Instead of this, of his own free will he gave up all he had is literally “but emptied himself.” “Himself” in Greek is emphatic by position, indicating that it was his own doing, so Good News Translation makes this explicit: of his own free will. This may be expressed in some languages as “he was happy to…,” “he was glad to…,” or “he was willing to give up all he had.”
The verb “to empty” has given rise to the so-called “kenotic” theory of incarnation. Undue theological exploitations have cast a heavy shadow on its meaning. It should be said at the outset that the verb must be understood metaphorically, not metaphysically. It says nothing about Christ stripping himself of his divine attributes as has sometimes been suggested. While it is probable that the Suffering Servant passage in Isaiah has some bearing on the present hymn, it is not necessary to see in “to empty” an allusion to Isa 53.12 (“he poured out his soul to death”) and make it refer to the death of Christ. The event of Christ’s death is referred to later, in verse 8.
The verb “to empty” is used elsewhere in the Pauline Epistles four times (Rom 4.14; 1 Cor 1.17; 9.15; 2 Cor 9.3), and in each instance it is used metaphorically in the sense of “to bring to nothing,” “to make worthless,” or “to empty of significance.” Context should always determine the meaning; and in the present context the verb refers back to what immediately precedes and its action is explained by the words which immediately follow. Instead of holding onto his privileges, Christ gave up his divine rank by taking on the nature of a servant. The Good News Translation rendering brings out this meaning, he gave up all he had (Goodspeed “but laid it aside”; Phillips is even more explicit, “but he stripped himself of every advantage”). What was given up is not simply the opportunity to become equal with God, but the equality with God itself, namely Christ’s divine status or rank of dignity and glory (John 17.5). Unless one is careful in the translation of he gave up all he had, the implication may be that Jesus lost completely all of his divine attributes. Accordingly, some translators prefer to use as a substitute for the phrase all he had such a phrase as “his status” or his high position.
And took the nature of a servant translates a participial phrase, literally, “taking the form of a slave.” The aorist participle denotes that the action is simultaneous or contemporaneous with that of the main verb, “he emptied.” It also has an explanatory force; that is, Christ surrendered his divine rank “by taking” the nature of a servant. The word rendered nature in this clause is the same as the one used in verse 6. Obviously the nature of a servant is intended as a sharp contrast to the nature of God. Christ did not disguise himself as a servant; he became a servant, expressing in his deeds complete and absolute submission to the will of God. The heart of the matter is to show that Christ gave up the highest possible status and took on the lowest possible role. Christ did not merely exist in a servant’s condition; he lived in humble service. In order to make the expression took the nature of a servant contrast with had the nature of God, it is important that the two expressions be as parallel in form as it is possible. For example, if had the nature of God is rendered as “was just like God,” one may then translate took the nature of a servant as “he was just like a servant.” In such an expression, of course, one must avoid any terminology which would suggest mere pretense.
The author of the hymn goes on to define the path of humiliation which Christ took with a pair of synonymous parallelisms. He became like man is literally “becoming in the likeness of men.” Both participles, namely “taking” and “becoming,” involve a change in status and role. “Becoming” here can also be taken in its so-called “etymological” sense of “being born” (Revised Standard Version New American Bible “being born in the likeness of men”). The word “likeness” suggests similarity, but this does not mean that Christ’s humanity is unreal (cf. Rom 8.3; Heb 2.7, 14). In Greek, the plural form of man is used, emphasizing the fact that Christ became like a member of the human race in general, not like any particular individual. In order to emphasize the concept of “humanity” in the term man, it may be important to translate he became like man as “he became just like people.”
Many translations place and appeared in human likeness in verse 8. But the structure of the hymn suggests that the verse division followed by Good News Translation and Jerusalem Bible is to be preferred.
To stress Christ’s likeness to other men, the author of the hymn goes on to say and appeared in human likeness (literally, “and being found in the form as a man”). Likeness translates the other word of “form,” denoting outward shape and appearance rather than inherent nature. The compounds of these two “forms” bring out vividly the difference between the inward and the outward aspects (see Rom 8.29; 12.2b; 2 Cor 3.18; Gal 4.19; Phil 3.10 for inner, spiritual process; Rom 12.2a and 1 Peter 1.14 for a process affecting that which is outward). It should be noted, however, that Paul is not here suggesting a discrepancy between appearance and underlying reality. What he means to emphasize is that Christ’s likeness to men in general is a real likeness: “he came as man in the world and lived as a man” (Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch).
In many languages a verb such as appeared is expressed in a quite different manner: someone “sees” who or what appears. Therefore appeared in human likeness may need to be expressed in such languages as “people saw him just like a man.”
Quoted with permission from Luo, I-Jin. and Nida, Eugene A. A Handbook on Paul’s Letter to the Philippians. (UBS Handbook Series). New York: UBS, 1977. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .