Prooftexts Archives -

In this series, we have been examining the popular assumption that Phil. 2:6-8 describes the incarnation. Our previous article looked at the first half of the passage, which can be laid out as a four-line stanza, and found strong linguistic evidence that Jesus “in the form of God” is not a disembodied state but rather a physically glorified state.

August 27, 2022

Tagged Apostle Paul, Carmen Christi, form of a servant, form of God, harpagmos

From Glorification to Humiliation: Reassessing Philippians 2:6-8 (Part 1)

Prooftexts

0 0
3387
2 years ago
7

Philippians 2:6-8 is a testament to the incredible humility of Jesus. Paul vividly describes that humility as the voluntary transition from the “form of God” to the “form of a servant.” But what exactly do these phrases mean? And when during his life was Jesus in such contrasting states? These questions can be answered in a few different ways. The route one takes, however, depends upon the assumptions one makes of the text.

June 24, 2022

Tagged Apostle Paul, Carmen Christi, form of a servant, form of God, harpagmos

From Glorification to Humiliation: Reassessing Philippians 2:6-8 (Part 1)

Philippians 2:6-8 is a testament to the incredible humility of Jesus. Paul vividly describes it as the voluntary transition from the “form of God” to the “form of a servant.” But what exactly do these phrases mean? And when during his life was Jesus in such contrasting states? These questions can be answered in a few different ways. The interpretive route one takes, however, depends upon the assumptions one brings to the text.

In this series we will examine several common assumptions that underpin the popular “incarnational” interpretation. We will also consider the exegetical reasons why Paul’s famous Carmen Christi is best understood not as Jesus transitioning from a pre-existent state to a human state but rather from a glorified state to an afflicted state.¹

Structural Considerations

Philippians 2:5-8 (RSV) — 5 Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, 6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in human form he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross.

The interpretive route taken by most theologians is marked by one key assumption: since the statement “being in the form of God” occurs before the statement “being born in the likeness of men,”² Paul must be claiming that Jesus existed before he was born. This conclusion is encouraged by the punctuation in verse 7. Most English translations put a comma after “servant” and a period or semicolon after “men,” supporting the inference that Jesus “emptied himself” and “took the form of a servant” by being “born in the likeness of men.”³

But in fact the oldest copies of the Greek New Testament contain no punctuation. This is seen in the New Testament Papyri p46, which contains our text from Philippians 2.⁴ Moreover, the punctuation marks found in our English translations are editorial decisions made by the translators. While they are generally helpful, they aren’t guaranteed to accurately reflect the original flow of thought in every case. Sometimes they can even unintentionally obscure the author’s intent.

In the case of Philippians 2:6-8, we are dealing with a formal hymn, and the structure of this hymn has been debated by scholars. Trinitarian scholar Moises Silva highlights one proposed structure that results in punctuation very different from what we find in most Bibles. He notes that a “striking parallelism appears when verses 6-8 are arranged as two stanzas of four lines each.”⁵ A literal translation of the passage arranged in this way reads as follows:

Who, being in the form of God,
did not regard equality with God a thing to be seized
but emptied himself,
having taken the form of a servant.

Having become in the likeness of men
and having been found in visible condition as a man,
he humbled himself,
having become obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.

Silva notes several solid linguistic reasons for such an arrangement, including the fact that “the first stanza begins and ends with the noun morphe (form), whereas the second stanza begins and ends with the participle genomenos (having become).”⁶ Furthermore, he adds that “each line of the first stanza finds some parallelism in the corresponding line of the second stanza.”⁷

This compelling alternative arrangement shows that the structure presented in most Bibles is not as reliable as one might think. Our interpretive starting point should therefore be the Biblical background for pivotal phrases such as form of God, equality with God, emptied himself, and form of a servant. We must also consider the contrasts and parallelisms Paul might be making with these phrases, in light of his teaching elsewhere in scripture.

Following Silva’s structure, we will consider each key phrase in detail below. This post will evaluate the first stanza line by line, and the next post will tackle the second stanza.

Stanza 1

Who, being in the form of God,

The phrase “form of God” (morphe theos) is the first major challenge confronting the interpreter. It occurs nowhere else in the Bible and scholars have therefore debated its exact meaning. But it is also the most important one to get right, because it drives our interpretation of the rest of the hymn. The predominant view is that “form of God” describes Jesus in a divine and pre-existent state. But does the linguistic and contextual evidence support this?

Thayer’s Greek lexicon defines morphe as “the form by which a person or thing strikes the vision; the external appearance.”⁸ The NIV translators boldly render it “nature” in Phil. 2:6, but they do this by rejecting its scriptural usage in favor of the way it is used in Greek philosophy. Peter O’Brien observes that “there is very little evidence to support the view that Paul uses morphe in such a philosophical sense.”⁹ Thus most Bible translations wisely stick to the word “form.”

When used of living beings in the Greek OT (LXX), the word morphe virtually always refers to embodied humans.¹⁰ In the NT, this noun only appears three times and always refers to Jesus (Phil. 2:6, Phil. 2:7, Mk. 16:12). Outside of the phrase we are presently evaluating, it always refers to Jesus in a physical body.¹¹ This data, taken together with Paul’s explicit teaching that God is by contrast invisible,¹² gives us good reason to think that “form of God” (morphe theos) refers to Jesus in a physical body, visibly representing the invisible God.

But what exactly does it look like to be “in the form of God,” and when did Jesus embody this particular form? These questions invite us to dig a little deeper into the background of the phrase. The closest we come to “form of God” (morphe theos) in the rest of Paul’s epistles is the phrase “image of God” (eikon theos). And it turns out that the concept of Christ as God’s “image” is developed using verbs derived from the noun morphe. Let us consider the evidence, beginning with a key passage found in 2 Cor. 3:18:

2 Corinthians 3:18 (ESV) — And we all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being transformed [metamorphoumetha] into the same image [eikon] from one degree of glory to another. For this comes from the Lord who is the Spirit.

The verb metamorphoumetha is derived from the noun morphe. It means to change into another form, and that form is specified here as the eikon of Christ. Thus Paul essentially says that “our form is being changed into the same glorified image of Christ.” This tells us that he regards form and image as synonyms.¹³

The parallel use of image and form here is noteworthy because it specifically refers to the glorious image/form of Christ, who in turn is described as the glorious “image of God” in the next chapter:

2 Corinthians 4:4 (ESV) — In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God [eikon theos].

By extension, therefore, “image of God” (eikon theos) and “form of God” (morphe theos) are most likely equivalent terms. Paul’s point in 2 Cor. 3:18 is that we are gradually being changed into the form of the Second Adam, who is himself presently in the form of God. This transformation has both an inward and outward element. The inward spiritual element begins in the present age and is consummated by the outward physical element at the resurrection.¹⁴ The final outward aspect of our transformation is emphasized in Rom. 8:29:

Romans 8:29 (ESV) — For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed [summomorphon] to the image [eikon] of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. 30 And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.

Thayer defines the word summomorphon as “having the same form as another.” In this context it means that our bodies will be changed into the form or image of Christ’s present glorious body at the resurrection. Significantly, the same word is used to describe the same concept in Phil. 3:21:

Phil. 3:20-21 (NASB20) — 20 But our citizenship is in heaven, from which we also eagerly await for a savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, 21 who will transform the body of our lowly condition into conformity [summomorphon] with His glorious body, by the exertion of the power that He has even to subject all things to Himself.

Scholars have noted that “conformed (summomorphon) to his glorious body” in Phil. 3:21 appears to recall the phrase “form (morphe) of God” in Phil. 2:6.¹⁵ Indeed, the Cornerstone Biblical Commentary documents six lexical similarities between Phil. 3:20-21 and Phil. 2:6-11, indicating a close relationship between the passages:

in the form (morphe) of God, 2:6a / conformed (summorphon) to his body of glory, 3:21
being (huparchon) in the form of God, 2:6a / citizenship exists (huparchei), 3:20
likeness (schema) as a human being, 2:7b / change likeness (metaschematisei), 3:21
he humbled (etapeinosen), 2:8 / humble condition (tapeinoseos), 3:21
Lord Jesus Christ (kurios Iesous Christos), 2:11 / Lord Jesus Christ (kurion Iesoun Christon), 3:20
glory (doxan), 2:11 / his body of glory (doxqs), 3:21

Given the background we’ve already examined in Paul’s other letters, this six-way parallel makes it very probable that Jesus “in the form of God” (2:6) refers to “his body of glory” (3:21). It is therefore unsurprising that Paul chose the present tense for the participle clause “being in the form of God.”¹⁶ There are five total participle clauses in the Carmen Christi, and of these, only the first is in the present tense. And only the first clause also described the present state of Jesus at the time Paul wrote to the Philippians, as shown in the table below:

Participle Clause	Verb Tense	True at the Time Paul Wrote the Letter?
Being in the form of God (2:6)	Present	Yes (his current state of being)
Having taken the form of a servant (2:7)	Aorist	No (action occurred prior to his death)
Having become in the likeness of men (2:7)	Aorist	No (action occurred prior to his death)
Having been found in external condition as a man (2:8)	Aorist	No (action occurred prior to his death)
Having become obedient unto the point of death (2:8)	Aorist	No (action occurred prior to his death)

The linguistic evidence we’ve discovered so far gives us a much better picture of what it means for Jesus to be “in the form of God.” We know it most likely refers to Jesus as an embodied human being. We also know that in Paul’s writings, “the form of God” is very closely related to the “the image of God,” which is always used to describe Jesus in a glorified state. And we know that the participle clause “being in the form of God” is in the present tense – unlike the four remaining participle clauses – which implicitly connects it with Jesus’ present glorious body.

It seems evident, then, that Paul has placed the starting point of the hymn at a point in Jesus’ mortal life when he had the same form that he is presently in. There is in fact just one event that fits this bill:¹⁷

Matthew 17:2 (ESV) — And he was transfigured [metamorphothe] before them, and his face shone like the sun, and his clothes became white as light.

Thayer defines metamorphothe as “to change into another form.” Jesus outwardly changed into a form that was different from his normal form – and the difference is that his body was visibly glorified. One significant reason Paul’s hymn would focus on this event is that the transfigured form of Jesus recapitulates the original form of Adam.

Just as Adam was “crowned with glory and honor” (Ps. 8:5) before the fall, so too at the transfiguration Jesus received “glory and honor” (2 Pe. 1:17). But like the pre-fall Adam, Jesus’ glory and honor was not yet permanent. To embody it eternally, he too had to obey God’s will regarding a tree.

There is even a fascinating parallel between Jesus in his transfigured form and the Jewish tradition that Adam was in such a form prior to the fall:

Adam’s heel outshone the globe of the sun; how much more the brightness of his face! (Middrash Rabbah)

We may further observe that before, during, and after Jesus was in this transfigured state of the pre-fall Adam, he specifically drew attention to his impending death and subsequent resurrection.¹⁸ This indicates that his altered form was also his predestined resurrected form — a glorious body that is indeed, by all indications, the visible “form of God.” Paul saw this form on the road to Damascus, while Peter, James, and John saw it just prior to the crucifixion.

Therefore the transfiguration is a strong candidate for the background Paul had in mind in Phil. 2:6a.¹⁹ As we examine the remainder of the Philippians hymn, we will consider how the “form of God” as a reference to the transfiguration makes the best sense of the Carmen Christi.

did not regard equality with God a thing to be seized

The phrase “equality with God” (isa theo) is another expression assumed to reveal that Jesus is inherently divine. It is taken as a statement of identity, so that “equality with” is mentally replaced with the word “being.” But the Biblical usage of this phrase tells a very different story. It appears one other time in the New Testament, where it is also applied to Jesus:

John 5:18 (ESV) — This was why the Jews were seeking all the more to kill him, because not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God [ison theon].

Here the word “equal” (isos) compares two individuals who are father and son. A son is self-evidently not the same being as his father, and thus being “equal with” God is not a statement of identity but of similarity. We find another example in Lk. 20:36, where people are said to be “equal with” angels (isangelos). This doesn’t mean people are angels, but rather they are like angels in a particular way.

In ancient near eastern culture, to say a son was “equal with” his father was to say he had been given the same authority as his father. He served as his father’s agent, possessing the authority to conduct his father’s affairs on his behalf. Craig Keener writes:

[W]hen one sent one’s son (Mark12:6), the messenger position was necessarily one of subordination to the sender. Although the concept of agency implies subordination, it also stresses Jesus’ functional equality with the Father in terms of humanity’s required response: he must be honored and believed in the same way as must be the Father whose representative he is (e.g., John 5:23; 6:29)²⁰

Jesus’ antagonists in this scene knew the Messiah would be the supreme Davidic Son of God (2 Sam. 7:14). They also knew the Messiah would be functionally equal with God, possessing the royal authority to act on God’s behalf (Ps. 2:7-12, Dan. 7:14). But they emphatically denied Jesus was the one God had chosen for this role (Jn. 9:29).

In other words, Jesus’s enemies did not accuse him of falsely claiming to be God himself, but rather, they accused him of falsely claiming to be God’s Messiah. Jesus’s reply confirms this. Stefanos Mihalios points out that “[the] purpose of Jesus’s response, starting from [John] 5:19, is to clarify his relationship to the Father…to conclude that he is the unique Son of God, Israel’s representative king, and the coming Messiah.”²¹

With this background in view, Phil. 2:6 tells us that while Jesus was “in the form of God,” he did not regard his royal messianic authority something to be seized.²² Since “form of God” most likely describes Jesus in a physically glorified state, Paul appears to be drawing a contrast between Jesus’ visibly authoritative appearance and his humble frame of mind. This again points us in the direction of the transfiguration.

Just before that spectacular event, Jesus began to warn his disciples that he would soon suffer at the hand of his enemies. When Peter objected, Jesus rebuked him by saying that “you are not setting your mind (phroneis) on the things of God” (Matt. 16:21-23). This statement implies that Jesus, by contrast, was setting his mind on the things of God — which entailed suffering on behalf of others. It is precisely this “mind” (phroneistho) of Christ that Paul encourages his readers to imitate in Phil. 2:3-5.

During the transfiguration itself, God announced Jesus’ equality with him, declaring: “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased; listen to him” (Matt. 17:7). Indeed, Jesus’ shining face and gleaming white clothing visibly signified his moral purity and his exalted destiny. Peter was so taken by this royal show of glory that he inadvertently tempted Jesus to usher in the kingdom right then, suggesting they set up three tabernacles on the mountain.

Peter’s comment may well have been a reference to the Feast of Tabernacles that is to be celebrated on Mt. Zion when the Messiah reigns (Zech 14:16). Darrell Bock has pointed out that the voice of God may have interrupted Peter in part as a rebuke “for suggesting that now is the time to celebrate the entry of the eschaton.”²³ Yet Jesus refused to avoid the cross by seizing his Messianic kingship in that glorious moment.

His attitude while visibly manifesting “the form of God” was the epitome of humility: he spent the entire time discussing with Elijah and Moses his intention to sacrifice himself for the sake of his beloved people, who could not save themselves (Lk. 9:30-31). Thus, while the first Adam in all of his glory decided to disobey his Father’s will regarding a tree, the second Adam in all of his glory purposed to obey his Father’s will regarding a tree.

but emptied himself,

Scholars have long debated what it meant for Jesus to “empty” (ekenosen) himself. However, Gordon Fee points out that this debate “has been generated by scholarship, not by Paul or Pauline ambiguities.”²⁴ The verb ekenosen has a well-established meaning that Paul used elsewhere in his writings. It means to “make void,” and it is used here in a metaphorical sense that is equivalent to the idea of pouring something out.²⁵

Silva correctly states that it “encapsulate[s] for the readers the whole descent of Christ from highest glory to lowest depths.”²⁶ He assumes, of course, that being in “the form of God” refers to a pre-existent divine state and therefore thinks Christ’s voluntary emptying began with his birth. But this conflicts with the way scripture consistently describes the Messiah pouring himself out.

Isaiah 53:12 proleptically declares that he “poured out his soul to death and was numbered with the transgressors.” Jesus used the same imagery at the Last Supper. Taking the cup of wine, he told the disciples: “This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood” (Lk. 22:20). And Paul likewise uses the imagery of “pouring out” as a metaphor for sacrificial death:

Philippians 2:17 (ESV) — Even if I am to be poured out as a drink offering upon the sacrificial offering of your faith, I am glad and rejoice with you all”

Thus the “emptying” of the Messiah most likely has in view the specific events surrounding his suffering and death. At the transfiguration, when Jesus was in the most glorious form of his mortal life, he was laser-focused on his decision to “pour out” that life (Lk. 9:31-32). He later showed his resolve by refusing to call down an army of angels when his enemies came for him:

Matthew 26:52-54 (ESV) — 52 Then Jesus said to him, “Put your sword back into its place. For all who take the sword will perish by the sword. 53 Do you think that I cannot appeal to my Father, and he will at once send me more than twelve legions of angels? 54 But how then should the Scriptures be fulfilled, that it must be so?”

Jesus clearly had the authority to stop the sequence of events that led to his death, yet he refused to exploit this power, because he considered the needs of others more important than his own. His voluntary descent from glorious transfiguration to shameful humiliation was breathtakingly rapid, and the contrast was surely unforgettable for those first century witnesses.

taking the form of a servant.

The phrase “form of a servant” (morphe doulou) is usually thought to describe the humanity of Jesus, allegedly conveying the idea that he served others during the course of his human existence. The act of “taking” this form is therefore assumed to be the voluntary choice to become a human being.

But we have already seen that “form of God” describes the visibly glorified Messianic Son who represents the invisible God. And we have also seen that the Messiah’s “emptying” describes his voluntary choice to submit to death on a cross. If these things are so, then by implication “form of a servant” describes the visibly afflicted Messiah who represents a class of people identified as servants.

Paul’s teaching in Gal. 4:1-7 illuminates the sort of servanthood he has in view. He points out that before the appointed time to accomplish redemption and receive his inheritance, the Messianic Son was no different from a servant or slave (doulou) in terms of his legal status.²⁷ Jesus was sinless, yet had been born under the law, positioning him to represent other “servants” who were enslaved to sin and therefore in bondage to the penalty of the law:

Galatians 4:1-7 (ESV) — 1 I mean that the heir, as long as he is a child, is no different from a slave [doulou], though he is the owner of everything, 2 but he is under guardians and managers until the date set by his father. 3 In the same way we also, when we were children, were enslaved to the elementary principles of the world. 4 But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, 5 to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons….7 So you are no longer a slave [doulou], but a son, and if a son, then an heir through God.

Given this background, “servant” (doulou) in Phil. 2:8 most likely has in view one who is indebted to the law. The word “form” (morphe) emphasizes the outward appearance, indicating that Jesus took upon himself the visible afflictions of one who is paying the penalty of the law. These afflictions began when he was bound by the guards in Gethsemane (Jn. 18:12). James McGrath thus points out:²⁸

In light of the Gethsemane story, the reference to taking on “the form of a servant” need not be interpreted in incarnational terms, but might envisage more concretely his being led away in captivity from Gethsemane.

It is also instructive that at the time Paul wrote the letter, he and the Philippians were themselves enduring physical afflictions for the sake of the gospel. Just prior to the Carmen Christi, he acknowledges their suffering and points to Christ as their exemplar (Phil. 1:29-2:5). They would therefore expect “form of a servant” to be focused particularly upon the sufferings of Christ. This is later reinforced by Paul’s desire to be “conformed” to the Christ’s death:

Philippians 3:8-10 — 8 More than that, I count all things to be loss in view of the surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them [mere] rubbish, so that I may gain Christ…10 that I may know Him and the power of His resurrection and the fellowship of His sufferings, being conformed [summomorphoumenos] to His death. 11 if somehow I may attain to the resurrection from the dead.

Paul considers it an honor to embrace this afflicted form of his Savior, recognizing that the glorified “form of God” awaits him on the other side of that affliction. Ultimately, the Carmen Christi points to Christ as the exemplar who was in each of the two forms that his true followers will likewise experience:

“Form of God” = Glorified Jesus “Conformed to his body of glory” = Glorified followers of Jesus
“Form of a Servant” = Afflicted Jesus “Conformed to his (body of) death” = Afflicted followers of Jesus²⁹

The difference between Jesus in the “form of God” and the “form of a servant” is truly a dramatic one. On the one hand, the moment of the transfiguration visually depicts him in the glorious “form of God,” confirming him to be the Messianic Son. It represents his ultimate destiny and that of all who follow after him, making it the ideal starting point for the Carmen Christi.

On the other hand, Jesus set aside this glory and took the shameful “form of a servant” in solidarity with those enslaved to the curse of the law. He voluntarily chose to suffer affliction and death on their behalf, setting the example of sacrificial humility as the righteous path to glory. This completes the contrast that Paul began in the opening line of the hymn, making it an excellent place to conclude the first stanza.

In the next post we will consider how the second stanza carries forward the thrust of Paul’s message from a slightly different angle.

The entire hymn runs from vss. 6-11. We are only considering vss. 6-8 in this two part series. For an examination of vss. 9-11, see Is Jesus Called YHWH in Philippians 2:11? ↵
The word genomenos is usually translated “born,” but as we will see in Part 2 of this series, it is likely more accurate to render it as “become.” ↵
Of the 15 major translations surveyed, 13 placed a comma after “servant.” The NLT and NASB95 instead chose to add the conjunction “and” after “servant,” which is also not present in the original Greek. In addition, 13 translations placed a period, colon, or semi-colon after “men.” The YLT and NET used a comma. ↵
The bar seen above certain words (-) is called a “macron” and it signals that an abbreviation is being used. This is obviously not related to sentence punctuation. ↵
Moises Silva, Philippians (BECNT), p. 109. ↵
Silva, p. 110. ↵
Silva, p. 110. ↵
See https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon/g3444/esv/mgnt/0-1/ ↵
Peter O’Brien, Philippians (NIGTC), p. 196. ↵
The single exception is Job 4:16 LXX, where a spirit appeared to Job in an indiscernible “form.” ↵
The following is a complete list of the occurrences of the noun morphe in the Bible: Phil. 2:6, Phil. 2:7, Mark 16:12, Jdg. 8:18 LXX, Job 4:16 LXX, Isa 44:13 LXX, Dan 4:36 LXX, Dan 5:6 LXX, Dan 5:9-10 LXX, Dan 7:28 LXX, Tobit 1:13 LXX, 4 Macc. 15:4 LXX, Wisd. Sol. 18:1 LXX. ↵
Rom. 1:20, Col. 1:15, 1 Tim. 1:17. ↵
Philo, a contemporary of Paul, also treated form (morphe) and image (eikon) as synonyms in the context of man being made in God’s image in Op Mund 1:25. See http://earlyjewishwritings.com/text/philo/book1.html ↵
Regarding the believer’s inward transformation, Paul uses verbs forms of morphe such as morphothe in Gal. 4:19 and metamorphousthe in Rom. 12:2. ↵
E.g. Gordon Fee, Philippians (NICNT), p. 531. See also Silva, p. 186 ↵
Many translations obscure this nuance by rendering the verb huparchon (“being”) in the past tense (usually “was” or “existed”). The Young’s Literal Translation is a notable exception that gets it right. ↵
Many thanks to my friend Jonathen Favors, who set me on the path of investigating the transfiguration as an interpretive option and assisted in some of my research. ↵
See Matt. 16:21-17:9; Lk. 9:30-31. ↵
2 Corinthians 4:4-6 may offer additional evidence that “form of God” refers to Jesus in his transfigured form. Verse 4 describes Christ as the “image of God,” which was previously shown to be synonymous with the phrase “form of God.” Two verses later, Paul refers to the “light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.” While light is used here as a metaphor for knowledge, Colin Kruse correctly notes: “There is an outward as well as an inward aspect here. Outwardly, on the way to Damascus, Paul saw ‘the glory of God in the face of Christ.'” (Colin Kruse, 2 Corinthians (TNTC), p. 116.) However, the glorified “face” (prosopon) of Christ is never explicitly mentioned in connection with Paul’s Damascus vision. But this word does appear in the account of the transfiguration (Matt. 17:2), suggesting that it may also be in view, since it likewise describes Jesus in his glorified bodily form. ↵
Craig Keener, The Gospel of John: A Commentary, p. 316. ↵
Stefanos Mihalios, The Danielic Eschatological Hour in the Johannine Literature, p. 101. ↵
The word harpagmos, which literally means to “seize,” has generated quite a bit of scholarly debate over the years. As some scholars have noted, it is possible that this word carries the connotation of “exploit.” For an in-depth technical analysis of the word, see https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.15699/jbl.1351.2016.2978. ↵
Darrell Bock, Luke 1:1-9:50, p. 872. ↵
Gordon Fee, p. 306 ↵
See O’Brien, p. 204 and Fee, p. 306. ↵
Silva, p. 114. ↵
The word doulos is variously rendered servant, bondservant, or slave in most English translations. ↵
James McGrath, “Obedient Unto Death: Philippians 2:8, Gethsemane, and the Historical Jesus,” p. 13. ↵
While Paul doesn’t use the word “body” in Phil. 3:10, this is clearly implied. See 2 Cor. 4:10. ↵

Is Christ the Creator in Hebrews 1:10?

Prooftexts

0 0
3024
2 years ago
1

Hebrews 1:10-12 is typically seen as a declaration about the preexistence of Jesus. Set within a series of contrasts between the Son and the angels, it quotes a passage from Psalm 102 in which the Psalmist declares to the Father that “You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning, and the heavens are the work of your hands.” Most theologians think this quote is repurposed in Hebrews 1 to identify the Son as the creator and therefore consider it key evidence for the doctrine of the Trinity.

May 31, 2022

Tagged Christ as Creator, Creation, Creator of Heavens and Earth, Deity of Christ, Hebrews 1:10

Is Christ the Creator in Hebrews 1:10?

Hebrews 1:10-12 is typically seen as a declaration about the preexistence of Jesus. Set within a series of contrasts between the Son and the angels, it quotes a passage from Psalm 102 in which the Psalmist declares to God, “You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning, and the heavens are the work of your hands.” Most Trinitarian interpreters think that God the Father speaks this line to Jesus in Hebrews 1:10, and therefore they consider it key evidence for the doctrine of the Trinity.

However, the Psalm’s original context tells a different story. It records the desperate prayer of a man about to lose his life at the hand of his enemies. He understands this threat to be God’s impending judgment upon him, and he implores YHWH not to take him away “at the mid-point of my days.” He then praises YHWH as the creator of the heavens and earth who will judge the wicked but establish the righteous, and bases his hope for deliverance upon this fact.

Prayer for deliverance is a common theme in the Messianic Psalms cited in the New Testament. For example, in the synoptic gospels, Jesus quotes portions of the prayers from Psalm 22 and Psalm 31 while hanging on the cross.¹ Even the author of Hebrews places a prayer from Psalm 22 on the lips of Jesus in Hebrews 2:12. Thus the Messianic Psalms are consistently interpreted as the Messiah’s prayer to the Father. But it is thought that Hebrews 1:10-12 deviates from this pattern by presenting the prayer in Psalm 102 as the words of the Father to the Messiah.

When an interpretation involves such an unusual and counterintuitive reversal of speaker and addressee, we have good reason to consider whether it is in fact correct. We will therefore look at three specific passages in the book of Hebrews that may shed light on how the author views the quote in Hebrews 1:10-12. Then we will consider an alternative reading of Hebrews 1 that better aligns with the evidence presented.

Hebrews 12:23-26 – The Judge of the Heavens and Earth

When Hebrews 1:10-12 is used for apologetic purposes, the act of creation in vs. 10 is usually emphasized. But the rest of the quote is equally enlightening because it tells us that the creator of the heavens and earth is the same person who will eschatologically judge them:

Hebrews 1:10-12 (ESV) — 10 And, “You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth [ge] in the beginning, and the heavens [ouranos] are the work of your hands; 11 they will perish, but you remain; they will all wear out like a garment, 12 like a robe you will roll them up, like a garment they will be changed. But you are the same, and your years will have no end.”

Since the creator and the judge are said to be the same person, if the judge is clearly identified elsewhere in Hebrews, that will also reveal the identity of the creator in Hebrews 1:10-12. Fortunately, there is just such an identification. Trinitarian theologian Thomas Ferrar notes:

…the passage most similar to Hebrews 1:10-12 in its usage is Hebrews 12:23-26. This is the only other passage in which both ouranos [heavens] and ge [earth] appear. Furthermore, both texts prophesy impending trauma for the heavens and earth. Hebrews 12:23-26 is therefore a very important part of the context of Hebrews 1:10-12, and a close study of the one is likely to shed much light on the other.” ²

Ferrar highlights this parallel in order to refute alternative readings of Hebrews 1:10-12 which claim that “heavens” and “earth” refer to something other than the original Genesis creation. For our own investigation, however, the significance of the parallel between Heb. 1:10-12 and Heb. 12:23-26 is that God and Jesus are distinguished from each other in the latter passage, with Jesus presented as the mediator and God the Father presented as the judge:

Hebrews 12:22-26 (ESV) — 22 But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to innumerable angels in festal gathering, 23 and to the assembly of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven, and to God, the judge of all, and to the spirits of the righteous made perfect, 24 and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel. 25 See that you do not refuse him who is speaking. For if they did not escape when they refused him who warned them on earth, much less will we escape if we reject him who warns from heaven. 26 At that time his voice shook the earth [ge], but now he has promised, “Yet once more I will shake not only the earth but also the heavens [ouranos].

God the Father is identified as the one who will judge the heavens and the earth in Heb. 12. And if the Father is the judge of the heavens and the earth in Heb. 12, then the Father is also the judge of the heavens and the earth in Heb. 1:10-12. This, in turn, strongly implies that the author of Hebrews understands the creator in Heb. 1:10-12 to be the Father, since the passage identifies the judge and the creator as the same person.

Hebrews 5:7 – The Identity of the Petitioner in Psalm 102

A central theme in the book of Hebrews is the fact that Jesus became our eternal High Priest through the suffering of death. Hebrews 5:7 makes the point that Jesus prayed for God to deliver him from death but ultimately learned obedience by choosing to go to the cross.

When we compare Hebrews 5:7 to the Greek Septuagint translation of the Psalm 102 (101 LXX),³ it becomes apparent that the prayer of Jesus in Gethsemane is understood to parallel the prayer of the Psalmist. There are no less than five exact linguistic matches to Ps. 101:1-6 LXX, as well as another key match to Ps. 101:25 LXX, where the petitioner explicitly implores YHWH not to let him die:

Psalm 101:1-6, 25 LXX (NETS)

Hebrews 5:7 (ESV)

1 A prayer. Pertaining to the poor one. When he is weary and pours out his petition [deesis] before the Lord. 2 O Lord, listen [eisakouo] to my prayer, and let my cry [krauge] come to you. 3 Do not turn away your face from me. In the day when I am afflicted, incline your ear to me; in the day when I call upon you, listen to me speedily, 4 because my days [hemera] vanished like smoke and my bones were burnt up like firewood. 5 My heart was stricken like grass and it withered, because I forgot to eat my bread. 6 Due to the sound of my groaning, my bone clung to my flesh [sarx]…25 Do not take me away at the mid-point of my days [hemera], while your years are in generation of generations!”

In the days [hemera] of his flesh [sarx], Jesus offered up prayers [deesis] and supplications, with loud cries [krauge] and tears, to him who was able to save him from death, and he was heard [eisakouo] because of his reverence.

It seems the author of Hebrews has implicitly identified the petitioner in Psalm 101 LXX as the Messiah. Immediately following this plea for YHWH not to take him away “at the mid-point of my days,” we come to the portion of the Psalm quoted in Heb. 1:10-12. Here the tone of the Psalmist changes from desperate plea to reverent faith. He is facing God’s judgment at the hand of his enemies, but he worships YHWH all the same, since he knows that at the final judgment YHWH will restore Zion and her people according to the promise of a New Covenant.⁴

From a Messianic perspective, this section of the Psalm represents the turning point when the Messiah’s plea for deliverance gives way to humble submission. He longs to avoid the cross, but knows it is necessary to mediate the New Covenant. Therefore he acknowledges God as creator and judge and places his faith in God’s eternal promises despite the suffering that must come first. It is especially fitting for the Messiah to be identified as the speaker in Ps. 101:26-29 LXX, given the Father’s prophetic address to the Messiah in Is. 42:5-7:

Father to the Messiah (Is. 42:4-7)

Messiah to the Father (Ps. 101:26-29 LXX)

5 Thus says God, the LORD [YHWH], who created the heavens and stretched them out, who spread out the earth and what comes from it, who gives breath to the people on it and spirit to those who walk in it: 6 “I am the LORD [YHWH]; I have called you (Messiah) in righteousness; I will take you by the hand and keep you; I will give you as a covenant for the people, a light for the nations, 7 to open the eyes that are blind, to bring out the prisoners from the dungeon, from the prison those who sit in darkness.

26 At the beginning it was you, O Lord, who founded the earth, and the heavens are the works of your hands. 27 They will perish, but you will endure, and they will all become old like a garment. Like clothing you will change them, and they will be changed. 28 But you are the same, and your years will not fail. 29 The sons of your slaves shall encamp, and their offspring shall prosper for ever.

It is very unlikely that the author of Hebrews would subvert the Psalm’s original context by putting the prayer of the Psalmist on the lips of the Father in Hebrews 1:10-12, only to revert back to the original context and identify Jesus as the petitioner in Hebrews 5:7. The more plausible scenario is that the author expected the quote to be read according to its original context in Hebrews 1, so that the striking correspondences between the Psalmist and the Messiah could be further explored in Hebrews 5.

Hebrews 1:7 – The Creator of the Heavens and Earth

In Hebrews 1:7, the author quotes Ps. 104:4 to describe the interaction of God the Father with his angels: “Of the angels he says, ‘He makes his angels winds, and his ministers a flame of fire.'” Despite quoting only a brief snippet, the author was undoubtedly familiar with the full context of this Psalm. And when we turn to that context, we discover that the statement about the angels is sandwiched in between two explicit statements about God the Father performing the act of creation:

Psalm 104:1-5 (Brenton) — 1 A Psalm of David. Bless the Lord, O my soul. O Lord my God, thou art very great; thou hast clothed thyself with praise and honour: 2 who dost robe thyself with light as with a garment; spreading out the heaven [ouranos] as a curtain. 3 Who covers his chambers with waters; who makes the clouds his chariot; who walks on the wings of the wind. 4 Who makes his angels winds, and his ministers a flaming fire. 5 Who establishes the earth [ge] on her sure foundation: it shall not be moved for ever.

The author of Hebrews was certainly well aware that in Psalm 104, the one who makes his angels “winds” and “a flaming fire” is the same person who creates the heavens and earth – and in Heb. 1:7 that person is clearly presented as the Father.

We may also observe that the description of angels as a “flame of fire” in this Psalm recalls YHWH’s descent upon Sinai in “fire” (Ex. 19:18) with a “fiery law” coming from his right hand (Deut. 33:2). Strikingly, the Jewish scribes who produced the Greek Septuagint chose the word “angels” (Grk=angelos) to translate “fiery law” (Heb=eshdath) in the latter verse.

Psalm 104:32 further hints at the Sinai event by stating that YHWH is the one who “looks on the earth and it trembles, who touches the mountains and they smoke” – a description of the violent theophany that occurred when the law was delivered (cp. Ex. 19:18). This scene is also suggestive the final judgment. In Psalm 104:35, David calls upon YHWH to remove the “lawless” (Grk=anomos) ones from the earth.

The author of Hebrews has these connections in view. Hebrews 2:1-2 notes that the angels delivered the law and violators were justly judged. Later, Hebrews 12:18-29 portrays the Sinai event as a small scale picture of the final judgment. It describes YHWH’s descent on Sinai in “blazing fire” and “whirlwind,”⁵ both terms which hearken back to the description of angels in Hebrews 1:7. As the mediators of the law, the angels would attend YHWH at the final judgment just as they had attended him at the creation.

Thus the quote in Hebrews 1:7 establishes the Father – attended by his angels – as the creator and judge of the heavens and earth.⁶ This precedent is strategically placed just before Hebrews 1:10–12, preparing the reader to identify the Father as creator and judge there as well.⁷

Revisiting Hebrews 1

The above passages show that the author of Hebrews most likely views Psalm 102 according to its original context, interpreting it as the words of the Messiah to the Father and not the other way around. We will therefore reexamine the arguments laid out in Hebrews 1 with this in mind.

STRUCTURE

Interpreters generally agree that Hebrews 1 contains a series of contrasts between the Son and the angels which are made by quoting various passages from the Old Testament. Most interpreters think the final contrast begins in Hebrews 1:7, which contains a quote about the angels, and concludes with Hebrews 1:8-12, which is assumed to be two successive Old Testament quotes about the Son: But of the Son he says X and Y.

This is, of course, a grammatically valid way to read the text. But we have shown that such a reading wrenches the quoted Psalm out of context and conflicts with the author’s own interpretation of the quote. That gives us cause to take a closer look at how the word “and” (kai) is used at the beginning of vs. 10.

As one might expect, the author of Hebrews frequently strings together multiple Old Testament quotes about the same subject with the word “and” (kai). But it turns out that every time the author does this, he also adds the word “again”:

Heb 1:5 (ESV)– 5 For to which of the angels did God ever say, “You are my Son, today I have begotten you”? Or [kai] again [palin], “I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son”?
Heb 2:11-13 (ESV) — 11 For he who sanctifies and those who are sanctified all have one source. That is why he is not ashamed to call them brothers, 12 saying, “I will tell of your name to my brothers; in the midst of the congregation I will sing your praise.” 13 And [kai] again [palin], “I will put my trust in him.” And [kai] again [palin], “Behold, I and the children God has given me.”
Heb 4:4-5 (ESV) — 4 For he has somewhere spoken of the seventh day in this way: “And God rested on the seventh day from all his works.” 5 And [kai] again [palin] in this passage he said, “They shall not enter my rest.”
Heb 10:30 (ESV) — 30 For we know him who said, “Vengeance is mine; I will repay.” And [kai] again [palin], “The Lord will judge his people.”

When we consider how this phrase “kai palin” is used particularly in Hebrews 1, we find that it indicates multiple Old Testament quotes are being applied to the Son within a given contrast. On the other hand, when “kai” stands alone, it signals the start of a new contrast between the angels and the Son.⁸ This is shown below:

Contrast 1

Vs. 5: For to which of the angels did God ever say, “You are my Son, today I have begotten you”? And [kai] again [palin], “I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son”?

Vs. 6: But [de] when he again brings his firstborn into the world he says. . .

Contrast 2:

Vs. 7: And [kai] of the angels he says. . .

Vs. 8: But [de] of the Son. . .

Contrast 3:

Vs. 10 And, [kai] “You Lord, laid the foundation. . .”

Vs. 13 But [de] to which of the angels has he ever said. . .

Since the kai in vs. 10 is not followed by palin like it is in vs. 5, the author is most likely beginning a new contrast between the angels and the Son.⁹ The structure of the third contrast above is very similar to Hebrews 10:37-39, which also launches into a standalone quote about the Father coming in judgment and then draws a contrast with the people of God using the word “but” (de):

Hebrews 1:10-14 (NET)

Hebrews 10:37-39 (NET)

10 And, “You founded the earth in the beginning, Lord, and the heavens are the works of your hands. 11 They will perish, but you continue. And they will all grow old like a garment, 12 and like a robe you will fold them up and like a garment they will be changed, but you are the same and your years will never run out.”

13 But [de] to which of the angels has he ever said, “Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet”? 14 Are they not all ministering spirits, sent out to serve those who will inherit salvation?

37 For, “Just a little longer and he who is coming will arrive and not delay. 38 But my righteous one will live by faith, and if he shrinks back, I take no pleasure in him.”

39 But [de] we are not among those who shrink back and thus perish, but are among those who have faith and preserve their souls.

PURPOSE OF THE FINAL CONTRAST

It is often claimed that Hebrews 1:10-12 can’t be read in its original context since a quote about the Father wouldn’t contribute anything to this series of contrasts between the Son and the angels. After all, angels are never explicitly mentioned in the passage. But it turns out that the author has carefully prepared the reader to assume their presence.

Hebrews 1:7 lays the groundwork with a quote from Psalm 104, which in context depicts the angels attending the Father at the creation. The Psalm later implies they will do the same at the judgment.¹⁰ This points to the presence of angels in Hebrews 1:10-12, since it similarly quotes a Psalm that describes the Father as creator and judge.

Indeed, it was understood that the Father would carry out the judgment mentioned in Hebrews 1:10-12 by means of his angels.¹¹ As mediators of the law, they had been given the authority to execute its sentence. But while the angels are implicitly God’s powerful agents of the judgment in Hebrews 1:10-12, it is the Son and not one of them who is seated beside the Father in the highest position of authority, as the contrast in Hebrews 1:13-14 points out.

Yet there is another layer of significance behind the portion of Psalm 101 LXX that is quoted in Hebrews 1:10-12. From a Messianic perspective, it corresponds to the pivotal moment when Jesus chose the way of the cross, making it a powerful testimony to his obedient faith.¹² The quoted prayer acknowledges the Father as creator and judge, recognizing that the creation is fallen and therefore destined for judgment according to the sentence of the law.

By implication, the angels’ role is to carry out this judgement, and the Son knows that obedience requires him to experience a dreadful foretaste. He therefore puts his faith in the eternality of God, which assures him that God’s promises regarding Zion, her King, and her people will inevitably be fulfilled.¹³ This enables him to do what the angels never could: make permanent purification for sin by paying the penalty of the law with his innocent life.

Hebrews 1:13-14 completes the contrast, pointing out that his obedient faith has resulted in his elevation to the Father’s right hand, while the angels who previously had authority over Jesus in his mortal state have now been placed under his command to subjugate his enemies and secure the salvation of his people.

This final contrast is especially fitting because it concludes the author’s cumulative case in Hebrews 1 by reasserting the original thesis. He began in Hebrews 1:3-4 by telling us that Jesus a) made purification for sin, and b) sat down above the angels at the right hand of God. So also at the conclusion of the argument, Hebrew 1:10-12 represents the moment Jesus chose to make purification for sin, and Hebrews 1:13-14 reminds us that he subsequently sat down at God’s right hand with the angels sent out under his authority.

CONCLUSION

An accurate interpretation of Hebrews 1:10-12 must correctly determine whether or not the author of Hebrews uses Psalm 102 in context. The precedent set by the New Testament for all other Messianic Psalms is to place Christ – and not the Father – in the role of the Psalmist. And when we examine other passages in Hebrews that have bearing on Hebrews 1:10-12, we find the author views the Psalm in exactly this way.

Our assessment of Hebrews 1 confirms this conclusion. Despite superficial appearances, a careful reading shows that Hebrews 1:10-12 is not connected to the previous quote about the Son. This allows us to recognize the Psalm for what it is: a beautiful and deeply significant depiction of the Messiah’s obedient faith as the ultimate reason he was elevated above the angels.

E.g. Matt. 27:46, Lk. 23:46. ↵
See http://www.dianoigo.com/publications/You_Lord_in_the_beginning.pdf , p. 14 ↵
Psalm 102 in the Masoretic Text is Psalm 101 in the LXX. Hebrews 1:10-12 specifically quotes the Septuagint translation of Psalm 102, since the word “Lord” is not present in the Hebrew text. ↵
Ps. 102:11-17 ↵
The Greek word thyella carries the sense of blowing wind in a storm ↵
This is further confirmed in Hebrews 2:10 and 3:3-4, where the Father is expressly distinguished from the Son as the creator. ↵
Hebrews 1:2 is often claimed to support the popular reading of Hebrews 1:10-12. In this verse, most translations say that God created the “world” through the Son. This is unfortunately misleading. The word usually rendered “world” is aion, which actually means “ages” rather than planet earth. The idea that God created the ages through the Son is likely a Hebraic way of saying that God has shaped human history with the Messiah in view. In other words, it refers to God’s activity across Israel’s history in order to prepare the nation for the Messiah and to bring him about from a particular lineage at a particular time (e.g. Eph. 3:8-12). It may also refer to God’s salvific activity with the Gentiles in the ages following the Messiah’s death and resurrection (e.g. Eph. 2:4-7). But regardless, the creator of these “ages” is identified as the Father in Heb. 1:2, which actually supports reading Heb. 1:10-12 in its original context. ↵
For more on the kai/de structure, see: https://www.angelfire.com/space/thegospeltruth/TTD/verses/hebrews1_10.html ↵
These kai–de contrasts are not readily apparent to the casual reader because the words kai (most commonly rendered “and”) and de (most commonly rendered “but”) can be translated several different ways, and translations vary in how they render these words at key points in the chapter. ↵
See our previous discussion on Heb. 1:7. ↵
God judged Israel and her enemies by the hand of angels in the OT (e.g. 1 Chr. 21:16, 2 Chr. 32:21), and the final judgment is expected to be carried out by angels in the NT (e.g. 2 Thess. 1:6-10, Rev. 15:7-8). ↵
See our previous discussion on Heb. 5:7. ↵
That Hebrews 1:10-12 quotes an expression of faith in God’s promises is confirmed by Psalm 102:28, the verse that immediately follows the quoted portion: “The children of your servants shall dwell secure; their offspring shall be established before you.” Psalm 102:23-28 is also paralleled by Psalm 102:11-22, which similarly displays the Psalmist’s faith despite facing death at the hand of his enemies. ↵

My Lord and My God in John 20:28: Two Distinct Individuals

Prooftexts

0 0
2318
2 years ago
5

In John 20:28, Thomas beheld the resurrected Christ and famously exclaimed: “My Lord and my God!” One way to interpret this statement is to assume that Thomas was applying both titles to Jesus. Trinitarian apologists naturally choose this option, and further claim that Thomas was therefore identifying Jesus as YHWH God himself.

May 30, 2022

Tagged Deity of Christ, Doubting Thomas, Gospel of John, Is Jesus God, John 20:28

5 Reasons the Gospel of John is Not Trinitarian

Prooftexts

0 0
762
2 years ago

The Gospel of John is thought to contain the strongest evidence for the traditional view that Jesus Christ is the second member of a Triune God. From John’s famous prologue to the declaration of doubting Thomas, there appears to be a trove of prooftexts available to the Trinitarian.

May 27, 2022

Tagged Deity of Christ, Doctrine of the Trinity, Gospel of John, Is Jesus God, John 17:3

Is Jesus Called YHWH in Romans 10:13?

Prooftexts

0 0
681
3 years ago
4

In Romans 10:13, the apostle Paul reached the summit of a brilliant discourse on salvation by citing Joel 2:32 in the Greek Septuagint: “For, ‘everyone who calls upon the name of the Lord will be saved.’” The Septuagint substitutes the title “Lord” for God’s personal name, but Paul was surely aware that the original Hebrew instructs people to “call upon the name of YHWH” for salvation.

May 4, 2022

Tagged David Capes, Deity of Christ, Is Jesus God, Is Jesus YHWH, kyrios

Is Jesus Called YHWH in Romans 10:13?

In Romans 10:13, the apostle Paul reached the summit of a brilliant discourse on salvation by citing Joel 2:32 in the Greek Septuagint: “For, ‘everyone who calls upon the name of the Lord will be saved.’” Although the Septuagint substitutes the title “Lord” for God’s personal name, Paul was no doubt aware that the original Hebrew instructs people to “call upon the name of YHWH” for salvation.

Nevertheless, he embedded this quotation in a discourse about salvation through Jesus. Was he therefore applying Joel 2:32 directly to Jesus? And if so, does it mean he thought Jesus was YHWH? Dr. David Capes argues that verses like Romans 10:13 in fact provide “the raw materials” for the Trinitarian doctrinal developments of later church councils.¹

In The Divine Christ: Paul, Jesus, and the Scriptures of Israel, Capes offers four reasons to think Paul not only applies Joel 2:32 to Jesus, but is therefore identifying Jesus with YHWH in a “proto-Trinitarian” way.² But just how well do these reasons hold up under scrutiny? We will evaluate each of them below.

Reason #1: Paul Shifts From Theocentric to Christocentric

Focus on Jesus

Capes highlights two OT passages that are originally about YHWH yet are applied to Jesus in the verses leading up to Romans 10:13. In his opinion, this is our first indication that Paul is identifying Jesus with YHWH in an unusual way.

a. Romans 9:33 (citing Is. 8:14 & Is. 28:16)

Romans 9:33 (ESV) — As it is written, ‘Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense; and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame.’

Here Paul combines Is. 8:14 and Is. 28:16 into one midrashic statement, indicating that the “stone of stumbling and rock of offense” (8:14) and the cornerstone “laid in Zion” (28:16) are both the same stone. In Is. 8:13-14 this stone is identified as YHWH, but Paul appears to identify it as Jesus. Capes therefore contends:

Paul takes Isaiah’s oracle describing YHWH as the stumbling stone for both houses of Israel and transfers the words to Christ. He apparently has concluded that prophetic statements about Israel’s God can appropriately be used to described the crucified and risen Messiah.³

Allegedly, Paul has transferred the stumbling stone metaphor from YHWH to Christ. This assumed shift in focus is taken by Capes as a hint that Jesus is YHWH. However, such a hint would be at odds with the consistent distinction Paul makes between Jesus and God throughout his letter.⁴

Is Paul really making the innovative theological move that Capes suggests? Not according to the full context of the OT passage in view. The remainder of Isaiah’s oracle goes on to describe Israel’s stumbling, and here we learn that Israel will actually stumble over two individuals – YHWH and his appointed Messianic King (cp. Heb. 2:13):

Isaiah 8:18-21 (ESV) — Behold, I (Messiah) and the children whom the LORD [YHWH] has given me are signs and portents in Israel from the LORD [YHWH] of hosts…20 If they will not speak according to this word, it is because they have no dawn. 21 They will pass through the land, greatly distressed and hungry. And when they are hungry, they will be enraged and will speak contemptuously against their king and their God.

In this portion of Isaiah’s stumbling stone oracle, YHWH is depicted as someone other than the Messianic King; in fact, he is portrayed as the Messiah’s God. This precludes the idea that YHWH and his Messiah have somehow merged identities via the stumbling stone.

Israel stumbles over YHWH and his appointed Messianic king not because they are both the same individual, but for the simple reason that YHWH is working through the Messiah. To stumble over the Messiah is also by necessity to stumble over the Messiah’s God, YHWH, who sent him.

Moreover, Paul’s application of Isaiah 8:14 to Jesus is a prime example of the well-established Jewish principle of agency whereby something done to one’s duly appointed agent (i.e. the Messiah) is regarded as if it had been done to the one who sent him (i.e. God).⁵

b. Romans 10:6-8 (citing Deut. 30:11-14)

Romans 10:6-8 (ESV) — But the righteousness based on faith says, “Do not say in your heart, ‘Who will ascend into heaven?'” (that is, to bring Christ down) “or ‘Who will descend into the abyss?'” (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead). But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart” (that is, the word of faith that we proclaim)…

In this allusion to Deut. 30:11-14, Capes urges that “to bring Christ down” in Rom. 10:6 is “a likely reference to what is later called the incarnation.” ⁶ His theory depends on the order of the two actions mentioned – first Paul warns against bringing Christ down from heaven, and then he warns against bringing Christ up from the dead.

Capes appears to assume that Paul’s warning corresponds to two sequential events, such that the first warning refers to a pre-existent Jesus residing in heaven. The problem with such an assumption is that the entire passage is actually focused upon the ascended Jesus residing in heaven.

We even find an implicit parallel between the ascending/descending motif in vss. 6-8 and the confession of faith in vs. 9: No one should try to ascend to heaven (vss. 6-8) but should believe in faith that Jesus ascended to heaven as exalted Lord (vs. 9), and no one should attempt to descend to the grave (vss. 6-8) but should believe in faith that Jesus descended to the grave and was raised again by God (vs. 9).

Furthermore, the declaration of faith in vs. 9 reverses the actual sequence of events. Paul first describes the exaltation of Jesus as Lord followed by his crucifixion and resurrection, rather than the actual sequence of crucifixion followed by resurrection and exaltation. Similarly, we are called to confess with our mouth and then believe with our heart, rather than the normal sequence of first believing and then confessing. Leon Morris explains the probable reason:

Paul proceeds to speak of confessing and believing. We would have expected the reverse order, but we should probably not make too much of this. The two are in the order of “mouth” and “heart” in the passage Paul has just quoted [Deut. 30:11-14], and he goes on to put them in the order we would expect (v. 10).⁷

The sequence in Rom. 10:9 is most likely reversed in order to mirror the ascending/descending motif mentioned in Rom. 10:6-8. This, in turn, indicates that Paul is talking about bringing down the ascended Christ.

Romans 10:6-8 (ESV)	Romans 10:9 (ESV)
6 But the righteousness based on faith says, “Do not say in your heart, ‘Who will ascend into heaven?'” (that is, to bring Christ down) 7 “or ‘Who will descend into the abyss?'” (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead). 8 But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart” (that is, the word of faith that we proclaim);	9 because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord [because he ascended into heaven] and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead [after he descended to the grave], you will be saved.

Paul’s warning in vss. 6-8 highlights the need for a faith in the death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus that is based upon verbal testimony rather than visual proof.⁸ Though most Jews had not personally observed Christ’s ascension or resurrection, they had the eyewitness accounts of the apostles, who brought them the word of God regarding salvation through Christ (Rom. 10:8). The Jews were therefore to believe in faith that God had accomplished what David prophesied in Ps. 110:

Acts 2:34-36 (ESV) — For David did not ascend into the heavens, but he himself says, “‘The Lord said to my Lord, “Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool.”‘ Let all the house of Israel therefore know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified.”

Reason #2: Paul Focuses Upon the Resurrection

The Empty Tomb

Capes highlights Paul’s emphasis on the resurrection in Romans 10 as evidence that Joel 2:32 is being applied to Christ. This is because the title “Lord” was officially given to Jesus at his resurrection, and the same title is also used in Joel 2:32 (LXX):

Paul thinks that the title kyrios [Lord] now belongs to Jesus on the basis of the resurrection (Rom. 1:3-4; Phil. 2:9-11), and resurrection is frequently associated with the title. Therefore, the resurrection emphasis in this passage also makes it likely Paul applies this YHWH text [Joel 2:32] to Jesus.⁹

Capes correctly points out that Paul has applied the title “Lord” (kyrios) to Jesus in places like Rom. 10:9. However, the “Lord” in Joel 2:32 LXX – which Paul cites in Rom. 10:13 – has an added layer of meaning in that it is a substitution for the proper name YHWH that appears in the original Hebrew.

Capes appears to presume that the title “Lord” as applied to Jesus also represents the proper name YHWH. But common sense tells us that even if two individuals share the same title they still do not share the same identity. This becomes apparent when we examine the background of a key citation found just a few chapters earlier in Rom. 8:34:

“Jesus is the one who died – more than that, who was raised – who is at the right hand of God.” This is a direct allusion to Ps. 110:1, which says: “The LORD says to my Lord: ‘Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool.’”

Here we find two distinct “Lords” — the Lord God seats a second Lord at his right hand. The first LORD is actually “YHWH” in the Hebrew, while the second Lord is “adoni,” a word used exclusively of non-divine Lords throughout the Hebrew scriptures. Dr. Claude Mariottini confirms that “[t]he word translated ‘lord’ is ‘adoni’ and should be translated ‘my lord.’ The word is not ‘Adonai’ which, if it had been used, would be a reference to God.” ¹⁰ Moreover, the NET Bible commentary says of this verse:

In the psalm’s original context the speaker is an unidentified prophetic voice in the royal court. In the course of time the psalm is applied to each successive king in the dynasty and ultimately to the ideal Davidic king. NT references to the psalm understand David to be speaking about his “lord,” the Messiah. (See Matt 22:43-45; Mark 12:36-37; Luke 20:42-44; Acts 2:34-35).¹¹

Capes’ assessment conflates the two Lords of Psalm 110, even though passages like Rom. 8:34 and Rom. 15:6 confirm that only one of these two Lords is YHWH. Romans 8:34 states that Jesus is at the right hand of God. Romans 15:6 tells us that this same God is “the God…of our Lord Jesus Christ.” Thus Paul recognizes the first LORD (YHWH) in Ps. 110:1 as the God of the second Lord (Jesus) in Ps. 110:1. By this it is clear that he does not think YHWH and the resurrected Jesus are the same Lord.

Reason #3: Paul Focuses Upon the Eschatological Aspect of Salvation

Return of Christ

Capes points out that Paul tends to apply the title “Lord” to Jesus when discussing eschatological matters like those found in Rom. 10:13. And we agree that this could suggest Rom. 10:13 refers at least in part to Jesus. But Capes problematically attempts to draw support from Joel 2:31, which refers to the eschatological “day of the LORD [YHWH]”

Paul appears to have Joel 2:31 in view when he describes the return of Christ in 1 Cor. 1:8, leading Capes to observe that “for the apostle [Paul], Joel’s ‘day of the Lord’ has become the ‘day of our Lord Jesus Christ’ (1 Cor. 1:8).”¹² Once again, Capes implies that Paul has switched the focus from YHWH to Jesus, this time by applying Joel 2:31 to Jesus in 1 Cor. 1:8. It seems he would like us to assume that two individuals who share the same day must also share the same identity. But this is simply a non sequitur.

We have noted previously that Paul was operating within the Christological framework laid out Psalm 110. This Psalm mentions two “Lords” involved in the eschatological day of wrath, but only one of them is YHWH. The other “Lord” is YHWH’s chosen Messiah, the one through whom he will execute that wrath:

Psalm 110:2-5 (ESV) — 2 The LORD [YHWH] sends forth from Zion your (Messiah’s) mighty scepter. Rule in the midst of your enemies! 3 Your people will offer themselves freely on the day of your (Messiah’s) power, in holy garments; from the womb of the morning, the dew of your youth will be yours…5 The Lord (YHWH) is at your (Messiah’s) right hand; he (YHWH) will shatter kings on the day of his (YHWH’s) wrath.

The day of YHWH’s wrath is also the day of the Messiah’s power, not because the Messiah is YHWH but because YHWH will empower the Messiah to execute his wrath (see also Rev. 6:16-17). There is no confusion of identities in this passage; the Messiah is clearly depicted as the human agent of his God YHWH.

This dispels any notion that Paul has somehow collapsed the two figures into one. To the contrary, the “day of our Lord Jesus Christ” in 1 Cor. 1:8 identifies Jesus as the prophesied Messianic agent through whom YHWH would mete out justice on the day of judgment.

Reason #4: Paul States that “Jesus is Lord” in Romans 10:9

Jesus is Lord

Here we arrive at the real meat of Capes’ four-part argument. He considers the Christological confession in Romans 10:9 to be the deal-clincher that should convince the reader of his claims, even if his previous three points failed to do so:

[In Romans 10:9] the apostle characterizes his gospel and believers’ appropriate response to its proclamation by the confession “Jesus is Lord.” [In Romans 10:13] he proceeds to quote Joel 2:32: “For everyone who calls on the name of the Lord [kyrios] shall be saved.” The internal logic of the passage requires that the one who is confessed as Lord is the same Lord called upon by everyone to be saved. ¹³

This parallel carries weight and should be considered carefully. Romans 10:9 and 10:13 both mention a confession that involves the word “Lord” and results in salvation. Further, 1 Cor. 1:2 mentions believers who “call on the name” (epikaleo ho onoma) of Jesus – the same Greek phrase that is used in Joel 2:32 LXX and Rom. 10:13.

It seems clear, then, that Paul’s use of Joel 2:32 in Rom. 10:13 has Jesus in view. But does it have Jesus alone in view? This is Capes’ premise. He argues that “Paul apparently had no qualms about shifting his focus from God to Christ. . . when quoting texts containing the divine name.” ¹⁴

Yet Paul’s letter to the Romans consistently makes the case that there are two distinct figures involved in the salvation he preached: God and his Messiah.¹⁵ The interaction of these two figures in the drama of salvation is nowhere more evident than in Rom. 10:9, which Capes rightly places in parallel to Rom. 10:13:

Romans 10:9 (ESV)	Romans 10:13 (ESV)
because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised [Jesus] from the dead, you will be saved.	For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”

To “call upon the name of the Lord” for salvation is not merely to speak the name of an individual, as one might suppose if Rom. 10:13 is taken in isolation. Romans 10:9 makes it clear that eschatological salvation is obtained by confessing and believing that God raised Jesus from the dead and made him Lord. In other words, Rom. 10:9 is the full expression of Paul’s point, while Rom. 10:13 is an abbreviated version.

This argues against the popular supposition that Paul has shifted the focus from God to Christ in Rom. 10:13 via the word “Lord.” Both figures are actually in view, and they are assuredly not the same “Lord”: one raised the other from the dead (Rom. 10:9), and the one who did the raising is God over the one who was raised (Rom. 15:6).

In other words, the Lord God permanently bestowed a representative Lordship upon his human Messianic Son at the resurrection, such that the Lord Jesus represents the Lord God and functions on his behalf. This position expressed by Paul in Romans 8:34 and 10:9 allows him to later cite Joel 2:32 without concern that his reader might imagine a subtle attempt to identify Jesus as a second YHWH. Such an attempt would indeed be nonsensical to a first century hearer and certainly require further explanation that is nowhere to be found.

Moreover, the resurrected Lordship of Jesus mentioned in Rom. 10:9, as noted earlier, is rooted in Psalm 110:1. There we find two Lords mentioned such that the first Lord (YHWH) is the God of the second Lord (Jesus). Significantly, Peter made a connection between Psalm 110 and Joel 2 at Pentecost.

In Acts 2, Peter quotes Joel 2:28-32 verbatim and tells us that the outpouring of the spirit was triggered by Jesus’ exaltation to the right hand of God (Ps. 110:1). We may be baptized in Jesus’ name for salvation, he explains, expressly because “God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified.” (Acts 2:36) Thus Peter’s interpretation of Joel 2:32 distinguishes Jesus from God and identifies Jesus’ lordship as something bestowed upon him by God.

Paul likewise instructs us to call upon YHWH for salvation by confessing Jesus as the one whom YHWH has resurrected and exalted as Lord in Rom. 10:9-13. One cannot acknowledge Jesus as Lord without also acknowledging his God YHWH, who put him in that position to begin with. This is explained in Rom. 10:9 and therefore need not be repeated in Rom. 10:13.

The theology behind Paul’s use of Joel 2:32 is rooted in a key principle regarding God’s salvation that is evident throughout the OT: one can simultaneously attribute salvation to YHWH and to an intermediary figure appointed by YHWH, without nonsensically implying that the second figure must be YHWH. This is because YHWH is simply working through the second figure. A good example is found in 1 Samuel:

1 Samuel 7:8 (ESV)	1 Samuel 9:16 (ESV)
And the people of Israel said to Samuel, “Do not cease to cry out to the LORD [YHWH] our God for us, that he may save us from the hand of the Philistines.“	“Tomorrow about this time I [YHWH] will send to you a man from the land of Benjamin, and you shall anoint him to be prince over my people Israel. He shall save my people from the hand of the Philistines. For I have seen my people, because their cry has come to me.”

Just as 1 Samuel attributes salvation both to YHWH and to the man from the land of Benjamin whom YHWH had sent, so also salvation can be attributed to Jesus and God in Romans 10 without conflating the two. Indeed, this is precisely the point in Rev. 7:10: “Salvation belongs to our God who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb!”

This principle brings Romans 10:13 into harmony with the wider Biblical narrative about the salvation of YHWH – a narrative whose central premise is that God would first extend his salvation to the Messiah and then establish him as agent of that salvation for the rest of mankind.¹⁶

Moreover, Jesus was the first to experience the salvation described in Joel 2:32 when he called upon the name of YHWH (someone other than himself) and was subsequently saved at his resurrection. This is powerfully depicted in the Psalm Jesus quoted while hanging on the cross:

Psalm 31:7, 16-17 LXX (Brenton)	Joel 2:32 LXX (Brenton)
Into thine hands I will commit my spirit: thou hast redeemed me, O Lord God of truth. . . . Make thy face to shine upon thy servant: save [sodezo] me in thy mercy. O Lord [Heb=YHWH], let me not be ashamed, for I have called upon [epikaleomai] thee: let the ungodly be ashamed, and brought down to Hades.	And it shall come to pass that whosoever shall call on [epikaleomai] the name of the Lord [Heb=YHWH] shall be saved [sodezo]: for in mount Sion and in Jerusalem shall the saved one be as the Lord has said, and they that have glad tidings preached to them, whom the Lord has called.

In sum, while the confession in Rom. 10:9 does suggest that Paul is applying Joel 2:32 to Christ, it also confirms that Christ is not the only one in view. YHWH is the additional and superior figure in the picture, portrayed as the one who saved Christ before establishing him as the agent of our salvation. Paul’s theology in Rom. 10:9-13 is thus at odds with Capes’ speculative interpretation of Romans 10:13.

Conclusion

In this article we have reviewed all four elements of David Capes’ argument and discovered a few solid points that were unfortunately outnumbered by a host of unconvincing ones. On the positive side, the claim that Rom. 10:13 applies Joel 2:32 to Jesus was particularly well supported by the fourth element of his case. We can therefore agree with Capes on this much.

However, the idea that such an application identifies Jesus with YHWH in a proto-Trinitarian sense utterly fails to convince. Our investigation has shown that Paul’s view of salvation in Rom. 10:9-13 – in harmony with the wider Biblical narrative – involves two figures, only one of whom is YHWH.

Indeed, each text Capes attempts to leverage in favor of his premise is better understood within the theological framework established by Psalm 110, which depicts YHWH seating a human being at his right hand to act as his agent in accomplishing the salvation of mankind.

David Capes, The Divine Christ: Paul, Jesus, and the Scriptures of Israel, p. 186. ↵
Capes shies away from actually stating that Paul is identifying Jesus as YHWH, presumably because he is aware of the logical pitfall of conflating Jesus and YHWH as numerically identical. Thus he prefers to ambiguously frame it as Paul identifying Jesus with YHWH in an unexpected, “proto-Trinitarian” sort of way. ↵
Divine Christ, p. 112. ↵
E.g. Rom. 1:7-8, 3:24-25, 5:10-11, 8:17, 10:9, 15:5-7. Although Capes cites Romans 9:5 several times in his book as evidence that Jesus is called “God” in Romans, he fails to acknowledge the well-known grammatical ambiguity of this verse in the Greek. While some translations render it like the ESV (“To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ, who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen”), other translations render it similar to the KJV (“Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen”). For a thorough analysis of the textual and theological considerations, see here and here. ↵
For more on the principle of agency, see Shaliach: An Introduction to the Law of Agency. ↵
Divine Christ, p. 114. Brackets mine. ↵
See Leon Morris, The Epistle to the Romans (Pillar New Testment Commentary), under Romans 10. ↵
It also may well anticipate the activity of the wicked human ruler depicted in Isaiah 14:13: “You said in your heart, ‘I will ascend to heaven; above the stars of God I will set my throne on high. . .” While some early church fathers took this as the fall of Satan, many later theologians have pointed out that the context doesn’t support such a conclusion, since the passage is clearly about human pride. (See, e.g., John Oswalt, The Book of Isaiah Chapters 1-39, p. 320.) ↵
Divine Christ, p. 115. Brackets mine. ↵
See https://claudemariottini.com/2012/08/21/the-lord-said-to-my-lord/ ↵
See http://classic.net.bible.org/verse.php?book=Psa&chapter=110&verse=1 ↵
Divine Christ, p. 115 ↵
p. 116. ↵
p. 117 ↵
Rom. 1:9, 16-17; 5:1-2, 8-10; 6:4, 11-14, 22-23; 7:25; 8:3-4, 11; 9:33; 10:1-9 ↵
See, e.g., Is. 49:7-8, Heb. 5:7-10. ↵

Is Jesus Called YHWH in Philippians 2:11?

Prooftexts

0 0
620
3 years ago
1

The famous Philippians 2 hymn known as the Carmen Christi is one of the earliest creedal statements in Christianity. Believers throughout the history of the church have echoed Paul’s climactic Philippians 2:11 confession that “Jesus Christ is Lord.” But what exactly does this confession entail?

April 26, 2022

Tagged Apostle Paul, Carmen Christi, Deity of Christ, Every knee shall bow, Isaiah 45:23

Is Jesus Called YHWH in Philippians 2:11?

In his book Putting Jesus In His Place: The Case for the Deity of Christ, Robert Bowman argues that the word “Lord” in this verse stands for the divine name “YHWH.”¹ Thus, claims Bowman, Philippians 2:11 actually announces that “Jesus Christ is YHWH.” He offers two reasons to think this is the case:

First, Paul states categorically that Jesus has ‘the name that is above every name’ (v. 9). In a Jewish context, that name, of course, would be YHWH, and the immediately following affirmation that Jesus is “Lord” (kurios) confirms that to be the name. Second, Paul’s statement alludes to a passage in Isaiah about YHWH.²

At first blush these reasons seem plausible. But upon closer examination, serious problems emerge. We will consider each of Bowman’s claims in turn.

1. “The name that is above every name” must be YHWH.

Bowman assumes that the only possible name Paul could be thinking of here is the divine name, YWHW. The rather significant problem with this assumption is that the next verse tells us otherwise:

(9) Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, (10) so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, (11) and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

Nevertheless, Bowman claims that we not told “the name that is above every name” until we reach verse 11 and encounter the word Lord (kurios), which allegedly stands for the proper name YHWH. This claim is based upon the fact that the New Testament replaces the name YHWH with the word Lord (kurios) when quoting Old Testament passages that use the divine name. One such example is found in Romans 9:29, which quotes Isaiah 1:9. The OT verse has the name YHWH, but when Romans 9:29 quotes it, YHWH is replaced with Lord.

However, in the case of Philippians 2:11, which quotes Isaiah 45:23, the word Lord is not a direct substitution for YHWH. We know this because the name YHWH does not appear at all in the original Hebrew of Isaiah 45:23. Rather, Paul has inserted a completely new phrase – “Jesus Christ is Lord” – into his citation of Is. 45:23, and Bowman has made a subjective judgment about what that insertion means.

By implication, Bowman’s interpretation has Paul saying something that would have been more than a little confusing to his first century audience – every tongue will confess “Jesus Christ is YHWH to the glory of YHWH the Father.” This neglects the fact that Paul applies the word Lord to Jesus as a title rather than a proper name throughout the rest of Philippians (e.g. “the Lord Jesus Christ” in 1:2, 3:20, and 4:23, and “Jesus my Lord” in 3:8). This fact, taken together with Paul’s explicit statement in Phil. 2:10, confirms that the name in view is not YHWH but Jesus.

Let us now expand our investigation to see how Bowman’s claim fares in light of other related Biblical data.

The Ephesians 1 Connection

Ephesians 1 provides additional insight into the Philippians 2 elevation of Jesus’ name.³ According to Eph. 1:20-22, Jesus has been seated at the right hand of the Father, which is a position “above every name that is named.” But we are also told in Eph. 1:17 that the Father is the God of our Lord Jesus Christ. Here the word Lord (kurios) is clearly both distinct from and beneath YHWH, who is the God of that Lord.

The point in both Phil. 2:10-11 and Eph. 1:21, then, is that the name of Jesus underwent a change in status from humiliation at the crucifixion to exaltation at the ascension. God elevated it above every other name in the created order, which is another way of saying that he gave Jesus total authority over the created order. But the name in question is still Jesus, and according to Paul, Jesus is still subject to his God YHWH.

The fact that Jesus is seated at the “right hand” of God in Eph. 1:20 confirms this distinction between Jesus and YHWH; it’s a direct allusion to Psalm 110:1, the quintessential passage used to stake out the Lordship of Jesus over 20 times the New Testament.⁴ Psalm 110:1 depicts a human Lord seated at the right hand of YHWH, thereby explicitly distinguishing him from YHWH.

New Testament scholar Darrell Bock puts it bluntly: “[T]here is no question that the Hebrew text of Ps. 110 clearly distinguishes between God and this figure; the terms are distinct in Hebrew.”⁵

Thus the immediate context in Philippians and the wider context of the New Testament both confirm that the phrase “Jesus is Lord” in Philippians 2:11 does not identify Jesus as YHWH. It identifies him as the Ps. 110:1 Lord seated beside YHWH.

This permanent right-hand enthronement has established the name Jesus as “the name that is above every name” in the created order. In Pauline thought, however, the plain exception to “every name” is the name of Jesus’ own God (cf. Eph. 1:17), much like the plain exception to “all things” placed under Jesus’ feet is God himself (cf. 1 Cor. 15:27).⁶

2. The speaker in Isaiah 45:23 is YHWH, but Paul applies it to Jesus.

For Bowman, the allusion to Isaiah 45:23 in Philippians 2:10-11 seals the deal. He illustrates Paul’s Old Testament allusion with the following comparison table:⁷

Isaiah 45:23 LXX	Philippians 2:10-11
“to me every knee shall bend, and every tongue shall swear.” kampsei pan gonu kai exomologesetai pasa glossa	“that at the name of Jesus every knee should bend [pan gonu kampse], in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue should confess [kai pasa glossa exomologesetai] that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.”

Before we consider this in more detail, it should first be noted that Paul expressly distinguishes Jesus from God just prior to the passage Bowman cites: in vss. 5-9, Jesus is the obedient servant who submits to death on a cross, while God is the one who responds by exalting Jesus to a position of authority.⁸

Yet most interpreters simply assume that Paul is applying Isaiah 45 to Jesus alone. Based on this presupposition, they infer that Paul must be identifying Jesus as YHWH. But in the LXX, Isaiah 45:23 is only the beginning of a sentence that continues on into the next verse. And in that verse we find another crucial parallel to Paul’s commentary:⁹

Isaiah 45:23-24 LXX (NETS)	Philippians 2:10-11 (ESV)
(23) By myself I swear, “Verily righteousness shall go forth from my mouth; my words shall not be turned back, because to me every knee shall bow and every tongue shall acknowledge God, (24) saying, Righteousness and glory *[doxa]* shall come to him, and all who separated themselves shall be ashamed.”	(9) Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, (10) so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, (11) *and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory [doxa] of God the Father*.

The glory given to YHWH in Isaiah 45:24 parallels the glory received by God the Father in Philippians 2:11. Thus Paul has identified YHWH, the speaker in Isaiah 45, as God the Father. The honor given to Jesus is ultimately directed to YHWH God – a figure whom Paul portrays as both distinct from and above Jesus. We find confirmation of this in yet another allusion to Isaiah 45:24 that appears in Philippians 1:¹⁰

Isaiah 45:23-24 LXX (NETS)	Philippians 1:10-11 (ESV)
(23) By myself I swear, “Verily righteousness shall go forth from my mouth; my words shall not be turned back, because to me every knee shall bow and every tongue shall acknowledge God, (24) saying, *Righteousness [dikaiosune] and glory [doxa] shall come to him,* and all who separated themselves shall be ashamed.”	(10) so that you may approve what is excellent, and so be pure and blameless for the day of Christ, (11) filled with the fruit of *righteousness [dikaiosune] that comes through Jesus Christ, to the glory [doxa] and praise of God*.

Here Paul reveals that the righteousness destined to come to YHWH (Is. 45:24) does so through Jesus (Phil. 1:11).¹¹ In other words, YHWH is the recipient of the righteousness, while Jesus is the agent who delivers that righteousness to him.

These two allusions make it clear that Paul is applying Isaiah 45:23-24 to both Jesus and the Father. But he identifies the Father as God, while he identifies Jesus as the subordinate Lord. In the previous section of this article we showed that the word Lord here refers to the human Lord seated at the right hand of YHWH (Ps. 110:1).

How Paul Applies Isaiah 45 to Jesus

If Paul is not identifying Jesus as YHWH, why does he apply Is. 45:23 to Jesus? The answer is found within the book of Isaiah itself. Indeed, scholars widely consider the Servant of the Lord passages in Isaiah to be a strong candidate for the OT background of the Carmen Christi.¹²

One such example occurs in a passage that expands upon Isaiah 45 in significant ways. Isaiah 49:4-5 describes the Messianic Servant calling upon his God YHWH for vindication in the face of rejection. YHWH then replies in vss. 6-7 with the following declaration that aligns with the salvation described in Isaiah 45:22-24:¹³

Isaiah 45:22-24 LXX (NETS)

Isaiah 49:6b-7 LXX (NETS)

(22) Turn to me, and you shall be saved, you who are from the end of the earth! I am God, and there is no other. (23) By myself I swear, “Verily righteousness shall go forth from my mouth; my words shall not be turned back, because to me every knee shall bow and every tongue shall acknowledge God, (24) saying, Righteousness and glory shall come to him (YHWH), and all who separated themselves shall be ashamed.”

(6) …See, I have made you (the Messiah) a light of nations, that you may be for salvation to the end of the earth.” (7) Thus says the Lord who delivered you, the God of Israel: “Sanctify him who despises his own soul, who is abhorred by the nations, the slaves of rulers; kings shall see him (the Messiah), and rulers shall stand up and do obeisance to him for the Lord’s (YHWH’s) sake, because the Holy One of Israel is faithful, and I have chosen you.”

Isaiah 49 unpacks the soteriologial plan further by explaining how the salvation will be accomplished: YHWH will first grant salvation to his own righteous servant (Is. 49:8), and then make his vindicated servant the mediator through whom that same salvation will be extended to the rest of the world (Is. 49:6).

It should be carefully noticed that the nations do not worship this exalted servant as YHWH himself. Indeed, we are told in Is. 49:4-5 that YHWH is the God of this servant. The nations instead worship the servant “for YHWH’s sake” (Is. 49:7). That is, they honor and obey him because they know he is YHWH’s chosen human king who now rules on his behalf. In so doing, they acknowledge YHWH as the supreme God – precisely as Is. 45:23 states.¹⁴

Paul deftly inserts this Suffering Servant soteriology into his modified Isaiah 45:23-24 allusion through the succinct statement “Jesus Christ is Lord” (which also calls to mind the key Messianic Lordship text of Ps. 110:1). In this way, the story of YHWH’s salvation is condensed into a memorable creed that highlights the humble sacrifice and subsequent exaltation of the Lord Jesus, yet ultimately magnifies his God YHWH, the one God of Israel, above all.

Conclusion

These two claims used to argue that Jesus is identified as YHWH in Philippians 2:9-11 regrettably fail the test of careful Biblical scrutiny. Upon closer examination, we find that neither the phrase “the name that is above every name” nor the application of Isaiah 45 to Jesus suggests that Paul is calling Jesus YHWH in Phil. 2:11. To the contrary, throughout his letter to the Philippians the apostle consistently distinguishes YHWH God from Jesus Christ, whose faithful obedience was rewarded with an exalted seat at YHWH’s right hand.

Robert Bowman, Putting Jesus In His Place, p. 165-166. ↵
Bowman, pp. 166-167. ↵
He acknowledges the connection between these two passages on p. 131. ↵
http://www.hebrew-streams.org/works/texts/ps110-list.html ↵
Darrell L. Bock, The Gospel of Luke 9:51-25:53, p. 1639. In the Hebrew Masoretic Text, all 194 OT occurrences of the word adoni (used of the second lord in Ps. 110:1) refer strictly to humans or occasionally angels, and never once to YHWH. Some apologists claim that the LXX translation of the second Lord in Ps. 110:1 as kurios mou allows for the possibility that the original Hebrew in the first century was adonai (typically a divine reference) rather than adoni. For a thorough refutation of this assertion, see Jaco van Zyl’s paper “Psalm 110:1 and the Status of the Second Lord –Trinitarian Arguments Challenged”. ↵
This aligns Paul with the exalted Lord Jesus, who is careful to distinguish “the name of my God” from “my own new name” in Rev. 3:12. In Rev. 19 we are told that Jesus is given the name Word of God (19:13) and King of Kings and Lord of Lords (19:16). Both of these “names” are actually titles, much like the title Lord is associated with the name Jesus in Philippians 2:11. Neither of these two titles in Revelation identifies Jesus as YHWH, for even in this book he is still identified by the proper name Jesus, and is depicted at the right hand (Rev. 5:7) of YHWH, who remains his God (Rev. 3:2,12). ↵
Bowman, p. 167. ↵
An exposition of the passage that contrasts Jesus “in the form of God” vs. the “form of a servant” (Phil 2:6-8) can be found in this excellent article. ↵
The NETS version of LXX Isaiah can be downloaded here: http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/nets/edition/33-esaias-nets.pdf ↵
Paul also uses the Is. 45:24 keyword “ashamed“ (aischunomai) in the same eschatological sense in Phil. 1:20: “it is my eager expectation and hope that I will not be at all ashamed (aischunomai), but that with full courage now as always Christ will be honored in my body.” Furthermore, Paul cites Is. 45:23 almost verbatim in Rom. 14:11, and within the same pericope (comprised of Rom. 14:1-15:7) we find the Is. 45:24 keyword “righteousness“ (dikaiosune) in vs. 14:17, and the keyword “glory” (doxa) in vs. 15:7. ↵
In Phil. 1:11, the righteousness first comes through Jesus to believers via the Holy Spirit, so that believers may be presented to God as righteous in the eschaton (cp. 1 Cor. 15:24, 49). ↵
Gordon Fee writes: “Paul and the early church were quick to see that Christ’s “servanthood” was ultimately fulfilled in the “pouring out of his life unto death” (Is. 53:12) for the sake of others. It is hard to imagine that early Christians, therefore, would not rather automatically have heard this passage (Phil. 2:5-11) with that background in view, especially since that passage begins (Is. 52:13) the way this one ends, with the Servant’s exaltation by God.” Paul’s Letter to the Philippians, p. 262. ↵
Scholars have noted the likelihood that Paul alludes to Is. 49:4 (“I have labored in vain”) in Philippians 2:16 (“so that in the day of Christ I may be proud that I did not run in vain or labor in vain“). See, e.g., Ralph P. Martin, TNTC Philippians; Peter T. O’Brien, NIGTC Philippians. ↵
This recalls the prophecy in Is. 45:14 where the nations bow before corporate Israel, recognizing that YHWH God himself is fighting for them. We find a similar example in 1 Chron. 29:20, where Israel worships both God and King David at the same time. They are not identifying David as God but rather recognizing him as God’s chosen ruler. ↵

Who is the One God in Matthew 28:19?

Prooftexts

0 0
660
3 years ago

The baptismal formula in Matthew 28:19 is often thought to be obvious evidence of God’s triune nature. In this passage, Jesus commissions his apostles to baptize people “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” The singular noun name, we are told, implies that all three figures share the same name, which in turn implies a shared essence or being.

March 1, 2022

Tagged Baptism, Baptismal Formula, Deity of Christ, Matthew 28:19

Category: Prooftexts

From Glorification to Humiliation: Reassessing Philippians 2:6-8 (Part 2)

From Glorification to Humiliation: Reassessing Philippians 2:6-8 (Part 1)

Is Christ the Creator in Hebrews 1:10?

My Lord and My God in John 20:28: Two Distinct Individuals

5 Reasons the Gospel of John is Not Trinitarian

Is Jesus Called YHWH in Romans 10:13?

Is Jesus Called YHWH in Philippians 2:11?

Who is the One God in Matthew 28:19?