Robert L. Reymond and Philippians 2:5-11

Robert L. Reymond (1932-2013) is a theologian who has, to some extent, flown under the radar. If you’ve ever wondered what a Systematic Theology by John Murray would have looked like, you need look no further than Reymond’s superb, A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith. His brilliance shines throughout the book, and one section in particular draws my attention, namely, his exegesis of Philippians 2:5-11. I will summarize his exegesis and comment upon it. In particular, I will focus on his exegesis of verses 6-8.

Reymond’s Greek Structure

He divides Philippians 2:6-11 into two sections, or hymns (as he considers the passage a combination of two hymns): verses 6-8; and verses 9-11. It’s the first section I’m interested in.

He breaks down the first hymn in verses 6-8 into two parts (strophes):

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. 

His breaks down the Greek in the following manner:

6ὃς

[A] ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ ὑπάρχων
οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγήσατο τὸ εἶναι ἴσα θεῷ,

7ἀλλ’ ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσεν 

μορφὴν δούλου λαβών, 

[B] ἐν ὁμοιώματι ἀνθρώπων γενόμενος·
καὶ σχήματι εὑρεθεὶς ὡς ἄνθρωπος

8ἐταπείνωσεν ἑαυτὸν 
γενόμενος ὑπήκοος μέχρι θανάτου, θανάτου δὲ σταυροῦ.

Reymond explains the sections:

• Both strophes, A and B, have four lines. The first and last line of each section begins and ends with a participial clause:

ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ ὑπάρχων…. μορφὴν δούλου λαβών

ἐν ὁμοιώματι ἀνθρώπων γενόμενος….γενόμενος ὑπήκοος μέχρι 

θανάτου, θανάτου δὲ σταυροῦ

• Each first line of a strophe begins with an en phrase: ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ…. ἐν ὁμοιώματι ἀνθρώπων
• “Form of God” (μορφῇ θεοῦ) is an antithetical parallel to “likeness of men” (ὁμοιώματι ἀνθρώπων), and both are in the first line of their respective strophes.
• Line 3 in each strophe contains a reflexive pronoun denoting Christ: ἑαυτὸν (himself)… ἑαυτὸν (himself). The use of the same reflexive pronoun suggests that Strophe A, line 3 means the same as strophe B, line 3:

But emptied himself = he humbled himself

               

This equation is made all the more likely if ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσεν is translated “poured out himself”, alluding to Isaiah 53:12, and ἐταπείνωσεν ἑαυτὸν is seen as an allusion to Isaiah 53:8 (LXX), which is quoted in Acts 8:33, “In his humiliation he was deprived of justice”. Both phrases refer to Isaiah’s Suffering Servant.

• There is reverse parallelism in both strophes, in lines 1 and 3:

Strophe A, line 3 is about death                                 Strophe B, line 1 is about death

Strophe A, line 1 is about servanthood                   Strophe B, line 3 is about servanthood

• In strophe A, “God” occurs in lines 1 and 2. In strophe B, “man” is the focus in lines 1 and 2.
• Both strophes refer to Jesus’ humiliation.[1]

Reymond’s Exegesis

Reymond rejects the view that ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ refers to an Adam-like figure. Adam was in the image of God; Jesus was in the form (image) of God. First of all, eikon and morphe are not synonymous. Second, in strophe A, line 3, it says that Jesus came in the “form” (morphe) of a servant. He did not come in the image of a servant, for he was the Servant of the LORD.[2]

                “Form” (morphe) is sometimes taken to mean ‘visible form’ of something, as usage in the LXX suggests (Judg.8:18; Job 4:16; Isa.44:13; Dan.3:19 [sic]). Yet, we cannot refer to the visible form of God, for God is invisible (Col.1:15). Nor does morphe equate to doxa (“glory”), for one can hardly refer to the glory of the Suffering Servant. The morphe of God entails that Christ possessed all the attributes of the essence of God, or as Paul puts it in 2 Corinthians 4:5 and Colossians 1:15, Christ was the “ “[essential] image of the [invisible] God” .”[3] [parenthesis Reymond’s] In like fashion, Christ took upon himself the essential attributes of a servant. As the participle ὑπάρχων implies, Christ continues to exist in the form of God, even though he was in the form of a servant. [4]

                To Reymond, the classical reading that begins with the preexistent Son is incorrect; the flow of the passage points instead to the incarnate Son in his Messianic mission. It does not make sense, thinks Reymond, to say that the preexistent Son “ “thought”…of his equality with God”, “for it does not matter.”[5] The idea that the preexistent Son did not consider his equality with God as something to hold on to (res rapta) is theological heresy (see John 5:18; 10:28-33).[6] Reymond is implying that as God the preexistent Son could hardly stop being equal to God the Father. The reading that says that the Son did not think equality with God should be seized (res rapienda) introduces confusion into the text, for it implies that the preexistent Son did not have equality with God, when, in actual fact, as God he must have had equality with the Father. What’s the purpose of saying that the preexistent Son did not grasp after something that he already had? [7] Thus, in the classical schema, it is the res rapta reading that is more appealing, for it at least does not constitute a theological inanity. That being said, the res rapta view entails the intolerable position that the preexistent Son emptied himself of the divine nature.[8] Reymond’s position, by implication, is very clear: for the preexistent Son to have divested himself of equality with God would have required taking full divinity from him, for only by doing that could the Son stop being equal with the Father. Any form of divestiture of deity, such as the Son denying to himself the divine rights of deity, or the Son divesting himself of divine glory, are just as inconceivable, for the rights of deity and divine glory are essential to deity.[9]

                The traditional movement from the preexistent Son in glory to the Son of humiliation up to the Son of exaltation is theologically redundant. As the preexistent, the Son was fully exalted to the position of God. Indeed, as God, the Son cannot be anything but wholly exalted. That being so, what is the purpose of Philippians 2:10-11 if the Son as God is already fully exalted? [10]

                The key to the passage is to start with the Son as “Christ Jesus” (v5). It is the incarnate Son, the Messiah, Christ Jesus, that Paul is referring to and not to the preexistent Son. The background is Matthew 4, most likely, and Satan’s temptation of Christ. Jesus, as the Second Adam- a theme popular in Paul’s writings (Rom.5:12-21; 1 Cor.15:43-49)- is undergoing a trial of his Messianic ministry. Satan tempted Christ to seize his status as equal with God (Matt.4:3, 6, 8), just as Adam was tempted to equality with God. However, the Son refused Satan’s temptation and did not seize upon his equality with the Father.[11]

                The phrase “he emptied himself” in Philippians 2:7 takes us to the Servant Songs of Isaiah. The second hymn, in Philippians 2:10-11, borrows from Isaiah 42:1-8 and 45:23. And Christ’s humbling of himself and obedience unto death recall Isaiah 53:8 (LXX). “[H]e emptied himself” is the “dynamic

equivalent to the Isaianic expression “He poured his soul unto death” ”.[12]

                With these things in mind, the participle labon (Phil.2:7b) reveals the necessary precondition to Christ Jesus’ self-emptying unto death, namely, that he take upon himself the nature of the Servant of Isaiah 53. Only by becoming the Servant could Jesus pour out his life unto death on the cross.[13]

                The second hymn now makes sense: for it is as the Messianic Son (the Second Adam and Suffering Servant) who suffered unto death, and who did not grasp at equality with God, that Christ Jesus is exalted to the position of Lord. Thus:

…the Father’s exaltation of Jesus Christ entailed for the Son, as Messiah, a new and genuine experience of exaltation. Precisely because we must use the word “human” as part of our description of him now, we can also say that something truly new and unique occurred at the resurrection and ascension of Jesus Christ: the man Christ Jesus- the Last Adam and Second Man- assumed de facto sovereignty over the universe, over all of the principalities and powers in the heavenly places, and over all other men, demanding that they submit to the authority of his scepter. That King’s name is Jesus, at the mention of whose office some day every knee will bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ- the divine-human Messiah- is Lord![14]

Some Comments

By far and away, Reymond’s work is the best structural and theological exegesis of Philippians 2:5-11 that is available. It reveals excellence in Greek analysis, Biblical Theology, Systematic Theology, and Exegetical Theology. I have not found a better example of holistic exegesis than Reymond’s piece.

                That being said, there are a couple of points I think we should reconsider. One is Reymond’s understanding of morphe. I think there is evidence that ‘visible form’ is the proper translation. Let’s look again at the lexical evidence. It occurs three times in the New Testament: Mark 16:12; Philippians 2:6-7. Mark 16:12 states, “After that, He appeared in a different form [morphe] to two of them while they were walking along on their way to the country.” It is impossible to avoid the idea of outward appearance here. Jesus’ outward appearance was, physically speaking, different to his previous physical form before he died.

Reymond cites morphe in the LXX: Judges 8:18; Job 4:16; Isaiah 44:13; and, Daniel 3:19. A correction is necessary, for Daniel 3:19 does not use morphe; probably Reymond was thinking of Daniel 5:6 LXX:

1.       Judges 8:18 (LXX) says, “And he said to Zebee and Salmana, “Where are the men whom you killed in Thabor?” And they said, “As you are, one like [homoios] you was like [homoios] them, as the son [morphe] of a king.” ” The reader will note the close similarity between homoios (“likeness”) and morphe. Moreover, morphe does not denote attributes but a type of person, a prince, the son of a king.

2.       Job 4:16 (LXX), “ “I arose and perceived it not: I looked, and there, was no form [morphe] before my eyes: but I only heard a breath and a voice” ” Patently, the form was something visible to the eyes.

3.       Isaiah 44:13 (LXX), “The artificer having chosen a piece of wood, marks it out with a rule, and fits it with glue, and makes it as the form [morphe] of a man, and as the beauty of a man, to set it up in the house.” The idol is in the form, or appearance, of a man.

4.       Daniel 5:6 (LXX), “Then the king's countenance [morphe] changed, and his thoughts troubled him, and the joints of his loins were loosed, and his knees smote one another.” The appearance of Belshazzar’s face changed.

There are usually two objections brought against the view that morphe denotes a visible form. First, there is the traditional position, put forward by Reymond, that morphe denotes inner, or essential attributes. Second, morphe indicates change: the appearance, or form, changes.

In reply to the first criticism, as to Mark 16:12, one can hardly translate morphe as essential attributes. Nor in the examples in the Septuagint. For example, in Isaiah 44:13 we are told the form was that of a man, yet the ‘essence’ of the idol was wood! Now, because Christ changed his appearance and Belshazzar’s visage transformed does not entail that morphe invariably connotes change. If the form of God meant the essence of God, then the form of a Servant meant the essence of a Servant, and Christ was not a servant in his essence. Christ could not possible be, at the same time, in the essence of a Servant and in the essence of God. Servanthood belongs merely to his human nature, and was manifested in his sacrificial life. Regarding the second criticism, it is much simpler to say that morphe denotes the outward form regardless of whether there is a change. For example, in Isaiah 44:13 LXX the form of the idol is that of a man. There is no indication that this form was the result of a change in the appearance of the idol.

The implication is that morphe denotes the appearance to the eye of an object or person. In simple terms, when one looked at Christ Jesus you saw, 1) God; 2) a Servant.  It was Reymond who said that Jesus Christ as preexistent Son could not be the visible appearance of One who was invisible. Agreed. Yet, Jesus Christ the Messiah was God revealed in the flesh, so that his divinity was evident through his flesh to those who saw him:

And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth. (John 1:14)

No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him. (John 1:18)

This beginning of His signs Jesus did in Cana of Galilee, and manifested His glory, and His disciples believed in Him. (John 2:11)

For it was the Father’s good pleasure for all the fullness to dwell in Him, (Col.1:19)

For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form, (Col.2:9)

                Some have said that the idea of a visible form is a vague idea. I prefer it to the Aristotelian logic that divides between essential attributes and non-essential ones.[15] Moreover, my view has the merit of having lexical support from the New Testament and the Septuagint. Wasn’t it all about “seeing” the Lord?

What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands, concerning the Word of Life— ² and the life was manifested, and we have seen and testify and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was manifested to us— ³ what we have seen and heard we proclaim to you also, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father, and with His Son Jesus Christ (1 John 1:1-3; see Luke 1:1-2; John 20:25; Acts 1:1-3; 4:20).

                In that regard, morphe functions similarly to homoioma, which denotes the likeness of a thing, event, or person, and, again, it is observable:

Romans 1:23: …and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the likeness [homoioma] of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.

Romans 5:14: Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness [homoioma] of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.

Romans 6:5: For if we have become united with Him in the likeness [homoioma] of His death, certainly we shall also be in the likeness of His resurrection,

Romans 8:3: For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness [homoioma] of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh,

                Likewise, schema (“appearance”) (v7b) parallels morphe and homoioma:

1 Corinthians 7:31: and those who use the world, as though they did not make full use of it; for the form [schema] of this world is passing away.

In sum, all three words- morphe, homoioma, and schema- point to the outward appearance.

                The phrase καὶ σχήματι εὑρεθεὶς ὡς ἄνθρωπος indicates the visibility of Christ Jesus, too. He was “found in appearance as a man”. Was Christ Jesus lost that he needed to be found? Andrew declared that he had “found” the Messiah (John 1:41). Yet, this Messiah was the man Jesus. And just as his equality with God did not prevent Christ Jesus from pouring out himself, so, in being a man, even the Messiah, Jesus humbled himself to death on the cross.

                What Philippians 2:5-11 amount to is that, if you had seen Jesus back in the day, you would have seen One equal to God, God in the flesh. Yet, you would have noticed that he did not take advantage of this equality but completed his service to God by becoming a slave, the Suffering Servant. When you looked at Jesus you saw his divinity used in service of his duty to suffer and die for the church. Nothing of his divinity was cast away or emptied out. All the divine titles applied to him as preexistent God; even as the incarnate Son, all the divine titles applied to him. Yet, as the incarnate Son, he did not claim any of them, nor grasp for their accompanying prerogatives. Rather, he humbled himself and through his humanity in the flesh his divine glory shone through. It was not until his exaltation (coming out of his resurrection), that Jesus the Messiah was raised up and the prerogatives that were always his were accredited to him as his as the Son of Man, the Messiah. Thus, he was “given” the name Lord, even though, in point of fact, it belonged to him as God. In short, in his exaltation, what belonged to him as God was now transferred to him as Messiah, the Son of Man.

---

[1] A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith, rev. ed., (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1998), 253-255.

[2] 257.

[3] 258.

[4] 257-258.

[5] 260.

[6] Ibid., 260.

[7] Ibid., 260.

[8] Ibid., 260.

[9] Ibid., 260-261.

[10] Ibid., 261.

[11] Ibid., 262.

[12] Ibid., 262-263. Some scholars deny any link between the Suffering Servant and Adam theology. One does not need to find a specific reference to Adam to see a reflection of Adamic theology. In the case of the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53 the whole context is suffused with references to a man, one who is despised and rejected. This is the Second Man, the Suffering Servant, who, in his suffering, stands apart from all the sons of men who came from Adam.

[13] Ibid., 263-264.

[14] Ibid., 264.

[15] And on the subject of philosophical preferences, there is no need to translate ὑπάρχων  (Phil.2:6a) to indicate an eternal ‘being’ or subsistence. The term ὑπάρχων is just a plain vanilla present participle that has the meaning, ‘being’ (Rom.4:19; 1 Cor.11:7; 2 Cor.8:17; 2 Cor.12:16; Gal.1:14, etc.).