Phil2:5-11

Status
Not open for further replies.

Evangelion

<b><font size="2">δυνατός</b></font>
OS -

It had to happen before Jesus was in the "morphe" of a servant and the "schemati" of a man, when was that?

I've already told you! :rolleyes:

Here it is again...
____________

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, &#1506;&#1500; &#1510;&#1491; &#1492;&#1506;&#1504;&#1493;&#1492;, "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.
:cool:
 
Upvote 0

Evangelion

<b><font size="2">δυνατός</b></font>
OS -

*snip*

Robertson neither cites nor quotes Aristotle.

*snip*

Straw man. I never claimed that he did.

This is what I had written:

  • First of all, the definition on which Robertson's argument turns, is actually a misrepresentation of the Aristotelian use of morphe.
Anyone who's even remotely familiar with Aristotle's eidos and morphe, will see that Robertson has borrowed heavily from the latter to support his eisegesis.

QED.

Then why this obsessive-compulsive fixation on Aristotle.

*snip*

Because Robertson clearly follows Warfield et al, in drawing his argument from a misrepresentation of Aristotle's morphe!

Look, this is what he says:

  • In the form of God (en morph qeou). Morph means the essential attributes as shown in the form.
But that is not how morphe is used in the NT, nor is it how morphe is used in the OT, nor is it even an accurate representation of Aristotle's own use. This is precisely why I quoted Decker in my rebuttal.

Again:

____________________

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.
It is undeniable that Robertson's mishandling of morphe is based upon his (equally poor) mishandling of Aristotle. Lightfoot, Warfield and Ryrie (to name only a few) were also guilty of this.

A more recent example of this subjective blunder is seen in the work of Professor Barry D. Smith of the Atlantic Baptist University, who, in his Pauline Christology (2002), argues thus:

  • Before his coming in the appearance of a human being (en homoiomati anthropon), Christ Jesus is said to have been in the form of God (en morphê theou). The meaning of morphê is varied in Greek literature and in Jewish literature written in or translated into Greek. There is a philosophical meaning for morphê, used in Plato and especially Aristotle (meaning essential being or nature) and a more common use in Greek and Jewish literature written in Greek meaning outward appearance or shape. (It should be noted that the scholarly discussion on this topic has been immense, far too much to consider exhaustively.)
As with Lightfoot, Warfield and Ryrie, Smith has misrepresented Aristotle's use of morphe (for which I refer you to the brief dicussion of Aristotle in my original rebuttal.) Then, having "successfully" fudged the Aristotelian morphe, he sneaks it into his exegesis of Pauline Christology (conveniently ignoring the consistent use of this word in the OT and NT.)

During the course of his eisegesis, Smith even admits that...

  • Outside of the hymn, in the New Testament, the term morphê occurs in the longer ending of Mark (16:12) with the meaning of outward appearance. There are occurrences of morphê in the LXX and other Jewish literature written in Greek; in these the term also means outward shape or figure or some other, related meaning: LXX Judg 8:18; Tobit 1:13; Job 4:16; Wis 18:1; Isa 44:13; Dan 3:19; 4 Macc 15:4; T. Benj. 10:1)
So it is obvious that the textual evidence against the mistranslation of morphe as "essence" or "essential being" (or anything like it), is both weighty and consistent.

Notwithstanding this, Smith prefers to brush it aside. Why? Well, because he has already decided that he's going to prove the deity of Christ from this passage, and he's not going to let the facts stand in the way of a good story. Instead, he freely confesses his preference for the philosophical definition, as opposed to the clear and undeniable use of this word in Biblical literature.

Thus:

  • There have been attempts to avoid the philosophical interpretation of morphê (even the diluted philosophical interpretation) by arguing that morphê is indistinct in meaning from the equivalent terms eikôn and homoima, from which it follows that morphê in Phil 2:6 has the general meaning of “image of God,” which does not necessarily mean that Christ has the same essential being or nature as God. (All three Greek words are used in the LXX to translate the Hebrew zelem, and in Gen 1:27 Adam, who is not divine, is said to be the zelem and demuth of God) (see Hering, “Kyrios Anthropos,” RHPR 16 (1936) 196-209; Cullmann, Christology, 176-77; Dunn, Christology in the Making, 114-21).
Having conceded all of this, Smith still argues that "the context requires" morphe to be taken as an ontological statement! :eek:

With friends like these, Trinitarianism doesn't need enemies. The sheer subjectivism of this Smith's little argument is painfully obvious. :cool:
 
Upvote 0

Evangelion

<b><font size="2">δυνατός</b></font>
Continued...

And why have you not referenced any recognized N.T. language authorities

*ahem*

I have quoted:
  • Clarke (who supports his own argument for morphe by reference to Whitby & Knight.) Clarke was fluent in both Hebrew and Greek.
  • The Expositor's Greek Testament.
  • Dennis Ray Burk, Jr (who studied under Daniel B. Wallce.)
  • Various Trinitarian commentators (such as Decker) who effectively refute the wresting of morphe and harpagmos upon which your subjective interpretation relies.
Thus, Burk:

  • Whereas there is really no evidence to attribute a semantic force to the article, there is every reason to attribute a syntactical one to it. This being said, we should not equate equality with God (toV ei\nai i[sa qew'/') with form of God (morfh'/ qeou') simply because of the presence of the article. If one is going to equate these two phrases, he/she must argue for this identification on other grounds.The presence of the accusative article simply does not support equating the two phrases.

    I propose that if the author had intended to equate the two phrases he could have simply stated, although He existed in the form of God, He did not regard being in the form of God as a thing to be grasped for (ejn morfh'/ qeou' uJpavrcwn oujc aJrpagmoVn hJghvsato toV ei\nai ejn morfh'/ qeou'/). However, the very fact that the author chose to use different phraseology indicates that he wishes to denote differing realities, not synonymous ones.

    The question arises then as to how this phrase can be theologically intelligible; how can this interpretation make sense given that morfh'/ qeou' refers to the Christ's preexistent essence as deity? Should not Christ's equality with God (toV ei\nai i[sa qew'/') be considered just another way of referring to his preexistent essence as deity (morfh'/ qeou')? The answer to the last question is “no” if we consider the possibility that morfh'/ qeou' refers to essence while toV ei\nai i[sa qew'/' refers to function. “If this is the meaning of the text, then the two are not synonymous: although Christ was true deity, he did not usurp the role of the Father.”
    [Wallace, Exegetical Syntax, 220.]

    If aJrpagmov" be understood according to the above analysis, then Christ is said not to have snatched at or grasped for equality with God. Though he was himself true deity existing in the form of God, he did not try to grasp for this other aspect which he himself did not possess—namely, equality with God. On the contrary, Christ emptied himself. This emptying consisted in taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men (v. 7).

    Therefore, the contrast between verses six and seven is made very clear. Christ, the second Person of the Trinity, did not try to snatch at an equality with God which properly belongs only to the first Person of the Trinity. On the contrary, Christ embraced those duties which were appointed for the second Person—taking the form of a servant and being made in the likeness of men. In this way, Christ did not attempt to usurp the peculiar role of the first Person of the Trinity, but in submission he joyfully embraced his own in the incarnation.


    Burk, Dennis Ray Jr (2000), The Meaning Of Harpagmos In Philippians 2:6:
    An Overlooked Datum For Functional Inequality Within The Godhead
    .
The problem with your interpretation, is that it is self-refuting. For if you take harpagmos as "retained", and morphe as "essential nature", you are required (by the words of the hymn itself) to accept that Christ lost this "essential nature" (or at least, some part of it) when he took upon himself the morphe of a servant. Moreover, if you take morphe as "essential nature", you are left with the inescapable conclusion that (in order to constitute an accurate description of the hypostatic process), Paul's words must state that the morphe of God was united with the morphe of man - and yet, this is precisely what he does not do!

Now, even though he takes morphe as a reference to "essential nature", Burk evades both of these problems by accepting that the "equality" here referred to, does not refer to an "equality of nature", but merely to an equality of role, and that this equality was not previously possessed by Christ, but existed as something he might have attempted to grasp! In doing so, Burk successfully resolves the potential dilemma which plagues the conclusion of your personal eisegesis, and retains the Trinitarian teaching of ontological equality, but functional subordination.

By contrast, your interpretation constitutes an unfortunate lapse into "Kenotic Christology" (which has been soundly rejected as heretical by a wealth of Trinitarian scholarship; see here), and an insupportable claim that the "equality" here referred to, is that of ontology, rather than function.

Interestingly enough, this is the very problem that Decker identifies, and the very problem that Decker resolves by rejecting the lexical gymnastics upon which your entire argument is based.

And LSJ supports not refutes Robertson.

*snip*

False. It refutes Robertson quite neatly.

Ok Mr. Greek authority what is the word for “preexistence”

Oh, there isn't one, per se. You'd have to fabricate it by taking a couple of related concepts and slapping them together with a number of qualifiers, to form a sentence which expressly conveys this idea.

Now, this was obviously done at the Fifth Ecumenical Council (being the Second Council of Constantinople) in AD 553, where we read the following clauses in the Anathemas Against Origen:

  • I.
    If anyone asserts the fabulous pre-existence of souls, and shall assert the monstrous restoration which follows from it: let him be anathema.


    [...]

    XIII.
    If anyone shall say that Christ is in no wise different from other reasonable beings, neither substantially nor by wisdom nor by his power and might over all things but that all will be placed at the right hand of God, as well as he that is called by them Christ , as also they were in the reigned pre-existence of all things: let him be anathema.


    [...]

    XIV.
    IF anyone shall say that all reasonable beings will one day be united in one, when the hypostases as well as the numbers and the bodies shall have disappeared, and that the knowledge of the world to come will carry with it the ruin of the worlds, and the rejection of bodies as also the abolition of
    [all] names, and that there shall be finally an identity of the and of the hypostasis; moreover, that in this pretended apocatastasis, spirits only will continue to exist, as it was in the reigned pre-existence: let him be anathema.
I actually have this document on my HDD, which is why I know that there's definitely a Koine Greek expression for "pre-existence" - but since I don't have a copy of the Anathemas in the original Greek, I have no way of knowing how it appeared in these clauses. Still, it was definitely done, as you can see for yourself. I can only suppose that the words prin and gennao (or something like them) featured prominently.

Your digression aside, my question remains unanswered: "Why didn't Paul make any explicit statements about the pre-existence of Christ in Philippians 2?" There's just not a single hint of pre-existence in this entire passage. Why doesn't he just come right out and say it?

and how would that ideal statement be written, in Greek?

Hey, you're the Greek scholar - you tell me! (And while you're about it, you can answer my question.) :cool:
 
Upvote 0

Evangelion

<b><font size="2">δυνατός</b></font>
Continued...


And then tell us what was in Paul’s mind when he wrote and why he wrote as he did.

That is easily discerned from the text itself.

Thus:

  • 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.
See also Burk (as previously noted), and the footnotes of the New American Bible:

  • [6-11]
    Perhaps an early Christian hymn quoted here by Paul. The short rhythmic lines fall into two parts, Phil 2:6-8 where the subject of every verb is Christ, and Phil 2:9-11 where the subject is God. The general pattern is thus of Christ's humiliation and then exaltation. More precise analyses propose a division into six three-line stanzas (Phil 2:6; 7abc, 7d-8, 9, 10, 11) or into three stanzas (Phil 2:6-7ab, 7cd-8, 9-11). Phrases such as even death on a cross (Phil 2:8c) are considered by some to be additions (by Paul) to the hymn, as are Phil 2:10c, 11c. 4

    [6] Either a reference to Christ's preexistence and those aspects of divinity that he was willing to give up in order to serve in human form, or to what the man Jesus refused to grasp at to attain divinity. Many see an allusion to the Genesis story: unlike Adam, Jesus, though . . . in the form of God (Genesis 1:26-27), did not reach out for equality with God, in contrast with the first Adam in Genesis 3:5-6.

    [5] Taking the form of a slave, coming in human likeness: or ". . . taking the form of a slave. Coming in human likeness, and found human in appearance." While it is common to take Phil 2:6, 7 as dealing with Christ's preexistence and Phil 2:8 with his incarnate life, so that lines Phil 2:7b, 7c are parallel, it is also possible to interpret so as to exclude any reference to preexistence (see the note on Phil 2:6) and to take Phil 2:6-8 as presenting two parallel stanzas about Jesus' human state (Phil 2:6-7b; 7cd-8); in the latter alternative, coming in human likeness begins the second stanza and parallels 6a to some extent.
I'm perfectly happy with this.

*snip*

While you may have some training in Aristotelian Metaphysics, as has been established in another post, since Aristotle lived and wrote more than 300 years before Paul, a substantial relationship between Koiné Greek and Aristotle’s classical Greek, must be proven, for that to have any relevance.

LOL! I agree, which is precisely why I reject any Trinitarian argument from Aristotle's use of this word! That is precisely why I've been quoting Decker all this time!

“Einai” expresses a present reality not a future possibility! Also as Robertson points out “huparchon” also expresses existence, as in Matt 16:13. In Phil 2:6, Jesus exists in the form of God, in the same way that God “is”, Lord of heaven and earth, Act 17:24.

ROTFL! I've already agreed that Christ existed in the form of God! I've never denied it! What you have to do, is stop attacking these straw men, and prove that this must necessarily be taken as a reference to preexistence.

*snip*

If, as the detractors argue, “morphe”, in verse six, only means outward appearance, i.e. “Jesus was not literally God, He only appeared to be like God, etc., etc, etc.”, then by the same reasoning in verse 7, Jesus was not actually, literally a servant, He only appeared to be one.

*snip*

False dichotomy. I refer you to my original quotes from Decker and Clarke on the meaning of morphe and its Christological significance in the context of "Christ as the submissive servant."

I'm not going to repeat myself again. :cool:
 
Upvote 0

Evangelion

<b><font size="2">δυνατός</b></font>
Continued...

The parallel passage in Luke 24;15, clearly shows that the reason the disciples did not recognize Jesus, was not because He had changed His entire being, form, appearance, etc., but because their eyes were impaired in some way, preventing them from recognizing Jesus.

Firstly, this is a complete straw man, because my argument was taken from Mark 16, not Luke 24! (You must have chosen the alternative passage in an attempt to avoid my argument. No such luck!) Secondly, your argument makes no attempt to reconcile Mark's use of morphe with your interpretation of the same word in Philippians 2! Thirdly, you still have not told me how he appeared in a "different nature" (as your interpretation requires) on this occasion!

Now, Albert Barnes (Notes on the Bible) says this:

  • Mar 16:12 - He appeared in another form -
    In a form unlike his ordinary appearance so much so that they did not at first know him. See the notes at Luke 24:13-31. “As they walked and went into the country.” To Emmaus, Luk_24:13.
Barnes emphasises the force of this argument in his discussion of Philippians 2, where he writes:

  • The word rendered “form” - &#956;&#959;&#961;&#966;&#951;&#769; morphe&#772; - occurs only in three places in the New Testament, and in each place is rendered “form.” Mar_16:12; Phi_2:6-7. In Mark it is applied to the form which Jesus assumed after his resurrection, and in which he appeared to two of his disciples on his way to Emmaus. “After that he appeared in another form unto two of them.” This “form” was so unlike his usual appearance, that they did not know him. The word properly means, form, shape, bodily shape, especially a beautiful form, a beautiful bodily appearance - Passow.

    In Phi_2:7, it is applied to the appearance of a servant - and took upon him the form of a servant;” that is, he was in the condition of a servant - or of the lowest condition. The word “form” is often applied to the gods by the classic writers, denoting their aspect or appearance when they became visible to people; see Cic. de Nat. Deor. ii. 2; Ovid, Meta. i. 37; Silius, xiii. 643; Xeno. Memora. iv; Aeneid, iv. 556, and other places cited by Wetstein, in loc.
Notwithstanding this, Barnes is tempted by the commonly-misrepresented use of morphe as equivalent to phusis (which it clearly is not.) Finally, however, he concludes that an outward appearance is here referred to:

  • Still it may be asked, what was the “form” which he had before his incarnation? What is meant by his having been then “in the form of God?” To these questions perhaps no satisfactory answer can be given.

    He himself speaks Joh_17:5 of “the glory which he had with the Father before the world was;” and the language naturally conveys the idea that there was then a manifestation of the divine nature through him, which in some measure ceased when he became incarnate; that there was some visible splendor and majesty which was then laid aside.

    What manifestation of his glory God may make in the heavenly world, of course, we cannot now fully understand. Nothing forbids us, however, to suppose that there is some such visible manifestation; some splendor and magnificence of God in the view of the angelic beings such as becomes the Great Sovereign of the universe - for he “dwells in light which no map can approach unto;” 1Ti_6:16. That glory, visible manifestation, or splendor, indicating the nature of God, it is here said that the Lord Jesus possessed before his incarnation.
Meanwhile, John Gill's (Exposition of the Entire Bible) says this:

  • Mar 16:12 - After that,....
    A little time, or some few hours after, on the selfsame day; see Luk_24:13;

    he appeared in another form:
    it seems to have been the form, or habit of a gardener that he appeared in to Mary; since she thought him to be one, and to be the gardener that belonged to the garden, in which the sepulchre was: but now it was in another form, or habit, that he appeared; very likely in the habit of a Scribe, or doctor; since he took upon him to expound the Scriptures to the persons he appeared to; as also took bread, and blessed it, when at supper with them, Luk_24:27.
B. W. Johnson (People's New Testament) says this:

  • He appeared in another form.
    Luke explains this by saying that their eyes were holden. If their eyes were influenced, of course, optically speaking, Jesus would appear in another form.
Dissenting from the majority view (because it contradicts with his haphazard eisegesis of Philippians 2), A. T. Robertson (Word Pictures of the New Testament) strikes out wildly with this:

  • In another form (en hetera&#772;i morphe&#772;i).
    It was not a metamorpho&#772;sis or transfiguration like that described in Mar_9:2. Luke explains that their eyes were holden so that they could not recognize Jesus (Luk_24:16). This matchless story appears in full in Luke 24:13-32.
But, like you, he makes no attempt to reconcile the specific use of morphe with the fact that "their eyes were holden", and yet, it is obvious that the latter was a direct consequence of the former. Yes, like you, he has merely tried to evade the force of the argument from this verse... and failed.

Finally:

When did verses 7 and 8 happen?

At what point in His mortal life was Jesus not in the “likeness” of man?

Here you commit the fallacy of the complex question. Paul never says that "the likeness of men" was something that Christ did not possess in the first place! :cool:
 
Upvote 0

Evangelion

<b><font size="2">δυνατός</b></font>
Continued...


At what moment in the earthly life of Jesus did He make Himself, “no reputation”, when did Jesus have a “reputation” to nullify? At what point in His human life did Jesus take upon Himself the “morphé/form” of a servant? When was Jesus ever not in the “morphé/form” of a servant?

I already covered this in my original rebuttal. But let's go through it again...

Bearing in mind the fact that Christ was the King of the Jews (hence his triumphal entrance into Jerusalem in Mark 11, which clearly demonstrates that he did indeed have a reputation to nullify), we find that his humiliation began shortly after the Last Supper.

Thus:

  • 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 was so 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, &#1506;&#1500; &#1510;&#1491; &#1492;&#1506;&#1504;&#1493;&#1492;, "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?
Vincent (Word Studies in the New Testament concurs:

  • Became obedient unto death (&#947;&#949;&#957;&#959;&#769;&#956;&#949;&#957;&#959;&#962; - &#956;&#949;&#769;&#967;&#961;&#953; )
    Became, compare Rev_1:18.

    Unto.
    The Rev. very judiciously inserts even; for the A.V. is open to the interpretation that Christ rendered obedience to death. Unto is up to the point of. Christ's obedience to God was rendered to the extent of laying down His life.

    Of the cross
    Forming a climax of humiliation. He submitted not only to death, but to the death of a malefactor. The Mosaic law had uttered a curse against it, Deu_21:23, and the Gentiles reserved it for malefactors and slaves. Hence the shame associated with the cross, Heb_12:2. This was the offense or stumbling-block of the cross, which was so often urged by the Jews against the Christians. See on Gal_3:13. To a Greek, accustomed to clothe his divinities with every outward attribute of grace and beauty, the summons to worship a crucified malefactor appealed as foolishness, 1Co_1:23.
Adam Clarke follows suit:

  • He humbled himself -
    Laid himself as low as possible:

    1. In emptying himself - laying aside the effulgence of his glory.

    2. In being incarnate - taking upon him the human form.

    3. In becoming a servant - assuming the lowest innocent character, that of being the servant of all.

    4. In condescending to die, to which he was not naturally liable, as having never sinned, and therefore had a right in his human nature to immortality, without passing under the empire of death.

    5. In condescending, not only to death, but to the lowest and most ignominious kind of death, the death of the cross; the punishment of the meanest of slaves and worst of felons.
Naturally I disagree with (1) & (2) (which - as usual - cannot be supported from the text, and must therefore be read into it before the Trinitarian argument can proceed), but (3), (4) & (5) are perfectly legitimate, and I take no issue with them.

Hence (once again), the footnotes of the New American Bible:

  • [5] Taking the form of a slave, coming in human likeness: or ". . . taking the form of a slave. Coming in human likeness, and found human in appearance." While it is common to take Phil 2:6, 7 as dealing with Christ's preexistence and Phil 2:8 with his incarnate life, so that lines Phil 2:7b, 7c are parallel, it is also possible to interpret so as to exclude any reference to preexistence (see the note on Phil 2:6) and to take Phil 2:6-8 as presenting two parallel stanzas about Jesus' human state (Phil 2:6-7b; 7cd-8); in the latter alternative, coming in human likeness begins the second stanza and parallels 6a to some extent.
:cool:
 
Upvote 0

Evangelion

<b><font size="2">δυνατός</b></font>
Continued...

In conclusion, I leave you with a masterful critique of Oscar Cullmann's The Christology of the New Testament (1959), written by Theodor M. Mauch (a former Professor of Religion Emeritus at Trinity College.)

Having first laid out Cullman's argument in the form of brief citations from his work (during which he very fairly gives Cullmann credit for recognising the necessary parallel in Genesis 1:26-27), Mauch then proceeds to demolish it.

Thus:

  • Cullmann does not avoid Greek&#8209;type thoughts, even though he disagrees with Käsemann’s reading of the hymn as Greek:

    “first of all because a direct influence of that Gnostic myth cannot be proved; but above all because the thought of Phil. 2.5ff. relates primarily to the Genesis story and can be understood only by reference to it. The morphe concept presupposes Gen. 1.26, and it is not necessary to appeal to Hellenistic&#8209;Gnostic conceptions in order to explain it. All externally introduced parallels (Herm. 1.13f., for instance) are indeed interesting from the standpoint of comparative religion, but exegetically they are nevertheless far&#8209;fetched.”


    [...]

    A major point throughout Cullmann’s exposition is that

    “Paul also conceives of the Heavenly Man as pre&#8209;existent, of course . ... Already in Judaism the Son of Man’s pre&#8209;existence is presupposed everywhere.”

    Paul in Romans 5:15 says that “the power of the atoning act must be greater than the power of sin.”

    What has happened in the Philippian hymn verses 9&#8209;11
    [according to Cullmann] is that

    “the Heavenly Man in his pre-existence with God before his incarnation . . . . has now entered a still closer relationship with God; God now confers upon him the title Kyrios with full lordship over all. Kyrios is the Greek translation of the Hebrew Adonai, the designation for God the Father himself. In other words, God confers his own name with his whole lordship upon Jesus because of Jesus’ proven obedience as the Son of Man. Christ thus receives the equality with God which in the obedience of the Heavenly Man he did not usurp as a ‘thing to be grasped.’ God has now given him this equality.”

    These ways of reading the Philippian hymn contain an emphasis on Jesus Christ as a divine being who previously was with God, emptied himself of his pre&#8209;existent divinity, became a man on earth, and then went back up where he properly belonged. When people do read Philippians 2, the “heavy hand of tradition” keeps them reading along these lines.

    The Fathers countering the Arian dilution of Christ’s divinity clarified the terms “in the form of God” and “he emptied himself” to show that Christ is fully equal and co&#8209;existent with God. This dominant theology is evident in Calvin’s explanation of Philippians 2,

    “For a time his Divine glory was invisible, and nothing appeared but the human form, in a mean and abject condition."

    In this Christology, “the truly human” is accomplished by someone who is pre&#8209;existent and transcendent. Emptied he may be, but is he truly man? If he is truly “emptied,” then why not start there instead of constant reminders about his having the pre&#8209;existent context? It is difficult to have a two&#8209;nature theory and not re&#8209;fabricate dualism. The impact of this kind of Christology is that it confirms the Greek notion, and, one might add, the archaic, Ancient Near&#8209;Eastern view, that to be human is a negative condition.

    Does a temporary orbit in the realm of the human have to be pasted on to the transcendent, in order for the human to become what it was intended to be? It would be hard to say that Philippians 2:1&#8209;18 in its traditional interpretation is causing very many people to become jubilant with the good news of the Gospel.


    [...]

    The Philippian hymn is resonant with the servant songs in Second Isaiah, in words and themes. In verses 7&#8209;8, Jesus takes the form (morphe; Isaiah 52:14 LXX) of a servant (doulos; Isaiah 52:13 Aquila; 49:3, 5 LXX). In Second Isaiah the servant does not force (42:2&#8209;3). He keeps looking for ways “to sustain with a word him that is weary” (50:4). He adopts a life&#8209;style that is not like rampant power, and is rejected by those who have rampant power (50:6&#8209;9; 53:7). He bears griefs, sorrows, and iniquities, and makes us healed and whole (53:4&#8209;6). Hebrew da&#8209;at means “knowledge, relating&#8209;knowledge,” and thus the line in 53:11 can be translated,

    "by his relation to things shall the righteous one, my servant, make many to be accounted righteous; and he shall bear their iniquities."

    Hebrew tsedek means “straightness” (with reference to the Arabic), “rightness,” “righteousness,” “vindication,” “victory.” The servant acts le&#8209;emet (42:3), “With the sure elements of the matter,” “with real know&#8209;how.” Thus the servant’s da&#8209;at, tsedek and emet, his relation to things and action&#8209;style, correlate intention and strategy for community, and bring righteousness and vindication to many in their own choices. “He poured out his soul to death” (53:12).

    This description of the life&#8209;style and action&#8209;style of the servant also describes Jesus in the Philippian hymn. He did not assert overwhelming power, he did not assert external force, did not eliminate the maneuverability of those among whom he worked. Instead, he humbly tailored himself to humanity. He gave himself, in all his human concerns, to others in their human concerns. He was giving, and not superior.


    [...]

    The Philippian hymn celebrates Jesus Christ as the man, in the image of God, who accurately understands God, God’s intentions and strategies, and who accurately understands himself and his intentions and strategies. Jesus knows that it is God’s intention to share His action&#8209;style with man in the community of creativity, the community of love and giving and sharing. Jesus understands and lives it, that God’s life&#8209;style is not plunder to be grasped. Jesus knows this to be his heritage.

    [...]

    In the climax of the Philippian hymn, everyone recognizes the servant (doulos), the man who realized God’s life&#8209;style and the man who realized God’s intention in making man in His image, &#8209;&#8209; everyone acclaims this man as Lord (kyrios). In the servant God the Father is glorified, as in Isaiah 49:3 Yahweh is glorified in the servant. In Judges 5:1&#8209;11 the three&#8209;stich lines in verses 1, 9, 11 in varying order praise Yahweh and the people of Israel for the teamwork effort in defeating the Canaanites.

    The Philippian hymn climaxes in interrelated praise of the true man Jesus Christ and God the Father. This Hebraic reading of the Philippian hymn sees the themes as expressing not divine, albeit for a time veiled, ontology. Instead, the emphasis is upon activity, which indeed is the way the Old Testament speaks of God and man.


    [...]

    To read Philippians 2:1&#8209;18 as Hebraic and not Greek, is to read it as an invitation to the truly glorious life&#8209;style., God’s life&#8209;style and action&#8209;style that is intended to be ours for we are made in his image.


    Mauch, Theodor M. (1968), Philippians 2: 1-18: Greek or Hebraic?.
:cool:
 
Upvote 0

Evangelion

<b><font size="2">δυνατός</b></font>
AV -

*snip*

Your "Trinitarian scholarship" doesn't mean a hill of beans unless it is 'up to date' or at least in line with today's standards.

*snip*

Not that you'd know either way, of course. :rolleyes:

Unfortunately, your protestations are meaningless. If you'd actually taken the time to read what I wrote, you would have seen that I've been quoting consistently from modern Trinitarian scholars of the highest order. Decker, Burk Jr, et al are above reproach. Sadly, it is now obvious that you have no idea what you're talking about.

Sorry. :cool:
 
Upvote 0

Future Man

Priest of God and the Lamb
Aug 20, 2002
245
5
✟470.00
Faith
Calvinist
Hello Ev and God bless-

Richard (OS) is currently on vacation [out of home] and will not be here that often until sometime in January.

Now on with the program:

I've already told you!

Here it is again...
____________

Without answering in full!

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.

8<

And of course about 50-60% of your post continues in this vein. The rest on 'morphe', and next to *nothing* on 'harpagmos. What is interesting is that you isolate *one or two* incidents of Christ's examples of servitude and then in turn insist that *this* is the hub of Paul's reference to "...made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men....". What's I find amusing however, is that this very line of reasoning you take has nothing to do with the context in it's entirety. Had you read my last post, you would have realized this.

This becomes strikingly evident when we read what you say in the very next breath:

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.

Here you have simply refuted yourself! Read again:

"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.."
You have consistently used this example in addition to one or two more in order to point to a *particular time* when Jesus humilfied himself. Now of course we all know of Ev's favorite passage in Hebrews where it states that Jesus was "..made like his brethren in every way." What's this? A statement of *equality*? Tie this in with the above where Ev insists that it was *that* moment that qualifies the statement of humilation in Phil2:6 and what do we have:

[Paraphrase]
"Who being in the form of man [See Heb] did not consider equality with man a thing to be grasped [harpagmos], but made himself of no reputation and took on the form of a servant [Jn13:3-5].

So what do we have?:

1.) We start off with Jesus being "equal" to his brethren.

2.) He *disregards* this equality [Phil2:3] and instead...

3.) *Willfully submits* to his fellow man in servitude.

What we see above is a direct parallel. However note very carefully that in order to draw a parallel to *Ev's explanation* I had to change it up to say "man". It is entirely out of context with the rest of Phil2.
The ONLY way even *your* out of context references would work is if the *other party* were an *equal* with Jesus. :D

Thanks Ev.

So now again we'll go into the context which you have so carefully ignored:

"Do nothing from selfishness or empty conceit, but with humility of mind regard one another as more important than yourselves;.."

-Here we see Paul's plight. The Phillipians in the beginning start off as *equals* to one another. Paul says to "make his joy complete". Note the request to *willfully* submit to one another.

"...do not merely look out for your own personal interests, but also for the interests of others.
Have this *attitude* in yourselves which was also IN Christ Jesus,.."

-The Phillipians are to *parallel* the example set by Christ. What is this parallel?:

"..who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped [harpagmos],.."

-OS has cited the TNDT, the BADG, etc.. in lexical support. I noted with interest that you tried to bundle in your explanation of 'morphe' with 'harpagmos'. Not gonna work. Hence the rendering of the Analytical Literal Translation:

Phil2:6 "..who existing in the nature of God, did not consider being equal to God something to be held onto,.."

Agrees entirely with the correct meaning of 'harpagmos'. As well as the context.

"..but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made ['ginomai'] in the likeness of men. Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming *obedient* to the point of death, even death on a cross. NASB

Note carefully, as I mentioned in my last post, that 'becoming man' is *included* in the process of self-humility. Note that this "emptying" and "taking the form ['morphe'] of a 'bond-servant' comes tied in with "being made in the likeness of men". Here the question is begged- "What did he empty himself of in order to become 'man' if He did not pre-exist?' If not then there is nothing to "empty himself" of. Note the word "taking" in the above context in relation to Himself and how it precedes 'being made ['ginomai'-Jn1:14] in the likeness of man'. Only the Trinitarian [etc] interpretation will work here. See Jn1:1,10,14..cf..Jn17:5 etc.. Even your average cultist [JWs, SDAs, LDS, etc,.] will have no problem seeing this. :rolleyes:

And as I stated before, the CD interpretation is just simply *redundant*. :)
 
Upvote 0

Future Man

Priest of God and the Lamb
Aug 20, 2002
245
5
✟470.00
Faith
Calvinist
Now on to your citation from Martin Ralph:

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.

And of course you naturally ignored my response to this, similar to the above. This has been shown to be patently false. Hence the fact that Martin Ralph represents a *minority view* which is why detractors like to use him [-and *misuse* I might add-] so much. :cool:

8<

Because Robertson clearly follows Warfield et al, in drawing his argument from a misrepresentation of Aristotle's morphe!

Look, this is what he says:

In the form of God (en morph qeou). Morph means the essential attributes as shown in the form.

But that is not how morphe is used in the NT, nor is it how morphe is used in the OT, nor is it even an accurate representation of Aristotle's own use. This is precisely why I quoted Decker in my rebuttal.

So here you have admitted that you merely *assumed* that Robertson "follows Warfield" and therefore "misrepresents Aristotles use of 'morphe'" from your perspective. It is precisely this vague methodology that instigates accusations against you [whether you are right or not. I vouch for 'not' as you don't have the education to stand up against scholarary scrutiny].

Furthermore, what I find interesting is that what you cited concerning 'Aristotle' was not that disagreeable with how Trinitarians interpret. You had already admitted that 'morphe' included the essential "qualities" of the object [Hence the 'axe' example]. This naturally entails *more* than mere "outward form" only. So much for "misrepresentation".

Bottom line is that you have once again ignored the context and even the principle of the matter. If Christ is *equal to* God then he IS God. Period. We don't need 'morphe', although it works to our good. 'Harpagmos' covers this, and the very fact that you didn't even cover Richard's argument [BADG, TNDT, Robertson] in this area entails that you know this.

Now Note again the context:

"..who, although He existed in the form <'morph'> of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped,

but emptied Himself, taking the form <'morphe'> of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men.."

Here "form of a servant" and "form of God" are a contrasted parallel. Are you going to tell me that Christ merely had the "outward form" of a servant [Hence my "Prince and the Pauper" analogy"], or did Christ possess the essential inward attributes of a servant as well? Did he not truly become human?

Aside from that:

Now what *you* need to do is demonstrate the relation between the phrase [a] "..did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped" and "BUT emptied Himself taking the form of a bond-servant." You assert that is a reference to submission to man [washing feet etc,.] not to God [Especially note the parallel 'mindset' the Phillipians were to take. What *motivated* Paul to state this? Were the Phillipians grasping at equality with God? No. They were Christians]. Therefore how does [a] have *anything* to do with this IN context? Now if the reference to 'submission' relates to 'submission to God' then it works. And only the Trinitarian view in regards to supports this. Hence Jn1:1 14..cf..Phil2:6..cf..Jn13:16..cf..Jn14:28..cf..Jn17:5..
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Future Man

Priest of God and the Lamb
Aug 20, 2002
245
5
✟470.00
Faith
Calvinist
It is undeniable that Robertson's mishandling of morphe is based upon his (equally poor) mishandling of Aristotle. Lightfoot, Warfield and Ryrie (to name only a few) were also guilty of this.

The more scholars you accuse of "mishandling"the text, the more your own intellectual honesty and credibility go down. With someone with such a limited education [or should I say *no* education] in regards to their type of field, you really have no case in counter-quoting with opinionated minority views. :rolleyes:

A more recent example of this subjective blunder is seen in the work of Professor Barry D. Smith of the Atlantic Baptist University, who, in his Pauline Christology (2002), argues thus:

Before his coming in the appearance of a human being (en homoiomati anthropon), Christ Jesus is said to have been in the form of God (en morphê theou). The meaning of morphê is varied in Greek literature and in Jewish literature written in or translated into Greek. There is a philosophical meaning for morphê, used in Plato and especially Aristotle (meaning essential being or nature) and a more common use in Greek and Jewish literature written in Greek meaning outward appearance or shape. (It should be noted that the scholarly discussion on this topic has been immense, far too much to consider exhaustively.)
As with Lightfoot, Warfield and Ryrie, Smith has misrepresented Aristotle's use of morphe (for which I refer you to the brief dicussion of Aristotle in my original rebuttal.) Then, having "successfully" fudged the Aristotelian morphe, he sneaks it into his exegesis of Pauline Christology (conveniently ignoring the consistent use of this word in the OT and NT.)

And herein lies the rub. You post paragraph upon paragraph on how educated scholars "mishandle" Aristotle in light of *your* view. This is precisely why OS must shake his head in disbelief. Tell me again in detail how to perform "'hart' surgery" :rolleyes:. I note with interest the last line of the quote. For some strange reason you get the idea that your own mishandling of a 1-2 paragraph citation of Aristotle is the 'end all' to the word 'morphe'. Until OS or I can verify, it's your word against theirs [Now who do you think I'm going to listen to :holy:].
 
Upvote 0

Future Man

Priest of God and the Lamb
Aug 20, 2002
245
5
✟470.00
Faith
Calvinist
Thus:

There have been attempts to avoid the philosophical interpretation of morphê (even the diluted philosophical interpretation) by arguing that morphê is indistinct in meaning from the equivalent terms eikôn and homoima, from which it follows that morphê in Phil 2:6 has the general meaning of “image of God,” which does not necessarily mean that Christ has the same essential being or nature as God. (All three Greek words are used in the LXX to translate the Hebrew zelem, and in Gen 1:27 Adam, who is not divine, is said to be the zelem and demuth of God) (see Hering, “Kyrios Anthropos,” RHPR 16 (1936) 196-209; Cullmann, Christology, 176-77; Dunn, Christology in the Making, 114-21).

Having conceded all of this, Smith still argues that "the context requires" morphe to be taken as an ontological statement!

1936? That's a good bit more "up to date" than your usual, eh Ev? :D I don't know why, but I get the good feeling that you took that quote out of context. Smith appears to start out by explaining the 'objective attempts' at undermining the 'philosophical interpretation of 'morphe'. Too bad there isn't a museum around or I'd check that quote out! :D I like the way you sluffed off the fact that context *can* decide the meaning of a word.

Now here lies your problem. You've first off cite Smith to demonstrate that 'eikon', 'homoima' and 'morphe' are used to in the LXX to translate the one word 'zelem' in the OT. This is poor as you have now assumed that the three words are perfectly 'interchangeable'. Once again you demonstrate that you do not know what a 'nuance' is. :( Now it appears that you are trying to pull off some linguistical acrobatics by flipping between the Hebrew and Greek. I'm rather curious as to what the LXX word for 'image' is in regards to Adam and Gen1:27 :idea:. I would then be curious as to why Paul did not use this word [perhaps 'eikon'?] if his "clear intent" was to draw a *direct parallel* to Christ being the "last Adam". More of those out of context equivocations...

Check her out:

BDAG "The case against the Synonymity of morphe and eikon: JSNT 34, ‘88, 77-86; Gstroumsa, HTR 76. ‘83. 269-88 (semitic background)...etc". (BDAG, page 659).

*ahem*

I have quoted:
Clarke (who supports his own argument for morphe by reference to Whitby & Knight.) Clarke was fluent in both Hebrew and Greek.

The Expositor's Greek Testament.

Dennis Ray Burk, Jr (who studied under Daniel B. Wallce.)

Various Trinitarian commentators (such as Decker) who effectively refute the wresting of morphe and harpagmos upon which your subjective interpretation relies.

You have done no such thing. Richard has cited the TDNT, the BADG, Robertson etc,. with *lexical citations and evidence*, whereas you cite outdated and opinionated minority views who make such asinine statements as "..we cannot find any any use of harpazo..etc..etc..", when other authorities [such as Hoover] find just the opposite.

You may as well cite what your next door neighbor thinks :rolleyes:.
 
Upvote 0

Future Man

Priest of God and the Lamb
Aug 20, 2002
245
5
✟470.00
Faith
Calvinist
8<

Now to your conclusions from Dennis Ray Burk Jr.:

The problem with your interpretation, is that it is self-refuting. For if you take harpagmos as "retained", and morphe as "essential nature", you are required (by the words of the hymn itself) to accept that Christ lost this "essential nature" (or at least, some part of it) when he took upon himself the morphe of a servant. Moreover, if you take morphe as "essential nature", you are left with the inescapable conclusion that (in order to constitute an accurate description of the hypostatic process), Paul's words must state that the morphe of God was united with the morphe of man - and yet, this is precisely what he does not do!

Hahah! :D This assumes that I take the view that Christ emptied himself of divine attributes. But I don't. Rather, He divested himself of the insignia of majesty. So *flush* down went that objection. :rolleyes:. See the relation between the Phillipians. Did they have to "divest" of their 'flesh' in taking on the mentality of servitude? Ludicrus. Now your argument continues to fail even further in that the word 'BEING' [vs6] is a *present tense participle*, which entails the *continuous state* of "being" in the 'form of God' throughout the humiliation. Therefore if 'form' denotes 'essential nature', then Christ did not lose it in TAKING the form of a bond-servant, the likeness of man.

OS addressed that very aspect ['being' in his last post. You didn't even read it did you?

Another straw-man bites the dust. :)

Now, even though he takes morphe as a reference to "essential nature", Burk evades both of these problems by accepting that the "equality" here referred to, does not refer to an "equality of nature", but merely to an equality of role, and that this equality was not previously possessed by Christ, but existed as something he might have attempted to grasp! In doing so, Burk successfully resolves the potential dilemma which plagues the conclusion of your personal eisegesis, and retains the Trinitarian teaching of ontological equality, but functional subordination.

Ontologically equal with God as the Phillipians were ontologically equal to one another. Now note the parallel. They are to take the "attitude" that Christ had and *functionally subordinate* themselves to one another. Now see below for further observation.

By contrast, your interpretation constitutes an unfortunate lapse into "Kenotic Christology" (which has been soundly rejected as heretical by a wealth of Trinitarian scholarship; see here <http://www.mbrem.com/jesus_Christ/keno.htm>), and an insupportable claim that the "equality" here referred to, is that of ontology, rather than function.

If you are *ontologically equal* to a being [e.g. Phillipians to one another] then you are naturally *equal in function* as well. That should have been a big "Duh!" to you Ev, but it doesn't surprise me that it didn't. :cool:

And why the sudden emphasis on "functional" vs "ontological" Ev? Remember, the last thing Jesus had was "equality" with God in this passage. :rolleyes: Are you insisting that "functional" IS supportable?

Interestingly enough, this is the very problem that Decker identifies, and the very problem that Decker resolves by rejecting the lexical gymnastics upon which your entire argument is based.

No such thing, as I have demonstrated and you continue to ignore.

And LSJ supports not refutes Robertson.

*snip*

False. It refutes Robertson quite neatly.

And naturally you "forget" to tell us how. Read:

harpag-mos , ho, robbery, rape, Plu.2.12a; ha. ho gamos estai Vett.Val.122.1 .
2. concrete, prize to be grasped, Ep.Phil.2.6; cf. harpagma 2.

Doesn't hurt a thing. While we're at it on 'morphe':

3. kind, sort, Eur. Ion 382 , au=Eur. Ion 1068 <(lyr.), Plat. Rep. 397c , etc. (Possibly cogn. with Lat. Forma for morg&uup;hm&amacr;, with f by dissimilation, êcf. murmx .)

So are you implying that Jesus was of the same 'kind' or 'sort' as God? See Gen1:24 in principle. Dig that hole deeper!
 
Upvote 0

Future Man

Priest of God and the Lamb
Aug 20, 2002
245
5
✟470.00
Faith
Calvinist
Oh, there isn't one, per se. You'd have to fabricate it by taking a couple of related concepts and slapping them together with a number of qualifiers, to form a sentence which expressly conveys this idea.

8<

Your digression aside, my question remains unanswered: "Why didn't Paul make any explicit statements about the pre-existence of Christ in Philippians 2?" There's just not a single hint of pre-existence in this entire passage. Why doesn't he just come right out and say it?

I'm not going to say it. :)

Let's review again:

"..who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, BUT emptied Himself, TAKING the form of a bond-servant, and BEING MADE in the likenessof men. BEING FOUND in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross."

Once again you need to tell me *when* this happened. Note that "taking the form of a bond-servant' and 'being made in the likeness of men' is *included* in the process of self-humiliation at the *start*. Harmonizes *perfectly* with John1:1-14. This same Christ who was "with God" and "was God" becomes man. Parallel that to Phil. JWs even see the connection.

Jehovah’s Witnesses agree that in this context Paul is referring to Christ’s pre-existence and His birth when He was made in the likeness of men.
You have entirely ignored the contextual sequence.

I've explained all of this in the above in greater detail.

Also there is something about Paul’s putting "emptied" into the Aorist indicative instead of the Imperfect that I will have to look into when I get back. ;)

Hey, you're the Greek scholar - you tell me! (And while you're about it, you can answer my question.)

Alrighty, let's see Ev's mentality in action:

<start text>

A jealous wife stabs her husband seventy-five times with a butcher knife, then proceeds to dissolve the remains in a bathtub of hydrochloric acid.

<end text>

Now let's not forget folks that there is a "'perfectly good word for "murder" that could have been used if that was what is to be implied by the text.' :rolleyes:

Ev seems to require a "spoon feed me" way of interpreting things.

8<

See also Burk (as previously noted), and the footnotes of the New American Bible:

[6-11]
Perhaps an early Christian hymn quoted here by Paul. The short rhythmic lines fall into two parts, Phil 2:6-8 where the subject of every verb is Christ, and Phil 2:9-11 where the subject is God. The general pattern is thus of Christ's humiliation and then exaltation. More precise analyses propose a division into six three-line stanzas (Phil 2:6; 7abc, 7d-8, 9, 10, 11) or into three stanzas (Phil 2:6-7ab, 7cd-8, 9-11). Phrases such as even death on a cross (Phil 2:8c) are considered by some to be additions (by Paul) to the hymn, as are Phil 2:10c, 11c. 4

[6] Either a reference to Christ's preexistence and those aspects of divinity that he was willing to give up in order to serve in human form, or to what the man Jesus refused to grasp at to attain divinity. Many see an allusion to the Genesis story: unlike Adam, Jesus, though . . . in the form of God (Genesis 1:26-27), did not reach out for equality with God, in contrast with the first Adam in Genesis 3:5-6.

[5] Taking the form of a slave, coming in human likeness: or ". . . taking the form of a slave. Coming in human likeness, and found human in appearance." While it is common to take Phil 2:6, 7 as dealing with Christ's preexistence and Phil 2:8 with his incarnate life, so that lines Phil 2:7b, 7c are parallel, it is also possible to interpret so as to exclude any reference to preexistence (see the note on Phil 2:6) and to take Phil 2:6-8 as presenting two parallel stanzas about Jesus' human state (Phil 2:6-7b; 7cd-8); in the latter alternative, coming in human likeness begins the second stanza and parallels 6a to some

I have this Catholic Study Bible on my bookshelf..

More of that "first-born..last Adam" stuff again? Surprising conclusions from a guy who can't see the connection between Jn1:1, Prov8:22,30, and Rev19:13 :rolleyes:. This of course "assumes" that this is the reference and ignores the entire context. I once again ask the relevance of "snatching at equality with God" and it's relation to the context. Were the Phillipians trying to be equal with God? Or were they seeking equality with one another? What is the parallel? What is the example set? What was the "mind" of Christ here? Wouldn't it have fit better to put "did not seek stature with mankind" under *your* interpretation? Choppy.

8<
 
Upvote 0

Future Man

Priest of God and the Lamb
Aug 20, 2002
245
5
✟470.00
Faith
Calvinist
False dichotomy. I refer you to my original quotes from Decker and Clarke on the meaning of morphe and its Christological significance in the context of "Christ as the submissive servant."

You essentially mean that Christ was a "fake" servant merely playing the role. Read Phil again. In 'being in the likeness of man' was he not really fully 'man'? Read the contextual sequence- "taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men." See Jn1:14. My view harmonizes perfectly [as even anti-Trinitarians like JWs can see] while yours is merely to be assumed out of context. :) You just don't *want* to see it.

I'm not going to repeat myself again.

From all the *snip*-ing I see, it looks like OS will. :D

The parallel passage in Luke 24;15, clearly shows that the reason the disciples did not recognize Jesus, was not because He had changed His entire being, form, appearance, etc., but because their eyes were impaired in some way, preventing them from recognizing Jesus.

>

Firstly, this is a complete straw man, because my argument was taken from Mark 16, not Luke 24! (You must have chosen the alternative passage in an attempt to avoid my argument. No such luck!) Secondly, your argument makes no attempt to reconcile Mark's use of morphe with your interpretation of the same word in Philippians 2! Thirdly, you still have not told me how he appeared in a "different nature" (as your interpretation requires) on this occasion!

I don't believe OS was attempting to divert from Mark16 but to demonstrate the spurious nature of the text. :) Read:

" Four endings of the Gospel according to Mark are current in the manuscripts. (1) The last twelve verses of the commonly received text of Mark are absent from the two oldest Greek manuscripts (Aleph and B), from the Old Latin codex Bobiensis (it), the Sinaitic Syriac manuscript, about one hundred Armenian manuscripts, and the two oldest Georgian manuscripts (written A.D. 897 and A.D. 913). Clement of Alexandria and Origen show no knowledge of the existence of these verses; furthermore Eusebius and Jerome attest that the passage was absent from almost all Greek copies of Mark known to them. The original form of the Eusebian sections (drawn up by Ammonius) makes no provision for numbering sections of the text after 16.8. Not a few manuscripts that contain the passage have scribal notes stating that older Greek copies lack it, and in other witnesses the passage is marked with asterisks or obeli, the conventional signs used by copyists to indicate a spurious addition to a document."

[Dr. Bruce Metzger "Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament", pages 102-103:]

In other words, OS isn't going to let a *spurious* text factor in to the lexical understanding. Therefore in citing Luke it is demonstrated that the supernatural effect was in the eyes of the disciples, not in the transformation of Jesus.

I once ran upon this info in a forum [Should have included this earlier]:

"morphe" can carry the meaning of an outward manifestation of an inward nature as these sources state: (BDAG, page 659; Robertson, WP Vol #4, page 444, and Thayers, pg. 418).

Opposed to this is "morphosis" which lays a stronger emphasis on the outward superstructure without the inward nature (BDAG, page 660; Robertson, Vo #4 page 623).

I'll see if Shep can cite the full deal when he gets back. :)

8<
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Future Man

Priest of God and the Lamb
Aug 20, 2002
245
5
✟470.00
Faith
Calvinist
Here you commit the fallacy of the complex question. Paul never says that "the likeness of men" was something that Christ did not possess in the first place!

Quite the opposite in that Christ is said to have "taken it". How do you empty yourself and THEN appear in the likness of man?

I already covered this in my original rebuttal. But let's go through it again...

Bearing in mind the fact that Christ was the King of the Jews (hence his triumphal entrance into Jerusalem in Mark 11, which clearly demonstrates that he did indeed have a reputation to nullify), we find that his humiliation began shortly after the Last Supper.

Now reconcile this with the context starting at verse 1 of Phil with the contextual sequence and you may have a case. :)

These ways of reading the Philippian hymn contain an emphasis on Jesus Christ as a divine being who previously was with God, emptied himself of his pre&#8209;existent divinity, became a man on earth, and then went back up where he properly belonged. When people do read Philippians 2, the “heavy hand of tradition” keeps them reading along these lines.

Funny that I don't have that problem :idea: :).

Your argument primarily rests on "Christ is being compared to Adam" [which is not clearly laid out as if Paul intended that] and you almost entirely ignore *everything* Richard posted in regards to 'harpagmos' [No surprise there] which further shoots down your choppy parallel.

[Barker and Kohlenberger's, "Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary", page 797:]

"The expression "something to be grasped" (GK 772) has been variously interpreted. Does it mean something that has been seized or something to be seized? This uncertainty has led to three possibilities: (1) The preincarnate Christ already possessed equality with the Father and resolved not to cling to it; (2) Christ had no need to grasp at equality with God, for he already possessed it; (3) Christ did not reach for his crowning prematurely, as Adam had, but was willing to wait till after his suffering. That the preexistent state is in view seems evident from the movement of the passage (see also 2Co 8:9). Inasmuch as Christ already existed in "the form of God", the mode of his existence as equal with God was hardly something totally future but must rather be something he divested himself of. Hence, view 3 above does not fit the context so well as view 1. View 2, though expressing a truth, does not provide an adequate basis for the statements that follow."

>

Not that you'd know either way, of course.

Unfortunately, your protestations are meaningless. If you'd actually taken the time to read what I wrote, you would have seen that I've been quoting consistently from modern Trinitarian scholars of the highest order. Decker, Burk Jr, et al are above reproach. Sadly, it is now obvious that you have no idea what you're talking about.

Sorry.

Great rebuttal. No attention to context. Didn't address anything OS cited in regards to 'harpagmos'. Just pasting your borrowed arguments from Anthony Buzzard and the JWs. Such a waste of time. :cool:

I'm sorry too. :D

_______________
God bless--FM
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

OldShepherd

Zaqunraah
Mar 11, 2002
7,156
174
EST
✟21,242.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Previously posted by OS

  • "The parallel passage in Luke 24;15, clearly shows that the reason the disciples did not recognize Jesus, was not because He had changed His entire being, form, appearance, etc., but because their eyes were impaired in some way, preventing them from recognizing Jesus."
And the nonresponse is so far out in left field I can't think of a suitable way to expess my disgust.

Firstly, this is a complete straw man, because my argument was taken from Mark 16, not Luke 24! (You must have chosen the alternative passage in an attempt to avoid my argument. No such luck!) Secondly, your argument makes no attempt to reconcile Mark's use of morphe with your interpretation of the same word in Philippians 2! Thirdly, you still have not told me how he appeared in a "different nature" (as your interpretation requires) on this occasion!
"Straw man" is EV's way of saying "I don't have an adequate response in my CD of canned responses." I'm sure this bloviation impresses the socks off of your CD anti-Trini mates. But you and I know it's just a big cop out.

First your abject dishonesty is readily apparent. I discussed both verses, Mk 16 and Lk 24, in the same paragraph and quoted both verses just below my discussion.

This is the height of hypocrisy, if my reference to these two passages is a straw man then so is you entire argument concerning Mark 16. The topic of this thread is Phil 2:6. See how that works?

You criticize me for discussing two parallel verses, by different authors, describing the exact same incident, while you try vainly to make Philp 2:6 parallel Gen 1:27, without a shred of proof. Paul doesn't mention Adam, nor use the same language.

There is no reason to reconcile Mark and Paul's use of morphé, they are modified by different words, "existing" in Paul and "appearing" in Mark. Are you trying to say that these two words mean the same thing or that the context is irrelevant?

And no my interpretation does NOT require "different nature." If you had bothered to read my response, I explained that. "their eyes were held" and because of that Jesus appeared to them in another morphé. I have a refrigerator magnet that "appears" to be a broccoli sprout, but it isn't. Now what part of that do you not understand?


Concerning morfh while it only occurs three times in the N.T., there is another word which can inform us of what Paul means by this word. This word is metamorfow and is from the same root as “morphé” Do you think that Paul was telling the Romans to simply change their outward appearance?

  • Romans 12:2 And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed/metamorfow by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.

    3339 metamorfow metamorphoo met-am-or-fo’-o
    from 3326 and 3445; TDNT - 4:755,607; v
    AV - transfigure 2, transform 1, change 1; 4
    1) to change into another form, to transform, to transfigure.

Concerning morfh while it only appears three times in the N.T. there is another word which can inform us of what Paul means by this word. This word is metamorfow and is from the same root as “morphé” Do you think that Paul was telling the Romans to simply change their outward appearance?[/list]
Romans 12:2 And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed/metamorfow by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.

3339metamorfowmetamorphoo met-am-or-fo’-o
from 3326 and 3445; TDNT - 4:755,607; v
AV - transfigure 2, transform 1, change 1; 4
1) to change into another form, to transform, to transfigure.[/list]

Posted by EV
I already covered this in my original rebuttal. But let's go through it again...

Bearing in mind the fact that Christ was the King of the Jews (hence his triumphal entrance into Jerusalem in Mark 11, which clearly demonstrates that he did indeed have a reputation to nullify), we find that his humiliation began shortly after the Last Supper.
Desperate for a response? Let’s just ignore the fact that Jesus was riding into Jerusalem on a borrowed donkey, and said, “the son of man came to serve, not be served.”, “the son of man has not where to lay His head.”, “my kingdom is not of this world”, and John 6:15, et al. How is it, if Jesus was a king, that the people were going to take Him by force and make Him a king.


  • John 6:15 When Jesus therefore perceived that they would come and take him by force, to make him a king, he departed again into a mountain himself alone.
I’m afraid that is all I have time for right now as FM said I will be out of the country for a while and likely not able to post so don’t assume that your arguments are valid simply because I don’t respond.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.