A Look at Phil. 2:6-7 -- 1/10/10

Sunday Evening, January 10, 2009

A Closer look at Phil. 2:6-7

I want you to think about what can happen when we take a certain passage, focus on it, and ignore the rest of scripture. The conclusions that result may seem pretty convincing, when we look only at that one passage. Tonight we are going to illustrate that point, as we look at a particular passage of scripture.

During the past few weeks we have read through Phil. 2:6-8 many times. Not only have we read it, but we have looked at it in some depth. As we have studied verses 2-4, I have found it impossible not to continually turn to the truths of 6-8. Why is that? Because 2:5, “Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus,” is an open invitation to do so. Jesus is our example. It is His image into which His children are being transformed, and that image is nowhere seen more clearly that here in 2:6-8.

So, on the one hand, I would say that we have covered this passage pretty well. On the other hand, there is another aspect upon which we have not touched. I think we need to do that tonight. Some of you may have noticed that translations have some significant differences in verses 6-7. Tonight I want us to look at the reason for those differences. In doing so, we will have to look at least briefly at something called “the kenosis theory,” which has grabbed a lot of attention.

Let’s begin by reading out of the King James Version verses 5-8…

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.

The translation that is most in question are the words at the end of verse 6 and the beginning of verse 7, “thought it not robbery to be equal with God; But made himself of no reputation…” While it seems that few, if any, modern translations have anything like this, we find similar readings in Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, the Bishop's Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587, Young's, Hebrew Names Version, Third Millenium Bible, Webster's 1833 translation, Wycliffe, and the NKJV 1982 edition (but not the 1979 NKJV).

Let me read you another translation of verse 6, “Who, although he was existing in God’s form, gave no consideration to a seizure, namely, that he should be equal to God." Listen to it again: “although he was existing in the form of God, gave no consideration to a seizure, namely, that he should be equal to God." It seems pretty clear what this translation is saying: “Although Jesus existed in God’s form, Jesus never considered seizing the position of being equal with God.” What do you think of that translation? It says basically that while Jesus was in the form of God, He was not equal to God.

In defending that translation, one writer appeals to and quotes a number of other translations, including…

NASB, " did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped."

Revised Standard Version, "did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped."

New Jerusalem Bible, "did not count equality with God something to be grasped."

Emphatic Diaglot, "yet did not meditate a Usurpation to be like God."

21st Century Free, " he never even considered the chance to be equal with God."

Revised Version, "counted it not a prize to be on an equality with God."

Goodspeed, "he did not grasp at equality with God."

NKJV, 1979 edition "did not consider equality with God something to be grasped."

NIV, "did not consider equality with God something to be grasped".

Consider the NIV translation, which is typical of most -- “did not consider equality with God something to be grasped.” What does that mean? Does it mean that Jesus did not think it right that He claim equality with God? Or, does it mean that this equality with God was not something He had to hang on to? There is a difference.

The critical key to the interpretation is in the understanding of one little Greek word -- arpagmon (robbery). Let me simply say that there is room for difference in the translation of the Greek text. The context of this passage and of the larger context of scripture in general must be considered in interpreting these words.

Do you see the difficulties? The mystery translation I read to you states clearly that equality with God was something that Jesus never claimed. By the way, that is the New World Translation, which is the Bible of the Jehovah’s Witnesses. There is little question as to why the Jehovah’s Witnesses translate the verse as they do. This is a troublesome passage to their teaching that Jesus is not God in the same sense that Jehovah is God. But even in the other translations, there are some difficult questions. Can it be said that Jesus was in the form of God, and also be said that Jesus was not equal to God? Most of us would refuse to take the verse as the New World Translation does, saying that Jesus refused to consider Himself equal with God before He came to this earth. But what about when He did come to this earth? When we read “did not consider equality with God something to be grasped” (NIV), does that mean that Jesus gave up being equal with God when He came to this earth? Was He less God on earth than when He was in heaven with the Father? Is that what the first part of verse 7 means, when it literally says, “He emptied Himself”? These are not easy questions, nor are they of no importance.

An Unusual Switch in Translations

So let’s go ahead and come to verse 7, “But made himself of no reputation.” However, that is not the way most other translations read. We won’t bother to read a bunch of them. It will suffice to say that most follow a very literal reading, “He emptied himself.” There can be no question about the literal translation; that’s it. So this is one of those cases where there is a kind of reversal; a translation like the NIV follows the literal reading and the KJV does not.

How many of you have heard of the “kenosis” theory? It is not a scriptural term, except that the word “kenosis” comes from the Greek word that is translated “emptied” (kenow). The big question is simply this: “What does the text mean when it says that Jesus emptied Himself?” Emptied Himself of what? This question has led to much debate over the years.

Let’s go back and begin in verse 6, “Who being in the form of God.” The word translated “form” is the word morfh, from which we get a number of English words (metamorphosis, for example). It is a very strong word, referring to the essence of something. It deals with much more than outward form. One author makes a strong case for the idea that a comparison with other passages almost equates the form of God with “the image of God” and “the glory of God.” The point is something like this: Paul is not saying that Jesus just appears to be like God, but that He is in essence God. He is in the form of God. The NIV is not literal at this point, but seems to capture the idea: “being in very nature God.”

You will notice that some translations, instead of reading “being in the form of God,” read “although He existed in the form of God” (NASV). Greek participles can be translated in different ways, depending upon the context, and this is a very legitimate translation. Let me give you a parallel. Consider 2 Cor. 8:9, "For ye know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that, though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, that ye through his poverty might be rich." We find the same basic construction in this verse (concessive participle). If we were to lay these verses out side by side in the original language, the parallel would be evident.

Although Jesus existed in the form of God, was God in His nature, He did not consider it robbery to be equal with God. That is, Jesus did not think it a violation of divine order to consider Himself equal with God. Nevertheless, He made Himself of no reputation and took on Him the form of a servant. That is the King James reasoning. Literally, “But He emptied Himself and took on Him the form of a servant.”

So why does the King James not translate verse 7 literally, especially considering the fact that it is a very literal translation? I don’t believe anyone can defend “made himself of no reputation” as a literal translation; it simply it is not literal. Let me remind you that there is interpretation in all translations. If you produced a translation from Greek to English that was 100% literal, much of it would be unreadable. Some interpretation is inevitable. However, translations differ in how much interpretation they include. The more literal the translation, the smaller the amount of interpretation. In general, the King James and the NASV are the most literal of widely-used translations. Translations like “The Message” are the most interpretive. I am not unbiased at this point. I say without apology that it is best to hold to a translation that is more literal and has less of the translator’s interpretation. I am not against the NIV or similar translations that have become extremely popular, but I do believe the tendency to move away from the literal translation is a great weakness. (If you want an example, read Eph. 5:18-21. However, having said that, you will note that the King James largely does the same thing in Phil. 2:2-4, translating participles as imperatives).

So if the King James is generally a much more literal translation than the NIV and others, then why do the other translations give a very literal rendering for 2:7a, while the King James does not? I do not know the answer to that question, but please allow me to speculate just a bit. The questions about the meaning of this passage did not begin in the 1500’s or 1600’s. For centuries there had been questions about its precise meaning (particularly verses 6-7). I rather suspect that the translators of the King James Version had strong convictions about this subject and wanted to make sure that the truth was not misconstrued. As a safeguard, they inserted a bit of interpretation into verse 7, when they said, “And made himself of no reputation.” Those translators were not ignorant. They knew full well that the Greek literally said “and emptied himself.” They were also aware that men had caused themselves and others great grief by interpreting it to mean something it did not. So, for good or for bad, whether right or wrong, they slipped a bit of interpretation into their translation at the point where they said, “And made himself of no reputation.”

How Could the Translation “He Emptied Himself” Be Taken Wrong?

Now we might ask what wrong interpretation could be given of the words “and emptied himself.” Perhaps it would be better to simply ask again the question, “What does it mean that Jesus emptied Himself? Emptied Himself of what?” Have you thought about it? Of what did Jesus empty Himself? The answer to this question is of great consequence. When Jesus came to this earth, He left something behind. What was it?

Those who favor “the kenosis theory” [“kenosis” being the noun form of the Greek word for “emptied”] believe that Jesus voluntarily surrendered His deity. That is, they believe that when Jesus emptied Himself, He ceased to be God. For the good of mankind, He became man like one of us (but still without sin). Simply put, He emptied Himself of being God. He was in the form of God, but He emptied Himself of that divine form. So when Jesus walked the earth, He was a sinless man, but not God.

So how would a person come to believe that? By stressing the phrase “emptied Himself.” Combine with that the fact that there were many things that Jesus didn’t do while He was on the earth. And didn’t He call Himself the Son of man. And what about 2 Cor 8:9, "For ye know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that, though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, that ye through his poverty might be rich"? Does not this poverty imply a certain reduction of Jesus’ deity? Perhaps it would be best to say that those who hold to the kenosis theory cannot understand how Jesus could be both God and man. Surely He has to be one or the other. He is fully man, can He still be fully God? They conclude that He is indeed man, therefore He could not be God.

J. I. Packer gives us this brief explanation of the kenosis theory…

The idea behind it in all its forms is that in order to be fully human, the son had to renounce some of His divine qualities, otherwise He could not have shared the experience of being limited in space, time, knowledge, and consciousness which is essential to truly human life. The theory has been formulated in different ways. Some have argued that the son put off only His “metaphysical” attributes (omnipotence, omnipresence, omniscience), retaining the “moral ones” (justice, holiness, truthfulness, love); others have maintained that when He became man He renounced all His specifically divine powers, and His divine self-consciousness too, though in the course of His earthly life He reacquired later. (Knowing God, p. 52)

We must admit that this is not a concept that is easy to understand. I must say that I can’t fully grasp the idea of Jesus being both human and divine, but I must receive it as truth, if that is what the scripture teaches. So that brings us to the question: Does the Bible teach that Jesus of Nazareth is both God and man? If so, where?

So Does the Bible Teach that Jesus Is Both God and Man?

We might begin by examining the idea that Jesus emptied Himself of His deity. Let’s go back to John 1. John 1:1-3,14, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2. The same was in the beginning with God. 3. All things were made by him; and without him was not anything made that was made… And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth." But don’t stop there; continue reading. Let’s continue with verses 15-16, "John bare witness of him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me: for he was before me. 16. And of his fulness have all we received, and grace for grace." Notice that we have received of His fullness. While we read that Jesus emptied Himself, we also read that we have received of His fullness. Much more specific is Col. 2:9, "For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily." Paul speaks of the fullness of the Godhead dwelling in Jesus. What could be clearer than that? Clearly, Paul is speaking about Jesus as He walked on the earth. Jesus Himself said in John 10:30, “I and my Father are one.”

So even though Paul tells us that Jesus emptied Himself, to say that He emptied Himself of deity would violate the clear teaching of other scriptures. Therefore, when we think of this self-emptying, we must look further to understand what Paul meant. Let’s think about it. What do we find, when we look at Jesus? If in Him the fullness of the Godhead was dwelling, does that mean that He was like the Father in every respect when He walked on the earth? If not, how was He unlike the Father? In other words, what did He leave behind, when He left heaven and walked on this earth?

Could we say that He emptied Himself of His power? In time past all things that were made were made through Him (John 1:3). What about His life while on earth? On the one hand, He was a child being taken to Egypt by His parents to avoid the hostility of Herod. On the other hand, we see Him calming a violent storm with a word. We hear Him say, “Rise up and walk, “ and the lame do indeed rise and walk. He certainly demonstrated power that went beyond that of other men.

But perhaps we could say that He emptied Himself of divine knowledge. When Jesus was a baby, do you think He could quote passages from the Old Testament? In the New Testament itself, we are not told. However, it seems most likely to us that Jesus did not possess such knowledge. We read in Luke 2:52, "And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man." It seems that He learned, just like any other young man. But that isn’t the end of the story. Let’s go back and read the story about Jesus healing a man and forgiving him of his sins. Mark 2:1-12…

And again he entered into Capernaum after some days; and it was noised that he was in the house. 2. And straightway many were gathered together, insomuch that there was no room to receive them, no, not so much as about the door: and he preached the word unto them. 3. And they come unto him, bringing one sick of the palsy, which was borne of four. 4. And when they could not come nigh unto him for the press, they uncovered the roof where he was: and when they had broken it up, they let down the bed wherein the sick of the palsy lay. 5. When Jesus saw their faith, he said unto the sick of the palsy, Son, thy sins be forgiven thee. 6. But there were certain of the scribes sitting there, and reasoning in their hearts, 7. Why doth this man thus speak blasphemies? who can forgive sins but God only? 8. And immediately when Jesus perceived in his spirit that they so reasoned within themselves, he said unto them, Why reason ye these things in your hearts? 9. Whether is it easier to say to the sick of the palsy, Thy sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Arise, and take up thy bed, and walk? 10. But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (he saith to the sick of the palsy,) 11. I say unto thee, Arise, and take up thy bed, and go thy way into thine house. 12. And immediately he arose, took up the bed, and went forth before them all; insomuch that they were all amazed, and glorified God, saying, We never saw it on this fashion.

Notice especially verse 8, where Jesus “perceived in His Spirit that they so reasoned within themselves.” Jesus knew what they were thinking. This is clearly divine knowledge. We find the same thing in chapter 3, where we read, “And when he had looked round about on them with anger, being grieved for the hardness of their hearts…” (Mark 3:5). We could add to these the fact that Jesus knew the background of the Samaritan woman without asking and that Lazarus had died.

Jesus knew more than what a man could see from the outside. However, we can’t say that no other human being had such knowledge. Remember the story of Ananias and Sapphira. Let’s refresh our memory by reading Acts 5:1-3…

But a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession, 2. And kept back part of the price, his wife also being privy to it, and brought a certain part, and laid it, at the apostles' feet. 3. But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land?

How did Peter know? Was it not simply because the Lord revealed it to him? So we see that the Spirit of God can also give men supernatural knowledge.

So let’s come back to Jesus. He still had special power and special knowledge at times, but so did some other men? What about glory? Did Jesus empty Himself of His divine glory, when He came to this earth? It would certainly seem so. We read from the prophet Isaiah (53:2), "For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him." Jesus had no special beauty. If He was God, that fact did not seem to show in His appearance. So can we say that Jesus emptied Himself of His glory?

Let’s recall a couple of events in the life of Jesus. Remember the transfiguration. While we are not told directly that Jesus’ glory was revealed, we do find some very strong statements: “his face did shine as the sun” (Matt. 17:2). Moses had to put a veil over his face because of God’s glory, but nowhere do we read that his face shone as the sun. And don’t forget that scene when they came out to arrest Jesus. Let’s read it in John 18:1-6…

When Jesus had spoken these words, he went forth with his disciples over the brook Cedron, where was a garden, into the which he entered, and his disciples. 2. And Judas also, which betrayed him, knew the place: for Jesus ofttimes resorted thither with his disciples. 3. Judas then, having received a band of men and officers from the chief priests and Pharisees, cometh thither with lanterns and torches and weapons. 4. Jesus therefore, knowing all things that should come upon him, went forth, and said unto them, Whom seek ye? 5. They answered him, Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus saith unto them, I am he. And Judas also, which betrayed him, stood with them. 6. As soon then as he had said unto them, I am he, they went backward, and fell to the ground.

Why did they stagger backward and fall to the ground? Because when Jesus said, “I am,” He was using the divine name. At that moment, it certainly appears that His glory shone forth. John Cross, in Stranger on the Road to Emmaus, comments that they were blown off their feet for a miniburst of Jesus’ divine glory. So it doesn’t seem accurate to say that Jesus emptied Himself of His divine glory, at least not in a total sense.

What Does It Mean that Jesus Emptied Himself?

So what does it mean? I find the thoughts of J. I. Packer helpful. I don’t think they are unique, but only the formulation of sound biblical thinking through the centuries. He finds the key to Jesus emptying Himself in the Son’s submission to the Father. Please allow me to quote him briefly…

We see now what it meant for the Son of God to empty Himself and become poor. It meant a laying aside of glory (the real kenosis); a voluntary restraint of power; an acceptance of hardship, isolation, ill-treatment, malice, and misunderstanding; finally, a death that involved such agony--spiritual, even more than physical--that His mind nearly broke under the prospect of it. It meant love to the uttermost for unlovely men, who “through his poverty, might become rich.” (p. 55)

The issue was not whether or not Jesus had the power to do certain things, but rather whether or not it was the Father’s will. Listen to the words of Jesus: "Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise… I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me" (John 5:19, 30). Then again in John 6:38, "For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me."

Think about it. Jesus at times did extraordinary things. Why? Because it was the will of the Father. At other times He knew things that ordinary men did not know. Why? Because it was the will of the Father. We would have to say that all the Father had was at the disposal of Jesus while He walked the earth, but He did not insist on utilizing those things, except as the Father led Him. The Phillips translation of Phil. 2:7 says that Jesus “stripped Himself of all privileges.” In other words, He certainly had a divine right to know the time of His second coming, but He laid down all rights and yielded to His Father. He had every right to let His glory shine forth, but He did so only when the Father deemed appropriate. Jesus had every right to full, complete, unhindered, face-to-face fellowship with His Father, but He laid it aside to come into this world as a man. Thus He prayed to His Father in John 17:5, "And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was."

Now it might also be helpful to mention that the kenosis theory may not be as innocent as it might appear. In England this theory was introduced by Bishop Gore in 1889 as an attempt to explain why Jesus didn’t seem to know there were errors in the Old Testament. The higher critics of that day were sure such errors existed, but they still wanted to cling to Jesus as the Christ of God. They were not willing to say that if we can’t trust Jesus’ view of the Old Testament, then we can’t trust His view of anything. The kenosis theory allowed Gore to give Jesus an excuse for His ignorance; He emptied Himself of all divine knowledge, even of deity itself. Therefore, like other sincere men who had not come to understand the limitations and faulty teachings of the Old Testament, Jesus had a blind spot in that area. However, Bishop Gore taught that this cultural blindness did not prevent Him from being the Savior of the world. I believe it is accurate to say that in general those who hold to the kenosis theory do not have reputation for taking seriously the truth of God’s Word.

Come back to the KJV translation of verses 6-7, “Who, being in the form of God, did not think it robbery to be equal with God, but made himself of no reputation, and took on him the form of a servant.” The Greek will allow some latitude for the translation of verse 6. While some have translated it in a way to leave open the possibility that Jesus never wanted to claim equality with the Father, the King James translators make clear (believing their handling of the term “robbery” is the proper one) their belief that Jesus was indeed equal with God and did not deem it wrong to claim that position. This is absolutely consistent with the fact that Jesus was in the form of God. Equality with God is further confirmation that the form of God relates to His very essence and inner character.

When we come to verse 7 and the clause, “but made himself of no reputation,” the KJV translators took the liberty of inserting a bit of interpretation into their translation. I believe it was to make sure there was no room for those who held to what was later called “the kenosis theory.” Their interpretation emphasizes that Jesus lowered Himself in the eyes of others by submitting to the limitations imposed by His Father, but it will not allow for Jesus emptying Himself of deity. It is not my purpose to defend the King James translation. We may do just as well to carefully explain what “emptied Himself” does not mean and what it does mean. But I do think this was the reasoning behind the KJV rendering.

Conclusion

So how important is it that we hold to the truth that Jesus was fully God? Can the Christ of the Jehovah’s Witnesses be the Savior? Their beliefs about saluting the flag, etc. are not the issue. The issue is the Jesus they proclaim. Are they just mistaken on some things? Or do they present a Christ who is not the real Jesus of the New Testament?

We could look at this from many angles. We might consider Heb. 1, where passages from the Psalms that apply to the LORD God are applied to Jesus. Or we could look at Col. 1.

Consider Acts 4:12, "Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved." Verse 10 makes it clear that the name is the name of Jesus. However, we must remember that the biblical concept of name goes much deeper than our modern understanding. When God renamed Jacob “Israel,” it had great significance. The name represented the character of the person. That is why it was no small thing for Jesus to say, “I am.” It was the divine name that God had used of Himself.

So what is the big deal? There is no other name under heaven given among men whereby we must be saved. It is not about just mouthing the name “Jesus.” It must be the person that is attached to that name. In other words, it must be the Jesus who is revealed in the Word of God. That Jesus is fully God and fully man. A “Jesus” who is not fully God is not the Jesus whereby we must be saved.

May the Lord give us grace to continue to think on Phil. 2:6-7 and the truth that Jesus is fully God and fully man. I would encourage you to read the Gospel of John and notice the great emphasis on Jesus’ deity.