Phil2:5-11

Continued...

Robertson has made reference to “divine qualities.” But Philippians 2 does not even suggest that he “emptied himself of divine qualities.” Indeed, Trinitarians insist that he retained his “divine qualities” whilst on Earth. (Omniscience, for example.) But of course, we have to realise that Trinitarians have never agreed amongst themselves, as to what it was that Christ lost when he “emptied himself"...

In his short essay Philippians 2:5-11, The Kenosis (1998), Dr Rodney Decker (Associate Professor of New Testament at the Baptist Bible Seminary, PA) attempts to summarise the many conflicting views. For the sake of brevity, I have used ellipses (in various places) to cut his list down to a manageable size:

• 
  1. Less conservative views.
  
  1. Christ had a human soul, to which the Logos imparted his divinity, little-by-little until he became completely divine…
  
  2. Laid aside his deity which was then restored at the ascension (Gess and Beecher, cf. summary in Hodge, ST, 2:435 f). Takes morfhv [MORFH] as = divine nature &/or essence. This is also referred to as "incarnation by divine suicide."
  
  3. "Abandoned certain prerogatives of the divine mode of existence in order to assume the human," e.g., omniscience; morfhvv [MORFH] is defined as God's "permanent characteristics"…
  
  4. He lived a double life from two, non-communicating life centers. As God, he continued his trinitarian and providential existence, and as man he was united with a human nature. He did not know consciously anything of his divine, trinitarian existence (Martensen; cf. Berkhouwer [?], 328).
  
  5. He disguised his deity and attributes, not by giving them up, but by limiting them to a time-form appropriate to a human mode of existence…
  
  2. More conservative views.
  
  a. "Old Orthodoxy" (Strong's desig., ST, 704)
  
  He gave up the use of the attributes…
  
  b. He acted as if he did not possess divine attributes (Anselm).
  
  c. He gave up the independent exercise of the divine attributes (Strong, ST, 703).
  
  He did not give up the attributes nor their use.
  
  He only exercised the divine attributes as directed by the Holy Spirit for the purpose of his Messianic/Redemptive mission…
  
  d. He limited himself to the voluntary non-use of the attributes…
  
  e. D. A. Carson (FD&FPJ, 37) modifies: "abandoned some substantial measure of independence in the use of his divine prerogatives."

During the course of his analysis, Decker engages with the Greek word morphe, taking careful note of the interpretation on which the standard Trinitarian argument relies. He considers two possible definitions of morphe, eventually discarding the standard Trinitarian interpretation in favour of the definition to which I myself subscribe:

• 
  The meaning of morfhv [MORFH] ("form".)
  
  1. Meaning based on classical Greek philosophy: "attributes."
  
  Lightfoot is a classic example of those who base the meaning of morfhv [MORFH] on Greek philosophy. He explains that it refers to "the specific character" (129); that "morfhv [MORFH] must apply to the attributes of the Godhead" (132). "In Gk philosophical literature, morfhv [MORFH] acquires a fixed and central place in the thought of Aristotle. For him the term becomes equal to a thing's essence (oujsiva) [OUSIA] or nature (fuvsi") [FUSIS].”
  
  [At this point, Decker cites Robert B. Strimple (Philippians 2:5-11 in Recent Studies: Some Exegetical Conclusions, Westminster Theological Journal 41; 1978.)]
  
  For years I tried . . . to maintain the view of Lightfoot that Paul here uses morfhv [MORFH] with the sense it had acquired in Greek philosophy, particularly Aristotelian, and which Murray speaks of as "existence form . . . the sum of those characterizing qualities that make a thing the precise thing that it is." Lightfoot wrote: "though morfhv [MORFH] is not the same as fuvsi" [FUSIS] or oujsiva [OUSIA], yet the possession of the morfhv [MORFH] involves participation in the oujsiva [OUSIA] also for morfhv [MORFH] implies not the external accidents but the essential attributes." But I have had to conclude that there is really very little evidence to support the conclusion that Paul uses morfhv [MORFH] in such a philosophical sense here and that my determination to hold on to that interpretation was really rooted in its attractiveness theologically.
  
  [Decker continues…]
  
  2. Meaning based on the LXX: "visible form."
  
  A much more likely context in which to understand morfhv [MORFH] is biblical Greek. Phil. 2:6, 7 are the only two occurrences of morfhv [MORFH] in the NT, so there is no NT context that will help. Instead the LXX text must be used. There are four uses there: Judg. 8:18; Job 4:16; Isa. 44:13; Dan. 3:19. Although this does not represent a large number of uses, it does provide a consistent picture of the use of morfhv [MORFH].
  In each instance the word refers to the visible form of the individual so described, not to his essential attributes.
  
  …
  
  [Skipping to Decker’s conclusion…]
  
  Summary:
  The incarnation of Jesus Christ is often described in terms of the "kenosis" (usually translated "to empty")--a term that comes from the Greek word kenovw [KENOW] in Philippians 2:5-11. This article summarizes the semantics and theology of the text from the perspective of evangelical theology, concluding that Jesus did not "empty" himself of anything. Rather Paul's statement refers to Jesus--who was and is fully equal with God in nature--veiling his preincarnate glory and voluntarily humbling himself by accepting existence in the form of humanity for the purposes of providing salvation.

So Decker believes that Christ "divested himself of divine glory." This is a conclusion with which I disagree, because there is no reference to divine glory in the text whatsoever. It is an idea which must be imported from John 17:5 - which in turn must be interpreted in accordance with the typically subjective Trinitarian "These words always mean that Jesus is God when they are applied to him, but they never mean that other men are God when the same words are applied to them..." mentality, in order for the "pre-existence" argument to work.

Continued...

Trinitarian eisegesis aside, the most significant point here is that in support of his argument, Decker rejects the interpretation of morphe as “the sum of those characterizing qualities which make a thing the precise thing that it is”, preferring “visible form of the individual.” This is a conclusion with which I readily agree, and one for which Decker has compiled a formidable list of proofs. (Bad luck, Mr Warfield.)

What was that “visible form”?

• In reference to Christ "being in the form of God", we have Genesis 1:26 on our side. ("Image and likeness of God.")
  
• In reference to "form of a servant", we have the Gospel record on our side. This "form of a servant" was demonstrated by the humble service of Christ in relation to (a) the Father, and (b) his disciples.

Paul tells us (in Philippians 2) that this involved Christ's willing submission to the death of the cross – which is true – but there is another example, from the Gospel of John:

• 
  John 13:3-5.
  Jesus knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands, and that he was come from God, and went to God;
  He riseth from supper, and laid aside his garments; and took a towel, and girded himself.
  After that he poureth water into a basin, and began to wash the disciples' feet, and to wipe them with the towel wherewith he was girded.

The principle is even more striking when we recall an earlier incident:

• 
  Luke 7:37-38.
  And, behold, a woman in the city, which was a sinner, when she knew that Jesus sat at meat in the Pharisee's house, brought an alabaster box of ointment,
  And stood at his feet behind him weeping, and began to wash his feet with tears, and did wipe them with the hairs of her head, and kissed his feet, and anointed them with the ointment.

John Gill’s Commentary explains why this incident was remarkable:

• 
  And began to wash the disciples feet.
  This custom of washing the feet was not used by the Jews at their passover, nor at their private entertainments, or common meals, but at the reception of strangers or travellers, which were just come off of a journey, whereby they had contracted dirt and filth, and was a servile work, never performed by superiors to their inferiors, but by inferiors to superiors; as by the wife to the husband, by the son to the father, and by the servant to his master; and was an instance of great humility in any others, as in Abigail, who said to David, "let thine handmaid be a servant to wash the feet of the servants of my Lord", 1Sa_25:41, upon which place some Jewish Rabbis have this note:
  
  "this she said, על צד הענוה, "by way of humility", to show, that it would have been sufficient to her, if she became a wife to one of the servants of David, and washed his feet, as was the custom of a wife to her husband.''
  
  But what a surprising instance of humility and condescension is this, that Christ, the Lord and master, should wash the feet of his disciples, when it was their proper work and business to have washed his?

So the passage in question merely states that equality with God is something that Jesus did not try to usurp. What it doesn't say, is that Jesus already possessed this equality! And yet, that is precisely what Robertson's argument requires.

Clarke's Commentary states:

• 
  By the form of God we are rather to understand that visible, glorious light in which the Deity is said to dwell, 1 Tim. vi. 16, and by which he manifested himself to the patriarchs of old, Deut. v. 22, 24; which was commonly accompanied with a numerous retinue of angels, Psa. lxviii. 17, and which in Scripture is called The Similitude, Num. xii. 8; The Face, Psa. xxxi. 16: The Presence, Exod. xxxiii. 15; and The Shape of God, John v. 37.
  
  This interpretation is supported by the term morfh, form, here used, which signifies a person's external shape or appearance, and not his nature or essence. Thus we are told, Mark xvi. 12, that Jesus appeared to his disciples in another morfh, shape, or form. And, Matt. xvii. 2, metemorfwqh, he was transfigured before them - his outward appearance or form was changed.

Clarke believes that Jesus was true deity (an interpretation I reject) but he agrees with me that morphe refers to outward appearance. His conclusion on this issue...

• 
  Lastly, this sense of morfh qeou, is confirmed by the meaning of morqh doulou, Philippians ii. 7; which evidently denotes the appearance and behaviour of a servant or bondman, and not the essence of such a person." See Whitby and Macknight.

...is therefore identical to mine, and is further confirmed by the following comments from another Trinitarian scholar:

• 
  The association of thought is the Old Testament, and there is an implied contrast between the two Adams. Less probably it has been proposed that the temptation and fall of Satan (see Isaiah xiv) as interpreted by later Jewish writers is the clue to the passage...)
  
  Hence, in conclusion to this section we could rightly say that a close consideration of verse 5 would tend to support a translation of verse 6 as saying that Christ Jesus was not "equal" to God nor did he attempt "a snatching" at an equality." A translation that says that Christ Jesus did not "cling to" an equality with God would make it difficult to see Paul's point in verse 5.
  Martin, Ralph (1959), The Epistle of Paul to the Philippians: An Introduction and Commentary.

There is no need to force a Unitarian reading from a passage which even Trinitarians cannot reconcile perfectly with their own Christological position. The clear testimony of Scriptural vigorously proclaims the humanity of Christ, in contrast to his oft-alleged “deity.”

Posted by evangelion: "not realising, perhaps that those of us who have been blessed with much more than a high school education, can see right through them. You will never gain any respect or credibility with those whom you hope to refute until you can show that (a) you understand what you're talking about, and (b) you have an education to back it up. In short - you are an ignorant poseur."

Why, once again and again evangelion, do you feel the need to put other down in attempt to elevate yourself?

You have the urge and you give right in.

Take care

FOW

I've made my point, and you're still ignoring FutureMan's little jibes.

Your hypocritical double standard fails to impress, as does your false piety.

posted by evangelion: "Your hypocritical double standard fails to impress, as does your false piety"

Even though it is very off topic... would you like to explain?

You take issue with me for what you see as unjustified comments about others, but you are obviously quite happy with the patronising attitude of Jedi and Futureman.

evangelion... it is too obvious to take notice when someone begins to lord their supposed "education" over others. Examples of this would include petty attempts to discredit a person because of a typo in spelling a word like youo...

It is bad taste, and it does not elevate you in any manner.

take care

FOW

here you go ev:From here: http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/phil2.htm

"The purpose of this section of the book of Philippians was not to expound the logistics of the incarnation, but it was to serve as an example to the church at Philippi of true humility, so that they would not strive with one another, but look to the needs of one another (Philippians 2:1-4).

The structure of verses 6-11 is as follows: verses 6-8 speak of Christ’s activity; verses 9-11 speak of God’s activity. God’s activity is in response to Christ’s.

There is a general literary pattern found in this passage. It is one of humiliation, then exaltation; loss, then compensation; descent, then ascension.

There are many interpretive issues in this short little passage. The primary debate is over a two-stage, or three-stage Christology. The former presents Adoptionistic Christology (born an ordinary man—exaltation), while the latter presents an Incarnational Christology (was God—incarnated as a man—exalted). This is an issue of Christ’s ontological (pertaining to the nature and essential properties of existence) deity.

Those who see an Adoptionistic Christology being presented here see the passage as a parallel between Adam and Christ. Christ was merely a man like Adam. Whereas Adam tried to seize equality with God, Christ did not consider this seizing of equality to be right, and thus emptied Himself of his aspirations to be like God. Instead, He took on Himself the form of a servant, dedicating His life to obedience to God, even to the point of death. For this reason God has exalted him. Adam tried exalting himself, so was abased.. Christ willingly abased Himself, not trying to seize equality with God, and therefore was exalted.

This argument is based primarily from the Greek phrase en morfh|/| qeou/. It is argued that this is a reference to Genesis 2, when man was made in the image of God. The LXX, when translating the Hebrew of Genesis 2 uses the Greek word eikw/n, not morfh, although in the LXX these words are often used interchangeably.

One of the reasons for rejecting this idea is that the LXX not only uses a different noun, but even uses a different preposition, kata, for its translation. It is fairly evident that Paul is not alluding to Genesis 2, and that he is not drawing this phrase from the LXX of Genesis 2.

If an Adam/Christ parallel was intended in Philippians 2, it would seem that Paul would indicate such in the context. Instead, Adam’s name is never mentioned, and no illusion is made to Genesis 2. If anything at all, the OT referent to the kenosis passage is the Suffering Servant passages in Isaiah 43-54.

That this passage cannot be teaching a two-stage Christology is evident from the phrase en morphe theou huparchon. Huparchon is a present active particle, indicating that Christ was existing in the form of God before He submitted to His humiliation. He was already in the form of God. This is clear evidence for His ontological deity.

The phrase "thought it not robbery" comes from the Greek ouc a`rpagmon h`ghsato, The word a`rpagmon occurs only here in the NT. Outside of Biblical Greek, it is still rare, but has the basic meaning of "robbery" or "take advantage of." The latter fits the context better here. The point is that has to do with Christ, who was already existing in the form of God, did not consider equality with God something to be taken advantage of.

Instead of continuing to exist in the form of God, Christ "made himself of no reputation." The Greek word behind this phrase is kenow. This word has two different senses. Used in a metaphorical sense, it means "of no reputation" or "nothing." Used in a metaphysical sense it means "to empty." The NT usage, and Paul’s usage in particular, favors the metaphorical sense, although the metaphysical sense is used in the LXX of things being literally emptied out (like a jar or chest). Though either sense could be used here, the metaphorical sense is probably to be preferred because Paul is using the incarnation of Christ for an example of humiliation. The idea would be that "Christ made Himself nothing." This would fit well with Paul’s mention of the "empty pride" that the Philippians were asserting just a few verses earlier.

The question arises, then, as to what Christ emptied Himself of, or in what way He made Himself nothing? Some have suggested that He emptied Himself of the "form of God." This cannot be so from a logical basis, nor a grammatical basis. Grammatically, en morfh|/| qeou/ is a prepositional phrase modifying the relative pronoun o`j (who) which begins verse six. Logically speaking, how could Jesus empty Himself of His deity, and still be God?

The answer to the question of what Jesus emptied Himself from is to be found in the modal participial phrases following the kenosis phrase, which says that Jesus took on Himself the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of a man. These participles describe the manner in which Christ emptied Himself. He emptied Himself by adding to His existence as Deity, an existence of humanity. Whereas He was existing in the morfh of God, now He has taken on Himself the morfh of a servant. Being found in the fashion of a man, Christ humbled Himself to the point of death, even the death of the cross.

As a result of this willing humiliation on Christ’s part, going from glory to the form of a servant, God highly exalted Him, giving Him a name that is above every other name. Grammatically the name above every other name could be "Jesus" or "Lord." Both views have much to commend them, but that the latter is probably the name in view is due to the fact that Paul, a Jew, would not have considered the name Jesus to be above all names, considering it was a common name in his day. YHWH, the name of God, was said by the Greeks as kurioj (Lord). Although this word could be used for someone out of respect, not implying deity, the context makes it apparent that kurioj here is being used to designate YWHW. When this is compounded by the literary point that Paul was making, it becomes even more clear that kurioj is the name above all names. Paul, in giving an example of the humiliation that the Philippians should demonstrate showed the ultimate humiliation that God underwent in the incarnation. God came in the form of a servant (douloj). This is the lowest position a human being can occupy. In stark contrast to this is one who is called 'Lord.' A servant is never a lord. The two are as different as night and day. These two diametrically opposed positions are used by Paul to show the extent to which God will exalt someone who will first humble themselves. Christ took the ultimate humiliation as a douloj, but was then exalted to the place of kurioj over all. The one who was a servant will now be called 'Lord' by every human tongue. The one in the form of God, takes on the form of a servant, suffers death by the cross, and then is exalted, being called Lord.

The literary point of this passage is that even as Christ, who did not need to humble Himself, did humble Himself, and as a result was exalted, likewise the Philippian believers should humble themselves so that they too might be exalted."

take care, oh yea... and remember: existing in the form of God means exactly what it says... Christ was God. Also... if one wonders why the description is "in the form of, or in very nature"... one must realize that Christ had become flesh as well. However, the idea is very clear... (especially put together with the rest of the word of God)... that Christ is God who became flesh out of love.

FOW

Please be reminded that personal conflicts should be handled through your e-mail or private message option in the profile page. Do not air them publicly.

Thank you.

[noflame]Please review before posting further.[/noflame]

I have not read these post in here I am simply offering an article on the verses listed in the first post for your reading.

Phil. 2:5 -- This passage is a transitional statement from the unity described in the previous verses. It brings to light the final "let", and leads into the glorious example of Christ, which continues through Phil. 2:13. The word "mind" is from a word that means "to think a certain way." That way is to think as Christ thought. We are to have the same mind of humility that was expressed by Christ, yet we can never do it as well. Paul sets forth the "mind" of Christ in His humility in the verses that follow.


Phil. 2:6-11 -- Example of Christ's Humility and Obedience

Phil. 2:6 -- The "Who" that begins the verse describes Christ Jesus, of Phil. 2:5, Whose mind we are to have. This verse explains the perfect example of the One we are to emulate in this respect -- a perfect example of humility. Of course, we cannot go to the depths of humility He did, leaving Heaven to fulfill the scheme of redemption. Before this humility, Christ was in the "form of God." "Form" is from [@morfe] which "denotes the special or characteristic form or feature of a person or thing."<3> It is used only of Christ (Phil. 2:6-7). "The `form' of anything is the manner in which it reveals itself; and this, of course, is determined by the nature which it has. Christ was in the form of God -- deity -- therefore, he possessed the nature of deity."<4> Thayer says He bore the form "in which he appeared to the inhabitants of heaven."<5> Being (existing -- ASV) (from [@huparchon]) is said to describe the continual nature of Christ -- first referring to His pre-incarnate state, and in no way suggesting loss of His Deity by incarnation. The word being has "a backward look into an antecedent condition, which has been protracted into the present."<6> The meaning is that He continued to exist in that form. Robbery (a thing to be grasped -- ASV) indicates that Christ in the form of God did not consider it something to hold on to or maintain. Equal points out that He was the same in quality as God the Father. He was equal with the Father, and maintained that form of God. "Jesus did not resign, or in any way give up His deity in the incarnation. Throughout the entire course of His life in the flesh here upon earth He retained fully and completely the divine nature, the complex of attributes essential to His being the Second Person of the eternal Trinity."<7> That Divine nature of Christ involved His "form," as discussed above. The Word was God and was with God, and was One with Him (John 1:1-3; 10:30).

While in the form of God, He was "on an equality with God" (ASV) (i.e., equal to God -- of the same quality, John 5:18). At that point, He did not exist as the Son of God, or even as Christ Jesus, but these words are the way we identify Him since the incarnation. He was in the form of God and left that form to take on another form. He became the Son of God through the virgin birth, and was called Jesus (meaning "Savior," Matt. 1:21), and Christ (anointed one).

Phil. 2:7 -- First, Jesus "made himself of no reputation" or "emptied himself" (ASV) of His glorious state to redeem man. He was willing to give up His state of glory, where He was visible as God, and leave it to form another appearance. He did not lose the very nature He had, but his immediate presence on earth took on another visible form to a different group of observers. He surely did not empty Himself of Deity, or of His Godhood, but of the glory of being with the Father (John 17:5). Second, having emptied Himself, Jesus took on another form. His appearance was now that of a bondservant. He was made in the "likeness of men." His appearance was now as a human being, which does not mean He only looked like men (but really was not a man). He was in the form of flesh (Rom. 8:3) with a body: "For in him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily" (Col. 2:9). He partook of flesh and blood, which was subject to physical death as one of the seed of Abraham, like His brethren, and was tempted as a man (Heb. 2:14-18).

John wrote, "Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God" (1 John 4:2). "The word was made flesh" (John 1:14). "What Christ grasped at in His incarnation was not divine sovereignty, but service .... The totality of His being could not appear to men, for that involved the form of God. Hence the apostle views Him solely as He could appear to men."<8> Jesus said He was among the disciples as one that served (Luke 22:27). His service during His personal ministry preceded His service to the world through His ultimate sacrifice.

Phil. 2:8 -- The Lord was "found," or observed, as man's attention was drawn to Him. He was found to be a man -- a human being. He had no ordinary features or beauty that would elevate Him above others (Isa. 53:2). Fashion ([@schema]) refers to His outward appearance as a servant, in the likeness of men. He had flesh and bones just as everyone else did, and had the appetites and desires of the flesh as other human beings did. "Man" describes Jesus even after His ascension. Though Christ left the "form" of man to return to the glory of God, He is still "the man, Christ Jesus" (1 Tim. 2:5). So, He was truly God and truly man, although in physical characteristics He was known and recognized as a man. Angels often made their appearances as men, but Jesus made a unique appearance in that He was born a man.

Jesus "humbled" Himself, or was made low. First, He humbled himself by being made man, and second, He humbled Himself to the point of dying as a man -- in a special way. The noun form of "humbled" is translated "low estate" in Luke 1:48. It is used in connection with the Lord's "humiliation" in Acts 8:33, as Philip quoted from Isa. 53. In Phil. 3:21 Paul uses this word to refer to our "vile" body (of our low estate, "humiliation" -- ASV), which shall ultimately become like the glorious body of Jesus.

Note: The humiliation of Christ involved more than merely "emptying himself" of glory with God the Father. It involved also what He did afterward while in fashion as a man -- becoming obedient unto death. Jesus learned obedience to the Father. "Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered" (Heb. 5:8). He came down from Heaven to do God's will (John 6:38), which involved His death. Even in Gethsemane, He dreaded the ordeal of death, but prayed that God's will be done (Matt. 26:39,42). Jesus was obedient unto death, which is modified by the phrase, "even the death of the cross." He was obedient to the point of death at the hands of His enemies, who chose the most cruel form of death -- that of the cross. The law had said that when one died on the cross, he was cursed. Jesus became a curse for us in His death. Man was cursed because of sin, but Jesus took that curse upon Himself in His humiliation (Gal. 3:13).

"He was `found in fashion as a man.' His outward appearance was altogether human. He so appeared to men. They so regarded him. He was so `found' by them. Such was his `fashion,' his outward guise. In reality he was much more. Had the eyes of men been opened they would have realized that they who had seen him had seen the Father. Yet they saw in him only a man, and indeed a man who was `despised, and rejected, ... a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief'; for his voluntary humiliation did not consist merely in assuming actual humanity, but `he humbled himself, becoming obedient even unto death, yea, the death of the cross.'

"His voluntary humiliation which made him wholly subject to the will of his Father led him even as far as death, and that, too, death in its most terrible and revolting form. The cross was the very symbol of disgrace, agony, and shame. Crucifixion could be inflicted upon no Roman citizen. It was visited only upon the worst of criminals. To one who suffered this mode of death, the law of Moses attached a curse (Deut. 21:23; Gal. 3:13.) With the mention of such ignominy the picture of Christ's stooping from glory reaches its climax. His unselfish service brought him all the way from the throne of divine majesty to the cross on Calvary."<9>

The doctrine of "physical immortality" is now being advocated by some. It is a contradiction of terms, for physical is material, which is temporary, or mortal, and immortality has to do with the eternal. Some claim that Jesus entered Heaven in His "physical body," in which He was raised and changed (from flesh and blood to flesh and bones). They say all Christians will experience the same thing. We know Paul said "flesh and blood" cannot enter the kingdom of Heaven (1 Cor. 15:50), and when Jesus showed Himself to the disciples after His resurrection, He said He was made up of flesh and bones (Luke 24:39). Then it is said that Jesus asked the disciples for some fish to show "that he was standing there with his resurrected human body. So changed. But still this body. Flesh and bone going all the way to heaven!"<10> Jesus was supposedly changed from flesh and blood to flesh and bones, so as to be in Heaven. Was Jesus without blood while standing there? Was He without bones before His death? There can be no blood without bones, and bones without blood would be dead bones in a dead body. Teachers of this doctrine assume that Jesus ascended into Heaven in the very same unchanged body in which He ate fish after His resurrection. This would mean that "flesh" is eternal, as a part of "flesh and bones" that Jesus had. That being the case, then we are eternal at least in part now, by having "flesh." How can that be?

Christ's body was the same, both before and after the resurrection. It became "glorious" at the ascension. Paul speaks of Christ being in Heaven with His "glorious body" ("the body of his glory" -- ASV) (Phil. 3:20-21). This statement implies that His body was changed during the ascension. Our resurrected bodies of humiliation will be the same as Christ's glorious body. John said he did not know what our bodies would be like, but they would be like Christ's body of glory (1 John 3:2). John knew what Jesus looked like while in the flesh, but he did not know what Jesus looks like now. The apostle Paul said though we have known Christ after the flesh, "yet now henceforth know we him no more" (2 Cor. 5:16). So, Christ did not go to Heaven in the same body He had when He was raised, but He was changed. We shall be changed immediately upon the resurrection, and shall be like Christ (1 Cor. 15:50-53).

Phil. 2:9 -- Two things are said about what God did for Christ after His death on the cross. First, God hath "highly exalted him." This refers undoubtedly to His ascension and being seated at the right hand of the Father: "Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted ..." (Acts 2:33). "He raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places" (Eph. 1:20). We should remember the Scripture: "He that humbleth himself shall be exalted" (Luke 14:11b). Jesus humbled Himself, and now He has been exalted to God's right hand.

Second, God has given Him a name which is above every name. What name is that? Some say it is that which was prophesied in Isa. 42:8 -- the Lord. (See Phil. 2:11.) This signifies His royalty, dignity, and glory. Others say it is the name Jesus (mentioned in Phil. 2:10), and that people should bow when the name is uttered. However, more in keeping with the reference to the "name" of Jesus is the authority that Jesus the Lord has. After Peter stated that God had exalted Jesus to His right hand, he states that He was made "Lord and Christ" (Acts 2:33,36). Then in Acts 2:38, the "name" is used, as Peter told the inquiring Jews to "repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins."

Undoubtedly, the "name" at which all must bow is the authority of Jesus. Peter states that a man was made whole "by the name of Jesus Christ" (Acts 4:10) and that in no other name is one saved except this name (Acts 4:12). Jesus claimed to have all authority or power, and He commanded the disciples to go teach all nations (Matt. 28:18-19). In Acts 10:48, Peter commanded the household of Cornelius to be baptized "in the name" of Jesus Christ. Paul said that whatsoever we do in word or deed is to be done in the name of Jesus Christ (Col. 3:17). "The `name of Jesus' does not mean any word, any title, any appellation, but it denotes all that Jesus is now known to be, as Son of God and Son of Man, as the divine Savior and Redeemer."<11>

Phil. 2:10 -- "That" signifies purpose -- "in order that." God exalted Jesus and gave Him authority for a purpose -- that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow. The KJV says "at the name," while the ASV says "in the name." What is meant in the language of "things" in Heaven, earth, and under the earth? If it refers to "things," then the knees of "things" should bow. Other versions use the word "those," which might well suggest personages, giving the message a universal flavor.

"However, these phrases are not to be pressed too far, as though they designated specifically angels, men, and demons, or celestial beings, those who dwell on earth, and the dead in the underworld or in the place of departed spirits. The description is general, and points to the universal acknowledgment of the grace and glory and sovereignty of Christ."<12>

Phil. 2:11 -- The second aspect of that purpose for which God exalted Jesus and gave Him such authority is now stated: that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God. When is the authority of Jesus recognized as every knee bows and every tongue confesses? Is it during a period of time on earth when God is glorified, or is it in the Judgment Day when God is ultimately glorified as the ruler over sin and Satan, or is it both? We suggest that if we had only the immediate context and parallel passages, we would likely conclude that it refers to a period on earth during the Gospel age, in which people submit to the Gospel in obedience and glorify God in the church, for: "Unto him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end. Amen" (Eph. 3:21). Remember, there are two things God did for Jesus: (1) He exalted Him, and (2) He gave Him authority. In Eph. 1, Paul refers to the mighty power of God which He wrought in Christ, and we are told when this happened: "when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places" (Eph. 1:20). Then the very next verse shows the height and fullness of His authority (name). "Far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come" (Eph. 1:21). When we look at these three passages, we find:

1. God exalted Christ and made His foes his footstool, His "name" (authority) was employed for salvation, and those saved were added to the church (Acts 2:33-38,47).

2. God set Jesus at His own right hand and gave Him authority above "every name that is named," putting all things under His feet, making Him head of the church, in which God is glorified (Eph. 1:20-22; 3:21).

3. God exalted Jesus and gave Him "a name which is above every name" which should bring "glory" to God (Phil. 2:9-11).

Now, there is another meaning, which is the ultimate one of the text. The reference to knees bowing and tongues confessing is found three times in the Bible: Isa. 45:23; Rom. 14:11, and Phil. 2:10-11. First, Isa. 45:23: "I have sworn by myself, the word is gone out of my mouth in righteousness, and shall not return, That unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear." This passage appears to be in a context of "salvation," according to Isa. 45:22,24,25.

Second, in Rom. 14:11 Paul quotes Isa. 45:23 by saying, "For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God." The application Paul makes of Isaiah's words is to the Final Judgment. In the previous verse he refers to the "judgment seat of Christ" before which we must all stand (cf. 2 Cor. 5:10), and then in 2 Cor. 5:12 he states, "So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God."

Third, the same language is used by Paul in Phil. 2:10-11, in saying that every knee should bow and every tongue should confess. The "should's" here apparently are not necessarily suggestive of what "ought" to be done, for Rom. 14:11 uses the word shall, suggesting what will take place. Could it be that stronger words are used in Rom. 14 because Paul is making a "Judgment" application of the passage?

At any rate, if Paul used this terminology once in reference to the Judgment, he could and may well have had that ultimate concept in mind in Phil. 2. Could not both possibilities exist in Phil. 2? God has highly exalted Jesus with a name to which all should submit to the glory of God. In the event they do not do so in this life, they will acknowledge God and His Son in the Judgment Day and give Them the final glory as the Victors over Satan. There will be no atheists or disobedient people who fail to acknowledge God in the Final Day, but it will be too late for them. Satan will have absolutely no glory and honor. It will all belong to God.

OS - you won't get anywhere by arguing about different forms of harpagmos.

Remember, the Expositor's Greek Testament (1976) says:

• 
  We cannot find any passage where harpazo or any of it's derivatives has the sense of 'holding in possession', 'retaining'. It seems invariably to mean 'seize,' 'snatch violently'. Thus it is not permissible to glide from the true sense 'grasp at' into one which is totally different, 'hold fast'.

See that? "...or any of its derivatives."

OS -

What we have are three universally renowned and accepted Greek language authorities, BGD, Liddell-Scott, and TDNT, one secular, i.e. non-Christian, non-Trinitarian, which agree, which have not been refuted, which cite, N.T. era contemporary secular writings in support, and which support a translation of “a prize to be grasped eagerly” for arpagmoV in Philippians 2:6.

Click to expand...

Don't you understand that this suits me just fine? If you have to grasp for something, it wasn't yours to begin with!

This just in - Dennis Ray Burk Jr supports my argument concerning the correct definition of harpagmos!

Get the scoop right here!

Back later, after I've had some dinner and enjoyed a bit of socialising with a couple of mates.