Apologetics · FaithLogic
Philippians 2:6-8 — The Kenosis: What Jesus Gave Up and What He Kept
Philippians 2:6-8 is the NT's most detailed description of what happened when the eternal Son of God became human. It uses two Greek words — morphē (form/nature) and isos (equal) — that establish beyond doubt both that Jesus possessed full divine nature AND that he voluntarily chose not to exercise its privileges during his earthly life. This passage answers every "if Jesus is God, why did he [not know / pray / get tired / die]?" question.
The Greek Words That Carry the Weight
Philippians 2:6-8 — The Greek Analysis
The text:
"Who, being in very nature God (en morphē Theou hyparchōn), did not consider equality with God (to einai isa Theō) something to be used to his own advantage; rather, he made himself nothing (ekenōsen heauton) by taking the very nature of a servant (morphēn doulou labōn), being made in human likeness (en homoiōmati anthrōpōn genomenos). And being found in appearance as a man (kai schēmati heuretheis hōs anthrōpos), he humbled himself by becoming obedient to death — even death on a cross."
Word 1 — morphē (form/nature):
morphē is the essential nature or character of something — what it truly IS, not how it appears externally. This is different from schēma (outward appearance, fashion). Paul uses morphē TWICE:
"In morphē Theou" (v.6) — in the essential nature of God = he truly WAS God by nature
"morphēn doulou labōn" (v.7) — taking the essential nature of a servant = he truly became human
Both uses of morphē describe genuine, essential reality — not appearance or role.
A precise note on morphē. It does not strictly mean "essence" (ousia) — it means the outward form that expresses the essential nature. But that still carries the argument: to be "in the form of God" is to have and display what belongs to God, just as "taking the form of a servant" means genuinely becoming one. Gordon Fee (Pauline Christology), Gerald Hawthorne and Peter O'Brien defend this strong reading; James Dunn (Christology in the Making) contests it with an Adam-Christology reading (Christ as the last Adam who, unlike the first, did not grasp at equality with God). Even on Dunn's reading, v.6 grants Christ a status the first Adam did not have.
"Did not consider equality with God harpagmos." The key study is Roy Hoover's (1971), followed by N.T. Wright (The Climax of the Covenant): the idiom means Christ did not treat his equality with God as something to be exploited for his own advantage — it was already his, and he did not use it selfishly. This is the ESV/NIV rendering, and it strengthens the point: equality with God is presupposed, not sought.
Word 2 — isa Theō (equality with God):
isos = equal (the same word used for equal mathematical quantities, equal legal rights)
"to einai isa Theō" = "the being equal to God" — equality with God was his existing possession
He "did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage" — he had it; he chose not to exploit it
What this means before the kenosis even begins:
Paul establishes that BEFORE the self-emptying, the Son possessed: (1) the essential nature of God (morphē Theou) and (2) equality with God (isa Theō). Both were his actual possessions, not mere titles or roles. This is the baseline state from which the kenosis began.
"Who, being in very nature God (en morphē Theou hyparchōn), did not consider equality with God (to einai isa Theō) something to be used to his own advantage; rather, he made himself nothing (ekenōsen heauton) by taking the very nature of a servant (morphēn doulou labōn), being made in human likeness (en homoiōmati anthrōpōn genomenos). And being found in appearance as a man (kai schēmati heuretheis hōs anthrōpos), he humbled himself by becoming obedient to death — even death on a cross."
Word 1 — morphē (form/nature):
morphē is the essential nature or character of something — what it truly IS, not how it appears externally. This is different from schēma (outward appearance, fashion). Paul uses morphē TWICE:
"In morphē Theou" (v.6) — in the essential nature of God = he truly WAS God by nature
"morphēn doulou labōn" (v.7) — taking the essential nature of a servant = he truly became human
Both uses of morphē describe genuine, essential reality — not appearance or role.
A precise note on morphē. It does not strictly mean "essence" (ousia) — it means the outward form that expresses the essential nature. But that still carries the argument: to be "in the form of God" is to have and display what belongs to God, just as "taking the form of a servant" means genuinely becoming one. Gordon Fee (Pauline Christology), Gerald Hawthorne and Peter O'Brien defend this strong reading; James Dunn (Christology in the Making) contests it with an Adam-Christology reading (Christ as the last Adam who, unlike the first, did not grasp at equality with God). Even on Dunn's reading, v.6 grants Christ a status the first Adam did not have.
"Did not consider equality with God harpagmos." The key study is Roy Hoover's (1971), followed by N.T. Wright (The Climax of the Covenant): the idiom means Christ did not treat his equality with God as something to be exploited for his own advantage — it was already his, and he did not use it selfishly. This is the ESV/NIV rendering, and it strengthens the point: equality with God is presupposed, not sought.
Word 2 — isa Theō (equality with God):
isos = equal (the same word used for equal mathematical quantities, equal legal rights)
"to einai isa Theō" = "the being equal to God" — equality with God was his existing possession
He "did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage" — he had it; he chose not to exploit it
What this means before the kenosis even begins:
Paul establishes that BEFORE the self-emptying, the Son possessed: (1) the essential nature of God (morphē Theou) and (2) equality with God (isa Theō). Both were his actual possessions, not mere titles or roles. This is the baseline state from which the kenosis began.
The Kenosis — What Jesus "Gave Up" and What He Did NOT Give Up
"He made himself nothing (ekenōsen heauton)":
Literally: "he emptied himself." From the verb kenoō = to empty, to deprive of substance.
The crucial question: empty of WHAT?
Paul does not say he emptied himself OF the divine nature (morphē Theou). He says he emptied himself BY doing the following things (the participles explain how):
— "by taking the very nature of a servant" — adding human nature
— "by being made in human likeness" — entering the human condition
— "by humbling himself" — choosing a position of submission
— "by becoming obedient to death" — accepting mortality
The kenosis was NOT loss of divinity — it was voluntary restriction of PRIVILEGES:
The Son did not cease to be God. God cannot stop being God (if he did, he would not be God). What the Son gave up was the INDEPENDENT USE of his divine prerogatives — omniscience, omnipotence, the right to be served rather than serve, the right to live rather than die.
The King Analogy:
Imagine a king who voluntarily gives up his crown, his palace, his royal guard, and his title to live among his poorest subjects as a commoner — sharing their suffering, working their labor, subject to their laws. He remains the king by nature; he has not ceased to be who he is. But he has laid aside all his royal privileges to live as they live. He can choose at any moment to reassert his kingship — but for the duration of his mission, he chooses not to. This is the kenosis. Jesus remained fully God in nature while voluntarily accepting all the limitations of genuine human existence.
Literally: "he emptied himself." From the verb kenoō = to empty, to deprive of substance.
The crucial question: empty of WHAT?
Paul does not say he emptied himself OF the divine nature (morphē Theou). He says he emptied himself BY doing the following things (the participles explain how):
— "by taking the very nature of a servant" — adding human nature
— "by being made in human likeness" — entering the human condition
— "by humbling himself" — choosing a position of submission
— "by becoming obedient to death" — accepting mortality
The kenosis was NOT loss of divinity — it was voluntary restriction of PRIVILEGES:
The Son did not cease to be God. God cannot stop being God (if he did, he would not be God). What the Son gave up was the INDEPENDENT USE of his divine prerogatives — omniscience, omnipotence, the right to be served rather than serve, the right to live rather than die.
The King Analogy:
Imagine a king who voluntarily gives up his crown, his palace, his royal guard, and his title to live among his poorest subjects as a commoner — sharing their suffering, working their labor, subject to their laws. He remains the king by nature; he has not ceased to be who he is. But he has laid aside all his royal privileges to live as they live. He can choose at any moment to reassert his kingship — but for the duration of his mission, he chooses not to. This is the kenosis. Jesus remained fully God in nature while voluntarily accepting all the limitations of genuine human existence.
How This Answers Every "If Jesus Is God, Why Did He [X]?" Objection
"If Jesus is God, why did he not know the time of his return?" (Mark 13:32):
This is the two-natures answer (see the "Human Limitation Passages" section for the full treatment): the incarnate Son, in his genuine human mind, did not know the hour; as the eternal Word he knows all things. Athanasius gave exactly this answer to the Arians who pressed Mark 13:32 (Against the Arians 3.42–46), and after the resurrection the glorified Christ still reserves the timing to the Father (Acts 1:7). Philippians 2:7 names the mechanism — a real human life, freely entered, with real human limits.
"If Jesus is God, why did he pray?":
The Son as incarnate human genuinely expressed his dependence on the Father as a model of perfect human trust in God. The prayer proves the DISTINCTION of persons (Son prays to Father) — not the inferiority of the Son. John 17:5: in that very prayer, Jesus claims "the glory I had with you before the world existed" — a pre-existence claim in the middle of a prayer.
"If Jesus is God, why did he say 'The Father is greater than I'?" (John 14:28):
The Father is greater in ROLE during the incarnation — the Father sent, the Son was sent; the Father commands, the incarnate Son obeys. The Father is greater in the relational ordering of the mission. But greater in divine nature? John 5:19 (Son does everything the Father does), John 5:26 (Son has self-existent life like the Father), John 10:30 (one in nature) all preclude this reading.
"If Jesus is God, why did he grow tired, hungry, and suffer?":
Genuine human nature means genuine human limitations. The Son took on real flesh (John 1:14: "the Word became flesh") — which means real physical needs. This is not a weakness of his divine nature; it is the fullness of his human nature. Hebrews 2:17-18: "he had to be made like his brothers in every way... because he himself suffered when he was tempted." The suffering was real, human, and redemptive — not a sign that he was not divine but a sign of how completely he became human.
This is the two-natures answer (see the "Human Limitation Passages" section for the full treatment): the incarnate Son, in his genuine human mind, did not know the hour; as the eternal Word he knows all things. Athanasius gave exactly this answer to the Arians who pressed Mark 13:32 (Against the Arians 3.42–46), and after the resurrection the glorified Christ still reserves the timing to the Father (Acts 1:7). Philippians 2:7 names the mechanism — a real human life, freely entered, with real human limits.
"If Jesus is God, why did he pray?":
The Son as incarnate human genuinely expressed his dependence on the Father as a model of perfect human trust in God. The prayer proves the DISTINCTION of persons (Son prays to Father) — not the inferiority of the Son. John 17:5: in that very prayer, Jesus claims "the glory I had with you before the world existed" — a pre-existence claim in the middle of a prayer.
"If Jesus is God, why did he say 'The Father is greater than I'?" (John 14:28):
The Father is greater in ROLE during the incarnation — the Father sent, the Son was sent; the Father commands, the incarnate Son obeys. The Father is greater in the relational ordering of the mission. But greater in divine nature? John 5:19 (Son does everything the Father does), John 5:26 (Son has self-existent life like the Father), John 10:30 (one in nature) all preclude this reading.
"If Jesus is God, why did he grow tired, hungry, and suffer?":
Genuine human nature means genuine human limitations. The Son took on real flesh (John 1:14: "the Word became flesh") — which means real physical needs. This is not a weakness of his divine nature; it is the fullness of his human nature. Hebrews 2:17-18: "he had to be made like his brothers in every way... because he himself suffered when he was tempted." The suffering was real, human, and redemptive — not a sign that he was not divine but a sign of how completely he became human.
How the church read "he emptied himself" — and what it rejected
Hilary of Poitiers, On the Trinity 9.14, 11.48. "He emptied himself… not by losing what he was, but by taking what he was not"; "the emptying is not the abolishing of the divine nature, for he did not cease to be God when he began to be man." Hilary reads the "emptying" as the assumption of the servant's form, not a subtraction from deity.
Chrysostom, Homilies on Philippians 6–7. "'The form of God' — that is, God; … 'he emptied himself' — how? not by change, not by loss, but by taking flesh. The Godhead remained what it was; the manhood was added." Chrysostom stresses that if "form of God" meant something less than God, "form of a servant" would have to mean something less than a real man.
Augustine, On the Trinity 1.7.14. "The form of a servant was added, the form of God was not lost… he emptied himself in taking the form of a servant, not in losing the form of God."
What Chalcedonian Christianity rejects: strict kenotic Christology. In the 19th century some theologians (Thomasius; later Charles Gore) argued the Son literally set aside divine attributes such as omniscience and omnipresence during the incarnation — that God, for a time, was not omniscient. Historic orthodoxy (and this section) does not teach that. God cannot cease to have a divine attribute and remain God. The "emptying" is the veiling and non-exercise of divine prerogatives through a real human life — the addition of a nature, not the loss of one.
Chrysostom, Homilies on Philippians 6–7. "'The form of God' — that is, God; … 'he emptied himself' — how? not by change, not by loss, but by taking flesh. The Godhead remained what it was; the manhood was added." Chrysostom stresses that if "form of God" meant something less than God, "form of a servant" would have to mean something less than a real man.
Augustine, On the Trinity 1.7.14. "The form of a servant was added, the form of God was not lost… he emptied himself in taking the form of a servant, not in losing the form of God."
What Chalcedonian Christianity rejects: strict kenotic Christology. In the 19th century some theologians (Thomasius; later Charles Gore) argued the Son literally set aside divine attributes such as omniscience and omnipresence during the incarnation — that God, for a time, was not omniscient. Historic orthodoxy (and this section) does not teach that. God cannot cease to have a divine attribute and remain God. The "emptying" is the veiling and non-exercise of divine prerogatives through a real human life — the addition of a nature, not the loss of one.
💡 Kenosis — Complete Response"Philippians 2:6-8 uses two key Greek words: morphē (essential nature, what something truly IS) and isa Theō (equality with God). Before the kenosis, the Son possessed: (1) morphē Theou — the essential nature of God, and (2) equality with God — as actual possessions. The kenosis ('he emptied himself') did not remove these — Paul says he emptied himself BY adding human nature (morphēn doulou), not BY losing divine nature. The Son voluntarily restricted the EXERCISE of divine privileges during his incarnation — like a king who gives up his crown, palace, and privileges to live among his subjects without ceasing to be king by nature. This answers every 'if Jesus is God, why did he [X]?' question: Not knowing the time of his return (Mark 13:32) = voluntary restriction of exercising omniscience. Praying to the Father = expressing the eternal Father-Son relationship through genuine human dependence. 'Father is greater' (John 14:28) = the incarnate Son in the role of the one sent, not the ontological nature of the divine Son. Getting hungry, tired, suffering = genuine human nature fully assumed — required for genuine human redemption (Hebrews 2:17). The kenosis was not loss of divinity but addition of humanity."
This is part of the FaithLogic study library — the biblical, historical and manuscript case that Jesus is God, with every claim linked to its source. Open the interactive version for search, cross-references, read-aloud, and the full library.