Philippians 2:5–11

Reading

Christ existed as a pre-existent divine person in the essential nature (morphē) of God — possessing full deity — yet did not exploit (harpagmos as res rapta) his equality with God. Instead, he voluntarily emptied himself, taking the form of a servant and becoming incarnate. The hymn presupposes a real divine person who chose to descend.

Argument

The parallel between "form of God" and "form of a servant" is decisive. If "form of a servant" means he was genuinely a servant (not merely appeared as one), then "form of God" means he was genuinely God. The kenosis (emptying) requires a real pre-existent state from which to descend. The text itself defines the kenōsis by what Christ added, not what he subtracted: "he emptied himself by taking the form of a servant" — the participial phrase specifies the mode of the emptying. (Critics flag a subtle equivocation here: "emptying" is being given two senses — divestment in the lexical sense, and self-giving addition in the theological sense — with the argument quietly switching between them.)

The ancient church consistently read it this way: Athanasius, Gregory of Nyssa, and Augustine all held that Christ veiled divine attributes during the incarnation, not that he surrendered them. Augustine's formulation is precise: "the form of a slave was added, the form of God was not subtracted." The modern reading — that Christ literally divested himself of omniscience or omnipresence — is a 19th-century development, formally introduced by Gottfried Thomasius (Beiträge zur kirchlichen Christologie, 1845), with no patristic basis.

The exaltation to universal worship (vv. 10–11) applies Isaiah 45:23 — a YHWH text — directly to Jesus, placing him within the divine identity.

Counterargument

Three pressures push back on the Trinitarian reading. (1) Why exalt at all? If Christ already possessed full deity, the language of God "highly exalting" him and "giving" him the name above every name implies he received something new — a structure that fits an agent elevated by God better than a co-equal returning to a status he never lost. The hymn is also binitarian at most; the Spirit is absent.

(2) The kenotic dilemma. Take "emptying" literally and Christ ceased to possess what defines deity — the 19th-century kenotic theory of Thomasius (1845) — which is internally incoherent even for orthodoxy: divine attributes cannot be subtracted without violating divine immutability, so the very theory designed to make the descent intelligible breaks the immutable God of classical theism. Take "emptying" as mere veiling (Augustine; Cyril of Alexandria) and his explicit ignorance (Mark 13:32) and growth "in wisdom" (Luke 2:52) collapse into pedagogical performance. Grammatically, heauton ekenōsen names no object of the emptying; the participle "by taking the form of a servant" supplies only the mode — which is why the substantive content of the "self-emptying" has to be supplied from outside the text. And Paul's stated purpose is ethical imitation ("have this mind among yourselves"); a metaphysical descent narrative no human reader could follow as an example reads against the hymn's own framing (for the orthodox veiling defence at its strongest, see also the Enduring Word commentary on Phil 2).

(3) A god with a God above him. The hymn closes "to the glory of God the Father" (v. 11b, eis doxan theou patros); Paul reserves ho theos for the Father throughout vv. 9–11 while Jesus receives kyrios. A person exalted by another, with another named "God" over him, whose universal worship terminates in another's glory, is on any straightforward reading subordinate — fitting derivative divinity (the Logos position) and paralleled by 1 Cor 15:24–28, where the Son hands the kingdom back so "God may be all in all."

(4) The pre-existent-human problem. The Bible's own thematic definition of a human being is irreducibly creational: a human is formed from dust (Gen 2:7), animated by a borrowed divine breath (Job 33:4; Eccl 12:7), made in God's image to image God to creation (Gen 1:26–27), beginning at conception and becoming a fully independent nephesh at first breath. Humans by biblical definition do not pre-exist their creation. The kenotic descent narrative therefore faces a structural choice: either the pre-existent person who descends is not yet a human (in which case naming "Christ" as a continuous personal subject across the descent quietly imports a non-biblical anthropology where human personhood pre-dates the human's creation), or the divine person merely takes up a human vehicle — which is not what the OT means by being human; that is a divine subject wearing flesh, not a creature whose very existence is contingent and image-bearing. The BU reading avoids this fork by locating the personal subject "Christ" where the Bible locates every human personal subject: from conception forward, in the line of Adam, as the second image-bearer who succeeds where the first failed.

Two structural sharpenings. The Chalcedonian rescue ("one person, two natures") is later Greek philosophical machinery the 1st-century text itself never uses (see Anachronistic Reading); and granting Jesus a "complete human nature" (body, mind, will) does not dissolve the worry — it concedes that being human comes packaged with all those things and then attaches them to a pre-existent divine subject, which is the very Apollinarian move the same tradition formally condemned, simply restated with denser vocabulary. The Second Adam typology (Rom 5; 1 Cor 15:45) only carries Paul's weight if Jesus is the same kind of being as Adam — a real created human who succeeds where Adam failed; an eternal divine person clothed in flesh cannot be the second Adam in the sense the argument actually requires. See also BiblicalUnitarian.com on Phil 2:6.

Rebuttal

Trinitarians answer the three pressures together. The exaltation operates within the incarnational frame: the Son voluntarily emptied himself and accepted the servant form, so what God publicly bestows is the universal acclamation of his completed mission — a coronation of the incarnate Son, not the conferral of a divine status he previously lacked (Wright, Fee, Bauckham). The Spirit's absence in this focused hymn does not erase triadic confession elsewhere (Matt 28:19; 2 Cor 13:14).

The kenotic and Father-glory asymmetries are predicated of the human nature, while the divine nature remains untouched — the two-natures framework formalised at Chalcedon (AD 451).

Critics flag the cost of this reply: it imports a 5th-century distinction the 1st-century text itself does not make (see Anachronistic Reading), and lets "emptying" silently switch between literal divestment and metaphorical self-giving as the argument requires.

Key scholars: Gordon Fee, N.T. Wright, Peter O'Brien

Reading

Christ, as a human being bearing God's image and authority, did not grasp at equality with God (harpagmos as res rapienda — something not yet possessed). The Adam/Christ parallel is the interpretive key: Adam was in "the form/image of God" (Gen 1:27) but grasped at equality with God ("you will be like God," Gen 3:5) and was condemned; Jesus was in "the form of God" but did not grasp at equality — he humbled himself instead and was exalted. "Form of God" refers to bearing God's image or representing God — as morphē doulou means he genuinely took on the role of a servant, morphē theou means he genuinely bore the role of God's representative. The exaltation is reward for faithfulness, not restoration of a pre-existent status (James D.G. Dunn, Christology in the Making, 1980; 2nd ed. 1989).

Argument

Adam Christology is the most coherent BU reading. Adam, in "the image of God," grasped at being "like God" (Gen 3:5) and was condemned; Christ, in God's image (morphē theou), refused to grasp and was exalted. Morphē in popular Greek meant outward form or status, not Aristotelian essence; heauton ekenōsen ("emptied himself") is naturally read as Christ emptying himself of status or privilege, with the participial phrase "by taking the form of a servant" specifying the mode — not divestment of a divine nature, since the object of the emptying is not named. Paul's ethical purpose ("have this mind among yourselves") works only if Christ's example is humanly followable. The exaltation language ("therefore God highly exalted him and gave him the name") is the language of conferral and reward, not return to a previous status. James D.G. Dunn (Christology in the Making, 1980; 2nd ed. 1989, ch. 4) introduced this reading; Dustin Smith has developed it most systematically, anchored on the lexical equivalence of morphē / eikōn / homoiōma across LXX usage (Judges 8:18, Job 4:16, Isa 44:13) and on a point-by-point Adamic reversal: Adam was in the image of God, grasped equality, was brought low to dust (Gen 3:19), and forfeited the rulership of creation (Gen 1:28); Christ was in the form of God, refused to grasp, humbled himself to the cross, and was given "the name above every name" so that every knee should bow. Smith's tagline: "The rulership originally promised to Adam (but lost due to disobedience) has been reclaimed by Christ (due to obedience)." See Journal from the Radical Reformation (2008), the blog post "Rethinking Phil. 2:8–10", the Biblical Unitarian Podcast ep. 040, and Smith's longer treatment with Dale Tuggy on Trinities ep. 268. Academic corroboration: Cary, "Christ as the Second Adam" (2019); broader Adamic-rulership framework in Daniel Kirk, A Man Attested by God (Eerdmans, 2016).

Three anchors reinforce the BU reading. First, the hymn's closing line settles the direction of worship: v. 11 caps the acclamation with "to the glory of God the Father" (eis doxan theou patros). The Father is explicitly distinguished from Jesus and named as the ultimate referent — making the structure source → agent → source's glory, not source ≡ agent. The same pattern runs through 1 Cor 15:24–28: the Son's exalted lordship is the Father's gift, ultimately handed back so that God may be all in all.

Second, the participial phrases describing Christ's posture ("taking the form of a servant," "made in the likeness of men," "found in human appearance") describe his manner of life as the second Adam — Romans 8:3 uses the same homoiōmati construction ("in the likeness of sinful flesh") to emphasise solidarity, not transition from a non-human state — though honesty requires noting that the parallel is contested: Rom 8:3 describes an already-incarnate Christ's solidarity, while Phil 2 describes a prospective posture, so the parallel argues by analogy rather than by direct semantic transfer.

Third, Dustin Smith situates the hymn against Jewish Wisdom personification (Sirach 24, where Wisdom "empties" herself to come among humanity) — a literary pattern that fits the descent language without requiring a literal pre-existent divine person. Dale Tuggy has examined the competing readings of Philippians 2 at length (Trinities eps. 48–49, "2 interpretations of Philippians 2"), arguing the Adam Christology + reward reading dissolves the apparent difficulty without requiring literal pre-existence. Sean Finnegan emphasises vv. 9–11 as the interpretive key: gift-language implies Jesus did not previously possess the status conferred.

Andrew Perriman's narrative-historical / anti-imperial reading is a distinct non-pre-existence option. Perriman argues that morphē theou is most naturally rendered "in the form of a god" (lower-case, indefinite) — locating Jesus within a first-century typology of divinely-empowered figures (the theios anēr, "divine man," recognisable to gentile audiences). Harpagmos refers not to seizing divinity metaphysically but to seizing an opportunity — specifically the wilderness temptation, where Jesus refused Satan's offer of empire-wide kingship and the cult worship that came with it. Where Roman emperors like Caligula deified themselves and seized that opportunity, Jesus refused — out of loyalty to the Jewish-monotheistic confession. The hymn "describes the current post-resurrection status of the exalted Son" (In the Form of a God, p. 195), not metaphysical pre-existence and descent. Perriman rejects both Adamic typology and Wisdom-personification readings, making his proposal a distinct third option. See the Go-Deeper section below for his book, blog, and lecture; and BiblicalUnitarian.com for classical BU treatments.

Counterargument

"He emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men" is difficult on a purely human reading. If Christ was already human, how does he "take the form of a servant" and be born "in the likeness of men"? The language most naturally implies a transition from a non-human state to a human one. Furthermore, vv. 10–11 apply Isaiah 45:23 — a YHWH text — to Jesus; the Isaiah 45 allusion narrows the range of proskyneō considerably, since this is language originally directed at YHWH alone.

Rebuttal

BU answer: the participial phrases describe Christ's manner of life as second Adam, paralleled in Rom 8:3 ("in the likeness of sinful flesh") without implying transition from a non-human state. On Isa 45:23: Paul himself caps the hymn with "to the glory of God the Father" (v. 11b) — the Isaiah text is reapplied through Jesus toward God's glory, not absorbed into Jesus's identity as YHWH. The same dynamic runs through 1 Cor 15:24–28: the Son's lordship is the Father's gift, exercised for the Father's glory, ultimately handed back so that "God may be all in all."

Key scholars: James D.G. Dunn, Anthony Buzzard, Dale Tuggy, Sean Finnegan, Dustin Smith, Andrew Perriman

Reading

The Logos/Wisdom, a genuinely pre-existent divine being who is derivatively divine, descends and takes on human form. This reading takes the descent language literally — real pre-existence, real incarnation — but does not require Nicene co-equality. The Logos proceeds from the Father as a "second God" (Philo's language) or God's "first-begotten" (Justin Martyr), and the hymn traces the Logos's voluntary descent into human existence, obedient death, and exaltation under the Father's authority. The asymmetric Father-Son ordering preserved throughout the hymn — the Father exalts, the Son is exalted; the acclamation is "to the glory of God the Father" — fits derivative divinity rather than co-equal symmetry.

Argument

Larry Hurtado's data on early devotion to Christ supports this framework: worship of Christ as a divine figure erupted very early within Jewish monotheism, but Hurtado himself does not commit to Nicene categories. The pattern of worship described (every knee bowing, every tongue confessing) using Isaiah 45:23 language indicates that YHWH-devotion was being extended to include Jesus — not by abandoning monotheism but by reshaping it around a divine intermediary.

Justin Martyr's "first-begotten" Logos fits the hymn's structure: a divine being who existed "in the form of God" (the Logos's derivative divinity), who did not exploit equality with the Father, but emptied himself to take on servant form. The hymn's pre-Pauline origin (possibly AD 30s–40s) makes it astonishingly early evidence for devotion to Christ as a divine figure — earlier than any conciliar definition, and more naturally explained by a Logos framework than by fully developed Trinitarian theology.

David Bentley Hart reads the descent/ascent pattern as reflecting the Wisdom tradition's understanding of a divine hypostasis entering creation. The Logos reading also avoids two distinct difficulties: it does not require the BU move of explaining away the descent language, and it does not require the Trinitarian move of explaining away the Father-Son asymmetry that the hymn explicitly preserves.

Counterargument

Early worship does not require Nicene ontology, but neither does it require only derivative divinity. Jewish exaltation traditions (Enoch, Moses, the Angel of the Lord) show that intermediary figures could receive extraordinary honour without being identified as God. High devotional language demonstrates remarkable early Christological development, but does not settle whether the underlying claim is one of full co-equality, derivative divinity, or supreme agency.

Rebuttal

Logos theologians respond that the hymn's structural movement — from "form of God," through self-emptying, to incarnation, to universal acclamation "to the glory of God the Father" — fits the Logos pattern more naturally than either alternative. Only a real pre-existent divine figure can meaningfully "empty himself" (mere agency or personification cannot empty something it does not have), and yet the careful preservation of the Father as the one who exalts and receives ultimate glory prevents the picture from collapsing into the co-equal symmetry Nicaea later required. The pre-Pauline date makes this the earliest substantial Christological confession in the NT — far earlier than any conciliar definition — and the Logos reading takes both the descent language and the asymmetric Father-Son ordering at face value, where Trinitarianism must qualify the asymmetry and BU must explain away the descent.

Key scholars: Larry Hurtado, Justin Martyr (historically), Origen (historically), David Bentley Hart

Reading

Philippians 2 is read as the humility arc of the incarnate God: the one God, manifest in flesh as Jesus, takes the form of a servant, suffers obedient death, and is publicly exalted as Lord — to the glory of the Father, which is the same one God in his eternal mode. The "mind of Christ" the Philippians are to imitate is the humility of God-with-us, who chose to enter human existence and serve rather than be served.

Argument

Oneness writers stress that the language of self-emptying, servant form, and obedience is incarnational language about the one God taking on genuine humanity, not language about a second divine person within the Godhead.

The hymn's "form of God" and "equality with God" describe what was always true of the one who is now manifest in Jesus; the kenosis is the assumption of true human limitation rather than the descent of a numerically distinct person. Exaltation in vv. 9–11 is read as messianic enthronement within salvation history — God publicly vindicating his own incarnate mission.

David K. Bernard (The Oneness of God) argues that the "name above every name" ultimately given to Jesus is YHWH's own name (cf. Exod 23:21 of the Angel, "my name is in him"), revealing that the one God who is exalted in Jesus is the same God who was always Lord. The closing "to the glory of God the Father" is read as the incarnate Son giving glory back to the God whose own incarnate manifestation he is — one divine identity in two registers (transcendent and incarnate) rather than two persons in relation.

Counterargument

The passage still contains pre-exaltation and relational features many interpreters read as more than role-language. Critics argue the hymn's structure — one who was "in the form of God" doing something, choosing not to grasp, emptying himself, being exalted by another — is difficult to flatten into pure modal categories where the same divine person is both the actor and the one acting upon.

Rebuttal

Oneness writers respond that the relational language reflects the genuine humanity of the incarnate God: the man Jesus genuinely prays, obeys, and is vindicated, because the incarnation is a real human life lived by the one God in the flesh. The "mind of Christ" the Philippians are to imitate is the humility of God-with-us, not a second divine person modelling for a first. The exaltation language ("therefore God highly exalted him") is the same pattern Peter uses in Acts 2:36 ("God has made him both Lord and Christ") — messianic-office language for the incarnate manifestation, on the Oneness reading, not a promotion within an eternally distinct relationship.

Key scholars: David K. Bernard, David Norris