Articles
Bookstore HomeLibrary Links Message Boards Sermons
Peterson's Reformed World
Articles Bookstore HomeLibrary Links Message Boards Sermons
Phil 2:5-8 Let the same mind be in you that was in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God as something to be exploited, but emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, being born in human likeness. And being found in human form, he humbled himself and became obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. NRSV
In the previous verses of this passage Paul spent some time preaching to the people of Philippi. He wanted to relate to them the importance of and the actual way of living like Christ. It was his desire that they and we let our minds think like Christ's mind and thereby act like Christ acted in relation to others. In those verses he describes Christ's mind as one bent toward selflessness and love. And it was Paul's intent to compel his readers to consciously put others in a place of honor over themselves.
To demonstrate how Christ modeled this disposition of sacrifice, Paul in just a few short verses lays out a picture of Jesus that is truly amazing and wonderful and yet somewhat confusing. It's confusing most likely because it is so foreign to us, the image of a King becoming a pauper for the love of his subjects whom he sees as his children and bride, is not one that has become familiar to us, simply because it doesn't happen much. And yet that is the image we see of Christ in Paul's words here.
What is so wonderful about the story of Christ's sacrifice is who Christ was and what He had to do in order to become that sacrifice. The strength of Jesus' example is found in the picture of a God emptying himself of all godliness and becoming the essence of complete destitution. In verse six we are told that Christ existed in the exact form of God. What Paul means when he says that Jesus existed in the exact form of God is that Jesus was in fact God and that Jesus is eternal, he in fact possesses every attribute that can be applied to God. What makes the person of Jesus necessary in the Holy Trinity is what his person does in the world of humanity which can be seen in John 1:1-4:
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through him, and without him not one thing came into being. What has come into being in him was life, and the life was the light of all people.
Note the sentence "what has come into being in him was life . . .." The "him" in this sentence has to be "The Word", and we know that the word is that which existed with God in the beginning and in fact is God. From this passage it becomes evident that Christ is in fact divine for in scripture there is no other individual who could fit the description given here of "The Word." John tells us that what the word did that was so special involved the introduction of life, which was the light of all people. Now it is not physical life which is being discussed in this verse, although the word is responsible for our temporal existence. However, it is obvious that John had in mind a spiritual life, for he attributes the coming of this life to the experience of light or holiness by the people of the creation.
And so it can easily be stated that Jesus is "The Word" for it is Jesus that made spiritual life possible to those living in the physical realm, which is the same activity seen in the ministry of "The Word." And henceforth, we are correct in understanding Paul as giving Jesus the divine attribute of Godness when he says that Jesus existed in the form of God, in fact He was equal to God in every way. But as I have said before, what makes Jesus a special part of the Trinity is that he accomplished the redeeming of God's people to God. And we know that he did this by becoming a human being, living in temptation yet without sin, accepting the sin of the world as well its punishment (death) as His own, and by rising from the dead thereby conquering death through his life so as to give life to God's children.
The question then becomes, partially a matter of the interpretation of verses 6b - 8 and partially a matter of logic. What does it mean to say that Jesus, who did not consider equality with God something to be exploited, emptied himself?
In order to deal with this question I will need to expand this discussion to two issues of "Myth and Fact" In this edition I will deal with the end of logic, which one must remember is based on human wisdom. As you know if human wisdom is not based on the wisdom of God it is foolishness for "the Lord knows that the thoughts of the wise are futile." Therefore it will be necessary for you to withhold your acceptance or rejection of the following argument until you read the second half of this article which will deal with the biblical interpretation of this passage. In the meantime please send me your thoughts on what I say in the following paragraphs.
My thoughts for today will be directed toward the writings of Soren Kierkegaard. However in order to be fair to Mr. Kierkegaard I must tell you that I have no evidence that he himself holds the views espoused in the portion of his "Philosophical Fragments" that I will be discussing.
In the passage under question we find a description of humanity as in a state of untruth, there by his own fault. That same humanity has become the object of God's love. Because of God's love for humanity he desires to bring it into equality with Him.
Now, what Kierkegaard means by "equality" I am not sure, but for the sake of our discussion I will define it as a return to the newly created state of humanity as found in the "garden." This is a state where humanity is at one in fellowship and intimacy with God.
This being the desire and goal of God, it becomes necessary for Him to find a way to accomplish this task, not because He needs to, but because He wants to.
Two possibilities are given by Kierkegaard. The first in its faultiness brings about the second. He writes that "the unity is brought about by an ascent. The god would then draw the learner up toward himself, exalt him, divert him with joy lasting a thousand years, let the learner forget the misunderstanding in his tumult of joy."
The picture is drawn here of a king who through his own power makes the maidservant His spouse and adorns her as his beloved. What fault can be found in that by the sinner desiring to be made into the saint. Oh, if God were to draw me up to him and make me his spouse, if he were to remove me from my present life and place me in a life of joy everlasting, without ever changing me, what joy would be mine!
But is that true? The idea that I would be dressed like the lover of God and yet not be the lover of God is not accepted easily. What if I were like the lily adorned by God in a costume who "considered itself to be the beloved because of the costume. Instead of standing cheerful in the meadow. . .?" While I, who in my selfishness desires to be rid of my lowly garments of human flesh, would accept this arrangement without pause, it is impossible that God would applaud such a state of affairs, for He knows then that it would not be for the love of His being that I stand before Him.
Kierkegaard illustrates the point this way: "the king could have appeared before the lowly maiden in all his splendor, could have let the sun of his glory rise over her hut, shine on the spot where he appeared to her, and let her forget herself in adoring admiration. This perhaps would have satisfied the girl, but it could not satisfy the king, for he did not want his own glorification but the girl's, and his sorrow would be very grievous because she would not understand him; . . .."
That is the sense in which it is impossible for God to just dress us in perfection without in someway making us perfect and so another alternative, namely the descent of God is required. Both Kierkegaard and the Bible agree that it was necessary for God "to become like his brothers and sisters in every respect," through Jesus Christ. The question is how do we interpret phrases like "every respect" and "emptied himself". That I believe is a very important question. For some to say that God in Jesus emptied himself of all divinity would be paramount to killing God. But for others, Kierkegaard puts it plainly when he writes that the god "will appear . . . as the equal of the lowliest of persons. But the lowliest of all is one who must serve others - consequently, the god will appear in the form of a servant. But this form of a servant is not something put on like the king's plebeian cloak, which just by flapping open would betray the king; . . . but it is his true form. For this is the boundlessness of love, that in earnestness and truth and not in jest it wills to be the equal of the beloved, . . .."
And so logic would demand that in emptying himself Jesus in fact gave up any claim on divinity. Yet has God spoken on the matter in this dialogue? It is yet to be seen. I only wish space and time permitted me to go on but it does not. And so let me leave you with this thought from Blaise Pascal "The Church has had as much difficulty in proving that Jesus was man, against those who denied it, as in proving that he was God, and both were equally evident."
"If your still interested, read part two"