• Love God, and love one another!

    Share your heart for Christ and others in Godly Love

    https://christianforums.net/forums/god_love/

  • Want to discuss private matters, or make a few friends?

    Ask for membership to the Men's or Lady's Locker Rooms

    For access, please contact a member of staff and they can add you in!

  • Wake up and smell the coffee!

    Join us for a little humor in Joy of the Lord

    https://christianforums.net/forums/humor_and_jokes/

  • Need prayer and encouragement?

    Come share your heart's concerns in the Prayer Forum

    https://christianforums.net/forums/prayer/

  • Desire to be a vessel of honor unto the Lord Jesus Christ?

    Join Hidden in Him and For His Glory for discussions on how

    https://christianforums.net/threads/become-a-vessel-of-honor-part-2.112306/

  • Have questions about the Christian faith?

    Come ask us what's on your mind in Questions and Answers

    https://christianforums.net/forums/questions-and-answers/

  • CFN has a new look and a new theme

    "I bore you on eagle's wings, and brought you to Myself" (Exodus 19:4)

    More new themes coming in the future!

  • Read the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ?

    Read through this brief blog, and receive eternal salvation as the free gift of God

    /blog/the-gospel

  • Focus on the Family

    Strengthening families through biblical principles.

    Focus on the Family addresses the use of biblical principles in parenting and marriage to strengthen the family.

A New Exposition of Philippians 2

  • Thread starter Thread starter Asyncritus
  • Start date Start date
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
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Obviously you've put some thought into this (for which I applaud you), yet I do not think that it is a good exegesis of the passage based on a sound hermeneutic.

To put it another way, I think that you've used a bit of the "scatter-gun" approach and missed the mark along the way. (And I assure you that I mean that kindly).

What I would like to do then, is to take a look at the underlying Greek to see if the conclusion that you've drawn is what Paul actually wrote. Remember that where in English we might have one word, Greek might have four words; each with a slightly different meaning.

Up to a point you are correct. Paul here is admonishing Christians not to think too highly of themselves and to be humble. After all, if Jesus could wash the feet of His disciples, who are we not too treat each other in like manner, right?

I believe that Paul picks his words quite carefully to declare both the reality of the manhood, and the reality of the divinity of Jesus Christ.

So then, let's get to the meat of the matter...the bold words are the one's that we'll look at in particular.

Vs 5-8: Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men.

"Being" is from the verb huparchein which is not the common word for being. It denotes or is used to describe in particular that part of a man which is his very essence and can not be changed...that part of a man that remains the same in any circumstance.

"Form": There are two commonly used Greek words for "form" (although there are more)...Morphe and Schema. Morphe is the essential form which never alters, Schema is the outward form which changes from time to time. For example: The Morphe of a man (no matter what his age) is humanity. The schema of a man would be baby, young boy, man, aged, etc.

The word used is Morphe...the essential form which never alters...always remains the same.

Finally (at least for now) is the word translated variously as "robbery", "something to be grasped", etc., is the word Harpagmos (to snatch, to clutch). The phrase: did not consider equality with God something to be snatched, when taken in context is understood to mean that Jesus didn't have to snatch at what He already had by right.

So...to put this all together:
Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, who, being (the essence of a man which can not be changed under any circumstance) in the form (the essential form which never alters) of God, did not consider it robbery (something to be snatched at since it was his by right) to be equal with God, but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men.

I'll stop there to let my brain rest before I go on to the rest of the verse, and start tying it into OT prophecy. :p
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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.
Perhaps but it first must be shown that there is a connection there that actually changes the meaning of what Paul says.

Asyncritus said:
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.
No offense but I would much rather trust those who dedicate themselves to learning and understanding the biblical languages. That someone such as yourself has now just found something that thousands upon thousands of scholars, over many centuries all seem to have missed really casts doubt on your argument.

That you make mention that they're "paid" seems to show that you think they are somehow biased towards any traditional understanding of this verse.

Asyncritus said:
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.
Yes, I agree as I have argued this as well.

Asyncritus said:
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.
But here, I do not agree. You have not at all shown any sort of connection and yet are certain as to the allusion to Adam. This is where the previously mentioned paid theologians have the edge--they actually understand the Greek meanings of the words used. You do not even argue to meaning but argue instead to a highly speculative connection to Adam, which isn't there.

There certainly are passages where Paul speaks of Adam and Christ and indeed does draw a parallel there, but this certainly isn't one of those passages.

Asyncritus said:
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.
There are two very good understandings of this passage. One, as was discussed previously, is that the Greek word used for robbery can also mean "something to be forcibly retained or held on to," or so it is said. This would imply that Jesus was God but, for the sake of the salvation of man and the redemption of creation, he would not forcibly or tightly hold on to his privileges as God.

The second meaning, which at first doesn't imply that he is God, is that he did not see equality with God as something to be "snatched violently," or "seized." In this sense, it doesn't mean that he isn't God, but rather that in his humbled state as a man, as a servant, he knew men would be see him as being equal with God through his death and resurrection, rather than compelling men to worship him by somehow using his divine nature. He did it through his suffering and humiliation rather than This is further supported by verses 9-11.

What we must keep in mind is that Paul elsewhere makes it clear that he thinks Christ is divine.

Asyncritus said:
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…
Again, why do you think you have found some meaning that no other has found? Simply because you disagree with others' interpretation of this passage?

First, notice that Christ emptied himself. He did the emptying. Second, notice where this statement lies: directly in between the two statements "counted it not a prize to be on an equality with God," and "taking the form of a servant." It is very important to keep this in mind. This leads to a significant point that you have missed:

He emptied himself. That is, he was full of something of which it was necessary to empty himself of in order to become a man.

It is very significant that Paul uses this phrase to transition from speaking of Christ being in the "form" or "nature" of God to being in the "form of a servant."

Asyncritus said:
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…)
And yet you fail to explain the obvious once again: Paul's parallel here of "the form of God" with "the form of a servant." You don't even attempt to address this clear contrast that Paul is making.

Asyncritus said:
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.
That doesn't explain why "likeness" is used.

Asyncritus said:
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.
There is no allusion to Adam. This is simply about Christ being found as a man. Again, this further contrasts with his "being in the form of God."

Asyncritus said:
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…
In his humbled state, Christ obeyed.

Asyncritus said:
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.
There is no need to suggest such things. Jesus is Lord, as is stated elsewhere (Rom 10:9 and 1 Cor 12:3 for starters) and need have nothing to do with the text. There is absolutely nothing wrong or improper with stating "Jesus is Lord." Once again you are engaging in ad hominem arguments (as you did at the start with the "paid theologians") as though it proves your interpretation to be the correct one.

No offense but your allusions to the OT, some of which may be correct, really break up the text into pieces that don't have a whole lot of relation to what Paul is saying. And any allusions to the OT that may be there, don't at all change the meaning of what Paul says. Not only that, you don't even deal with the Greek and what Paul is actually writing. This would be to presume the meanings of the words Paul uses and force meanings into the passage through the use of some OT quotes.
 
Perhaps but it first must be shown that there is a connection there that actually changes the meaning of what Paul says.


No offense but I would much rather trust those who dedicate themselves to learning and understanding the biblical languages. That someone such as yourself has now just found something that thousands upon thousands of scholars, over many centuries all seem to have missed really casts doubt on your argument.

That you make mention that they're "paid" seems to show that you think they are somehow biased towards any traditional understanding of this verse.


Yes, I agree as I have argued this as well.


But here, I do not agree. You have not at all shown any sort of connection and yet are certain as to the allusion to Adam. This is where the previously mentioned paid theologians have the edge--they actually understand the Greek meanings of the words used. You do not even argue to meaning but argue instead to a highly speculative connection to Adam, which isn't there.

There certainly are passages where Paul speaks of Adam and Christ and indeed does draw a parallel there, but this certainly isn't one of those passages.


There are two very good understandings of this passage. One, as was discussed previously, is that the Greek word used for robbery can also mean "something to be forcibly retained or held on to," or so it is said. This would imply that Jesus was God but, for the sake of the salvation of man and the redemption of creation, he would not forcibly or tightly hold on to his privileges as God.

The second meaning, which at first doesn't imply that he is God, is that he did not see equality with God as something to be "snatched violently," or "seized." In this sense, it doesn't mean that he isn't God, but rather that in his humbled state as a man, as a servant, he knew men would be see him as being equal with God through his death and resurrection, rather than compelling men to worship him by somehow using his divine nature. He did it through his suffering and humiliation rather than This is further supported by verses 9-11.

What we must keep in mind is that Paul elsewhere makes it clear that he thinks Christ is divine.


Again, why do you think you have found some meaning that no other has found? Simply because you disagree with others' interpretation of this passage?

First, notice that Christ emptied himself. He did the emptying. Second, notice where this statement lies: directly in between the two statements "counted it not a prize to be on an equality with God," and "taking the form of a servant." It is very important to keep this in mind. This leads to a significant point that you have missed:

He emptied himself. That is, he was full of something of which it was necessary to empty himself of in order to become a man.

It is very significant that Paul uses this phrase to transition from speaking of Christ being in the "form" or "nature" of God to being in the "form of a servant."


And yet you fail to explain the obvious once again: Paul's parallel here of "the form of God" with "the form of a servant." You don't even attempt to address this clear contrast that Paul is making.


That doesn't explain why "likeness" is used.


There is no allusion to Adam. This is simply about Christ being found as a man. Again, this further contrasts with his "being in the form of God."


In his humbled state, Christ obeyed.


There is no need to suggest such things. Jesus is Lord, as is stated elsewhere (Rom 10:9 and 1 Cor 12:3 for starters) and need have nothing to do with the text. There is absolutely nothing wrong or improper with stating "Jesus is Lord." Once again you are engaging in ad hominem arguments (as you did at the start with the "paid theologians") as though it proves your interpretation to be the correct one.

No offense but your allusions to the OT, some of which may be correct, really break up the text into pieces that don't have a whole lot of relation to what Paul is saying. And any allusions to the OT that may be there, don't at all change the meaning of what Paul says. Not only that, you don't even deal with the Greek and what Paul is actually writing. This would be to presume the meanings of the words Paul uses and force meanings into the passage through the use of some OT quotes.

I think everybody makes too much out of what Paul there said.

I prefer the K.I.S.S. rule.

I know that my son is equal to me and would dare not claim that he was in any way inferior. It would defy love for me to see him different than that. And I expect good things of him because I see him as equal to me and know that what I do is not above him if I but share with him the resources that I have at my disposal.

But that does not mean my son is me.

However, if I send him to you to represent me and you do not accord him the honor as though he is me I will naturally be very upset with you for treating my son as though he has not any of my rights I gave him to represent me to you.

In my book the whole bunch of you are turning something very simple into ridiculous fantasies, either way you go.

I suppose, though, that I also would be upset that you saw him as me in a way that usurps me and takes me out of the picture. But that too would be your fault unless my son orchestrated it as Absalom did toward his father David.

It puzzles me that none of you ever seem to see or comment on this rather obvious reality within your arguments.

Could this be? 1 Timothy 6:5 "Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself."

The K.I.S.S. rule merely means "Keep It Simple Stupid."

But here is what God the Father demands we do and gives the Son the right to punish us for if we fail to comply:

This is to be viewed as the Son speaking:

Psalms 2:1 ¶Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing?
2 The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD [my Father], and against his anointed [Son], saying,
3 Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us.
4 He that sitteth in the heavens [the Father] shall laugh: the Lord [the Son] shall have them in derision.
5 Then shall he speak [the Son beginning to relay what the Father told him] unto them in his wrath, and vex them in his sore displeasure.
6 Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion.
7 ¶I will declare the decree: the LORD [my Father] hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.
8 [the Son now tells us the Father also told the Son] Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession.
9 Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel.
10 ¶Be wise now therefore, O ye kings: be instructed, ye judges of the earth.
11 Serve the LORD [my Father who commands this of you] with fear, and rejoice with trembling.
12 Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him [that is, in me the Son].

It does not get simpler than that.

Follow the K.I.S.S. rule.

Jesus is very loyal to his Father and all of his Father's commands. If we fail to oblige the Son in respecting both he and his Father we are in deep trouble.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
We observe that GOD GAVE HIM the name that is above every name. The lesser is blessed of the greater.

The Son, Who is God MADE HIMSELF of no reputation. The Father did not humble Him. He humbled himself......to be a man, and yet again to die for us, and yet again to die on the cross for Us

Jesus is God, who became man, to be man and to pay man's price for sin, so the first step as a man....was to put Himself into submission....to the Father. No one did this to Him....and in His submission, the Father raised the son up again.....that every knee shall bow, and every tongue confess HIM Lord
 
The Son, Who is God MADE HIMSELF of no reputation. The Father did not humble Him. He humbled himself......to be a man, and yet again to die for us, and yet again to die on the cross for Us

Jesus is God, who became man, to be man and to pay man's price for sin, so the first step as a man....was to put Himself into submission....to the Father. No one did this to Him....and in His submission, the Father raised the son up again.....that every knee shall bow, and every tongue confess HIM Lord

Deuteronomy 30:10 If thou shalt hearken unto the voice of the LORD thy God, to keep his commandments and his statutes which are written in this book of the law, and if thou turn unto the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul.
11 ¶For this commandment which I command thee this day, it is not hidden from thee, neither is it far off.
12 It is not in heaven, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it?
13 Neither is it beyond the sea, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it?
14 But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it.
15 ¶See, I have set before thee this day life and good, and death and evil;
16 In that I command thee this day to love the LORD thy God, to walk in his ways, and to keep his commandments and his statutes and his judgments, that thou mayest live and multiply: and the LORD thy God shall bless thee in the land whither thou goest to possess it.

There God scolded Israel for making the Law some complicated far aloof thing.

Have we not done that same thing with some of our doctrines?
 
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]What I would like to do then, is to take a look at the underlying Greek to see if the conclusion that you've drawn is what Paul actually wrote. Remember that where in English we might have one word, Greek might have four words; each with a slightly different meaning.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]I imagine, Mac, that like me, you don’t know any Greek. (Correct me here if I’m wrong, please). I am, therefore, compelled to use the translators, who are in general, accurate, if sometimes highly biased.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I tend to stick to the RV/AV combination which is a good one, with occasional dips into the more modern versions which often display their bias quite crudely

Up to a point you are correct. Paul here is admonishing Christians not to think too highly of themselves and to be humble. After all, if Jesus could wash the feet of His disciples, who are we not too treat each other in like manner, right?
[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Absolutely.

I believe that Paul picks his words quite carefully to declare both the reality of the manhood, and the reality of the divinity of Jesus Christ.
[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Now here you go off the rails, I think. There is no reason why he should go off into the realms of theological fantasy, when the Philippians were facing a dreadful amount of persecution. Every word is relevant to the issue they face.

So then, let's get to the meat of the matter...the bold words are the one's that we'll look at in particular.

Vs 5-8: Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men.
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]"Being" is from the verb huparchein which is not the common word for being. It denotes or is used to describe in particular that part of a man which is his very essence and can not be changed...that part of a man that remains the same in any circumstance.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]The verb is huparchw, and this is the present infinitive. It denotes a current state of affairs.

The word used is Morphe...the essential form which never alters...always remains the same.

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I don’t think you have picked up the essential scriptural link here. That there IS a scriptural link, cannot be doubted. You have, instead, gone off into flights of Greek philosophy (I suppose) which have no place in the NT.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The scriptural link here is to Gen 1.26, where Adam is described as being in God’s image and likeness. If that is not the ‘form’ of God, I don’t know what is.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Don’t you think that is a valid point?[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Agreeing that it is, explains the following words very simply. Here is the last Adam undergoing severe, and possibly fatal temptation in a garden, yet – which He couldn’t do, if He were God in essential nature which couldn’t be changed. God, you know, I’m sure, cannot be tempted with evil.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]If you don’t agree, then you have the difficulty of comprehending how else these people, who are clearly steeped in the OT, would and could understand the words. Like me, they are not theologians, and have no theological earth-moving equipment. But what they do have, is some scriptural background, meaning Old Testament scriptural background.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Therefore, the likelihood is that Paul is using that background to make his points.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
Finally (at least for now) is the word translated variously as "robbery", "something to be grasped", etc., is the word Harpagmos (to snatch, to clutch). The phrase:
did not consider equality with God something to be snatched, when taken in context is understood to mean that Jesus didn't have to snatch at what He already had by right.
[FONT=&quot]

So...to put this all together:
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, who, being (the essence of a man which can not be changed under any circumstance) in the form (the essential form which never alters) of God,[/FONT]


[FONT=&quot]Can you not see that the above finishes any case you may be making?[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]If He WAS God, and that cannot be changed under any circumstances, then there was absolutely no temptation to do wrong. God cannot be tempted with evil.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]That immediately invalidates any usefulness to the Philippians, who were clearly in a situation where they could, would, and were, doing wrong – hence the exhortation to copy Christ.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]He had the opportunity to do wrong. He could have walked away from the cross – indeed He says so:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Jn 12.[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]27 ¶ Now is my soul troubled; and what shall I say? Father, save me from this hour: but for this cause came I unto this hour.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Lu 22:42 Saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Your hypothesis has some severe problems at this point, I think.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]did not consider it robbery (something to be snatched at since it was his by right) to be equal with God,
[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Again you miss the obvious OT connection. What was Adam’s temptation: Ye shall be as God, knowing good and evil. Equality was what he wanted, and attempted to steal it, as a robber would. It was not his by right, and there was an express prohibition placed on his taking/grasping/snatching it.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]But he did do so, and the contrast with Christ could not be greater, and more relevant.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]This was of extreme relevance to the Philippians, who could take the easy way out, and capitulate to the enemies of God, snatching at the opportunity to live.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]It is here that my exposition really brings to light something that has been completely missed by our theological friends.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The Revised Version, as I said, translates: he emptied himself. Which clearly indicates a ‘pouring out’ of something from a vessel.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Now you can go off into the realms of theological mysticism, or you can use the distinct scriptural allusion (distinct, that is, once I’ve pointed it out) to Isa 53 – which they all knew, and I’m sure you do too.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]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: and he was numbered with
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]He deliberately chose to be killed, to pour out His life’s blood as a sacrifice, to empty Himself as the text says.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]It is very noteworthy that Paul says much the same thing in 2.17, the very same context, as the emptying of Himself:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]17 indeed, even if my lifeblood is poured out as a drink offering over the sacrifice and service of your faith, I will still be glad and rejoice with you all.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]So that thought – that Jesus poured out His lifeblood as a sacrifice for us – was very much in the forefront of his mind. And you can easily see how relevant to the Philippians this really was: they were being called upon to do the same. Why should they?[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Because the same thing would happen to them as to the Lord:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] The same will happen to us, he is saying:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Rev 5. 9 And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation;[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]10 And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
 
I have one thing (well actually two) to say about "A New Exposition of Philippians 2"- If it is new, it isn't true. If it is true, it isn't new. Enough said....
 
I have one thing (well actually two) to say about "A New Exposition of Philippians 2"- If it is new, it isn't true. If it is true, it isn't new. Enough said....

Was that worth saying Proverbs3/5?

Free, I'm working on a reply to you. Your posts take time and careful thought to answer.
 
No offense but I would much rather trust those who dedicate themselves to learning and understanding the biblical languages. That someone such as yourself has now just found something that thousands upon thousands of scholars, over many centuries all seem to have missed really casts doubt on your argument.

I apologise if my statement lacks the necessary humility - and re-reading it, it certainly seems to do so.

However, the fact remains that the undoubted allusion to Isa 53 has been missed completely in the 'he emptied himself' passage.

But here, I do not agree. You have not at all shown any sort of connection and yet are certain as to the allusion to Adam. This is where the previously mentioned paid theologians have the edge--they actually understand the Greek meanings of the words used. You do not even argue to meaning but argue instead to a highly speculative connection to Adam, which isn't there.
Let's be clear here Free. Someone who knows a lot about paint, is not necessarily an artist. They may know a great deal about the language, but not necessarily what it means, and I retain my degree of skepticism. I don't believe that it is irrational skepticism, merely a scripturally well-informed one.


As I show in my response to Mac, the allusion is not a speculative one at all. It is extremely relevant to the situation of the Philippians, who could have chosen the easy route to avoid pains, loss and death at the hands of their opponents.


Jesus didn’t do so – but, and here’s the point I find un-gainsayable – He could have done so.


If He couldn’t, then He wasn ‘t ‘tempted in all points like as we are’. The last bit, ‘like as we are’ is negated, and there was no ‘conquest of sin’. He was invulnerable, and there is no credit due to him at all.


If I cannot be burnt, then where’s the credit due to me for ‘fearlessly’ walking into a burning building to save someone? But if I can be burnt, now that’s a different matter altogether. And so it is right here. He knew He was going to be burnt – and still went in to save us.


[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
 
Part 2 Reply to Free.
There certainly are passages where Paul speaks of Adam and Christ and indeed does draw a parallel there, but this certainly isn't one of those passages.

What makes you say ‘certainly’?

There are two very good understandings of this passage. One, as was discussed previously, is that the Greek word used for robbery can also mean "something to be forcibly retained or held on to," or so it is said. This would imply that Jesus was God but, for the sake of the salvation of man and the redemption of creation, he would not forcibly or tightly hold on to his privileges as God.

The second meaning, which at first doesn't imply that he is God, is that he did not see equality with God as something to be "snatched violently," or "seized." In this sense, it doesn't mean that he isn't God, but rather that in his humbled state as a man, as a servant, he knew men would be see him as being equal with God through his death and resurrection, rather than compelling men to worship him by somehow using his divine nature. He did it through his suffering and humiliation rather than This is further supported by verses 9-11.

When there’s doubt as to the rendering, because I am a Greek incompetent, I look at the alternatives offered by the various translations.


ASV 6 who, existing in the form of God, counted not the being on an equality with God a thing to be grasped,

CJB 6 though he was in the form of god, he did not regard equality with god something to be possessed by force.

ESV 6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped,

NKJV 6 who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God,


RSV 6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped,

WEY 6 Although from the beginning He had the nature of God He did not reckon His equality with God a treasure to be tightly grasped.

NET did not regard equality with God as something to be grasped,

Now I imagine that all these (except CJB) are Trinitarians, and 6 of the 7 go for the ‘grasped/ snatched’ idea. Which fits squarely with the idea I’m proposing here. Adam grasped/ snatched at equality with God – Christ didn’t.

What we must keep in mind is that Paul elsewhere makes it clear that he thinks Christ is divine.

I’m not sure what you mean by ‘divine’. If you mean that He is the Son of God, then I have absolutely no problem with that.

Again, why do you think you have found some meaning that no other has found? Simply because you disagree with others' interpretation of this passage?

Not really. It is because I’ve never heard of anyone else making that specific connection. If you know of anyone who does, I’ll be happy to abandon my claim.

First, notice that Christ emptied himself. He did the emptying.

I think I’ve answered that point by showing that Paul uses the very same idea about himself, and about what could happen to him. He was perfectly prepared to lay down his own life in the service of God and Christ. Thus:

2:17 But even if I am being poured out like a drink offering

He was going to be emptied of his lifeblood, as the Lord was – and as the Philippians were being called upon to do.

Second, notice where this statement lies: directly in between the two statements "counted it not a prize to be on an equality with God," and "taking the form of a servant." It is very important to keep this in mind. This leads to a significant point that you have missed:
He emptied himself. That is, he was full of something of which it was necessary to empty himself of in order to become a man.

I really think, that in view of all the links I have presented with Isaiah 53, the idea that He emptied Himself of something to become a man is a very shaky piece of exposition indeed.

There is not a vestige of any such idea in Isa 53 – or I’ve missed it completely, and would be deeply obliged to you if you could point it out.

I trust that you do agree that there are a pretty fair number of such links to Isa 53?

It is very significant that Paul uses this phrase to transition from speaking of Christ being in the "form" or "nature" of God to being in the "form of a servant."

As I’ve stated, Adam was in the ‘image and likeness’ of God. Would you describe him as being in the ‘form’ of God given those words in Gen 1? If not, how would you describe him? And why?

The Adam parallel makes complete sense in this context. Adam, in ‘the image and likeness of God’ i.e. as the first Son of God, refused to be God’s servant and obey God’s instruction not to eat of the tree.

Jesus, ‘in the form’ of God, His Son, refused to disobey God, and refused to grasp/ snatch at equality with God by refusing to die on the cross. Which, as I again point out, He could easily have refused to do. Gethsemane shows how near He was to walking away.

And yet you fail to explain the obvious once again: Paul's parallel here of "the form of God" with "the form of a servant." You don't even attempt to address this clear contrast that Paul is making.

I trust that that is now clear from the previous paragreph.

There is no need to suggest such things. Jesus is Lord, as is stated elsewhere (Rom 10:9 and 1 Cor 12:3 for starters) and need have nothing to do with the text.

The words ‘Jesus Christ is Lord’ are taken directly and only from Php 2, and the words ‘to the glory of God the Father ‘ are omitted.

I think that it is a highly reprehensible practice – especially as these are ‘churches’, and in the whole of the NT, with the sole exception of Mt 16.17, the expression is invariably the ‘church’ or ‘church OF GOD’.

Have a look and see. Then tell me why they omit God from His rightful place over the doors.

There is absolutely nothing wrong or improper with stating "Jesus is Lord."

You are perfectly right – there is nothing wrong in saying so. He is Lord. But we should be saying so with ‘the glory of God the Father’ very firmly in the proper place – at the Head of all things. And in public places, He should be the first to be mentioned, and publicly too.

No offense but your allusions to the OT, some of which may be correct, really break up the text into pieces that don't have a whole lot of relation to what Paul is saying. And any allusions to the OT that may be there, don't at all change the meaning of what Paul says. Not only that, you don't even deal with the Greek and what Paul is actually writing.

This is something I do not believe many expositors recognise: that very very often, the apostles and gospel writers and most especially the Book of Revelation, make long strings of quotations, allusions and references to a single chunk of scripture. (I call them QUASARS, which is the acronym for the first few letters of the 4 words).

This is the case here. There is a string of quasars relating to Isa 53 – and they are there for a reason, not just to show that Paul was au fait with that chapter.

That reason is a very clear one: Isaiah is describing in painful detail how the Lord’s Great Servant behaved in the most extreme of circumstances, and the great reward that was His because He endured that tribulation.

He is our example – and the Philippians, who were undergoing very severe persecution at the time – are being exhorted to observe that example, and to copy it.

That makes perfect sense to me. In fact Peter makes the same points also using Isa 53 in 1 Pet.2

But now look at the ruin that comes about to that very clear and simple message if Jesus was God.

As Mac said, his nature ‘could not be changed’. If in His essential nature He was unchangeably God, and God cannot be tempted to do wrong, then of what value was that as an example to suffering brethren?

If Jesus COULD NOT lose, then there was no battle being fought – the ‘victory’, if it can be called such, was already won, and much scripture was falsified, e.g:

‘He was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin’ Heb 4.15

‘For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted.’ Heb 2.18

Was He tempted like us? Did he suffer being tempted?

I have touched lightly on the priestly function that Christ executed in offering Himself as a sacrifice to God. He is called, as you know, our High Priest (as Heb 4.14, 15).

Now unless those words are meaningless, you have a very serious problem which I may have mentioned before:

Which High Priest was ever equal to the God he served?
 
You make some pretty good points Asyncritus.

I had to make me a copy of what you said to ponder it.! :yes

You are on the ball !!!
 
However, the fact remains that the undoubted allusion to Isa 53 has been missed completely in the 'he emptied himself' passage.
There need not be a connection to Isa 53 at all in this passage but even if there is, it does not change the meaning of the passage.

Asyncritus said:
Let's be clear here Free. Someone who knows a lot about paint, is not necessarily an artist. They may know a great deal about the language, but not necessarily what it means, and I retain my degree of skepticism. I don't believe that it is irrational skepticism, merely a scripturally well-informed one.
On the contrary, to know fully what is being said in Scripture, one must necessarily understand the language. Our understanding, the understanding of those who do not know the language, gives us a great disadvantage in determining the real meaning, or at least in trying to gain a better understanding.

Asyncritus said:
As I show in my response to Mac, the allusion is not a speculative one at all. It is extremely relevant to the situation of the Philippians, who could have chosen the easy route to avoid pains, loss and death at the hands of their opponents.
If this is in response to the allusion to Adam, I still disagree; it is very speculative and you have not shown it to be otherwise. The context of Phil 2 itself, which should be looked at and considered first, shows that this cannot be the cast, or is most likely not the case.

I'm not sure what the Philippians and their opponents have to do with it.

Asyncritus said:
Jesus didn’t do so – but, and here’s the point I find un-gainsayable – He could have done so.


If He couldn’t, then He wasn ‘t ‘tempted in all points like as we are’. The last bit, ‘like as we are’ is negated, and there was no ‘conquest of sin’. He was invulnerable, and there is no credit due to him at all.


If I cannot be burnt, then where’s the credit due to me for ‘fearlessly’ walking into a burning building to save someone? But if I can be burnt, now that’s a different matter altogether. And so it is right here. He knew He was going to be burnt – and still went in to save us.
I'm not sure which point this is addressing in my post but you are making a mistake in reasoning that is similar to another that is being argued.

The error in reasoning is to argue that because God cannot be tempted, Jesus cannot therefore be God. This is the same as "God is not a man," therefore Jesus cannot be God. The first argument ignores the human nature of Christ and attempts to split the mystery of the Incarnation; the second suggests it isn't even possible for God to become a man, which is quite presumptuous.

I will have to get to your other reply later.
 
What makes you say ‘certainly’?
Firstly because Adam isn't mentioned and secondly because it doesn't fit the context, as I will point out below.

Asyncritus said:
When there’s doubt as to the rendering, because I am a Greek incompetent, I look at the alternatives offered by the various translations.


ASV 6 who, existing in the form of God, counted not the being on an equality with God a thing to be grasped,

CJB 6 though he was in the form of god, he did not regard equality with god something to be possessed by force.

ESV 6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped,

NKJV 6 who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God,


RSV 6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped,

WEY 6 Although from the beginning He had the nature of God He did not reckon His equality with God a treasure to be tightly grasped.

NET did not regard equality with God as something to be grasped,

Now I imagine that all these (except CJB) are Trinitarians, and 6 of the 7 go for the ‘grasped/ snatched’ idea. Which fits squarely with the idea I’m proposing here. Adam grasped/ snatched at equality with God – Christ didn’t.
None of the translations go against trinitarianism as all fit within the two meanings I gave. As for another supposed connection between Adam grasping at equality with God, not only is the connection not there, I think it would be difficult to sustain the argument that Adam actually "grasped / snatched at equality with God." That he may have believed the lie that he could become like God, knowing good and evil, does not necessarily mean that he actually tried to become equal to God.

Asyncritus said:
I’m not sure what you mean by ‘divine’. If you mean that He is the Son of God, then I have absolutely no problem with that.
I mean it in the sense that he is deity, he is God.

Asyncritus said:
Not really. It is because I’ve never heard of anyone else making that specific connection. If you know of anyone who does, I’ll be happy to abandon my claim.
My point was that if there was a connection, it would have been found already.

Asyncritus said:
I think I’ve answered that point by showing that Paul uses the very same idea about himself, and about what could happen to him. He was perfectly prepared to lay down his own life in the service of God and Christ. Thus:

2:17 But even if I am being poured out like a drink offering

He was going to be emptied of his lifeblood, as the Lord was – and as the Philippians were being called upon to do.
You are presuming that Christ emptying himself is the same as "being poured out." However, it clearly cannot be the case that this is speaking about the death of Christ since this is prior to his becoming a man. So, no, you haven't answered my point: that Christ is the one emptying himself.

Asyncritus said:
I really think, that in view of all the links I have presented with Isaiah 53, the idea that He emptied Himself of something to become a man is a very shaky piece of exposition indeed.

There is not a vestige of any such idea in Isa 53 – or I’ve missed it completely, and would be deeply obliged to you if you could point it out.

I trust that you do agree that there are a pretty fair number of such links to Isa 53?
You are simply begging the question here. This is a problem so far in all of your responses: you have presumed that there are all these links to different parts of the OT, even to the point of completely ignoring the immediate context and the very meanings of the words Paul uses.

Clearly, there is a progression in the passage:

Php 2:6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped,
Php 2:7 but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.
Php 2:8 And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. (ESV)

1. Jesus was in the form of God.
2. He did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped.
3. But he made himself nothing.
4. He took the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.
5. Being found in human form, he humbled himself even to the point of death on a cross.

I really do not understand how this passage could be understood differently. Again, there is that all important word "but," used here as a conjunction meaning "on the contrary" or "on the other hand." But - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

"I would like another piece of cake but I'm too full."

"He was the president but he resigned his position and became a cab driver."

"Jesus was in the form of God but he made himself nothing and took on the form of a servant."

I trust that it is clear now that "my" understanding that Jesus emptied himself of something in order to become a man, is precisely what Paul is saying and is not the least bit shaky.

Asyncritus said:
As I’ve stated, Adam was in the ‘image and likeness’ of God. Would you describe him as being in the ‘form’ of God given those words in Gen 1? If not, how would you describe him? And why?

The Adam parallel makes complete sense in this context. Adam, in ‘the image and likeness of God’ i.e. as the first Son of God, refused to be God’s servant and obey God’s instruction not to eat of the tree.

Jesus, ‘in the form’ of God, His Son, refused to disobey God, and refused to grasp/ snatch at equality with God by refusing to die on the cross. Which, as I again point out, He could easily have refused to do. Gethsemane shows how near He was to walking away.
Again, there really is no allusion or parallel to Adam here. As I stated earlier, this does not fit the context. Paul has already stated that Jesus was in the form of God. This is then contrasted to his "taking the form of a servant" and "being born in the likeness of men."

Clearly then his being "in the form of God," is not the same thing as being in "the form of a servant" and being "in the likeness of men," which is what Adam was.

Asyncritus said:
I trust that that is now clear from the previous paragreph.
No, not really.

Asyncritus said:
The words ‘Jesus Christ is Lord’ are taken directly and only from Php 2, and the words ‘to the glory of God the Father ‘ are omitted.

I think that it is a highly reprehensible practice – especially as these are ‘churches’, and in the whole of the NT, with the sole exception of Mt 16.17, the expression is invariably the ‘church’ or ‘church OF GOD’.

Have a look and see. Then tell me why they omit God from His rightful place over the doors.
You have no argument here.

Asyncritus said:
You are perfectly right – there is nothing wrong in saying so. He is Lord. But we should be saying so with ‘the glory of God the Father’ very firmly in the proper place – at the Head of all things. And in public places, He should be the first to be mentioned, and publicly too.
Why? There is absolutely no reason why every time someone says or writes "Jesus Christ is Lord" that it need be followed by "to the glory of God the Father." Every time someone says Jesus Christ is Lord, the Father does get the glory.

Asyncritus said:
This is something I do not believe many expositors recognise: that very very often, the apostles and gospel writers and most especially the Book of Revelation, make long strings of quotations, allusions and references to a single chunk of scripture. (I call them QUASARS, which is the acronym for the first few letters of the 4 words).
Yet again you seem to have found something that all other Christian scholars and seekers of God in history have missed, unless of course you can point out someone who believes the same. Not that a majority rules, but chances are, if the vast majority have not made the connection or reject it, then it probably is false.


It is very significant that in all the discussions about the deity of Christ and the Trinity, all of the strongest arguments against non-trinitarian positions are ignored. With all of these supposed connections to other parts of Scripture, the pointing out of many passages which at first glance may appear as though they show Christ to be lesser than the Father in nature, and the pointing out of those passages that seem to prove Jesus can't be God because God is not a man and God can't be tempted, there is always one thing overlooked: context. The immediate context as well as the larger contexts of the chapters, books and entirety of Scripture.

The fact of the matter is, Scripture shows that Jesus is God, and any Christology and theology proper must take everything Scripture says into account. There is no position that I have seen outside of the Trinity that can do so; all others must ignore certain passages or risk being incoherent and contradictory.
 
There need not be a connection to Isa 53 at all in this passage but even if there is, it does not change the meaning of the passage.


On the contrary, to know fully what is being said in Scripture, one must necessarily understand the language. Our understanding, the understanding of those who do not know the language, gives us a great disadvantage in determining the real meaning, or at least in trying to gain a better understanding.

If that is really the case, then we're all finished. I don't know any Greek or Hebrew. Do you?

So as I said, we are forced to depend on translators.

If this is in response to the allusion to Adam, I still disagree; it is very speculative and you have not shown it to be otherwise. The context of Phil 2 itself, which should be looked at and considered first, shows that this cannot be the cast, or is most likely not the case.

I can't think of anyone apart from Adam who can be described as grasping at equality with God. In Scripture, anyway. Can you?
I'm not sure what the Philippians and their opponents have to do with it.

I thought it was very simple. Jesus could have refused to die on the cross. He very nearly did. Had he done so, the enemies of God would have won the day. He would probably still be alive today, since He had not sinned.

The Philippians are being urged to follow His example, and go through death if need be. Not snatch (mistakenly, as Adam did) at immortality or equality with God.

The error in reasoning is to argue that because God cannot be tempted, Jesus cannot therefore be God. This is the same as "God is not a man," therefore Jesus cannot be God.

This isn't an error, Free, it's elementary logic. I cannot understand your inability to admit this. If God cannot sin, and Jesus could, then that is a huge, ENORMOUS, GIGANTIC difference: a difference which forever ends any possibility that Jesus was God.

God cannot sin. Even the possibility is appalling.

Yet, if Jesus was God, and Jesus could sin, then the Father could sin too. Which is clearly nonsense.

The first argument ignores the human nature of Christ and attempts to split the mystery of the Incarnation; the second suggests it isn't even possible for God to become a man, which is quite presumptuous.

The question of the incarnation is one which I'd like you to comment on in a bit more detail, in the light of the following facts:

1 A mother can carry a fertilised ovum, taken from another woman, to full term. She is the surrogate mother, and the transfer of the ovum is an IMPLANTATION, not a CONCEPTION. Neither is the surrogate the true mother.

Are we agreed on that point?

2 Luke, who was a doctor, stated that Mary would 'conceive in her womb' and bring forth a son.

Please note the word CONCEIVE.

If Jesus had a separate existence in heaven prior to the 'incarnation', then He must have been IMPLANTED into her womb, and the word 'conceive' is a misnomer.

Don't you think there is a serious problem there?
 
I'm going to bite here...you've said that you are neither a theologian, nor are you conversant in the biblical languages (I must assume also that you are not familiar with 1st century Jewish culture either).

So how is it that you have "discovered" something that theologians and biblical commentators familiar with the language/culture/background have supposedly "missed" since the letter to the church at Philippi was penned around AD 63-64?

Something that purportedly supports your position ref. the deity of Christ?

Smacks to me of a certain arrogance....:chin

Oh..btw...I have (shall we say) a passing familiarity with Koine Greek (you "incomparable" guy, you). :lol
 
Last edited by a moderator:
So how is it that you have "discovered" something that theologians and biblical commentators familiar with the language/culture/background have supposedly "missed" since the letter to the church at Philippi was penned around AD 63-64?

Many would have the same question. The fact is, stuff like this (A New Exposition of Philippians 2) is just "skubalon".
That is why I posted:
I have one thing (well actually two) to say about "A New Exposition of Philippians 2"- If it is new, it isn't true. If it is true, it isn't new. Enough said....
 
If that is really the case, then we're all finished. I don't know any Greek or Hebrew. Do you?

So as I said, we are forced to depend on translators.
In addition to translators there are commentaries, lexicons, word studies, works by scholars, etc. There is a lot of info out there for the serious seeker.

Asyncritus said:
I can't think of anyone apart from Adam who can be described as grasping at equality with God. In Scripture, anyway. Can you?
Begging the question again. Why need there be someone grasping at equality with God? There is no need for that in understanding this text.

Asyncritus said:
The Philippians are being urged to follow His example, and go through death if need be. Not snatch (mistakenly, as Adam did) at immortality or equality with God.
Paul is not saying anything to the Philippians about not grasping at equality with God. Paul's whole point is found in verses 2-4. He uses Christ as the ultimate example of humility and regarding others as better than themselves. There is no greater example of humility that can be given than the Creator entering into our world, taking the form of a creature and suffering the humiliation of death on a Roman cross, all for our salvation. That is the ultimate of:

Php 2:3 Do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility regard others as better than yourselves.
Php 2:4 Let each of you look not to your own interests, but to the interests of others. (ESV)

And that is what Paul wants the Philippians to be like. That is his whole point.

Asyncritus said:
This isn't an error, Free, it's elementary logic. I cannot understand your inability to admit this. If God cannot sin, and Jesus could, then that is a huge, ENORMOUS, GIGANTIC difference: a difference which forever ends any possibility that Jesus was God.
No, it does not. It is an error in logic on your part, and on the part of the others in this forum who use this argument. The question isn't "Could Jesus have sinned?" There you are trying to split the mystery of the Incarnation, and when one tries to do that, heresy is just around the corner, as a prof of mine used to say. The correct question is "Did Jesus feel the full force of evil?"

What this argument does is presume that the trinitarian claim that Jesus is God in human flesh means that he is God only. What this argument completely fails to take into account is that not only did Jesus have divine nature, being God, he also had a human nature, being born as a man. If trinitarians argued that Jesus was only God in nature, then you might have a point.

Asyncritus said:
The question of the incarnation is one which I'd like you to comment on in a bit more detail, in the light of the following facts:

1 A mother can carry a fertilised ovum, taken from another woman, to full term. She is the surrogate mother, and the transfer of the ovum is an IMPLANTATION, not a CONCEPTION. Neither is the surrogate the true mother.

Are we agreed on that point?

2 Luke, who was a doctor, stated that Mary would 'conceive in her womb' and bring forth a son.

Please note the word CONCEIVE.

If Jesus had a separate existence in heaven prior to the 'incarnation', then He must have been IMPLANTED into her womb, and the word 'conceive' is a misnomer.

Don't you think there is a serious problem there?
I do, in trying to say too much about something that we can know nothing of.


mcgyver said:
I'm going to bite here...you've said that you are neither a theologian, nor are you conversant in the biblical languages (I must assume also that you are not familiar with 1st century Jewish culture either).

So how is it that you have "discovered" something that theologians and biblical commentators familiar with the language/culture/background have supposedly "missed" since the letter to the church at Philippi was penned around AD 63-64?
That's what I was driving at. :thumbsup
 
I'm going to bite here...you've said that you are neither a theologian, nor are you conversant in the biblical languages (I must assume also that you are not familiar with 1st century Jewish culture either).

So how is it that you have "discovered" something that theologians and biblical commentators familiar with the language/culture/background have supposedly "missed" since the letter to the church at Philippi was penned around AD 63-64?

Something that purportedly supports your position ref. the deity of Christ?

Smacks to me of a certain arrogance....:chin

Well... you know the world's been around since the year dot. Yeah?

Then how come Einstein only came up with relativity recently? Didn't the other, previous guys know anything about maths etc etc? Not that I'm like Einstein, of course, but...antiquity is no assurance of correctness.

Oh..btw...I have (shall we say) a passing familiarity with Koine Greek (you "incomparable" guy, you). :lol

Touche!

Honest, I didn't know what it meant, but I liked the sound of it and started using it, until one day I thought let's have a look at what it means...uh -oh...
 
Back
Top