PHILIPPIANS 2:6-8

The ancient poem Philippians 2:6-11 is felt to be one of the earliest doctrinal statements of the Church. Whether Paul wrote it himself or was quoting from an existing hymn, it is an extremely important document in helping us to understanding the person of Jesus Christ. It begins with two declarations:

    1. The pre-existent Christ was “in the form of God.”

    2. The pre-existent Christ possessed “equality with God.”

Both of these statements need further clarification since atheists and non-trinitarians alike question their exact meaning. I have dealt with the above issues in much more detail in an earlier post titled “Philippians 2:5-6.” However, the main points become clear once one realizes that this is written in the form of Hebrew poetic parallelism in which each pair of lines should be considered together with the first line being paralleled and clarified in the second line. Thus,

He was in the form of God (6a) = he did not regard equality with God as something to be exploited (6b)

He emptied himself (7a) = taking the form of a slave (7b)

Being born in human form (7c) = he humbled himself (8a)

and became obedient to the point of death (8b) = even death on the cross (8c)

It is hoped that the earlier post adequately answered the charges that (a) the “form” of something is not its essence (v. 6a) and (b) the second half of the verse does not actually state that Jesus was equal to God. But even laying those criticisms to rest, there is more in this poem that helps to answer yet another charge against the doctrine of Jesus being truly God. Thus, the common ploy of Jehovah Witnesses is to cherry-pick the gospel accounts for hints that the earthly Jesus did not possess all of the characteristics of God, and therefore he could not be truly God.

I have earlier quoted from a friend who does not believe in the concept of the Trinity and has attempted to prove his point using many specious arguments. Some of those arguments follow those used by the Jehovah Witnesses, although he is quite adamant that he has never been influenced by them. A number of his arguments fall into the category of supposed limitations demonstrated by the earthly Jesus. But all can be easily disposed of, some because they simply aren't true, and others by simply considering the statement in Philippians 2:7-8 that Jesus “emptied himself” when he became human. Here are a few of my friend's contentions as examples:

1. God is omniscient; Jesus was not. “Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will not pass away. But about that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone.” (Matthew 24:36)

As far as I know, that is the only example one can point to in order to accuse the earthly Jesus of lack of omniscience. He was clearly able to read people's minds on a number of occasions, and in Matthew 24-25 he even reveals details concerning both the coming destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 and the Final Judgment.

There is even a new movement called Process Theology, which is not really an orthodox doctrine, but which attempts to make the point that even God the Father does not know ahead of time how his creatures will act. For example, don't the times in Genesis where God is said to have “come down” to see what is happening on earth prove that the Father is not omniscient either? I only bring up this point to demonstrate how easy it is to take a simple-minded approach to Scripture (as also did Job's friends) and be completely mistaken in our conclusions because they involve trying to understand completely all the secrets of an ultimately unknowable God.

2. If Jesus was and is “fully God,” why did He need to obey commandments? Is God not the source of the commandments and able to do as He pleases? “...just as I have kept My Father's commandments, and abide in His love.” (John 15:10b)

The context, which my friend has left out, makes it abundantly clear that Jesus obeyed the commandments in order (a) to set an example for others to follow (as in the reason he also submitted to baptism, even though he did not need to repent of anything) and (b) to, as our pastor is fond of saying, “live the life we should have lived and die the death we should have died.” And the two phrases in that quote are strongly related since it was only a perfectly sinless sacrifice that could suffice to take away our sins.

And another comment on my friend's words in passing – He states that God can do as he pleases. Look at my post entitled “Mark 6:5 – Is God Omnipotent” for the contention that even the Father is constrained in how he acts.

3. If Jesus was and is “fully God,” to whom did He pray and for what purpose? If Jesus is a “manifestation” of God, how do we account for Jesus receiving from the Father? Does not such activity require a separation between giver and a receiver?

Without bothering to nitpick over the use of the term “manifestation,” my friend has answered his own question. Both of these activities do indeed require a separation, and that is exactly what the essence of Philippians 2:7-8 is. The perfect “oneness” that Christ had in the beginning with God the Father was temporarily severed when Christ voluntarily emptied himself to descend to our earthly level.

4. If Jesus was and is “fully God,” in what manner did He have to “learn” obedience. “Although He was a Son, He learned obedience from the things which He suffered.” (Hebrews 5:8)

If Jesus was and is “fully God” why did He have to grow in wisdom? Doesn’t God know all things? “And the Child continued to grow and become strong, increasing in wisdom; and the grace of God was upon Him.” (Luke 2:40) “And Jesus kept increasing in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man.” (Luke 2:52)

To try to answer this one is beyond our human comprehension. However, one approach would be to consider the alternative scenario that my friend seems to be suggesting. To retain all of his omnipotence in the form of a human baby or child is to picture the sort of nightmarish creature that the medieval Infancy Gospels portray – a child with all the selfish characteristics of that breed coupled to a totally omnipotent being who can do anything that comes into his small mind to do. Thus, the boy Jesus that later Christians pictured turned his playmates into birds and played other sadistic tricks on friends and family alike until scolded by Mary. There was an old TV episode of The Twilight Zone which portrays the same sort of omnipotent child monster.

We obviously don't know all the whys and wherefores of the maturation processes taking place within the growing Christ child other than the facts Luke records in Lk. 1:80 (“The child grew and became strong in spirit, and he was in the wilderness until the day he appeared publicly to Israel.”); the two passages quoted above; and the fact that He amazed those teachers in the Temple with his questions as well as his comment that He had to be in his Father's house (Luke 2:41-51).

It isn't until Jesus was about thirty years old and beginning his ministry that Luke records the descent of the Holy Spirit on Him at His baptism (Luke 3:22), and it states (Luke 4:1) He was “full of the Holy Spirit.” Therefore it is possible to view his process of spiritual maturation as being totally complete at least by that point in time.