saidsimply

Did St. Paul teach Jesus’ full deity in Philippians 2? During a short text debate, I argued with an atheist over the kenosis passage of Philippians 2, where Jesus is described as equal to God, but emptied himself and took the likeness of a servant or man, and then is exalted again and called ‘kyrios’, or Lord, by Saint Paul.

The argument from the atheist rested on the Greek word ‘Morphe’, which can mean a shape presented to the eyes, or an external appearance. This is the term used in verse 6 by Paul to say Jesus is in the form (morphe) of God.

However, we observe the same word, used by Saint Paul to describe Jesus becoming human. If we read it as being used in the sense of an external appearance that differs from an internal substance (a rather cynical assumption), then the atheist would have Jesus as neither man nor God by substance. He makes Saint Paul awkwardly call Jesus something not man nor God, but a being that merely has the appearance or traits of both. (So what is the claim exactly?) 

On the other hand, if we take the term to refer to a visual shape as presented to the eye (the primary connotation for the word), then St. Paul would be saying Jesus has both the shape of divinity as well as the humble shape of humanity, which, when taken straightforwardly, suggests the substance of each.

6 who, being in the form(Morphe) of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, 7 but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form(morphe) of a bondservant, [and] coming in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to [the point of] death, even the death of the cross. – [Phl 2:6-8 NKJV]

Even in these verses, the term morphe can’t be strictly relegated to externalities, since two other Greek terms are applied in the humanizing of Jesus. We have the word ‘Schema’, which connotes actions, countenance, and manner of living, as well as the word ‘homoioma’, which denotes the shape, representation, or similitude. If one stopped on the term ‘morphe’ and emphasized its suggestion of a mere externality, you might be able to make a case. But these other terms are applied with the same goal in mind, that of describing Jesus the man, and so they inform the way Saint Paul is using the term morphe, both in his description of Jesus’ divinity, as well as his humility. He then goes further:

9 Therefore God also has highly exalted Him and given Him the name which is above every name, – [Phl 2:9 NKJV]

According to the atheists, St Paul the Jew is saying here that a non-god-non-man receives a name above every name? In the ancient world, names for deities were tantamount to invocations. And a name above every name, especially in the context of a Pentateuch-believing Pharisee, is simply another appellation for the one God, whose first command was to not have any other God before Him. And St. Paul hammers the point home:

10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth, 11 and [that] every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ [is] Lord, to the glory of God the Father. – [Phl 2:10-11 NKJV]

Now, whether you haggled over your Greek lexicons or not, you just heard an ancient writer invoke his God, and Jesus was included in this invocation. An invocation where even the knees in heaven bow to this highest name granted to the Son.

Now, we know the rejoinder would be as follows: We admit that deity was granted to Jesus, but to be God is to always have the deity, not receive it externally. To this we must concede. If Jesus is God’s Son, he’s God’s Son before all ages and pre-eternally. So how can the Son be exalted or given a Name? Our reply would be this: It is in Jesus’ humanity that He was given this name, and exalted. Although it’s worth noting that the Old Testament speaks of the divine angel of the Lord, who had the name of God put in Him, and was also worshipped, and so from a scriptural vantage point, this ‘given’ name from the Father doesn’t threaten His eternal deity. But if the Son is said to achieve something, or grow or develop in any way, we attribute these qualities to his voluntary assumption of limitation in His human substance. 

But it’s also worth asking how Jesus could be said to ‘humble’ Himself, if he did not first share some upper rank or status? In other words, from what vantage point could Jesus have been said to humble Himself, or empty Himself, or make Himself a servant, if not by stepping down from some place higher? And here, when we re-read St Paul’s description of Jesus in verse 6, the term morphe (form) most clearly means that Jesus is substantively Divine.

And so, from only 5 verses, St. Paul states the whole gospel at once: The eternal Son, equal to God, became man, submitted to the cross, and as a result, He exalted humanity and received the highest name, and is earnestly called Lord, along with His Father.