this has nothing whatsoever to do with the “form” he set aside, so he might grasp the other. Furthermore, the BUs argue against Jesus’ morality and obedience to the Father as a viable meaning for morphe (G3444) when they say form cannot indicate his essential nature. If the essential nature of God is the beauty of his character, how could Jesus’ morality and willingness to submit to the Father (the character he exercised as a bondservant) be a different form to embrace? Wouldn’t the form of God and that of the bondservant be the same in such a case?

It is the essential nature of God that Jesus spoke of in John 14:7, 9. It certainly could not mean Jesus’ outward form as man that would cause the apostles to know the Father. This would not make sense, because, if Jesus referred to his outward form, how is ours different from his? Furthermore, it was the outward form of man that Jesus took to himself INSTEAD of the outward form of God in Philippians 2:6-7.

The BU argument is a bit blurred at this point. On the one hand, they say form does not represent the essential nature of God for Philippians 2:6. I agree, because Jesus would not have set that aside to take up a different nature. There is no way such a thing would express love for mankind. Furthermore, the BU interpretation of John 14:7, 9 is one of essential nature. That is, Jesus was the exact representation of the Father’s inner Being (Hebrews 1:3)! What else could Jesus be speaking of in that Scripture? Therefore, we must conclude that the form of God in Philippians, which Jesus exchanged for another, has nothing to do with his essential nature or the fact that if one saw Jesus one saw the Father. Jesus lived out the essential nature of the Father, because Jesus was the express image of God (Hebrews 1:3, KJV). Therefore, the BU argument that form in Philippians 2:6 represents Jesus’ obedience to the Father, his morality etc. contradicts their own argument that Philippians 2: 6 could not refer to the essential nature of God.

What we have left is that Jesus, before he became man, had to have existed in the form of God, that is, as shown in the Septuagint, that he had the glory of God, the countenance of God and the outward appearance of God. If this was so, that in his previous state Jesus had the glory of God, the countenance of God and the outward appearance of God, can anyone say that Jesus is not God in human form?

Technorati Tags: Jesus, Paul, Letter to the Philippians, form of God, image of God, Jesus is God, Trinity, Unitarians, God