Who is this Jesus?

[Is 1:18]

Okay. Considering what I have written, explain to me how you see it then.

[Phoenix]

Quote (Nick Hassan @ Mar. 27 2007,09:22)

Quote (Is 1:18 @ Mar. 27 2007,09:08) But it's your unspoken premise NH. I'm just challenging it…. As I understand it you hold that: 1) YHWH beget His “Son” Yeshua before His natural birth. 2) The “Son” was not YHWH, the Almighty, but a lesser being. That is what you teach isn't it? Hi Is 1.18, God did not clone from Himself an equal. That would have been silly and God does not do silly things.

Hi Nick

Why would that be silly?

Lk 1:37
37For with God nothing shall be impossible.

Hugs
Phoenix

[Phoenix]

Quote (Is 1:18 @ Mar. 27 2007,09:31)

Okay. Considering what I have written, explain to me how you see it then.

Hi Is

You were asking me?

I already explained how I saw it. Jesus did not consider himself equal with God. Therefore he was not God?

Hugs
Phoenix

[NickHassan]

Quote (Phoenix @ Mar. 27 2007,09:35)

Quote (Nick Hassan @ Mar. 27 2007,09:22) Quote (Is 1:18 @ Mar. 27 2007,09:08) But it's your unspoken premise NH. I'm just challenging it…. As I understand it you hold that: 1) YHWH beget His “Son” Yeshua before His natural birth. 2) The “Son” was not YHWH, the Almighty, but a lesser being. That is what you teach isn't it? Hi Is 1.18, God did not clone from Himself an equal. That would have been silly and God does not do silly things. Hi Nick Why would that be silly? Lk 1:37 37For with God nothing shall be impossible. Hugs Phoenix

Hi P,
Not everything that is possible is also wise.
God is firstly wise and wisdom was manifest in all His creation.

[Is 1:18]

Quote (Phoenix @ Mar. 27 2007,09:30)

Hi Is When I read the verse of Phil 2 in its different translations then it tells me that Jesus did not see/think/consider himself equal to God. Hugs Phoenix

The interpretation of Phil 2:6 basically hinges on the Greek word “harpagamos”, which is used only once in the entire NT. It's a noun formed from the verb “harpazo”, and can be understood as passive (retain/prize) or active (to snatch/sieze) depending on the context of the text into which it is placed. But even the word “grasp” can be taken to mean to grasp to oneself, not necessarily to grasp at….

Here is how the Amplified Bible renders the verse:

Philippians 2:6
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

If Paul wanted to convey a 'snatching' of equality then that begs the obvious question “why didn't he simply use a word that invariably carries this meaning, like 'harpazō'” (to seize, catch [away, up], pluck, pull, take [by force]) for instance? John used this word to convey 'taking by force' in John 10:

John 10:12
“He who is a hired hand, and not a shepherd, who is not the owner of the sheep, sees the wolf coming, and leaves the sheep and flees, and the wolf snatches (Gr. harpazō) them and scatters them.

John 10:29
My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch (Gr. harpazō) them out of the Father's hand.

The Greek word harpazō was available to Paul (the writer of Philippians), and he used it elsewhere.

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 up (Gr. harpazō) 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.

But the fact is he didn't use harpazō in Phil 2:6.

Thayer's, the standard Greek lexicon of the New Testament, renders the passages 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).

I think if we attach a 'snatch' interpretation to harpagamos in Phil 2:6, then we also do violence to the context of the passage itself, which is after all about humility.

Philippians 2:2-8
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 in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped,
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.

If 'harpagamos' in vs. 6 is taken to mean the Logos decided not to 'snatch at' equality with God – how is that humility? It doesn't fit contextually at all. In fact, it would be a act of simple self preservation for a lesser being deciding not to sieze at equality with a greater being (even if that were possible). If, however, you interpret it as a 'relinquishing of the equality' (functional, not ontological) that He had intrinsically to take on the form (Gr. morphe) of a bond servant then that is much more in keeping with the context of the passage as it is written. So “harpagamous” would be a logical word choice for Paul.

So given the grammer and context of Phil 2:6, 'retention' appears, to me at least, to be the best interpretation of harpagamos in this verse…..and it's better to let grammar dictate your doctrine, and not vise versa.

My thoughts.
Blessings

[Is 1:18]

Quote (Phoenix @ Mar. 27 2007,09:37)

Quote (Is 1:18 @ Mar. 27 2007,09:31) Okay. Considering what I have written, explain to me how you see it then. Hi Is You were asking me? I already explained how I saw it. Jesus did not consider himself equal with God. Therefore he was not God? Hugs Phoenix

No Nick. Sorry for the confusion.

[david]

Quote

“[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).

“The Father is greater than I am.”–The bible.

That doesn't sound like they're equal. And if they're not equal, then how could Jesus “retain” this non-existent equality?

[NickHassan]

Hi Is,
God alone begat a son, a son able that day to hear and grasp God's decree.
Ps 2
'7I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee. “

A son known by the men of old.

Pr 30
“4Who hath ascended up into heaven, or descended? who hath gathered the wind in his fists? who hath bound the waters in a garment? who hath established all the ends of the earth? what is his name, and what is his son's name, if thou canst tell? “

A son greater than the lowly sons of men he became one with

Jb 25
“4How then can man be justified with God? or how can he be clean that is born of a woman?

5Behold even to the moon, and it shineth not; yea, the stars are not pure in his sight.

6How much less man, that is a worm? and the son of man, which is a worm?”

He came and partook of our estate.
.

[david]

Verse 5 counsels Christians to imitate Christ in the matter here being discussed.

[Phoenix]

Hi Is

Thanks for clarifying with me. I know it wasnt me you asked but I have read your 'harpagamos' explanation now and see where you are coming from. You have explained this before I believe. I remember only reading half of it coz I did not understand it. But now I do hehe. Thanks

Hugs
Phoenix

Oh and David has a good point there too.

[Is 1:18]

Well the Father is greater, in authority/position/rank. No one is arguing this. If by “greater” you mean higher in the nature of His being…then by all means David – bring forth the evidence.

[david]

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.

[Is 1:18]

Quote (Phoenix @ Mar. 27 2007,10:05)

Hi Is Thanks for clarifying with me. I know it wasnt me you asked but I have read your 'harpagamos' explanation now and see where you are coming from. You have explained this before I believe. I remember only reading half of it coz I did not understand it. But now I do hehe. Thanks Hugs Phoenix Oh and David has a good point there too.

Yeah I worte that post to another member Malcolm Ferris (wonder where He is?)…so to save time I found the word file, scrubbed it up and resubmitted it.

[david]

Quote

Well the Father is greater, in authority/position/rank. No one is arguing this. If by “greater” you mean higher in the nature of His being…then by all means David – bring forth the evidence.

so are you saying that Phil 2:6 is talking about “authority/position/rank” and is therefore in no way proving what you claim?

Case closed.

[david]

Question: What exactly are you saying that Phil 2:6 proves?

[NickHassan]

Hi david,
The pursuit of justification for this human doctrine knows no end.
1800 years of stuffing the cracks and patching the walls have not helped the foundations and it will fall.

[Is 1:18]

Quote (david @ Mar. 27 2007,10:07)

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.

Well 'harpagamos' is only used once (Phil 2:6) and 'harpazo' is a different word….so the point is moot.

[david]

So what was the Expositor's Greek Testament talking about then?

[Is 1:18]

Quote (david @ Mar. 27 2007,10:11)

Question:  What exactly are you saying that Phil 2:6 proves?

Did you actually read the post through David? Given that you asked this question I don't think you did.

[Is 1:18]

Quote (david @ Mar. 27 2007,10:13)

So what was the Expositor's Greek Testament talking about then?

You submitted it David, don't you understand the material that you yourself quoted?

[Author]

Posts