Chapter III – The Character of Christ

Part II – The Character of Christ

Paul’s answer to the question, “Did Christ exist prior to His physical birth?” is found for us in Philippians 2:1-11. When we study this passage, we will read Paul’s definitive resolution to the problems presented by man’s corrupted theology.

But First…

First: a bit of background and context. Philippians is the second of Paul’s three “prison” letters, wedged between Ephesians and Colossians. These three letters are the zenith of divine revelation, and are the three letters for the modern-day believer, in what we may call the “Present Secret Administration” (Eph. 3:8-9, Col. 3:1-3.) Together, they provide us with the most intimate facts concerning the character of Christ, contextualizing the plan and purpose of God.

Ephesians 1-3 is our modern-day doctrinal base. This is our ground zero, according to God (per the citations of the previous article.) No prior verse comes into conflict with these verses in a properly translated light; they are all contextualized by the information presented here, in the second half of the letter, and in the other two letters. There is reference to Christ’s existence before His physical birth in this portion of Ephesians, but it is indirect without the expansions of the two following corrective letters, and thus speculative until we hear the words of affirmation. This portion of Ephesians concerns us with the plan and purpose of God.

Ephesians 4-6 is the presentation of our conduct. There is reference to Christ’s existence before His physical birth here as well, but this too is insufficient without the complementary claims made in Philippians, which expounds further upon the modern day believer’s conduct. Colossians further expounds upon the doctrine presented in Ephesians 1-3, making the complementary claims which will properly modify Ephesians, enabling us to recognize the indirect statements of chapters 3 and 4 as fact concerning His life before the eons.

This structure is a complex reversion, looping around on itself for us to easily grasp:

-       Ephesians: doctrine, deportment

-       Philippians: corrective deportment

-       Colossians: corrective doctrine

Through this scheme, we see Paul’s opportunity to answer our questions. In Ephesians, Paul told us his goal, and his two schools of thought to achieve it: we are to be made into mature men, by “Attaining to the unity of the faith,” and in “realization of the Son of God.” Philippians’ primary focus is conduct in the present era, making the character of Christ (and the character of Paul) paramount in the center of the epistle. And Colossians’ primary focus is doctrine for the present day, making the plan and purpose of God paramount in the epistle.

You’ve Outlined the Administration, Good For You. What Now?

It is no surprise, then, that Paul’s exhortation launches in Philippians chapter 2 with a call to a proper disposition, first and foremost (for what is right conduct apart from love?) and follows with a presentation of the conduct of our Lord, to demonstrate the power of loving conduct under horribly humiliating circumstances. The conduct of the saints is firmly demonstrated by the disposition of the saints’ Head, Christ. Paul begins chapter 2 of Philippians by saying,

If, then, there is any consolation in Christ, if any comfort of love, if any communion of spirit, if any compassion and pity, fill my joy full, that you may be mutually disposed, having mutual love, joined in soul, being disposed to one thing -- nothing according with faction, nor yet according with vainglory -- but with humility, deeming one another superior to one's self, not each noting that which is his own, but each that of others also.

The goal is to contrast the world’s disposition – strife and empty esteem – with the true quality of leadership: humility. The Greek word is tapeinophrosune, and its elements are “MAKE-LOW-TOGETHERness.” The practical meaning, to make low, is best demonstrated in relation to an inanimate object, making its use in Luke 3:5 very instructive. Here it is said that every hill will be “made low,” or “humbled,” idiomatically. In relation to the human spirit, it is consoling and comforting in Christ to make yourself low. It becomes communal, compassionate, and mutual when enacted together. This is a willful act, one which must consciously be effected by an individual. It is an action which man is entreated to effect numerous times across both evangels (Matt. 23:12, Luke 14:11, 18:14.) It does not always carry a moral connotation, but can refer to a physical or sociological lowly disposition (Ph. 2:3, 4:12.) It is, of course, most often correlated with a selfless, other-oriented mindset (Luke 1:46-48, 1 Pet. 3:8.)

Yeah, But So What? Who Cares?

Here is where the agenda of the Philippians letter – proper deportment in the current economy – services Paul’s goal to reveal the supreme character of the Christ in His self-abasement.

See, the “conduct” side of scripture is the one we all like to face the least. It’s the scary part: the part we strive to live up to. It makes us… scrutinize ourselves. Study our own actions – observe our own faults, our failure to attain to the worthiness of such a calling, and see how the self can improve. Our brains, upon hearing grace and conciliation, simply take a load off. We have glimpsed God’s absolute perspective. As such, our relative views on life are generally set aside; many of us even neglect further growth, clinging to the fact of our salvation, but disregarding the processes God set about through His Son to get us there (more on this in the “Col. 1:15-17” section.)

In short, we “give up.” We attempt to “manifest” that God wills all by actively not seeking to grow, and accepting a passive, or lax attitude toward the text. It is typically perceived as a taxing, mind-bending, difficult, slow, analytical process. It is hardly held anymore as the words of our Father, telling us a beautiful story, weaving us in to Paul’s evangel, for our growth. In truth, the purpose for our growth in conduct is stated many times throughout Romans alone. We are told that if we are blatantly displaying sin – whether in fallacious reasoning, false teaching, or poor conduct –  while having died to sin, then we are attempting to serve an old master – and highlights the incongruous nature of such a thought (6:12-23.) It is not that you would be “punished” (for, where sin increases, grace superexceeds,) but that you are being corrected (1 Cor. 11:30-33,) as it is senseless. It is counter intuitive to realize salvation, but to refuse to acknowledge how God is using salvation to impart revealed truth. He specifically distinguishes between these two (1 Tim. 2:4.)

Moreover, God specifically interweaves the purpose of conduct throughout the doctrinal portions. We, for example, are being conformed to the image of God’s Son (Rom. 8:29.) We are said to be debtors to the spirit (Rom. 8:12-14.) These are notable purposes and obligations to serving for the new, as opposed to the old.

As Philippians concerns us with the conduct itself, it follows that its middle two chapters must expound upon the character of Christ, that we become moved by Who our Lord is on an intimate level, and thus become relatively able to act through. So when Paul begins this chapter saying, “Hey gang! Be mutually disposed to one another in love with humility, deeming one another superior to one’s self!” the average human would fumble around and fail repeatedly to take these words to heart. I find the practical demonstration of this is, heartbreakingly, most found in those who have forcefully changed many of these Greek words, in order to fit a new view, found in any of the three narratives from Chapter 1. It is a type of dramatic irony; by changing the text to fit a pre-supposed narrative, the sectarian dogmas of man put themselves above the text. This only makes sense, for, without the following example by Christ, the exhortation rings hollow.

What’s more is that our past studies in the word of God have led us to realize that words that we employ today do not have their same meaning or usage as they did back then (and this issue is further compounded when we realize that the usage of words in the 30s, during the compilation of the Concordant Version which we are using now, now contains words which vary in meaning today than they did then. There’s layers of confusion apart from word studies within the original language of inspiration.)

Understanding the value of conduct, per Paul’s “immature” revelations in prior letters, paves the way for the completed thought in the present secret economy. In Ephesians 2:10, Paul does complete the thought:

For [God’s] achievement are we, being created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God makes ready beforehand, that we should be walking in them.

The purpose for our conduct is firmly stated – that we were created in Christ Jesus for good works (Rom. 6:3-14, 2 Cor. 5:14-17.) That God makes these good works ready beforehand does not negate that we are actively walking in these acts (and yes, sometimes relaxing or taking it easy or just enjoying your hobbies or favorite people is as good a work as heralding the truth – both are measured by love, not immediate impact.) With this reason provided in the doctrinal portion of Ephesians, with the security of the absolute One pre-determining your good works, the conduct portion of Ephesians reveals itself far less inviting; you will find yourself enabled to enact these, with the permanent grace (charis, ‘JOY,’) and peace enjoined to you.

You are meant to have these basic truths from Paul by the time you reach this portion of Philippians (for it is a book we read from left to right,) from the perspective of the modern reader.

Okay, but How Do we Know that this Speaks of a Prior Existence For Christ?

The passage which directly concerns us with this startling reality is presented in Phil. 2:5-8. We will be presenting each clause of this sentence, piece by piece, and contrast them with the trinity of philosophies. We will find that not one of the three schools of thought, nor do various logistical objections, align with the established truth of Christ’s existence prior to His conception on earth.

Now, it may sound as though, at the beginning, I am “pre-supposing” that this is what the verse says. I will stress, then, that this is a claim, not the evidence. A logical argument submits a claim, and then examines the evidence to prove it.

We will thus press on through Philippians, paying careful attention to each word, its inflection, and, when necessary, conduct a word study in order to help us apprehend the meaning of an individual word (even if, on its surface, said term may seem simple and clear.) Since we have the conduct in mind, as well as the characteristic in play (being “humility,”) we may now see the grandeur of our Lord’s humility, and see Paul’s explanation of this quality. Though, of course, our research has impressed upon us the truth of Paul’s statement, here, we will proceed through the passage as if we have not read any passage following Philippians 2:4, and are carefully reading Phil. 2:5-8 for the first time.

On That Note…

It’s time for us to begin our study of the Greek passage.

For let this disposition be in you, which is in Christ Jesus also, Who, being inherently in the form of God, deems it not pillaging to be equal with God, nevertheless empties Himself, taking the form of a slave, coming to be in the likeness of humanity, and, being found in fashion as a human, He humbles Himself, becoming obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

This is the entirety of the passage, without omission, in the CLV. This is a very accurate translation of the passage (as good as we’ll get, I think,) but it is not perfect. We will take it a step further and consider each corresponding Greek term from which the English version is inspired.

For let this disposition be in you…

touto (THIS) gar (FOR) phroneite (YE-BE-BEING-DISPOSED) en (IN) humin (YE)…

The term “for,” gar, is a preposition which, in Paul’s writings, directs us toward his intended conclusion, or point. Sometimes this point concludes an argument (Rom. 11:34,) but oftentimes it continues elaborating a previous point (Rom. 1:16-18 uses gar four times alone, and this in preparation for his evangel two chapters later!)

Of course, the latter situation is the case, here. The disposition in question can only be humility, for it is the only disposition mentioned in the first three verses in a positive light. Indeed, this term “humility” will be found again at the conclusion of Paul’s argument between 2:5-8, in verb form (the complete act of Christ’s humility in question, as we will observe.) This humility is Paul’s goal, per the previously-stated long term goal of God, to “conform us to the image of His Son” (Rom. 8:28-30,) that He may use us to complete His goal: to be All in all (Eph. 1:9-11, 22-23 – see chapter 15.)

“Disposition” in English is perceived as a noun, here, but in Greek it is a verb, as in, “be disposed to this.” The term, with inflection, is phroneite, with the elements “YE-BE-BEING-DISPOSED.” Since it is a verb, yet the CLV translates this passively “Let this be…” you may reasonably cry “Foul!” on Knoch, here, with merit. If the verb were passive (as is claimed through the Byzantine manuscript on the Blue Letter Bible,) this may be a fairer translation. But the verb is in the active voice, it is imperative (as in, expressing a willful command toward another,) and in the second person – that is, directed at you.

All of this aligns with the scope of the Philippian letter – to perfect the saint in the sight of the Lord.

But seriously – why does this matter?

Well, there are a few brothers (and unbelievers) who proclaim that, if God is in control of all, then it is not our obligation or duty to attempt right conduct in Christ (though we are indeed directly entreated to act – Rom. 6:12-14, 8:12-14, 12:1-15:7, Eph. 4-6, etc. etc.) The claim is typically that God will place the humility there when He’s good and ready, and He is to blame if that humility is not yet manifest.

While, of course, neither me or Seth will argue against the fact that God gives us life and breath and all (Acts 17:25,) when such a claim is used to counter right conduct, it’s typically so that one can evade reckoning themselves dead to Sin (Rom. 6:14,) and excuse poor conduct instead of learning from its senseless outcomes (as the Corinthians learned – 2 Cor. 7.) This is called a “special pleading” fallacy, when someone invokes a “special” case for themselves that exempts them from critical criteria – in this case, invoking God’s authority to exempt one from humbling themselves, which is, unfortunately, exactly what the Pharisees did (Mark 15:1-9, Mark 7:6-9 – these guys aren’t exactly the role models of the eon.)

(Note: No opponent named within this study will be presumed to adhere to this point of view, and I do not believe any do, personally. We are simply pulling all of the skeletons out of the closet, as it is important to bar false avenues of thought which pervade in our ignorance and impose upon our logical divine service.)

What this would mean is that the answer Paul gives is, in some cases, demeaned or lessened in light of the “absolute” perspective, which is not Paul’s conclusion to the revealed truth of God’s sovereignty. It is the philosophy of “fatalism,” plain and simple, and should be stamped out in the heart of any saint. God’s sovereignty is proof that we should act rightly, not proof that acting rightly doesn’t matter.

God does not reveal His plan and call us out “in order for us to stop thinking about our personal actions with the rest of His creation and sit around waiting for the end.” God says that we are “His achievement, being created in Christ Jesus for good works, which [He] makes ready beforehand, that we should be walking in them” (Eph. 2:10.) God calls us out – and then makes us walk. If we find ourselves unable to effect certain aspects of our walk, then we are evidently missing a critical aspect of the doctrine which enables us to traverse it.

The “Present” Tense in Philippians 2:5

So far, we have no true complaint from the “Trinitarian” crowd; many would not take issue with the considerations thus far. The same is true of the Arians. But it is at this point where the Socinian sect highlights the present tense found in the term phroneite.

Well, of course this disposition, in you (*note the second person) would require a present tense, by nature of the second person! If it were past tense, it would be out of line with the thought God uses (and indeed, that the Byzantine manuscript changes this word into the third person, while leaving “you,” humin, in the second person, highlights its fallibility.) The thought is present tense because Paul is presently speaking to the saints in Philippi.

It is further argued by Socinian theology, per the later term “being inherently,” (2:6) written in the present tense, that Paul is beginning his argument in the present day. This is what is argued by one Andre Piet, one teacher of Paul’s foundational truths. In his article, “Crown Witness to Christ’s Pre-Existence?” Andre writes,

“If Paul had wanted to say that Christ Jesus had ever (before His incarnation) been in God’s form, he would have been speaking in the past tense. Instead, he uses the incomplete form (present time): ‘Christ Jesus being inherently in the form of God.’ By this Paul is referring to Christ Jesus’ present position! ‘Being inherently in the form of God’ parallels the phrase that Christ Jesus is ‘equal with God’ or like God. Both types testify of him as the present ‘image of the invisible God’ (Col.1:15).”

It is indeed true that Christ is inherently in the form of God in the present era, currently being allotted all. But it is a “compositional fallacy” (when one infers that something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some part of the whole) to presume that every following statement in the passage is also limited to the same temporal reference (more on this later.) There are many simple examples of this fallacy which can be expressed, here. If I say that “Caesar crosses the Rubicon and marches on Rome,” with Andre’s logic, “Because the sentence uses present tense, this must be happening right now.” Or, if I say that “If you break the contract, you pay the penalty,” Andre’s logic would say, “I haven’t broken the contract yet, so the penalty can never be enforced.”

In truth, the following verbs in the sentence are not “present tense,” but in the aorist tense, which is the Greek Indefinite. It is employed without regard to time, considering the entirety of an action. Any who study up to verse 8 in the Greek will be able to note that Christ’s terrestrial sojourn (which is undeniably past) is clearly discussed, and the present tense is not picked up again until verse 12 – well after events both past (v. 8) and future (v. 9-11) have been considered. To presume that we must relegate ourselves to present time simply because Paul refers to someone and their qualities at present inadvertently butchers the text, and forces us into a shortsighted position, refusing to take the aorist into account.

It is, by the way, at this point that we can begin to dismantle the Socinian viewpoint, in highlighting its sectarian nature; while Andre Piet ignores the aorist tense here (which very much enables us to consider the entirety of an action, irrespective of its timing, in relation to our Lord in the present,) there are other teachers (such as Peter Meye, of ReVago Channel,) who will acknowledge the aorist actions that were completed long ago, as we will cover in a future essay. This inconsistency reveals a lack of a pattern of sound words, which is unbecoming of teachers in Christ (2 Tim. 1:13.)

Is Paul Asking us To Empty Ourselves and Become Man?

This is another question from the (very feisty) Socinian camp. The argument is presented thus:

“[Christ] did not display this [humility] in heaven, prior to His birth. If this were the case, how can we possibly share the same mindset as Christ? We could not share the disposition and imitate a non-human entity who shed His celestial body to transform Himself into a man.”

– Liam, Jesus Christ Did NOT Pre-Exist Part 6 - Incarnation of Christ

There are many, many issues with this misrepresentation of Paul’s statement (here and in following verses). First, there’s a category error here on Liam’s part, that assumes that, if Christ existed prior to His physical birth, that humility is never expressed or possible. It restricts humility to a human only virtue, which is the first example of robbing Christ of His character.

There is further a false dilemma, which forcefully presents the argument as though “If Christ was not human at the time, then we could not imitate Him.” It ignores that we are not being entreated to follow Christ’s action, but His disposition. Paul speaks of “imitation” mimetes, one time in this secret economy: imitate God (in relation to proper conduct, in Eph. 5.) Indeed, God is not a man – yet we are able to imitate Him. A variation of the term, summimetes, “TOGETHER-IMITATOR,” is found once in the entire New Testament, and it is in Phil. 3:17 – to imitate Paul. If Paul had asked us to imitate Christ’s actions in Phil. 2:5, then of course this would be an impossible and confusing task! Thankfully, Paul speaks only of the disposition, which can be apprehended and emulated by anyone, and uses Christ’s example to show its incomparable sincerity.

It is apparent that this objection must be swiftly dealt with first, for it has been wielded, many times, as a strawman to disavow many good teachers in Christ, claiming that we believe Paul is requesting a replication of the exact action of our Lord (being the “emptying Himself” in dispute, per 2:7,) which completes His humility (2:8.)

This disposition of humility (to “MAKE-LOW,” recall,) is (and has been) demonstrable apart from the events Paul is about to describe (as he makes clear in following chapters.) The point is not to highlight a person’s humility, but highlight the Son of God’s humility – which, for all intents and purposes, can and should be demonstrated in great fashion, by the largest scale possible within the universal scope of Paul’s letters. If He has humility, show us its depth and grandeur.

The notion that one cannot be moved to conform to humility by being educated on the greatest act of humility is, ironically, disrespectful toward the very act of humility on display.

It is His relinquishing of status that grounds His imitable disposition – which further makes Liam’s claims here a non-sequitur. Given that Christ is a Mediator of God and of man, it follows that He is bridging these previously-uncrossable gaps, not further isolating us from them. If Christ’s humility only immediately pertained to His death at Golgotha, then the passage must read,

For let this disposition be in you, which is in Christ Jesus also, Who, taking the form of a slave, humbles Himself, becoming obedient unto the death of the cross.

But this is not what the text says. Instead, Paul follows His statement that “humility” is in Christ Jesus with the statement that He is inherently in the form of God, and then describes His progressive “lower”-ing. To deny this movement is to deny this straightforward progression of the passage. The argument presented here is not only illogical—it conflicts with the revelation of the text, contradicts the principle of “logical divine service,” and ultimately requires the distortion of God’s Word to sustain itself.

No believer should have trouble spotting the illogical nature of this argument; it does not align with the revelations in the text, denies “logical divine service,” and must forcefully alter the word of God in order to reach its intended conclusion.

(It is wrong to change the word of God.)

If we must change the entreaty from one of “conform to this mindset” to “conform to this action” in order to support or demonstrate our position, while ignoring the administrational boundaries by which we should be measuring and weighing the text, then we simply do not believe what the text says. By definition of the term “pre-supposition,” one must suppose beforehand that the following verses are only on earth, when no such thing is stated, and the grammar and administration’s perspective demands otherwise.

There is an argument by the Socinian-based sect among us which proclaims that, since the word “heaven” is not mentioned at all in the passage, that a celestial existence for any of these actions is not in view in this passage. However, by this logic, the word “earth” is not mentioned at all in the passage, which would proclaim that a terrestrial existence for these actions is not in view in this passage.

The sensible resolution, then, is to study the verse itself, and consider these actions in their progressive relation to each other. As we will see, this progression denies the idea that we can read this in any other way than Christ descending, so that He may return to where He was formerly (Eph. 4:9-10, John 6:63.)

This Disposition is In Christ NOw

 For let this disposition be in you, which is in Christ Jesus also…

o (WHICH) kai (AND) en (IN) christo (ANOINTED) iesou (JESUS)

I don’t have too much to add on this front; virtually all who have read the four accounts will agree that Jesus is humble. I note that Paul’s signature “Christ Jesus” is written here, reversing the order of the other writers. This is supposed to stand out to first-time readers of the Bible: Why is Paul talking like that? To quote George Rogers, in Unsearchable Riches, Vol. 25, p.240–

“Jesus is the name of our Lord as a single human individual, while Christ Jesus adds His official title, indicating His relationship to those whom He saves. The personal name emphasizes the historic fact of the rousing of the dead of the Man, which fact is the supreme manifestation of the power and glory of the Father. But Jesus was also the Christ, the anointed second Man, the Head of the body and the King, Who stands in such relation to men that what is done to Him shall be done in them.”

Paul talks like this because we stand in unique relation to our Lord, becoming joint enjoyers of His allotment. This is unique to the body of Christ alone, of which no other beings in existence are partaking in. This title is reflective of Christ’s transcendent nature to us – demonstrating His (our) position first, and His personal name second. No other individuals can perceive Him so closely.

Paul speaks of Christ Jesus, as Christ is alive and well, and this disposition of His has not changed – regardless of the sphere He is in. Celestial? Humble. Terrestrial? Humble. The argument that one cannot apprehend humility if Christ’s existence prior to His physical birth is directly stated to the passage is left wanting when the Greek terms in use very verily validate the position!

The stage has been set. Paul’s goal is to show us the humility of Christ Jesus, with the thrust that we should be being disposed to such humility. How will Paul convey this humility to us? Will he highlight something about Christ Jesus’ current state? Will he share a prior experience from Him? Or, perhaps He will speak of the greatest glories yet to come?

We will find the answer for ourselves in the next verse – which is, indeed, one of the most heavily debated verses of all time.

- GerudoKing