A
Asyncritus
Guest
Rather than clog up the 'Is Jesus God?' thread, I'm posting this separately here.
THE NEW EXPOSITION OF PHILIPPIANS 2
Any exposition of a passage of scripture which fails to take account of its Old Testament connections, is bound to lead to expository disaster, theological confusion and just plain error.
This is exemplified by the complete nonsense that has been written about Philippians 2, and the ‘kenosis’ theory – both of which are due to carelessness and inattention to the scriptural details which abound in the passage.
That paid theologians could miss these points is as incomprehensible as it is reprehensible. Permit me to justify these statements.
I am using, as is my habit, the English Revised Version, which is the most accurate version that exists.
1 ¶ If there is therefore any comfort in Christ, if any consolation of love, if any fellowship of the Spirit, if any tender mercies and compassions,
2 fulfill ye my joy, that ye be of the same mind, having the same love, being of one accord, of one mind;
3 doing nothing through faction or through vainglory, but in lowliness of mind each counting other better than himself;
4 not looking each of you to his own things, but each of you also to the things of others.
The above 4 verses provide the reason why the following passage is being written. It is to convince the readers that they should not think more highly of themselves than of others, and not to be too self-centred, but rather others-centred, in the middle of the tribulation which they were undergoing.
5 Have this mind in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
6 who, being in the form of God,
The scriptural allusion is to the creation of the first Adam, who was made ‘in the image and likeness of God’: 26 ¶ And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: Gen 1.26 ¶ ‘And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:…’
The general hullabaloo about the meaning of ‘in the form of God’ is now shown to be useless and misguided. Jesus is the ‘last Adam’ (1 Cor 15: 45), and Paul is drawing that exact parallel here.
counted it not a prize to be on an equality with God,
The Revised version margin makes the most sense of this passage: “Who thought equality with God not a thing to be grasped (snatched)” as Adam did: ‘Ye shall be as God, knowing good and evil’. Jesus rejected this temptation in the wilderness.
7 but emptied himself,
This is a significant and important rendering of the passage. Several version agree with this: (ASV,Darby, HCSB, RSV). Whether they realised the significance of the rendering is doubtful.
How does one empty a vessel? By pouring out its contents. And here begin the allusions to Isaiah 53, which as you all know, or should do, is the most powerful passage about the crucifixion in the entire OT.
12 Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he poured out his soul unto death…
taking the form of a servant…
Isaiah again:
42.1: Behold my servant, whom I uphold
52.13 ¶ Behold, my servant shall deal prudently…
10 ¶ … and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand. (Means He did what God pleased…)
being made in the likeness of men;
The word ‘likeness’ is used because unlike Adam, He did no sin, neither was any guile found in His mouth.
8 and being found in fashion as a man,
Back to the allusions to Adam: He was one of Adam’s descendants, but that was as far as He allowed it to go.
he humbled himself,
He humbled Himself thus:
Jn 13.3 Jesus, knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands, and that he came forth from God, and goeth unto God,
4 riseth from supper, and layeth aside his garments; and he took a towel, and girded himself.
5 Then he poureth water into the bason, and began to wash the disciples’ feet, and to wipe them with the towel wherewith he was girded.
This was the task of a servant, and Jesus humbled Himself in the doing of this thing – despite the fact that He was their Master, and was taking the form/likeness of their servant.
becoming obedient even unto death, yea, the death of the cross.
Isa.53.7 He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth.
[…]
10 ¶ Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief… the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.
It was God’s wish that this should happen. The Lord expressed His command, and His servant obeyed Him implicitly, even to death…
9 Wherefore also God highly exalted him,
Note: GOD EXALTED Him.
12 Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death…
His reward is the exaltation God gave Him for his obedience
and gave unto him the name which is above every name;
We observe that GOD GAVE HIM the name that is above every name. The lesser is blessed of the greater.
10 that in the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven and things on earth and things under the earth,
Isa.53.12 Therefore I will give Him the many as a portion, and He will receive the mighty as spoil,
These are the knees that are bending.
11 and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
I think that one of the most objectionable features of evangelical and Pentecostal worship is shown here.
‘Jesus is Lord’ is their cry, and this message is blazoned over their doors everywhere. Yet, they either do not know, or do not care even if they do, that their’s is only a partial and incomplete quotation of this verse.
It ends with the potent words ‘TO THE GLORY OF GOD THE FATHER’. Why is this always missed out? Perhaps you people can tell me.
If Paul thought it important enough to put it here, because his God did all this for us, and for Jesus, and should receive the glory due to His Name, then why is He omitted in such an obvious and blatantly improper manner by all these churches?
By leaving Him off their doors etc, He is being slighted, and I cannot imagine that He is particularly pleased about this shoddy treatment.
But to return to our subject. I trust that this exposition meets your approval (I somehow doubt it!) and perhaps provokes some serious re-consideration of your current views.
Asyncritus
THE NEW EXPOSITION OF PHILIPPIANS 2
Any exposition of a passage of scripture which fails to take account of its Old Testament connections, is bound to lead to expository disaster, theological confusion and just plain error.
This is exemplified by the complete nonsense that has been written about Philippians 2, and the ‘kenosis’ theory – both of which are due to carelessness and inattention to the scriptural details which abound in the passage.
That paid theologians could miss these points is as incomprehensible as it is reprehensible. Permit me to justify these statements.
I am using, as is my habit, the English Revised Version, which is the most accurate version that exists.
1 ¶ If there is therefore any comfort in Christ, if any consolation of love, if any fellowship of the Spirit, if any tender mercies and compassions,
2 fulfill ye my joy, that ye be of the same mind, having the same love, being of one accord, of one mind;
3 doing nothing through faction or through vainglory, but in lowliness of mind each counting other better than himself;
4 not looking each of you to his own things, but each of you also to the things of others.
The above 4 verses provide the reason why the following passage is being written. It is to convince the readers that they should not think more highly of themselves than of others, and not to be too self-centred, but rather others-centred, in the middle of the tribulation which they were undergoing.
5 Have this mind in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
6 who, being in the form of God,
The scriptural allusion is to the creation of the first Adam, who was made ‘in the image and likeness of God’: 26 ¶ And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: Gen 1.26 ¶ ‘And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:…’
The general hullabaloo about the meaning of ‘in the form of God’ is now shown to be useless and misguided. Jesus is the ‘last Adam’ (1 Cor 15: 45), and Paul is drawing that exact parallel here.
counted it not a prize to be on an equality with God,
The Revised version margin makes the most sense of this passage: “Who thought equality with God not a thing to be grasped (snatched)” as Adam did: ‘Ye shall be as God, knowing good and evil’. Jesus rejected this temptation in the wilderness.
7 but emptied himself,
This is a significant and important rendering of the passage. Several version agree with this: (ASV,Darby, HCSB, RSV). Whether they realised the significance of the rendering is doubtful.
How does one empty a vessel? By pouring out its contents. And here begin the allusions to Isaiah 53, which as you all know, or should do, is the most powerful passage about the crucifixion in the entire OT.
12 Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he poured out his soul unto death…
taking the form of a servant…
Isaiah again:
42.1: Behold my servant, whom I uphold
52.13 ¶ Behold, my servant shall deal prudently…
10 ¶ … and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand. (Means He did what God pleased…)
being made in the likeness of men;
The word ‘likeness’ is used because unlike Adam, He did no sin, neither was any guile found in His mouth.
8 and being found in fashion as a man,
Back to the allusions to Adam: He was one of Adam’s descendants, but that was as far as He allowed it to go.
he humbled himself,
He humbled Himself thus:
Jn 13.3 Jesus, knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands, and that he came forth from God, and goeth unto God,
4 riseth from supper, and layeth aside his garments; and he took a towel, and girded himself.
5 Then he poureth water into the bason, and began to wash the disciples’ feet, and to wipe them with the towel wherewith he was girded.
This was the task of a servant, and Jesus humbled Himself in the doing of this thing – despite the fact that He was their Master, and was taking the form/likeness of their servant.
becoming obedient even unto death, yea, the death of the cross.
Isa.53.7 He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth.
[…]
10 ¶ Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief… the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.
It was God’s wish that this should happen. The Lord expressed His command, and His servant obeyed Him implicitly, even to death…
9 Wherefore also God highly exalted him,
Note: GOD EXALTED Him.
12 Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death…
His reward is the exaltation God gave Him for his obedience
and gave unto him the name which is above every name;
We observe that GOD GAVE HIM the name that is above every name. The lesser is blessed of the greater.
10 that in the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven and things on earth and things under the earth,
Isa.53.12 Therefore I will give Him the many as a portion, and He will receive the mighty as spoil,
These are the knees that are bending.
11 and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
I think that one of the most objectionable features of evangelical and Pentecostal worship is shown here.
‘Jesus is Lord’ is their cry, and this message is blazoned over their doors everywhere. Yet, they either do not know, or do not care even if they do, that their’s is only a partial and incomplete quotation of this verse.
It ends with the potent words ‘TO THE GLORY OF GOD THE FATHER’. Why is this always missed out? Perhaps you people can tell me.
If Paul thought it important enough to put it here, because his God did all this for us, and for Jesus, and should receive the glory due to His Name, then why is He omitted in such an obvious and blatantly improper manner by all these churches?
By leaving Him off their doors etc, He is being slighted, and I cannot imagine that He is particularly pleased about this shoddy treatment.
But to return to our subject. I trust that this exposition meets your approval (I somehow doubt it!) and perhaps provokes some serious re-consideration of your current views.
Asyncritus
Last edited by a moderator: