PHILIPPIANS 2:5-7

5 Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:
6 Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,
7 but made himself nothing,
taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.

Verse 5 “This section is the most important section in the letter,” says Gerald Hawthorne, “and surely the most difficult to interpret. The number of genuine exegetical problems and the sheer mass of books and articles it has called forth leaves one wondering where to begin, despairing about adding anything new, and well-nigh stricken with mental paralysis.” (Philippians, Word Biblical Commentary vol 43, Waco, Tx (1983), 76.)

That's not encouraging! He’s talking about the whole section from 5-11. Hawthorne himself does manage to say a remarkably number of helpful things about it, though, so perhaps there are a few worthwhile points we can notice…

Once again Paul uses the word phroneo, “think”. He’s said already that Christians should share the same mind; now he wants to spell out in detail what that mental attitude is.

To be technical for a moment, he uses the third person passive imperative, phroneistho. According to Bill Klein, “The passive voice used here indicates that the believer cannot produce the mindset that Jesus had; rather the Lord must develop it in us as we continuously go through the trials and experiences of life.” Our part is to “let this mind be in you”, as the AV puts it. He’s got to develop it; but we have to give him permission.

Verse 6 It’s commonly agreed that verses 6-11 are a quotation from an early Christian hymn. Their rhythmical nature and poetic language make that clear, although scholars who have attempted to reconstruct the whole hymn have usually disagreed with each other. (And not surprisingly; how do we know that Paul wasn’t quoting just those lines which suited his purpose, cheerfully leaving bits out?)

Some scholars have seen quite a few parallels between the details given here and the story of the Last Supper in John 13:3-17. In John, Jesus lays aside his outer garments; here he lays aside his divine nature. In John, he humbles himself to wash feet; here, he takes on the form of a servant. In John, he sits down again at the head of the table; here, God exalts him to the highest place. In John, he says, “You call me master and Lord…” and here, at the end of the hymn, every tongue confesses that Jesus Christ is Lord.

Let’s examine the verse. There are two problems to solve here. First, what does the word “form” actually mean? And second, what is “something to be grasped”?

Hawthorne has three very detailed pages on “form” (morphe) which I won’t even summarize here. But this is his conclusion. “To say, therefore, that Christ existed en morphe theou is to say that outside his human nature Christ had no other manner of existing apart from existing `in the form of God’, that is, apart from being in possession of all the characteristics and qualities belonging to God.”

Paul is making a strong statement about Jesus’ divinity. Hawthorne wonders whether Paul’s Jewish monotheistic upbringing made it difficult or uncomfortable for him to say, as cheerfully and bluntly as we would, “Yes, Jesus is God.” Yet the impact of Christ’s statements, and Christ’s resurrection life, upon his experience made it impossible for him to deny the implications. So he says it in this way – but the meaning is clear!

“Something to be grasped”? Back in church history, the odd word harpagmon was read differently by the Latin Fathers and the Greek Fathers. The Greeks thought of harpagmon as “a treasure”, and translated the verse: “… thought of equality with God as a treasure which he did not greedily cling to”. The Latins translated it as “robbery” or “usurpation”, which produced: “… thought of equality with God as his by right, not as something stolen or usurped”.

Who is right? Probably the Latins. The Expositor’s Greek New Testament says, “"We cannot find any passage where [har.pa'zo] or any of its derivatives [including har.pag.mon'] has the sense of 'holding in possession,' 'retaining'. It seems invariably to mean 'seize,' 'snatch violently'.”

But does it matter? Not really. The claim is the same in either case: Jesus enjoyed equality with God. As far as he was concerned, it wasn’t robbery to make that claim. On the other hand, he didn’t attempt to cling to the treasure of his status, but willingly accepted the limitations of human form for us.

Verse 7 Now we hit the biggest one of all, the phrase which has given rise to “kenoticism”. What’s that? Well, kenosis is the Greek word for “emptying”, and back in the mid-nineteenth century Lutheran theologian Gottfried Thomasius began to query just what it meant that Jesus “emptied himself” (the literal translation of the NIV’s “made himself nothing”.) In what sense was Jesus still God, asked Thomasius, if he limited himself to human form? Does it really make sense to talk about “fully God” and “fully human”, or are the two things a contradiction in terms?

The “kenotic theory” (a complete misnomer, since by now there are dozens of versions of it) was very attractive to liberals who wanted to whittle away the traditional view of Christ’s divine authority. And so the battle lines were set for a century and a half of argument. Conservatives came up with many different versions of what Christ “relinquished” in becoming human: his glory; his independent use of his powers; nothing, since he still had the abilities but chose not to use them – and so on. I’ve put a summary, and more links, here.

I find Hawthorne’s answer most attractive. He points out that the verb kenoun doesn’t just mean “to empty”, but can also mean “to pour out”. So the verse would simply read: “he poured himself out”. It’s not really a learned attempt to define philosophically the difference between Jesus’ pre-incarnate and human states; it’s a hymn! And the purpose of quoting it here is to stress how self-sacrificial Jesus’ incarnation was!

So I don’t think this verse gives us a launching pad for metaphysical speculations about the precise role of omniscience in the career of Jesus, or the ontological limits of his incarnate employment of omnipotence. It’s just saying: look, Jesus poured himself out for us. Let’s do the same for one another.

Paul goes on to say that Jesus took “the very nature of a servant”; there’s the word morphe again. Its use tells us that Jesus wasn’t just pretending to be a “slave” for a while, like Zeus pretending to be a swan in order to rape Leda, or Krishna using the body of Sri Chaitanya as a vehicle temporarily. Jesus really was God; Jesus really was a servant. He entered the world with no rights and privileges of his own, and put himself at the service of us all.

“Human likeness” might at first sight suggest something different: as if he looked like a human, but wasn’t. But homoioma, the word used, doesn’t suggest this; it can mean “identity” as well as “likeness”. (Strong gives as one meaning: “likeness, i.e. resemblance, such as amounts almost to equality or identity”.) And you see that that’s the true meaning if you read on into verse 8: Jesus was also “found in appearance as a man”, which means he was “discovered to be, and recognized as, a man”.

So Paul is saying three important things about Jesus’ humanity: first, he truly took the nature of a human servant of everyone; second, he looked the part in every way; third, he turned out to be just what he claimed. By personal intention, outward appearance and intimate examination, Jesus proves conclusively to be God in human form.