- Image via Wikipedia
The entire Biblical Unitarian (hereafter BU) argument regarding Philippians 2:6-8 is contradictory. They begin by saying form (morphe G3444) concerns something outward that is expressed and is able to be witnessed or seen, such as our figure or our facial expression or our glory (majesty). They say morphe (G3444) does not refer to Jesus’ divine character or what would be called essential essence. Yet, though this is their claim, they argue against themselves by saying morphe (G3444) refers to Jesus being the image of God. In what possible way was Jesus the Image of God, unless it was in his essential essence or character. This is what Hebrews 1:3 means,
Hebrews 1:3 KJV Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;
The word for express image is charakter (G5481) in the Greek. It was the instrument used for carving and engraving. It is the stamp or impress of a coin. It is used in 2Maccabees 4:10 for “Greekish fashion…” to express the characteristic attributes of Hellenism. In 4 Maccabees 15:4 it is used of the imprint parents have on “the resemblance of soul and of form engrafted into the small type of child (the infant)…”[1] (parenthesis mine)
The BU argument cannot have it both ways. Either form (G3444 morphe) means essential essence of God and therefore his character which Jesus is said to have in Hebrews 1:3, or it concerns the outward form of God such as his majesty (honor), figure or countenance. I believe it is the latter, and the BUs say it is the latter. Yet, after they show it is not essential essence, they insist it is in order to refute the Trinitarian argument.
While Trinitarians have argued among themselves about the meaning of Philippians 2:6-8, an unfortunate thing has occurred-the loss of the actual meaning of the verse. The verse is not speaking either of Christ’s giving up his “Godhood” at his incarnation or of his God-nature being willing to “hide” so that his man-nature can show itself clearly. Rather, it is saying something else. Scripture says Christ was the “image of God” (2 Cor. 4:4), and Jesus himself testified that if one had seen him, he had seen the Father.[2]
How was Christ in the image of God when he (Jesus) was man? Did he look like God’s body or figure? Of course not! Did he reflect God’s majesty? No, it was not God’s majesty or glory that was expressed in Jesus’ birth in a stable or in his death as an accused blasphemer and criminal. Was it God’s countenance? No, no one is able to look upon the face of God and live. So, what was expressed by Jesus concerning his being the Image of God? I know of nothing left to say but God’s character or his essential essence. In other words, Jesus lived out exactly who God (the Father) is. However, the BUs argue against this as the quotation above shows. They say of Philippians 2:6 “The verse is not speaking either of Christ’s giving up his “Godhood” at his incarnation, or of his God-nature…” Yet, when the verse says, “who, although he existed in the form of God…” we are able to see Jesus owned, possessed or lived at some time in the form of God. What is that form? Obviously, this form is presented in contrast to the form of the bondservant, which he took to himself in the next verse. Why would Jesus make the first form “empty” or “void” in order to take to himself the second form, or that of a bondservant? If the form spoken of in verse-6 is the image of God that Jesus bore out in his life, how could he have made this void or empty? Doesn’t Hebrews 1:3 say that Jesus, as man, was the express image of God? If therefore image means form, how could Jesus have set the “form of God” aside? The BU argument does not make sense and is very contradictory.
In order to validate their argument by putting it in the context of Philippians 2:1-4, the BUs say Christ “emptied himself” (NASB) of the reputation that was his as the child of the King. This argument, however, is not Scriptural, because it is precisely this position as the Son of God and the Messiah that he preached to the Jews. From the very first, he presented himself as the Messiah, the King of Israel and the Son of God (Psalm 2:6-7). His neighbors in Nazareth were offended in him and tried to kill him. Although the common people were ready to receive him as the Messiah, the Scribes and Pharisees kept asking for a sign, but all the signs Jesus worked were said to be the mark of Satan.
How would the BU argument, concerning what Jesus gave up, fit the context of Philippians 2:1-4? Paul was encouraging the Philippians to love one another and consider the needs of others over one’s own desires. The Father has no needs, so Jesus’ example had to suggest what he had done for mankind. If Jesus emptied himself of the royal reputation due him as the Son of God, the King, how does this fit the context of Paul’s letter? Whatever Jesus did is supposed to be an example to Christians concerning how we should treat one another. How does Jesus’ hiding his royalty help us to become better Christians? This argument does not make sense, since Jesus preached he was the Son of God and that he was the Messiah the Jews looked for throughout their history. He did not set aside that reputation, he preached it!
The Scripture says Jesus set aside his form that made him equal with God (i.e. bodily form that incorporated the divine qualities of omnipotence, omnipresence and omniscience) and took to himself the form of a bondservant (man) in order to bring about our salvation. This explanation perfectly fits the context of loving others and setting the needs of others over the comforts and advantages of our own lifestyle. Whatever other argument may be presented, it must answer the context of Paul’s argument with the Philippians that they should do as Christ did for them.
It is also suggested that Jesus humbled himself by submitting to the Father’s will. This is only indirectly so. God gave authority of life and death to men, and God does not change his mind about such matters, just because his gifts are being abused. He works out his will in spite of the evil works of men. Nevertheless, Jesus had taken upon himself the form of a bondservant and submitted himself to the authority that God vested in mankind. It is this authority that Jesus humbled himself before. He obeyed his Father in every matter even when it meant submitting himself to the desire of evil men abusing their God-given authority.
In other matters, Jesus’ will was the will of the Father. There was no difference between the two. Jesus whole desire was to fulfill the will of his Father. The BU argument makes it sound like Jesus had a will, but he set that will aside in order to submit himself to the will of his Father. That is just not so. Jesus’ whole desire was to please the Father. There was never a difference in their wills. Every prayer Jesus ever uttered was answered and worked out by the Father through the Son (John 11:41-42). The will of the Son is brought to pass by the Father and the will of the Father is made manifest by the Son. The Father and the Son are one (John 10:30). To suggest that Jesus had to submit to his Father’s will implies that they are not one at all.
Therefore, the BU argument that Jesus set aside his royal reputation as the image of God (2Corinthians 4:4) is not sound. Scripture contradicts such a viewpoint in that Jesus actually preached he was the Son of God and the King of Israel. Their argument that Philippians 2:6-8 does not refer to an eternal Christ becoming man falls far short of proving their case. Their position is weak and contradictory. Jesus, before his human birth, existed in the form or God. As the Scriptures show, he did not cling to his equality with the Father, but took upon himself flesh—the form of a bondservant and God dwelled with us.
[1] The Complete New Testament Word Study Dictionary by Spiros Zodhiates.
[2] (http://biblicalunitarian.com/html) The Website of the Biblical Unitarians: “Verses that Trinitarians use to support the Trinity;” click to see the full list; then scroll to “The New Testament” and then to Philippians 2:6-8.
Technorati Tags: Jesus, Paul, Letter to the Philippians, love, form of God, bondservant, character, image of God, Biblical Unitarians
Smoodock's Blog 