1 The Text
Greek (NA28) — Philippians 2:6
ὃς ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ ὑπάρχων οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγήσατο τὸ εἶναι ἴσα θεῷ
Key terms highlighted: morphē theou (form of God) and harpagmon (something grasped/exploited)
NIV
Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage
ESV
who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped
NRSVue
who, though he existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God as something to be exploited
NASBRE
who, although he existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped
REV
who, existing in the form of God, did not consider being equal with God something to hold on to
2 Context
Philippians 2:5–11 is widely considered a pre-Pauline hymn (the Carmen Christi, "hymn of Christ") that Paul either composed or, more likely, incorporated into his letter to the Philippians (c. 60–62 CE). The passage functions ethically within the letter — Paul introduces it to encourage humility — but its theological content far exceeds its paraenetic purpose. The hymn traces a dramatic arc: from Christ's pre-existent status, through self-emptying and incarnation, to death and cosmic exaltation.
The key term morphē (form) is the battleground. In Aristotelian philosophy, morphē denotes essential nature — the form that makes something what it is. But in popular Hellenistic usage, it could mean outward appearance or mode of existence. Which sense Paul intended determines whether the passage teaches that Christ possessed the essential nature of God or merely bore a godlike status or role. The term harpagmos is equally contested: does it mean something already possessed and not exploited (res rapta), or something not yet possessed and not seized (res rapienda)?
The hymn's structure — descent from divine status, self-emptying (kenosis), obedient death, then exaltation and universal worship — has generated enormous scholarly discussion about whether it presupposes literal pre-existence, ideal pre-existence, or an Adam Christology in which Christ reversed Adam's grasping at divine equality. The concluding acclamation "Jesus Christ is Lord" (kyrios) echoes Isaiah 45:23, raising the question of whether Paul applies YHWH texts to Jesus.
3 The Debate
Trinitarian
Reading
Christ existed as a pre-existent divine person in the essential nature (morphē) of God — possessing full deity — yet did not exploit (harpagmos as res rapta) his equality with God. Instead, he voluntarily emptied himself, taking the form of a servant and becoming incarnate. The hymn presupposes a real divine person who chose to descend.
Reasoning
The parallel between "form of God" and "form of a servant" is decisive. If "form of a servant" means he was genuinely a servant (not merely appeared as one), then "form of God" means he was genuinely God. The kenosis (emptying) requires a real pre-existent state from which to descend. The exaltation to universal worship (vv. 10–11) applies Isaiah 45:23 — a YHWH text — directly to Jesus, placing him within the divine identity.
Strongest counterargument
If Christ was already God, why does God "highly exalt" him and "give" him the name above every name? You cannot give what is already possessed. The exaltation language implies Christ received something new — which fits an agent elevated by God better than a co-equal divine person returning to a status he never lost.
Key scholars: Gordon Fee, N.T. Wright, Peter O'Brien
Biblical Unitarian
Reading
Christ, as a human being bearing God's image and authority, did not grasp at equality with God (harpagmos as res rapienda — something not yet possessed). The Adam/Christ parallel is the interpretive key: Adam was in "the form/image of God" (Gen 1:27) but grasped at equality with God ("you will be like God," Gen 3:5) and was condemned; Jesus was in "the form of God" but did not grasp at equality — he humbled himself instead and was exalted. "Form of God" refers to bearing God's image or representing God — as morphē doulou means he genuinely took on the role of a servant, morphē theou means he genuinely bore the role of God's representative. The exaltation is reward for faithfulness, not restoration of a pre-existent status (James D.G. Dunn, Christology in the Making, 1980).
Reasoning
The Adam Christology reading provides the most coherent narrative: Adam, in the image of God, grasped at being "like God" and was condemned; Christ, also in God's image, refused to grasp and was exalted. Morphē in popular Greek meant outward form or status, not Aristotelian essence. Paul uses the passage ethically — "have this mind among yourselves" — which works only if Christ's example is humanly followable. The exaltation language ("therefore God highly exalted him") is language of reward, not return. Dale Tuggy honestly acknowledges (Trinities podcast, ep. 136) that Philippians 2 is "difficult" for Biblical Unitarians, but argues that it need not require literal pre-existence — "form of God" can mean bearing God's image or representation (Adam Christology). Sean Finnegan emphasizes that vv. 9–11 are the interpretive key: "therefore God highly exalted him and gave him the name" — the language of gift and exaltation implies Jesus did not previously possess this status. Moreover, the worship described is explicitly "to the glory of God the Father," making it delegated rather than ultimate. Dustin Smith reads the passage through the Wisdom tradition — Wisdom "empties" herself to come among humanity (cf. Sirach 24), a pattern that fits the hymn's descent language without requiring a literal pre-existent divine person.
Strongest counterargument
"He emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men" is difficult on a purely human reading. If Christ was already human, how does he "take the form of a servant" and be born "in the likeness of men"? The language most naturally implies a transition from a non-human state to a human one — suggesting real pre-existence before the incarnation.
Key scholars: James D.G. Dunn, Anthony Buzzard, Mark Murphy, Dale Tuggy, Sean Finnegan, Dustin Smith
Early High Christology
Reading
The hymn reflects remarkably early worship practices showing that Jesus was venerated as a pre-existent divine being who descended and was exalted — within the first two decades after the crucifixion. The hymnic form and its incorporation by Paul (writing in the 50s–60s CE) suggest devotion patterns that erupted rapidly within Jewish monotheism, not as a late Hellenistic development.
Reasoning
The pattern of worship described (every knee bowing, every tongue confessing) using Isaiah 45:23 language indicates that YHWH-devotion was being extended to include Jesus within Jewish monotheism — not by abandoning monotheism but by reshaping it. This is a mutation within Jewish worship practice, not a Greek import. The hymn's pre-Pauline origin (possibly 30s–40s CE) makes it astonishingly early evidence for devotion to Christ as a divine figure.
Strongest counterargument
Early worship does not require Nicene ontology. Jewish exaltation traditions (Enoch, Moses, the Angel of the Lord) show that intermediary figures could receive extraordinary honour without being identified as God. High devotional language demonstrates remarkable early Christological development, but does not settle whether the underlying claim is one of ontological identity or supreme agency.
Key scholars: Larry Hurtado, Bart Ehrman, Martin Hengel
? Questions to Ask This Text
Does morphē mean essential nature (Aristotelian) or outward form/status (popular Greek)? How does the parallel with "form of a servant" inform this?
Is harpagmos something Christ already had and chose not to exploit (res rapta), or something he could have seized but did not (res rapienda)?
If God "highly exalted" Christ and "gave him the name above every name," does this imply Christ received a new status he did not previously possess?
Does the Adam Christology reading (Christ as the second Adam who refused to grasp) adequately explain the descent/ascent structure of the hymn?
Paul introduces the hymn as an ethical example ("have this mind among yourselves"). Does a pre-existence reading make the ethical application incoherent?
The exaltation applies Isaiah 45:23 (a YHWH text) to Jesus. Does this place Jesus within the divine identity, or is it delegation of authority?
If Jesus already possessed equality with God, why does Paul say God "gave" him the name above every name? Does the language of gift and exaltation imply a change in status?
Key Concepts for This Passage
Understanding these concepts will help you evaluate the arguments above:
4 Related Passages
5 Go Deeper
Trinitarian perspective
Gordon Fee, Paul's Letter to the Philippians (NICNT, 1995). N.T. Wright, The Climax of the Covenant (1991), ch. 4. Peter O'Brien, The Epistle to the Philippians (NIGTC, 1991).
Biblical Unitarian perspective
James D.G. Dunn, Christology in the Making (1989), ch. 4 on Adam Christology. Anthony Buzzard & Charles Hunting, The Doctrine of the Trinity (1998). Mark Murphy, Philippians 2 and the Problem of Preexistence (2016). Dale Tuggy, Trinities podcast, ep. 136 (with Dustin Smith on pre-existence). Sean Finnegan, Restitutio podcast, ep. 580: "An Honest Evaluation of the Evidence for the Deity of Christ."
Early High Christology
Larry Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ (2003). Martin Hengel, The Son of God (1976). Bart Ehrman, How Jesus Became God (2014).
Lexical and grammatical
Ralph Martin, A Hymn of Christ (1997) — the definitive study of the Carmen Christi. Roy Hoover, "The Harpagmos Enigma" in Harvard Theological Review (1971).