Lazy Friday and thoughts on heresy. Philippians 2.

While it might look like it was a lazy Friday, since this post didn't hit the blog until today, it was actually a very busy Friday. Early in the day, though, as I read through Philippians 2, I was thinking about what to write about for the day. The demands of the day got in the way, but that didn't prevent me from thinking about the importance of this passage in the history of the church -- just from writing about it. I was specifically thinking about the usefulness of writing about heresy, the nature of Christ, etc. This isn't the usual sort of post on the blog, but I hope it will be of some use. The biggest problem with tackling this issue, is that short form writing doesn't lend itself to dense topic, so this will be a summary, at best.

Let's start by putting some Scripture here to look at:

"You should have the same attitude toward one another that Christ Jesus had,
who though he existed in the form of God
did not regard equality with God
as something to be grasped,
but emptied himself
by taking on the form of a slave,
by looking like other men,
and by sharing in human nature.

He humbled himself,
by becoming obedient to the point of death
– even death on a cross!
As a result God exalted him
and gave him the name
that is above every name,
so that at the name of Jesus
every knee will bow
– in heaven and on earth and under the earth –
and every tongue confess
that Jesus Christ is Lord
to the glory of God the Father." (Philippians 2:5-11 NET)

The translators have formatted this part of Paul's letter as verse, reflecting its poetic nature, and perhaps the fact that he's quoting a song or confessional statement of the early church. (For contrasting views as to whether this is an early church hymn or not, you can read treatments by Ralph P. Martin and Gordon D. Fee.) It' s not essential to our understanding to have this problem resolved, although if it is a confessional it would indicate that not only did Paul, and other NT writers, address the heretical threat of gnostic thinking, but that a formal recitation in church of orthodox doctrine was an important part of countering these heresies.

Let's get some definitions down, before we go any further.

orthodox - (of a person or their views, esp. religious or political ones, or other beliefs or practices) conforming to what is generally or traditionally accepted as right or true; established and approved.

heresy - belief or opinion contrary to orthodox religious (esp. Christian) doctrine.

Gnosticism - a prominent heretical movement of the 2nd century Christian church, partly of pre-Christian origin. Gnostic doctrine taught that the world was created and ruled by a lesser divinity, the demiurge, and that Christ was an emissary of the remote supreme divine being, esoteric knowledge (gnosis) of whom enabled the redemption of the human spirit.

Beyond this dictionary description of gnostic thinking, I would add that gnositicism definitely was around in the first century A.D., and consisted of a network of ideas and practices built around a dualism of material and spirit that separated God from creation. Because God was thought of as pure spirit, untouched by and un-touching matter, creation of the universe was delegated to that lesser being, the demi-urge.

When we read the letter to the Colossians, we'll see Paul writing even more specifically to deal with this heresy.

At this point, I want to mention why reading this passage triggered some thoughts in this direction, especially because I don't want us to lose the primary focus of Paul's writing in this chapter, which is that we are to have the same attitude as Christ, Who gave up everything for us. This is essential. And in a sense, it's that essential message that got me to thinking about the role of these verses in the early church. While Paul was using Christ's very nature to teach the Philippians a profound truth for their lives (and ours), these verses, especially v.2:6-8, became both the basis for a heresy, and a truth to combat heresy. It is that dual application of the text that intrigued me.

Most heresies, and for our purposes, all heresies, are predicated on an incorrect understanding of Jesus, the Christ. Typically, they fall into one of these categories: Jesus wasn't God, Jesus wasn't human, Jesus wasn't divine or human, or Jesus gave up everything divine to be human. My own opinion is that in some cases, those who hold unorthodox views do so, not out of malevolence, but out of the difficulty in understanding what is referred to as the "hypostatic union" that describes the incarnation of the Son in this world -- fully God, fully human. But from Paul's time, the church has had to face these inevitable wrong understandings of Jesus, and the trinity -- God as Father, Son, Holy Spirit. As movements, these heretical groups were much more than just groups of people who couldn't figure out who Jesus is -- they were a threat to the entire church and to the correct understanding of the gospel. And they often came from groups hostile to the church. Which is why Paul wrote his words to the Philippians, and as we'll see, the Colossians too.

Here's a basic classification of the early heresies, minus some of the nuances of difference between them:

Jesus was simply God
Docetism; Monophysitism

Jesus was not God but simply a creature
Arianism; Ebionitism

The Christ was part man and part God
Apollinarianism; Nestorianism; Monothelitism

Paul's clear delineation of Christ's divine origin, and humbling act to take on human form and sharing human nature was the answer to all three of these heretical positions. Not the only answer, and an answer that requires some unpacking for us, but nevertheless one that puts the Son in glory before incarnation, and in glory after resurrection. Some of the unpacking that we need has to do with two Greek words: morphe and kenoo, translated respectively as "form" and "emptied". See the words of the day for more details on these two words.

There is a recent movement in theology, although I have some recollection that this may have been part the Arianism heresy, that in the "emptying" or kenosis, the Son as Jesus was no longer divine in some sense. This is what I was referring to when I said that the Philippians passage has also led to a certain unorthodox viewpoint of Christ. And there are proponents of this point of view who point out that what they're referring to is not a missing divine nature in Jesus, but a choice of divine limitation, based on their understanding of the kenosis or emptying undergone by the Son.

This starts to get really fuzzy here. As humans, we can never fully comprehend how it is God entered history as Jesus. And I accept that some of the attempts at understanding what Paul meant by "emptied himself" are legitimate attempts to better understand it. But this hasn't been the orthodox view for more than 1500 years. I consider the treatment of the passage in this paper an excellent approach to understanding better what Paul meant. But before getting completely bogged down in this, I want to give you something that I hope will help in understanding the "hypostatic union" a little better.

We should be able to understand this union by thinking about ourselves. The relationship of our physical body and our souls is of some form of union where there is both no separation between them, and a recognizable separation. In the creed of Athanasius, the principles of Trinity are laid out, and this analogy is drawn: "As a rational soul and flesh are one man, so God and man are one Christ." How does that work? As a rational soul, you can say "I will never die." But that statement is not true of your flesh, unless Jesus were to return before your physical death. The flip side of that statement is that as a physical being, as flesh, you can say "I won't live forever." And that statement is not true of your soul.

Taking that analogy and applying it to Jesus we can understand how He could say, "You are of this world, I am not of this world," which is true of His divine nature, and at the same time state that He doesn't know the hour of His return -- which is true of His human nature.

So what? Well, there is a so what that I think is important for us to keep in mind. First, remember Paul's primary thought - live and serve as Christ did. Second, the work of Christ on the cross is only one point in the story of God's redemption of humanity. Those of us who have said yes to follow Jesus are a part of that continuing work. In the case of the early church there were opposing influences from the culture that threatened the foundational thought of the gospel -- Jesus' incarnation, birth, death, and resurrection on our behalf. There was an entire world that had yet to hear that message. There were forces that physically opposed the church. And in various forms, or in different parts of the world, those opposing forces and remaining mission exist today. Let's keep at the tasks laid before us, with God's Words to guide us, and our sisters and brothers beside us. Amen.