Therefore GOD exalted Him.. (singular not 3 persons)
Of course God is singular--there is only one God. You are erroneously equating monotheism with the nature of God (whether he is one person or three). Those are two distinct ideas that need to be dealt with separately. You're also ignoring the context.
Php 2:5 Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus,
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
emptied himself, by 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.
Php 2:9 Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name,
Php 2:10 so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
Php 2:11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. (ESV)
Some important points to note about this passage:
1. Jesus was in "the form of God." This is supported by John 1:1c--" and the Word was God." The NIV has a clearer rendering of what is meant in verse 6: "being in very nature God."
The Expositor's Greek Testament and M. R. Vincent (
Word Studies in the New Testament) agree. That Paul is referring to the divinity of Christ is without question.
2. He "did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped"; that is, being in the form of God, being equal with the Father, he did not consider that equality something to be "forcefully retained [or held onto]." The meaning is that anything to do with the appearance of his glory as God had to be let go of or veiled in order for the completion of his humiliation, which was necessary for man's salvation. Again, the NIV brings out the meaning a bit better: "did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage."
3.
He, being Jesus (the Son), emptied
himself. It was he who did the emptying. In other words, he had to already exist in order to be able to be “emptied,” and he had to be sufficiently powerful to do it himself. That is, in contrast with his “taking the form of a servant,” he was something else. He had to be something or someone that was capable of emptying himself. (cf. 2 Cor 8:9)
4. In emptying himself, he took on the "form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men"--this is what John 1:14 is speaking of. First, note that Paul is contrasting Jesus's "taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men" with being in the "form of God." This supports "being in the form of God" as referring to his nature as God, as "the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men," clearly refers to his human nature. Second, the emptying of himself was accomplished
by taking on human form. It’s a paradoxical emptying by addition; a limiting or veiling of his glory and power by becoming human. Jesus willingly chose to take the form of a human for the salvation of mankind and, as God Incarnate, still maintained his full deity (since God can never cease to be God) in becoming truly and fully human.
5. Being found in "appearance as a man" (NIV)--as opposed to his having been in "the form of God." We know that he was truly human, so why would Paul suddenly say that Jesus was "found in appearance as a man"? Would that not imply that he existed previously, supporting verse 6, and indicate he wasn't a man before?
6. He "
humbled himself by becoming obedient." This is exactly why he prays to the Father, does the Father's will, and only speaks what he hears. He subjected himself to the law of God and obeyed it perfectly, fulfilling it and becoming the sacrificial "Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world" (John 1:29, ESV).
7. He is given “the name that is above every name so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow. ... and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord.” This is language used of God:
Isa 45:22 “Turn to me and be saved, all the ends of the earth! For I am God, and there is no other.
Isa 45:23 By myself I have sworn; from my mouth has gone out in righteousness a word that shall not return: ‘To me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear allegiance.’ (ESV)
This is why Christians rightly worship Christ as God.
The whole point of this passage is to show the humility of Christ, which we are to have (verses 1-5).
There is no greater example of humility that could be conceived than that of God (the Son) coming to earth and taking on the form of one of his creatures.
Col 1:19 -from the will of another and Jesus was chosen before the world began not at the incarnation.
Col 1:16 For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him.
Col 1:17 And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. (ESV)
If the Son had a beginning, if he came into being, then verses 16 and 17 are false. Again, basic logic.
If "all things were created through him,"
then if necessarily follows that he is eternal.
The Son is the image of the invisible God not the invisible God.
But what does it
mean to be "the image of the invisible God"? It's easy to post what the Bible says, but that doesn't mean one has actually understood it; atheists do it all the time.
Apart from Col. 1:16-17 providing context that proves your assertion wrong and contradictory, we have many other things, such as:
1Ti 6:15 which he will display at the proper time—he who is the blessed and only Sovereign,
the King of kings and Lord of lords,
1Ti 6:16 who alone has immortality, who dwells in unapproachable light, whom no one has ever seen or can see. To him be honor and eternal dominion. Amen. (ESV)
That's speaking of the Father.
Rev 17:14 They will make war on the Lamb, and the Lamb will conquer them,
for he is Lord of lords and King of kings, and those with him are called and chosen and faithful.” (ESV)
Rev 19:16 On his robe and on his thigh he has a name written,
King of kings and Lord of lords. (ESV)
Those are speaking of Jesus.
The Son is the radiance of the Fathers glory and the imprint of the Fathers very being for in Him dwells all the fullness of the Fathers Deity. He has the Fathers nature in Him not His own. In this context He is all that the Father is (God)
Similar to the above, what does it
mean that the Son "is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature" (Heb. 1:3, ESV)? What does it
mean that "For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily" (Col. 2:9, ESV)? Note that we also have the contexts of Heb. 1:10-12 and Col. 1:16-17 to take into account, as well as passages such as John 1:1-3, John 20:28, Rom. 9:5, Rom. 10:9-13, 1 Cor. 8:6, Phil. 2:5-8, 2 Pet. 1:1, 1 John 4:8, 16, and so many others.
Sons are
always of the same nature as their fathers, and
we are the analogues to God. That means that when God reveals himself to us with a Father and Son relationship, we can understand that the Son is of the same nature as the Father. Since the Father's nature is, among other things, eternal, it follows that the Son is
also eternal. It cannot be otherwise.
You are fond of saying that the Son is "all that the Father is," except that you think the Son isn't eternal. Those are two irreconcilably contradictory beliefs. If the Son is not eternal, if he is not truly God, then he absolutely
cannot be all that the Father is. Again, logic works against you.
It's worth noting that you didn't even deal with what Phil. 2:5-8 says, but rather simply pitted Scripture against itself. This strongly suggests that you are not willing to understand what all these passages actually mean. It seems that you're just interested in proof-texting to try and prove your position. But, as I have shown repeatedly, it just ends up resulting in contradictions, because it ignores so much important context and sound reasoning, and therefore cannot be correct.
