- Aug 21, 2003
- 28,578
- 6,064
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Jesus existed in one form, Philippians 2:6, but took upon himself another form, vs. 7.
What was Jesus’ form before? If he was literally, actually a man afterward what was he literally, actually before?
Philippians 2:6-11 6. Who, being [continual existence] in the form [μορφη] of God, thought it not robbery [something to be grasped] to be equal with God:
(Greek Interlinear) Philippians 2:6-11 ος {who,} εν {in [the]} μορφη {form} θεου {of god} υπαρχων {subsisting,} ουχ {not} αρπαγμον {something to be used to his own advantage} ηγησατο το {esteemed it} ειναι {the being} ισα {equal} θεω {with god;}
(Greek Interlinear) Philippians 2:6-11 ος {who,} εν {in [the]} μορφη {form} θεου {of god} υπαρχων {subsisting,} ουχ {not} αρπαγμον {something to be used to his own advantage} ηγησατο το {esteemed it} ειναι {the being} ισα {equal} θεω {with god;}
The verb ειναι, translated ”to be,” in the KJV, which appears to be a future tense in English, is a present infinitive, not a future tense. “the being equal with god,” was a, then, present reality not something considered and rejected.
7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him[self] the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
Jesus’ earthly ministry occurred between verses, 7 and 8. Where the one who was equal with God, vs. 6, the one who, acting upon himself, became flesh, cf. John 1:14, made himself of no reputation, vs. 7, cf. Heb 2:17, took upon himself the form of a servant, and was in the likeness of men, vs. 7. After which God, not merely exalted him, but “highly exalted” him, and glorified him with the same glory he had with the Father before the world existed (John 17:5)It was here where all the things anti-Trinitarians cannot comprehend happened, e.g. “If Jesus was God, why didn’t he know the hour of his return,””If Jesus was God, how could the Father be greater than Jesus?” etc., etc., etc.
8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
If Jesus was only a mere human being, how does a human being, “humble himself and become obedient unto death?” All mankind is appointed to death, no obedience or humbling involved! Heb 9:27. Were the criminals who were crucified with Jesus also obedient, did they also humble themselves unto death on the cross?9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:
10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, cf. [יהוה/YHWH, Isa 45:23] of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;
11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, cf. [ יהוה/YHWH, Isa 45:23] to the glory of God the Father.
10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, cf. [יהוה/YHWH, Isa 45:23] of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;
11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, cf. [ יהוה/YHWH, Isa 45:23] to the glory of God the Father.
In verses 10,11 Paul applies Isaiah 45:23, which refers to יהוה/YHWH], to Jesus as I have shown above!
The Committee on Bible Translation worked at updating the New International Version of the Bible to be published in 2011.
In it's notes under "Progress in Scholarship" it discusses the following change:
A short excerpt from the 25 page Harvard theological review article αρπαγμον /harpagmos, by Roy Hoover, referenced in the NIV.In it's notes under "Progress in Scholarship" it discusses the following change:
When the NIV was first translated, the meaning of the rare Greek word αρπαγμον /harpagmos, rendered ‟something to be grasped,” in Philippians 2:6 was uncertain. But further study has shown that the word refers to something that a person has in their possession but chooses not to use to their own advantage. The updated NIV reflects this new information, making clear that Jesus really was equal with God when he determined to become a human for our sake: ‟[Christ Jesus], being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage.”
See full translators notes at: Bible Gateway NIV Translator’s Notes‘O petros de arpagmon ton dia stavrou thanton epoieito dia tas soterious elpidas”
(And Peter considered death by means of the cross harpagmon on account of the hope of salvation, Comm in Luc 6)
“Tines…ton thanaton arpagma themenoi ten ton dussebon moxtherias”
(Since some regarded death as harpagma in comparison with the depravity of ungodly men. Hist. Eccl VCIII,12.2)
Not only are arpagma and arpagmos used synonymously in these two statements, but they are used synonymously by the same author in reference to the same object—death—and in expressions whose form precisely parallels that of the arpagmos remark in Phil 2:6.
What [Eusebius] wants to say, rather, is that because of the hope of salvation crucifixion was not a horror to be shunned, but an advantage to be seized.
“Arpagma” is used exactly this way in Hist. Eccl. VIII,12.2. At this point Eusebius is recounting the sufferings of Christians in periods of persecution. Some believers in order to escape torture threw themselves down from rooftops. There can be no suggestion of “robbery” or of violent self-assertion in this remark, nor can self-inflicted death under such circumstances be considered an unanticipated windfall.
Roy W. Hoover, Harvard Theological Review (1971) 95-119, pg. 108
Link to: Hoover Article
(And Peter considered death by means of the cross harpagmon on account of the hope of salvation, Comm in Luc 6)
“Tines…ton thanaton arpagma themenoi ten ton dussebon moxtherias”
(Since some regarded death as harpagma in comparison with the depravity of ungodly men. Hist. Eccl VCIII,12.2)
Not only are arpagma and arpagmos used synonymously in these two statements, but they are used synonymously by the same author in reference to the same object—death—and in expressions whose form precisely parallels that of the arpagmos remark in Phil 2:6.
What [Eusebius] wants to say, rather, is that because of the hope of salvation crucifixion was not a horror to be shunned, but an advantage to be seized.
“Arpagma” is used exactly this way in Hist. Eccl. VIII,12.2. At this point Eusebius is recounting the sufferings of Christians in periods of persecution. Some believers in order to escape torture threw themselves down from rooftops. There can be no suggestion of “robbery” or of violent self-assertion in this remark, nor can self-inflicted death under such circumstances be considered an unanticipated windfall.
Roy W. Hoover, Harvard Theological Review (1971) 95-119, pg. 108
Link to: Hoover Article
Does not address my post in any way.
Repeating an assertion does not make it so. Might as well just say "I'm right and you're wrong! Am too! Nuh Huh!"
Upvote
0
