Christ: The Visible Shape of God

I will be quoting from Philippians (Hermeneia), by Paul A. Holloway (Author), Adela Yarbro Collins (Editor), published by Fortress Press in 2017. The commentator argues that in Philippians 2:5-11, Jesus is being described as the human incarnation of the Angel of YHWH who is then exalted to God’s throne and who now bears the divine name YHWH.

Here are the quotes. All emphasis will be mine.

6 The expression en morphe theou hyperchon in the first half of v. 6, here translated “although he existed in the form of God,” raises two questions: (1) the meaning of morphe (“form”) and (2) the force of the participle hyperchon (lit., “existing”). Commentators have balked at the plain meaning of morphe theou (“form of God”), since morphe denotes not “essence”²¹ but “outward appearance” or visible “shape,”²² implying that Paul, a Jew, thought God could be “perceived by the senses.”²³ To be sure, there is an important tradition in ancient Israelite and Jewish religion that God is beyond human perception.²⁴ But there is an equally prominent tradition that God or at least God’s “Glory” (… kabod; LXX doxa) can be seen.²⁵

According to Isa 6:1-3, God has a gigantic humanlike body: “I saw Yahweh sitting on a throne, high and lofty, and the hem of his robe filled the temple.”²⁶ According to Ezek 1:26-28 this body is not God’s per se but the luminous “image of the likeness of the Glory [kabod] of Yahweh.”²⁷ In 1 Enoch 14:20, the figure seated on “the lofty throne” is identified as the “Great Glory” (he doxes megale), whose “raiment was like the appearance of the sun.”²⁸ Angels were imagined to have similar humanlike forms that increased in grandeur and radiance the closer they were stationed to God’s throne.²⁹ To say then, as Paul does, that Christ existed in “the form of God” is simply to say that, prior to his self-humbling metamorphosis, Christ enjoyed a luminous appearance of the sort a powerful angel might possess.³⁰ Philo uses much the same language in his account of the burning bush in Mos. 1.66: “and at the center of the flame was a form [morphe] that was supremely beautiful . . . an image most God-like in appearance [theoeidestaton] ... but let it be called an angel [kaleistho de angelos].”³¹

C. F. D. Moule has proposed that the participle hyperchon is causal rather than concessive, which is to say that Christ humbled himself “because he existed in the form of God” rather than “although he existed in the form of God.”³² This reading is grammatically possible, but it makes sense only if we force morphe to mean Christ’s essence instead of his appearance.³³ Otherwise we are left with the unintelligible claim that Christ humbled himself because he looked like God. The participle hyperchon should therefore be interpreted as a concessive participle. An identical use of the participle is found in 2 Cor 8:9b: “although he was rich [plousios on], he impoverished himself for your sakes.” Apollo’s complaint in Euripides Alc. 2-7 displays a similar syntax and logic: “although a god [theos per on]... my father [Zeus] compelled me to serve [theteuein].”³⁴

The second half of v. 6—“did not consider [his] equality with God harpagmos”—also presents the interpreter with two problems: (1) the meaning of the expression “equality with God” (to einai iso theou)³⁵ and (2) the meaning of the rare and difficult term harpagmos, which for the moment I leave untranslated. I will consider these problems in reverse order. According to its dictionary definition harpagmos is an abstract noun meaning the violent seizure of property, that is, “robbery.” Nevertheless, it is often the case with abstract nouns that they carry a concrete sense as well, which in this instance would be “something stolen” and, by extension “something valuable or precious” (i.e., something worth stealing).³⁶ If this item is not already in one’s possession, then the term connotes “something precious to be grasped.” If, however, the item is already in one’s possession, then the connotation would be “something precious to be held on to.”³⁷ This gives three possible meanings for the term: (1) “robbery,” (2) “something precious to be grasped,” and (3) “something precious to be held on to.”³⁸

The AV assumes the first meaning: “he did not consider equality with God robbery.” This translation makes fine sense of the expression itself: Christ did not consider his equality with God something that was not rightly his.³⁹ But it destroys the parallelism with 2:3-4 and is generally rejected.⁴⁰ This leaves us with the concrete meaning of the term and its two connotations. But in order to decide between these connotations we need to solve the first problem, namely, the meaning of “equality with God.” For if “equality with God” is something greater than being in the “form of God,” then Christ did not initially possess it and harpagmos must connote “something precious to be grasped.” If, on the other hand “equality with God” is just another way of saying “form of God,” then Christ already possessed it and harpagmos must connote “something precious to be held on to.”

The first thing to note is that, regardless of which way one understands “equality with God,” it must be taken in a qualified sense, since even in 2:9-11 Christ’s glory still serves the “glory of God the Father” (cf. 1 Cor 15:28). Strictly speaking, Christ is not “equal to God” either before his metamorphosis or after his exaltation. To interpret “equality with God” sensus stricto is therefore not an option. Nevertheless, both of the above ways of interpreting “equality with God”—as something greater than “form of God” or something roughly synonymous with it—make good sense in the larger context of 2:6-11. If “equality with God” is greater than being in “the form of God,” then it refers ahead to Christ’s further exaltation as God’s vice-regent in 2:9. If, on the other hand, it is simply another way of saying “the form of God,” then it refers back to Christ’s luminous preexistence in 2:6a.

Two considerations point to the latter interpretation, that is, taking “equality with God” as roughly equivalent to “the form of God.” The first consideration concerns the syntax of the Greek: to einai isa theou (lit., “the state of being equal to God”). If, as some have argued, the article (to) is anaphoric—this can be the case, but it need not be the case—then the expression refers back to “the form of God” in the preceding clause. A second, more compelling consideration in my view looks at the overall rhetoric of the passage and in particular at the parallelism between vv. 6 and 7. Just as in 2:6 “form of God” is followed by “equality with God,” so also in 2:7 “form of a slave” is followed by “human likeness.” Since in the latter case (v. 7) “human likeness” interprets “form of a slave,”⁴¹ it is reasonable to assume that when in the former case (v. 6) Paul wrote “equality to God” he meant it to interpret “form of God.” On this reading “equality with God” would then be hyperbole, emphasizing the extraordinary extent of Christ’s self-humbling and therefore of the exemplary nature of his humility. Returning to the connotation of harpagmos, if we accept the above arguments that “equality with God” is something already in Christ’s possession, then harpagmos must mean “something precious to be held on to” or, as I have rendered it, “a possession that he could not part with.” (Pp. 117-120)

9 The commentary tradition has focused on two items in v. 9: (1) the verb hyperhypsosen, which I have translated “more highly exalted” and, to a lesser degree, (2) the expression to onoma to hyper pan onoma, which I have translated “the Name that is above every other name.” In the first case a problem arises in terms of the prepositional prefix hyper. Does it retain its meaning as an independent preposition (“over and above”)⁸⁶ or does it merely underscore the meaning of the root verb without substantially adding to it, a phenomenon common in Hellenistic Greek?⁸⁷ It is important to solve this problem, we are told,⁸⁸ because it determines whether we view the reward of vv. 9-11 as a restoration of the crucified Christ to his preexistent glory, or as his elevation to a status “over and above” what he initially enjoyed.

That the prepositional prefix retains something close to its original meaning of “over and above” is made almost certain by its repetition in the immediately following expression “the Name that is above (hyper) every other name.”⁸⁹ However, in terms of determining the overall meaning of the text, the precise connotation of the verb hyperhypsosen is at best secondary. For in the expression ho theos auton hyperhypsosen (“God more highly exalted him”) the antecedent of the pronoun auton (“him”) is the angelic Christ of v. 5, who retains his angelic identity throughout the metamorphosis of vv. 6-8,”⁹⁰ just as, say, Zeus retains his divine identity when he “takes the form” of a swan in the Leda myth or “becomes a bull” in the rape of Europa, or as the great angel Satan retains his archangelic identity when he “transforms” himself first into a pauper and then into the king of Persia in the Testament of Job.⁹¹ In other words, it is not the man Jesus allegedly⁹² introduced in vv. 7-8 who is exalted in v. 9,⁹³ in which case a mere restoration to the status of v. 5 might legitimately be termed an “exaltation,”⁹⁴ but the angelic Christ, any exaltation of whom would necessarily mean an enhancement of his original status, regardless of how we understand the verb.”⁹⁵

This brings us to the expression “the Name that is above every other name,” which marks the first part of Christ’s two-part reward. For a Jew like Paul, “the Name that is above every other name” would naturally have meant the divine name “Yahweh,” which is why I have capitalized “Name” in the first instance. Most commentators readily allow this meaning, but a few like Moule point ahead to v. 10, where Paul writes “that in the name of Jesus [en to onomati ‘Iesous] every knee should bow,” to argue that the name in question in v. 9 is not “Yahweh” but “Jesus.”"° There are at least two problems with Moule’s interpretation. First, the phrase “in the name of Jesus” is an instance of the idiom “in the name of X,” in which “X” does not so much indicate a name as a person, as in the phrase “in the name of the Lord.”⁹⁷ Moule fails to discern this idiom, translating “at the name of Jesus,” as if it were when the name “Jesus” is announced that all creation will bow.⁹⁸ In answer to Moule, then, it is enough to observe that Paul is using “name” in two different senses, neither of which can be used to interpret the other.⁹⁹

A second problem with Moule’s interpretation is that it fails to recognize the emerging tradition of an exalted Name-bearing angel in contemporary Jewish apocalpyticism. There was an established tradition in ancient Judaism about a malach YHWH or “angel of Yahweh.” The imagined relationship of these angels to Yahweh is uncertain. They are often presented as distinct from Yahweh. At other times, however, their identity and Yahweh’s are less clearly distinguished, since the individuals to whom they appear claim to have seen Yahweh himself. These texts are highly ambiguous—Benjamin D. Sommer has recently proposed that these angels are essentially “avatars” of Yahweh¹⁰¹—and there is usually no attempt to resolve that ambiguity in the surrounding narrative. An exception to this is Exod 23:20-21, where Yahweh explains to Moses that the angel assigned to lead Israel through the wilderness has “my Name [shem] in him.” This is presumably offered as an explanation of the way Yahweh is present in or with that angel, since the same language is used of Yahweh’s presence at Shiloh and later in the Jerusalem temple: “I will cause my Name [shem] to dwell there.”¹⁰²

Speculation about the nature and function of prominent angels increases greatly with the rise of apocalypticism.¹⁰³ I will say more about the role these angels played in my comment on 2:10-11 below. Here I simply note that in some instances these angels are described as bearing the divine Name. In the Apocalypse of Abraham a great angel named Yahoel appears to Abraham “in whom God’s ineffable Name dwells.”¹⁰⁴ The Babylonian Talmud (b. Sanh. 38b) preserves an early tradition attributed to Judah the Prince about an angel named Metatron who possesses a name “like the Name of his Master.”¹⁰⁵ In 3 Enoch, a much later mystical text, God calls the great angel Metatron “Little Yahweh” (YHWH ha-katan)¹⁰⁶ In light of this developing tradition, it makes perfect sense for Paul to claim that, as reward for his humility and obedience, God promoted Christ to the rank of Name-bearing angel.¹⁰⁷

10-11 Verses 10-11 relate the second aspect of Christ’s exaltation: his coming eschatological reign as God's vice-regent. One of the most intriguing features of Jewish angel speculation is the fact that it is not always God who sits on his throne and exercises world dominion. At the headwaters of this tradition is Ezekiel’s vision of a humanlike figure referred to as the “image of the likeness of the Glory of Yahweh” seated upon God’s chariot-throne known in later tradition as the merkabah (… Ezek 1:26-28).¹⁰⁸ Similarly, in Daniel the angel Michael, who is described as “one like a son of man,” is given “dominion and glory and kingship, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him” (Dan 7:14).¹⁰⁹ Particularly striking is the Messiah/Son of Man of the Parables of Enoch, who as eschatological judge ascends to God’s “throne of glory,”¹¹⁰ an expression picked up in Matt 19:28; 25:31 to describe to Jesus’s role as eschatological judge.¹¹¹ It is also noteworthy in this regard that the name of the exalted angel of later rabbinic-mystical tradition “Metatron” derives from the Greek metathronos. As it stands, the name means “one who stands behind the throne,” but this name is commonly held to be a rabbinic reworking of Greek term synthronos, meaning something like “one who sits beside on the throne.”¹¹² An Aramaic incantation bowl describes Metatron as … “the great prince of [God’s] throne.”¹¹³

Christ’s relationship to God is not spatially represented in Phil 2:10-11. Nevertheless, he is granted the divine Name “in order that¹¹⁴ in the name of Jesus!¹¹⁵ every knee should bow, of those in heaven and on the earth and under the ground.”¹¹⁶ And his reign is on God’s behalf: “to the glory of God the Father.”¹¹⁷ The meaning of the confession that “Jesus Christ is Lord [kyrios]” is ambiguous.¹¹⁸ It could simply mean Jesus Christ is one who exercises dominion.¹¹⁹ But, given the divine Name seems more likely a reference to the divine Name in v. 9 and the fact that kyrios typically translates the divine Name in the LXX, an allusion to Christ as the principal angel who now bears the divine Name seems more likely. (Pp. 126-129)

Further Reading 

PLINY & CHRIST’S DEITY

A HYMN TO THE DIVINE CHRIST

BEYOND THE VEIL OF ETERNITY

Carmen Christi: A Reformed Perspective