Commenting on Philippians 2:6 from the TNIV, Gordon Fee clarify a reality of the first century Christians.
What the earliest followers of Christ had come to believe, of course, on the basis of his resurrection and ascension, was that the one whom they had known as truly human had himself known prior existence in the “form” of God – not meaning that he was “like God but really not” but that he was characterized by what was essential to being God. It is this understanding that (correctly) lies behind the TNIV’s “in very nature God.” And it is this singular reality, lying in the emphatic first position as the phrase does, that gives potency to what follows and therefore to the whole. – Gordon Fee, “Pauline Christology” p379
the archives near Emmaus 
I am with Fee on this. I know that some recent scholars want to argue that Paul meant something else (less than preexistence) but it seems pretty straightforward to me!
Brian, I often try to visualize what it must have been like to only think of Jesus as human only to learn as time progressed that he was in fact the very nature of God. Being raised Cathloic I was taught to believe that Jesus was God, without ever really thinking about his humanity.
My upbringing emphasizes his deity to the exclusion of his humanity as well. It wasn’t intentional but it was what it was. I thought of Jesus with a outer coat of a human body more or less. It took several years to comprehend the idea of him being “fully human” and all that that includes.
Brian, for a long, long time after I left Catholicism I didn’t think about his humanity and when I did, I was confused so I just left it alone. Finally I had decided that I was not going to ignore it any longer and it was one of the most rewarding studies I had ever done.
It was for me as well. In fact, one of the biggest surprises for me in college was the realization that most of the scholarly world had no problem with his humanity. It was his deity that was suspect. For many sects in the early church it seems like it was the other way around
The mention of the “form of God” is part of his contrast with Adam, who was likewise made in God’s “image and likeness.” The point is that in contrast with Adam, Jesus did not attempt to seize equality with God by eating the forbidden fruit, but was obedient. In response to his obedience, God gave him a huge promotion to the position of “lord” – the “title above all titles” (not, “name”). God has a form and that form is human form.
Forgot to subscribe…
Wounded Ego,
I think J.D.G. Dunn made a similar argument but it doesn’t fully explain the context of the passage. It goes on to say that he took on the form of a servant by being born in the likeness of men. I don’t think this is a decision that can be made unless preexistence is in play.
>>>I think J.D.G. Dunn made a similar argument but it doesn’t fully explain the context of the passage.
The context of this passage is *mindset* – particularly that of having the attitude of a servant, rather than selfishly ambitious, is it not? It is a pattern that the believer is being urged to imitate. It is not about metaphysics, reincarnation, Trinity or any such thing. The believer is not to emulate “emptying oneself of deity” but rather of “become un-self-important” (as Paul does, when he says “but I count those things as rubbish” and “forgetting what lies behind”). That is the context. That is what Paul is seeking to inspire.
>>>It goes on to say that he took on the form of a servant by being born in the likeness of men. I don’t think this is a decision that can be made unless preexistence is in play.
Why would Jesus contemplate seizing deity if he was already eternally co-equal with the father? How could he be promoted to lord as a reward?
The word is not “was born” but is a deponent, saying “he became.”
Christians like to speak of how Jesus loved the world and gave himself to save it, as you are reading it here. But the scriptures say that *God* loved the world and *he* gave his only son. The son’s virtue is obedience to the death on the stake. He did not “take the honor to himself”:
Hebrews 5:4 And no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron.
Hebrews 5:5 So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee.
See also John 3:16, etc.
All of the emptying stuff was in his mind and attitude (all in participles) and what he does is “he became obedient.” Note when he did this:
“And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself,”
In other words, he humbled himself *when he was a man* – not when he was “eternally co-equal with the father.”
As Hebrews says:
Hebrews 5:
7 Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared;
8 Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered;
9 And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;
Revelation 3:21 To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.
Wounded Ego,
I have blogged on this verses before you can go there if you are interested in my thoughts and conclusion on this matter.
Understanding the Humanity of Christ
WE,
I am not sure why you find the language of this passage to be so complex. Paul has the incarnation in view. ἁρπαγμός does imply he had to seize something that he did not have but rather grasp onto something that he could not release. He willingly did not grasp onto his status.
He took on the form of a bondservant and he was made in the likeness of man. Sure, Adam had this experience but it was not a humbling. He had no where to step down from and he had nothing to grasp onto in order to retain.
His exaltation, again, has the incarnation in view. In spite of his willingness to take on our human existence this did not prevent him from ascending back to his rightful place as king though forever as the God-man.
I am not sure what the point of your other quotations are since Christians glory in the fact that Christ is man. We are not ashamed of it. We know that he worked as a real human with full humanity.
>>>Commenting on Philippians 2:6 from the TNIV, Gordon Fee clarify a reality of the first century Christians….
The TNIV is a bogus representation of Philippians 2, and is a very inappropriate starting point for a discussion of the passage.
“Philippians 2:6 who, existing in the form of God, did not consider equality with God as something to be used for His own advantage.” HCSB
>>>I am not sure why you find the language of this passage to be so complex.
There are many difficult features of the language of this passage, along with at least one not insignificant textual issue. The TNIV is a bogus translation of the chapter and should be ignored completely.
>>>Paul has the incarnation in view.
Paul is discussing the mind and example of Jesus for believers to emulate, which is adopting a servant’s mindset and obedience.
>>>ἁρπαγμός does imply he had to seize something that he did not have but rather grasp onto something that he could not release. He willingly did not grasp onto his status.
That is a confused paragraph, but I think I know what you were trying to say. But that is not what the text says… he is saying that equality with God was not “booty” – goods to plunder or that one has plundered. It is not, as you suggest, something “dear.” Clearly in this context, it is not booty to be seized, as Adam attempted to seize equality with God.
>>>He took on the form of a bondservant and he was made in the likeness of man.
Human form is not that of a bondservant. Human form is the form, image and likeness of God. The point is that Jesus humbled himself from dominion, to service and obedience to death.
>>>Sure, Adam had this experience but it was not a humbling.
When Adam was made, he was made to have dominion over all God’s works.
>>>He had no where to step down from and he had nothing to grasp onto in order to retain.
Right. But he sought to seize by robbery (or rob by seizure) equality with God:
Genesis 3:5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
>>>His exaltation, again, has the incarnation in view.
Ha! That’s a joke!
>>>In spite of his willingness to take on our human existence this did not prevent him from ascending back to his rightful place as king though forever as the God-man.
Creative, but denied by Paul’s assertion that Jesus was greatly exalted (highly promoted). If he started out as eternally co-equal, then he was actually lowered, since the father alone is God, and Jesus is at his right hand (dependent position) serving God as his priest. This is temporary, until his 1000 year rule is up, and he has to step down so that God can be “all in all”:
1 Corinthians 15:28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.
>>>I am not sure what the point of your other quotations are since Christians glory in the fact that Christ is man. We are not ashamed of it. We know that he worked as a real human with full humanity.
Trinitarians are true sociopaths since the bells don’t go off in their consciences when they commit double-speak. They say “We believe in only ONE God… the father, Jesus and the Holy Ghost.” Then they say, “Jesus was completely human – (except that he was God – except that he emptied himself – but was never not God”) etc.
It is, at best, madness.
>>>“Philippians 2:6 who, existing in the form of God, did not consider equality with God as something to be used for His own advantage.” HCSB
Keep dancing around the obvious translation:
“… who did not consider equality with God to be loot to be seized.”
Christian translations are filthy with tampering.
Wounded Ego,
This is the position that I agree with, and you appear to have a vastly different one. You my want consider reading O’Collins book, assuming you haven’t. I’m unsure what your goal is? Is it to deny the Trinity? Or simply to state that we are misinterpreting the text? Or both?
>>>But 1 Corinthians 8: 9 and Philippians 2: 6–8 suggest a pre-existent, divine state, contrasted with Christ’s ‘subsequent’, humble, human existence.
Ya know, it requires a HUGE leap of blind faith to go from an innocuous passage about humility into a grandiose mythology of a member of a Tri-unity (?) being reincarnated as a hero. K.I.S.S… is the Ocam’s Razor. Let’s look at our text:
9 For ye know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that, though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, that ye through his poverty might be rich.
Where do you see divinity? I would suggest that Jesus was gifted by the magi with **gold** and **spices** and that he used those to fund his missions. Isn’t that simpler by an order of a kazillion?
>>>Being ‘in the form of God’, Christ took on human form and did not exploit the right to be recognized for what he was.
There is a very **simple** allusion to Genesis (one of many in Pauline writings) where Adam is not only given God’s physical form, but also exists as the supreme ruler over everything (which Hebrews argues includes angels). But he attempted to seize equality with God. It is such a simple – even eloquent – contrast to Jesus, who was a servant:
Matthew 20:28 Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.
Mark 10:45 For even the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.
>>>Colossians 1: 15–17 presents Christ as being, like pre-existent Wisdom, the very agent of creation.
No, you don’t get the passage. The reference here is *not* to Genesis 1, but to the *new* regime (the kingdom of God’s son). The word “created” here is KTIZW which refers to “establishing” and “filling positions” which is what it specifies the thrones and dominions of the new regime:
12 ¶ Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light:
13 Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into ***the kingdom of his dear Son***:
14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:
15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
16 For by him were all things created [established], that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created [established] by him, and for him:
17 And he is before all [these] things, and by him all [these] things consist.
18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all [these] things he might have the preeminence.
19 For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell;
20 And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself [God, not Jesus]; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven.
>>>It seems reasonable to conclude that Paul thought of the Son as coming into the world from the Father and as having been active in the creation of the world (see 1 Cor. 8: 6).
Note that the passage you cite declares the father to be the one true God, the only God:
4 ¶ As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that ***there is none other God but one***.
5 For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)
6 But to us ***there is but one God, the Father***, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.
You should give it up right there. Why bounce around to irrelevant passages about humility when you have the **clear, explit declaration** that the only God is the father?!! As I said, my hermeneutic takes the explicit as trump over weak allusions such as “he was rich.”
>>>Hebrews 1: 1–3, 6; 9: 26; and 10: 5–10 likewise tell against Dunn’s claim that the notion of Christ’s eternal pre-existence
Hebrews 1 says that through Jesus God “delineated the ages,” not that he “made the worlds.” It says that Jesus is dependent on God:
“he is the caricature of God’s substance, the reflection of God’s glory and bears all by the word of God’s power….”
Heb 10 speaks of Jesus coming into the ritual, or “order” [KOSMOS] of the Yom Kippur:
Heb 10:5 Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:
WE,
As much as I’d like to continue this tennis match it seems useless. Thanks for commenting on this blog but I just don’t think you intend on reading Scripture for any purpose other than that of being contentious. There isn’t enough time in the day to try to convince you of something you are bent on proving to be false.
>>>…ἁρπαγμός does [not] imply he had to seize something that he did not have, but rather, grasp onto something that he could not release…
I know you wish to avoid this discussion, but can you please elaborate? I find this a typical, but exasperatingly strained view of the Greek….
It’s not that I wish to avoid this, but you have your mind made up, and I see no point in going round in circles with you when it seems that you have had these discussions before.
Philippians 2 hinges on this word… Did Jesus “cling to equality with God”? Or did he “not count it booty to seize”? So much hangs on this.