The document that we know as (Letter to the Philippians) was written by Sha’ul (Paul) of Tarsis to the believers in the Messiah of the city of Philippi in Macedonia. Sha’ul first met this community of believers in Philippi (Acts 16) approximately in the year 50/51 after Yeshua.
Most scholars believe that the document was written from Rome where Sha’ul was in prison (ca. 61/62 after Yeshua). They come to this conclusion because of the fact that Sha’ul mentions the «pretorium» (the living quarters of the emperor’s guards) (1:13); some translations render it as Caesar’s court. But the mention of the «pretorium» or ‘Caesar’s court’ could also be referring to other places in the Roman Empire such as Caesarea or Ephesus and not only to Rome.
In his letter to the Philippians Sh’aul emphasizes joy. The letter teaches its recipients that sincere and genuine joy should not depend om circumstances or external situations. At this time, Sha’ul was going through very difficult times and he underscores confidence in the Eternal and the reasons why he is going through difficulties, and this is the reason, according to him, for joy.
In the document, Sha’ul is making a call to the believers in Yeshua to imitate the behaviour and the mind of the Messiah, which are the very reasons Sha’ul is suffering difficulties in jail. This is in this context that we begin to elaborate or analyse Philippians 2:5-9. If we take into account the context that follows below, we will be able to understand the verses surrounding this section.
We have to remember that this and other ‘books’ by Sha’ul are letters. Originally, they were not divided into chapters or verses. It is important to understand this so as not to get stuck in just one section, but to look at the entire context with a slightly broader lens.
Philippians 2:5-9 [TS 2009] 5 For, let this mind be in you which was also in Messiah יהושע, 6 who, being in the form of Elohim, did not regard equality with Elohim a matter to be grasped, 7 but emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant, and came to be in the likeness of men. 8 And having been found in fashion as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient unto death, death even of a stake. 9 Elohim, therefore, has highly exalted Him and given Him the Name which is above every name,
(Please read the article THE MIND OF MESSIAH)
These are controversial verses because there are different ways of approaching them.
THE MOST POPULAR CHRISTIAN THEOLOGICAL VISION
Most Christian believers have been taught that this text is referring to the embodiment of the Eternal or the Eternal becoming flesh. This belief already existed from the beginning of Yeshua’s ‘Messianic movement’. They believed that the Eternal had manifested Himself in a poor carpenter. In other words, prior to his birth, Yeshua existed as a divine being and later on was made man. And instead of using all his power, all his divine capacity, he humbled himself, behaved like a man, pretended that he had no power at all and was killed by his own creation, human beings.
This is the most popular Christian interpretation of these verses. This understanding stems from a premise that was foreign and /or unknown to the author of the text himself. The premise is that Yeshua is the Eternal Himself or also the concept of Oneness or also the concept of the ‘Trinity’ or similar concepts. All these concepts are, as stated above, foreign to the author and to the Hebrews as whole. How is it possible that only twenty years after Yeshua’s death, he is spoken of as a divine being, as a god incarnate? How can fiction or a myth like this be created in such a short time when his mother and other relatives were still alive? If Yeshua is ‘God’ in the flesh, how can we define his brothers and sisters, nephews and nieces or even his mother?
THE CONCEPTS: • YESHUA IS THE ETERNAL • ONENESS • TRINITY ARE FOREIGN OR STRANGE TO THE AUTHOR OF PHILIPPIANS
The problem is in the interpretation of the text. From the Christian theology point of view. the problem with this interpretation lies in its incoherence. A human being cannot humble himself to become something that he is not. According to Christian theology, Yeshua, who is ‘God’, humbled himself to become a human being.
According to this interpretation, Sha’ul is, seemingly, exhorting us to imitate the humility of a divine being who was in charge of being incarnated.
A CLASSIC EXAMPLE FROM THE CHRISTIAN WORLD
Edwin Hamilton Gifford (1820-1905), an Anglican priest and ‘Doctor of Divinity’ lived in the 19th century. In his book Incarnation: A Study of Philippians 2:5-11 (1896), he explains that Sha’ul is platonic . In other words, he claims that Sha’ul followed the concepts of the Greek philosopher Plato. Therefore, the Greek word «morphē» (form) used in the Greek text of Philippians, according to this Christian scholar, must be understood in the same Platonic sense or as Plato used the term «morphe» (form). When Plato uses «morphē», he’s pointing to the manifestation of deeper truths, not just surface-level appearances. Many elements of Platonic philosophy entered the land of Yisra’el. History shows us that this is the case. But, Gifford, does not look at the other instances in the Scriptures where the same word appears.
SHA’UL DEFINES HIMSELF
Let us allow Sha’ul to define himself
Philippians 3:5 [TS 2009]
circumcised the eighth day, of the race of Yisra’el, of the tribe of Binyamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews, according to Torah a Pharisee
In reference to Sha’ul’s ethnicity there is a parallel passage
2 Corinthians 11:22 [TS 2009)
Are they Hebrews? So am I. Are they of Yisra’el? So am I. Are they the seed of Abraham? So am I.
<Hebrew or Hebrew of Hebrews> – these terms are not used, in the first century in these letters of Sha’ul, as a synonym for Israelite or descendants of Abraham. Hebrew of Hebrews or simply Hebrew can have not only an ethnic meaning, but a cultural ethnic meaning.
Hellenistic Jews and Hebrew Jews were both Israelites ethnically speaking but culturally they had two visions of life. One was assimilated to Hellenic (Greek) culture, whose perception of reality was somewhat different from that of the Hebrew.
In Acts 6, there is a discrepancy, a conflict in the community of Yeshua’s disciples and it arises between two Jewish groups; one called the Hebrews and the other called Hellenes (Greek Jews: educated in the Greek culture). It is a cultural difference not ethnic. Two ways of living, one is traditionalist (Hebrews) and the other Hellenists. It is important to note that, in many cases, the terms Hebrew and Hellenist referred to the Hebrew language. In the first century, 50 percent of Jews lived in the land of Yisra’el and the rest lived in exile. The majority of those who lived in exile did not transmit Hebrew to their descendants.
So Hebrew and Hebrew of Hebrews could well be idiomatic expressions. So, Hebrew of Hebrews is a way of exaggerating.
In Hebrew the holiest place on earth is called the ‘Holy of Holies’ (an idiomatic expression). So, Hebrew of Hebrews means ‘the most Hebrew of all Hebrews’. Remember these other idioms in the Scriptures:
– Vanity of Vanities – Ecclesiastes 1:2 – means the most banal thing in the world.
– Song of Songs – A poem by Solomon – means the most beautiful poem of all poems
– King of Kings means the most exalted King of all Kings.
There are a large number of idioms which is the background of this expression that Sha’ul uses to describe himself, Hebrew of Hebrews. It means extremely Hebrew. The contrast is with the reality that Sha’ul was living in first century Hellenism. He contrasts himself with the Hellenistic Jews that is basically the idea.
Archibald Thomas Robertson, an exhibitor from the Christian world, in his book Word Pictures in the New Testament (Philippians 3:5), explains that a Hebrew of Hebrews is an individual who comes from Hebrew parents who preserved characteristic qualities in language and customs unlike the Hellenistic Jews (Acts 6:1).
We must consider Sha’ul’s educational background in order to understand him. He is not a Platonist, he does not follow the philosophy of Plato. Experts and scholars who claim that he was of Platonic philosophy contradict what Sha’ul says about himself.
Sha’ul also describes himself as a student of a great teacher in Jerusalem, Gamaliel, who was a man well versed in Torah. Therefore, Sha’ul is also versed in the Torah.
In addition, he identifies himself as a leader of the ‘Kingdom of Heaven Movement’. ‘Kingdom of Heaven’ is another term for ‘Kingdom of the Eternal’, they are synonymous. It means a ‘Theocratic Kingdom’, a kingdom that is governed under the principles of the Eternal of Yisra’el. It is not ‘God’ in the plural. His decrees of justice are found in the Torah. This kingdom is governed by a descendant of King David, this is the Messiah (the Anointed) Yeshua of Nazareth.
Anointed means king chosen by divine design to rule over the Theocratic Kingdom. For this reason we read in Chronicles that Solomon sat on the throne of the Eternal to rule over Yisra’el.
Philippians 2 must be understood not as proposed by the majority of Christian theologians based on Platonic philosophical interpretations. We are before a Jewish author who defends the theocracy of the people of Yisra’el whose representative is Yeshua Messiah (the Anointed, the Christ), chosen by divine design.
In Philippians verse 5, Sha’ul exhorts us <let this mind be in you which was also in Messiah יהושע>. Let us not lose sight of this. Sha’ul has every right to demand other people, followers of Yeshua, Jewish or not, who wish to be part of the theocratic kingdom.
He continues:
Philippians 2:6
(Yeshua) who, being in the form of Elohim, did not regard equality with Elohim a matter to be grasped,
The first human being was created in the image, in the form and likeness of the Eternal. This human being was Adam in the tradition of Yisra’el, it is not the tradition of Greece, it is not the Platonic tradition. The background of Sha’ul’s exhortation is to have the same mind of the Messiah, not of Adam. Therefore, if Adam is the first being created in the divine image and likeness form of the Eternal, this means that all human beings, all descendants of Adam, have the form of the Eternal. The form of the Eternal is reflected in our qualities and in our capabilities. This is why it is written:
Genesis 1:26
26 “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the heavens, and over the livestock, and over all the earth and over all the creeping creatures that creep on the ground.”
27 And Elohim created the man in His image, in the image of Elohim He created him – male and female He created them.
The Messiah, who being the form of Elohim did not consider being equal to the Eternal as something to be desired. This text makes sense to an audience that is familiar with the Hebrew culture. Let us recall the event of the serpent, to understand the reality of human beings
Genesis 3:5 [TS 2009]
For Elohim knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes shall be opened, and you shall be like Elohim, knowing good and evil
These are Hebrew images, not Greek or Platonic philosophy images, not Christian theology images. These images are from Jewish literature, that would would be fresh in the minds of the recipients of this letter.
Sha’ul is comparing the attitude of Adam with that of Yeshua. Adam, the first man created in the image and likeness of the Eternal and wanted to be equal to the Eternal Yeshua, did not regard equality with Elohim a matter to be grasped.
Therefore, he exhorts us to imitate Yeshua the Messiah. We find the same theme on other occasions when Sha’ul identifies Yeshua as the last Adam.
Let us try to understand verse 7 not with the Greek or Platonic philosophy but with the Torah as our lens:
Philippians 2:7 [TS 2009]
but emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant, and came to be in the likeness of men.
We find the key to this verse in Isaiah 45; 52; 53 among others. The term ‘servant’ has a Messianic context in the Hebrew mind.
<taking the form of a servant> – Isaiah 53:11 – My righteous Servant. At present, Isaiah 53 is interpreted in different ways, but the oldest Jewish interpretations say that the ‘term’ servant refers to the Messiah. In other passages, Isaiah clearly says that the servant is Yisra’el. However, there are times when Yeshua the Messiah embodies the figure of Yisra’el.
<emptied Himself> – Isaiah 53:12 – He poured out His being unto death
The reference is clear, Sha’ul is referring to the Messianic context that the recipients of this letter in Philippi are familiar with. So, we are not talking about pagan recipients, as many in the Christian world say. Since ancient times, Christian theology has maintained that the recipients of Sha’ul’s letters were mostly pagan and that Sha’ul was converting Gentiles (non Jewish people or nations). If they were non-Jewish people, how could they be able to understand this Jewish/Hebrew context of the teachings of Sha’ul? The recipients were Hellenized Jews. Nonetheless, they were not so Hellenized as to have forgotten the prophets’ teachings or the Hebrew tradition that describes how humans were created in the form of the Eternal. In addition, they were not as influenced by Greek culture as to forget that in Jewish tradition, the Messiah, the chosen one, the King of Yisra’el by divine appointment to govern in the theocratic kingdom would behave as a servant and would empty himself according to the prophet Isaiah; he would give himself up, he would strip himself until death.
<And having been found in fashion as a man>
Referenced in
Isaiah 52:13 – See, My Servant shall work wisely, He shall be exalted [TS 2009]
verse 14 – . . . so marred, beyond any man’s was his appearance,- and his form, beyond the sons of men [Rotherham]
Notice ‘man’ in the singular, as it appears in the letter to the Philippians. Yeshua was found in the form of a man. Isaiah the prophet says his appearance was damaged more than any other man in his disfigured state after humbling himself to die and his form more than that of men. Without a doubt, these are Hebrew biblical sources used by a Hebrew author.
<He humbled Himself>
That is the context in
Isaiah 53:7 – He was oppressed and He was afflicted, but He did not open His mouth. He was led as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before its shearers is silent, but He did not open His mouth. (see53:8, 9, 10)
| ADAM | MESSIAH |
| • was made in the image of the Eternal. | • was made in the image of the Eternal. |
| • considered equality with the Eternal to be desirable. | • did not consider equality wit the Eternal to be desirable. |
| • refused to be the Eternal’s servant | • accepted to be the Eternal’s servant |
| • saw himself in human form and wanted to exalt himself | • saw himself in human form and humbled himself |
| • was disobedient until death | • was obedient until death |
| • was condemned and exiled for his sin | • was rewarded and exalted for his faithfulness |
| • because of his sin the gates of Eden were closed | • because of his faithfulness the gates of Eden are opened |
It is clear then that Philippians 2:6 (ff ), is not evidence to support the belief of a divine Messiah or of ‘God’ incarnated in the Messiah. After analysing the surrounding texts, it serves as a basis for understanding the importance of studying the texts within the contexts.
The authors of the so-called New Testament never identified their writings as a ‘new testament’. We must analyse the texts in their own contexts. We should look at: when they were written, who wrote them and who was their audience. This will give us the necessary clues and tools to understand them appropriately.
Sources :
Avdiel Ben Oved; Jonathan Mitchell New Testament Notes