Article Why Philippians 2:5-9 Is Not About a Pre-Existent Being

[Ray Faircloth]

Why Philippians 2:5-9 ​

Is Not About a Pre-Existent Being ​

The Traditional Interpretation

​

There are several phrases in the Philippians 2:5-8 passage that Trinitarians view as proof that Jesus had pre-existed as God in heaven. A typical translation of these verses is:



“Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, who, although he existed (or “was existing”) in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, and being made in the likeness of men. Being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross” (NASB).

Trinitarian Assumptions​

That the phrase “form (Gk. morphe) of God” means essence, and therefore Jesus was of the same essence as God. Or in the standard Trinitarian view the phrase “form of God” means that Jesus was one essence with God the Father.



That the passage refers to a pre-existent Jesus in heaven because of the past tense “he existed” or “was existing.”



That in the kenotic view (see later) Jesus, while in heaven, either:

“emptied himself” of his essence or

“emptied himself” of the privileges he had in heaven.



That the phrases “being made in the likeness of men. Being found in appearance as a man...” mean that Jesus was changed in essence from a spirit being into a human.



That, by tradition, the passage refers to a Jesus in heaven.

Basic Correction of these Wrong Assumptions​

The Greek word morphe, in fact, refers to outward appearance and refers to a visible Jesus, and therefore not to an invisible Jesus pre-existing in heaven. Furthermore, “form of God” is contrasted not with ‘form of a man’ but with “form of a slave”—a reference to one’s status or image.



Even if the above translation were correct it need only refer to Jesus’ earthly life now past. However, this phrase is properly translated as “who being” or “who existing” and therefore showing the present participle and not a past tense.



The grammar of this phrase is: “...he emptied himself having taken the form of a slave...” Because “form of a slave” is a visible outward appearance Jesus would already be human when he emptied or poured out himself. So, heaven is not the location where any such emptying took place. Rather, this shows that Jesus made sacrifices throughout his life and finally to death (Isaiah 53:12).



The word-for-word reading is: “in likeness of men having become; and to fashion having been found as man...” The context of verses 5-7b puts this phrase only as far back in time as sometime after Jesus’ birth. So, as one who had willingly taken the form of a slave Jesus took the place of sinful men (Rom. 8:3b, 2 Cor. 5:21). So, the likeness here is not a reference to transferring into the physical substance of humankind; but rather of “having become an image of (sinful) humanity” although he wasn’t in himself sinful (1 Pet. 2:22).



The passage does not say anything about heaven or a past life for Jesus; but rather it refers to “Christ”—“the Son of God” a title he bore only from his birth (Ps. 2:7; Luke 1:32, 35 and Matt. 1:18).



On these points the Renowned Catholic biblical scholar Jerome Murphy O’Connor observed that: “Inevitably, those who begin their exegesis of this hymn with the assumption that it concerns a pre-existent divine being tend towards a docetic interpretation of these lines.”

A basic difference between the Jewish thinking and the pagan Greek thinking of the time was that Jews thought in terms of function and would use a great deal of metaphorical language; whereas Greeks thought more in terms of essence or substance, that is ontologically (substance) or metaphysically. Many scholars have now recognized this difference and have adjusted their interpretat-ions accordingly.

Better Rendering of the Greek into English​

Philippians 2:5-9 is best read first from a word-for-word Greek interlinear translation. Indeed, because of a docetic and often Trinitarian pre-existence bias, our current translations do not accurately express the thoughts of these verses. Of course, some translations are better than others and all render many parts of these texts accurately. So, The United Bible Society’s Interlinear i.e. word-for-word reads:



“Let this thinking be in you which also in Christ Jesus, who in form of God existing not a thing to be grasped did regard to be equal with God, but he poured out himself form of slave taking (lit. having taken), in likeness of men having been born; and having been found in appearance as a man he humbled himself having become obedient unto death.”



The literal English form becomes: Let this thinking be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, who existing in the form of God did not consider to be equal to God a thing to be grasped (on to), but he poured out himself taking the form of a slave, having become in the likeness of men. Having been found in appearance as man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death.



Young’s Literal Translation reads:

“For let this mind be in you that is also in Christ Jesus, who being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal to God, but did empty himself, the form of a servant having taken, in the likeness of men having been made, and in fashion having been found as a man.”



Scholar based Translation reads:

“Let each of you develop the above way of thinking, which also was Messiah Jesus’ way of thinking, who being in the visible form of God, did not consider an equal status with God as something to be used for his own benefit, but constantly poured out his life, having taken the visible form of a servant, having become just like other men. And having been identified in appearance as an ordinary man…”



This rendering in The Kingdom of God Version is based on the research of numerous eminent Greek language scholars.

The Subject of Philippians 2:5-9

Is the Human Messiah​

Verse 5 says:

“Let each of you develop the above way of thinking, which also was Messiah Jesus’ way of thinking.”



So the subject of these verses is not a pre-existent so-called ‘God the Son’ but the historical human Messiah Jesus—“For there is…one mediator…a man, Christ Jesus” (1 Tim. 2:5) who came into existence at his birth (Luke 1:35, 2:11). It is as O’Connor notes that:



Since the hymn deals with Christ in his concrete terrestrial condition, one should begin with the working hypothesis that the author views Christ as man…The anthropology of Wisdom provides an appropriate background on the assumption that the author of the hymn was thinking of Christ as man.



Also, Associate Professor of New Testament Rodney Decker states regarding Philippians 2 that: “The context shows that it was only as man that Christ emptied himself.” To this James Mackey adds: “the fact that the subject of the hymn is specifically named as Messiah Jesus, a man like ourselves…” Furthermore, the Greek term morphe refers to what is seen, so from the beginning the passage is speaking of the fully human visible Jesus.

The CONTEXT is: “but in humility of mind...let this mind be in you that was also in Christ Jesus” (verses 3-5). So, the subject is not about a change of Jesus’ essence or nature, neither does it concern a pre-conception time for Jesus, but rather it is about one’s way of thinking.

Adam Christology in Contrast to

the Gnostic Redeemer Myth

​

Philippians 2:5-9 is now generally recognized by Bible scholars as a psalm/hymn that was probably drawn from Isaiah 53 concerning “the suffering servant” who “poured out his soul to the death” (verse 12). It is not a theological treatise. Concerning Philippians Karl-Josef Kuschel informs us that:



this text would have been a piece of Adam christology, of the kind that also emerges in other contexts in the New Testament. It would be a further example of the widespread two stage christology of the earliest Jewish-Christian communities…and thus would not be in the context of mythical tradition, but of Old Testament tradition. So there is no question here of a pre-existent heavenly figure. Rather Christ is the great contrasting figure to Adam. Born Before All Time, p. 251.



In his paper Trinity and Incarnation: In Search of Contemporary Orthodoxy theologian Colin Brown gives his understanding that:



the point of the hymn is not a comparison between Christ’s pre-existent state as the divine son in glory and his state of humiliation as a servant. Rather, it is a comparison between Christ and Adam in which the term “form of God” is the equivalent of saying “Image of God.



Further confirmation of this comes from James Dunn, who informs us that:

these passages were written in the middle of the first century, and the most obvious and really clear meaning is the Adam theology and christology widespread in earliest Christianity. In short, Adam christology provides not only a plausible context of thought for Phil 2:6-11 but also the most plausible context of thought. Alternative explanations in terms of a Gnostic or proto-Gnostic Primal Man speculation are not only unnecessary but also unconvincing…we have uncovered no real evidence that the concept of a heavenly archetype of Adam had developed beyond that of a Platonic idea by the time of Paul – no real evidence, in other words, of an already established belief in a heavenly first man who became the redeemer of Adam’s offspring. Christology in the Making, pp. 125,126.



Two stage Christology means that there was no pre-existent life but only:

1) Jesus was born and lived his life in humility until death.

2) He was resurrected and exalted.

Not a Past Tense “Was in the Form of God”

​

In verse 6 of the Greek, Jesus is described as “existing (or being) in the form (Gk morphe) of God.” It does not say “was, was existing or existed.” “Being” is used in Young’s Literal, KJV, NKJV, NJB and NIV. Additionally, Kuschel states that the word “being (Gk hypachon)”: “is a present participle; i.e. it does not define any particular time.” (Born Before All Time, p. 258). Examples are: “being a prophet” (Acts 2:30); “If you being a Jew” (Gal. 2:14). These do not mean being so before birth or ceasing to be so.

The Meaning of “Morphe”​

Kenneth Wuest shows that by Koine Greek times morphe had come to have the meaning of: “…station in life, a position one holds, one’s rank. And that is an approximation of morphe in this context [Phil 2].” (The Practical use of the Greek New Testament, p. 84). Indeed, the context confirms this understanding because being a slave is per se, a matter of status, rank, or position. In modern English the word metamorphosis can involve the change in appearance of a person e.g. weight-loss, or a change in a person’s character or function. But they are still a human and they have not undergone a change to a radically different substance. So morphe is here not being used in the Greek philosophical sense and therefore does not carry the thought of change in the ontological sense i.e. the substance of something. Indeed, the definition of morphe is:



external appearance—Kittel’s Theological Dictionary of NT,

outward appearance—Walter Bauer’s Greek-English Lexicon.

the form by which a person or thing strikes the vision; the external appearance—Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon.



So, according to Bauer’s Greek/English Lexicon, being in the morphe of God is an expression of divinity, and being in the morphe of a slave is an expression of servility. Indeed, morphe and eikon (image) are near synonyms as F.W. Eltester has shown when pointing out that eikon and morphe are used as interchangeable terms in the Septuagint. Commenting on the contrast between “form of God” (Gk morphe theou) and “form of a slave” (morphe doulou) Jerome Murphy O’Connor notes that: “The absolute fidelity of Christ justified the choice of an alternative term (morphe rather than eikon), and permitted the contrast between morphe theou and morphe doulou.” So, rather than interpreting morphe in Greek philosophical terms, Jesus’ “being in the image/form of God” means that, as the human Messiah, he was the visible image of God, having divine status. As Son of God he had the right to function as God as had the rulers in Israel who functioned as gods (Psalm 82:6; John 10:34) e.g. “Listen! I’ve positioned you [Moses] as God to Pharaoh” (Ex. 7:1 ISV). Also, the scribes asked rhetorically: “who can forgive sins but God alone?” (Mark 2:7 ESV). Yet, as Jesus said: “But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins…” (Mark 2:10 ESV). So, this authority was delegated to him by God. Jesus was also granted authority to raise the dead (John 5:21). Furthermore: “The Father judges no one, but has given all judgment to the Son” (John 5:22 ESV). Therefore, he functions as God, but is not of God’s essence or substance. These factors help us to understand that the phrase “he was in the form {status} of God” as meaning “being equal with God.” Karl-Joseph Kuschel similarly explains:

That the Philippians hymn does not speak of the pre-existence of Christ at all ... but in good Jewish fashion as the counterpart of Adam ... His sinless condition gave him the right to be treated as if he were God. Born Before All Time, pp. 250-252.



In correspondence Greek scholar Anthony Buzzard stated that:

The article “to” (Gk to einai isa theo) “being like God” refers rather naturally to and defines the being in the form of God, i.e. an agentival equality which the philosophers did not understand.



NOTE: To convey the idea of essential nature one would have to use the word eidos rather than morphe.

The Attitude of Christ Contrasted with That of Adam

​

Many translations present this passage as meaning that Jesus did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped onto (Gk harpagmos). However, James Dunn notes the alternatives as being: “something that was not possessed and so grasped at or something already possessed and so grasped retentively (the ambiguity of harpagmos)” Christology in the Making, p. 116.

​

ADAM GRASPED FOR EQUALITY WITH GOD

Satan told Eve that she could “be like God”—having the same status as God because of the premature and inappropriate acquisition of power through knowledge (Genesis 3:5). After Adam’s sin God said, “the man has become like one of us in knowing good and evil” (3:22). This was a premature snatching at equality with God in respect to knowledge, yet offered by Satan rather than God. However, God denied Adam the prize of immortality by denying them further access to the tree of life. So, James Mackey states that:

there is scarcely enough difference between the Greek words eikon and morphe to prevent us from seeing in the Genesis creation and garden stories the source of our two phrases: man created in God’s image and likeness and grasping after some status of equality with God (‘become like one of us’, ‘be like God’). The Christian Experience of God as Trinity, p.272.



JESUS DID NOT EXPLOIT HIS EQUALITY WITH GOD AS HIS AGENT

In contrast with Adam, Jesus, through his humility, did not use his actual equality with God in being the Lord Messiah but stripped himself of his privileges. So, although many translators are unsure of the best meaning of harpagmos here i.e. whether it should be rendered “grasped at” or “exploited” it would seem that in this instance it may be better expressed as “exploited.” So, a number of translations variously use the phrases: “as something to be exploited,” “as something used to his own advantage” or “as something used for his own benefit.”

What Does Jesus “Emptied Himself to

Become a Slave” Mean?

​

From 1860, Gotfried Thomasius, a Lutheran theologian, began what has now developed into the false Doctrine of Kenosis i.e. that Christ emptied himself of his essence. This seems to be the first time that Philippians 2:7 was applied in this way. It appears that the main reason for the development of this doctrine by some Trinitarians was to explain how Jesus could be God and man without postulating two centres of consciousness as in the doctrine of the hypostatic union.

Did Jesus Empty Himself of His Divinity or

a supposed ‘God-form’?

​

The New International Dictionary of New Testament Words asks: “Does Phil 2:7 really imply kenoticism? Neither the Gospels nor Phil 2 presents the picture of the abandonment of any divine attributes.” This dictionary does, however, show belief in pre-existence, but for other reasons. Nevertheless, Philippians 2:7 does show Jesus’ acceptance of the status and role of a servant. (Mark 10:45, Luke 22:27, John 13:3-16; 15:20). So, does this mean that Jesus emptied himself of himself or of his ‘diety/divinity’ as if this were his essence? If he did empty himself of these attributes then we must ask:



How were the cosmic functions of the second Person of the Trinity maintained during his earthly sojourn?

How can one lay aside one’s qualities, abilities, power, and knowledge and still be the same person? Surely a so-called ‘God the Son’ could no longer be ‘God the Son.’



So, Colin Brown states that: “... In short, the emptying of Phil 2:6 does not seem to me to have anything to do with a supposed metaphysical change of states, but has everything to do with the life of servanthood.”



BETTER TRANSLATION CONTEXTUALLY

The phrase “emptied himself” (Gk ekenosen) is also translated as: “but made himself of no reputation” KJV and NKJV. So, Grant Osborne professor of New Testament points out that:



There is no (genitive of) context given for the “emptying,” and it is better in this light to recognize the intransitive nature of the verb. In the semantic range another use fits the context better, to “pour out” or “make himself nothing.” This fits the transition from “did not consider the equality a thing to be grasped” to “took on the form of a servant” as well as the parallelism with “humbled” in verse 8. A proper regard for context removes the necessity of debating with the Kenotic school on their own grounds. The Hermeneutical Spiral, p. 75.



So, the Greek word ekenosen is more correctly translated as “but made himself nothing” (ESV, NIV, NLT) or “poured out his life” (KGV). This is a parallel thought to “poured out his soul to the death” (Isaiah 53:12). Bauer’s Greek/English Lexicon of New Testament Literature says that: “An early Christian confession holds that the kenosis is not the incarnation but the cross (Isaiah 53:12).” This was a matter of self-renunciation by Jesus including divesting himself of his right to immortality/incorruptibility, something that was his because of his sinless condition. Paul was imitating Jesus’ example when he said: “I did not run or labor for nothing (Gk kenon)” (Phil. 2:16 NIV).



WHEN DID JESUS “MAKE HIMSELF AS NOTHING?”

The Greek grammatical structure of this phrase is: “himself he emptied form of slave having taken.” This shows that Jesus emptied himself because he had either already, or at that point in time, “taken a slave’s form.” The correct structure also fits with the context, giving the meaning that Jesus, having become slave-like then immediately began emptying (daily sacrificing) himself. So Lohmeyer’s translation reads: “…but sacrificed himself having taken the form of a slave.” The sacrificing would have been Jesus’ entire life course leading to his death. As A.H. McNeile former Regius Professor of Divinity expresses it:



In this case the aorist ‘ekenosen’ (he emptied himself) does not refer to a single moment of ‘incarnation’ but the completeness of a series of repeated acts; his earthly life, looked at as a whole, was an unfailing process of self-emptying.



Or as Jerome Murphy O’Connor expresses it: “We have here an ‘emptying’ related directly to the terrestrial condition of Christ…” Therefore, in his life course Jesus [Messiah-the man] laid aside such rightful dignity, prerogatives (immortality), privileges, and rulership; humbling himself to live a life of servitude which ended with his death. Would the Philippians be asked to copy the impossible example of emptying themselves of their essence? Rather, they were to “empty” themselves of their contentious, egotistical, and selfish characteristics and imitate Jesus’ lifetime example of humility and self-sacrifice. Paul does not appeal to us to be like a god. He appeals to us to be humble servants as humans. Additional context is shown when he says, “Even if I [Paul] am to be poured out as a drink offering upon the sacrificial offering of your faith, I am glad and rejoice with you all” (Phil. 2:17 ESV). Certainly, Paul’s essence was not poured out.

What Does “Taking the Form of a Slave” Mean?

​

This passage cannot apply to any heavenly being who supposedly became the human baby Jesus. That is, it doesn’t refer to any change from spirit substance to flesh and blood. Rather, for Jesus “taking the form of a slave” means taking the status of a slave with the attitude of mind (verse 5) or disposition of a servant. So, Jesus, although being the Messiah, took on the status of fallen mankind to become a servant of mankind and did not take up his rights and privileges as Messiah. There is no thought here of changing into the substance of a human; neither is any location change indicated; but the simple acceptance of a lowly status by one who has a high status in his own right. A growing number of theologians are viewing this passage as being not about pre-existence but being expressed within the confines of a two stage Christology. So, Jesus’ “having been born like humans are” means that he grew up to be a man just as sinful men grow. The phrase is effectively saying “having grown up to become a man as other men are” (Luke 2:40). It is as J.A.T Robinson in The Human Face of God (p. 88) states:



“Not by becoming a man from being something else (no one can do that), but by becoming fully and completely human.”



Also, Robinson notes that: “Luther…recognized…that Christ had to become a person through the normal process of maturation and moral growth,” (p. 79).

As a mortal, it is impossible that Jesus had previously existed as an immortal i.e. as a heavenly being (Luke 20:36). However, Jesus was only like other men and not the same as them because they needed to be reconciled to God, whereas he did not. Again, the phrase about Jesus’ “having been found in appearance (Gk schema) as (a) man.” has no metaphysical meaning. Similar to morphe the word schema means:



the generally recognized state or form in which something appears, outward appearance, form or shape. And 2) the functional aspect of something, way of life, of things; ‘this world in its present form is passing away’ (1 Cor. 7:31). Bauer’s Lexicon.



Yet the world of mankind will not have a change of the physical substance of which it is made, but rather of its character and manner of operation. The REB renders it as “sharing the human lot.” So according to Dunn it means that: “Christ is being evaluated as Adam—as representative man, as one with fallen man.” (the ‘a’ does not apply). Further, Lohmeyer renders verse 8: “and [though] being found as Son of Man.” This verse is alternatively rendered as: “...having been found in the human scheme of things” or as “having been found in the human condition.” Possibly this refers to the time that Jesus came to manhood at about thirty years of age and then presented himself for a baptism that led to his full servant-hood—a life of sacrifice.

Ernst Lohmeyer’s Translation

of Philippians 2: 6-11

​

6 [The one] existing in the form of God considered it not plunder to be like God, 7 but sacrificed himself, having taken the form of a slave, having become an image of humanity; and [though] being found “as Son of Man” 8 he humbled himself, having become obedient unto death [death on a cross]. (Paul’s added comment) 9 And therefore God exalted him highly and bestowed on him the name above every name, 10 that in the name of Jesus every knee should bow in heaven, earth, and the underworld 11 and every tongue acclaim: “Jesus Christ is Lord” to the glory of God, the Father.

The Conclusions of Leading Bible Scholars

Regarding Philippians Two

​

Professor Colin Brown of Fuller seminary writes:



“Several scholars have noted that “form of God” may be the equivalent of “image of God.” Jerome Murphy-O’Connor, J.D.G. Dunn, and others have suggested (in my judgment rightly) that the word is not about pre-existence and post-existence, but about the contrast between Christ and Adam.” Kyrios Jesus Revisited.

Similarly:



“From this fact that the Jewish rather than Hellenistic syncretism may be the key to understanding the Philippians hymn, present day exegetes have drawn the radically opposite conclusion that the Philippians hymn does not speak of the pre-existence of Christ at all.” Born Before All Time? p. 250, by Karl-Josef Kuschel.



“The fact that in the context of the hymn in the actual epistle there is no mention at all of this anonymous divine figure who becomes man” The Christian Experience of God as Trinity, p. 52 by James P. Mackey.



“The picture is not of a celestial figure lowering himself to become a man, to be exalted still higher than he was before. Rather, it is that the entire fullness of God was enabled…to find embodiment in one who was completely one of us as any other descendant of Abraham” The Human Face of God, p.166 by J. A. T. Robinson.



“But of pre-existence and equality of being with God we cannot discover any trace in Paul’s letters.” Son of God in the New Testament, p. 45 by Bas van Iersel.



“Philippians 2:6 is primarily concerned with making statements about high status and by no means necessarily concerned with pre-existence.” Klaus Berger (Heidelberg Protestant exegete).



“No pre-existence of Christ before the world with an independent significance can be recognized even in Phil. 2” Anton Vogtle (Freiburg exegete).



“Moreover it can readily be seen that the outline of thought in the Philippian hymn fully matches the two-stage Christology evident elsewhere in first generation Christianity – free acceptance of man’s lot followed out to death, and exaltation to the status of Lord over all” Christology in the Making, p. 115 by James Dunn.

Translation and Comments on Philippians 2:1-11

​

“So, if as those united to Messiah, there is any encouragement, if any consolation of love, if any sharing in spiritual things, if any affection and compassions, 2then complete my joy by having the same way of thinking.

Do this by having the same love. Be in complete harmony and have a single purpose. 3But don’t act out of selfish ambition or empty conceit. In humility consider others more important than yourselves, 4and don’t be looking out only for your own interests, but also for those of others.

5Let each of you develop the above way of thinking, which also was Messiah Jesus’ way of thinking, 6who being in the visible form {or status} of God [as Adam was], did not consider an equal status with God as something to be used for his own benefit, 7but poured out his life [a life of self-sacrifice terminating in the sacrifice of his life: 2:17 and Isa. 53:12], having taken the visible form {status} of a servant [like Adam after his fall into sin], having been born like humans are.

And having been identified in appearance as fully man, 8he humbled himself [becoming the sin offering] and became obedient to death—even to death on a cross. 9For this reason, God has highly exalted him [as the Last Adam] and has given him the authority that is above every authority, 10so that by this authority of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and upon the land and under the ground, 11and every tongue confess that Jesus the Messiah is lord, to the glory of God, the Father.” The Kingdom of God Version

§​

​

​