Hebrews 1: 3 - 4: "After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of The Majesty in Heaven. So he became as much superior to the angels as the name he has inherited is superior to theirs."
Q. Whos right hand did he sit next to? Arent Jesus and The Majesty the same being?
Q. If Jesus is supposed to be co-equal with God the Father, what does "He became superior mean?" Isnt Jesus, if he is God, superior to all already?
SOURCE:
www.geocities.com/jbaixeras/philippians2.htm
This verse has been used to try and prove the Trinity and the preexistence of Christ. The argument is that according to the verse, Jesus did not consider it robbery to be equal with God. The second argument is that Jesus being God, emptied himself of his divinity when he came as Jesus. We will look at both of these claims and in the process we will give you what I believe to be the correct interpretation of this verse.
Let me start by saying that this verse is probably the most written about verse in the Bible. It has been the topic of many a Bible scholar, and certain interpretations of this verse have caused quite a commotion.
Before starting let me state the best way to understand these verses. This hymn is best understood within the framework of Adam Christology (James Dunn, Christology in the Making pg. 114-115). Though the hymn is obviously about Christ, it defines him against the background of Adams failure. The hymn presupposes Adams fateful choice, his desire to "be like God," (Gen. 3:5), his failure, and his downfall. Jesus is the second Adam. Where the first Adam failed, the second Adam is victorious. Where the first Adam sought his own interests, the second Adam remained obedient to the point of death.
This Adam Christology is a feature of Pauls writings (Rom.5:12 21, 1Cor. 15: 20 28) and of early Christianity. For example, the temptation stories in Mathew and Luke have in their background the temptation of Adam in Genesis. Luke traces the genealogy of Jesus back to Adam. Adams ancestry is listed as the "son of God." It is interesting that Lukes genealogy of Jesus, ending with Adam, is immediately followed with the temptation story. For the early church, the significance of Jesus was understood, at least in part, in light of the downfall of Adam. (Scott A. Deane, MATS, Philippians 2:6-11, Radical Reformation Vol.7 No.1, 1997)
As in any exegesis of any verse, one must always interpret it in the context in which it was written. So at this time please open your Bible and read from verse 1 12. First we are going to cover the context and then the point of this hymn, and then we will do a line by line exegesis.
Lets review the context first. In verse 1-2 Paul is telling the Philippians to be of the same mind, to show the same love. In verse 3 he tells them not to do anything out of selfishness or vainglory, but to be humble. He tells them to regard OTHERS as more important than themselves. To consider others interests as more important than their own. All this is happening during a time of persecution.
Then in verses 5-8 he uses the life of Christ as an example of what he is speaking about. He tells them to have the same attitude as Christ.
The point of the hymn in this context is that suffering, humility, and obedience to God for the faith leads ultimately to exaltation.
Now that we have covered the context in verses 1-5, we are ready for the first controversy in verse 6. There are two different interpretations. The first is from the KJV, it states:
"Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God."
The majority of Bibles including the NAB, NASB, NRSV, NIV, and The Amplified Bible, just to name a few, interpret it as:
"Who though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God something to be grasped."
First let us get an understanding of the phrase "Who being in the form of God." The key being the word "form."
The word form (morphe) and image (eikon) are interchangeable. R.P. Martin ("Morphe in Philippians 2:6," Expository Times, Vol. 70, no.6, March 1959, 183-184) states:
"That morphe and eikon are equivalent terms that are used interchangeably in the LXX."
James Dunn states in Christology in the Making pg.115:
"It has long been recognized that morphe and eikon are near synonyms."
An understanding of image will help us in the understanding of form. Let us look at their definitions. According to Strongs Greek Dictionary it means:
Form (morphe) nature. Comes from the base of the word meros that means to have an allotment, a division or share, piece, portion.
Image (eikon) likeness, or figuratively a representation.
Being in the form or image of something means that it is not the original. If I have something that is in the form or image of a lion, then it is not really a lion. If it was, I would not have to say that it was in the form or image of a lion, I would just say that it is a lion.
Man was made in the image of God. God made man as a representation of himself. Someone he could share a piece of himself (having the spirit of God in us) with.
Gen.1:27 "God created man in his image."
1 Cor. 11:7 "Because he (man) is the image and glory of God."
These verses do not mean that because we are the image of God that we are God. It means that God made us with his attributes. We have the ability to think (do his will) and to love like God.
These next two verses do not mean that Jesus is God in the same way that the verses above do not mean that man is God. They mean that Jesus is the image of God because as Gods anointed he does the will of God and loved us (as God does) enough to die for us. Jesus and Gods purpose are one and the same. Our purpose should be the same as Christs. This is what Paul is telling the Philippians in verse 5, to have the same attitude (the image) as Christ.
2 Cor. 4:4 "Christ who is the image of God."
Colossians 1:1 "He (Jesus) is the image of the invisible God."
When we are reborn or renewed we then bear the image of Christ and of God (because they are one in purpose) because we put away the old self and put on the new self which now does the will of God.
Colossians 3:10 says it clearly:
"Stop lying to one another, since you have taken off the old self with its practices and have put on the new self, which is being renewed, for knowledge, in the image of its creator."
This next verse is also a good example. The disobedient are said to have a form of godliness. It doesnt mean that they are God, in this verse it means that they pretend to be like God (righteous), but in reality are not.
2 Tim. 3:5 "Having a form (the disobedient) of godliness but denying its power."
The KJV basically says that Jesus did not think anything wrong of being considered equal with God. This is contrary to the Adam Christology that is being applied and in total contradiction to the context of this chapter which is humility, selflessness, to be a slave of, not to be equal with, especially with God.
Now lets see how this understanding of the word "form" fits in this passage. Let us look at both verses again.
"Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God."
"Who though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God something to be grasped."
Let us review the context of this chapter. It is about being humble. It is about putting others ahead of oneself. Of making others more important than oneself like Christ did. Christ put Gods interests (Gods will) and ours ahead of himself just like we should put others interests ahead of our own.
The KJV interpretation of verse 6 goes completely contrary to that idea. It does not convey humility, it states the opposite, grandeur. It says that although Jesus was like, or represented God, that he did not think that there was anything wrong in being considered equal to God. It is basically hypocritical.
The other Bible interpretations are in line with the context of the chapter. Their sense is determined by their role within Adam Christology.
The conclusion to these verses is that Jesus is the second Adam created in the image of God as Adam was. As Adam, Jesus is in esteemed position, they are both called "son of God." Like Adam, Jesus was faced with a choice: seek his own interests or Gods; obey or rebel.
Adams temptation was that he wanted to be like God (Gen. 3:5). Adam sought to grasp (the NRSV has grasp as, "something to be exploited") equality with God. But Jesus in contrast to Adams selfish choice did not seek to usurp Gods authority but instead took the position of a slave to God and obeyed him to the point of death.
Now on to verse 7-9. It says:
"Rather, he emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, coming in human likeness, and found human in appearance, he humbled himself, becoming obedient to death, death on a cross. Because of this, God greatly exalted him."
Let me start with the phrase "he emptied himself." Many people use this verse in defense of the Trinity when confronted with questions such as
"If Jesus is omniscient then how come he does not know the day of his return?
Their answer is that Jesus doesnt know that because he emptied himself of His divinity when he came as Jesus.
This idea has an actual name. It is called the Kenotic Doctrine. Before going on, let me show you the Creed of the Council of Chalcedon, which is the definition of Jesus which all good Trinitarians adhere to, Catholic and Protestant.