There is an interesting discussion of Philippians 2:6ff in Gerald Hawthorne's Philippians commentary; he believes that it is erroneous to translate ὃς ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ ὑπάρχων as a concessive participial phrase (Hawthrone, Philippians, 85).
Hawthorne elects to render the phrase causatively: "precisely because he was in the form of God he reckoned equality with God not as a matter of getting but of giving."
Of course this view seems to presuppose that Jesus is ontologically equal to God and that ἁρπαγμὸν refers to an act of giving as opposed to getting (snatching). So while Hawthorne's proposal is innovative, to say the least, I am not convinced for a number of grammatical reasons.
Firstly, construing ὑπάρχων concessively is more in keeping with the context. If we translate the participial phrase concessively, it illuminates the second part of Phil. 2:6, which reads ἡγήσατο τὸ εἶναι ἴσα θεῷ (Moises Silva, Philippians, 123).
Secondly, within the immediate context of Phil. 2:6a, the humility of Christ is truly emphasized if we construe the participial phrase in a concessive manner. As a matter of fact, Richard A Young also renders this part of the verse concessively:
"Although he existed in the very nature of God" (Young, Intermediate New Testament Greek, 156).
While I agree with Young's rendering of the participial phrase to an extent (since he renders the verse in a concessive manner), I take exception to his translation "the very nature of God" for lexical semantic and theological reasons.
It does not seem that Phil. 2:6 wants to make the claim that Jesus was "equal to God" or bore God's nature. There is an alternate explanation for τὸ εἶναι ἴσα θεῷ. Granted, some exegetes want to interpret the Greek article in τὸ εἶναι ἴσα θεῷ anaphorically, thus they would have the article refer back to ὃς ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ ὑπάρχων. Yet, grammarian Daniel B. Wallace writes:
"[N. T.] Wright argues that the article is anaphoric, referring back to μορφῇ θεοῦ. As attractive as this view may be theologically, it has a weak basis grammatically. The infinitive is the object and the anarthrous term, ἁρπαγμός, is the complement. The most natural reason for the article with the infinitive is simply to mark it out as the object."
See https://bible.org/article/meaning-philippians-26-overlooked-datum-functional-inequality-within-godhead
Additionally, P. M. Casey notes:
"On a strict definition of 'incarnation,' Philippians 2:6-11 does not qualify because Jesus was not fully divine, in the view of the original author" (From Jewish Prophet to Gentile God [Cambridge, UK and Louisville, KY: James Clarke and Westminster/John Knox, 1991], 112-114).
While the NIV translates Phil. 2:6, "Who being in very nature God," Carolyn Osiek believes that this rendering is not wholly faithful to the Greek text. Contra the NIV, she does not think 2:6 teaches the absolute Deity of Christ (See Osiek 2000:60ff).
13 comments:
Nice post, Edgar. While I previously wavered between Hoover's view and Wallace's view, I've come to think that Wallace is not only correct, but almost certainly correct, thanks to Denny Burk's DTS thesis on Philippians 2, entitled "The Meaning of HARPAGMOS at Philippians 2:6"
A few brief quotes by Burk's thesis reveal the power of the argument:
"There are many non-anaphoric examples of the articular infinitive in the accusative case as well–indeed, many more than in the nominative case. In fact, it is difficult to construe an anaphoric reference for the majority of the accusative examples of this construction." (ibid, p. 47)
"…the grammatical context of the sentence requires the presence of the article in this particular infinitive phrase. If the article were not present in Philippians 2:6, the sentence would make little if any grammatical sense…the article is required in this context as a grammatical function marker to distinguish the accusative object from the accusative compliment." (ibid, p. 50)
And
"In such reversed order situations where neither of the accusatives is a proper name or pronoun, the presence of the article is syntactically required in order to indicate which accusative is functioning as the object. Such is the case at Philippians 2:6." (ibid, p. 52).
So, at Philippians 2:6, Paul HAD to include the article to indicate which accusative is functioning as the object.
~Kaz
Just for the sake of argument, let's say that the NIV is correct in construing an ontological use of MORPHE at Philippians 2:6. Wouldn't the logical flow of the account then suggest (or necessitate?) that said "equality" is what the preexistent Son gave up by "emptying" himself?
It might be possible to avoid such a conclusion, but I'm not sure how if one takes an ontological reading. Thus, the NIV may actually undermine the very doctrine they seek to uphold with such a paraphrase, because God can't cease to be divine, whereas one of the created ELOHIM plausibly can.
~Kaz
Kaz,
I can think of 1 strategy that Trinitarians might use. They could argue that the Son did not empty himself of anything--he just emptied *himself*. Silva has an interesting discussion on this expression.
Edgar,
"I can think of 1 strategy that Trinitarians might use. They could argue that the Son did not empty himself of anything--he just emptied *himself*. Silva has an interesting discussion on this expression."
Yes, Trinitarians, like the rest of us, can be quite inventive in defending their view. But as Silva pointed out in a totally unrelated discussion (about Scriptural infallibility), sometimes the answers given to defend a preferred view can savor of in-authenticity (to paraphrase).
~Kaz
Hi Kaz,
I guess we usually feel compelled to give some kind of response. Yet not just any old reply will do, although that hasn't deterred some. :)
One can find examples in my "Christology" book that indicate how at least a few Trinitarians have tried to wrestle with the issues we're discussing:
"The self-emptying permitted the addition of humanity and did not involve in any way the subtraction of deity or the use of the attributes of deity. There was a change of form but not of content of the Divine Being . . . He added humanity. And this in order to be able to die" (Charles C. Ryrie, Basic Theology, 262-263).
I critique Ryrie in the book, but another writer who takes a similar line of attack is Rob Bowman. I've personally replied to his comments on Phil 2:6 in a public forum. Nonetheless, I imagine he still believes that the kenosis of Christ did not involve a literal self-emptying.
Edgar,
I think I remember the dialogue, a little. It seems pretty clear - to me at least - that if one accepts a preexistence reading of Philippians 2, and opts to infer "nature" from MORPHE, then the emptying had to involve giving up the divine nature. This is suggested by the flow of the narrative, IMO, and demanded by the result (sacrificial death).
~Kaz
Kaz,
For some reason, I couldn not find the old dialogue between Bowman and me. However, I did find these notes that might shed light on how Bowman and others reason about the kenosis:
Moises Silva tends to construe hARPAGMON passively, yet he sees a
notional contrast between Phil 2:6 and vs. 7. See pp. 117-118
of his commentary on Philippians. On the other hand, Gerald Hawthorne thinks hUPARXWN is causative: "precisely BECAUSE he was in the form of God he
reckoned ewuality with God . . . KTL."
He believes that a contrast is set out clearly in Phil 2:7: "Not this . . . but this!" Hawthorne interprets Christ's kenosis as an act of putting oneself at the total disposal of others. He argues that it is unnecessary to supply a genitive of content
from the surrounding verses to explain Christ's self-emptying. In other words, no need to say that Christ emptied himself of God's form, glory, etc. He just emptied himself or performed a selfless act.
While it is true that translating ὑπάρχων as concessive ("although existing") can emphasize Christ's humility, Hawthorne's proposal to render it causatively—"because he was in the form of God"—better captures the theological depth of Paul's message. The focus is not simply on Jesus' humility, but on the profound nature of divine humility. Christ’s choice to not "grasp" at equality with God is seen as an expression of His divine nature. Far from diminishing the emphasis on humility, this view highlights that Christ’s very divinity compels Him toward humility and self-giving.
This fits well with Paul’s overall message in Philippians 2, where the self-emptying of Christ (kenosis) is a divine act of giving, rather than a mere refusal to take or grasp. Christ’s decision to take the form of a servant is presented as the ultimate expression of the divine nature, which is oriented toward self-sacrifice and love.
While you argue that the concessive rendering fits the context better, this is not a definitive grammatical rule. The participle ὑπάρχων can indeed be translated causally in other New Testament contexts. The question of causality versus concession depends heavily on the broader theological and literary context of Philippians 2. Hawthorne’s suggestion that Jesus’ divine nature leads to His self-giving aligns with Paul's Christology and the overarching narrative of Christ’s humility.
Moreover, while Richard A. Young and others prefer a concessive translation, this does not rule out a causative one. In fact, many translations and commentaries see the causative reading as more consistent with the theology of kenosis.
You mention that the term "μορφῇ θεοῦ" should not be understood as referring to Christ's divine nature but only to His external appearance. However, this interpretation seems reductive in light of the context. In Philippians 2:6-7, "μορφῇ θεοῦ" is contrasted with "μορφὴν δούλου" ("form of a servant"). If "μορφῇ" only refers to outward appearance, then the passage would imply that Jesus merely appeared to be a servant, which aligns with docetic heresies that deny Christ’s true humanity. But orthodox Christian theology, and the clear intent of Paul, affirm that Jesus fully became a servant, truly taking on human nature.
By the same logic, "μορφῇ θεοῦ" in verse 6 cannot simply refer to outward appearance; it refers to the true nature of Jesus as divine, just as "μορφὴν δούλου" refers to His true assumption of humanity. The broader context of Philippians 2 demands that "μορφῇ θεοῦ" be understood in terms of Jesus' divine nature rather than just an external form.
Your objection to Hawthorne’s interpretation of "ἁρπαγμός" as an act of giving rather than grasping rests on a narrower view of the term’s meaning. While "ἁρπαγμός" traditionally refers to something seized or grasped, many scholars argue that in this context it refers to something not exploited. Christ’s equality with God is something He already possesses and thus does not need to grasp or exploit. The emphasis is on His choice not to use His divine status for His own advantage, but to empty Himself for the sake of others. This reading fits the flow of Paul’s argument, where the self-emptying of Christ is the ultimate expression of His divine humility.
You cite P.M. Casey and Carolyn Osiek as rejecting the full divinity of Christ in Philippians 2:6-7. However, these interpretations overlook the clear theological intent of the passage. Paul’s use of the phrase "μορφῇ θεοῦ" suggests not merely an external form, but the true nature of Christ as divine. Furthermore, the contrast with "μορφὴν δούλου" indicates that Paul is speaking of a profound change in Christ's state, from divine glory to human humility. This kenosis, or self-emptying, makes sense only if Jesus is truly divine. Otherwise, the act of self-emptying would not carry the profound significance that Paul attributes to it.
Burk's argument about the grammatical necessity of the article in the infinitive phrase in Philippians 2:6 is sound in a technical sense—Paul used the article to clarify the relationship between the accusative object and complement. However, this argument is primarily grammatical and does not necessarily disprove the ontological reading of morphe theou ("form of God") in the passage. The presence of the article clarifies syntax, but it does not alter the semantic content of morphe or harpagmos.
The key issue in interpreting morphe theou is not whether Paul employed proper grammatical structures but what morphe itself conveys in this context. As previously noted, the contrast between morphe theou and morphe doulou (form of a servant) strongly suggests that Paul is dealing with more than external appearance or status—he is referring to the essential nature of Christ, particularly in His divine and human forms.
You suggest that if „morphe” is taken ontologically, the logical conclusion would be that Christ gave up His equality with God in the kenosis. However, this interpretation misreads the text. Philippians 2:6 says that Christ "did not consider equality with God something to be grasped" (harpagmos), which means He did not exploit His divine status for His own advantage. The kenosis refers to Christ voluntarily relinquishing the privileges of His divine status, not His divine essence.
Thus, Christ did not "give up" His divinity in the incarnation but chose to take on human nature and the limitations that come with it. This is consistent with the orthodox Christian understanding of the incarnation: Jesus remained fully God while becoming fully human. The kenosis is an act of humility, where Christ lays aside His divine privileges, not His divine nature.
You quote various sources, including Charles C. Ryrie, who argue that Christ's self-emptying did not involve a subtraction of His deity but rather an addition of humanity. This view is central to Trinitarian theology, and it addresses your concern about God ceasing to be divine. Trinitarians do not claim that Christ stopped being God during His earthly ministry. Rather, Christ’s divinity remained intact, but He voluntarily limited the independent exercise of His divine attributes in order to fully experience human life, suffering, and death.
Your critique of this view seems to conflate kenosis with a literal "emptying" of divine attributes. However, the passage does not require such a reading. The phrase "He emptied Himself" is better understood as Christ’s voluntary humility in taking on human nature. This interpretation preserves the integrity of Christ's divine nature while also explaining His full participation in human experience.
Your argument that harpagmos refers to "grasping" or "seizing" focuses on the idea that Christ chose not to seize equality with God. However, this assumes that Christ did not already possess this equality, which contradicts the broader New Testament witness to Christ’s divine status (e.g., John 1:1-3, Colossians 1:15-20, Hebrews 1:3). The more consistent interpretation is that harpagmos refers to Christ not using His divine status for personal gain or exploitation, despite already being equal with God.
Moises Silva and other scholars argue that this reading is more faithful to the context of Philippians 2, where Paul emphasizes Christ’s humility and obedience, not a denial of His divinity. Christ, though fully divine, chose the path of humility and servanthood, becoming obedient to the point of death.
The idea that kenosis involves giving up divine nature is a misunderstanding of the text. Philippians 2:6-7 describes Christ's humility in "emptying" Himself, but this does not mean He abandoned His divine nature. Instead, it means that Christ, while remaining fully divine, chose to take on human nature and the limitations that come with it. The act of kenosis does not require Christ to cease being God; rather, it signifies a voluntary limitation of His divine privileges.
As Moises Silva and other scholars point out, the contrast in Philippians 2:6-7 is not between Christ's divinity and His humanity, but between His choice not to exploit His divine status and His willingness to take on human servanthood. The text does not imply that Christ gave up His divine nature but that He chose not to use His divine status for personal advantage.
The flow of Philippians 2 emphasizes Christ's humility rather than any supposed renunciation of His divine nature. In verse 6, Christ, "being in the form of God," did not consider equality with God something to be exploited for selfish gain (harpagmos). Instead, in verse 7, He "emptied Himself" by taking the form of a servant and becoming obedient to the point of death.
This self-emptying is an act of humility, not a shedding of divinity. Christ's divine nature remained intact, but He willingly took on the limitations of human existence to fulfill His mission of salvation. The kenosis is about Christ's humility and willingness to serve, not about Him giving up His divine essence.
Gerald Hawthorne's interpretation that Christ's kenosis is an act of putting oneself at the total disposal of others aligns well with the broader theological context of Philippians 2. Hawthorne rightly points out that it is unnecessary to supply a genitive of content to explain Christ's self-emptying. Christ did not "empty" Himself of His divine nature; rather, He performed a selfless act by choosing to take on human form and suffer death.
This understanding of kenosis fits with the overall message of Philippians 2, which emphasizes Christ's humility and willingness to serve, not a divestment of His divine nature. Christ's act of self-emptying is a model of humility for believers, demonstrating that true greatness lies in serving others.
If we follow your reasoning that Christ gave up His divine nature in the kenosis, it would contradict the core Christian doctrine of the Incarnation. According to orthodox Christian theology, Jesus is fully God and fully man—His divine nature was not diminished or abandoned in the Incarnation. Rather, Christ took on human nature while remaining fully divine. This theological truth is affirmed throughout the New Testament, including passages like John 1:1-14, Colossians 1:15-20, and Hebrews 1:1-3.
I've allowed this reply, but some of these are overlapping with other threads. Please keep this in mind. Thanks.
Post a Comment