Philippians 2:6-11 Bible Teaching

Welcome
Prayer
Song
Silence
Philippians 2.6-11
February 16th 2020
Milk
We left off with verse five last week in Philippians chapter 2 where Paul says something amazing. He said:

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.

5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:

Paul has been talking about humility – we discussed last week. And after having talked about it he says:

“Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus.”

And we are faced with a decision and it is an important one:

Is Paul speaking of the mind of humility looking backward when he says, “let this mind be in you?” OR is he saying, “Let this mind be in you,” and THEN describes what kind of mind is to be in us?

It is most assuredly speaking of the mind of Christ that was based and founded in HUMILITY – which we discussed last week.

Here, Paul is telling them to let that mind of Christ also be in them – and then he begins to describe the Christ in which humility thrived, providing us with an amazing contrast between who Christ was and His humility.

So again, for clarity, Paul says, regarding the elements of humility we discussed last week:

“Let this mind (of humility) be in you, which was also in Christ,” and then he describes Christ, saying:

6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God.

Okay – so let’s dig in to this passage and the first thing we have to acknowledge is that while the verse SEEMS to be speaking of the Mind of Christ that leads to the humility we discussed last week, we must note two words – on in verse 5 and the second in verse 6 – that could give this interpretation a twist.

What are the words:

In verse five Paul says, “Let this MIND be in you,” and in verse 6 he says “who being in the form of God THOUGHT it not robbery to be equal to God.”

And if we think or allow ourselves to think that these two verses are linked, then we have to suggest that Paul is saying:

“let THIS mind be in you, which was also in Christ who THOUGHT it was not robbery to be equal with God.”

And that is the mind that should be in each one of us.

It is a VERY easy argument to make and to be honest, based on these passages alone it makes sense – especially if we are seeing ourselves as equal with God in terms of our make-up – as His creations made in his image.

Of course, other passages of scripture refute the idea that human beings are equal to God in anyway and if we bring these into the discussion this view is quickly shot down.

Now, admittedly, either way we look at it these passages are set in Paul talking about humility – going backward to last week or forward into this week.

But we must admit that there is the option to read verses 5-6 as being together, and if that mind is to be in us, we would have to have a very different conversation right now about the interpretation.

Getting right to it, there are not very many passages in the New Testament that have been talked about more than this one. And most of the discussions have nothing to do with what I just brought up, but have to do with what Paul is saying about the nature – especially the divine nature that was in, with or is Christ.

For the time being, I am going to go with the idea that what Paul is saying here is the following:

5 Let this mind (that we have already discussed regarding humility) be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus “Who,” (now we are talking about Him, Jesus Christ) being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God.”

Okay. So, there is that.

But the importance of the passage on the question of the Divinity of the Savior is readily apparent.

What does this turn of phrase mean,

“Who,” (now we are talking about Him, Jesus Christ) being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God.”

Many most people think this means

Jesus, who was in the form of God, did not think there was anything wrong (thought it not robbery) of seeing himself as equal with God,” as this is the most reasonable reading of the words in the King James.

I am not going to talk about what He means by this relative to the make up of Jesus of Nazareth first – we will do that in a minute.

But first I want to discuss what this phrasing means:

“Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God.”

To begin, I want to read you a number of translations to aid in our comprehension of the meaning (which will also show the divergence of translations relative to the verse):

The first set of translations speak as though Jesus did not see it against God to think of himself as equal to God. These include:

(KJV) Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
(YLT) who, being in the form of God, thought [it] not robbery to be equal to God,
(MKJV) who, being in the form of God, thought [it] not robbery to be equal with God,
(NKJV) who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God,

The other translations present an interpretation that seems to say that though Jesus had a form of God he did not see it necessary to cling to this form. Here they are:

(TCNT) Though the divine nature was his from the beginning, yet he did not look upon equality with God as above all things to be clung to,
(WEB) who, existing in the form of God, didn’t consider equality with God a thing to be grasped,
(WNT) Although from the beginning He had the nature of God He did not reckon His equality with God a treasure to be tightly grasped.
(ASV) who, existing in the form of God, counted not the being on an equality with God a thing to be grasped,
(BBE) To whom, though himself in the form of God, it did not seem that to take for oneself was to be like God;
(DBY) who, subsisting in the form of God, did not esteem it an object of desire to be on an equality with God;
(MNT) who, though from the beginning he had the nature of God, did not reckon equality with God something to be forcibly retained,
(Oracl) who, though he was in the form of God, did not affect to appear in divine majesty;
And the (RSV) who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped”

This passage, also, has given occasion to much discussion. Prof. Stuart renders it, “did not regard his equality with God as an object of solicitous desire;” that is, that though he was of a Divine nature or condition, Jesus did not eagerly seek to retain his equality with God but instead took on him a humble condition – even that of a servant.

I think that this is the most correct interpretation of this passage because:

It seems concurrent with the scope and design of the apostle’s reasoning. His object is not to show, as our King James translation seems to imply, that he did not consider it robbery to be equal to God or that he did not regard it as an improper prerogatives to see himself as equal with God but instead that he did not regard it as an object to be greatly desired or something eagerly sought while he was in the flesh.

That instead of retaining this image of himself by “grasping at the image which he was unwilling to relinquish,” He chose to forego the dignity, and to assume the humble condition of a man.

This view also works better with the Greek than in the KJ version.

For example, the word translated robbery here is not found anywhere else in the New Testament (though the verb from which it is derived is all over the place
(Matthew 11:12; 13:19; John 6:15; 10:12,28,29; Acts 8:39; 23:10; 2nd Corinthians 12:2,4; 1st Thessalonians 4:17; Jude 1:23; Revelation 12:5)

But the notion of robbery – which invokes violence, unlawful seizing and/or carrying away, enters into the meaning of the word in all these places.

But the word here used does not properly mean an “act of robbery,” but the thing robbed–the plunder itself and hence something to be eagerly seized and appropriated.

Therefore, the meaning of the word here is, something to be seized and eagerly sought and the sense of the word is,

“that Jesus being equal with God was not a thing he anxiously retained or grasped a like a violent robber taking a purse.”

This is why grasped is used in a number of these other translations.

Additionally, the phrase “thought it not,” means “did not consider,” meaning it was not judged to be a matter of such importance to Him that it could not be dispensed with.

So, the best reading of the phrase is, “Jesus did not eagerly seize and tenaciously hold” his equality to God as vital.

Then, to what does the line mean:
“thought it not necessary to grasp the thought of being “equal with God,” or, in other words, “he did not consider being equal with God a thing to be tenaciously retained.”

The “plural neuter” form of the word equal in Greek (isa) used in accordance with a known rule of the language, according to some excellent Greek scholars, who have written:

“When an adjective as predicate is separated from its substantive, it often stands in the neuter where the substantive is a masculine or feminine, and in the singular where the substantive is in the plural. That which the predicate expresses is, in this case, considered in general as a thing.”

Translation?

It could mean a number of things, which is why perfect translation is not possible. Those things that it could be mean include:

That the phrase means one “who sustains the same rank, dignity, nature as God.”

Something that could NOT be said of other human beings or angels. But the natural and pretty obvious meaning of the language is that there was “an equality of nature and of rank with God, from which he humbled himself where he became a human.”

One commentator writes the following:
Which summarizes the general interpretation men and woman have given the passage, saying that:

“Christ, before he became a man, was invested with honor, majesty, and glory, such as was appropriate to God himself; that there was some manifestation, or splendor in his existence and mode of being then, which showed that he was equal with God; that he did not consider that that honor, indicating equality with God, was to be retained at all events, and so as to do violence, as it were, to other interests, and to rob the universe of the glory of redemption; and that he was willing, therefore, to forget that, or lay it by for a time, in order that he might redeem the world.

There were a glory and majesty which were appropriate to God, and which indicated equality with God–such as none but God could assume. For how could an angel have such glory, or such external splendor in heaven, as to make it proper to say that he was “equal with God?” With what glory could he be invested which would be such as became God only? The fair interpretation of this passage therefore is, that Christ, before his incarnation, was equal with God.”

Of this interpretation I disagree – though I see much of it as applicable. The bottom line question is what or who was equal with God – “the MAN Jesus of Nazareth or what was in the MAN Jesus of Nazareth.”

Most people who call themselves Christian, and without much difficulty due to the preconditioning of tradition, assume that what Paul is saying here is that the man standing there, Jesus of Nazareth, saw no problem in seeing himself, in the flesh, as equal with God; and by association with this view, they suggest that Jesus the Man, was with God in the beginning, and as a second member of the Trinity contributing to the make-up of God Himself.

Of course, I do not see Him this way but instead see Jesus the Man as a fleshly human being created by the union of God through the Holy Spirit and his mother Mary.

And I see Jesus the man having God fully in Him by and through the Logos of God which is translated in scripture as the Word.

From the Word Logos we get the English word, LOGO – think of the Mcdonalds logo – the Golden Arches.

When we see that LOGO we all think numerous things – some think of burgers, some of happy meals, some of chicken nuggests, some of quarter pounders, and some of playlands, orange drink, Ronald McDonald, plastic uniform seats, and on and on an on.

Take God and we might represent Him with a capital G – that is what was in the Man Jesus of Nazareth – the Logos of God, which represents EVERYTHING that he is. This logos was with God, this logos WAS God.

This Logos was/is the living God, and unlike the Golden Arches is spirit, eternal, and glorified.

This logos became flesh and dwelled among us in the Man Jesus of Nazareth, who did not find it necessary to cling or grasp at the fact that He was equal with God BUT . . . BUT (and this is Paul’s point) . . .BUT . . . (verse 7)

“But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men.”

In these two verses – 6 and 7 – we encounter two words – FORM (twice)

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 likeness) and was made in the likeness of men:

The word rendered form (morphe) occurs only in three places in the New Testament, and each time it is translated form (here in Philippians 2:6-7 and Mark 16:12.

In Mark it is applied to the form which Jesus assumed after his resurrection, and in which he appeared to two of his disciples on his way to Emmaus, saying.

“After that he appeared in another form unto two of them.”

Remember that this “form” that Jesus appeared to them in was so unlike his usual appearance that they did not know him. So form does NOT necessarily mean visual shape or presence – and that is important when we read verse 6 speaking of Jesus and saying

“being in the form of God”

If we are going to be literal then we would have to say:

“Jesus could be seen and touched, he had a beard and a long face, and therefore being in the form of God THIS MUST BE WHAT GOD LOOKS LIKE.”

But we know that this could not be the case as Jesus himself said that God is a spirit, so form here cannot speak to visible similarity, but instead to something other.

Interestingly, the word morphe (translated form) is repeatedly applied to the gods in the classic writers, describing their appearance when they became visible to men.

(Cicero. de Nat. Deor. ii. 2; Ovid, Meta. i. 73; Silius xiii. 643; Xeno. Memora. ix; 2Eniad, iv. 556, and other places)

One Greek lexicon guy named Hesychius who compiled a Greek dictionary of obscure words explains morphe anciently as “idea.”

Additionally, the word occurs often in the Septuagint, which is the Greek Translation of the Hebrew Old Testament. And there it is used to translated the Hebrew word for SPENDOR (as in the Splendor of God)
(Daniel 4:33; 5:6,9; 7:28) STRUCTURE of God (Isaiah 44:13); appearance, form, shape, image, likeness of God (as in Job 4:16) and in the Book of Wisdom, which is not included in most protestant Bibles, defines morphe as “splendor, majesty, glory, nature and essence.

The first opinion on how to understand these verses in Philippians is that of John Calvin (and several others) who interpreted the form of God to mean:

“Majesty,” and added “for as a man is known from the appearance of his form, so the majesty which shines in God is his figure.”

He (and the rest suggest that follow or agree with him) say then that just as Christ was “before the foundation of the world,” and was there in the form of God,” he brought with him (as an individual member of the Trinity) the glory or majesty that he had with the Father before the world was.(John 17:5).

The second opinion is, that the Word made flesh is equivalent to the nature of God or that his mode of existence was that of God or was Divine. And it was this form that Christ humbled and traded for the form of a servant.

Now listen, we know that this form that was humbled has something OTHER than Christ abilities to perform miracles, to walk on water, to cast out demons and disease – so that part of Him or His form was not changed – it was part of him even as a servant, right?

So whatever the form of God that we are talking about was was NOT lost in or through the external evidences that He was God with us.

Therefore, it appears that this does not refer to any moral qualities or virtues or powers – they continued, as God, with us, when he walked the earth.

No, there was something about the form of God that he divested of himself and in my estimation it had to be the majesty of God, that consuming fire, that thing that caused the Nation of Israel and her prophets to cower and fear in His presence.

Instead of allowing that to reign, which perhaps was seen only momentarily on the mount of transfiguration, Jesus did not pursue it and all of its affectations, but (instead)

“made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men.”

This is such an important BUT in scripture as verse six clearly says that there was the Majesty of God present with Him BUT

“He made Himself of no reputation.”

Last week and the week prior we have talked about Paul’s admonition to the believers to humility, and this is a direct appeal to this desire – that believers humble themselves.

He we see that Jesus “made himself of no reputation,” a very similar phrase to our humbling ourselves – he made himself!

He possessed the majesty of GOD – fully – but did not grasp for it in his life – BUT BUT instead

He made himself . . . of NO reputation.

(long beat)

The meat and potatoes of these two passages that we cannot get around when talking about Christ Jesus, our Lord and King:

He was fully God in every sense of the word – as the Logos of God himself – complete majesty, glory, power and might.
But instead of grasping at these characteristics and traits, and clinging to them as a means to exalt himself on earth, he
Made HIMSELF of no reputation.

And as our King, so will, so do – those who are His – which is Paul’s major point in presenting all of this.

But we must now ask, how? Or what did Jesus do to MAKE himself of no reputation? (Verse 7)

7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:

The translation here in the King James fails to convey the sense of the original.

So, let’s start with some other translations of verse 7 where I will emphasize the uniqueness of the translation version compared to others:

Php 2:7 (ASV) but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men;
Php 2:7 (BBE) But he made himself as nothing, taking the form of a servant, being made like men;
Php 2:7 (DBY) but emptied himself, taking a bondman’s form, taking his place in [the] likeness of men;
Php 2:7 (MNT) but emptied himself of his glory by taking the form of a slave, when he was born in the likeness of men.
Php 2:7 (Oracl) but divested himself, taking upon him the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men;
Php 2:7 (TCNT) But impoverished himself by taking the nature of a servant and becoming like men;
Php 2:7 (WNT) Nay, He stripped Himself of His glory, and took on Him the nature of a bondservant by becoming a man like other men.

The Greek word kenow means, literally, to empty, to make empty, to make vain or void.

It is translated “made void” in Romans 4:14; “made of none effect,” (in 1st Corinthians 1:17; “make void,” (in 1st Corinthians 9:15); and “should be vain,” (in 2nd Corinthians 9:3).

The word does not occur anywhere else in the New Testament except in the passage here.

The essential idea is he took complete majesty and made it emptiness, vanity, or nothingness RELATIVE to getting personal benefit from it in terms of honor, glory, respectability, or dignity among men by VIRTUE of the majesty alone.

He certainly did not divest himself of his Divine nature and perfections, or of the power that came with such – that was impossible.

But to me it seems that upon entering the human experience He chose to purposely face it without any reference to His true identity which could appeal to pride.

It is also conceivable that he might have laid aside, for a time, all the outward manifestations of his glory or that the outward expressions of his majesty was withdrawn.

Perhaps this was processional, that since he did not grasp to retain his majesty as a human being he sunk deeper and deeper into the place of being human, and getting to the point where there were things he did not know (but only His father knew) and to a place where he even cried out asking God why He had forsaken Him.

What we can say for sure is that in the incarnation he emptied himself (that is a huge description) AND . . .

“took upon himself the form of a servant.”

Came in the form of God (the LOGOS – remember) took upon himself the form of a servant. That’s humility folks – again the point of Paul writing all of this and mentioning what Christ did to the believers at Philippi – THAT, Pauls purpsoe is to articulate the depth of humiliation to which he descended and this was best done by saying that he descended to the lowest condition of humanity, and appeared in the most humble of human stations, in fact the Greek term doulos means slave.

Which brings full circle the imagery of total complete undeniable humility.

And then the line, “And was made in the likeness of men.”

The Greek word means resemblance, meaning he was made like men by assuming a body like ours.

Paul writes in Roman 8:3 that God sent
“his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh.”

And in and through all of this we begin to see why and how the Living God was able, or the means by which he was able, to reconcile a fallen material world to Himself JUSTLY, FAIRLY, RIGHTEOUSLY and not just arbitrarily or by his imposed will upon us, but by and through Him Himself, becoming flesh, setting aside His majesty, taking on the form of a servant and being made in the likeness of men, RECONCILED fleshly human beings to himself.

Through humble means, weak things, beggarly elements, broken human things, God with us, in the form of us, as a servant, saved us.

Paul wrote in 2nd Corinthians 5:1 For he (God) hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

He wrote in Romans 5:19 “For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.”

Which brings us to the next verse here in Philippians 2 – verse 8 where he says:

8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

So in and with the majesty of God he humbled himself, taking on the form of a servant, and then also in his fashion as a man, he humbled himself again and became obedient to death, even the ignominious death of the cross.

The word translated to “fashion” here is schma and it means the same thing as “state or condition” of a man.

The sense is, that after he submitted himself to incarnation, he humbly forsook the obvious majesty he came with, then he accepted the humble form of a servant, and then he submitted himself to the most humiliating form of death – the death of the cross.

At this place Paul does not include the fact that he also humbly submitted as a carnal man with a mind, will and emotions to the Law of His father – to perfect obedience, to having to act of self, to having no place to rest His head, to being despised and rejected of men, to taking on our sin, and to be treated as a sinner in our place.

The depictions of His humility defy imagination – and yet are evidenced time and time again in both the old and new testament.

In preparing this teaching, I was steadily ashamed for my pride – for ever allowing myself to think I am personally entitled to favorable treatment, to the honors of men, to anything from God or this world.

And for but a moment, God by His Spirit, showed me what it means to follow our Lord in true humility.

I almost want to never say another word because I feel so ashamed of the words I have said in the past – words of hubris, arrogance, pride, anger, superiority.

I personally understand better Jesus depiction of the two men who went up to the temple to pray, with the one justifying himself and the other just striking himself and saying Lord forgive me for I am a sinner.

Now I better understand Isaiah who upon seeing the glory of God proclaimed

“Woe is me! for I am undone; because I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips.”

(beat)

. . . And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

We will pick it back up here . . . next week.

Questions/Comments/Prayer