Philippians 2:9-11 — “therefore God has exalted him”: proof of deity or the exaltation of a man?
Philippians 2:9-11 is regarded as a chief witness for the deity of Christ: before the name of Jesus “every knee” is to bow. Yet the sentence begins with a therefore and has two verbs whose subject is God and whose recipient is Christ: God exalted him, God bestowed on him the name. Whoever is exalted was lower before; whoever is given a gift did not previously possess what he receives. Read in the Socinian way, the text therefore refutes precisely what it is supposed to prove: a God by nature cannot be raised as a reward for obedience, and the whole movement issues expressly “to the glory of God the Father.” The Socinians nonetheless worshipped Christ — not as a second God, but as the Lord exalted by God, whose veneration passes through him to the Father.
“Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should 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 2:9-11
Context: the second half of a hymn
Philippians 2:6-11 is not a doctrinal treatise but an embedded hymn that Paul quotes in order to ground a thoroughly practical exhortation: “Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others” (v. 4), and then: “Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus” (v. 5). The hymn is therefore an ethical example, not a metaphysical lesson. It shows a way — from self-emptying to exaltation — that the Philippians are to walk in their own small measure.
The hymn has two halves with a clear hinge. The first (vv. 6-8) describes the descent: Christ “humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.” The second (vv. 9-11) describes the ascent — but now Christ is no longer the acting subject; God is: God exalted him, God gave him the name. The change of subject is the pivot of the interpretation. In the first half Christ does something; in the second, something is done to him.
The two halves are joined by the first word of v. 9: dió, “therefore,” “for this reason.” It is a word of consequence and grounds. The exaltation is not a timeless state that the text records, but God’s answer to Christ’s obedience. “Because he was obedient unto death, therefore God exalted him.” Whoever severs this causal nerve turns an event of reward into a statement of essence — and reads out of the text precisely what the text does not say.
The first half of the hymn is treated on its own page (see the entry on Philippians 2:6-7, where it is shown that morphê theoû and being “equal with God” are not a pre-existence formula). It is remarkable that the Racovian Catechism already notes on v. 6 that the Greek does not read “to be equal to God,” but the neuter tà ísa theô, “equal things” — and that Christ “laid aside this his equality with God for a time, which would not befall one who was God by that very nature.” Whoever already reads the first half in this way will not misunderstand the second as proof of an eternal deity.
The Socinian core thesis: exaltation is gift, not essence
The traditional interpretation refers the exaltation to Christ’s human nature: the eternal Logos, who possessed the divine glory from the beginning (John 17:5), is said to have “received” it as a man or made it visible again; the worldwide bowing of the knee then proves his true deity, especially since Isaiah 45:23 — “to me every knee shall bow” — is here applied to Christ. The conclusion is coherent if one brings the two-natures doctrine along already. But it hangs on a presupposition the text does not supply.
For the text names only one subject of the exaltation: “him,” Jesus Christ, the same one who had previously humbled himself. There is no mention anywhere of two natures; whoever introduces them must artificially split the one who humbled himself and the one who was exalted into an acting divine and a receiving human. And the two verbs that God is said to perform toward Christ are unmistakably verbs of bestowal: God exalted him and bestowed on him the name. Both are actions upon a recipient. One is not exalted if one is already at the top; one is not given as a gift what one possesses from eternity.
It is precisely here that the Racovian Catechism applies its sharpest lever: if Christ were the most high God, then the exaltation would be either impossible or empty. A God by nature cannot be “highly exalted,” for there is nothing higher than the most high God; and were he nonetheless to receive such an exaltation, he could owe it to none other than his own divine nature — and not, as the text says, to the Father. The traditional reading thus takes from the Father the very honour that, according to v. 9, he gained for himself through the exaltation of Jesus.
And the hymn ends where it aimed from the outset: eis dóxan theoû patrós, “to the glory of God the Father.” The confession “Jesus Christ is Lord” is not a rival clause to the one God, but its outflow: the dominion that the exalted man receives redounds to the honour of the one who gave it to him. The Lord Jesus is Lord — to the glory of the Father. Whoever makes of this a second God bursts the closing line that carries the whole hymn.
The Socinian answer to the question of when and how Christ became “Lord” therefore does not stand in contradiction to worship, but grounds it anew. Peter says it in a single sentence: “God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ” (Acts 2:36). What is made was not before; and because God made the humbled man Lord, worship is due to this Lord — worship that passes through him to the Father.
Core statement
“Therefore God has exalted him” — whoever is exalted was lower; whoever is given the name did not possess it by nature. The dominion of the exalted Jesus is the Father’s gift and issues “to the glory of God the Father.” The verse does not prove the eternal deity of Christ, but the exaltation of the obedient man by the one God — and the cult due to him for it, a cult directed toward the Father.
Exegesis: key terms and word field
Five Greek expressions decide the interpretation of Philippians 2:9-11:
dió — “therefore,” the hinge
Dió (from dià hó, “on account of which”) is an inferential-causal conjunction: “therefore,” “for this reason.” It links v. 9 causally to v. 8: because Christ was obedient unto death, therefore God exalted him. The exaltation is thereby marked as answer, as consequence, as reward — not as a timeless trait of essence.
This single syllable bears more weight than any speculation about natures. Where a state would be eternal, there is no “therefore”; one does not say: “He was obedient, therefore he is God from eternity.” A “therefore” joins two points in time and two states. The text therefore presupposes a change: from the lowliness of obedience to the height of dominion.
hyperúpsôsen — “highly exalted”
The verb hyperypsóô is an intensification of hypsóô (“to exalt”) by the prefix hyper- (“above”). It occurs nowhere else in the entire New Testament and denotes a raising that leads from a low position to a highest one. Precisely here lies the difficulty for the traditional reading: a raising presupposes a starting point below the goal.
But in the most high God there is nothing to exalt. The Racovian Catechism draws from this the sober conclusion already quoted above: “If Christ was the most high God, he could not be exalted.” The verb itself contradicts the interpretation it is supposed to prove. Whoever nonetheless restricts it to the human nature invents the two-natures distinction in order to rescue the word — and so presupposes what would first have to be proved.
echarísato — “graciously bestowed”
The verb for “gave” is not the neutral dídômi, but charízomai — a word from the root of cháris, “grace”: “to grant out of favour,” “to bestow as a gift of grace.” God did not merely hand the name over to Christ, but conferred it on him as a gift of grace. A gift of grace, however, is by its very nature something the recipient did not previously have and could not claim of himself.
This removes the usual retreat that “to give” here means only the making manifest of a name long possessed. Charízomai denotes a real transition from not-having to having. The same logic stands behind Acts 2:36 (“made him Lord”) and Matthew 28:18 (“all authority has been given to me”): dominion and name are conferred on the exalted Christ, not his own from of old.
kýrios — “Lord,” a conferred office
The confession of the closing line reads kýrios Iêsoûs Christós, “Jesus Christ is Lord.” Kýrios is the title of dominion; it stands in the background of Psalm 110:1, the most-quoted Old Testament verse in the New Testament: “Sit at my right hand.” But this very verse is the language of installation and subordination: one sets, another is set; the Lord at the right hand has a Lord above him who sets him there.
To be called “Lord” is therefore not the same as being “the one God.” Scripture calls many “lord” without deifying them; Sarah calls Abraham her “lord” (1 Peter 3:6). The name “above every name” is the highest dignity a creature can bear — and it remains a conferred one, because the Father gives it and because its aim is his honour.
eis dóxan theoû patrós — “to the glory of God the Father”
The last words order the whole: all bowing of the knee and confessing takes place eis dóxan — “toward the glory” — of God the Father. The preposition eis denotes the goal, the vanishing point. The Father is not a co-recipient of the veneration of Christ, but its final end.
This closing line is the best commentary on the worship of Christ. It is not forbidden — on the contrary, it is commanded; but it is directed. Sozzini put it exactly so: the worship of Christ “does not rest in Christ, but passes through him to God.” The verse itself draws this line: through the exalted Lord to the glory of the Father.
Comparison of interpretations
Sozzini and the Racovian Catechism on “therefore God has exalted him”
The Racovian Catechism quotes Philippians 2:9-11 in several places — and always draws the same consequence: the exaltation is a gain that God acquired for himself, and therefore the one exalted cannot be the most high God. Most sharply in its teaching on the benefit of right knowledge:
“… but God is also robbed of that honour which he gained through the exaltation of Jesus Christ. For if Christ was the most high God, he could neither be exalted, nor, even had he been able to be, would he ever have ascribed that exaltation wholly to anyone other than his own divine nature.”
Racovian Catechism (1605), section “The benefit of right knowledge concerning Christ’s nature”
The argument is a dilemma. Either Christ was the most high God — then “highly exalted” is meaningless, for there is nothing higher. Or he was really exalted — then he cannot have been the most high God, but received the exaltation from another, namely from the Father. Both at once, as the two-natures doctrine will have it, comes down to God exalting himself and bestowing the name on himself — and taking from the Father the honour that the text expressly assigns to him.
At the same time the Catechism draws the positive consequence from the same passage: because God has endowed the exalted Christ with the highest name, worship is due to him — and indeed such worship as runs back to God himself:
“Because Christ was set at the right hand of God in the heavens and endowed with the name that is above every name, he is also to be worshipped by the angels … and because before him every knee both must now be bowed (Phil. 2:9-10) and one day will actually be bowed … — since this worship and bowing of the knee is referred to God himself …”
Racovian Catechism (1605), section “Old Testament statements about God and their application to Christ”
Note how precisely the Catechism formulates it: “set,” “endowed,” and the worship is “referred to God himself.” This is no belittling of Christ, but the precise rendering of the closing line “to the glory of God the Father.” Socinianism did not deprive Christ of honour, but moved it to its biblical place. The Catechism therefore expressly demands the worship and invocation of Christ:
“In worship, namely, and in invocation. For we must always worship Christ and, in all our necessities, direct prayers to him as often as we will; and it is not one reason alone that impels us to do this with the greatest readiness.”
Racovian Catechism (1605), section “The acknowledgment and divine veneration of Christ”
How seriously the Socinians took this worship is shown by Sozzini’s own polemical work On the Honour of Christ. Against the humanist Christian Francken, who held the veneration of a creature to be idolatry, Sozzini defends the worship of the exalted Christ with the principle that Philippians 2:9 too suggests: God can confer his honour on whomever he will.
“And although the distance between God and the creature is the greatest of all, it is nevertheless not necessary that the difference between the honour of God and that of the creature be equally great. For God can impart his honour to whomever he will; this he has shown to Christ, who is worthy of such honour and whom Holy Scripture does not command us to venerate without the weightiest reasons.”
Fausto Sozzini, “On the Honour of Christ” (disputation with Christian Francken)
But how can one worship a creature without falling into idolatry? Sozzini’s answer is precisely the movement of Philippians 2:11: the veneration does not stop at Christ, but runs through him to the Father.
“… because the worship of Christ is the worship of God himself: for it does not rest in Christ, but passes through him to God.”
Fausto Sozzini, “On the Honour of Christ” (disputation with Christian Francken)
And he expressly rebuts the charge that he divides the one veneration due to God alone between two gods. Not division, but order is meant: God is the goal, Christ is the means.
“I do not divide the worship that is due to God alone between Christ and God: rather I say that God is worshipped as the author of all things, but Christ as a certain means through which such worship is directed toward God.”
Fausto Sozzini, “On the Honour of Christ” (disputation with Christian Francken)
Thus the Socinian reading of Philippians 2:9-11 stands on two legs that support each other: the verse proves no eternal deity — for only one who was previously lower is exalted and endowed; and yet it does not forbid the veneration of Christ — for God has made the exalted Lord the goal of our bowing of the knee, whose final vanishing point is his own honour.
Book overview of the writings of Sozzini
Logical arguments
From Philippians 2:9-11 the following arguments arise against the interpretation as a proof of the essential deity of Christ:
- The argument from the “therefore.” The causal dió binds the exaltation to the preceding obedience (v. 8). A reward for obedience presupposes an exalter and an exalted who are not the same. A God by nature is not rewarded for obedience.
- The argument from the intensive verb. Hyperúpsôsen — “to exalt above measure” — requires a starting point below the goal. But in the most high God there is nothing to exalt. The word contradicts the thesis it is meant to support.
- The argument from the verb of grace. Echarísato (“graciously bestowed”) denotes a real transition from not-having to having. One who bears the highest name from eternity cannot receive it as a gift of grace. Therefore Christ did not bear it by nature.
- The argument from the single subject. The same one who humbled himself (v. 8) was exalted (v. 9). The text knows no second, acting divine alongside a receiving human. The two-natures division is brought to the text, not won from it.
- The argument from the agent. The subject of both verbs is expressly “God” (the Father); the recipient is Christ. Where God does something to Christ, Christ is not this acting God, but the one endowed over against him.
- The argument from the closing line. Everything issues “to the glory of God the Father” (eis dóxan). The Father is the final end, not a co-recipient. A second, coequal God would abolish this orientation.
- The argument from Acts 2:36. “God has made him both Lord and Christ.” The apostolic sermon interprets the exaltation as installation into an office. What is made did not exist before. Christ’s dominion is datable — it begins with the resurrection.
- The argument from the dignity of Kyrios. The name “Lord” stands within the horizon of Psalm 110:1 (“sit at my right hand”) — the language of installation and subordination. Whoever is set has one above him who sets him.
- The argument from the ethical framing. Paul quotes the hymn as a model of humility (vv. 3-5). A model must be imitable. The self-emptying of a consubstantial God would be no imitable example; the obedience and exaltation of a man are.
- The argument from consistency. The statement of exaltation fits seamlessly into the Johannine and Pauline line: the Father is greater (John 14:28), the Son is finally made subject (1 Corinthians 15:28), God is “the head of Christ” (1 Corinthians 11:3). The consubstantiality reading must defuse each of these passages separately; the exaltation reading need not.
Biblical cross-references
The following passages are essential for the right understanding of Philippians 2:9-11:
Acts 2:36 — “made him Lord”
“God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ.” The verb epoíêsen (“made”) interprets the exaltation as installation: the dignity of Kyrios in Philippians 2:11 is conferred, not eternal. Cf. the entry on Acts 2:36.
Matthew 28:18 — “all authority has been given to me”
The risen one says: “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given (edóthê) to me.” Authority that is given is received, not possessed. The same structure as the “bestowed on him the name” of Philippians 2:9.
Psalm 110:1 — “sit at my right hand”
The most-quoted Old Testament verse in the New Testament is the language of installation: YHWH sets David’s “Lord” at his right hand. Whoever is set receives his place from a higher one. Christ’s dignity of Kyrios is this appointed rank, not an inherited one.
Isaiah 45:23 / Romans 14:11 — the bowing of the knee before God
Philippians 2:10 takes up Isaiah 45:23: “To me every knee shall bow.” Yet Paul himself quotes the same passage in Romans 14:10-11 concerning the “judgment seat of God.” The honour is thus transferred to the exalted Christ without his thereby becoming identical with the one God — the bowing of the knee is offered to God through the judge appointed by him.
John 5:22-23 — that they may honour the Son
“The Father has given all judgment to the Son, that all may honour the Son, just as they honour the Father.” The honour of the Son is expressly derived honour — given so that the honour of the Father may be reached through him. Cf. John 5:23.
Hebrews 1:6 / Psalm 97:7 — the angels worship him
“And let all God’s angels worship him” — said “when he brings the firstborn into the (coming) world.” The worship is bound to the bringing-in, to the exaltation, not to an eternal nature. Cf. Hebrews 1:6.
Ephesians 1:20-22 — God seated him at his right hand
God “raised him from the dead and seated him at his right hand … above all rule.” Paul consistently ascribes the exaltation to the Father as the agent — the Son is the one exalted. The same grammar as Philippians 2:9.
Revelation 5:12-13 — Lamb and throne in one doxology
“To him who sits on the throne and to the Lamb be blessing and honour.” The Lamb receives power because it was slain (vv. 9-12) — once again an awarded, not an inherited dignity; and the doxology is offered to both together, with God as the source.
Objections and Socinian answers
Objection 1: “Isaiah 45:23 applies to God alone — therefore Christ is YHWH.”
In Isaiah 45:23 the one, only God swears: “To me every knee shall bow.” If Paul applies this to Christ in Philippians 2:10, then he equates Christ with YHWH. A proof of deity cannot be clearer.
The conclusion goes too fast. The same Paul quotes the same passage of Isaiah a few chapters earlier, in Romans 14:10-11, and there refers it to the “judgment seat of God.” He can therefore transfer the honour to the exalted Christ without exchanging the person: one bows the knee before Christ because God has installed him as judge and Lord, and the bowing of the knee is offered in the end to the one who installed him.
This is exactly what the closing line says: “to the glory of God the Father.” The veneration that Isaiah 45:23 reserves for the one God is, through the exalted Christ, offered to this one God. The Racovian Catechism formulates it precisely: “since this worship and bowing of the knee is referred to God himself.”
The transfer of Old Testament words about God to Christ is frequent in the New Testament and nowhere proves identity of essence, but authorization: the one to whom God has entrusted his cause also bears the words that concern God’s cause. The text itself keeps the two apart by naming the Father as the goal.
Objection 2: “Only the human nature was exalted; as God, Christ was always exalted.”
The exaltation concerns Christ only according to his humanity. According to his deity he possessed all glory from eternity (John 17:5); the assumed human nature was what was exalted and endowed.
This distinction is not in the text. The hymn knows exactly one subject: the same one who “humbled himself,” God has “exalted.” To preserve two natures one must retroactively split the single agent — and thereby presuppose what was to be proved.
Moreover, the rescue comes to nothing: if the divine nature were in any case always the highest, then the “exceeding exaltation” would be either a mere display of what had long been possessed, or nothing at all. The Racovian Catechism draws the clear alternative: “If Christ was the most high God, he could not be exalted.”
Finally, the two-natures interpretation takes from the Father the honour that v. 9 assigns to him: for if only the humanity received the exaltation, then, as the Catechism says, the divine Christ would have to ascribe it “to none other than his own divine nature” — not to the Father. But the text makes the Father the giver and the final end.
Objection 3: “‘To give him the name’ means only the revelation of a name borne from eternity.”
“To give” here does not mean to confer anew, but to acknowledge publicly: the Son bore the name of the Lord from of old and was now confirmed in it and made manifest.
The verb does not bear this weakening. Paul does not write the neutral “give” (dídômi), but echarísato — “to bestow out of grace.” A gift of grace is by its very concept something the recipient did not previously have and could not claim of himself.
The parallels confirm the real transition: “God has made him Lord” (Acts 2:36), “all authority has been given to me” (Matthew 28:18), “God seated him at his right hand” (Ephesians 1:20). Not a single one of these texts speaks of mere announcement; all speak of installation and conferral.
Were one nevertheless to read “bestow” as “reveal,” one would have to impose an unclear sense on the clear word in order to rescue a doctrine that comes from elsewhere. This is precisely the circle Sozzini charges his opponents with: one explains the verse with a tool that would first have had to be proved.
Objection 4: “The ‘name above every name’ is the name of God — therefore Christ is God.”
The name above every name is the name YHWH, which the Septuagint renders with Kýrios. If Christ bears this name, he bears the name of God — and is thereby God.
The title Kýrios in the New Testament is not simply the proper name of God, but first of all the title of dominion. It stands within the horizon of Psalm 110:1, where David’s “Lord” is set at the right hand by YHWH — and thus has a Lord above him. A title of dominion can be conferred and shared; the proper name of the one God cannot.
Scripture calls many “lord” without deifying them — Sarah calls Abraham her “lord” (1 Peter 3:6), angels and rulers are so called. To be “lord” is a position of dignity, not a statement of essence. The name “above every name” is the highest dignity a creature can receive — and it remains received.
Above all, however, the closing line decides: the confession “Jesus Christ is Lord” takes place “to the glory of God the Father.” Were the Lord Jesus the one God himself, his being Lord could not be ordered toward the honour of another, the Father. The text distinguishes where the objection identifies.
Objection 5: “If Christ is not God, the worship of v. 10 is idolatry.”
The text commands that every knee bow before Jesus. Divine worship is due to God alone. Whoever therefore worships Christ while at the same time holding him to be a creature practises idolatry.
This is the most honest and most important objection — and Sozzini did not pass over it, but expressly answered it in his work On the Honour of Christ. It is noteworthy first of all that the Socinians precisely did not reject the worship of Christ: the Racovian Catechism commands it, “in worship, namely, and in invocation.” The charge therefore does not even touch Socinian practice.
Sozzini’s solution is not a weakening but a directing: the worship of Christ “does not rest in Christ, but passes through him to God.” Because God has appointed the exalted Lord as the “means through which such worship is directed toward God,” the veneration of Christ is in truth the veneration of God — not a division of the one honour between two gods.
With this the supposed dilemma is dissolved. Worship is not owed because the one worshipped is the author of all things, but can also be owed to the one whom God has “in a divine manner” set over us. God can, as Sozzini says, impart his honour to whomever he will; he has imparted it to the exalted Christ and commanded us to honour him. Obedience to this command is the opposite of idolatry.
Theological consequences
Related verses
The following passages support, deepen, or contrast with the interpretation presented here:
- Philippians 2:6-7 — the first half of the hymn: morphê theoû and “equal with God” as a way of self-emptying, not as a pre-existence formula.
- Acts 2:36 — “God has made him both Lord and Christ”: the exegetical anchor for the “bestowed on him the name.”
- John 5:23 — the honour of the Son is given honour: “that all may honour the Son, just as they honour the Father.”
- Hebrews 1:6 — the worship by the angels is bound to the bringing of the firstborn into the coming world.
- 1 Corinthians 15:28 — the goal of the exaltation: the Son is finally made subject, “that God may be all in all.”
- 1 Corinthians 8:6 — the basic formula: one God, the Father, and one Lord, Jesus Christ.
- John 14:28 — “the Father is greater than I”: the abiding order between the Father and the exalted Son.
Summary
Philippians 2:9-11 is the second half of a hymn whose first word decides everything: therefore. Because Christ was obedient unto death, God exalted him and bestowed on him the name. Three linguistic observations carry the interpretation: a causal “therefore” that marks a reward; an intensive verb that requires an ascent out of the depths; and a verb of grace that denotes a real gift. From a rewarded, exalted, and endowed Christ no eternal, consubstantial deity can be won — for a God by nature is not rewarded, not exalted, and not endowed.
The Racovian Catechism sums this up in a dilemma: “If Christ was the most high God, he could not be exalted.” And it shows that the traditional reading takes from the Father the very honour he gained for himself “through the exaltation of Jesus Christ.” For the hymn ends where it aims: “to the glory of God the Father.” The confession that Jesus is Lord is not a rival clause to the one God, but its outflow — the dominion of the exalted man redounds to the honour of the one who gave it to him.
Thus the verse does not forbid the worship of Christ, but orders it. The Socinians worshipped and invoked Christ; but they did so, as Sozzini defended against Francis David and Christian Francken, as the veneration of the Lord exalted by God, which “does not rest in Christ, but passes through him to God.” So both are preserved that the text holds together: the highest, real dignity of the exalted Jesus — and the undivided honour of the one God, the Father, toward whom all bowing of the knee runs.