Content provided in partnership with
MEANING OF MOP[Phi]H IN PHILIPPIANS 2:6-7, THE
Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, Dec 2006 by Jowers, Dennis W
(ProQuest Information and Learning: ... denotes non-USASCII text omitted.)
I. INTRODUCTION
1. The significance of Phil 2:6-7. Numerous texts of the NT suggest, more or less straightforwardly, that Jesus Christ is very God. In the Gospel of John alone, for instance, one reads: "the Word was with God, and the Word was God" (1:1); "so that all will honor the Son even as they honor the Father" (5:23); "before Abraham was born, I am" (8:58); "I and the Father are one" (10:30); "he who sees me sees the one who sent me" (12:45); "you call me Teacher and Lord; and you are right, for so I am (13:13); "he who has seen me has seen the Father" (14:9); "all things that the Father has are mine" (16:15); "my Lord and my God" (20:28); etc. In the same Gospel, however, one finds numerous statements by and about Christ that seem to call his deity into question. One reads, for example: "Jesus wept" (11:35); "now my soul has become troubled" (12:27); "he . . . began to wash the disciples' feet" (13:5); "the Father is greater than I" (14:28); "why do you strike me?" (18:23); "Pilate then took Jesus and scourged him" (19:1); "the soldiers twisted together a crown of thorns and put it on his head" (19:2); "they crucified him" (19:18); "I am thirsty" (19:28); "he bowed his head and gave up his spirit" (19:30); "I ascend to ... my God and your God" (20:17).
Faced with such a seeming conflict, one could easily conclude that Scripture contradicts itself in its account of the nature(s) of Christ. Augustine, nonetheless, discerns in Scripture a criterion by which one can distinguish the referents of the seemingly conflicting texts about Christ in such a way as to render their consistency transparent. The "rule for resolving these questions throughout all of the holy Scriptures," writes Augustine (De Trin. 1.7.14), "is brought forth to us from one chapter of an epistle of the apostle Paul, where that distinction is most plainly commended: 'who, when he was in the form of God, judged it no robbery to be equal to God, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the similitude of men and found in habit as a man'" (Phil 2:6-7).
In this passage, Augustine finds a "canonical rule" (De Trin. 2.1.2) for interpreting texts that ascribe seemingly incompatible properties to Christ. One must refer any property inapplicable to Christ's deity to his humanity, i.e. "the form of a servant," and any property inapplicable to Christ's humanity to his deity, i.e. "the form of God." By thus discriminating between those texts that describe the "form of God" and those texts that describe the "form of a servant," Augustine harmonizes statements that otherwise might seem irreconcilably opposed. "According to the form of God," the bishop of Hippo writes (De Trin. 1.11.22),
all things were made through him [John 1:3]. According to the form of a servant, he was made of a woman, made under the law [Gal 4:4]. According to the form of God, he and the Father are one [John 10:30]; according to the form of a servant, he came not to do his own will, but the will of him who sent him [John 6:38]. According to the form of God, as the Father has life in himself, so has he also given to the Son to have life in himself [John 5:26]; according to the form of a servant, his soul is sorrowful unto death, and: "Father," he says, "if it is possible, let this cup pass" [Matt 26:38-91. According to the form of God, he is the true God and life eternal [1 John 5:20]; according to the form of a servant, he became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross [Phil 2:8].
If one adopts Augustine's interpretation of Phil 2:6-7, then, it seems that one can accept the Bible's testimony to Christ's deity in its full and natural sense without in any way slighting Christ's humanity. To vindicate Augustine's construal of Phil 2:6-7, consequently, is practically to prove that Scripture affirms the deity of Jesus Christ.
2. The centrality of ... . Given certain, relatively modest presuppositions, moreover, it seems that one can vindicate Augustine's exegesis by establishing that in Phil 2:6-7 "form," or ..., means something like "essence," or ... . For if (a) the Bible always speaks consistently and truthfully; (b) God is simple (as theologians of all Christian confessions have traditionally conceded); and (c) Christ is ...; then (d) controversial terms such as ..., ..., and ... (Phil 2:9), at least in this context, can assume only a narrow range of meanings. Specifically, interpretations of ... according to which Christ, as man, rejects an opportunity to grasp after deity; understandings of ... that entail a kenoticist doctrine of the Incarnation; and construals of ... as indicative of anything less than absolute equality with God the Father; all seem α priori unacceptable if Christ's ... implies his ... . In this case, moreover, ... could bear only an elative, as opposed to a comparative, sense; and the aorist participles ..., and ... could not conceivably refer to action prior to the state designated by ... . For the purpose of this investigation, in which we presuppose the doctrines of the verbal inspiration of Scripture and divine simplicity, therefore, proof that ... in the context of Phil 2:5-11 constitutes a rough equivalent of ..., if achievable, would suffice to eliminate the difficulties posed by other terms within these verses for Augustine's understanding of Phil 2:6-7 as a "canonical rule" for the interpretation of scriptural language about Christ.
Find Research Guides for:
Find Featured Titles for: Home & Garden
Most Popular Articles in Reference
- The importance of understanding organizational culture
- Credit card attitudes and behaviors of college students
- What factors attract foreign direct investment?
- Libraries Need Relationship Marketing - mutual interest marketing concept, ...
- How to set performance goals: employee reviews are more than annual critiques
- More »