Essay for Christian Doctrines and Thought (II)

Prompt:

how might this passage have been understood as Christians of the first few centuries began to think carefully about Jesus’ relationship to God, and about the character of Jesus as a savior-figure? What does this passage seem most clearly to “put forth,” and what kinds of ideas and “pictures” of God or of Jesus might it combat or “rule out”?

I chose Philippians 2:

When reading Philippians 2:6-11, early Christians may have understood it as supporting the divinity of Christ, ruling out any ideas that he was less than God. On the other hand, these verses leave open to interpretation the question of how Jesus’ humanity and divinity co-existed. Finally, because Christ and God are distinct entities in this passage, early Christians would have ruled out the idea that God and Christ were one and exactly the same entity.

The first words relevant to our discussion are “form” and “equality with God.” Namely, Paul writes in Philippians, “[…] Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men” (Philippians 2:5-7). By stating that Jesus is in the form of God, Paul asserts Jesus’ divinity. Since Jesus “did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped,” Jesus was “equal” to God and was not trying to become God, because he already was God. It is also possible to interpret this phrase as suggesting that Jesus was never equal with God and did not consider equality with God something worthwhile to pursue. But in light of the passage’s context as being one about humility, the second interpretation is untenable. To wit, if Paul has in mind that Jesus was like God and never considered equality with God—or divinity—as something to attain, then Paul’s point about imitating Christ’s humility is moot. This interpretation makes Christ, who refrains from deification, an example of reverence to God. On the other hand, if Paul has in mind the divinity of Christ, then Christ’s emptying of himself and his willful submission to “humanity” despite his divinity is the supreme example of humility. Therefore, to render Paul consistent with himself, the first few verses must clearly imply Christ’s divinity.

With respect to Christ’s humanity, verses 5-7 may suggest that Christ set aside his divinity and became human, as Christ “emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.” This reading is possible, but the verb “emptied” could be synonymous with the verb “humbled,” and the adverbial, participial phrases—“taking the form of a servant” and “being born in the likeness of men”—could describe exactly how Christ “emptied” himself instead of describing the result of Christ “emptying” his divinity. Paul does not write that Christ “emptied himself, setting aside his divinity”; rather, Paul wrote that in emptying himself, Christ took on the form of a servant and was born in the likeness of men. Verse 8 elaborates: “And being found in human form he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross.” It is also likely, from the context and grammar, that Paul intended the verb “emptied” to point to Christ’s humbling of himself on a cross and not to his relinquishing of divine being. Here, we see the beginnings of the idea that Christ is both divine and human, while he walked on earth. From this text alone, it is inconclusive whether Paul intended to suggest that Christ set aside his divinity or that Christ took on a human nature in addition to his divinity.

Furthermore, early Christians could have also argued that Christ was never fully human. Instead of writing that Jesus took on the “form of men,” Paul writes that Jesus took on the “form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.” So Jesus descends from being in the form of God to being born in the likeness of men. If this difference is significant, then the text appears to suggest that while Jesus was fully divine, he became something like a human, but not of human “form.” However, the difference could also be a difference in sequence and not of ontology. That is, the difference may not point to how Christ as God was different from Christ as human, but rather that Christ was first God then humbled himself to servant status. As a servant, Christ was then born in the likeness of men.

In conclusion, Philippians 2:5-11 present a strong case for the divinity of Christ. Early Christians could have used it as excellent evidence of Christ’s divinity. However, Paul does very little in these verses to clarify the relationship between Jesus’ humanity and divinity, leaving much of it to interpretation. Furthermore, the distinction between God and Christ (God exalts Christ in verses 9-11), which was not discussed, rules out the idea that God and Christ are exactly one and the same.