The second question is in reference to Philippians 2:6-8. You seem to follow the standard approach of the kenosis happening in eternity past or at least at the time of Jesus' birth. Is there anything in the text itself which requires the emptying of Jesus to be then? There is only one time specific reference in the whole passage, as I see it, and that is the reference to Jesus' death. Is it not possible for the emptying to have taken place in the Garden of Gethsemane or even on the cross (stake)?
My response:
I personally think that it is possible Paul could have been referring to the Christ Event [Jesus becoming human] or to the death of Jesus when he spoke of the Messiah emptying himself. But I do not find that interpretation [i.e. the death of Jesus representing his emptying] as compelling for the following reasons.
(1) Phil. 2:5-11 seems to be modeled after Isa. 52-53, where we read about the preexistent Messiah (the Suffering Servant of YHWH) who humbles himself and is subsequently exalted. See L. Gregory Bloomquist's excellent and detailed treatment of Phil. 2:5-11 in The Function of Suffering in Philippians (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993), pp. 160-168.
(2) EN MORFH QEOU appears to be a dative of indirect object that describes "an exalted heavenly figure very close to God," but not one who possesses absolute divinity (Osiek, Carolyn. Philippians, Philemon. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2000). See page 60. Furthermore, "This interpretation is enhanced by the rest of verse 6: he did not consider it a hARPAGMOS, something to be seized or exploited, to be ISA QEWi, equal or of equal status to God" (Osiek 60). The semantic value of MORFH in relation to QEOU may also strengthen the connection with preexistence. [That is, the term probably means "external appearance" or "shape." I.e., the Son appears to reflect the divine glory in his preexistence.]
(3) EN MORFH DOULOU seems to be contrasted with EN MORFH DOULOU. EN MORFH DOULOU appears to juxtapose Christ's earthly mode of being with his heavenly heavenly manner of existence.
(4) Phil 2:5-11 also appears to bear some resemblance
to Col 1:15-16 and Heb 1 & 2 as well as Jn 1:1-18,
which also speak to Christ's pre-existence and his
katabasis as well as his subsequent anabasis.
Moreover, the katabasis/anabasis themes in Second
Temple Judaism normally involve a heavenly figure
becoming human (e.g., the Son of Man).
But, I will concede that the text could be read in the
way that you suggest. I just do not think that is a
likely reading when one considers all of the relevant
exegetical factors, however.
Best regards,
Edgar
The suggestion that the kenosis occurred in Gethsemane or on the cross is problematic because the text of Philippians 2:6-7 clearly indicates that Christ’s self-emptying began at the moment of the Incarnation. The passage states that Christ "was in the form of God" before He "emptied Himself" and took on "the form of a servant." This indicates that the self-emptying happened as part of the Incarnation, when He voluntarily gave up the privileges of His divine status to become human. The act of emptying precedes His death, and it is an ongoing process that begins when He took on human nature, not something that occurred only at the end of His earthly life.
ReplyDeleteWhile Philippians 2:5-11 echoes the suffering servant theme of Isaiah 52-53, the focus of Philippians is broader. The kenosis is not merely about Christ’s death, but about His whole incarnational descent, beginning with His decision to take on the form of a servant. The text contrasts two states of being: Christ's pre-incarnate divine status ("the form of God") and His incarnation ("the form of a servant"). Thus, the kenosis cannot be confined to the events of Gethsemane or the cross—it began when Christ took on human nature.
The phrase "en morphē theou" in Philippians 2:6 emphasizes Christ’s pre-incarnate divine status, not just an outward appearance, as suggested. If "morphē" merely referred to external form, the passage would imply that Christ was only outwardly divine before the Incarnation, which would reduce His divinity to appearance and contradict the broader theological understanding of Christ’s divine nature. Moreover, Paul is drawing a contrast between Christ’s pre-incarnate existence (in the form of God) and His incarnate state (in the form of a servant), highlighting His humility in choosing not to exploit His divine equality.
As you noted, Philippians 2:5-11 shares thematic connections with Colossians 1:15-16, Hebrews 1-2, and John 1:1-18, all of which emphasize Christ’s pre-existence and the descent/ascent motif. These texts affirm that Christ existed in the divine realm before becoming human, and that His self-emptying refers to the act of incarnation, not just His death. The "kenosis", therefore, aligns with the broader New Testament portrayal of Christ’s voluntary assumption of human nature as the central act of humility, rather than a momentary event in Gethsemane or on the cross.