Booger McLovin

I’ve recently found myself in a debate with Unitarians who argue that Jesus is not God. My intention in this article is to use only Philippians 2:6-7 to show that Paul has made it clear that the only conclusion one could come to is that Jesus is God or Jesus was never human.

Let’s begin this by using the translations that Unitarians will accept:

NWT
“who, although he was existing in God’s form, gave no consideration to a seizure, namely, that he should be equal to God. No, but he emptied himself and took a slave’s form and became human.”

RSV
“who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.”

And last but not least a translation that most Trinitarian Christians accept:

NIV
“Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage; rather, he made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness.”

Now that we have seen the stark differences between the three we can begin to decide why each chose the wording that they did.

The NWT, which is the preferred translation of Jehovah’s Witnesses, and the RSV both consider themselves types of “literal translations.” The RSV describes itself as a “word-for-word” translation, meaning it prioritizes the structure of the original languages while remaining understandable in modern English.

The NIV considers itself to be a “thought-for-thought” translation. This means its intention is to convey the original author’s voice and express it in a way that a modern audience can understand, capturing the “thought-for-thought” meaning that the original audience would have grasped.

So how can we test all three? Let’s begin by seeing what each agrees on:

All three agree that He was in God’s form. All three agree that He was in the form of a slave or a servant.

Now the individual arguing that Jesus was not God must account for why He was in God’s form. The typical argument and likely the only one is that the word translated to get the word form was “morphe.”

Now a lexicon that Jehovah’s Witnesses and Unitarians would accept is the Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon. This Lexicon defines the word “morphe” primarily as: “The form by which a person or thing strikes the vision; the external appearance.”

The NIV’s translation affirms the BDAG Lexicon’s definition. The BDAG has two options for the word “morphe,” the first being “The external form, shape, or appearance of something.” The second being “The form which truly characterizes the nature; the nature or essence of a person or thing.”

The good news is we can effectively test this. The word “morphe” is used twice in a parallel structure.

So let’s write a paraphrased version of the NWT’s translation in a more thought-for-thought way that fits with the Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon:

“who, although he was existing in (the outward appearance of God), gave no consideration to a seizure, namely, that he should be equal to God. No, but he emptied himself and took a (outward appearance of a slave) and became human.”

What we have here is a paradox. According to the NWT Jesus was existing in the outward appearance of God, but He was not God. Then He took on the outward appearance of a servant and then became human.

Do you see it? The translation that the NWT is clearly ambiguous with the word morphe and forces itself into a contradiction in order to satisfy the needs of its doctrine. Thus we can conclude conclusively that this translation is incorrect.

Now let’s paraphrase how the balance of the Unitarians will look at the RSV translation using the Unitarian trusted Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon’s definition of “morphe”:

“who, though he was in the (outward appearance of God), did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the (outward appearance of a servant), being born in the likeness of men.”

Another paradox. For the word “morphe” to be true, Jesus would only be taking the outward appearance of a human rather than becoming human. The Unitarian interpretation then contradicts itself when the RSV says that he was born in the likeness of men.

So in conclusion we can see that not only does the NIV’s thought for thought translation make sense, it best fits with the lexicons defining the nature of Jesus Christ.

Jesus before taking on the nature of man (human), was in the nature of God. He chose not to exploit the divine attributes of God and “humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death—even death on a cross.”