Philippians 2:5-11 And The Mind Of Christ: Rejecting The Descent-Ascent Flow

Philippians 2:5-11

5 Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, 7 but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a servant, {and} coming in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross. 9 Therefore God also has highly exalted Him and given Him the name which is above every name, 10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth, 11 and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

5. Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus,. The mind which Paul exhorts the Philippians to imitate was the loving, self-denying lowliness of mind demonstrated by the Lord Jesus Christ in the flesh. The Christian with this kind of mind will always make himself of service to his fellow men, no matter how ignoble or self-abasing this service may be (cf. John 13:3-17).

Before getting into verses six through eleven, I’ll share with you where I am coming from on these verses. It will then be up to you to decide if my “preunderstanding” is interfering with my interpretation of these passages.

The next seven verses are controversial. Down through the ages, volumes have been written on these passages. They are the center of attention in a controversy over the deity of Christ. The so-called “Kenotic theory” holds that these verses teach that Jesus divested Himself of His Divinity and Godhood and became a man, just a man, and only a man as He lived here on this earth. Therefore, I find it ironic that these passages, which were originally designed to counter factionalism, are used as the basis of dissension among brethren. The truth is, the Bible teaches that Jesus was not just God in human disguise, nor was He simply a man with divine qualities; He was, and is, the God-man, fully man and fully God. Refute this idea and Christianity suffers a mortal blow.

Consequently, it is not surprising to learn that critics of Christianity have pounced upon belief in this core doctrine as being a logical contradiction. They argue that just as it is logically impossible, according to the “law of noncontradiction,” for something to be a property (A) and its logical complement (non-A) at the same time in the same sense, it is just as impossible for Jesus Christ to be fully God and fully man simultaneously. Such critics are quick to point out that God, according to the traditional definition of God, possesses certain attributes that man does not possess, like eternalness, omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence, immutability, incorporeality, and absolute holiness. Contrarily, they tell us, man seems to have the opposite properties, i.e., human beings are not without beginning, not all powerful, not all knowing, not sinless, etc. Therefore, according to these antagonists, the only conclusion to be reached by one who wants to reason soundly is that the doctrine of the Incarnation, as traditionally articulated, is nothing more than an incoherent theological construct pronounced in the creeds of the “early church” councils: namely, the Council of Nicea in 325 and the Council of Chalcedon in 451.

Personally, I have never felt the need to defend the machinations of an apostate church and its councils, but it is only fair to point out that truth is still truth even when it is spoken by an apostate church. The beliefs expressed by the Nicean and Chalcedonian councils that Jesus Christ was fully God and fully man are not inconsistent with what I believe the Bible teaches on the subject. Therefore, when I defend what I believe the Bible to be teaching on this subject, the unprincipled critic will seek to discredit my defense by saying it is simply a regurgitation of the Nicean and Chalcedonian creeds. Unfortunately, there are brethren who have vocalized and written the very same thing. They think a defense of Jesus that says He was, and is, fully God and fully man at the same time is both goofy and laughable. It is, they tell us, a logical contradiction that is not scriptural, and, in the end, is simply a reflection of the man-made creeds of a recreant Christendom. They are wrong!

As long as Colossians 2:9 is a part of Scripture, then I know that all the fullness of the Godhead dwells in Jesus bodily. I did not learn this truth by reason alone. Nevertheless, I am firmly convinced that a revelation from God cannot contradict reason or logic. If it does, then it is not from God. Thus, if Colossians 2:9 is a violation of Logic’s law of non-contradiction, then I would concede that it does not mean what it seems to mean. This is, of course, exactly the conclusion of some among us. Thinking the idea that Jesus was fully God and fully man a logical contradiction, they have attempted to interpret Colossians 2:9 different from the way it has been traditionally understood. According to them, the Son of God gave up His Godhood, divesting Himself of His divine attributes, and became a man, just a man, just an ordinary man like the rest of us. Consequently, they think Colossians 2:9 should be interpreted, “All the blessings of God resided on or in Jesus totally.” But, and here is my point, before one assumes that the clear teaching of a Bible passage is not its true teaching because he thinks the obvious teaching contradicts a rule of logic, he had better make sure he has fully examined his own thinking, fully understands the rule he believes has been violated and has actually formulated the question correctly.

The critics of Jesus being fully God and fully man are wrong not because the law of non-contradiction is faulty (in fact, this law is necessary if we are to make sense of anything), but because they have made some incorrect assumptions about what it means to be human. They have assumed that man’s common characteristics (i.e., not without beginning, not all powerful, not all knowing, not sinless, etc.) are, in fact, essential characteristics of being human. There can be no question that these characteristics are common to mankind, but where is the argument that says they are essential to being fully human? Jesus, I believe, was fully God. Consequently, He possessed certain essential characteristics or attributes of Deity, like eternalness, omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence, immutability, incorporeality, and absolute holiness. In other words, and using the terms of logic, anyone lacking these properties (A) could not be God. But, all this being true, where is the argument—other than a false assumption on the part of the critics—that says the complement (non-A) of these are essential characteristics and attributes of being fully human? True, these are essential characteristics and attributes of being merely human, but the Bible never teaches that Jesus was merely human; it teaches He was and is fully human and fully God at the same time. I am fully human in that I possess all the essential characteristics of basic human nature (e.g., body and spirit). It is in this respect that Jesus is like me. Furthermore, I am merely human in that I have some additional limitation characteristics or properties as well, such as lacking omnipotence, omniscience, etc. In this regard, Jesus was not and is not like me. Correct thinking about Jesus Christ diminishes neither His full and complete Deity nor His full and complete humanity. Far from being contradictory, belief in the God-man is reasonable.

In trying to explain the verses that follow (viz., 6-11), I reject the classical interpretation that says these verses begin with the Son of God in heaven in the glory of His preexistent condition of sharing the divine essence with God the Father (“in the form of God existing”) then tracing His downward movement by means of the incarnation (“Himself He emptied”) to His “cross work” as the Father’s suffering Servant, and then His upward movement by means of the Father’s exaltation through resurrection and ascension to His present session at His Father’s right hand. In rejecting this interpretation, I want to make it very clear that I do not take exception to either the sentiments behind such an interpretation or the “high Christology extracted from these verses by such an exposition. I state, unequivocally, that I do not intend to deny the full, unqualified deity of the incarnated Son or His full equality with the Father in power and glory. One can be assured, then, that I do not espouse the kenotic theory. On the contrary, my interpretation of Philippians 2:6-8 is thought to eliminate any advantage the kenotic theorists believe they have in these verses.

And what are these alleged advantages? First, if one understands, as most do, that the beginning point of the descent-ascent flow of Philippians 2:6-11 is the preexistent state of the Son of God, who existed in the form of God and was equal to God, and take the phrases “Himself He emptied, taking the form of a servant” as the allusion to the “downward” event of the incarnation, then, it is only with great difficulty, because of the intervening clause, that one can avoid the conclusion that the “emptying” involved His surrendering the “form” (“very nature”—NIV) of God. About this, Lightfoot, Warfield, Murray, Wells et al. say, “When our Lord is said to be in `the form of God,’ therefore, He is declared, in the most express manner possible, to be all that God is, to possess the whole fullness of attributes which make God God” (Warfield, The Person and Work of Christ, p. 39). The advantage the kenotic theorists think they have is the intervening clause, “He did not consider His equality with God [i.e., His divine nature] a thing to be held onto,” which in the flow of things has to reflect an attitude in the preexistent Son on the “prior side” of the incarnation. What would be the point of telling us the pre-incarnate Son did not consider His equality with God or divine nature a thing to be held onto if He did not, as the next clause says, “empty Himself”?

Although I totally reject the kenotic doctrine, it seems that these verses, as traditionally interpreted (viz., the descent-ascent flow), give credence to the kenotic assertion that the preexistent Son of God gave up at least some of His equality with God in the incarnation. One can escape this dilemma by only one of two methods: hermeneutical gymnastics or a rejection of the traditional interpretation.

When resorting to hermeneutical gymnastics, some say that the Son did not divest Himself of His divine attributes, but only the independent use of these attributes. But when did the Son ever exercise His attributes independently? Others say He did not divest Himself of His deity, but only His rights (i.e. powers and prerogatives). But which rights did He give up when He became a man? Still, others say He did not divest Himself of His deity, but only His divine glory. But does not this divine glory belong to deity? Remember, the traditional interpretation of this passage says that the pre-incarnate Son of God did not consider His “equality with God” a thing to be held onto. Therefore, He emptied Himself and took the form of a servant. I believe the latter are right when they say the majestic glory (doxa) of the incarnate Son of God was veiled by His flesh (cf. Hebrews 10:20). Otherwise, why would He pray that the Father restore to Him the glory He had with Him before the world was (cf. John 17:5)? However, the traditional interpretation does not say that the pre-incarnate Son of God did not think His “majestic glory” was something that He needed to hold on to; instead, it says, He did not consider His “equality with God” a thing to be held onto. Consequently, according to the traditional interpretation, not holding on to “equality with God,” the Son of God emptied himself by taking the form of a servant. The emptying, one would argue, was effected by the Son taking on the role of a servant and being seen in appearance as a man. But, in reality, this will simply not work when one wants to turn around and argue that the Son did not give up His equality with God. It now looks to me like there is something terribly wrong with such hermeneutical gymnastics.

A Rejection Of The Descent-Ascent Flow

This brings us to a closer examination of my rejection of the classical interpretation of Philippians 2:6-11. I reject the idea that these verses indicate a descent-ascent flow. I believe these verses begin with the incarnate Son of God, who, in his incarnated state, existed in the very form of God (i.e., possessed all the characteristics and attributes of the divine nature). In other words, Philippians 2:6a and Colossians 2:9 are parallel in that they teach that all the fullness of the Godhead (i.e., all the characteristics and attributes of deity) dwelt in Jesus’ body. Consequently, the attitude of mind these passages instruct us to develop is not that of the pre-incarnate Son of God, but the humility exhibited by the God-man, Jesus Christ, the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53, who poured Himself out unto death (cf. I Peter 2:18-25).

With this said, let’s spend some time with verses six through eleven.

6. Who,. This speaks antecedently of Jesus Christ. Being in the form of God,. This is not speaking of His pre-existence. This speaks of the Word (Logos) after He became flesh and dwelt among us (John 1:14). While on earth, He was in the form of God. In other words, all the fullness of the Godhead dwelt in Him bodily (Colossians 2:9). Did not consider it robbery to be equal with God,. In the Greek, the word translated “robbery” means “the act of seizing.” Therefore, this passage could rightly be rendered “did not regard equality with God a thing to be seized.” Paul, who in other places is willing to contrast the first Adam with Christ, who he called the “last Adam” (cf. Romans 5:12-19; I Corinthians 15:45-49), is here saying that Jesus Christ, the “last Adam,” unlike the first Adam, did not attempt to seize equality with God, the Father. You remember that in the Serpent’s temptation, he said, “…you will be like [or equal to] God” (Genesis 3:5). Jesus, the Last Adam, when urged to “seize equality with God” (cf. Matthew 4:3,6: “Since you are the Son of God…”) by taking matters into his own hands and asserting His rights as the Son per se and not as the Son already dispatched on His Messianic mission as the Servant of the Lord, “did not regard equality with God a thing to be seized.” Jesus, praise God, refused to succumb to the tempter’s suggestion that He achieve “lordship” of the kingdoms of the world (Matthew 4:8) by a means of self-exaltation. Let this same mind be in us also.

7. But made Himself of no reputation,. In the flesh, as the Servant of the Lord, the Son of God made Himself of no reputation or, as other translations put it, He emptied Himself. The Greek word under consideration is kenoo. It is from this word that the kenotic theory gets its name. Again, this theory contends that the divine Logos, who had been equal with God in heaven, gave up (emptied) His Godhead and became a man, just a man, and only a man. Actually, kenoticists try to make this phrase say that He emptied something out of Himself (viz., His divine attributes). The point is, Jesus emptied Himself (i.e., He humbled Himself or “made Himself of no reputation”). We will have more to say about this further along. Taking the form of a servant,. Here now is the real crux of the matter. Did Jesus empty Himself or make Himself of no reputation by taking on the form of a servant, as the passage, as translated, clearly seems to indicate, or is there another way of translating this phrase? The Greek word translated “taking” in this phrase is lambano, an aorist participle, and can be translated “having taken,” according to a common rule of Greek syntax which says that an aorist participle generally denotes action preceding the main verb. (Anyone interested in pursuing this further is referred to Robert L. Reymond, Jesus, Divine Messiah, fn. 54, p. 264.) Of course, this puts a whole different twist on the verse. Jesus’ emptying did not occur prior to Him taking the form of a servant; instead, it occurred coincident with it. In other words, Jesus Christ, who was and is God, even when He took upon Himself flesh, did not, unlike Adam, regard equality with God a thing to be seized at His temptation by a self-willed exercise of power, but poured Himself out unto death, having taken the form of the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53. In fact, the phrase “He emptied Himself” is the nonliteral Greek equivalent of the “He poured out His soul [which means, `He poured Himself out’] unto death” (which means, “He voluntarily died”) of Isaiah 53:12. Thus interpreted, the phrase refers to the humble sacrifice of Jesus’ life and not the self-emptying of His incarnation. And coming in the likeness of men. “And” is supplied by the translators in order to connect this phrase with the preceding phrase, “taking the form of a servant.” Actually, a separation could just as legitimately be made between these two phrases, with “coming in the likeness of men” being the starting point for a retelling of what has already been mentioned. Redundancy is an excellent way to teach and is often resorted to by the apostle Paul. Consequently, I am suggesting that a period after “servant” in the preceding phrase is just as legitimate as the present punctuation. This means that “Coming [or `having been born’] in the likeness of men” ought to start the next verse. (Remember, verses and numbers were added later and are not inspired.)

8. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross. Put a comma after “men” in the previous phrase, and you have the completed idea that having been born in the precise likeness of men, and having been found by external appearance to be a man, Jesus humbled Himself, having become obedient unto death—even the death of the cross. Again, tie this in with Isaiah 53, and the point Paul is making is emphatic.

9. Therefore God also has highly exalted Him and given Him the name which is above every name,. Because of Christ’s servant work, He has been highly exalted and given a name above all others. The exaltation mentioned in this passage does not refer directly to God the Son per se, but to God the Son in His incarnate state as the Messiah. In other words, it is the God-man, Jesus Christ, who is exalted. Therefore, without denigrating in any way His divine nature, it can be said that the Father’s exaltation of Jesus Christ entailed for the Son, as the Messiah, a new and genuine experience of exaltation.

10. That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth,. The King’s name is Jesus. Because we must use the word “human” as part of our description of Him now, we can also say that something truly new and unique occurred at the resurrection and ascension of Jesus Christ: Jesus the man—the Last Adam—assumed actual sovereignty over the universe, over all the principalities and powers in heavenly places, and over all other men, demanding that they submit to the authority of His scepter.

11. And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. Some day, at the mentioning of Jesus’ name, every knee will bow, and every tongue will confess that Jesus, the Messiah, is Lord! This confession will redound to the glory of the Father, who elevated Jesus to this exalted state.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *