Philippians 2.5-7

[NickHassan]

Hi,
“Have this attitude in yourself which was also in Christ Jesus, who, though 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 bondservant, and being made in the likeness of men” NASB

We really need some help in addressing this verse syllable by syllable to really understand it as there never seems to be agreement on what it says. Who can share their greek knowledge and take us back to the manuscript readings to give light here?.

Trinitarians use it to say the Son always had equality.

The awful, in my opinion, translation in the KJV stands alone in support of this view, and that may be antiquated English that is the problem. All other versions seem to read in the opposite sense.

Then some state the words used mean to have equality [The Word with God] but to relinquish it. Others say instead it means not to have, and to not covet, but take a humble view and obey.

My discussions with a greek scholar seem to back up the second of these views but either way it is a watershed verse that seems to justify both views to some on either side of the discussion.

Who can help?

[seekingtruth]

I've always felt that the rest of scripture shows this verse to mean that lucifer was filled with pride and even though he was a created being he felt he could be equal to God. The pre-incarnate Christ was far greater then lucifer being the only begotten Son, but felt equality with God was not something to be grasped. He chose rather to humble Himself, set aside His divine nature, and came to serve the creation brought about through Him. If Jesus the Son of God came as a bond-servant how much more should we serve each other.

To me this was one of the verses showing fault in the trinity line of reasoning.

[Cubes]

Helpful contribution, ST.

I have posted my understanding of this scripture elsewhere on the board before so this is basically the same.

1) The Apostle Paul translates the verse himself. He wrote most of the New Testament and does NOT repeat the concept anywhere else but repeats most all other things he says.

2) He shows abundantly in all other places that God is the God and Father of Jesus Christ, and supreme. It is he who quotes Psalm 8 when speaking of Jesus in 1 Corinthians 15 being made a little lower than elohiym and follows through to say that Jesus in all his authority would in the end become subjected to GOD so that GOD (whom he identifies plenty of times to be the Father of Jesus Christ), may be all in all. I find that Paul refutes any notion of equality, and though the word was used, he did not, could not have intended it to be understood as that for if so, it would have been revealed once again through his copious writings. He was certainly not trying to hide whatever he intended to promote!

[Cubes]

Jesus on the subject:

36 do you say of Him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, 'You are blaspheming,' because I SAID, 'I AM THE SON OF GOD'?

[Cubes]

How can anyone confuse the fact that it is God who is God in these scriptures and that it is he who rules and reigns by his will?  

Hebrews 2:3 how shall we escape if we neglect so great a salvation, which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed to us by those who heard Him, 4 God also bearing witness both with signs and wonders, with various miracles, and gifts of the Holy Spirit, according to His own will?

(cf. Ps. 8:1-9)
5 For He has not put the world to come, of which we speak, in subjection to angels. 6 But one testified in a certain place, saying:

“What is man that You are mindful of him,
Or the son of man that You take care of him?
7 You have made him a little lower than the angels;
You have crowned him with glory and honor,
And set him over the works of Your hands.
8 You have put all things in subjection under his feet.”*

For in that He put all in subjection under him, He left nothing that is not put under him. But now we do not yet see all things put under him. 9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, for the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, that He, by the grace of God, might taste death for everyone.

10 For it was fitting for Him, for whom are all things and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons to glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings. 11 For both He who sanctifies and those who are being sanctified are all of one, for which reason He is not ashamed to call them brethren, 12 saying:

“I will declare Your name to My brethren;
In the midst of the assembly I will sing praise to You.”*

13 And again:

“I will put My trust in Him.”*

And again:

“Here am I and the children whom God has given Me.”*

and

1 Corinthians 15:12 Now if Christ is preached that He has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ is not risen. 14 And if Christ is not risen, then our preaching is empty and your faith is also empty. 15 Yes, and we are found false witnesses of God, because we have testified of God that He raised up Christ, whom He did not raise up–if in fact the dead do not rise. 16 For if the dead do not rise, then Christ is not risen. 17 And if Christ is not risen, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins! 18 Then also those who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. 19 If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men the most pitiable.

20 But now Christ is risen from the dead, and has become the firstfruits of those who have *fallen asleep. 21 For since by man came death, by Man also came the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive. 23 But each one in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, afterward those who are Christ's at His coming. 24 Then comes the end, when He delivers the kingdom to God the Father, when He puts an end to all rule and all authority and power. 25 For He must reign till He has put all enemies under His feet. 26 The last enemy that will be destroyed is death. 27 For “He has put all things under His feet.” But when He says “all things are put under Him,” it is evident that He who put all things under Him is excepted. 28 Now when all things are made subject to Him, then the Son Himself will also be subject to Him who put all things under Him, that God may be all in all.

The head of Christ is GOD as Paul himself said plainly elsewhere.  Thus, Paul refutes the Trinitarian translation so that we don't even need to use our own words to debate it.

Furthermore, if Jesus had equality to begin with, then how is it that he is still subjected to the FATHER in heaven and in post-resurrection, calling the Father his God and Father? (Revelation).  Mind you, he has been HIGHLY EXALTED so that all creation should bow before him and confess him as Lord.  

Yet, in the opening chapter of Revelation, GOD sends Jesus who sends the angel who sends John so to speak!  Is John equal to the angel?  Is the angel equal to Christ? Where is the example of men sending angels, of the disciples sending Christ, of angels sending Jesus, of Jesus sending the Father?

[david]

This is a good thread. This scripture frustrates me. I was once speaking to a minister in his home, and he was trying to explain to me that “Jehovah is Jesus,” as he said over and over.
To my suprise he was using this scripture, to prove his point as I was using this scripture to prove mine. I believe there is a variety of ways this verse is translated.

KJ of 1611 reads: “Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God.”
(Dy of 1609 has the same wording.)

******
More accurate renderings:

1869: “who, being in the form of God, did not regard it as a thing to be grasped at to be on an equality with God.” The New Testament, by G. R. Noyes.

1965: “He—truly of divine nature!—never self-confidently made himself equal to God.” Das Neue Testament, revised edition, by Friedrich Pfäfflin.

1968: “who, although being in the form of God, did not consider being equal to God a thing to greedily make his own.” La Bibbia Concordata.

1976: “He always had the nature of God, but he did not think that by force he should try to become equal with God.” Today’s English Version.

1984: “who, although he was existing in God’s form, gave no consideration to a seizure, namely, that he should be equal to God.” New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures.

1985: “Who, being in the form of God, did not count equality with God something to be grasped.” The New Jerusalem Bible.

Some claim, however, that even these more accurate renderings imply that (1) Jesus already had equality but did not want to hold on to it or that (2) he did not need to grasp at equality because he already had it.

Iin NW the latter portion of that passage reads: “who, although he was existing in God’s form, gave no consideration to a seizure [Greek, har·pag·mon´], namely, that he should be equal to God.”
(RS, NE, TEV, NAB convey the same thought.)

Which thought agrees with the context?

Verse 5 counsels Christians to imitate Christ in the matter here being discussed. Could they be urged to consider it “not robbery,” but their right, “to be equal with God”? Surely not!
However, they can imitate one who “gave no consideration to a seizure, namely, that he should be equal to God.” (NW) (Compare Genesis 3:5.)

Such a translation also agrees with Jesus Christ himself, who said: “The Father is greater than I.”—John 14:28.

The Expositor’s Greek Testament says: “We cannot find any passage where [har·pa´zo] or any of its derivatives [including har·pag·mon´] has the sense of ‘holding in possession,’ ‘retaining’. It seems invariably to mean ‘seize,’ ‘snatch violently’. Thus it is not permissible to glide from the true sense ‘grasp at’ into one which is totally different, ‘hold fast.’”—(Grand Rapids, Mich.; 1967), edited by W. Robertson Nicoll, Vol. III, pp. 436, 437.

In this regard, Ralph Martin, in The Epistle of Paul to the Philippians, says of the original Greek: “It is questionable, however, whether the sense of the verb can glide from its real meaning of ‘to seize’, ‘to snatch violently’ to that of ‘to hold fast.’”

From the foregoing it is apparent that the translators of versions such as the Douay and the King James are bending the rules to support Trinitarian ends. Far from saying that Jesus thought it was appropriate to be equal to God, the Greek of Philippians 2:6, when read objectively, shows just the opposite, that Jesus did not think it was appropriate.

The context of the surrounding verses (3-5, 7, 8, Dy) makes it clear how verse 6 is to be understood. The Philippians were urged: “In humility, let each esteem others better than themselves.” Then Paul uses Christ as the outstanding example of this attitude: “Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus.” What “mind”? To ‘think it not robbery to be equal with God’? No, that would be just the opposite of the point being made! Rather, Jesus, who ‘esteemed God as better than himself,’ would never ‘grasp for equality with God,’ but instead he “humbled himself, becoming obedient unto death.”

david

[NickHassan]

Good post david.

[Is 1:18]

My thoughts:

Presuppositions will generally determine how this passage is interpreted but there are some important grammatical and contextual considerations that shouldn't be overlooked IMHO.

Philippians 2:2-7
2make my joy complete by being of the same mind, maintaining the same love, united in spirit, intent on one purpose.
3Do nothing from selfishness or empty conceit, but with humility of mind regard one another as more important than yourselves;
4do not merely look out for your own personal interests, but also for the interests of others.
5Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus,
6who, although He existed (Gr. huparcho) * in the form (Gr. Morphe)** of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped (Gr. harpagamos)***,
7but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men.
8Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.

*Gr. huparchō
Paul used a present tense verb, indicating on-going existence. And lets remember the time frame of the passage is clearly eternity past, Paul's conveyance is that the Logos eternally existed in the very form of God.

Huparcho stresses the essence of a person's nature – the continuous state or condition of something” (cf. William Barclay, The Letters to the Philippians, Colossians, and Thessalonians [Philadelphia: Westminster, 1976], p. 35).

**Morphe
Perhaps from the base of G3313 (through the idea of adjustment of parts); shape; figuratively nature: – form. (Strong’s Concordance).

“always signifies a form which truly and fully expresses the being which underlies it” (James Hope Moulton and George Milligan, The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1930], p. 417).

On this B.B Warfield wrote::

Paul does not say simply, “He was God.”  He says, “He was in the form of God,” employing a turn of speech which throws emphasis upon Our Lord’s possession of the specific quality of God.  “Form” is a term which expresses the sum of those characterizing qualities which make a thing the precise thing that it is….When Our Lord is said to be in “the form of God,” therefore, He is declared, in the most express manner possible, to be all that God is, to possess the whole fulness of attributes which make God God. (B.B. Warfield, The Person and Work of Christ (Presbyterian and Reformed, 1950), 39)

Gr. Harpagamos
'Grasped' can also be taken to me 'to grasp to oneself – as in 'retain' or 'prize', not necessarily to 'grasp at'. I don't think that's the intended conveyance of Paul. And if Paul wanted to convey a 'snatching' of equality then that begs the obvious question “why didn't he simply use the Greek word 'harpazō'”, this would have unambiguously settled the matter. The Greek word harpazō [Gr. to seize, catch (away, up), pluck, pull, take (by force)] was available to Paul, and and he had no issue with using it elsewhere to convey a forceful, violent action:

2 Corinthians 12:2
I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago–whether in the body I do not know, or out of the body I do not know, God knows–such a man was caught [Gr. harpazō] up to the third heaven.

1 Thessalonians 4:17
Then we who are alive and remain will be caught up [Gr. harpazō] together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we shall always be with the Lord.

Acually in every instance harpazo is used in the NT it always implies a forceful action (refer: Matt. 11:12, 12:29, 13:19; Joh 6:15, 10:12, 10:28, 10:29; Acts 8:39, 23:10; Jud 23; Rev. 12:12.)

Not once in the NT is harpazo used in the sense of retaining something but always in a way of a change, in an attempt at gaining something not already possessed. I think the fact that Paul chose not to use this harpazō in Phil 2:6, but instead used a variant of this word is significant.      

Here is how the Amplified Bible renders the word:

Philippians 2:6 (AMP)
Who, although being essentially one with God and in the form of God [possessing the fullness of the attributes which make God God], did not think this equality with God was a thing to be eagerly grasped or retained.

Thayer's, the standard Greek lexicon of the New Testament, renders it as follows:

“[Christ Jesus], who, although (formerly when he was [logos asarkos]) bore the form (in which he appeared to the inhabitants of heaven) of God (the sovereign, opposite to [morphe doulos]), yet did not think that this equality with God was to be eagerly clung to or retained” (p. 418, Col. b).

If the Logos always existed in the form of God, and all that that entails (in the Greek) is considered, why would He need to snatch at equality? If you exist in the Morphe of God – you ARE God.

Also, if we attach a 'snatch' interpretation to harpagamos in Phil 2:6, then I think we atually we do violence to the context of the passage itself, which is after all about humility. If 'harpagamos' is taken to mean the Logos decided not to 'snatch at' equality with God – how is that humility?? There is no “humility” in an inferior creature not seeking after equality with God. It doesn't fit contextually at all, and would in fact DESTROY the entirety of the example Paul was pressing. If, however, you interpret it as a 'relinquishing of the equality' that was intrinsically His, to take on the form (Gr. morphe) of a bond servant then that is much more in keeping with the context of the passage.

So given the grammer and context of Phil 2:6, the notions of 'retention' appears, to me at least, to be the best interpretation of harpagamos in this verse…..

[david]

Well, as you say, “presuppostions will generally determine how this passage is interpreted.”
You presuppose Jesus is equal to God. So you must interpret it that way.

The following is from a 1971 Watchtower (355-6) and is somewhat long, but I find it very amusing and it really shows the struggles that trinitarians face, because of their struggle between presuppostions and the truth. Enjoy!

““CHRIST is God and not an image!” The amplified voice echoed around the Gothic arches of Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris, covering momentarily the reading of the “Epistle.” Some two thousand Catholics present had barely recovered from their surprise when they heard the Apostles’ Creed being sung in Latin. This protest singing was quickly drowned out by the mighty organ. At that the demonstrators left and the Mass continued.

Similar demonstrations occurred in other churches in Paris at Masses celebrated during that weekend of Palm Sunday, April 4, 1971. The demonstrators were not Protestants or atheists but traditionalist Catholics! But why the protest?

It involved the reading of the “Epistle” in the vernacular, in French. As any practicing Catholic knows, the “Epistle” read during Mass on Palm Sunday is Philippians 2:5-11. In the 1959 French lectionary Philippians 2:6 read: “Being of divine status, Christ did not greedily hold on to the rank that made him equal to God.” But in 1969, the French-speaking bishops authorized the publishing of a new lectionary that was approved by the Holy See in Rome on September 16, 1969. In this Philippians 2:6 was rendered: “Christ Jesus is God’s image; but he did not choose to seize by force equality with God.”

One noted French Catholic scholar, André Feuillet, wrote: “This version . . . stirred up sharp criticism on all sides. Was it not liable to make the faithful believe that Christ is not God in the strictest sense of the word?” (Esprit et Vie, December 17, 1970) Ah, there was the problem!

Pressure was brought to bear on the French hierarchy, who consented to revise this second translation of Philippians 2:6. However, when it became known that this third translation of Philippians 2:6 was no more trinitarian than the second rendering and that it would be read out in all the churches on Palm Sunday, April 4, 1971, traditionalist Catholics reacted violently.

The Catholic monthly magazine Itinéraires brought out a special supplement dated January 1971. Referring to the second translation of Philippians 2:6, Itinéraires stated: “If he [Christ] refused to seize it [equality with God], it must be that he did not already possess it.” And, commenting on the third rendering, this magazine said that if Christ “did not choose to claim to be the same as God,” this implies that he was not “the same as God.” With this the New American Bible, a Catholic edition of 1970, agrees, saying: “He did not deem equality with God something to be grasped at.” In Itinéraires’ view, “the practical effect of this substitution amounts to heresy and blasphemy.” It encouraged its readers to demonstrate their disapproval during Masses celebrated on Palm Sunday, inviting them to await the “Epistle” reading and then to cry out “Blasphemy!”, “Jesus Christ very God and very man,” or to sing the Apostles’ Creed.

In spite of these threats, the French episcopate stood by their third translation of Philippians 2:6. Le Monde (March 21-22, 1971) commented: “This translation . . . was accepted by the entire body of French-speaking bishops. The Permanent Council of the French Episcopate, that has just met in Paris, has ratified it; so it will stand.” However, to avoid disturbances during the Palm-Sunday Mass, several bishops allowed priests in their dioceses to use the 1959 translation. Notwithstanding this concession, demonstrations occurred in cathedrals in Paris and also in Lyons.

THE DILEMMA OF THE FRENCH BISHOPS

Oddly enough, these traditionalist demonstrators were trying to be better Catholics than the French-speaking bishops and cardinals! As good Catholics they believe in the Trinity doctrine, which teaches that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are equal within the Godhead. They were profoundly shocked by a hierarchy-approved translation of Philippians 2:6 that shows Christ never claimed to be “the same as God.” They were right in saying that this translation denies that Christ is God. But the point they overlook is that Christ himself denied it, speaking of his Father as “the only true God.” (John 17:3, Douay) He did not teach a Trinity doctrine.

The intriguing question is: Why did the French-speaking upper clergy feel obliged to authorize a translation that so obviously denies one of the basic doctrines of Catholicism? But that is not all. Is it not passing strange that these prelates considered it necessary to have a fresh translation made of this passage? What about all the Catholic Bibles duly carrying the nihil obstat and the imprimatur? What about the Jerusalem Bible, the Crampon Bible, the Liénart Bible, the Maredsous Bible, the Glaire Bible, the Osty New Testament, the Saci Bible and still others, all officially recognized French Catholic translations? Why make a new translation when all of these Bibles make this passage read as if Christ were equal to God, as do the English Catholic translations, the Douay Bible and the more recent Jerusalem Bible?

This mystery is cleared up by the following remark printed in Le Monde (April 6, 1971): “The scholars responsible for this change—a change ratified by the majority of the French bishops—consider the new translation more faithful to the Greek text than the former one was [italics ours].”

So now the French-speaking Catholic cardinals, archbishops and bishops find themselves on the horns of a dilemma. Either they recant, withdrawing their new translation of Philippians 2:6, in which case they will show themselves to be more attached to the Trinity doctrine than to accuracy of Bible translation, or they maintain their new official translation of this important passage, at the cost of admitting that French Catholic Bibles (not to speak of those in other languages) have mistranslated this scripture by giving it a trinitarian twist.”

[NickHassan]

Very interesting david,
I was an avowed traditionalist catholic who refused the changes of the second Vatican Council until from my cold and fearful prison I saw the Light of Christ in a born again believer.

[Is 1:18]

Quote (david @ June 06 2006,23:34)

You presuppose Jesus is equal to God.  So you must interpret it that way.

Actually if you read my post carefully you will see that my interpretation is fortified by grammatical and contextual evidences. It's not a 'forced' interpretation based on pre-suppositions at all David.

[david]

It's just that you began by saying:

Quote

Presuppositions will generally determine how this passage is interpreted

Then you went on to interpret it.

[Is 1:18]

He he…I wrote:

“Presuppositions will generally determine how this passage is interpreted”

If I conclude that Yahshua is God, it's because the Bible explicitly and implicitly teaches this David. The kenosis just adds further weight….

[NickHassan]

Hi Is 1.18,
Presuppositions are of our human mind are they not?

Surely we should be going deeper and letting the indwelling Spirit of truth be our teacher.[1Jn 2]

The Spirit teaches according to the Word and when we do this we will be abiding in the Word[Jn 14.26] and not afloat in airy fairy conjecture and speculation.

[NickHassan]

Hi,
If The Word emptied himself what did he empty himself of? Was it all so that he would be truly like one of us or did he retain his own powers and work in them? If so what value was the anointing of God?

[NickHassan]

Hi,
This verse continues to trip many up.

[NickHassan]

Hi Eli,
Here is the thread.

[malcolm ferris]

Quote (Cubes @ June 06 2006,03:21)

Jesus on the subject: 36 do you say of Him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, 'You are blaspheming,' because I SAID, 'I AM THE SON OF GOD'?

Good point cubes

If we look at the background to this statement of Jesus we see that they accused him of blasphemy for saying he was the son of God. Their reason being that it would make him 'equal' with God.
Jesus then set about to explain what 'equality' with God entails – namely the prophets of old were called 'gods' because the Word of God came to them – in other words when they spoke “thus saith the Lord” it was equal to God Himself saying it.
So in like manner the son of God spoke the Words of God (bieng the Word made flesh).
So Jesus had a certain equality with his Father on earth – as he said – I and my Father are one – if you have seen me you have seen Him…
Yet he also asked God in Jn 17:5 to glorifiy him with the glory he had with God before the world. Perhaps the equality that is spoken of in Phil 2 … God made all things by Jesus Christ – equality?
To me it is all a part of the unchanging way in which He (God) works in and through creation – through His Word.

JMTCW

[seminarian]

Quote (Is 1:18 @ June 07 2006,03:55)

He he…I wrote: “Presuppositions will generally determine how this passage is interpreted” ….

Is 1:18,

What is up with this “He, he” in many of your posts?  Very immature for someone claiming to know scripture.  Are you a juvenille using your parent's computer without their consent? If so, it is way past your bedtime young lady!

 
You wrote to David:

“If I conclude that Yahshua is God, it's because the Bible explicitly and implicitly teaches this David. The kenosis just adds further weight”

Oh really?  What scripture explicitly supports that opinion and which definition of “god” are you refering to?  We have already seen that Hebrew has different meanings for the same words, god being only one of them.

Now here is what the BIBLE, (not you or me) actually says about who Jesus is:

“Whosoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him and he in God.” [1John 4:15]

And:

“Who is he who overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?” [1 John 5:5]

And:

“….Jesus the Son of God, let us hold firmly to the faith we profess.” [Hebrews 4:14]

The title “Son of God” does not imply diety anymore than the same title given to Adam in Luke 3:38 which is Christ's Geneology all the way back to the first man.  Christ is also called the Last Adam, [read 1 Corn 15:45].  Does the title “the son of God” used of Adam, make HIM “diety” or some part of a triune Godhead too?  Of course not.

All of the scriptures above are Biblical confessions of faith and salvation. There is nothing in the Bible that says one must confess the “diety” of Jesus to be saved.  In fact the OT alone referrs to Jesus as the Son of God 49 times but NOT ONCE, God the Son.  Why do you think that is?

“To us Christians there is ONE God, the Father…. and but ONE Lord Messiah….” (1 Corn 8:6)

This is from the Bible and does not support any co-equal, co-eternal trinity.  It means just what it says.

Our Lord Jesus did not have to try to grasp at anything that the Father would freely give him unlike Satan who attempted to take it by force.  Remember the point is it was God the Father who MADE Jesus both Lord and Christ.

“Be assured of this.  God MADE this Jesus whom you crucified both Lord and Christ.” [Acts 2:36]

Sorry but if you were already God, you would not need to be MADE Lord or Christ.  Obviously it is the Father alone who has the power to exalt.  Once again, you can't have a God and BE God Almighty or equal to Him at the same time.  Just doesn't work that way.

Bless you and please grow up a bit if possible.  

Semmy

[NickHassan]

this is topical

[Author]

Posts