Chapter VI – The Character of Christ: The Kenosis

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…

alla (BUT) heauton (HIMSELF) ekenOsen (EMPTIES) morphen (FORM) doulou (OF-SLAVE) labOn (GETTING) en (IN) homoiOmati (LIKENESS) anthrOpOn (OF-HUMANS)  genomenos (BECOMING)

Nevertheless

The first term we find in this verse is alla. This term, in Greek, generally means “but.” In the past, I have claimed that this term does not need to mean “nevertheless,” and have knocked Knoch’s translation for it. However, there is indeed sufficient evidence from other verses (Mark 14:29, Acts 9:6, Rom. 6:5, 1 Cor. 8:6, 9:2, 12, 2 Cor. 4:16,) where “nevertheless” makes more sense – if we used “but” in any of the cited verses, the verse may be interpreted as if the first clause were to be limited or invalidated, and could become jarred and awkward. This is my (Stephen’s) error, and I am glad to correct it here.

Such is the case in this verse. For us to appreciate the fullness of Christ’s humility, we must first grasp His place. If He begins low, then we cannot apprehend the strength of His humility in relation to humanity (which creates an issue with Paul’s argument; how are we supposed to “let this disposition be in us” when we cannot fully apprehend its force?) In other words, how can Jesus “make-low” if He is already-low?

(A few may rebut, “Sure, but we, indeed, are already low, in this same sense! Why should we be entreated to be ‘made-low’ if we also are already low?” This objection is practical, but fails to note that we are sinners, and thus are being made low in light of our old humanity’s conduct (2:3.) Christ never had this faction or vainglory, for He is without sin, with blood as that of a flawless Lamb. Moreover, His outward appearance is in view (Phil. 2:6, 7,) not internal character. He acted in accord with the position He was in – righteously in either role, as a just Mediator between the two parties. This is how He is “made low,” given the context of the passage.)

Here enters “nevertheless.” Its use is the hinge in the doorjamb, establishing the necessary juxtaposition we so vitally need to grasp the second half of the sentence. The three verbs which follow this one color our understanding of the passage, showing the increasing depths of Christ’s descent: (1) taking the form of a slave, (2) coming to be in the likeness of humanity, and (3) being found in fashion as a human. This will culminate with the conclusion of the thought, where Paul can finally display Christ’s humbling of Himself (2:8.)

“Empties”

One of the most controversial terms in the entire New Testament is kenosis. This term, in Greek, has been interpreted in many, many ways by us English fools. Thankfully, many versions do get this word right (CSB, HCSB, ERV, even the NASB!) The term, apart from inflection (ken) is “EMPTY.” The term appears five times in the New Testament, all of which appear in Paul’s letters (makes this quite the easy job!)

1.    Rom. 4:14 – “faith has been made void” (has-been-emptied)

2.    1 Cor. 1:17 – “bringing the evangel, not in wisdom of word, lest the cross of Christ may be made void” (may-be-being-emptied)

3.    1 Cor. 9:15 – “it is my ideal rather to be dying, than that anyone shall be making my boast void” (shall-be-emptying)

4.    2 Cor. 9:3 – “I send the brethren, lest our boasting over you may be made void in this particular” (may-be-being-emptied)

5.    Phil. 2:7 – “nevertheless empties Himself”

The fifth and final use of the term in the text seems to be the only time anyone has an issue with the literal rendering (how convenient, right?) If arguments concerning the aorist are to be standardized from our opponents, then we must claim that Christ’s emptying Himself is only presently true. Of course, this idea is preposterous, and only serves to highlight that man’s understanding of the aorist is contingent on convenience, not love for the text.

One could apply the idiomatic use of the word kenoo (to “make void”) in Philippians 2:7, for the sake of grasping its true import. By observing each of its prior uses, we come to a stronger realization of God’s use of the word. In Rom. 4:14, we note that an “empty faith” would have no effect. In 1 Cor. 1:17, we note that if the cross of Christ were “emptied,” the cross might as well not have happened. In both 1 Cor. 9:15 and 2 Cor. 9:3, we note that Paul’s claims could be considered of no value if he unintentionally perjured himself to the ecclesias (gatherings.)

Where does this leave us? If faith, when “emptied,” is void, or has no effect, and if the cross, when “emptied,” has no result, then Christ is making the form of God void, or of no effect.

There is no quality that this “form of God” consists of which transfers into the contrastive “form of a slave.” Per the concordant meaning of “empties,” it would be impossible to claim that Christ, in the form of a slave, is some “veiling” of the form of God. This is, alas, what is argued by the Trinitarian sect, led by one Sam Shamoun, in this linked blog post–

“Paul was basically saying that Jesus laid aside his Divine privileges, not his Divine attributes. This can clearly be seen in the exhortation that we should follow his example. We cannot lay aside Divine attributes (since we do not have them), nor are we called to lay aside our human attributes, or cease to be human, but we should follow Jesus in his humility and willingness to serve others, even those who in this world are considered to be lower than ourselves in power or status.”

This presumption, that “divine attributes” are not set aside, but “divine privileges” are set aside, is an entirely man-made distinction, which is assumed with a view to continue arguing that Jesus is God, when the diction of Phil. 2:6 debars such a claim. Self-abasement is just that, and considering every other use of the term kenosis has meant a voiding of the object in view, we should make no exception for Christ’s function at the Head of the universe. Christ was not “acting” or “playing” man. Christ was not simply “limiting” His power. He did not merely “lose omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence.” That He was in the form of God, went through a voiding of this form, and, on the other end, was recognized as the form of a slave, demonstrates a juxtaposition, not a continuation.

Applying this to our disposition today, we are hard pressed to say that we are to reserve some of our fleshy attributes over the truth, but, like Christ, to retain a disposition of complete humiliation. We are not each noting that which is his own (Phil. 2:4,) but deeming it all to be a forfeit. There can be no greater example of this than Christ reprieving Himself of all which He had in the form of God, placing Himself beneath the lowest subjector – mankind.

It has been asked, “If Christ was in the form of God, and then became a man, then what happened to the other guy? When God creates something, it must live its life out to a conclusion.” Such a question operates under the assumption that Christ becomes another person upon His abasement. Yet Christ changes forms, not identities. This is easily demonstrated when we consider Christ’s multiple form changes during His earthly ministry. He did not “become a new individual” each time He changed forms, as we considered in part IV. His life was lived to its conclusion – at Golgotha, which is how Paul ends Phil. 2:8.

Unfortunately, the Socinian sect would change the passage, once again, by importing Golgotha into verse seven, instead of keeping it in its proper place at verse eight. We read, for example, from Clyde Pilkington in Bible Student’s Notebook, Issue 806–

“The timing of Phil. 2:7 is not concerning Christ’s conception, but rather the 24 hours from Gethsemane to Golgotha. The legitimate Son of God ‘emptied Himself’ of His rights and glory during this grievous process.

The One Who had the right to call for ‘twelve legions of messengers’ to His aid, to deliver Him from this shameful ordeal, suffered without opening His mouth in opposition. The context of Phil. 2:6-8 is ‘the death of the cross’ (:8), not His conception and birth some 33 years earlier.

Here is the passage with my commentary in brackets:

Who [Christ], being inherently in the form of God [God’s only-begotten Son], deems it not pillaging to be equal with God [the icon of God on Earth – Strong defining ‘equal’ (isos) as ‘similar’ (through the idea of seeming)], nevertheless empties Himself [at Gethsemane – ‘not My will, but Thine, be done!’]”

There is more to Clyde Pilkington’s “commentary,” but we will pause, here. Note that Clyde operates under the same rhetorical fallacy that Liam does, in claiming that the “form of God” is an ambiguous reference to Him being the Son of God, meaning that Clyde evidently believes that the “likeness of sin’s flesh” (Rom. 8:3) is a proper outward appearance of God (which, per Rom. 1:23, is a deification of this flesh.)

With absolutely no basis, Clyde imports Gethsemane into the passage. The problem is the claim that “form of God” means that Christ is the ‘representative’ of God. It forces the logistical consideration that Christ is not the representative of God at Golgotha, per the emptying at the beginning of verse seven. We would do well to avoid such a claim, as we seek not to void the word of the cross (1 Cor. 1:18.)

Does Christ’s ‘Prior Place in the Form of God’ Mean that He was Not Begotten by the Father?

This particular phrasing by Paul further exposes the falsehood of the Socinian sectarian claim. Take, for example, this claim from theologian Peter Meye, in his large video titled, “Let Scripture PROVE that Jesus Christ did NOT pre-exist His Birth”–

“This passage is interpreted by the ‘pre-existers’ to mean that ‘Christ Jesus was in the form of God before His birth, and from that position, would have ‘emptied Himself’ (because that’s what scripture says,) from that position, and become man.

The consequence of this interpretation is thus: first of all, He was not begotten by the Father. And, second, He transformed Himself into a human being, by… turning into what, exactly?

Further, what was God’s contribution in all this? Where was the God in all these developments among the celestials? Nowhere! Christ did it Himself! He was the Hero! Can you smell something stinky, here?”

We may thank Peter Meye for demonstrating the incoherence of this Socinian camp, for it helps us further set aside the false arguments made by this crew. Peter himself composes one of those “strawmans” that we were talking about earlier, in claiming that taking the verse literally would mean that God is nowhere to be found in this ordeal.

First, there is a non-sequitur in Peter’s “problems” with the passage, namely that “Christ could not be begotten by the Father” if He existed prior to His physical birth. That Christ is in the outward appearance of God denotes that He is visible, thus a part of creation. Since all creation is out of God (1 Cor. 8:6,) it is no stretch to say that regardless of when Christ began, there can be no mistake as to His being created. Such claims are misinformation, and are designed only to make those who take Paul literally in our present passage fearful for the truth (made worse by more recent claims, that this is a “dangerous” doctrine.)

There is a much worse claim on the tail end of his quote. To highlight the terrible argumentation here, we may ask a question in similar fashion from an obviously fallacious position: the Baptist preacher says, “Since Joshua told Israel to ‘choose ye today whom you will serve,’ in Josh. 24:15, we may ask the ‘no free-will’ folk, where is God in all this? It is our decision to choose – not His to provide it.”

See the problem? The principle is the same in both cases – someone points at an action someone takes in the New Testament, and presumes that, because God is not pausing the narrative here to say, “Hey! Guess what? This was devised by Me!” that we must suddenly forget His divine hand in all of it.

We do not even see Yahweh’s name appear in the book of Esther… does this mean the actions everyone takes in Esther are somehow outside of His scope of absolute authority?

I see that David was the one that slung the stone at Goliath… does this mean that his action was outside of God’s hands and ability?

I see at the beginning of this book that Adam was the one who ate the fruit… does this mean that his consumption occurred apart from God’s forethought?

Honestly, folks, the argument comes off as quite ridiculous when you present in line with parallel reasonings. This becomes most apparent when you realize that you could apply the same logic within the confines of what Peter thinks this passage says – allegedly, that Christ was brought into chains at Golgotha. We may ask, then: since scripture doesn’t explicitly tell us that God did such a thing in this passage in Philippians, may we presume that Christ did it all Himself?

Of course, the answer is “no,” for, as we have previously considered, “The Son cannot be doing anything of Himself if it is not what He should be observing the Father doing” (John 5:19.) The argument that Christ’s self-abasement excludes God is fallacious, whether He exists beforehand or not. To charge the passage with God’s absence under any interpretive reasoning is incorrect. The “problem” Peter proposes is not elaborated on, here or elsewhere, and the burden of proof is his to identify – not ours to magically accept.

The Purpose of Christ’s Emptying

The clear and undeniable effect of the kenosis in Phil. 2:7 is demonstrated in the following three phrases:

-       Christ thus takes the form of a slave

-       Christ thus comes to be in the likeness of humanity

-       Christ is thus found in fashion as a human

These three effects are presented in the order of increasing humiliation for He Who was in the form of God. Christ, in emptying Himself, ceased to be in the form of God, going from the Head of the universe to the lowest of men. We will, of course, take the time to dwell on each point individually, but before we do this, we may ask, “What is the point of His self-abasement?”

The answer, of course, is that Christ needed to inhabit a dying body in which He would be able to die for the sake of all (which is why the passage of His humiliation must conclude with the death of the cross, as opposed to incite it, as the Socinian camp supposes.) Most can agree that any form Christ had prior to His physical birth was, indeed, not mortal, and needed a body capable of death. However, as He is sinless, He was not able to become obedient unto death except by voluntary submission to it. A body needed to be adapted to Him, that He could fulfill that which was foreknown by God – to be the great sacrifice for all (Heb. 10:5-6, 1 Pet. 1:19-20.)

To the believer in Christ, there is a critical judicial aspect to this as well. The first head of the entire human race – Adam – offended God in disobedience, bringing all of his offspring into condemnation, constituting us all sinners. The resolution to this problem must also encompass the entire race in just the opposite way. One must please God in obedience, bringing all of his offspring into justification, constituting us all just. Undeniably, the Messiah must, then, be a Man in every respect.

It is supposed by one rather indifferent raccoon that, if Christ existed prior to His birth in the womb, that He is a “legal alien,” and would have no standing to act as this “head.” Such reasoning would be sensible if God Himself did not directly explain how He managed this in Philippians 2:5-8.

See, what Mr. Raccoon in the article above does not mention is the celestial aspect of the story. Paul’s evangel indeed deals with the justification of all mankind (Rom. 3:21-26, 5:9, 5:18-19,) but Paul elaborates in Ephesians, Philippians and Colossians – recall, the zenith of divine revelation – upon the celestial realm, including its misunderstandings (Eph. 3:10-11, 6:11-12,) and moreover its destiny (Eph. 1:9-11.)

Thus, as important as it is for Christ to be Man, it is just as important for Him to be the Head of the celestial realm. If Christ is solely a Man, on earth, with no connection to the celestial realm, then He has every ability to reconcile the earth, but no stake in the celestial warfare upon which our terrestrial warfare is founded. He may restore the earth, but the celestials would remain turbulent and irreconcilable.

To solve this, Paul clarifies, in the very passage under scrutiny, that Christ’s origin is celestial (being made in the outward appearance of God, in Phil. 2:6,) but that this origin is voided, made of no effect (Phil. 2:7.) This is only so that He may reconcile the earth, through the promise He made with His chosen people first and foremost, as well as establish the ecclesia which is His body. Paul says elsewhere that it is only since Christ descended that He is also able to ascend (Eph. 4:8-9.)

This means what it says; it is His celestial origin alone that enables Him to ascend to where He was. Nowhere does Paul (or any other writer) claim that one who followed every serif of the law would be given a right to “ascend” to the right hand of God. One who follows the law is considered “righteous,” would be “justified” (Rom. 2:13,) and would be expected to live (Lev. 18:5.) There is no bonus “ascension” legally offered to the doer of law. The One Who descended, then, and follows law, can both serve as the Head of man – for, because of His kenosis, everything concerning His prior form, from its origin to its place, was made of no effect – and also, upon being resurrected, further ascend to where He was formerly.

The purpose, then, is to encompass mankind – the lowest subjector – in His ultimate plan to reconcile all. Without emptying Himself, He could not make man new. Yet, if He had no prior place, He could not make the celestials new.

There will be more to this point – the purpose, on an eonian scale, concerning His emptying, but we will consider this when we visit two passages in Ephesians in more detail.

The Form of a Slave

The first note Paul writes concerning this great action is that Christ takes the form of a slave. It has been argued from this that becoming a human ‘could not be possible,’ since “not all men are in the form of a slave.” Such an argument, however, is ignorant to the preparatory teaching by Paul and Jesus Himself concerning all men – we are all slaves. “The One Who is doing sin is a slave of sin” (John 8:34.) This is said prior to Jesus’ crucifixion, where all men are, indeed, enslaved to sin. Paul expresses, even after Jesus’ rousing, that one is either a slave of Sin, or a slave of Righteousness (Rom. 6:18, 20.) Thus, regardless, man, in flesh, is a slave.

Note that form of a man is not used here, because Christ is not merely said to have the outward appearance of man, but intrinsically joined to the race, per the two following points by Paul. He takes the outward appearance of a slave. As with the “form of God,” He is not actually a slave, but maintains the outward appearance of a slave. As A.E. Knoch points out, in not one of the other 120 occurrences of the word “slave,” doulos, is correlated with our Lord. He is outwardly a slave – inwardly, however, He is the Lord of all; at no point in Christ’s journey has this ever not been the case.

And, again, given the juxtapositions of the genitive cases – “of God” to “of a slave” – it is readily apparent that one form precludes the other. This is important, for you will recall that the phrase “form of God” has been twisted into some ambiguous idea for “representative of God” by the Socinian. Yet “form” does not denote “representative,” and it should be readily apparent that, irrespective of the “form” Christ is in, He is representing God – making the criticism from the Socinian sect on this front an incompetent one.

When we appreciate “form” for its true definition, the beauty of the passage becomes clearer to us. Christ held the appearance of a slave – a slave to sin and thus death. Yet, literally He was not a slave. It was His place to “become obedient unto death” (Phil. 2:8,) not to become actually enslaved to it. He alone had the ability to refuse the flesh.

The Likeness of Humanity

In taking the form of a slave, Christ comes to be in the likeness of humanity. The term “coming to be,” as is seen in the Concordant Literal, is the term genomai. To demonstrate the true beauty of this term, we may briefly take a moment and display the two verses which the Socinian camp have used to propel their theory that Jesus was only born man, and had no existence prior to His physical birth. Observe, first, Matt. 1:20–

Now at [Joseph’s] brooding over [Miriam’s pregnancy,] lo! a messenger of the Lord appeared to him in a trance, saying, “Joseph, son of David, you may not be afraid to accept Miriam, your wife, for that which is being generated in her is of holy spirit…

And again, in Luke 1:34-35, the messenger speaking to Miriam–

Miriam said to the messenger, “How shall these things be, seeing that I know not a man?” And, answering, the messenger said to her, “Holy spirit shall be coming on you, and the power of the Most High shall be overshadowing you; wherefore also the holy One Who is being generated shall be called the Son of God.”

It is proclaimed that, since these two passages exist, that Jesus could not have existed beforehand.

Let’s get something straight, right off the bat: the argument that Jesus could not have existed prior to His physical birth is not disproven by a passage which documents Jesus’ birth. This is a non-sequitur, and, you could argue, a red herring, to divert attention from the discussion as to whether or not Jesus existed before His physical birth. Here’s a simple analogy to demonstrate the problem:

Me: “Abraham Lincoln existed before he was elected president in 1860.”

You: “But Abraham Lincoln was elected president in 1860!”

Me: “This movie was originally a book.”

You: “But the movie has released!”

Me: “This car was designed before it was manufactured.”

You: “But the car is manufactured!”

As stated at the beginning of this study, the only proper way for us to realize whether or not Christ had a role in the universe prior to His birth is to explore the full scope of scriptural revelation. This naturally means that in a discussion about whether or not Jesus existed before His birth, we should not say, “well, He was born” and treat this statement as the greatest thing since sliced bread. It is shallow commentary in relation to this topic, nothing more. What we should do is seek a passage or two which would seem to prove this claim, and analyze it word by word, as we are doing with Philippians 2:5-8. If the arguments from your peers are made with a view to neglect this method, then I’ve found most often that the refutation to the arguments are found by acknowledging the discoveries in the explicit facts of the Greek.

For the sake of demonstrating the falsehood (and thus deepening our appreciation for the passage at hand,) let us press on with the Socinian argument anyway, even on its purposeless premise. They begin by pointing at the word gennao. The meaning of the term is, literally, for something to become. It is not solely used of one person begetting another, though this is its primary use. They present this fact concerning the word and then claim that, since Christ is said to become in these verses, that He had not existed prior to this.

The problem with this argument is that it does not survey all of the evidence – especially in Paul’s letters, where this statement is contextualized in our present secret administration. To reiterate once again, first, the “form of God” which Christ was in was no longer valid. It had been voided, completely dissolved. It was “no longer.” The form that Christ took, being the “form of a slave,” had not existed, and had to “become.” Sure enough, as you can see when observing the literal Greek at the beginning of this article, the term ginomai, which is the middle voice form of gennao, is sitting in the middle of Philippians 2:7!

Brief aside: It was argued once that ginomai is not the middle voice form of gennao. Such a claim stems either from a lack of knowledge concerning the verb stems in Greek (which can be learned by considering the “Greek Course” in the concordant study book, The Greek Elements,) or ignorance to the verb stems in Greek, which is far worse than a mere lack of knowledge on the matter. When a verb is changed to its middle voice counterpart, the verb suffix becomes -mai or -omai. In this case, gennao is “BECOME,” and ginomai is “BECOMing.”

This readily clarifies Paul’s prolific revelation. He contextualizes the birth in the middle of the passage. This is the same exact word usage as is found in John 1:14 – “The word became flesh.” Paul clarifies this “becoming” event elsewhere, in Romans 1:3, as according to the flesh. Thus we have a clear, inspired, grammatical marker in which we can contextualize Christ’s birth in relation to His former outward appearance, being that of God.

The fact that this term, genomai, is front and center in this passage is damning for the Socinian position. The Socinian, until this point, has been portrayed as carefully studious, and as asking careful questions concerning the nature of Christ’s origin. But this revelation – that the basis for their primary argument, on this single word, is found brazenly in Philippians 2:7 – reveals a headstrong quality to their line of questioning. How is something like this missed? We suppose that it must be for the same reason the Trinitarian misses the definition of “form” – to presuppose an ideology, and intentionally misapprehend the facts concerning the Christ.

*   *   *

That Christ is said to come to be in the “likeness of humanity” does not mean that He did not have the appearance of a man when in the form of God (Ezek. 1:26.) I will spend more time on this when we read Old Testament passages which harmonize with Paul’s latest revelation. I am mentioning this now for any who have already studied this matter out, and either agree with the literal statements that this letter makes or have yet to come to terms with the Writer, so that you will know that I will eventually cover it (and, for the opposers, yes, I am aware of 1 Cor. 15:45-47, and I’ll break it down when I get there, so hold your raccoons and be patient.)

For now, put a pin in that thought and instead observe the fact that the term “likeness” is used here. It may be asked, “But I thought Christ was a Man? Here the term ‘likeness’ is used. This is clearly a simile. So… does Christ only appear as a Man, but is not actually a Man?”

I framed this question as fairly as I could, and I think it’s a good one. I have been the culprit, in the past, of claiming that this passage makes Christ like a man, not actually man. However, the feisty Socinian camp has made it abundantly clear that Paul himself, in 1 Tim. 2:5, explicitly labels Christ as a “Man.”

At first, I (Stephen) was tempted to label one as a figure (“Man”) and the other an explanation of that figure (“Christ is like Man.”) But this is not fair, and strains 1 Tim. 2:5. In truth, keeping these passages in their respective contexts, and appreciating the full breadth of what both passages say, in accord with the entirety of the scriptures, does not conflict with Christ being a Man, or with Christ existing prior to His physical birth.

The answer is found when you consider the prior clause. As we have discussed concerning the “aorist” tense, the letter is progressive, meaning that “taking the form of a slave” is the precursor to “coming to be in the likeness of humanity.” Thus, it is our mortally infirm frames that Christ “likens” Himself to. It is in this sense only that Christ “comes to be in the likeness of humanity,” given the context hitherto. This is especially validated by comparing/contrasting the word “humanity” (plural) with 1 Tim. 2:5’s “Man” (singular.)

This further clarifies Christ’s existence prior to His physical birth. It is shown here that He effectually comes to be in the likeness of humanity in Phil. 2:7 – which aligns perfectly with both Matt. 1:18 and Luke 1:35. He takes His adapted body at this point in Paul’s narrative, and not any point prior. It has been claimed that this passage refers to the moment that Christ is bound in chains in the Garden of Gethsemane. To demonstrate this, let me briefly quote some more of Clyde Pilkington’s opinion on the verse (ibid)–

“nevertheless empties Himself [at Gethsemane – “not My will, but Thine, be done!”], taking the form of a slave [throughout the process from Gethsemane to the tomb; prior to this He was anything but a “slave” – commanding wind, water, and unclean spirits (Luke 8:25, 29), as well as forgiving sin, multiplying food, healing the sick, and raising the dead, etc.], coming to be in the likeness of humanity [He entered the pinnacle likeness of humanity when He suffered and died the ordeal of Calvary; on the other hand, being virgin born, His conception and birth were anything but ‘in the likeness of humanity’]…”

Oh, man… where to begin?

For starters, his commentary blows past the progression of the passage, instead smooshing it all into one event at Golgotha. Yet Paul is not describing what He was while He emptied Himself. His emptying was one event, not one event including His taking and likening. These are all distinct portions of the text, and to blur the lines between them is poor exegesis.

Furthermore, Clyde evidently didn’t research the definition of “form” himself, or he would have realized that the “outward appearance of a slave” and actually being a slave are two very distinct ideas. If I say, “you look like my daughter,” I’m assuredly not saying “you are my daughter.” This skewers his commentary so badly that it enters a dovetail spin that cannot be corrected.

I’m not done. Clyde’s claim that “likeness of humanity” is the “pinnacle of humanity” is confusing, and serves a reversal to Paul’s logic. Paul says that Jesus came to be in the likeness of humanity well before He humbled Himself to death, not as He humbled Himself to death. His being in the “likeness of humanity” is a pre-requisite to the humiliation, meaning that the death follows the change – not the other way around. Thus, Clyde’s chronology fails. If “likeness of humanity” happened at Calvary, then the next verse becomes incoherent, as He would humble Himself after dying at Calvary, but prior to His obedience unto death, which is circular.

All of this can be amended when you acknowledge the necessary corrections, which account for all of the facts concerning the Greek in the passage. The primary correction is keeping the sequence of events in view, per the narrative given through the aorist: existing in the form of God, then voiding said form, taking a new form in flesh, becoming obedient unto death, and dying at Calvary.

The other primary correction is acknowledging the definition of words. In this case, Clyde supposed that “likeness” meant “pinnacle.” This flesh is assuredly not the “pinnacle” of mankind; the bodies of our expectation are our “pinnacle,” if we are to take 1 Corinthians 15:36-57 seriously. Why would Paul idealize man in a passage concerning the murder of the righteous One? We have conducted a word study on “likeness” before, but let us briefly convey the word study on “likeness,” homoioma, again, for any who missed it the first time. The only use we will not presently consider is Revelation 9:7, because it is the only use of the word outside of Paul’s letters.

Alleging themselves to be wise, they are made stupid, changing the glory of the incorruptible God into the likeness of an image of a corruptible human being… – Rom. 1:23

Here, God’s glory, being Christ (John 13:31-32,) is likened to that of a corruptible human being. One who removes and disavows Jesus’ own directly stated quality of His “pre-existence” likens Jesus to nothing more than the likeness of an image of a corruptible human being. This is a major issue, for it equates the “form of God” to this flesh.

Let me say that again, because it’s critical. The Socinian, non-existent sectarian ideology claims, conclusively, that the outward appearance of God is aptly represented by this corrupted flesh. This is most clear by Clyde Pilkington’s claim above, that, prior to taking the form of a slave, this flesh was suitably the “outward appearance of God.” This flesh that looked unappealing to everyone, looked exactly like the flesh of sin, and is composed of the soil of this earth, is somehow supposed to be the “outward appearance of God.”

How… is that not idolatrous toward this flesh…? Especially when you do consider the various appearances of the just God in the Old Testament?

…death reigns from Adam unto Moses, over those also who do not sin in the likeness of the transgression of Adam… – Rom. 5:13

This is in reference to Adam’s sin, in directly disobeying God. Death reigned in all mortals at the time, though many didn’t break the rules like Adam did. Even though others did not “eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil” against God’s direct wishes, the knowledge of good and evil imposed a conscience on us all (Rom. 2:14,) and thus the offspring of this man murdered, stole, pillaged, and remained ostentatious until the flood wiped all but eight off the face of the earth.

For if we have become planted together in the likeness of His death, nevertheless we shall be of the resurrection also, knowing this, that our old humanity was crucified together with Him also… – Rom. 6:5

Obviously, we didn’t literally die when Jesus did, but humanity, this old flesh, is now like dead to God via our spiritual baptism into His death (6:3.)

For what was impossible to the law, in which it was infirm through the flesh, did God, sending His own Son in the likeness of sin’s flesh and concerning sin, He condemns sin in the flesh... – Rom. 8:3

Huh. We would think this verse is yet another within Paul’s evangel that backs up His preexistence, no? Such a statement would be superfluous for God to state if Jesus’ inception occurred in the likeness of Sin’s flesh. Why would Paul, in the exactness of diction found throughout Romans, here use the word “sent” if Jesus did not first exist elsewhere to be sent? No other use of “sent” attests to a non-existent object being sent, so why must we force such an idea here?

The statement would be imperfect otherwise. If God had meant to say that Jesus was not present in the form of God prior to His birth, then He would have had Paul write that “God’s Son was born in flesh.” Instead, the word “sent” and the phrase “law was infirm through the flesh” are present, as in, it is impossible for the flesh to accomplish law. It seems as though correlating God’s Son with a fleshly birth ties Christ directly to humanity, with sin in the flesh.

It would have been impossible, then, for Christ to achieve His goal if His flesh was sin’s flesh, for Adam too is made with this corruptible flesh, and given the breath of life from the spirit of God directly. That Christ is woven into Israel’s lineage through Miriam does not alter the fact that, save for His place among the celestials, He would have been unable to effect the law. He must have been sent from another place, in a body like that of His fellow brethren, in order for His obedience to take root.

Thus, when we read “likeness” in Philippians 2:7, we should not be so quick as to dismiss the same point, here. His flsh was not, was never designed as ours is. It is designed to represent and emulate. He was constituted a Man in all ways, with this adapted flesh, which was made of soil, and bore an intimate affiliation with the fleshy head of the race, being Adam.

- GerudoKing