Philippians 2:6-8

Joshua Perez

1/29/2025

"6 who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. 8 Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross." (Philippians 2:6-8 NASB95)

This passage has been a favorite amongst Trinitarians, as they believe it clearly teaches that Jesus is God, and chose to "limit himself" by taking on a human body.

1. The phrase "form of God" (morphe theou) is an odd one off statement in the Bible. The term "morphe" literally means "form"; the way which something strikes the vision (an observable condition), as stated by several lexicons [1]. Kittel (editor of The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament) also notes that morphe and schema (translated as appearance in vs. 8) are often interchangeable. Some translations interpret morphe as a term describing the essential nature of a being, leading to renderings such as the NIV:

"Who, being in very nature God..." (Philippians 2:6a)

Several lexicons, such as Vines, similarly define morphe as: “properly the nature or essence, not in the abstract, but as actually subsisting in the individual…it does not include in itself anything ‘accidental’ or separable, such as particular modes of manifestation.” This is a clear misinterpretation of the word, as I will now display in an overview of how this word is used in scripture and relevant contemporary literature.

In Luke 24:13-33 we read about the resurrected Jesus appearing to the two disciples walking along the way, and in Mark's account of the story, he writes:

"12 After that, He appeared in a different form (morphe) to two of them while they were walking along on their way to the country. 13 They went away and reported it to the others, but they did not believe them either." (Mark 16:12-13)

Evidently Jesus did not change his ontological nature when appearing to the disciples, he merely took on a different visible appearance. 

In the Greek translation of the Old Testament, the Septuagint, we read about a person creating an idol in the "form" (morphe) of a man.

"The carpenter stretches out a line; he marks it out with a red chalk; he works it with planes, and he marks it out with a compass, and makes it like the figure (morphe) of a man, like the beauty of a man, to set it up in a house." (Isaiah 44:13 LXX)

A wooden idol is of course not a man pertaining to it's essential nature, it does however look like one according to it's visible appearance. Again, in Daniel 3:19, when Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego refused to bow down to Nebuchadnezzar’s idol, he became angered, and “the form (morphe) of his countenance” changed. Nebuchadnezzar's ontology obviously didn't change, he was always a man. His appearance, however, did change.

In the book of 4 Maccabees (an intertestamental book written around the 1st century BC), it even says that children reflect the character and "form" (morphe) of their parents:

"4 In what manner might I express the passions of parents who love their children? We impress upon the character of a small child a wondrous likeness both of mind and of form (morphe). Especially is this true of mothers, who because of their birth pangs have a deeper sympathy toward their offspring than do the fathers." (4 Maccabees 15:4)

Evidently, Jesus being in the "form" of God does not imply he is God in essence. If Jesus truly were God, than stating he's in the "form of God" is illogical. If Paul's goal was to teach Trinitarian theology, he would of just stated "Jesus, being God". He does not however. Jesus being in the "form" of God implies he is not God. For this reason, there is no verse in the Bible that states the Father is in the form of God. As, the Father simply is the one true God in scripture (Jn. 17:3; 1 Cor. 8:6; Ephesians 4:6). Jesus being in "the form of God" (looking like God) makes a lot of sense considering that Jesus perfectly reveals God (the father) to us (John 1:18; Coll. 1:15). Jesus speaks the words of the Father (John 12:49. 14:10), does the Father's will (John 5:30, 6:30; Matt. 26:39), and therefore makes statements such as "if you've seen me you've seen the Father" (John 14:9). 

2. The second phrase which has sparked debate over the years is Jesus "not regarding equality with God a thing to be grasped". The point of contention in this phrase is the word translated as "grasped", harmagmon in Greek. The Bauer's Greek lexicon defines the word as follows:

"This can be taken 'sensu malo' to mean prize, booty (so LXX), and only the context and an understanding of Paul's thought in general can decide whether it means holding fast to a prize already obtained or the appropriation to oneself of a prize which is sought after" (Bauers Lexicon, entry for harmagmos)

What this means in the context of Jesus not considering equality with God a thing to be "harmagmon", is either:

1. Jesus possesses equality with God, but chooses to not exploit it/hold fast to it

2. Jesus does not possess equality with God, and does not view it as something to be reached for/desired

Several translations, such as HCSB, NRSV, NIV, and NLT all take stance number 1, depicting Jesus as not "exploiting equality with God". Other translations, such as the KJV, NKJV, NASB, and ESV take the position of number 2, saying Jesus did not regard equality with God something to be grasped. At the end of this article, we will argue the position for both renderings of the word harpagmon by articulating an interpretation for each that is consistent with Unitarian theology and does not make Jesus into God. 

3. The statement, "..but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant" is another section of this passage that has been a topic of debate amongst scholars. The Greek word for "emptied" is kenos, which literally means "to make empty". Below is how several translations render the word:

“But made himself of no reputation” (KJV)

“but made himself nothing” (NIV)

“but emptied himself” (NASB, RSV, NRSV, HCSB)

The Trinitarian understanding of this statement is that Christ (who they believe is 100% God) came down from heaven taking on a perfect human nature. They call this concept the hypostatic union—the union of 100% humanity with 100% divinity in Jesus. They view the "emptying" as a sort of "veiling" or "limiting" of Jesus' full divinity due to his acquisition of a human nature. As Biblical Unitarians, however, we completely reject this belief. To be man (which comes with numerous limitations), is to not be God (necessarily omnipresent, omnipotent, and omniscient). Below is a list of the Biblical teachings of the nature of God, which are all necessarily untrue for humans.

• immune to death (1 Tim 1:17,6:16; Rom. 1:23)

• can't be tempted (James 1:13)

• can't sin (Deut. 32:4; Hab. 1:13; 1 John 1:5)

• can't lie (Num. 23:19; Titus 1:2; Heb. 6:18)

• must be highest in authority (Rev. 19:6; Psa. 95:3)

• uncreated (Psa. 90:2; Ex. 3:14; Rev. 4:11

• perfect in knowledge (Psa. 147:5; Heb. 4:13)

• perfect in power (Gen. 18:14; Jer. 32:17)

God is unable to do anything that contradicts his nature. For example, God as the definition of morality cannot lie, sin, or be tempted (which implies viewing evil as an option). It is for this reason a "God-man" is impossible. Again, to be man is to be limited, and to be limited, it to not be God. This is the same hypothetical paradox atheists pose to Christians, asking "can God create a rock so heavy he can't lift it?". As Christians, we should have no issue answering no. Part of God's nature is his omnipotence, therefore anything that contradicts this is impossible for him to do. Thankfully, scripture does not teach a two natures doctrine of any sorts. As it is the clear new testament teaching, that Jesus Christ was a man, full stop [2].

"22 “Men of Israel, listen to these words: Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God performed through Him in your midst, just as you yourselves know" (Acts 2:22)

Therefore, Jesus' kenos has to be in light of the fact that he was a genuine member of humanity. Jesus' "emptying" is describing his humbleness and loss of reputation in light of the fact that he is the perfect son of God, the chosen Messiah.

King Christology

As mentioned earlier, we will now explore the two primary interpretations held by Unitarians of this text pertaining to the understanding of the Greek word herpagmos. 

The first understanding of the word is that Jesus possessed "equality with God", and chose to not exploit it for his own benefit. The first distinction one needs to make is the difference between functional equality, and ontological equality. Functional equality would mean Jesus possessed the divine privileges and perogatives typically associated with God. Ontological equality would imply that Jesus is in essence, God. As already displayed, the author has already distinguished Jesus from God by saying he is in the form of him, and is a man. Therefore, functional equality is what's being spoken of. Jesus stated that he can do nothing on his own accord, but only what he sees the father doing; functional equality (John 5:19-20). Furthermore, Jesus is frequently depicted as the ultimate agent of God, who is revealing him to the world via his works (which are stated to have be granted to him by God, as they are actions only God can inherently perform).

• power (Mt 12:28; Lk 1:32, 4:15, 11:20-22; Jn 3:2, 35, 5:19, 30, 14:10; Acts 2:22, 10:37-38; Heb 2:4)

• authority (Mt 9:8, 28:18; Jn 5:18, 22-23; Acts 17:31; 1 Cor 1:3, 15:24-28; Rev 2:26-27)

•   knowledge (In 7:16, 8:28, 16:30, 17:8, 14; Rev 1:1)

• forgiving sins (Mk 2:1-12; Mt 9:8; Jn 20:22-23)

• judging humanity (Acts 17:31)

As a highly qualified agent of God, Jesus himself can rightfully be given the title of "god", as seen throughout the Bible for others who possessed authority. For instance, Moses in Exodus 7:1 is called the "god" over pharaoh. The Great Sanhedrin in the land of Israel was given direct divine authority from Hashem (Deut. 17:8-13), and we see them being directly addressed using the title "gods" (Exodus 21:6; Exodus 22:28; Psalm 82). This is the very same argument the Lord Jesus Christ used in John 10 as to why it is not blasphemy for him to say he is the son of God (which implies inferiority). The most notable example is Psalm 45:6-7, which depicts the reigning king of Israel being referred to as "god" by the author. All of the kings of Israel were seen as a representatives of God on earth (possessing a type of functional equality); Solomon for example is stated as sitting on "the throne of the Lord" (1 Chron. 29:3). Various Kings of Israel receiving "worship" (1 Kings 1:28-31; 1 Chronicles 29:20-25). Jesus, the eternal king of the Jews, certainly would be the ultimate representative of God, making his functional equality with Hashem even more understandable. 

However, despite Jesus possessing all of this glory, power, and authority; he chooses not to exploit it by taking on the form of a servant. Despite his absolute right to do so, he didn't demand the worship and respect he deserved as king of the Jews. On the contrary, he remained humble. Raised in Nazareth (John 1:46), riding in to Jerusalem on a donkey (John 12:14-15), not calling upon legions of angels which were at his command (Matthew 26:53). Jesus deserved everything the world had to offer as God's Messiah and chosen representative; but he chose to not exploit these privileges' by emptying himself, taking the form of a humble servant, culminating at death on the cross (Phil. 2:8).

Adam Christology

If we are to understand herpagmon as it's alternative meaning, then Paul would be stating that Jesus did not view equality with God something to attempt to reach for/obtain. This concept of man attempting to obtain equality with God bears striking parallels to the story of Adam. Firstly, Adam is stated to have been directly made in the "image" and "likeness" of God. Utilizing the Greek words eikon and homoiosis in the Septugaint (LXX) translation.

"26 Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image (eikona), according to Our likeness (homoiosin);" (Genesis 1:26a LXX)

Jesus is elsewhere stated by Paul to be the "image" (eikon) of the invisble God (Colossians 1:15), and is even called by Paul the "2nd Adam" (1 Corinthians 15:45-47; Romans 5:12-19). All of humanity are bearers of the divine image, but only Adam and Christ were made directly in God's image. Paul stating in Philippians 2:6 that Jesus was in the "form of God" (morphe theou) may be a reference to this same "Adam Christology", as image, likeness, and form, all speak of the outward appearance. In fact, in Philippians 2:7 when Paul states Jesus was made in the likeness of man; he uses the same Greek word homoiosin used in Genesis 1:26 LXX.

This concept of Adam Christology is further supported by Paul stating that Jesus did not view equality with God as something to attempt to obtain. Adam deliberately attempted to obtain equality with God by eating from the fruit of tree of the knowledge of Good and evil. 

"4 The serpent said to the woman, “You surely will not die! 5 For God knows that in the day you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” 6 When the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was desirable to make one wise, she took from its fruit and ate; and she gave also to her husband with her, and he ate." (Genesis 3:4-6)

In Romans 5:17-19 Paul says that if by one man's act of disobedience, death and condemnation spread to all men (Adam eating from the tree to obtain equality with God), then how much more shall life and justification spread to all men by one man's act of righteousness (Jesus living a humble and obedient life, not desiring equality with God). Jesus, like Adam, was a perfect son of God (Luke 3:38). But instead of thinking of himself too highly, he emptied himself by staying in his own lane, living an obedient life in submission to God, leading to death on the cross (Philippians 2:8).

4. Verses 9-11 further confirm the thesis of both Unitarian positions, by stating that because Jesus lived an obedient life culminating at death on the cross:

"9 For this reason also, God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, 10 so that at the name of Jesus every knee will bow, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11 and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." (Philippians 2:9-11)

Someone who is Almighty God, does not need to be exalted by some presumably greater than them. But, Paul states that Jesus has been exalted by God, to his right hand. Peter in Acts 2:36 states that Jesus has been made both "Lord and Christ" by God. Displaying that "Lord" (kurious) functions as a title meaning "master", and not someone who is YHWH (see our article on 1 Corinthians 8:6). Paul even states that the worship given to Christ is to the glory of God the Father. Worship to God is not to the glory of another, as he is the highest authority. But worship to God's son, who God has exalted, is to the glory of the one who exalted him. 

5. Some have noted that Paul quotes from Isaiah 45:23-24 in verses 10-11, where God declares that every knee will bow to him.

“23 I have sworn by Myself, The word has gone forth from My mouth in righteousness And will not turn back, That to Me every knee will bow, every tongue will swear allegiance. 24 “They will say of Me, ‘Only in the Lord (YHWH) are righteousness and strength." (Isaiah 45:23-24)

This, they believe must mean that Jesus is God. However, after understanding the  jewish concept of agency, this is no issue. Agency is the principal that a person's messenger posseses the legal status to that of himself [3]. In Exodus 7:17 God states he will take the staff that is in his hand, and strike the Nile turning it to blood. However, Exodus 7:20 states that Aaron took the staff in his hand and struck the Nile. Does this mean that Aaron is YHWH, because he did something that God said he would do? Of course not, Aaron simply acted as an agent on God's behalf. All the credit of this miracle still goes to God despite Aaron being the one to perform it. Likewise, people bowing before and confessing the name of Jesus (the ultimate agent and representative of God) is to the glory of God the father. Jesus fulfilling a YHWH text does not make him God [4], just like Aaron fulfilling a YHWH statement does not make him God either. 

[1] Thayers Lexicon (entry for morphe); Bullingers Lexicon (entry for morphe); Bauer's Lexicon (entry for morphe); The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, by Gerhard Kittel (entry for morphe)

[2] Matt. 8:27; Mark 6:2; Luke 23:2; John 8:40; Acts 17:31; Rom. 5:12-19; 1 Cor. 15:47; 1 Tim. 2:5; Heb. 2:17

[3] Kiddushin 41b

[4] N.T. usage of O.T texts is often not literal. Isaiah 7:14 prophecies of a child born during the days of king Ahaz, yet Matthew 1:23 applies it to Jesus. Jeremiah 31:15 talks about women weaping over their children being taken into Babylonian captivity, yet Matthew 2:17-18 applies it to women weaping over the Herod's massacre of children. Matthew 2:15 states that Yeshua and his family fled to Egypt to escape Herod, fulfilling Hosea 11:1 which states, "out of Egypt have I called my son". However, Hosea 11:1 in it's original context was about God bringing Israel out of the land of Egypt in the book of Exodus. Hebrews 1:5 applies Psalm 2:7 and 2 Sam. 7:14 (texts about David the king of Israel) and applies them to Jesus. Hebrews 1:8-9 applies Psalm 45:6-7 to Jesus, despite it originally being a coronation Psalm likely about Solomon. These are just a few examples, however the authors of the N.T. never intended us to believe that the N.T. "fulfillment" of these texts was literal and that we should conflate the two uses.