The phrase being born in the likeness of men
explains how Christ took the form of a slave; or
identifies Christ with humanity and retains his divinity.
When Paul says that Christ was born in the likeness of humanity, he is likely expanding and clarifying what it means that Christ took on the form of a slave. That is, he explains that although Christ was in the form of God, he emptied himself by becoming a slave. Paul then clarifies what it means that Christ became a slave by explaining he was born in the likeness of humanity. To take on the form of something is akin to likening something, and to be a slave is for God to become a human. So, Paul’s remarks are not meant as a careful theological delineation of the natures of Christ, but as an explanation that Christ, who is God, humbled himself by being born as a human.
Others contend that in fact Paul is making a careful theological statement. These hold that he is making clear that although Christ is similar to humanity, he is also dissimilar. Thus, Paul does not want to say that Christ is exactly human, but still, Christ is human in many ways. So Paul uses the carefully chosen term likeness
to explain that Christ is both similar and dissimilar to humanity. He is similar because he was born a human, but dissimilar because he never sinned and remains divine.
There are two problems with this argument. First, it is not clear from the context that Paul is carefully articulating theology so that the Philippians will not confuse the natures of Christ. Rather, he seems to be making the point that our attitudes should reflect Christ’s. Second, the idea that because Christ never sins and remains divine, Christ is only like humans, will not suffice. For it is not part of the essence of humanity to sin. We know this because Adam and Eve were not created as sinners. So Christ can be, and in fact is, fully human and yet he never sinned.
Second, that Christ remains divine does not mean that he is dissimilar from humans in his human nature. This view implies that Christ has a nature that is a mixture of human and divine, and as such, his human nature is not exactly like other human natures. The church has not traditionally upheld this view of Christ’s natures. Rather, the traditional view is that Christ has both a human and divine nature. So in his human nature, Christ is exactly human, and in his divine nature he is exactly divine. Christ’s human nature is not dissimilar from any other human nature, but as a person, Christ is different from every other human person. For human persons are composed of one human nature, while Christ the person, is composed of a human and divine nature.
Thus, we take it that when Paul says Christ was born in the likeness of humanity, he is explaining what it means that Christ took on the form of a slave. In other words, Christ emptied himself of his divine status and position and took on the nature of humanity.
Interpretation 1:
Being born in the likeness of men explains how Christ took the form of a slave.
Summary:
Paul encourages the Philippians to serve one another by explaining that Christ emptied himself by becoming a slave. He then explains what he means when he says that Christ became a slave in that although he is God, he became a human.
Although Christ held the highest possible position and authority, he became a servant by becoming like humans. Thus, we ought to emulate Christ’s love for God and his neighbour, who was willing to stoop to the level of humanity to serve.
Advocates:
Michael Bird
Peter O’Brien
Moisés Silva
Frank Thielman
Minor differences:
Our authors agree that when Paul says that Christ came in the likeness of humans, the term likeness
is like a synonym for form.
That is, Paul explains how Christ took the form of a slave. He took the form of a slave in the sense that although he was God, he became born as a human.
For Michael Bird, Paul is emphasizing that Christ was in the highest possible position in the form of God, and then became a servant by being born as a human.1 For Frank Thielman, Paul’s point is not necessarily to focus on Christ’s position, but to say that Christ became essentially human. That is, Thielman contends that Philippians 2:7b is parallel to Philippians 2:7a. By saying Christ took the form
of a slave, Thielman has in mind that Christ took the very essence of a slave, and since Philippians 2:7b is parallel to Philippians 2:7a, he is also saying that Christ took the very essence of humanity.2
Moisés Silva argues that although form
and likeness
appear to mean something different, Paul uses these different terms not for semantic but for stylistic reasons.3 In other words, they both have the same meaning, but Paul did not want to repeat himself, so he substitutes likeness
for form.
Arguments
Possible weaknesses
Interpretation 2:
Being born in the likeness of men identifies Christ with humanity and retains his divinity.
Summary:
Paul explains that although Christ is essentially God, he was born in the likeness of men. The term likeness
makes clear that although Christ identified with humanity, he did not participate in human sin.
Advocates:
Gordon Fee
Walter Hansen
Bonnie Thurston
Marvin Vincent
Minor differences:
Our authors agree that the reason Paul uses the term likeness
is to retain the mystery of the incarnation. That is, he wants to retain that although Christ became a human, he remained God.
For Gordon Fee and Walter Hansen, Paul is careful to say that Christ is like, rather than identical with, humanity, because Christ never sinned. That is, while Christ is fully human, Christ is not only human, because he retains his divinity and does not sin.11,12
On the other hand, for Marvin Vincent and Bonnie Thurston, Paul uses the term not because it safeguards against the notion that if Christ is identical with humans, this may imply that he sinned, but because Christ is more than human. Christ is human, but he is also God, so he is only like humanity because he never gives up his divinity.
Arguments
Possible weaknesses
7 but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.