- This topic is empty.
- Posts
David,
I just figured you knew? Sorry.I've been pretty busy so I haven't checked in. Even now I only have a few moments before football practice.
Hi all
The following was posted by Isa 1:18 earlier in this thread….
“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…..”
I think this is an excellent explanation of the Phil 2 passage.
When a scripture seems to be unclear then you have to look at the Greek and the grammatical rules of interpretation as well as context to see “Why” the translators translated it that way. To get a clearer understanding of the verse it sometimes requires some digging. When this is done and checked against other translations that confirm it, then all inference and imposed doctrine or preconceived ideas should be cast aside that disagrees IMO.
WJ
By the way, the Holy Spirit will never contradict the inspired scriptures. If what you hear is different then you are not hearing from the Spirit of God IMO
Hi WJ:
All the Apostle Paul was trying to convey by these scriptures is that we as Christians should exercise humility regardless of our position in the body of Christ saying
Quote Phl 2:5 ¶ Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Quote (942767 @ Sep. 30 2008,12:27) Hi WJ: All the Apostle Paul was trying to convey by these scriptures is that we as Christians should exercise humility regardless of our position in the body of Christ saying
Quote Phl 2:5 ¶ Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
94The Apostle Paul was elevating the sacrifice of Yeshua in contrast to us humbling ourselves so much the more.
Though he was rich he became poor for us by leaving his present state and taking on the likeness of sinful flesh.
For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, so that you through his poverty might become rich. 2 Cor 8:9
Just when was Yeshua rich? It was when he was in the form “morphe” of God and shared all the riches and Glory with the Father of which he emptied himself of the Glory and riches he shared with the Father and was found in fashion as a man.
So just what does “in the form of God” mean to you? God's form was and is Spirit.
And the Father who sent me has himself testified concerning me. You have never heard his voice nor seen his form, John 5:17
When did Yeshua cease to be in God's form?
Again, the language is clear that there is more here than just Yeshua humbling himself as a man.
WJ
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Sep. 30 2008,12:45) Quote (942767 @ Sep. 30 2008,12:27) Hi WJ: All the Apostle Paul was trying to convey by these scriptures is that we as Christians should exercise humility regardless of our position in the body of Christ saying
Quote Phl 2:5 ¶ Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
94The Apostle Paul was elevating the sacrifice of Yeshua in contrast to us humbling ourselves so much the more.
Though he was rich he became poor for us by leaving his present state and taking on the likeness of sinful flesh.
For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, so that you through his poverty might become rich. 2 Cor 8:9
Just when was Yeshua rich? It was when he was in the form “morphe” of God and shared all the riches and Glory with the Father of which he emptied himself of the Glory and riches he shared with the Father and was found in fashion as a man.
So just what does “in the form of God” mean to you? God's form was and is Spirit.
And the Father who sent me has himself testified concerning me. You have never heard his voice nor seen his form, John 5:17
When did Yeshua cease to be in God's form?
Again, the language is clear that there is more here than just Yeshua humbling himself as a man.
WJ
Hi WJ:I have already been over all this with Brother Isaiah, and if you and he want to believe that the Apostle Paul meant to convey something more than instructing the church in humility by these series of scriptures then go right ahead. I don't see it that way.
But what bothers me is that churches like the one that I attend make doctrines based on their understanding of these scriptures and then state that in order to be a member of the church you have sign that you agree with these doctrines which are not scripture but interpretation of scripture.
What is funny is that they acknowledge that I am a brother in Christ, but unless I sign that I agree with their doctrines I can not be a member of their church.
I love you and desire the very best that God has to offer for you and your family.
God Bless
Quote (Nick Hassan @ Sep. 30 2008,12:55) Hi WJ,
So he was in the form of God
but was not that God
or part of that God.
Hi NHWhat are you trying to say?
That the Father does not have a form?
So I suppose you would say that the Father is not in the form of God either, right?
And if he is in the form of God then he must not be God, right?
Is this what you are saying NH?
Please explain to me how any being can be in the form of God and not be God!
WJ
Quote Hi all The following was posted by Isa 1:18 earlier in this thread….
“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…..”
Found here!
I think this is an excellent explanation of the Phil 2 passage.
When a scripture seems to be unclear then you have to look at the Greek and the grammatical rules of interpretation as well as context to see “Why” the translators translated it that way. To get a clearer understanding of the verse it sometimes requires some digging. When this is done and checked against other translations that confirm it, then all inference and imposed doctrine or preconceived ideas should be cast aside that disagrees IMO.
WJ
By the way, the Holy Spirit will never contradict the inspired scriptures. If what you hear is different then you are not hearing from the Spirit of God IMO
I too believe that Jesus was in the form of GOD – not of a man in the period referred to here.
As was said – it is a true act of humility for one in a superior position/condition to agree to assume an inferior position.
I think this passage goes a long way to uncovering much of the mysterious nature of the Son of GOD.
Now in this position of equality to GOD – I think some misunderstand this, thinking of equivalence (like an equal sign)
But there is a certain equality that a child attains to in regards to their parent, when they reach the age of maturity.
In my opinion Jesus at this stage had skipped the usual development process we are subject to on earth, and had
therefore this equality.
So much so that GOD was pleased to create all things by him.
Becoming human was for him an act of stepping backwards, he had to learn obedience, learn what is was to face trials and
temptations. To be tempted in all ways as we are and overcome.
Yet in all this he did not con
sider his former estate as something he had to jealously guard or seek to hold on to.
He knew he was the heir apparent to it all, as the heir it remained safely his inheritance.
That is IMHO of course.Quote (942767 @ Sep. 30 2008,13:05) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Sep. 30 2008,12:45) Quote (942767 @ Sep. 30 2008,12:27) Hi WJ: All the Apostle Paul was trying to convey by these scriptures is that we as Christians should exercise humility regardless of our position in the body of Christ saying
Quote Phl 2:5 ¶ Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
94The Apostle Paul was elevating the sacrifice of Yeshua in contrast to us humbling ourselves so much the more.
Though he was rich he became poor for us by leaving his present state and taking on the likeness of sinful flesh.
For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, so that you through his poverty might become rich. 2 Cor 8:9
Just when was Yeshua rich? It was when he was in the form “morphe” of God and shared all the riches and Glory with the Father of which he emptied himself of the Glory and riches he shared with the Father and was found in fashion as a man.
So just what does “in the form of God” mean to you? God's form was and is Spirit.
And the Father who sent me has himself testified concerning me. You have never heard his voice nor seen his form, John 5:17
When did Yeshua cease to be in God's form?
Again, the language is clear that there is more here than just Yeshua humbling himself as a man.
WJ
Hi WJ:I have already been over all this with Brother Isaiah, and if you and he want to believe that the Apostle Paul meant to convey something more than instructing the church in humility by these series of scriptures then go right ahead. I don't see it that way.
But what bothers me is that churches like the one that I attend make doctrines based on their understanding of these scriptures and then state that in order to be a member of the church you have sign that you agree with these doctrines which are not scripture but interpretation of scripture.
What is funny is that they acknowledge that I am a brother in Christ, but unless I sign that I agree with their doctrines I can not be a member of their church.
I love you and desire the very best that God has to offer for you and your family.
God Bless
94You have a right to believe what you wish.
You also have a right to make judgment on your church if you like.
But IMO if you study this passage of scripture closely you will see there is a whole lot more here than just Yeshua humbling himself as a man.
If what you say is true then why all the extra Biblical language?
Why didnt Paul just say…
Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus… He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. verse 5 and 7.
But he didnt just say this did he?
Blessing WJ
Hi 94
Quote (942767 @ Sep. 30 2008,13:05) What is funny is that they acknowledge that I am a brother in Christ, but unless I sign that I agree with their doctrines I can not be a member of their church. Just what is wrong with that? They acknowledge you as a brother. Are you not seeking to be a Bishop in their church?
Would they want a Bishop to teach against the tenants of their faith including their belief in the Trinity?
What if a Bishop of theirs didnt believe in “water baptism”?
Should they let them be a Bishop in their church?
What if they believe that Homosexuals can be Bishops and on and on….?
WJ
Hi WJ,
Phil 2
6 Who, being in the form [344]of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form [344]of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:So what is the FORM of a servant?
Does it fit with your exaggerated description of the FORM of God?“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.”
Hi 94
Quote (942767 @ Sep. 30 2008,13:05) What is funny is that they acknowledge that I am a brother in Christ, but unless I sign that I agree with their doctrines I can not be a member of their church. Maybe you should start your own church! Then you can teach whatever you want. The Apostle Paul did this while he was a tentmaker.
Why would you just want to go against another mans work or build upon another mans work?
Just curious.
I feel the same way about people who do not want to accept the written scriptures but want to change them, they should just translate their own Bible then they can translate it to say whatever they would like.
IMO
WJ
Hi NH
Quote (Nick Hassan @ Sep. 30 2008,13:31)
“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.“Bingo!
WJ
Hi WJ,
So what is the
WHOLE FULNESS OF ATTRIBUTES EXPRESSED IN THE MOST EXPRESS MANNER POSSIBLE BY GOD IN A SERVANT TO BE ALL THAT HE IS THAT MAKES HIM A SERVANT?
He serves?Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Sep. 30 2008,13:26) Hi 94 Quote (942767 @ Sep. 30 2008,13:05) What is funny is that they acknowledge that I am a brother in Christ, but unless I sign that I agree with their doctrines I can not be a member of their church. Just what is wrong with that? They acknowledge you as a brother. Are you not seeking to be a Bishop in their church?
Would they want a Bishop to teach against the tenants of their faith including their belief in the Trinity?
What if a Bishop of theirs didnt believe in “water baptism”?
Should they let them be a Bishop in their church?
What if they believe that Homosexuals can be Bishops and on and on….?
WJ
Hi WJ:I confessed Jesus as my Lord and I am striving to obey the commandments from God through him. There is nothing in the scriptures that state that I have to believe the doctrine of “trinity” in order to be a part of God's church.
God has shown me that He will use me as a Bishop or overseer in the church, but I am not going to exalt myself to that position. He will exalt me to that position when He is ready, and that in spite of any who may teach the “trinity”.
God Bless
David,
Here are 4 men I respect: Keith, Nick, Isaiah and 94……….
Two of them agree on this passage (Keith and Isaiah). The other two do not agree with the first two, neither do they agree with each other. I venture to say that YOU will not agree with any of them!
Therefore, I will say it again, it is *useless* for me to give you my understanding. I would be wasting my precious time. And speaking of time, I need to go!
I'm only here on this board now because I do have a couple questions that remain unanswered. I'm hoping I'll run into the answers as I listen in and ask the tougher questions.
Thanks,
MandyQuote (942767 @ Sep. 30 2008,15:23) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Sep. 30 2008,13:26) Hi 94 Quote (942767 @ Sep. 30 2008,13:05) What is funny is that they acknowledge that I am a brother in Christ, but unless I sign that I agree with their doctrines I can not be a member of their church. Just what is wrong with that? They acknowledge you as a brother. Are you not seeking to be a Bishop in their church?
Would they want a Bishop to teach against the tenants of their faith including their belief in the Trinity?
What if a Bishop of theirs didnt believe in “water baptism”?
Should they let them be a Bishop in their church?
What if they believe that Homosexuals can be Bishops and on and on….?
WJ
Hi WJ:I confessed Jesus as my Lord and I am striving to obey the commandments from God through him. There is nothing in the scriptures that state that I have to believe the doctrine of “trinity” in order to be a part of God's church.
God has shown me that He will use me as a Bishop or overseer in the church, but I am not going to exalt myself to that position. He will exalt me to that position when He is ready, and that in spite of any who may teach the “trinity”.
God Bless
94Quote (942767 @ Sep. 30 2008,15:23)
There is nothing in the scriptures that state that I have to believe the doctrine of “trinity” in order to be a part of God's church.I think you miss my point. Of course the church is the “body of Jesus Christ” made up of everyone who has been baptised into that body by the One Spirit.
I am speaking of the “local church” or organization that you are attending.
If their basic tenants of the faith includes the Trinity, then do they allow those who teach differently to be Bishops in that church?
If not then it would seem to me that you would rather start a church to teach what you believe or go to one who believes as you do.
WJ
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
