Philippians 2:6

[Craig CrossWise]

2 Hebrew passages to address with them are theones where God was meeting Abrham here on Earth, and yet there was the God in heaven raing still, so God was existing both here a s a man, and still in Heaven at same time! Also, the Angel of the Lord seemed to speak for and have the very same rights as yahweh Himself!

Those have been addressed. The thing is, I don't have any knowledge at all of Hebrew, which would be necessary. But, again, it's not a matter of marshaling out this verse and that verse as further evidence for Christ's Deity, it's a matter of confronting their specific errors head on. As in the OP, the issue is Philippians 2:6. For anyone interested, I posted some comments on the blog thread which 'exegetes' this verse here.

 

[Craig CrossWise]

Those have been addressed. The thing is, I don't have any knowledge at all of Hebrew, which would be necessary. But, again, it's not a matter of marshaling out this verse and that verse as further evidence for Christ's Deity, it's a matter of confronting their specific errors head on. As in the OP, the issue is Philippians 2:6. For anyone interested, I posted some comments on the blog thread which 'exegetes' this verse here.

I should add, I'm not looking for or wanting anyone to post over there. I don't think that would be a good idea. However, I wouldn't mind any help or critique on what I'd written on that blog. As I mentioned, I'm a self-studying layman, so I have no real credentials in Koine Greek. I have lots of study helps and commentaries, but I recognize that I may miss something very elementary because of my lack of formal schooling.

 

[Yeshua1]

I should add, I'm not looking for or wanting anyone to post over there. I don't think that would be a good idea. However, I wouldn't mind any help or critique on what I'd written on that blog. As I mentioned, I'm a self-studying layman, so I have no real credentials in Koine Greek. I have lots of study helps and commentaries, but I recognize that I may miss something very elementary because of my lack of formal schooling.

There are NO recognized Greek experts/scholars that would agree with their theology, but does not matter to them, as they just corrupted their version to support wrong theology!

 

[Craig CrossWise]

There are NO recognized Greek experts/scholars that would agree with their theology, but does not matter to them, as they just corrupted their version to support wrong theology!

That's true, but there are readers who are somewhat ambivalent, having no real knowledge of the Greek, who are willing to look at other material. While I'm the 'odd man out', there are some who 'like' my posts over there. So, I'm doing apologetics.

If nothing else, immersing myself into the Greek both sharpens and adds to my knowledge. That's never a bad thing.

 

[Yeshua1]

That's true, but there are readers who are somewhat ambivalent, having no real knowledge of the Greek, who are willing to look at other material. While I'm the 'odd man out', there are some who 'like' my posts over there. So, I'm doing apologetics.

If nothing else, immersing myself into the Greek both sharpens and adds to my knowledge. That's never a bad thing.

I commend you for doing this, was just suggesting that they are so blinded that it takes the Holy Spirit to wake them up! Do know that at one time their own interlinear had Thomas sayomng my Lord and God in same way that we view it!

 

[Craig CrossWise]

I commend you for doing this, was just suggesting that they are so blinded that it takes the Holy Spirit to wake them up! Do know that at one time their own interlinear had Thomas sayomng my Lord and God in same way that we view it!

When you say "their own interlinear", who is the "their"?

 

[AresMan]

The Second Person of the Trinity existed in the form of God, but did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped.

Slice and dice it as you will, but the Second Person gave up something in His incarnation. No need to discuss gabble-gook.

What He "gave up" was not any part of the divine essence. He "gave up" by taking ON the form of a servant.

The context of the Carmen Christi is Paul's admonition for each of as equals to treat each other as better.

Phi 2:3 Let nothing be done through strife or vainglory; but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves.

If we are each to esteem other as better then we are equal to each other. This the context of viewing Christ as our example of humility, "who being (huparchwn) in the form of God thought it not robbery to be equal with God" (or "did not consider equality with God a thing to be grasped/held on to"). The implication is that He is "equal with God" in glory by nature, just as we are equal to each other. However, He did not hold on to the full exercise of that right in the incarnation. He did not shed or change the "form of God" in the incarnation, just as we don't alter our essence when we humble ourselves for the sake of others.
The Son "emptied himself" (ekenwsen) not by losing the form of God but rather by taking on the form of a servant. This is called the hypostatic union, in which Jesus of Nazareth had two natures: 100% God and 100% man. The participles labwn ("taking on") and genomenos ("being made") are modal modifiers that explain how ekenwsen happened. While being in the form of God, He emptied Himself by taking on the form of a servant.

In am imperfect illustration, a king would "empty himself" if he were to put on peasant rags and walk around the streets. He would still possess all his kingly authority, but he suppressed the public display and full exercise of it to accomplish a certain act of humility.

The Carmen Christi clearly teaches the hypostatic union and beautifully so.

 

[Van]

I am sorry, but your argument seems just a rewrite of scripture. Giving up[ is redefined as taking on, and emptying is redefined as taking on again.

But if God's Word means what it says, the Second Person of the Trinity gave up something and emptied Himself of something.

 

[Yeshua1]

I am sorry, but your argument seems just a rewrite of scripture. Giving up[ is redefined as taking on, and emptying is redefined as taking on again.

But if God's Word means what it says, the Second Person of the Trinity gave up something and emptied Himself of something.

His right to been able to fully use all of his still possessed attributes was what was given up, as he was still fully God!

 

[Yeshua1]

What He "gave up" was not any part of the divine essence. He "gave up" by taking ON the form of a servant.

The context of the Carmen Christi is Paul's admonition for each of as equals to treat each other as better.

Phi 2:3 Let nothing be done through strife or vainglory; but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves.

If we are each to esteem other as better then we are equal to each other. This the context of viewing Christ as our example of humility, "who being (huparchwn) in the form of God thought it not robbery to be equal with God" (or "did not consider equality with God a thing to be grasped/held on to"). The implication is that He is "equal with God" in glory by nature, just as we are equal to each other. However, He did not hold on to the full exercise of that right in the incarnation. He did not shed or change the "form of God" in the incarnation, just as we don't alter our essence when we humble ourselves for the sake of others.
The Son "emptied himself" (ekenwsen) not by losing the form of God but rather by taking on the form of a servant. This is called the hypostatic union, in which Jesus of Nazareth had two natures: 100% God and 100% man. The participles labwn ("taking on") and genomenos ("being made") are modal modifiers that explain how ekenwsen happened. While being in the form of God, He emptied Himself by taking on the form of a servant.

In am imperfect illustration, a king would "empty himself" if he were to put on peasant rags and walk around the streets. He would still possess all his kingly authority, but he suppressed the public display and full exercise of it to accomplish a certain act of humility.

The Carmen Christi clearly teaches the hypostatic union and beautifully so.

Jesus suffered the physical limitations placed on him by becoming human flesh, as was not everywhere at that time, got humgrey, tired etc, but still was fully God!

 

[Darrell C]

Does equality with God grammatically correspond with form of God?

The "equality" in view contrasts the Son of God's Eternal State with His temporal existence in the Incarnation. I think we could say yes, grammatically their is no question they correspond, because it is that equality that was yielded (not grasped) when He took on the flesh of man.

No one is denying that Jesus ceased to be God.

I deny that.

The thing to keep in mind is that Jesus the Christ has a beginning in time, whereas the Son of God is Eternal. That flesh He inhabited did not exist until created in Mary's womb. Paul includes both perspectives in Philippians 2, both the Incarnate God and the God that existed in Eternity.

It was not His Deity that He yielded up, but His Glory in Eternity:


John 17
King James Version (KJV)

5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.


That Glory remained, but, it was veiled in the flesh He took upon Himself:



Hebrews 10:19-20
King James Version (KJV)

19 Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus,

20 By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh;


You might look at this verse and think I am using it in an irrelevant context, but, give it some thought, and you will see that it speaks of His body as the veil which was represented in the Tabernacle itself. It was through this veil that men (the High Priest) went through to come into the presence of God, and it is through the reality (rather than the shadow/figure/parable) of that Veil that we come into God's actual presence today.

I have to say that I don't see the question of the OP as a good question, because I think it could be argued both ways with success. The equality and form are, in my view, inseparable when we look at the Eternal context of Paul's statement. And when we consider the Trinity we could look at the fact that in the past God has on numerous occasions manifested in human form (Genesis 18 being probably the best example) in which we see what could be argued an existence (at that time) which can in no way be said to correspond (spiritual and physical, temporal and Eternal), yet all the same...

...He is still God.

Hope that makes sense, lol.


God bless.

 

[Yeshua1]

The "equality" in view contrasts the Son of God's Eternal State with His temporal existence in the Incarnation. I think we could say yes, grammatically their is no question they correspond, because it is that equality that was yielded (not grasped) when He took on the flesh of man.



I deny that.

The thing to keep in mind is that Jesus the Christ has a beginning in time, whereas the Son of God is Eternal. That flesh He inhabited did not exist until created in Mary's womb. Paul includes both perspectives in Philippians 2, both the Incarnate God and the God that existed in Eternity.

It was not His Deity that He yielded up, but His Glory in Eternity:


John 17
King James Version (KJV)

5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.


That Glory remained, but, it was veiled in the flesh He took upon Himself:



Hebrews 10:19-20
King James Version (KJV)

19 Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus,

20 By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh;


You might look at this verse and think I am using it in an irrelevant context, but, give it some thought, and you will see that it speaks of His body as the veil which was represented in the Tabernacle itself. It was through this veil that men (the High Priest) went through to come into the presence of God, and it is through the reality (rather than the shadow/figure/parable) of that Veil that we come into God's actual presence today.

I have to say that I don't see the question of the OP as a good question, because I think it could be argued both ways with success. The equality and form are, in my view, inseparable when we look at the Eternal context of Paul's statement. And when we consider the Trinity we could look at the fact that in the past God has on numerous occasions manifested in human form (Genesis 18 being probably the best example) in which we see what could be argued an existence (at that time) which can in no way be said to correspond (spiritual and physical, temporal and Eternal), yet all the same...

...He is still God.

Hope that makes sense, lol.


God bless.

Jesus as to His own deity is eternal, but His humanity came into existence/history when conceived in mary!

 

[Martin Marprelate]

What He "gave up" was not any part of the divine essence. He "gave up" by taking ON the form of a servant.

The context of the Carmen Christi is Paul's admonition for each of as equals to treat each other as better.

Phi 2:3 Let nothing be done through strife or vainglory; but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves.

This is spot on!
We seem to have duplicated several threads on this topic, so I hope the mods will forgive me for repeating a post I've just made on a different thread.

I am not an expert at Greek as some people are on this board, but here is my own attempt at translating Philippians 2:6, preserving the Greek word order to some degree:

'Who, in the form of God existing, not as a harpagmos he reckoned being equal to God, but He emptied Himself, the form of a slave taking......' So the $64 question is, what is a harpagmos (ἁρπαγμὸs)? The problem is that it is a hapax legomenon, a word that occurs only here in the whole NT, so there has been a difficulty in establishing exactly what is does mean. The verb harpazo has to do with 'grasping' or 'seizing,' but what does the noun mean? Well, recently a guy (mentioned by SATS Prof somewhere) has trawled all through all the occurrences of harpagmos in ancient and koine Greek, and he has proved to most people's satisfaction that it means 'Something held to one's advantage,' like a 'Get out of Jail Free' card when you're playing Monopoly. The new NIV gives this meaning.

So the Lord Jesus did not regard being in the form of God something to be held to His advantage. He did not say, "Well I am God, and I am jolly well not going to go down to earth and subject Myself to the most horrendous punishments and agonies on behalf of these miserable human beings!" No, He emptied Himself- of what? Not His deity, but His prestige and glory. He 'made Himself of no reputation.' So far from hanging on to His privileges as God, He relinquished them and took on the nature of a slave. I think it is worth looking at Exodus 21:1-6 and the person who gives up his freedom because he loves his master. His ear is pierced through. Now consider Psalm 40:6-8. The KJV says, 'My ears You have opened,' but the Hebrew can certainly mean 'pierced.' Christ is the One who has given up His position and His freedom to become a slave to the Father; to live the life of perfect obedience to His will that we cannot live, and to take the punishment that we deserve to receive.

 

[Van]

His right to been able to fully use all of his still possessed attributes was what was given up, as he was still fully God!

You are reading into scripture a possible understanding, but an unlikely one. He emptied Himself suggests full or partial departure of His divine attributes. Based on scripture, while Jesus was "in the flesh" He was not omnipresent or fully omniscient, Or consider "all powerful?" Why did He need to return to heaven in order to send the Helper?

 

[Darrell C]

Jesus as to His own deity is eternal, but His humanity came into existence/history when conceived in mary!

That was the basic intent of the post, Yeshua.

However, we can consider previous instances where God manifested in human form. But the Christ Himself begins in the womb of Mary.


God bless.

 

[AresMan]

You are reading into scripture a possible understanding, but an unlikely one. He emptied Himself suggests full or partial departure of His divine attributes.

Van, you can't just look at the word ekenwsen and assume that it means that the Son gave any of the divine being.
We are told to let the same mind be in us as in Christ. We can't give up part of our being, but we are to humble ourselves by esteeming each other (who are all equal) as better. If we take on peasant rags, we sacrifice the prerogative to display our glory, but we don't lose any of our actual attributes. The same with the Son through the incarnation. He did not change His being. The ekenwsen was by means of labwn and genomenos. He emptied Himself by taking on the human nature while still never losing or changing the divine nature. That's what the hypostatic union is, and the grammar of this passage clearly teaches it. That's also how He is the example for us in context.

If you doubt the hypostatic union, I suggest you study some fifth-sixth century church history and look at the Nestorian controvery (Jesus as two persons in two natures) and the term theotokos. Then, the later Eutychian controversy (Jesus as one person in one hybrid nature). Then the Council of Chalcedon. Then the post-Chalcedonian schisms over monophysitism and monothelitism.

Based on scripture, while Jesus was "in the flesh" He was not omnipresent or fully omniscient, Or consider "all powerful?" Why did He need to return to heaven in order to send the Helper?

I would suggest that the 100% human nature is the window to understanding this. According to Luke 2:52, Jesus "increased in wisdom." More than just not knowing the timing of His second coming, He had to go to school and learn carpentry. However, the divine nature would guarantee that He could only do the Father's will (John 5).

 

[AresMan]

That was the basic intent of the post, Yeshua.

However, we can consider previous instances where God manifested in human form. But the Christ Himself begins in the womb of Mary.

Yet the incarnation of the Son as Jesus of Nazareth in the hypostatic union is a completely unique occurrence.

 

[Darrell C]

Yet the incarnation of the Son as Jesus of Nazareth in the hypostatic union is a completely unique occurrence.

This is true, and I think that was noted earlier. The primary difference being that while the form taken upon Himself in, for example, Genesis 18, was presumably laid aside after His interaction with Abraham, the form created for the Christ is the form He is still in today, howbeit glorified.

On another note, you said earlier...

While being in the form of God, He emptied Himself by taking on the form of a servant.

I think we are on the same page here. As in the example you gave of the king donning peasant's rags, so too the glory of the Son of God was veiled in human flesh. It speaks more to position than nature, in my view.


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

He was not omnipresent

So He was not God? Is God not Omnipresent?

Either He and the Father are One or they are not.


John 10:30
King James Version (KJV)

30 I and my Father are one.

or fully omniscient,

John 1:48
King James Version (KJV)

48 Nathanael saith unto him, Whence knowest thou me? Jesus answered and said unto him, Before that Philip called thee, when thou wast under the fig tree, I saw thee.

Or consider "all powerful?"

It is worth considering. Do we really think that had the Lord decided to step outside of the Role of Messiah that there was anything that would not have been under His power?

I don't view His flesh as limiting His power, but His Role. There was no storm that should arise that He could not calm, no crowd so large He could not feed, and most importantly, no man that was not under His power.

Why did He need to return to heaven in order to send the Helper?

For the same reason He did not manifest as the Christ in the Garden, lol.

I look at it like this: His Ascension was necessary due to the particular Ministry the Comforter would begin, and He returned to Heaven that this be understood. Prior to the Coming of the Comforter the Gospel of Christ was not being revealed to the hearts of men. This is a specific function of the Ministry of the Comforter.

Now, going back to God being One (Father, Son, and Holy Ghost), Christ makes this clear...


John 14:15-18
King James Version (KJV)

15 If ye love me, keep my commandments.

16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;

17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.

18 I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you.


Here we see that the Spirit and the Son will come to them/us.


John 14:22-23
King James Version (KJV)

22 Judas saith unto him, not Iscariot, Lord, how is it that thou wilt manifest thyself unto us, and not unto the world?

23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.


Here we see the Father and the Son will come to them/us.

But, that Ministry is as distinct as the Ministry of the Christ was. That is why it was expedient that He leave (return to Heaven). It did not, in my view, have anything to do with the Omniscience, Omnipresence, or Omnipotence of God.


God bless.

 

[Van]

Van, you can't just look at the word ekenwsen and assume that it means that the Son gave any of the divine being.
We are told to let the same mind be in us as in Christ. We can't give up part of our being, but we are to humble ourselves by esteeming each other (who are all equal) as better. If we take on peasant rags, we sacrifice the prerogative to display our glory, but we don't lose any of our actual attributes. The same with the Son through the incarnation. He did not change His being. The ekenwsen was by means of labwn and genomenos. He emptied Himself by taking on the human nature while still never losing or changing the divine nature. That's what the hypostatic union is, and the grammar of this passage clearly teaches it. That's also how He is the example for us in context.

If you doubt the hypostatic union, I suggest you study some fifth-sixth century church history and look at the Nestorian controvery (Jesus as two persons in two natures) and the term theotokos. Then, the later Eutychian controversy (Jesus as one person in one hybrid nature). Then the Council of Chalcedon. Then the post-Chalcedonian schisms over monophysitism and monothelitism.

I would suggest that the 100% human nature is the window to understanding this. According to Luke 2:52, Jesus "increased in wisdom." More than just not knowing the timing of His second coming, He had to go to school and learn carpentry. However, the divine nature would guarantee that He could only do the Father's will (John 5).

I do not need for you to question my knowledge.
Did I say Jesus gave up some of His divine being? Nope
He gave up something (divine attributes) in the incarnation.
Do I doubt Jesus was !00% God and 100% Man? Nope

And as I have said before, your view that the pre-incarnate Second Person of the Trinity did not give up something and empty Himself of something to become God in the Flesh us unbiblical.