Hallowed or Hollowed – A study of Philippians 2:7

Any serious student of Christology¹ will undoubtedly be faced with reconciling the issue of the nature of Jesus: Is He fully man, fully God, both? Is that even possible, and how can that be reconciled with Paul exposition in Philippians 2:7 that alternately states “he made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant”; He “made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant”; “but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant”. (NIV, KJV, ESV respectively, emphases added). It will be argued here that Paul’s statement in no way violates the principle of hypostatic union that he espouses in Colossians 2:9: “For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily”. What Jesus vacated as part of His incarnation and earthly ministry was His majesty – the trappings, grandeur and magnificence of His office. However, one must resist the urge to dive into the relevant passage headlong without first examining the context in which the words were penned. It is only when understood in its entirety context that the sacrifice and gravity of His actions can fully be appreciated.

Context

The Book of Philippians was written by Paul most likely in the early 60’s and is regarded as one of his ‘prison epistles. The letter was intended, among other things, to combat false teachings that had sprung up in the church of Philippi. As such Paul’s letter should be regarded as one of instruction and rebuke. However, this is also one of the most informal of Paul’s surviving correspondence. He is writing to a community that he knows intimately and cares a great deal for. Despite his current imprisonment, he finds joy and comfort and he is clearly thankful for the efforts of the church in Philippi for their efforts on his behalf (c.f. Philippians1:3-11; 4:10-20).²

After his typical greeting and prayer (1:1-11), Paul offers a brief discussion of the conditions of his incarceration and how God has allowed him to use the experience to further the gospel (1:12-26). After this he counsels the church to remain strong and conduct themselves in a worthy manner (1:27-30). Beyond this point many commentators disagree on the overall outline of the text, however general consensus holds that what immediately follows is the ideal image of living in Christian humility as shown in the perfect example of Christ Jesus Himself (2:1-11). Paul pleads for humility and unity in the body corporate of the church; he even goes so far as to suggest that his own joy is incomplete without their amenability to this charge.³

Verses 5-11 detail the nature and attitude of Jesus that we should endeavor to imitate at all times in our lives:

⁵ Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: ⁶ Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: ⁷ But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: ⁸ And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. ⁹ Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: ¹⁰ That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; ¹¹ And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. (Philippians 2:5-11, KJV)

Specifically, verses 5-8 offer a three-fold example Christian living: Unity (v 6), Humility (vv 7-8a), and Selflessness (v 8b); while the remainder of the passage demonstrates Christ’s worthiness to be praised. It is important to observe that it was not Paul’s intention to insert doctrine into this letter at this point. It is through his explanation of living in a Christ-like manner, that the truths of His nature and hypostatic union are revealed.⁴ It is highly probable that the passage currently under evaluation (Philippians 2:5-11) is not of Pauline origin. Ample evidence exists to demonstrate that it is, in fact, an early Christian hymn; though its origin and nature are fervently debated.⁵ That Paul chose to use it in his counsel to the church is a testament to his belief in its veracity. Furthermore, the hymn’s inclusion, at least in part, in canonical literature confirms its reliability as inerrant as presented by Paul.

Word Study

It is now within this framework that attention can return to Philippians 2:7. Given the differing emphasis placed on translational philosophies by individual interpreters and their adherents, a survey of alternate translations serves to provide a fuller understanding of this verse and its original intent as written in Greek. Consequently a selection is reproduced here⁶:

King James Version	English Standard Version	Holman Christian Standard Bible	New International Version
But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:	but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant,[a] being born in the likeness of men.	Instead He emptied Himself by assuming the form of a slave, taking on the likeness of men. And when He had come as a man in His external form,	rather, he made himself nothing     by taking the very nature[a] of a servant,     being made in human likeness.
	[a] Greek bondservant		[a] Or the form

For purposes of this word study, the King James Version is the version of choice throughout. The clause, “But made himself of no reputation,” is the keystone of the doctrine of kenosis. The Greek word upon which this principle, and this clause, rest is kenoō. Strong’s defines this in part to mean ‘to deprive of force.’⁷

The second phrase, “took upon him,” results from a translation of the word, lambanō. Lambanō carries with it a strong sense of assuming ownership or taking possession of the object at hand.⁸ The object in this passage is “the form of a servant.” This is a rendering of the Greek words form, morphē, to be made to resemble⁹; and servant, doulos, which is best represented here as one ‘devoted to another to the disregard of one’s own interest.’¹⁰

The final clause, “and was made in the likeness of men”, pivots on the translation of ‘made’, from the Greek, ginomai, to create or become¹¹; ‘likeness’, a transliteration of homoiōma, to resemble such as it amounts to similitude with the object of emulation¹²; and the object of emulation: men, from anthrōpos, a general term which refers to mankind, or humanity.¹³

Possible Exegesis

There are a number of theories, doctrines, and principles that are derived from the kenosis described in verse 7. While it is impractical to attempt to cover all possible ideologies, a sampling are surveyed here to demonstrate the spectrum of thought that springs from the well of kenosis.

First, while it is not a line of kenotic thought per se¹⁴, the notion that there is no doctrine to be gleaned from this passage in regards to the kenosis of Christ certainly bears scrutiny here. Dr. Gutierrez, while not writing about kenosis specifically, finds verse 7 to be part of a larger lesson about the mindset of Jesus and the example that we as Christians can learn from and incorporate into our daily lives. He finds this verse to be about Christ’s humility. He writes: “God Himself came to earth to become a servant and show us the proper attitude of humility.”¹⁵ The strength of this argument lies in silence. Proponents must do nothing as they have no doctrinal standard to defend. Its weakness lies in the inerrancy of the Bible. The scriptures exhibit an economy of revelation; the whole of mankind’s story, past, present, and future are contained within its relatively scant pages leaves little room for wasted words. The inclusion of such a statement, embedded in a hymn, with such profound implications suggests that there is a deeper meaning to be found by the diligent and discerning student.

It has also been suggested that what Jesus emptied Himself of in His incarnation was His power, whether in whole or in part. This is a dangerous and slippery supposition as it leads to other compromises in order to maintain a consistent and cohesive theology. This theory does well to explain why Jesus was able to feel pain, sorrow, fatigue, hunger, temptation, and otherwise be subjected to physical human frailties – in descending into humanity, Jesus gave up His divinity and lived solely as a man. This theory is successfully and skillfully refuted by Charles Buntin who cites the exhibition of Jesus’ divine knowledge and power throughout the Gospels.¹⁶ The works of Jesus were performed under authority of God (c.f. John 7:16, 12:49; 14:24, et al), but by the power of Jesus. Conversely when the apostles were given the great commission, they were counseled to await the comforter who would empower them for the task. Afterward, each miracle performed was done ‘in the name of Jesus’. Furthermore, any loss of power would be an abdication of deity by Jesus as it would change His nature and He then would no longer be God.

The most probable option to be considered here is that what Jesus emptied Himself of was the authority of His office, His divine prerogatives. Walvoord puts it thus: “Taking the whole passage together [Philippians 2:5-11], there is no declaration here that there was any loss of diety, but rather a limitation if its manifestation”¹⁷; in apparent agreement, Towns states: “The solution to the kenosis problem is found in a threefold explanation. Christ emptied Himself” by: (1) “veiling His glory, (2) accepting the limitations of human nature, and (3) voluntarily giving up the independent use of His comparative attributes.”¹⁸ Though distinct individuals, the Trinity always acts in unity. Hence there is no practical need for subservience. The perfect, just and righteous will of one is in accord with the others. During His earthly stay, Jesus humbled Himself to those that should otherwise serve Him (Philippians 2:8), subverted His will to that of the father (Luke 22:42), and in so doing provided for the reconciliation of God to His people. As shall be shown, this pattern is foreshadowed by Old Testament types of Christ. The parallels here are summations, and provide only that which is relevant to the matter at hand. A fuller picture of the resemblances of these select individuals to Christ as types is a worthwhile study but is tangential to our current purpose.

Moses. Moses and Jesus alike were shadowed by death as infants. Both were sons of supreme rulers: Jesus the only begotten of the Father and Moses the (adopted) son of Pharaoh, an earthly ruler revered as a god. In Moses the parallel of Jesus in Philippians 2:7 is found. In order to save his people, Moses was forced to leave behind his status and power as a prince of Egypt. He lived among people that were common shepherds and farmers, himself working as a shepherd; a far cry from the attendants and courtiers that characterized his previous life. In obedience to the will of God, Moses rescued the Israelites from bondage and led them to freedom and a renewed intimacy with God.¹⁹

Joseph. Both Joseph and Jesus were conceived by the direct intervention of God. Both were separated from family, and in the act lost the marks of their status (Joseph’s coat and Jesus’ glory). After which they were both servants. Like Jesus, Joseph lived in obedience to God and as a result he was exalted and was able to provide for the salvation of the Jewish people and reconciliation with his brothers.²⁰

David. While there are many illustrations that can serve to highlight the typification of Christ as presented in Philippians 2:7 with the life of David, the most profound (and most easily missed) is perhaps that of David returning with the Ark of the Covenant (2 Samuel 6). David removed the trappings of his office and moved among the people in only an ephod, a priestly robe. In obedience to God, David made offerings and brought the very presence of God to Jerusalem once more.

Scripture confirms the hypostatic union of Jesus – existing as both fully God and fully man. To suggest that Jesus relinquished any of His deific attributes in His incarnation would mean that He became something less than God. This half-man, half-god would be an insufficient atonement for the sins of mankind; past, present, and future. However that Christ “emptied Himself” is a matter of Biblical record and is something with which man has struggled to reconcile.²¹ The sacrifice that Jesus made was to lay aside his divine authority and to vacate His office and its attending glory and come to the salvation of an unworthy humanity. In being made man, the all-knowing, omnipotent, ever-existent God and Creator of the universe, allowed Himself to become subject to the frailties of man. In spirit we were made in the Image of God, and in flesh God came in our image: to be tempted, suffer betrayal, be tortured and killed by His own creation. Only to rise again in victory and provide for our redemption.

Soli Deo Gloria

References

Bible Gateway, http://www.biblegateway.com

Buntin, Charles T. The Empty God, A Biblical and Theological Answer to the False Doctrine of Kenosis. (1997) Biblical Studies Press, http://www.bible.org

Gutierrez, B. (2011). Living out the Mind of Christ. (pp. 61-83). Virginia Beach: Academx Publishing Services, Inc.

Seeley, David. The Background of the Philippians Hymn (2:6-11), pp 49-72, Institute for Higher Critical Studies, JHC 1 (Fall 1994)

Strong, James, LL.D., S.T.D., (1996). G2758 Kenoō, In The New Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible. Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers

Towns, E. L. (2002). Theology for Today. (pp. 191-192). Mason: Cengage Learning.

Utley, Bob. Commentary on Colossians, Ephesians, Philemon, Philippians, pp. 164-166, (June 27, 1996), East Texas Baptist University

Walvoord, J. F. (1980). Jesus Christ our Lord. (p. 140). Chicago: Moody Pub.

Wenstrom Jr., William E. The Hypostatic Union of Jesus Christ. (2010) Wenstrom Bible Ministries, http://www.wenstrom.org/downloads/written/doctrines/christology/hypostatic_union.pdf, accessed February 17, 2013

Wiersbe, W. W. (2008). Be Joyful. (2nd ed., pp. 29-61). Colorado Springs: David C. Cook.

1 Christology, from the Greek Christos (Christ) + logy (the study of) is the study of the life, works and personage of Jesus as the Christ (Messiah of Jewish Tradition) and Savior of mankind.

2 Commentary on Colossians, Ephesians, Philemon, Philippians, pp 164-166, Dr. Bob Utley, (June 27, 1996), East Texas Baptist University

3 Wiersbe, W. W. (2008). Be Joyful. (2nd ed., pp. 29-61). Colorado Springs: David C. Cook.

4 Gutierrez, B. (2011). Living out the Mind of Christ. (pp. 61-83). Virginia Beach: Academx Publishing Services, Inc.

5 David Seeley, The Background of the Philippians Hymn (2:6-11), pp 49-72, Institute for Higher Critical Studies,

JHC 1 (Fall 1994),

6 Translations and associated footnotes obtained through Bible Gateway: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=philippians 2:7&version=KJV;ESV;HCSB;NIV, as accessed February 16, 2013

7 Strong, James, LL.D., S.T.D., (1996). G2758 Kenoō, In The New Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible. Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers

8 Ibid. G2983 Lambanō.

9 Ibid. G3444 Morphē.

10 Ibid. G1401 Doulos.

11 Ibid. G1096 Ginomai.

12 Ibid. G3666 Homoiōma.

13 Ibid. G444 Anthrōpos.

14 It should be emphasized that Dr. Gutierrez was writing about the mindset of Jesus and was not addressing the issue of kenosis directly. As such it is not to be suggested that the view put forth here is necessarily held by him, merely that it is representative of a particular school of thought.

15 Gutierrez, B. (2011). Living out the Mind of Christ. (p. 67). Virginia Beach: Academx Publishing Services, Inc.

16 Charles T. Buntin. The Empty God, A Biblical and Theological Answer to the False Doctrine of Kenosis. (1997) Biblical Studies Press, http://www.bible.org

17 Walvoord, J. F. (1980). Jesus Christ our Lord. (p. 140). Chicago: Moody Pub.

18 Towns, E. L. (2002). Theology for Today. (pp. 191-192). Mason: Cengage Learning.

19 Walvoord, J. F. (1980). Jesus Christ our Lord. (pp. 68-69). Chicago: Moody Pub.

20 Ibid. pp 66-67.

21 Wenstrom Jr., William E. The Hypostatic Union of Jesus Christ. (2010) Wenstrom Bible Ministries, http://www.wenstrom.org/downloads/written/doctrines/christology/hypostatic_union.pdf, accessed February 17, 2013