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.

Reasoning

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. 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.

Strongest counterargument

If Christ was already God, why does God "highly exalt" him and "give" him the name above every name? You cannot give what is already possessed. The exaltation language implies Christ received something new — which fits an agent elevated by God better than a co-equal divine person returning to a status he never lost. Additionally, the Carmen Christi — widely regarded as one of the earliest and most exalted Christological confessions — makes no mention of the Holy Spirit. If the earliest Christian worship were Trinitarian, the Spirit's absence from this hymn is notable. The confession is binitarian at most: God the Father exalts Christ.

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).

Reasoning

The Adam Christology reading provides the most coherent narrative: Adam, in the image of God, grasped at being "like God" and was condemned; Christ, also in God's image, refused to grasp and was exalted. Morphē in popular Greek meant outward form or status, not Aristotelian essence. The "emptying" (kenosis) language is also broader than often assumed: the Greek heauton ekenōsen means he emptied himself of status or privilege, not that he divested himself of a divine nature. The object of the emptying is not specified — the text simply says he "emptied himself" by taking the servant's role. Paul uses the passage ethically — "have this mind among yourselves" — which works only if Christ's example is humanly followable. The exaltation language ("therefore God highly exalted him") is language of reward, not return. Dale Tuggy honestly acknowledges (Trinities podcast, ep. 136) that Philippians 2 is "difficult" for Biblical Unitarians, but argues that it need not require literal pre-existence — "form of God" can mean bearing God's image or representation (Adam Christology). Sean Finnegan emphasizes that vv. 9–11 are the interpretive key: "therefore God highly exalted him and gave him the name" — the language of gift and exaltation implies Jesus did not previously possess this status. Moreover, the worship described is explicitly "to the glory of God the Father," making it delegated rather than ultimate. Dustin Smith reads the passage through the Wisdom tradition — Wisdom "empties" herself to come among humanity (cf. Sirach 24), a pattern that fits the hymn's descent language without requiring a literal pre-existent divine person. Reward vs. "return to former glory." Trinitarians sometimes read vv. 9–11 as restoration of a heavenly glory the Son temporarily veiled. The BU reply is lexical and narratival: the verbs for being "highly exalted" and for the name being "bestowed" read naturally as new honour consequent on the cross, not as toggling a switch back to a pre-temporal state. If the name above every name were merely unveiled, Paul's ethical point ("have this mind among yourselves") risks sounding like play-acting: believers are not returning to a pre-existent mode. The Adam Christology + reward reading keeps the ethical parallel intact: Jesus refuses grasping, receives exaltation, and God gets the glory. Andrew Perriman offers a narrative-historical reading that situates the hymn entirely within Israel's story. On this view, Jesus is a human figure who bore the "form of God" in the sense of Adamic imagery — he was in the image and likeness of God as Adam was, but within the specific narrative of Israel's crisis under Roman rule. Rather than grasping at the divine prerogatives that Adam seized, Jesus took the path of the suffering servant, accepting death on a cross. The "exaltation" is not a return to a pre-existent cosmic status but God's vindication of Jesus within history — giving him authority over the nations as the risen Lord. Perriman argues that the "form of God" language does not require cosmic pre-existence at all; it is Adamic imagery read through the lens of Israel's eschatological hope. For further analysis, see BiblicalUnitarian.com.

Strongest 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 — suggesting real pre-existence before the incarnation. Furthermore, the worship language in vv. 10–11 ("every knee should bow... every tongue confess") applies Isaiah 45:23 — a YHWH text — to Jesus. Even if proskyneō covers a broad spectrum from social homage to divine worship, the Isaiah 45 allusion narrows the range considerably: this is language originally directed at YHWH alone.

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

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" (to use Philo's language) or God's "first-begotten" (Justin Martyr), and the hymn traces the Logos's voluntary descent into human existence.

Reasoning

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.

Strongest 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.

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

Reading

Philippians 2 is read as the humility arc of the incarnate Christ: one God manifested in flesh who empties himself in servant form and is publicly exalted.

Reasoning

Oneness arguments emphasize incarnation and obedience categories without requiring multiple eternal divine persons. Exaltation is read as messianic enthronement language within salvation history.

Strongest counterargument

The passage still contains pre-exaltation and relational features many interpreters read as more than role-language. Critics argue the hymn's structure is difficult to flatten into pure modal categories.

Key scholars: David K. Bernard, David Norris