He did not consider it ROBBERY to be equal with God,

[Der Alte]

GDL (another old guy BTW) made the comments re: the articular infinitive - not BDAG. Apology for any confusion.

• "einai" is the present active infinitive of eimi
• "to" is an accusative neuter singular article making to einai an articular infinitive.
  
  • per Greek Beyond the Basics by Daniel Wallace, the Accusative Articular Infinitive can be a direct object or apposition.

I see no reason to translate the article. It is acting as a marker to tell us the infinitive is functioning as a direct object of the verb. If you as an old scholar must hold onto translating it, I (an old Bible student and schooled practitioner in Biblical Greek) can work with it fully realizing how old guys can be stubborn.

We know Jesus is God. But kenosis tells us He did not function as fully God while in the human body that was prepared for Him. We also know that God made Jesus the/His Christ (YHWH's Christ per Ps2 referenced in Acts13), Son of God, King, Heir, Judge, High Priest, when He resurrected Him. We've been discussing some of this here.

For me at this point I see this as the simplicity of what's being said in Phil2:6-7.

• [Jesus] [while or although] (my classifying the present participle) existing en form [of] God, regarded to be equal to/with God (articular infinitive phrase as direct object) not something to be claimed/asserted by gripping or grasping [holding onto it] (BDAG harpagmos), but emptied Himself, taking form of [a] slave becoming in likeness of men (verse 8 tells us more about this emptying, assumed outward appearance, obedience until death.

It doesn't seem that tough to me. The language and context are pretty clear. I have no issue with BDAG's elaborated definition. In fact, I think it's pretty good. It seems to say this is not just a new or off-the wall claim but an assertion or claim of fact that exists and is [not] being held onto, which goes very well with the initial present participle concerning His existing in form of God (this is why I elaborated a bit by classifying the present participle as temporal = while existing - or concessive = although existing). Point being He is God but emptied Himself of this status and subordinated to our Father. A maximized lesson in subordination for us BTW.

I did look at your posted article and seeing the length went to the end, so I did not get the full dose of it. I too try to keep up on articles, mostly from Journals, but it can be quite the task as I'm sure you know as an old guy who's done this for a while.

I stumbled on the article about 20 years +/- ago reading about the revision to the NIV translating "arpagmos" as "something to be used to one's advantage" vs. "robbery." All this was made possible by scholars via TLG Greek database in Irvine Ca. finding heretofore unknown ancient manuscripts which use the same tense of the word arpagmos in respect to the same subject death. Too bad the linked article is in PDF format and can't be word searched.

 

[GDL]

I stumbled on the article about 20 years +/- ago reading about the revision to the NIV translating "arpagmos" as "something to be used to one's advantage" vs. "robbery." All this was made possible by scholars via TLG Greek database in Irvine Ca. finding heretofore unknown ancient manuscripts which use the same tense of the word arpagmos in respect to the same subject death. Too bad the linked article is in PDF format and can't be word searched.

During Seminary (as an old guy) I also attended some modern Greek classes at UCIrvine and was put to shame by some much younger foreign students who processed different languages with great ease. I could not keep up with them and was not attending to learn to speak the language fluently as they were. I did become and am familiar with the UCI Perseus Project and database and have it linked.

"something to be used to one's advantage" seems to play pretty well with gripping/grasping/holding onto the status/assertion of title in BDAG. The grasping/gripping/holding onto seems to play well with the contrast of emptying/voiding/making of no effect.

Friberg notes something like what you're referring to and combines it with the BDAG concept of gripping/grasping/holding onto: 3627 ἁρπαγμός, ου, ὁ (1) literally something seized and held, plunder; (2) figuratively in PH 2.6 of Jesus' equality with God οὐχ ἁρπαγμόν; (a) possibly, as not forcefully grasping something one does not have something not to be seized, not a prize to be seized; (b) probably, as not forcefully retaining something for one's own advantage something not to be held onto, not a piece of good fortune

Thayers: 2.a thing seized or to be seized, booty: ἁρπαγμόν ἡγεῖσθαι τί to deem anything a prlze -- a thing to be seized upon or to be held fast, retained, Phil. 2:6

Part of the issue is that harpagma is used a few times in the LXX, hapargmos is not, and researchers seem to be having trouble dealing with the "mos" ending - whether to equate it to ma or to see it differently. There are some writings about this, but I didn't find one I read much help and I don't have the references it cites.

As I'm sure you know, some of these lexicons simply carry forward theological interpretations they're familiar and agree with. I try to watch for such things.

It looks like the end of your referenced article does not like the retention concept and prefers a not exploiting one. I'd have to closely read the article to see why as not exploiting (not using) and emptying don't seem to flow as well not retaining and emptying. But, good enough for now.

I think this has been covered pretty well for this venue. The debate grew to be a little challenging to keep reading, but such is activity on Christianforums in my experience.

cc: @tonychanyt

 

[Der Alte]

During Seminary (as an old guy) I also attended some modern Greek classes at UCIrvine and was put to shame by some much younger foreign students who processed different languages with great ease. I could not keep up with them and was not attending to learn to speak the language fluently as they were. I did become and am familiar with the UCI Perseus Project and database and have it linked.

"something to be used to one's advantage" seems to play pretty well with gripping/grasping/holding onto the status/assertion of title in BDAG. The grasping/gripping/holding onto seems to play well with the contrast of emptying/voiding/making of no effect.

Friberg notes something like what you're referring to and combines it with the BDAG concept of gripping/grasping/holding onto: 3627 ἁρπαγμός, ου, ὁ (1) literally something seized and held, plunder; (2) figuratively in PH 2.6 of Jesus' equality with God οὐχ ἁρπαγμόν; (a) possibly, as not forcefully grasping something one does not have something not to be seized, not a prize to be seized; (b) probably, as not forcefully retaining something for one's own advantage something not to be held onto, not a piece of good fortune

Thayers: 2.a thing seized or to be seized, booty: ἁρπαγμόν ἡγεῖσθαι τί to deem anything a prlze -- a thing to be seized upon or to be held fast, retained, Phil. 2:6

Part of the issue is that harpagma is used a few times in the LXX, hapargmos is not, and researchers seem to be having trouble dealing with the "mos" ending - whether to equate it to ma or to see it differently. There are some writings about this, but I didn't find one I read much help and I don't have the references it cites.

As I'm sure you know, some of these lexicons simply carry forward theological interpretations they're familiar and agree with. I try to watch for such things.

It looks like the end of your referenced article does not like the retention concept and prefers a not exploiting one. I'd have to closely read the article to see why as not exploiting (not using) and emptying don't seem to flow as well not retaining and emptying. But, good enough for now.

I think this has been covered pretty well for this venue. The debate grew to be a little challenging to keep reading, but such is activity on Christianforums in my experience.

cc: @tonychanyt

I started learning some Greek in Germany the year that Elvis and I were stationed there. I had learned German when I was about 12. I was a cook. There were civilians working in the mess hall. I spoke to them in German. One told me "We not German we Greek." So I said teach me some Greek he pointed at a table and said "trapezi" my 1st Greek word, not knowing that I would study Greek at the grad level 2 decades later. My classmates were amazed the second day of class when we had to read from the Greek NT. Almost effortlessly for me.
Check page 108 of the Harvard paper.

 

[Fireinfolding]

I started learning some Greek in Germany the year that Elvis and I were stationed there. I had learned German when I was about 12. I was a cook. There were civilians working in the mess hall. I spoke to them in German. One told me "We not German we Greek." So I said teach me some Greek he pointed at a table and said "trapezi" my 1st Greek word, not knowing that I would study Greek at the grad level 2 decades later. My classmates were amazed the second day of class when we had to read from the Greek NT. Almost effortlessly for me.
Check page 108 of the Harvard paper.

I didn't know that, with Elvis, sweet! Where were you stationed?

I was in the Army myself, was stationed in Miesau Germany, 164th MP company there.

I loved it in Germany too, that was nearly 3 decades ago for me. I couldn't even pick up my own native tongue

 

[Der Alte]

I didn't know that, with Elvis, sweet! Where were you stationed?

I was in the Army myself, was stationed in Miesau Germany, 164th MP company there.

I loved it in Germany too, that was nearly 3 decades ago for me. I couldn't even pick up my own native tongue

At that time Schwaebisch G'mund in an Arty unit for a year, Dachau for a year before that. Never met Elvis, just said that for the time frame, but once at Graf our unit vehicles were right next to each other in the motor pool. Guys in his unit said he was an alright guy. People in my unit thought I was a CID spy I was not German but could speak it fluently. I was always the unofficial, "Hey come over here and tell me what this guy is saying."

 

[ViaCrucis]

It seems to me that the point Paul is getting at is that Jesus, though God (as the Eternal Son of the Father), did not exploit His Divinity. He, as God, would have been in His full rights to act as God--to demand honor, worship, obedience, etc. He would have been in His rights as the Lord of all things to, for example, speak but a word and destroy Caesar's throne or kick the Romans out of Judea, or take hold of the earth under His Kingship. Or speak a word and, against all His interlocuters and those who reviled Him, speak a word against them and they would immediately be judged. any number of possibilities--He is God, but He did not exploit it. He willingly chose weakness, He embraced the shame, dishonor, and agony of the cross. That is what Paul means when he says of Christ ἐκένωσεν (ekenosen), He emptied Himself, He poured Himself out.

He did not cease to be Almighty, but He did not demand the treatment of the Almighty One--He humbled Himself, He chose lowliness--even to the point of shameful, dishonorable, accursed death on a Roman cross.

Without forsaking His Divinity--for He still is He who commanded the water and wind to silence, who raised the dead, made the blind to see, and who Himself rose from the dead--He did not exploit it. He took no advantage of it for Himself; but in all things acted as a Servant.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[GoldenKingGaze]

It was Heylel that is Lucifer or Satan who did consider equality with God something to plunder at great expense... he brought in as many angels as he could get to work with him for the goal. Then, they were defeated, no more place was found for them in Heaven.

God's Son, who was incarnate as Jesus, in being incarnate, was the opposite, the Most High, was humble. More important than Himself and His pleasures... us, and He joined us, to become, our, hope of glory. It pleased the Father that He obeyed and He returned to glory with His spoils from Earth and was duly glorified again. Now we have Jesus' powerful blood...

This was a real god, who had a non human, divine nature, love, instead of requiring human sacrifice, He sacrificed Himself, and proved stronger than death, the greatest foe. He is alive and is the greatest at love and power.

 

[Fireinfolding]

At that time Schwaebisch G'mund in an Arty unit for a year, Dachau for a year before that. Never met Elvis, just said that for the time frame, but once at Graf our unit vehicles were right next to each other in the motor pool. Guys in his unit said he was an alright guy. People in my unit thought I was a CID spy I was not German but could speak it fluently. I was always the unofficial, "Hey come over here and tell me what this guy is saying."

I never heard those unit, but there many more I probably never heard of but I was curious whether we shared the same unit.

I am German but can't speak my own native language, its sort of strange when a non German should be the one who could teach me what I should know Good on you!

And sorry, I kind of derailed the thread a little forgive me I just had to ask you about that. Thanks der Alte

 

[Der Alte]

I never heard those unit, but there many more I probably never heard of but I was curious whether we shared the same unit.
I am German but can't speak my own native language, its sort of strange when a non German should be the one who could teach me what I should know Good on you!
And sorry, I kind of derailed the thread a little forgive me I just had to ask you about that. Thanks der Alte

My first unit was 287th Arty I only remember because in German we called it Zwei Acht sieben then they switched to the regimental system which I can't remember 3rd Bn 40 Arty or something like that. Unit phone number was 838 acht drei acht. We put German words to the Elvis hit "Are you lonesome to night, Bis du einsam heut nacht ruf mich an acht drei acht. Are you lonesome tonight call me at 838.

 

[PsaltiChrysostom]

My first unit was 287th Arty I only remember because in German we called it Zwei Acht sieben then they switched to the regimental system which I can't remember 3rd Bn 40 Arty or something like that. Unit phone number was 838 acht drei acht. We put German words to the Elvis hit "Are you lonesome to night, Bis du einsam heut nacht ruf mich an acht drei acht. Are you lonesome tonight call me at 838.

And did anyone call?

 

[GDL]

It seems to me that the point Paul is getting at is that Jesus, though God (as the Eternal Son of the Father), did not exploit His Divinity. He, as God, would have been in His full rights to act as God--to demand honor, worship, obedience, etc. He would have been in His rights as the Lord of all things to, for example, speak but a word and destroy Caesar's throne or kick the Romans out of Judea, or take hold of the earth under His Kingship. Or speak a word and, against all His interlocuters and those who reviled Him, speak a word against them and they would immediately be judged. any number of possibilities--He is God, but He did not exploit it. He willingly chose weakness, He embraced the shame, dishonor, and agony of the cross. That is what Paul means when he says of Christ ἐκένωσεν (ekenosen), He emptied Himself, He poured Himself out.

He did not cease to be Almighty, but He did not demand the treatment of the Almighty One--He humbled Himself, He chose lowliness--even to the point of shameful, dishonorable, accursed death on a Roman cross.

Without forsaking His Divinity--for He still is He who commanded the water and wind to silence, who raised the dead, made the blind to see, and who Himself rose from the dead--He did not exploit it. He took no advantage of it for Himself; but in all things acted as a Servant.

-CryptoLutheran

He had to be and function in His humanity in order to be humanity's sacrifice.

Also, as I said to @Der Alte, IMO the concepts of not using to one's advantage (exploiting) and not grasping/retaining/holding onto are not that different.

There are some who teach a concept of His living the prototype of our Spiritual Life to establish and prove its efficacy - the Life of a man with God's indwelling Spirit.

He's said to have originated and completed The Faith and then passed it on to His Holy Ones. It was Life filled with the Spirit without measure wherein He in effect said, I always say what I hear the Father say and always do what I see the Father do.

Kenosis and Hupostasis are amazing realities for we of His who obey (Heb5:9) and follow (Matt19:21) Him.

 

[ViaCrucis]

He had to be and function in His humanity in order to be humanity's sacrifice.

Also, as I said to @Der Alte, IMO the concepts of not using to one's advantage (exploiting) and not grasping/retaining/holding onto are not that different.

There are some who teach a concept of His living the prototype of our Spiritual Life to establish and prove its efficacy - the Life of a man with God's indwelling Spirit.

He's said to have originated and completed The Faith and then passed it on to His Holy Ones. It was Life filled with the Spirit without measure wherein He in effect said, I always say what I hear the Father say and always do what I see the Father do.

Kenosis and Hupostasis are amazing realities for we of His who obey (Heb5:9) and follow (Matt19:21) Him.

The historic teaching of the Church, that Jesus Christ is both God and man in the perfect union of His single undivided Person means that it is impossible to separate His Divinity from His humanity, or vice versa. When Jesus does something, it is as Himself.

He could offer His life and lay it down unto death because He is human, He was born a mortal human being. But we cannot say, therefore, something like "only the humanity died", that de-Personalizes the man, Jesus Christ; and it ignores that Jesus is a Person. It is the Person of Jesus Christ who died on the cross. This presents us with something intensely mysterious and even paradoxical: God, who can neither suffer nor die, did in fact both suffer and die.

So it was as Himself that He made wind and wave be still, who healed the blind, who cured leprosy, and who raised Lazarus from the dead.

He is Himself, and He is Himself both God and man. We cannot ever separate, even as we cannot ever confuse these: He is God and man united in His one Person.

What Jesus did He did. It is the God-Man who did these things and said these things.

That's where the problem with the modern concept of Kenoticism comes in. Not the kenosis--the emptying, the humbling of God the Son in being a servant--but the false doctrine that Jesus in some sense abandoned or gave up His Divinity or set it aside somehow. Because that completely butchers the doctrine of the Hypostatic Union, the union of Divinity and humanity in the one undivided Person of Jesus Christ.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Der Alte]

And did anyone call?

Leider nie mals! Unfortunately never.

 

[GDL]

The historic teaching of the Church, that Jesus Christ is both God and man in the perfect union of His single undivided Person means that it is impossible to separate His Divinity from His humanity, or vice versa. When Jesus does something, it is as Himself.

He could offer His life and lay it down unto death because He is human, He was born a mortal human being. But we cannot say, therefore, something like "only the humanity died", that de-Personalizes the man, Jesus Christ; and it ignores that Jesus is a Person. It is the Person of Jesus Christ who died on the cross. This presents us with something intensely mysterious and even paradoxical: God, who can neither suffer nor die, did in fact both suffer and die.

So it was as Himself that He made wind and wave be still, who healed the blind, who cured leprosy, and who raised Lazarus from the dead.

He is Himself, and He is Himself both God and man. We cannot ever separate, even as we cannot ever confuse these: He is God and man united in His one Person.

What Jesus did He did. It is the God-Man who did these things and said these things.

That's where the problem with the modern concept of Kenoticism comes in. Not the kenosis--the emptying, the humbling of God the Son in being a servant--but the false doctrine that Jesus in some sense abandoned or gave up His Divinity or set it aside somehow. Because that completely butchers the doctrine of the Hypostatic Union, the union of Divinity and humanity in the one undivided Person of Jesus Christ.

-CryptoLutheran

Eternal God dying is most certainly a challenge to explain or make sense of.

Death as we understand it may also be a bit of a challenge albeit maybe a lesser one.

We do have His statements like John10:17 to assist in some of this - He lays His soul down & He takes it up again. We also have His statements like John14:10 to tell us things about His relationship with our Father and other Scripture about Him and the Spirit.

The discussion of the nuance of not retaining (the point that was being discussed) does not have to be about retaining vs. emptying His Divine Person - part of the point I think you're making; BDAG 2. As equal to ἅρπαγμα, someth. to which one can claim or assert title by gripping or grasping - IOW, to not retain the assertion of something or title - IMO can correlate to not exploiting or not using to one's advantage.

Either way, all of these need to be nuanced as, from what you correctly say, He did use His Person (or His union with our Father and Spirit, or all of these) to do certain things - which seems to fit the meaning of "exploit" in the sense of "use to advantage" or to retain to some degree.

I think one of the main points of this Scripture in Phil2 in context is the subordination to our Father - a vital lesson for us as His siblings (Rom8:29) and part of what I was discussing that pertains to our Life in Christ in Spirit with God our Father. IOW, the main point is more this subordination to our Father even to capital punishment at the hands of His creation pursuant to His Salvation Plan, more so than for us to [overly] struggle with the reality of - even the mystery of- the Hypostatic Union. Subordination vs. equality in regard to His Person. Obedience then being exalted.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Eternal God dying is most certainly a challenge to explain or make sense of.

Death as we understand it may also be a bit of a challenge albeit maybe a lesser one.

We do have His statements like John10:17 to assist in some of this - He lays His soul down & He takes it up again. We also have His statements like John14:10 to tell us things about His relationship with our Father and other Scripture about Him and the Spirit.

The discussion of the nuance of not retaining (the point that was being discussed) does not have to be about retaining vs. emptying His Divine Person - part of the point I think you're making; BDAG 2. As equal to ἅρπαγμα, someth. to which one can claim or assert title by gripping or grasping - IOW, to not retain the assertion of something or title - IMO can correlate to not exploiting or not using to one's advantage.

Either way, all of these need to be nuanced as, from what you correctly say, He did use His Person (or His union with our Father and Spirit, or all of these) to do certain things - which seems to fit the meaning of "exploit" in the sense of "use to advantage" or to retain to some degree.

I think one of the main points of this Scripture in Phil2 in context is the subordination to our Father - a vital lesson for us as His siblings (Rom8:29) and part of what I was discussing that pertains to our Life in Christ in Spirit with God our Father. IOW, the main point is more this subordination to our Father even to capital punishment at the hands of His creation pursuant to His Salvation Plan, more so than for us to [overly] struggle with the reality of - even the mystery of- the Hypostatic Union. Subordination vs. equality in regard to His Person. Obedience then being exalted.

I'd be interested in how you use the term subordinate. As I would never describe Christ as ever being subordinate to the Father. Rather, the submission of Christ, the voluntary obedience and love which He shows toward the Father reflects a deeper mystery of the Trinity. That is, when we see the Son humble Himself in deference to the Father, at the cross most obviously, but even as we see throughout the Gospel of John where the Lord speaks of how He does and says only what the Father gives Him should point not to the Son as being in anyway inferior to the Father; but rather it speaks to the kind of loving relationship which exists within the Holy Trinity.

For we see that the Father Himself makes deference toward His Son also, such as in Christ's baptism, or as the author of Hebrews quotes the Old Testament, the Father says to the Son, "Your throne O God is forever and ever". Indeed, when we speak of the Son's generation from the Father this is, in a sense, speaking of the Father's own kenotic way of relating to His Son, that the Father Himself empties Himself, gives Himself away. So that the Father empties all which He is into Another, His Son. So the Son's own reciprocal self-emptying in relation to the Father--as we bear witness to in His earthly ministry, passion, and death--is simply the mirroring of what is truly part of God as God is.

So that the Three Divine Persons love, and this love is an infinite spring without exhaustion--the Father pours out all of Himself, even as the Son and Spirit, One to Another.

So the kenosis of the Son which the Apostle speaks about in Philippians 2, which is intended to be the example of how ourselves are to be toward one another "Have this same disposition in you that was in Christ Jesus" isn't about how Jesus was subordinate, but rather how God Himself chooses to be. This is how God is within Himself, in the interior-relationship of the Trinity; and reflected in Christ's Incarnation, His passion and death, is now the example which leads us to service toward one another, and indeed, toward all.

God, in commanding us to lay ourselves down and to love, to love even our own enemies and forgive all who have wronged us, is the genuine reflection of Himself. He does not command what He Himself is unwilling to do, He does not command that we do what He would not or does not; but rather He Himself shows us what this commandment looks like in action. And therefore we behold in Christ, truly, what it means to be a human person created in the image of God and what God intends for us to be as human beings bearing that Divine Image.

God intends to have creatures who bear and share the intimate love of the Holy Trinity. God intends to share Himself with His creation. Or to put it in a single word, Theosis.

And this is what I think can get lost in, for example, things like Kenoticism, or Subordinatism. I'm not saying you are advocating either--only pointing out how these views can wreak havoc on theology.

Christ, of course, cannot rob what is properly His (He is God); but what is of value here is that He does not exploit it. God is not up on high with demands which we must follow as though He were a whimsical tyrant. God meets us down here, in the muck and mire, in the weakness and ugliness of ourselves and our situation. And Christ not only submits to the Father in love, He became a servant (the Greek here more accurately means slave) toward us. As we recall, "The Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life as a ransom for many" (Mark 10:45). Christ our God came into our midst not as a King of Glory, but as Lamb, Victim, and Slave.

Consider, then, also, what the Lord says "The greatest among you will be your slave", "none born of women is greater than [John the Baptist] but the Least in the kingdom is greater than he". Greatness, as it pertains to God, is never a mountain-top glory, but giving oneself away in love. "There is no greater love than this, than that one lay down their life for their friends" And He calls us friends.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[GDL]

I'd be interested in how you use the term subordinate.

Verbal concept - submission to authority - and this concept carried forth in describing Him as you note here:

the submission of Christ, the voluntary obedience and love which He shows toward the Father

and here:

we see the Son humble Himself in deference to the Father

Nevertheless, your will be done:

at the cross most obviously

Not inferior to but submitted/subordinated to.

isn't about how Jesus was subordinate

submitted/obedient to if you prefer.

is now the example which leads us to service toward one another, and indeed, toward all

And the example of submission to our mutual Father since Christ is the firstborn of many brethren as I referenced from Rom8. And, of course, submission to our Lord.

And this is what I think can get lost in, for example, things like Kenoticism, or Subordinatism. I'm not saying you are advocating either--only pointing out how these views can wreak havoc on theology.

Thanks. I'm not advocating at this point. Maybe just working to find commonality in terminology. Your opening statement of interest is appreciated.

Christ, of course, cannot rob what is properly His (He is God);

Agreed. Poor translation and thinking IMO.

but what is of value here is that He does not exploit it.

But, as mentioned and responded to, He may have exploited it at times in the sense of using it. What He did not exploit is equality with our Father in the sense that He remained in submission even to the cross. Again, I think this is the main point (or a major point) of Phil2. Phil2:8 states this obedience to God the Father. Phil2:9 states His exaltation by the Father.

God is not up on high with demands which we must follow as though He were a whimsical tyrant. God meets us down here, in the muck and mire, in the weakness and ugliness of ourselves and our situation.

I'm more cautious with this type of point making. Whimsical, no. Tyrant, no. But Sovereign God, Lord, Judge, and many other such descriptors, Yes.

Loving Him is obeying Him.

One of the early messages Jesus gave in John4 emphasizes through much repetition that God is seeking those who will proskuneo (means bow in obeisance to - worship is not the best translation and leaves us wondering what we mean by it - like your question of me re: subordinate).

Many things to say here, but good enough for now. I do think it's a great study to read the Text and note how extensively Jesus places our Father front and center.

And Christ not only submits to the Father in love, He became a servant (the Greek here more accurately means slave) toward us.

Agree. Furthermore, submission to God is Love for God and for Neighbor.

As we recall, "The Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life as a ransom for many" (Mark 10:45). Christ our God came into our midst not as a King of Glory, but as Lamb, Victim, and Slave.

But raised in glory as Christ and King and.... but your point is well-taken.

Consider, then, also, what the Lord says "The greatest among you will be your slave", "none born of women is greater than [John the Baptist] but the Least in the kingdom is greater than he". Greatness, as it pertains to God, is never a mountain-top glory, but giving oneself away in love. "There is no greater love than this, than that one lay down their life for their friends" And He calls us friends.

Again, point received.

One comment: His "friends" is a qualified concept:

• NKJ John 15:14-15 "You are My friends if you do whatever I command you. 15 "No longer do I call you servants, for a servant does not know what his master is doing; but I have called you friends, for all things that I heard from My Father I have made known to you.
  • His friends are learned and willingly and reverently obedient/in submission/subordinated to Him.
    • When we study the word frequently translated as "godliness," these same concepts - learned & willingly obedient - are part of it.

Nice writing.