A New Exposition of Philippians 2

[Asyncritus]

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 just love the depth of your intellectual objections to the New Exposition.

If that's the depth of support the theory has, then heaven help you and its other supporters.

 

[mcgyver]

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.

That's a point well taken...after all, the world isn't flat!

What differentiated the Theory of Relativity from a mere flight of fancy however, was that Einstein (setting aside for the moment that he was a genius) was a trained and highly educated theoretical physicist and mathematician.

It might also be pointed out is that at the time of Einstein, the technology existed whereby he could actually put some of his theories to the test (splitting the atom...the Manhattan Project for example).

This is precisely the point where the comparison becomes an apples-to-oranges type of comparison. Hard science builds on the work of previous generations, and depends on the existence of technology to create the technology needed to expand scientific knowledge.

Da Vinci for example, conceived the idea of parachutes, flying machines, and advanced weapons. But the technology to invent the technology to create the technology to make his concepts a reality did not exist...so his ideas remained conceptual in nature...and he also was a genius.

The same does not hold true in the study of ancient manuscripts or the field of theology...they don't depend on technological breakthroughs.

Although we have experienced great advances in Greek scholarship, and although we have many more early manuscripts for study (I think it's over 5000 Greek, and almost 20,000 Latin, Coptic, etc.), I think that it is significant that there is no "orthodox" Christian doctrine that has been seriously called into question; despite years of dedicated study by men who devote themselves to finding the meanings behind the writings.

There is a tendency to think that theologians merely "parrot the party line"...I assure you that for the vast majority that is simply not true. One does not enter the field of theology for fame and fortune...they enter it because they have a burning desire to know the truth.

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...

I was hoping you'd get tickled by that...

 

[Asyncritus]

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.

So there may be. But, how many of those did the Philippians have, do you think?

Begging the question again. Why need there be someone grasping at equality with God? There is no need for that in understanding this text.

Free, I honestly don't think you have a clue about the sheer allusiveness of scripture. It makes its allusions quietly, unobtrusively, and without much song and dance while it is doing so.

Nonetheless, it does so allude, and I regret that most 'scholars' have very little idea of that fact. They therefore miss huge amounts of significant meaning in important passages, and as a result, produce volumes of misunderstanding.

They do try to do so sometimes, and make serious blunders. A case in point is the one you've used yourself - saying that Wright thinks 1 Cor 8.6 is an allusion to Deut. 6.4, the 'Shema'. Wright is wrong and I'll show why I say so later on.

You are willing to accept Wright's blunder - because it favours your case. I'm not. You are unwilling to accept the plain facts about Php 2 - because it doesn't favour your case. So I don't know where we go from here.

Paul is not saying anything to the Philippians about not grasping at equality with God.

In saying this, you reject the consensus of all those translators I cited. He says that Jesus did not do so - He vigorously rejected the temptation to grasp at that equality.

If that is correct, then He did not have that equality AT ANY POINT IN TIME.

He does not have it now, and the passage proves that He did not have it at all. Otherwise, why would he have grasped at it?

He has been hyper-exalted - but not to the level of God Himself. That is an impossibility clearly demonstrated by 1 Cor 15.28, a passage you have yet to address:

And when all things have been subjected unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subjected to him that did subject all things unto him, that God may be all in all.

Note, GOD is doing the subjecting of Christ's enemies. Note, Christ Himself will be subject to GOD. Note, 'all authority has been GIVEN to Him' (Matt 28.18)

By whom?

By God, of course.

All this is merely a fulfilment of the prophecy in Psalm 110: Sit thou at my right hand UNTIL I MAKE thine enemies the footstool of thy feet...

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.

That is perfectly correct.

There is no greater example of humility that can be given than the Creator entering into our world, taking the form of a creature

I wonder if you can see the glaring contradiction in those words? The Creator... taking the form of a creature?????

That is a clear contradiction any way you look at it. God hates the worship of created things - Rom 1 makes that abundantly clear. Now is it reasonable to think that He wants mankind to worship 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.

You've gone off the rails again. He is exhorting them to be like Christ - fully prepared to die for God's sake. That is the very simple message of the whole passage.

Christ suffered - God exalted Him. You suffer - and God will exalt you

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?"

Who says the question isn't that? Our theological friends? Don't you and they grasp the simple force of those passages from Hebrews and the Gospels?

‘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?

In case you want some OT support for this, here it is:

"I will be his father, and he shall be my son. If he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men..." 2 Sam 7.14

I read that to mean that the possibility of Jesus sinning was certainly in God's mind. How do you see it?

There you are trying to split the mystery of the Incarnation,

That is not a scriptural expression Free, so why are you supporting it?

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?"

Well, you know what I think of theologians and their opinions!

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.

I haven't been able to count it, because my Online Bible is up the Swanee temporarily (I hope), but how many times does Jesus call Himself Son of MAN?
Why?

And how many times does He call Himself God?
Why?

I do, in trying to say too much about something that we can know nothing of.

I think that is as nice an example of question-begging as I've read!

 

[Free]

So there may be. But, how many of those did the Philippians have, do you think?

Probably none but this is because they spoke the language the book was written in and they had Paul there to teach them. Obviously, we are far removed and trying to understand a language that isn't used anymore. Apples and oranges, wouldn't you agree?

Free, I honestly don't think you have a clue about the sheer allusiveness of scripture. It makes its allusions quietly, unobtrusively, and without much song and dance while it is doing so.

Nonetheless, it does so allude, and I regret that most 'scholars' have very little idea of that fact. They therefore miss huge amounts of significant meaning in important passages, and as a result, produce volumes of misunderstanding.

They do try to do so sometimes, and make serious blunders. A case in point is the one you've used yourself - saying that Wright thinks 1 Cor 8.6 is an allusion to Deut. 6.4, the 'Shema'. Wright is wrong and I'll show why I say so later on.

You are willing to accept Wright's blunder - because it favours your case. I'm not. You are unwilling to accept the plain facts about Php 2 - because it doesn't favour your case. So I don't know where we go from here.

Again, it needs to be stated to you that if most scholars have missed this allusion, then it most likely is not an allusion. Your "allusion" completely ignores the immediate context of what is being said and therefore would be a very poor allusion on Paul's part.

As for Wright's idea of 1 Cor 8:6, even if it isn't an allusion, it is irrelevant since the immediate context of what Paul is saying, leaves no room for understanding that Christ is any other but God. At least Wright's "allusion" doesn't at all change the meaning of what Paul says. This would make it more likely that it is an allusion.

Not to mention, here you are saying that one of the world's foremost authorities on the NT, and specifically Pauline theology if I remember correctly, is wrong in his allusion, which doesn't change the meaning of the text, but you have somehow found one that all the other scholars have missed, and it completely changes what is said.

Do you not see the problem with that?

In saying this, you reject the consensus of all those translators I cited. He says that Jesus did not do so - He vigorously rejected the temptation to grasp at that equality.

If that is correct, then He did not have that equality AT ANY POINT IN TIME.

Not at all. Two things:

1. I was addressing your argument that Paul was telling the Philippians not to grasp at equality God. My point was that Paul was not making that point.

2. I gave two very widely accepted understandings of this passage, one which uses your very definitions of "grasp/snatch" and still does no harm to understanding that Jesus is equal to the Father, being in nature God.

He does not have it now, and the passage proves that He did not have it at all. Otherwise, why would he have grasped at it?

Please go back and read my post on the first page addressing this.

He has been hyper-exalted - but not to the level of God Himself. That is an impossibility clearly demonstrated by 1 Cor 15.28, a passage you have yet to address:

And when all things have been subjected unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subjected to him that did subject all things unto him, that God may be all in all.

Note, GOD is doing the subjecting of Christ's enemies. Note, Christ Himself will be subject to GOD. Note, 'all authority has been GIVEN to Him' (Matt 28.18)

By whom?

By God, of course.

All this is merely a fulfilment of the prophecy in Psalm 110: Sit thou at my right hand UNTIL I MAKE thine enemies the footstool of thy feet...

Again, this is taking things out of context. Such has been the tactic of the anti-trinitarians on this forum--take some verses which, on their own, appear to say one thing, but when taken in the context of the entirety of Scripture, say something different, if even only slightly.

You must necessarily either ignore the passages and arguments given, which is the bulk of what all the anti-trinitarians have done so far, or completely change the meaning of passages to suit your theology. The doctrine of the Trinity changes the meanings of no passages and attempts to reconcile all that Scripture says about God. This is why non-trinitarian positions are completely deficient.

I wonder if you can see the glaring contradiction in those words? The Creator... taking the form of a creature?????

That is a clear contradiction any way you look at it. God hates the worship of created things - Rom 1 makes that abundantly clear. Now is it reasonable to think that He wants mankind to worship a creature?

There is no contradiction and once again you are not understanding the trinitarian position. Jesus is the God-man; he is both truly God and truly man. There is no worship of a mere creature.

You've gone off the rails again. He is exhorting them to be like Christ - fully prepared to die for God's sake. That is the very simple message of the whole passage.

Christ suffered - God exalted Him. You suffer - and God will exalt you

Perhaps as a sidebar Paul would expect them to do that, just as Paul was prepared to do it, but since that was the case, why didn't Paul just exhort them to be like him?

Not to mention, I stated "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," to which you replied "That is perfectly correct."

So why is it that you contradict your statement and claim that I have "gone off the rails?"

Clearly, as you had previously agreed, Paul's whole point is to be like Christ in humility. There is no greater example of humility than the Creator becoming as one of his creatures to die for their salvation. That is Paul's point.

Who says the question isn't that? Our theological friends? Don't you and they grasp the simple force of those passages from Hebrews and the Gospels?

‘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?

In case you want some OT support for this, here it is:

"I will be his father, and he shall be my son. If he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men..." 2 Sam 7.14

I read that to mean that the possibility of Jesus sinning was certainly in God's mind. How do you see it?

Just like I have already stated it.

That is not a scriptural expression Free, so why are you supporting it?

Why not? Do you really think that truth is only found in the Bible? Besides, history has proven it true.

Well, you know what I think of theologians and their opinions!

Yes, to your shame.

I haven't been able to count it, because my Online Bible is up the Swanee temporarily (I hope), but how many times does Jesus call Himself Son of MAN?
Why?

And how many times does He call Himself God?
Why?

Son of Man appears 79 times in the gospels. I'm not going to bother counting how many times Jesus calls himself that. Son of God appears 29 times.

That there is a difference in the number of times proves absolutely nothing. Even if the numbers were reversed, it would prove nothing for my case.

I think that is as nice an example of question-begging as I've read!

That wasn't begging the question. The Incarnation is a mystery that the Bible doesn't elaborate on. We cannot know any specifics about it.

 

[Who Says]

That wasn't begging the question. The Incarnation is a mystery that the Bible doesn't elaborate on. We cannot know any specifics about it.

 

[Asyncritus]

That's a point well taken...after all, the world isn't flat!

What differentiated the Theory of Relativity from a mere flight of fancy however, was that Einstein (setting aside for the moment that he was a genius) was a trained and highly educated theoretical physicist and mathematician.

I am a highly trained Bible sutdent myself, Mac, and I mean Bible student. I have probably spent more time on the text itself (in translation, of course) than any dozen professors you could name.

I don't waste time studying what people say the Bible means, I find out for myself - and the results are sometimes quite startling, if unorthodox.

I was looking at the syllabuses and reading lists for theology degrees in several British universities. Try it some time - google is good for that. You will be appalled at the insignificant amount of time actually spent on the text, and amazed at the volume of tripe the students have to swallow. And I mean swallow, if they want the degree.

They certainly read for their degrees, but not the Bible itself. Books ABOUT the Bible certainly, but not the Bible itself.

I follow the example of the Lord and His apostles. Have you ever noticed the simple fact that they NEVER quote any scholars of the day? There MUST HAVE BEEN many - but where are they in the NT?

The only times Jesus refers to them is to condemn them. Ye have made the word of God of none effect by your tradition. That, I assume, means the scholarly opinions of the day: and guess what? They ruin the word of God's effects.

It might also be pointed out is that at the time of Einstein, the technology existed whereby he could actually put some of his theories to the test (splitting the atom...the Manhattan Project for example).

This is precisely the point where the comparison becomes an apples-to-oranges type of comparison. Hard science builds on the work of previous generations, and depends on the existence of technology to create the technology needed to expand scientific knowledge.

The same does not hold true in the study of ancient manuscripts or the field of theology...they don't depend on technological breakthroughs.

Agreed.

I read somewhere - was it you saying so? - that they have the text accurate down to about 99.995% in the case of both OT and NT. So there's no room for maoneuvre there - so just what the dickens are all these theologians and translators doing?

There are heaven alone knows how many translations available nowadays - so why do you and I need theologians to tell us what the text means? Haven't you got a brain in your head somewhere? I know you do, so why abandon your birthright of intelligence and hand the keys over to theologians of one sort or another?

Although we have experienced great advances in Greek scholarship, and although we have many more early manuscripts for study (I think it's over 5000 Greek, and almost 20,000 Latin, Coptic, etc.), I think that it is significant that there is no "orthodox" Christian doctrine that has been seriously called into question; despite years of dedicated study by men who devote themselves to finding the meanings behind the writings.

You are gravely mistaken there. Haven't you heard of 'Higher Criticism'? That evil attitude to Scripture which destroyed and still destroys the faith of so many? Who produced it?

Theologians, in universities.

They denied the existence of Abraham, trumpeted that Moses couldn't write, that somebody else wrote Deuteronomy, stated that any number of prophecies were written after the event, stupidly purport to be able to distinguish authors hiding in the text... Tchah. Makes me want to spit.

Even worse in some ways was a comment I read by Wright that the Enlightenment philosophy which had to be accepted by anyone wishing 'to make progress in the church' - I imagine he meant the church of Englend - demanded that you rejected the Resurrection.

Whether that has changed or not, I don't know - but that sample should be enough to turn anyone who believes that scripture is the inspired word of God, away from theologians.

I wouldn't know what his position is now on the matter, but it does make me extremely cautious about listening too carefully to theological treatise writers. As to the ones in the universities, they have to 'publish or perish' - so they've got to write for a living. Free objected to my saying that they got paid for theologising - but that is the fact of the matter.

Jesus didn't care about them; they led Paul up a gum tree till Jesus Himself corrected him; and they aren't going to do the same to me either.

That is my Declaration of Independence if you like, and some of the reasons for it.

There is a tendency to think that theologians merely "parrot the party line"...I assure you that for the vast majority that is simply not true. One does not enter the field of theology for fame and fortune...they enter it because they have a burning desire to know the truth.

Oh yeah. See the above.

I was hoping you'd get tickled by that...

I was!

 

[Free]

Anything of substance you care to add to the discussion? How about a reasoned response to my posts in one of the discussions?

 

[Asyncritus]

I like to work through this 'incarnation' concept in s bit more detail. Free.

Your comment was:

That wasn't begging the question. The Incarnation is a mystery that the Bible doesn't elaborate on. We cannot know any specifics about it.

That statement fills me with worry because it reveals such a lot about your position. Let me draw it out carefully.

1 The Bible never uses the word 'incarnation'. Like the word 'trinity', it must therefore be a theologians' construct. As I said, I am very wary of theologians. (To my shame or otherwise).

2 It is a 'mystery'. Which means we don't know anything about it, or have any information about it from Scripture.

3 You say the Bible doesn't 'elaborate' on it. That is overstating the case. Since it doesn't mention the incarnation at all, I think you should - to be fair - have said that it 'says nothing at all about it' - which is a long way from 'elaborate on it', which creates the impression that it does in fact say something about it.

4 If the Scripture says nothing about it, then you are correct in saying that we cannot know anything 'specific' about it. All that we have, therefore, is what we may call 'speculation', 'theological constructs', and other such terms.

All of which make me deeply uneasy.

If my faith in such a major doctrine stood on such flimsy foundations, I would, I think, be perfectly justified in being deeply dubious about it. Don't you agree?

I remember the catholics at the catholic school I attended for a short while, telling me about 'limbo' and 'purgatory' and 'penances.' I could never find anything in scripture about those things, so I doubted, and now I know the Bible considerably better than I did then, I find that I was justified in my doubting.

 

[Free]

I like to work through this 'incarnation' concept in s bit more detail. Free.

Your comment was:


That statement fills me with worry because it reveals such a lot about your position. Let me draw it out carefully.

1 The Bible never uses the word 'incarnation'. Like the word 'trinity', it must therefore be a theologians' construct. As I said, I am very wary of theologians. (To my shame or otherwise).

2 It is a 'mystery'. Which means we don't know anything about it, or have any information about it from Scripture.

3 You say the Bible doesn't 'elaborate' on it. That is overstating the case. Since it doesn't mention the incarnation at all, I think you should - to be fair - have said that it 'says nothing at all about it' - which is a long way from 'elaborate on it', which creates the impression that it does in fact say something about it.

4 If the Scripture says nothing about it, then you are correct in saying that we cannot know anything 'specific' about it. All that we have, therefore, is what we may call 'speculation', 'theological constructs', and other such terms.

All of which make me deeply uneasy.

If my faith in such a major doctrine stood on such flimsy foundations, I would, I think, be perfectly justified in being deeply dubious about it. Don't you agree?

I remember the catholics at the catholic school I attended for a short while, telling me about 'limbo' and 'purgatory' and 'penances.' I could never find anything in scripture about those things, so I doubted, and now I know the Bible considerably better than I did then, I find that I was justified in my doubting.

That certain words do not appear in the Bible is irrelevant as to whether or not the doctrines and ideas that those words represent are actually true.

The use of 'mystery' to describe certain areas in theology or certain doctrines, does not mean that we know nothing and can know nothing. It means that the Bible has said something about which we cannot know the specifics.

Your points 3 and 4 seem to harm your argument more than mine, if I'm understanding you correctly. You made an argument as to whether we should understand the virgin birth as beginning with 'conception' or 'implantation.' That is what I was referring to as going too far. It's not that the Bible says nothing, since it surely tells the story of Mary's conversation with an angel and the fulfillment of that conversation with the Holy Spirit 'overshadowing' her. We just can't know more than that. We cannot argue whether or not it was some sort of conception or implantation, the Bible just does not say.

In that same way the Bible shows that Jesus is both God and man but it really gives us no more that that. That is why the Incarnation is a mystery, not because it is a made up word for something that isn't even stated in Scripture.

 

[Asyncritus]

That certain words do not appear in the Bible is irrelevant as to whether or not the doctrines and ideas that those words represent are actually true.

It is a strong indicator. Every other major doctrine I can think of, does somewhere or other. The absence of these 2 is a clear pointer (to me at any rate) that I should be suspicious.

The use of 'mystery' to describe certain areas in theology or certain doctrines, does not mean that we know nothing and can know nothing. It means that the Bible has said something about which we cannot know the specifics.

If I recall correctly, the word mystery means 'secret'. Something that hasn't been revealed. Your version of it is somewhat watered down.

Your points 3 and 4 seem to harm your argument more than mine, if I'm understanding you correctly. You made an argument as to whether we should understand the virgin birth as beginning with 'conception' or 'implantation.' That is what I was referring to as going too far. It's not that the Bible says nothing, since it surely tells the story of Mary's conversation with an angel and the fulfillment of that conversation with the Holy Spirit 'overshadowing' her. We just can't know more than that. We cannot argue whether or not it was some sort of conception or implantation, the Bible just does not say.

On the contrary, Gabriel was extremely explicit on the point. He said: 'Thou shalt conceive in thy womb...' So was Isaiah: 'A virgin shall conceive...'

Maybe the Bible doesn't say what you'd like it to say, but that's a different kettle of fish. If you were Mary, do you think it possible that you would misunderstand the word 'conceive'? She doesn't misunderstand what he meant, and her question is about the mechanics, not the theology.

In that same way the Bible shows that Jesus is both God and man but it really gives us no more that that. That is why the Incarnation is a mystery, not because it is a made up word for something that isn't even stated in Scripture.

I find it difficult to say that the Bible says something it doesn't say. If it was a relatively minor point - like: did ths Samaritan tear up his own clothes to bind up the wounds - then I'd be perfectly happy with what you say.

But this is a major doctrinal point: it is fundamental to our understanding of the atonement, and to assessing the magnitude of Christ's achievement in the conquest of sin.

If Christ as God could not sin, and Christ as man certainly could, then we have confusion thrice confounded.

I was reading the Athanasian creed the other day when all this came up - and if ever there was a case of having your cake and eating it, then that's the most perfect example I can conceive of. The old boys were extremely clever, if a tad unscriptural.

Don't follow in their steps.

If you want a creed to attach yourself to, then the Apostle's creed is absolutely splendid up to the point where it starts going on about the catholic church, which is easy to misunderstand.

 

[mcgyver]

I am a highly trained Bible sutdent myself, Mac, and I mean Bible student. I have probably spent more time on the text itself (in translation, of course) than any dozen professors you could name.

So...who trained you?

 

[Proverbs3/5]

If you want a creed to attach yourself to, then the Apostle's creed is absolutely splendid up to the point where it starts going on about the catholic church, which is easy to misunderstand.

Maybe you are not aware that the word "catholic" means universal. Many people think that the word only refers to the "Roman Catholic Church", when it does not. I am "catholic" in the fact that I am part of Christ's "universal" church. However, I am NOT Roman Catholic". In fact, I despise that works based, anti-semitic religion. There is nothing wrong at all with any believer in Christ saying, or believing the Apostles creed, as long as said believer knows that the Roman Catholic religion is not the focus when the word "catholic" is said.

 

[Asyncritus]

So...who trained you?

I trained myself, being totally unwilling to commit such an important thing to anyone else. You can see the fruits of that training.

But can we get on to the actual articles themselves?

Just BTW, did you know that Einstein was a patents clerk in Berne before he became famous? And that ThomasEdison only had about 6 months of schooling?

No?

 

[Asyncritus]

Maybe you are not aware that the word "catholic" means universal. Many people think that the word only refers to the "Roman Catholic Church", when it does not. I am "catholic" in the fact that I am part of Christ's "universal" church. However, I am NOT Roman Catholic". In fact, I despise that works based, anti-semitic religion. There is nothing wrong at all with any believer in Christ saying, or believing the Apostles creed, as long as said believer knows that the Roman Catholic religion is not the focus when the word "catholic" is said.

Hi Proverbs3/5

Yes, I am well aware of that meaning of the word catholic. I said what I said because it is open to misinterpretation,as meaning the 'catholic church' that you are condemning.

 

[Proverbs3/5]

I trained myself

Well, there's the problem right there!

 

[Asyncritus]

Well, there's the problem right there!

And here's the solution:

Just BTW, did you know that Einstein was a patents clerk in Berne before he became famous? And that ThomasEdison only had about 6 months of schooling?