How should Christians treat one another? This is what is being addressed in this passage. The apostle reminds his readers of the encouragement they have in Christ, the loving comfort they receive from
Him, the fellowship of the Spirit they all enjoy. In light of these many
benefits, Paul asks them to make his joy complete by living in a manner
worthy of Christian people. They are to be of the same mind, not divided, going in different directions. They are to maintain godly love
among themselves, being united in spirit, all moving toward the same
goal. Now, how does one keep a diverse group of people together in
this way? We all know that Christians sin against one another, and in
so doing they disrupt the ideal of believing fellowship. So what is the
key to contented and peaceful Christian community? Paul tells us.
"Do nothing from selfishness or empty conceit." The peace of the
fellowship will exist only when believers do not act in a selfish or conceited manner. That is, when we look outside of ourselves and serve
others, the unity of purpose and love and compassion will be served.
But when we turn in upon ourselves and seek our own good before
the good of others, things will fall apart. The key is found in the next
phrase: "but with humility of mind regard one another as more important than yourselves." Here is the great secret of Christian fellowship: humble service toward others. Self-denial. Not "looking out for
#1," but "making everyone else #1, and looking out for them!" The
Christian church is to be filled with people who, while equal with one
another ("There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor
free man, there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ
Jesus," Galatians 3:28), are willing to put aside their own rights in service to others. The ministry of Jesus Christ is a panoramic picture of
what selfless service to others is all about. And this humility of mind
is what Paul preaches to his beloved Philippian congregation.
It is in the midst of this exhortation that we find the key verses,
2:5-11. Most often, these verses are examined as a single unit, distinct
from the context around them. But it is quite clear that Paul is in no
way "changing topics" between verses 4 and 5. In fact, a quick glance
at verse 12 shows us that upon completing his comments about Christ,
he moves right on with the practical exhortation to humility and obedience in the Philippian assembly. Why is this so important? Because it tells us Paul's purpose in setting forth this section of an ancient
hymn. Paul is giving a "sermon illustration," a reminder that if we are
to be like Christ, we must imitate His humility as well. All of the Carmen Christi is, in fact, a means of illustrating what it means to act in
"humility of mind," to give one's life in the service of others. This is
why verse 5 says, "Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in
Christ Jesus."
The attitude of humility of mind that the Philippians are to have
is best illustrated in Christ, so Paul directs them to have the same manner of thinking, the same outlook, as seen in Christ. This will become
determinative when we look closely at the meaning of the passage itself.
THE FORM OF GOD
The first "verse" of this ancient hymn, if we divide things along
lines of thought, would comprise verses 6 and 7:
... who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself,
taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness
of men.
Here in a matter of just a few words, Paul provides us with some
of the greatest insights into the nature of Christ before the Incarnation.
Obviously, there are two ways to understand the passage, and one can
find translations to fit either viewpoint. First, there are those who point
to this passage as evidence that Christ is not truly God and was not
divine prior to His coming to earth. Some of the translations that lean
this direction include the Today's English Version, the New English
Bible,' and, not surprisingly, the New World Translation. For example,
the TEV says,
He always had the very nature of God, but did not think that
by force he should try to become equal with God.
This translation assumes that Christ was not equal with God, and that the attitude to be emulated is that shown by His not trying to
become equal with God.
The second, and much larger, group of translations sees things
quite differently. These translations make it clear that Christ was eternally equal with God. These include the New International Version, the
New Revised Standard Version, the Jerusalem Bible, Phillips Modern English, and The New Living Translation. Note how, for example, the NIV
renders the passage:
Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with
God something to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking
the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness.
Likewise, the NRSV says,
... who, though he was in the form of God, did not regard
equality with God as something to be exploited, but emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, being born in human likeness.
And the Phillips Modern English expresses the meaning by saying,
For he, who had always been God by nature, did not cling to
his privileges as God's equal, but stripped himself of every advantage by consenting to be a slave by nature and being born a man.
We will be able to decide which translations have properly understood Paul's thrust shortly. First, a few specifics about the text itself.
Paul says that Jesus existed in the form of God. The Greek term
used here,2 just as in John 1:1, does not point to a time when Christ
entered into this state. This is brought out by Phillips' translation, "who
had always been God by nature." Certainly those who attempt to see
in Christ a mere creature can find no solace in an assertion such as
this.
What does it mean to exist in the form of God? The range of translations show us that the term can express a wide variety of things. The
Greek term "form"' (morphe) means the "outward display of the inner
reality or substance. Here it refers to the outward display of the divine substance, i.e., divinity of the preexistent Christ in the display of his
glory as being in the image of the Father."4 This is why a number of
translations render the term "nature." "God's nature" would refer to
the state of being God. This would not merely be referring to existence
as a spirit, but to divine existence. It is hard to get away from the fact
that Paul is plainly presenting the deity of the preexistent Christ. We
shall see in a moment that, in fact, a later comment by the apostle
leaves us with no doubt about this.
EQUALITY WITH GOD
Next Paul tells us that He who (eternally) existed in the form of
God did not "regard equality with God a thing to be grasped" (NASB).
What does this mean? The phrase "equality with God" is not difficult
to understand. Paul is talking about full divinity, a status of equal
power and glory with God. Obviously, if this status is something that
Christ had, the discussion over the deity of Christ is pretty well over.
But obviously, those who do not believe in the deity of Christ do not
agree that the passage is saying this is something Christ ever really possessed. In fact, they strongly assert that the point of the passage is that
Christ did not "grasp for" or attempt to obtain "by force" this very
equality with God. And in all fairness, the Greek term translated "to
grasp"5 can be translated in this way. So can we know with certainty
how Paul would have us to understand this term? When the early
Christians sang this hymn, what did they mean? We will put all of this
together shortly.
THE EMPTYING
Before we come to some final conclusions about which way we
should understand this passage, we need a few more pieces of the puzzle. The hymn says that Christ did not "grasp" His equality with God
but instead did something else. He "emptied Himself" is the literal
translation. What does this mean?
Note first that Jesus did this himself. The passage does not say that
Christ was emptied, as if some outside force or person acted upon Him. This is voluntary. This is something Christ did himself. As we will see,
this is vitally important.
Secondly, the term "emptied" is always used by Paul in a metaphorical sense. The term is used in such places as Romans 4:14, where
Paul says, "For if those who are of the Law are heirs, faith is made void
(literally, "emptied") and the promise is nullified." Paul is not talking
about a literal "emptying" of faith, but a metaphorical "making
empty," i.e., making void.6 So it is here. The King James Version does
an excellent job by rendering it "made himself of no reputation." Paul
is not saying Jesus ceased to be God, or in any other way stopped being
equal with the Father, but that He voluntarily laid aside the privileges
that were His.7 When the Lord walked this earth, men did not see Him
as a glorious heavenly being, for His glory was hidden, veiled. With
the single exception of the Mount of Transfiguration, where a chosen
few saw Him in His true glory, the rest of mankind looked upon Him
who, as Isaiah had said, "has no stately form or majesty that we should
look upon Him, nor appearance that we should be attracted to Him"
(Isaiah 53:2).
The act of emptying is followed by an act of taking. He "became
flesh" (John 1:14) by takingthe form of a bond-servant and being made
in the likeness of men. It is no mere coincidence that Paul uses the very
same term "form" here that he used in verse 6. Just as Jesus had the
form of God in eternity past, so He took the form of a bond-servant in
the Incarnation.' He who had eternally been served by cherubim and
seraphim now takes on the form of a slave so as to serve others! And
what service is He called to? "Being found in appearance as a man, He
humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even
death on a cross." Here is ultimate obedience, ultimate service.
SO, ETERNALLY GOD OR NOT?
We have enough of the puzzle now to go back and ask the most
basic question: is this passage identifying Jesus Christ as God or not?
There are two basic understandings:
1. Many liberal theologians, as well as groups that deny the deity of Christ, assert that here we have Paul saying that the Lord
Jesus was not equal with the Father and did not give consideration to becoming equal with Him, but instead took on the
form of a bond-servant to die upon the cross.
2. The majority of conservative scholars and historically orthodox
groups believe that Paul is teaching the eternal deity of Christ.
The Lord Jesus, though equal with the Father, lays aside His
privileges so as to die upon the cross.
Can we determine which view is correct? I believe we can. Remember that I originally insisted that the context of the passage would be
determinative to finding the real answer to this question. And it is just
here that it unlocks for us the door to the understanding of this ancient
hymn of the church.
TRUE HUMILITY
The apostle is presenting the grand act of humble service in the life
of the Lord Jesus Christ as the example of what it means to walk in
"humility of mind." Remember, we defined humility along the lines of
having certain rights, but giving up those rights in service to others.
Among Christians, this means that we are to look out for others rather
than jealously guard our own rights and privileges. We are to serve
others, even though we are all equals before the Lord.
In light of this, look again at Paul's example from the Lord Jesus.
He tells us to "have this mind in you which was also in Christ Jesus."
So here we have the ultimate example of humility. But which of the
two understandings of the passage give us true humility? Let's look at
each and find out.
The first viewpoint says that the Lord Jesus was not equal with the
Father and did not attempt to become so. Yet, is this an example of
humility? Do we regularly honor as "humble" those who hold an inferior position and do not seek to usurp the rights of someone in a
superior position? Is it humble, for example, to be a newly hired employee who does not seek to immediately take over the position of the
president of the company? Are you considered "humble" if you do not
try to usurp your boss's authority? Do we look at the janitor at the White House, for example, and say, "Oh my, what a humble man he
is, for he did not today attempt to take over the president's job!" No,
of course not. Such is not humility, it is simple common sense.
In the same way, if the Lord Jesus were merely a spirit being, a
creature, how would it be "humble" of Him not to seek to become
equal with God himself? Do we say someone is "humble" if they do
not claim to be God? Certainly not. So if Jesus was an inferior creature,
and He did not try to become equal with God, that would be no more
humble than any other angelic creature abiding by their own station
and not seeking to become something they were never intended to be
in the first place.
On the other hand, what about the second understanding of the
passage? Here we have the eternal Son of God, existing in the very form
of God. He is equal with the Father, enjoying the privileges of deity
itself. But He does not consider that position He has of equality something to be held on to at all costs. Instead, out of the great love He has
for His people, He voluntarily lays aside those privileges and takes on
the form of man. He becomes a servant in the fullest sense, for He lives
His entire life in service to the very ones He has come to redeem. And
in the ultimate act of service, He is obedient to the very point of death
upon a cross.
Now, if humility consists of having privileges, and laying them
aside in service to others, can we think of any example of humility
more thrilling, more challenging, or more clear than this one? Certainly not! Therefore, we can reach only one conclusion: Paul is presenting this great early hymn as his highest example of humility of
mind, and because of this, we must understand the passage to present
Jesus as having eternally existed in the very form of God, having eternally possessed equality with the Father, and yet, out of His great love
for us, He voluntarily laid aside those privileges so as to give His life
as a "ransom for many." If context means anything at all, this is what
the passage is teaching.