0

Philippians 2:5-6 as rendered in the ESV translation:

Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.

Philippians 2:5-6 in a proposal for English translation:

Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of a god, did not consider his being like a god something to be clutched, but emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, being born in the likeness of men.

The reason why I strongly believe this controversial proposal to be correct is because Paul is saying that the Angel of the LORD (God's only-begotten Son) is the pre-eminent Son of God and chief in the divine council over the other sons of God called angels or elohim in Hebrew. This explains how Jesus' pre-incarnate and post-incarnate divine glory is detailed perfectly in the controversial rendering of John 1:1 in Greek:

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god."

Philippians 2:6 is saying that despite enjoying the exulted glory and honor of being in the form of a god (an immortal divine being) as the Son of God, he willingly obeyed the will of his Father and came to earth as the living sacrifice to atone for and liberate God's chosen people from the power of sin and death by giving himself on the cross and physically dying with humanity's sinful flesh to take our curse upon himself.

Following his courageous obedience, he was exulted again to the right hand of God and was given the Name above all names, God's own name YHWH, where his glory was restored as it was before his human incarnation. Now he will come in the power and authority from the Father to judge the living and the dead.

The angelic elohim are "gods" in that they are heavenly spirit beings that dwell in the heavenly domain of God, with the Most High Himself being the head of the divine council of elohim angel spirits, of which their commander is the Archangel "Michael", which means "he who is like God". Michael is the "Angel of the LORD"(Angel of YHWH) and is the Angel of God's Presence. This Angel of YHWH is the pre-incarnate Son of God who would be born in human flesh as Jesus the Anointed One.

The Angel of YHWH (the Only-Begotten Son of YHWH) is the First Light of Genesis 1:3 which was created on Day 1 to give spiritual light upon the earth, well before the sun, moon, and stars were created on Day 4 to give physical light upon the earth. Jesus was the "first of his works of old" (Proverbs 8:22) and is God's beloved child (Proverbs 8:30) as the "firstborn of creation" (Colossians 1:15) who was "before all things" (Colossians 1:17).

Now with all that said, is the proposal presented for Philippians 2:6 a viable translation?

Joshua B
  • 578
  • 13
  • 5
    The verse reads 'in form God' and 'considered equal God' The absence of a Greek article is not a warrant to add the English (so-called) 'indefinite' article. The above is simply a mis-translation of the Greek text. See Daniel B Wallace and his 95 page section on the Greek article in 'Beyond the Basics'. The rest of the question above is theological opinion and is unsubstantiated. – Nigel J Feb 21 '24 at 23:48
  • 1
    I believe that the absence of an article does warrant the indefinite article. Read this incredible investigation by Canadian PhD researcher Benjamin Karleen into the original meaning of this passage, which correlates with my proposal (go to page 243 onward): https://corpus.ulaval.ca/bitstreams/3bc8a610-da4f-4172-82a2-289bbdf590c9/download – Joshua B Feb 22 '24 at 00:23
  • Just in case anyone is wondering from my writing, I clearly stand with the unitarian perspective. – Joshua B Feb 22 '24 at 00:42
  • We do not examine theology on this site, so that is irrelevant. But attempting to insert an indefinite article into the Greek text is relevant and that is why I commented on what you had done. – Nigel J Feb 22 '24 at 00:50
  • You should read the PhD dissertation from Karleen on this verse. You're missing something big. – Joshua B Feb 22 '24 at 00:55
  • 1
    I glanced through it and was not in the slightest impressed. I found it to be verbose jargon and thoroughly unspiritual. – Nigel J Feb 22 '24 at 01:53
  • 2
    He was comparing other Greek literary traditions to understand the uses of morphe theou (form of a god) and isos theo (likeness or 'of being' a god) in the context of Philippians 2:6. Despite being a Trinitarian himself, he shows that the traditional pro-trinitarian translation of Philippians 2:6 is not sound, and must not be used by Trinitarians to prove the Triune Godhead doctrine. – Joshua B Feb 22 '24 at 01:59
  • 5
    Attempting to use pagan Greek literature to interpret the concepts used by Spirit filled and called apostles is, to me, like using a rusty screwdriver and caustic chemicals to examine the exquisite paintings of the grand masters. – Nigel J Feb 22 '24 at 02:03
  • 1
    Interpreting scripture through a shredder of what one wants it to mean is a bad idea. The right way is to allow the scriptures to speak for themselves in the context of the larger passage. Otherwise why waste time proposing a mutilated translation? Just go ahead and rewrite the scriptures to say whatever you want them to say. Much faster that way. In this case, wherever the name, Jesus, appears, simply substitute the archangel Michael, Satan, Enoch, or whatever you want it to say. – Dieter Feb 22 '24 at 07:02
  • @Dieter, I only want the scriptures to say what scriptures were written to say by the direction of God's Spirit. – Joshua B Feb 22 '24 at 09:46
  • 1
    The problem with a position like that of Karleen is what I term "inconsistent logic." Sure you can look a pagan literature and conclude form of a theos** is a plausible interpretation but form of a god is an impossibility. Regardless of the arguments against the indefinite article (which are 100% correct BTW), capitalization did not exist at the time. So form of a god where god is not God, is absolutely impossible. The question becomes could Paul write from of "a" GOD referring to YHVH as is clear from his use of Isaiah 45:23 in verse 2:11? – Revelation Lad Feb 22 '24 at 17:56
  • If Karleen's imperfect realization of the text was not clear enough (and it certainly wasn't), just hold your seat when you read this utterly fantastic and conclusive bombshell by David Bentley Hart: https://davidbentleyhart.substack.com/p/two-pauline-pericopes?profile-setup-message=post-login – Joshua B Feb 22 '24 at 18:01
  • @Joshua B, let me respectfully suggest reading all the verses in the New Testament that mention angels, especially those in in Hebrews. Here's a useful link: https://www.logosapostolic.org/greek-word-studies/0032-angelos-angel.htm – Dieter Feb 22 '24 at 23:38
  • @Dieter, can you promise me to read the short writeup by Hart? It's revealing! – Joshua B Feb 23 '24 at 00:09
  • @Joshua B, It's pay-walled behind a "free trial" signup. Sorry, but I don't do those. – Dieter Feb 23 '24 at 01:58
  • @Dieter, apologies, I've got you covered. I just took a full webpage screenshot of that paywalled article and uploaded it here: https://ibb.co/WBRHRyv – Joshua B Feb 23 '24 at 02:08
  • @JoshuaB. Even with the current translations, the idea that this verse shows that Jesus is equal to God is untenable. Examined thoroughly, it tells the opposite. Those that use Phil. 2:6 toclaim that Jesus is equal to his God are imposing on Jesus what he refused. – Alex Balilo Feb 24 '24 at 08:44
  • Yes. For example, most Unitarians see the passage as saying that Jesus, though he was in the form of God, did not consider seizing equality with God but emptied himself. I think that is close but not quite what is being said here. The passage is clearly saying that Jesus, though he was himself a god in that he enjoyed a divine nature, did not consider clutching or holding onto that divine nature but humbly emptied himself, taking the form of a slave in mortal human flesh. – Joshua B Feb 24 '24 at 19:59

4 Answers4

4

Phil 2:5, 6 according to the BLB:

  • V5 - Let this mind be in you which [was] also in Christ Jesus:
  • V6 - Who, existing in [the] form of God, did not consider to be equal with God something to be grasped

The OP's suggestion ["consider his being a god something"] is a highly interpretive theological translation as the pertinent word is simply "isa" = "equal".

Paul's point is Jesus voluntarily relinquished his equality with the Father by becoming human, but was later elevated back to the same position as per V9-11.

Dottard
  • 104,076
  • 4
  • 44
  • 149
1

It is a blasphemy to equate a servant - Archangel Michael - with the King - Lord Jesus Christ. Everybody believing in this blasphemy will get the lot of the blasphemers of God. "In the form of God" and "equal to God" means what it means, that He, Logos, Christ, is equal to God and therefore deserves equal worship and glorification, just as "He was found in the form of man" means that He became fully man. It is a parallel construction and all logic of the passage without any equivocation is that as the "in the form of man" means fully having human essence and being, thus, fully equal to humans 100%, so also "in the form of God" necessarily means fully being God and fully having divine essence, thus being equal to God 100%.

If one will worship Archangel Michael, who is just a creature, he will commit an act of idolatry by violating the first commandment. Moreover, Michael Archangel is even lower even than us, humans, for we are infinitely more important creatures of God than any of the highest angelic hosts, because they are only servants (cf. Hebrews 1:7-9), whereas we are to rule as kings with the King Jesus Christ, who is the Creator of all angelic hosts alongside with the Father. Angels, Michael among them, worship us, humans for the sake of the Lord Jesus Christ, who will through His grace makes us gods by participation, while He is eternal God by nature and essence, alongside with the Father and the Holy Ghost.

And what does the Scripture write about the Archangel Michael? Just look: “But even the archangel Michael, when he was disputing with the devil about the body of Moses, did not himself dare to condemn him for slander but said, “The Lord rebuke you!” (Jude 1:9). Can those diffident, non-daring words ever be the words of the Lord? Absolutely not! Those are the words of a servant, a slave! Would the Lord Jesus Christ address Satan in such a non-authoritative way? - Never! He orders Satan and all demonic hosts as Lord and God: “I order you, go out of him” (Mark 9:25), without any hint of prayer or address to God, for He is God Himself.

There is a blasphemy and there is a blasphemy, and the type of the blasphemy that makes us - kings, the co-kings with Christ - worship Michael - a servant - is a plebeian, servile and miserable type of blasphemy.

Levan Gigineishvili
  • 10,559
  • 1
  • 11
  • 26
  • 2
  • 1 -- I rarely downvote answers but there has to be a way for you to disagree with the OP without accusing the writer of blasphemy. BTW, I agree Paul does not equate the Archangel Michael with Jesus.
    • – Dan Fefferman Feb 22 '24 at 06:06
  • 2
    @DanFefferman Does blasphemy exist? Yes, it does. Does equating a creature with the Creator fall under the definition of "blasphemy"? It does. So, what on earth do you want from me? – Levan Gigineishvili Feb 22 '24 at 06:22
  • @DanFefferman, 1 Thessalonians 4:16"For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a commanding shout, with THE VOICE OF THE ARCHANGEL, and with the trumpet call of God." Here Paul correlates the Archangel Michael as none other than the Lord Jesus, chief of the Father's angels. In Revelation 12:7, Jesus is called Michael as the commander of God's angels against Satan: "Then war broke out in heaven. Michael (Jesus) and his angels fought against the dragon, and the dragon (Satan) and his angels fought back." Read Matthew 26:53 also for Jesus being the Commander of God's army of angels. – Joshua B Feb 22 '24 at 06:59
  • 1
    Most Trinitarians believe that the Son of God is frequently called an angel - in the OT theophanies of "The Angel of the LORD". I don't think Michael is another name for the Son, but as the "Prince of Israel" it's understandable why some make that identification. You can reject that identification, but it's not a blasphemous one, unless you also think it's blasphemy to identify the Son as the "Angel of the LORD" in Judges 6 and other passages. You need to tone down answers like this - stick to exegesis, not calling other people idolatrous. – curiousdannii Feb 26 '24 at 23:03
  • @curiousdannii Have added a proof from the Scripture that shows 100% that Archangel Michael cannot be anything else but a creature and servant of God. Enjoy. – Levan Gigineishvili Feb 27 '24 at 14:27