Did God become man? (Philippians 2:5-11)

-

Does Philippians 2:5-11 describe the eternal God the Son humbling himself to become man?

We think not.

These are notes for the One God Report podcast in which we explain some problems and contradictions with the "deity of Christ" interpretation of Philippians 2, and suggest a better way to understand this portion of Scripture:

When Christ Jesus "emptied" and "humbled" himself, he was already a human being. The acts of emptying and humbling himself relate to his obedience to die on the cross, not "to become a human being".

1. The context of the Letter to the Philippians shows that Paul is talking about the human being, Jesus Christ. Throughout Philippians, as throughout all of Paul's letters, the Lord Jesus Christ is distinguished from God. That is, the Lord Jesus Christ is someone who is not God, but has a God (1:2, 1:11, 2:9, 2:11, 3:3, 4:19-20).  The context of these four verses (2:5-8) is not the "deity of Christ", but  an admonition for humility toward unity among believers.

2.  Paul is describing the mind of Christ Jesus, the title (Christ/Messiah) and name (Jesus) of the human being, not of an assumed pre-incarnate "Second Person of the Godhead". Even in "deity of Christ" theology the "pre-incarnate second person of the godhead" is not Jesus the Messiah.

3. Paul expects his readers to have the same mind that the Christ Jesus had and has, which would be impossible if Paul was referring to an eternally pre-existent God who became a man and is now God again. Paul is calling for a humility of mind among believers to preserve unity among the body of believers.

4.  As in many other places in his writings, in this passage Paul differentiates four times between God and Jesus Christ (2:6, 9, 11). God is someone other than Jesus Christ, and Jesus Christ is someone other than God.

5. Being in "the form of God" means Jesus is not God. The word for "form" does not have reference to the metaphysical nature of Jesus, i.e., Paul is not stating that Jesus is the same metaphysical “substance” as God. The NIV translation "who being in very nature God" is obviously theologically motivated and can be confidently rejected. The Greek word translated as "form" (morphe) has to do with outward appearance. The man Jesus represented God, just like a footprint in cement represents a foot. The footprint is not the foot. 

6. As the sent, obedient Son of God, Messiah, Jesus has a certain representative, functional equality with God that Jesus knows is given to him by God. Jesus knows he does not have to either seize or hold on to that equality. Jesus is confident and secure in his authorization by God. He has authority to represent God because God has given the authority to him.

7.  Jesus "being/being made in the likeness of men, in the fashion of men" (2:7-8) means that Jesus is a human being.

5. The human Christ Jesus "emptied himself", taking on the form of a servant. Having the prerogatives as God's unique son, the King of Israel, empowered and equipped by God, able to give sight to the blind and raise the dead - yet Jesus took the form of a servant. Paul does not say that Christ Jesus "emptied himself" of his deity to become a man, but that he "emptied himself, taking on the form of a servant".

6. Christ Jesus's obedience to the Father is not a pre-incarnate act that involved one god-person "taking on human nature". Rather, the man Jesus Christ was obedient to God, to the extent of death on a cross. The acts of obedience (to the point of dieing) were made by the man Christ Jesus, as a human being.

This also means that Jesus is not God - he is obedient to God, and God does not die.

7.  God exalted Jesus Christ and gave him a name above all names ("at the name of Jesus every knee will bow"). This means that Jesus is not God, since God exalted Jesus, and gave Jesus a name.

8. Jesus Christ's exaltation and glory is never described as something he "gave up" and then "received back" again. Rather, his exaltation and glory is something he received only after his death.

9. Interpreting passages like Philippians 2:5-9 (cf. also Colossians 1:15-19, Hebrews 1) as describing the “deity of Christ” has a certain sinister, even satanic motivation. The “deity of Christ” interpretations of these passages attempt to rob the man Jesus the Messiah of who he is and what he did as a human being. In this way the "deity of Christ" interpretations are anti-Messiah, anti-Christ.

“Deity of Christ” interpretations, when unmasked, are an expression of satanic jealousy. The “deity of Christ” interpretation of Philippians 2:5-8 ignores and attempts to deflect who the man Messiah Jesus is, and what he did, and attempts to give his glory to some non-existent pre-incarnate being. “The man Jesus Christ didn’t humble himself in Philippians 2.”  To claim that Philippians 2 is describing the mindset and actions of a pre-incarnate god-person is an attempt to dishonor the man Christ Jesus.

But Yawheh (God) says to the man Christ Jesus, “Sit at my right hand. Rule the Earth. Let all God’s angels worship him (Gen. 1:26, Psalm 2:6-8, Psalm 8:3-9, Psalm 110:1-2, Heb. 1:6, 1 Pet. 3:22). Will you and I bow the knee to God's designated human Messiah Jesus, or will we continue to insist that Jesus must be "pre-existent God who took on human flesh” before we bow the knee to him, refusing God's Messiah and God's will for us?

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Word Became Flesh? Why John 1:14 Does NOT Say that God Became Man

-
Image
For an audio podcast of this post, click here : For many Trinitarians, or for those who believe in the “deity of Christ”, a few words from John 1:1 combined with a few words from John 1:14 forms the , and I mean the #1 evidence that Jesus is God, and that therefor somehow God is a Trinity. John 1:1 says “the Word was God”, and then skip down to John 1:14, “the Word became flesh”. That’s it. Jesus is God, literally. But wait a second. Problems with the Trinitarian and Deity of Christ Interpretation of John 1:14   The “deity of Christ” interpretation of John 1:14 may sound plausible at first, but a little closer examination shows that the interpretation is only a thin veneer and that there is no substance behind the veneer. The “God became man” interpretation ends up being a confusing web of inconsistencies, contradictions and lies.   The first observation about interpreting John 1:1 and John 1:14 as saying that “God became man”:   No Trinity There is n...
Read more

My Lord, and my God: Trinitarians get it wrong

-
Image
Thomas answered him, "My Lord and my God!" (John 20:28). (to hear this teaching on a podcast click here ) To Trinitarians and those who believe in the “deity of Christ”, this verse is slam-dunk evidence that Jesus is God. But is it? I believe the “deity of Christ” interpretation ignores and contradicts Jesus’s teaching in the Gospel of John. There is a much better way to understand Thomas’s words. Which “God” did Thomas mean when he said “my God”? If you think Thomas recognized a 2 nd God-person in Jesus, or a God-essence, or a “God the Son incarnate” in Jesus, or that Jesus was a "god", I think you are not listening to and contradicting what Jesus tells us in John’s Gospel.   Jesus, in John’s Gospel, said that it is God, the Father that Thomas saw in Jesus. [1] "...believe the works, that you may know and understand that THE FATHER IS IN ME" (Jesus, in John 10:28, cf. John 14:10-20) A Challenge Let me challenge you to think ...
Read more

In the Gospel of John, the “Jews” are “Judeans”, Not all “Jews”

-
In the this article and the next article following I would like to propose that one of the main original audiences, perhaps even the main audience, of the Gospel of John were Greek speaking Hebrews. Most of these Greek speaking Hebrews lived in the Diaspora, that is, outside of the land of Israel. Ever since Israelites were exiled from the land of Israel by Assyria, Babylon and Rome, there has been a recognizable difference between Israelites who lived outside of the land of Israel (in the Diaspora) to those who lived in the land of Israel. To hear this teaching on a podcast, click here . My suggestion is that in the first century, as Diaspora Hebrews began to hear the extraordinary claims about Jesus being the Messiah, they wondered how this could be since Jesus had been rejected and put to death in the Messiah’s own city Jerusalem, by Messiah’s own people, Judeans.   I suggest John wrote his Gospel to these Greek speaking Hebrews, recording the signs that Jesus did, in order...
Read more