Response: Obviously you believe that "existed in the form of God" refers to Jesus' alleged preexistence. If this is the case why then does it say that while He was in this state that He "did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped"? Yet Trinitarians say that He was "co-equal" with God. Why would He consider equality with God something not to be grasped when He already had it? Doesn't make sense.

 

I believe that "existed in the form of God" refers to Jesus in His earthly life. In verse 5 when it says, "Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus..." - When was this attitude in Christ Jesus? Before he was born, in his preexistent state? I think that is how you would read it. But it doesn't say that this attitude was in the Logos. Nor does it say, "...Jesus Christ, who having PREEXISTED (pro-uparchon) in the form of God..." (Note: "pro-uparchon" occurs nowhere in the NT that I know of. It DOES occur in the writings of the post-apostolic Greek fathers. What does that suggest?) The term "Christ Jesus" indicates that Paul is referring to the MAN who was born in Bethlehem, the same man who perfectly expressed the Father to us. The past tense that is used would be appropriate since Paul, when he wrote Philippians was referring to the previous time when Jesus was ministering to Israel. There are many verses that I could summon to support that the MAN Christ Jesus was "in the form of God"; most of them are what Trinitarians use to support the idea that Jesus was God Himself. Verses like, "If you've seen Me you've seen the Father..." The idea is that Jesus perfectly expressed God the Father - but that does not make Him (Jesus) the same thing as, or equal to, the Father. If what I'm saying is true, it makes much more sense of the phrase, "did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped..." He "emptied Himself" - footnote: "laid aside His privileges". That would be the privileges that were his by right of birth. He was the Son of God, literally, and was the Anointed, the Messiah, the King of the world  - and was obedient to the point of death. Therefore, God has highly exalted Him (this distinguishes between God and Jesus) and has bestowed on Him (Jesus) the name which is above every name.

 

This interpretation makes more sense of the context, which is an exhortation to humility. It's difficult to see how we can identify with a God who allegedly humbled Himself and took on the attitude (form) of a slave, as opposed to identifying with a man - a man as human as we are - who was the son of God, and therefore actually entitled to rule the world. But this man in humility "laid aside his privileges" and was obedient. We should do likewise. This is in contrast to the first Adam, also a man who was entitled to the same privileges, but counted equality with God a thing to be grasped - "you will be like God" (Gen 3:5).

 

The matter hinges on how "the FORM of God" is to be understood. Trinitarians will take the word "form" (morphe) to mean "essential nature". Non-Trinitarians will maintain the word "form" necessitates a distinction between the thing itself (in this case God) and the form of the thing. They say that "morphe" refers to outward appearance, not essential nature. Since the statement that Jesus took on the "form" of a slave doesn't mean he was ACTUALLY in essential nature a slave (it says his slave-hood was voluntary), then the statement that Jesus was in the "form" of God doesn't mean that he was ACTUALLY God. It is my opinion that "form" should be understood as roughly synonymous with "image" (morphe/eikon) as in, "God created man in his own image..." (Gen 1:27). Adam was in the "image" of God, but was not actually God. In the same way, Jesus was in the "form" of God, but was not actually God. For a more in-depth analysis of this issue go to "Further information."

 

Back to Arguments Index