The Body of Humility and the Body of Glory

By Daniel E. Harden

Robert E. Cruickshank Jr. (Editor)

Copyright © Daniel E. Harden  (July 9, 2025)

All Rights Reserved 

Philippians 3:17-21:

¹⁷ Brothers, join in imitating me, and keep your eyes on those who walk according to the example you have in us. ¹⁸ For many, of whom I have often told you and now tell you even with tears, walk as enemies of the cross of Christ. ¹⁹ Their end is destruction, their god is their belly, and they glory in their shame, with minds set on earthly things. ²⁰ But our citizenship is in heaven, and from it we await a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, ²¹ who will transform our lowly body to be like his glorious body, by the power that enables him even to subject all things to himself. [Phil. 3:17-21 ESV]

There has been much debate regarding what Paul means by the “transformation” in Philippians 3:21, especially from the preterist perspective. For dispensational futurists, this is not as much of an issue, since the coming of the Savior in verse 20 corresponds to the end of the planet as we know it.[1]

Without belaboring the point, this is a faulty outlook. Regardless of how you look at it, the New Testament authors repeatedly refer to eschatological events as imminent in their day. And while the preterist perspective, following this line of thought, concurs that the result would be the “age to come”, it denies that this meant the end of the planet itself.

As such, from the preterist perspective, this passage becomes a bit of an enigma. Those who approach eschatology primarily from a corporate standpoint attempt to interpret this passage as a corporate reference as well. This approach, however, tends to ignore the context, and leads to other difficulties as well.

On the other hand, in holding to a preterist viewpoint while also maintaining the fundamentals of Christianity and its perspectives, this passage is seen as a reference to the individual human, rather than the corporate. Yet this still leaves one wondering what Paul’s mysterious words actually mean. Is he referring to some “rapture”, some instantaneous removal of living saints? There is no suggestion of such a doctrine in the context of the passage leading up to verse 21.

Indeed, to fully understand what Paul means in verse 21, we need to read it in its context and take a closer look at the grammar.

In verse 17, Paul is exhorting the Philippians to “walk according to the example you have in us.” He doesn’t berate them for improper behavior here; he simply encourages his fellow believers to remain faithful in their fellowship with God.

In verse 18, Paul reminds the Philippians of those who “walk as enemies of the cross of Christ.” In other words, those “enemies” denied that Christ was God, that He died as payment for the sins of His believers, and that He rose again as confirmation that this payment had been made.

In verse 19, Paul makes the plain statement that for those enemies, “their end is destruction.” God would judge them. Their ways would lead to judgment, and not with a favorable outcome. The word ‘destruction’, ἀπώλεια (apóleia), is related to the Greek word ἀπόλλυμι (apollumi), “to destroy or perish”, and has a distinct afterlife or end-result connotation. Unlike the common word λύω (luo), which refers to destruction through a complete dissolution, the Greek words apóleia and apollumi carry the nuance of “trash” or “waste” – thus, these enemies of the cross would become waste, discarded, thrown on the trash heap and forgotten.[2]

This is contrasted in verse 20 with “but our citizenship is in Heaven.” While the ultimate fate of the enemies would be destruction, the destined fate of the faithful is Heaven. This is echoed throughout the New Testament: Ephesians 2:9 – “fellow citizens”; Titus 3:7 – “heirs according to the hope of eternal life”; Hebrews 6:17 – “heirs of the promise” (see also Heb. 11:9); James 2:5 – “heirs of the kingdom”, etc.

Also in verse 20, Paul states that they were waiting for Christ, who would be coming from Heaven. This further underscores the fact that Paul is referring to the afterlife in the spiritual realm, as it pinpoints the fact that Heaven is the place in the spiritual realm where God dwells.

Philippians 3:21, then, is built on this context of ultimate destination. As such, verse 21 specifies something that is the result of the coming of Christ mentioned in verse 20. What verse 21 does not specify is that this is strictly a one-time event. This is important to note for getting a proper understanding of what Paul is saying. While this may be no big deal for dispensationalists, since in that view the coming of Christ would be a terminal event for the world, for those who hold a preterist perspective, this is a huge deal. There is a distinct difference between saying something will happen AT the coming of Christ, and saying that something will be true AS A RESULT of Christ having come.

Bodies

In verse 21, Paul refers to two different bodies. First, he mentions the “lowly” body, sometimes translated as a “body of humiliation”.

There is a grammatical consideration here. Paul uses the possessive plural “our” or “of us” (ἡμῶν) while at the same time using the singular noun body (σῶμα). Some who insist on a rendering of body as a corporate symbol see this construct as highly indicative, since there are multiple people but only one body. This, however, is based on an incomplete understanding of Greek grammar. It was idiomatically common in Greek (and Hebrew as well) to use the distributive singular with the plural possessive modifier, particularly where anthropological terms are indicated. In other words, “their heart” was not a reference to one shared heart, but to the heart of each individual who constituted the plural their.[3]

Examples abound throughout the New Testament, utilizing various types of anthropological terms, such as blood, life, mind, heart, head, spirit, face, flesh, mouth, conscience, hand, etc. And major Greek grammarians agree on this point.[4] For one relevant example showing the distributive singular use of body, see Matthew 6:25, where both life (ψυχή) and body (σῶμα) are used in this manner, both being in the singular but with a plural possessive pronoun attached, yet the intent is that of each person individually, not some corporate unit:

For this reason I say to you, do not be worried about your (pl) life (sg), as to what you will eat or what you will drink; nor for your (pl) body (sg), as to what you will put on. Is life not more than food, and the body more than clothing? (Matt. 6:25 NASB).

 

Similarly, a few chapters later, Christ says:

But even the hairs (pl) of your head (sg) are numbered (Matt. 10:30 NASB; see also Luke 12:7).

 

Christ was not talking about one life, one body, or one head. He was utilizing the common grammatical practice of the distributive singular with regard to anthropological nouns. And those are just a couple of examples out of a wide variety in the New Testament. Interestingly, the distributive singular is still common enough even in English usage today. It is not unusual, for example, to find the reference to “our body” when speaking of the human body in general.

Any insistence in any New Testament passage that the connection of a plural possessive pronoun with a singular noun of the anthropological type must be a reference to a corporate entity is incorrect and based solely on a biased and limited understanding of Greek grammar in general.

Furthermore, this body in Philippians 3:21 cannot be corporate. The Philippians were already in a fully realized corporate “body of Christ”. And that body is never described as being “lowly” or “of humility”. Nor did it need any change or transformation of status.

The second body mentioned in Philippians 3:21 is the body that is “like His glorious body”. The clear implication is that Christ, who is in Heaven (verse 20), has a “glorious body”. Furthermore, the end result of the action of Philippians 3:21 would be that the person who receives this “transformation” would also have a “glorious body”. This would equate to the “hope that he has called you” and the “glorious inheritance” that was promised (Eph. 1:18). In Christ, we have that “hope of glory” (Col. 1:27).

Transformation?

The real question in this verse is simple – is the “lowly body” the same body as the one that will be “like His glorious body”? Is Paul speaking of one body in two different conditions?

Paul’s inclusion of the word “transform” has led some to believe that Paul was talking about a “rapture”, or a transformation of the human body on earth to the spiritual, heavenly body. Some go so far as to say that since Christ’s body was transformed, so too would/will the bodies of the saints be transformed.[5]

But this would be at odds with what Paul explains in 1 Corinthians 15:38-41, where he stresses that there are different types of bodies, and that each body is specifically suited for a particular environment. Later in the same chapter, Paul also explains that there is an earthly (natural) body and a heavenly (spiritual) body. God provides a body for each believer in Heaven, so that when the earthly body is shed and left behind, a better body takes its place (1 Cor. 15:37; 2 Cor 5:1). If this is the case, what need is there for any “transformed” physical body?

The problem lies in our misunderstanding of the word that Paul uses for what is often translated in this verse as transform. But there is also a second word to consider.

Here are two of the key words Paul uses in Philippians 3:21:

• μετασχηματίσει (metaschēmatisei) – verb, future tense, active indicative, third person singular of μετασχηματίζω (metaschématizó), “to change in fashion or appearance”. Root: σχῆμα (schéma) – appearance, form
• σύμμορφον (symmorphon) – adjective, accusative singular, of σύμμορφος (summorpho), conformed or sharing the same inner essence. Root: μορφή (morphe) – essence, nature

Starting with metaschématizó, it is important to see how Paul uses this word elsewhere.   In 1 Corinthians 4:6, Paul uses this word to transfer a truth to himself and Apollos. While this carries a figurative nuance, it should be noted that transfer is not the same as transform. There is nothing in Paul’s description that is undergoing any inner transformation.

In 2 Corinthians 11:13-15, Paul uses metaschématizó three times in the middle voice to describe Satan and his servants disguising themselves as angels of light. In one of the most respected publications on Koine Greek, Bauer, Danker, Arndt & Gingrich (BGAD) Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament on metaschématizó notes that when used in the middle voice, which lends a more reflexive nuance, the intent is: “To feign to be what one is not. To change/disguise oneself.”[6] This accurately reflects what Satan and his servants were doing in this passage. This usage is generally accompanied by the helper word eis (into) – “change into” in appearance or actions only. Once again, there is no actual transformation, only an alteration of appearance with no change in essence.[7]

The word metaschématizó is a verb that deals with the outer appearance (schéma), not any metamorphic change of actual essence.[8] It only refers to an form, as opposed to the other word in Philippians 3:21, symmorphon, which is an adjective and deals with the inner essence (morphe). This is an important distinction.

Taking a look at how metaschématizó is used elsewhere in Greek literature of the time should help illustrate this point. It is found in the Greek versions of apocryphal works. For example, in a verse that seems to refer back to the “sons of God” mating with the “daughters of men” in Gen. 6:4, the Testament of Reuben 5:6 describes how Watchers (or angelic beings) changed their form to take on the appearance of men in order to be with human women. Similarly, in the Testament of Solomon, 20:13 uses the word to refer to demons changing form.

Likewise, metaschématizó is utilized in other Greek texts as well. Eusebius uses metaschématizó, for example, to explain how Gaius wanted to change the Jewish temple into a Roman temple.[9] Still a temple; still a building; no change in essence. Just a change in appearance. Diodorus Siculus uses metaschématizó to refer to a river changing the face of the country each year.[10] Plutarch uses metaschématizó to describe how a figure’s appearance is changed when it turns from sideways to face on.[11] He also uses metaschématizó to describe how a figure’s appearance is changed by leaning forward.[12] There are a number of other examples as well.[13] The intent is clear – generally speaking, these transformations are in appearance or form only.

When reading Philippians 3:21, it seems that the modern inclination is to take metaschématizó to mean much the same thing as a metamorphosis of a body, based largely on the word transform used in many translations. But that is not really accurate or equivalent. When metaschématizó refers to something being outwardly changed in some way into something else, but with no change of essence, it is typically followed by the keyword ‘into’ (eis). This is found in Scripture in 1 Corinthians 4:6 and 2 Corinthians 11:13-15. But 1 Corinthians 4:6 exposes the fact that metaschématizó can refer to a transferal rather than a transformation.

This can be applied to Philippians 3:21 as well, where Paul says that they were awaiting Christ, “who would transfer our body of humiliation to the one conformed to His glorious body.” Philippians 3:21 does not contain the keyword eis. And without that keyword, metaschématizó even more naturally indicates a change, transfer, or exchange, rather than any type of limited transformation. We use similar terminology in English. When we say we are changing our clothes, we aren’t taking one set of clothing and transforming it into a different set of clothing. We are actually exchanging our clothing for different clothing.

In fact, this appears to be exactly how Josephus uses the word metaschématizó twice (without the keyword eis) when describing somebody changing their clothes (Jewish Antiquities 7.257; 8:267).[14] While Josephus uses it to refer to a change of clothes, Paul uses it to refer to a change of bodies. The concept is exactly the same – a change in appearance through an exchange (or transfer) of one outer garment for another. Paul isn’t referring to the body itself being changed, he is referring to the appearance of the individual being changed through a change of bodies.[15] Paul uses an adjective with the word body, but it is still the same usage. Paul saying “he will change our lowly body” is, again, the same as if we were to say “I will change my dirty shirt”.

The nuance of metaschématizó, then, simply refers to doing something to effect some outward change.

The second critical word is summorphos. This is, as already noted, an adjective, meaning that it is a description – in this case, a description of the end result. In other words, it simply describes the second body. It isn’t unusual to see this interpretation as “conformed to the body of His glory” or “to be like His glorious body”, but the actual Greek here, σύμμορφον τῷ σώματι τῆς δόξης αὐτοῦ, can be rendered “one conformed to His glorious body”.

If a player enters a locker room, he subsequently changes his clothes, putting on a uniform conforming to the team for which he plays. The concept is the same here. Furthermore, this is nothing more or less than what Paul talks about in 1 Corinthians 15:35-44, exchanging a natural body for a spiritual, heavenly body. Paul often uses the motif of putting off, putting on, and changing clothes.[16]

Timing

Nor does Paul indicate in Philippians 3:20-21 that the “change” from a lowly body to a glorious body in Philippians 3:21 is relegated to a one-time event. In verse 21, Paul is simply laying out how the “citizenship in Heaven” of verse 20 is ultimately achieved. The only thing that Paul mentions regarding timing is that it wouldn’t happen before Christ had returned.

Neither is Paul saying that the living physical body is part of the end result. He needn’t have gone so far as to say “when we die” in verse 21 because that’s already contextually implied in the scope of “enemies to destruction … but our citizenship is in Heaven” in verses 19-20. Note that the citizenship is not just of Heaven, it is in heaven (ἐν οὐρανοῖς). Paul says nothing here about somehow not having to die or that the end result would occur for all saints at the same time. He merely indicates that once Christ has come, the heavenly body would be available when the “body of humiliation” is put off.

With Christ having come (verse 20), it is simply a matter of exchanging one body for another. This simple truth remains for Christians today. When we die, we change our clothes, taking off our physical body and putting on our heavenly body.

Summary

All saints have citizenship in Heaven, where eternal life is realized. Paul is saying nothing different in Philippians 3:21 than he says in 1 Corinthians 15:35-44 and 2 Corinthians 5:1-4 – there are two bodies. The physical body comes first, but is discarded for the glorious heavenly body suited for eternal life.

For the saint, the body of our physical existence is taken off and discarded at death, and the spiritual body required for eternal life in Heaven is put on. We do not sow the body that is to be (1 Cor. 15:37). There is a natural body, and there is also a spiritual body (1 Cor. 15:44). The physical is first, and then the spiritual (1 Cor. 15:46). Two different bodies. We change clothes – bodies – when we die and realize our citizenship in Heaven with eternal life. This was inaugurated at the Parousia, beginning with the resurrection of the dead.

In Philippians 3:21, Paul is merely indicating how the ultimate citizenship in Heaven would be realized. Paul contrasts the destiny of the enemies of the Cross – “destruction” and “shame” – with the opposite destiny – “glory” – for believers who have citizenship in Heaven. And this would be accomplished by the discarding of the natural, lowly body and changing it for a spiritual, heavenly, glorious body to be like Christ. Paul isn’t speaking of a one-time event, but of a reality that would begin once Christ returned. And for believers today, in what the New Testament refers to as “the age to come”, it remains a blessed reality.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________

[1] Whether this refers to a rapture or some other means of transportation, the result is the same – life in the New Heavens and Earth, where the current planet, as we know it, ceases to exist.

[2] The words ἀπώλεια (apóleia), and ἀπόλλυμι (apollumi) actually derive from the Greek word ὄλεθρος (olethros), which refers to destruction through ruination, but “does not imply ‘extinction’ (annihilation).” – HELPS Word-studies. While one cannot explicitly define a word based solely on its lemma, it can help when attempting to determine nuance. Usage is always more important than simply looking at the lemma, as derived words sometimes take on a different definition than that of the root word itself. In this case, the nuance becomes clearer in such verses as Matt. 9:17, which speaks of ruined wineskins.

[3] This should be quite obvious in Rom. 3:21-24, where the plural possessive their is twice used with the noun heart. In the first instance (v. 21), heart is in the singular, but in the second instance (v. 24), it is in the plural. Yet the intent is the same in both cases. The first instance makes use of the distributive singular.

[4] This includes, but is not limited to, F.C. Conybeare and St. George Stock, A Grammar of Septuagint Greek, Hendrickson Publishers, Inc. edition (1988), originally published by Ginn and Company, Boston, MA (1905), pg. 54; Friedrich Blass and Albert Debrunner, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, translated by Robert W. Funk, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL (1961), section 140, pg. 77; James Hope Moulton, Wilbert Francis Howard, Nigel Turner, A Grammar of New Testament Greek, Volume III: Syntax, T&T Clark International, London and New York (1963), pgs. 23-25. See also Nigel Turner, A Grammar of New Testament Greek. III. Syntax (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1963), pp. 311-13; A.T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research (Nashville, TN: Broadman, 1934), pp. 403-406. 9.

[5] This is actually based on an assumption that Christ’s body was transformed when He rose from the dead. There’s no mention of such a transformation in Scripture, nor any indication that before His death, Christ couldn’t do some of the things that He did after He rose from the dead.
Others have suggested that His body didn’t transform until the ascension into Heaven. But there is no evidence of that, either.
Christ’s body was unique, due to His combination of human and divine genetics. There is no indication that it was in need of a transformation at all.

[6] Walter Bauer, Frederick William Danker, William Frederick Arndt & Felix Wilbur Gingrich; Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, entry on metaschématizó.

[7] This is borne out in the Septuagint in 4 Macc. 9:22, where the middle voice is also used. The phrase ἐν πυρὶ μετασχηματιζόμενος εἰς ἀφθαρσίαν would seem to indicate “in fire transformed into immortality”, but in context, and considering the middle voice of metaschématizó that is used, this “immortality” is merely a seeming deathlessness in the physical sense. The young man in 4 Macc. 9:22 wasn’t actually immortal, but only had an appearance (or disguise) whereby it seemed he was defying death because of the fire. There was no actual change. He did, in fact, die because of this torture (verse 25).

[8] Such a metamorphic change would be indicated by the Greek word μεταμορφόω (metamorphoó), from which the English verb metamorphose, and its related noun, metamorphosis, derive.

[9] Eusebius of Caesarea, Historia ecclesiastica 2.6

[10] Diodorus Siculus, Bibliotheca Historica 1.81

[11] Plutarch, Agesilaus 603 14.2

[12] Plutarch, Quaestiones Convivales 5.6

[13] For example, Plutarch also uses the word to indicate that nature changes the appearance of the world – Plutarch, De Iside et Osiride, section 54. In De Defectu Oraculorum section 28, Plutarch uses the word to indicate a “refashioning” of the world by the gods, in this case Zeus. In both cases, the world itself doesn’t change in essence, it merely has a change of appearance. Athenasius (The Deipnosophists, 4, 81) uses the word to refer to how a lyre could “transform” a song. Cassius Dio Cocceianus, (Historiae Romanae, book 74) uses the word to indicate that a crowd could “transform” facts into ridiculous rumors. Again, neither the song nor the facts were actually changed. Likewise, in his letter to Herodotus (55), Epicurus uses this word to talk about matter changing shape and configuration. In Plato, Laws, Book 10, section 903e, Plato refers to gods transforming things, “as, for example, fire into water”. But this must be seen within the background of Philo’s classical Greek philosophy, where fire was considered one of the four major elements, and was the element that shaped much of the rest of creation. As such, fire would be the ultimate method of reshaping or altering things.

[14] In Jewish Antiquities 7.257, the Greek is μετασχηματίσας γὰρ ἑαυτὸν Δαυίδης, which is rendered literally as “and David changed himself”. It is translated as “David changed his clothes” by both William Whiston and Patrick Rogers. In earlier editions of Josephus’s works, the William Whiston translation is rendered “David changed his habit”, but in later editions, this has been updated to “David changed his clothes”, since ‘habit’ is an archaic reference to clothing. The intent remains the same. H. St. J. Thackarey, translates this as “David changed his appearance” but includes a footnote indicating that it can mean “changed his dress”.
In Jewish Antiquities, 8.267, the Greek is ἡ δὲ μετασχηματισαμένη, καθὼς αὐτῇ προσέταξεν ὁ ἀνήρ, which is literally rendered simply as “she changed”. And, like 7.257, William Whiston (later editions) and Patrick Rogers translate that to mean that the wife of Jeroboam changed her clothes, as the context warrants. H. St. J. Thackarey translates this as “she changed her dress”.

[15] There is no “rapture” here. Such a change would be a morphological change of the body (morphe), rather than a schematic change in appearance (schéma).

[16] See Eph. 6:10-20, for example. With respect to the heavenly body, see 2 Cor. 5:1-4.