Philippians 2:5-11

by PSacramento 22 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Narkissos

  Three brief remarks

  I would not characterise Philippians as an early Pauline epistle, but the poetical form of this passage, as well as its vocabulary, suggests that Paul actually quotes from an early Christian hymn: which would mean we are not dealing with "original" Pauline thought but the common share of the kind of Greek-speaking, diaspora-Jewish/Gentile churches Paul was dealing with, and that it may well predate Paulinism. This is evidence (among many other) that "high Christology" was not a late development in early Christianity. This may also be true of Christological hymns quoted in later works, as in the (probably post-Pauline) epistles to the Colossians and the Ephesians, and even in the Pastorals.

  It is also quite likely that the whole hymn is constructed in opposition to the Eden story -- making a third implicit antithetical parallelism between Adam and Christ in the Pauline corpus (after the explicit ones in 1 Corinthians 15 and Romans 5). Unlike the earthly Adam, the heavenly Man was of divine form (en morphè theou huparkhôn) but didn't try to grasp "equality with God" or "everlasting life" -- instead he forsook both.

  Last but not least, the view of "incarnation" sounds quite "docetic": taking the form (morphèn labôn, vs. en morphè theou huparkhôn), coming to be in the likeness of man (en homoiômati anthrôpou genomenos). And being found in appearancelike a man (skhèmati euretheis hôs anthrôpos). This agrees with Pauline formulations (e.g. Romans 8:3, "sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh," en homoiômati sarkos hamartias). Insistence on Jesus really being a man comes later, in a clearly polemic, anti-Gnostic context (1 Timothy 2:5).
• 

  PSacramento

  Always great to hear you views narkissos :)
• 

  the research lady

  Adding to the proof of who Jesus really is can be seen in Acts 20:28 where Luke wrote "Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with HIs own blood". (NASB) There are so many other scriptures proving the deity of Christ that can even be seen in the NWT if we take the time to study them.
• 

  Chalam

  Unfortunately, it is not just about study but who you are studying with.

  The JW is taught by the WT.

  The bible says to be taught by the Holy Spirit John 14:26

  I'd prefer to be taught by God's Spirit 1 Corinthians 2:10-12

  All the best,

  Stephen
• 

  jonathan dough

  I addressed Phil 2:5-11 on my web site at http://www.144000.110mb.com/trinity/index-6.html#30

  I'll reproduce it here:

  30) Prior to His incarnation Christ subsisted in the form (morphe) of God - (Philippians 2:6) [Top]
  
  
  Philippians 2:6 is considered strong evidence that the Word was God. Verses 1-11 clarify that it is a plea for unity and humility, with Christ Jesus’ “humbling of self and obedience to the point of death” as the exemplary attitude true believers should emulate (NAB notes 2,1-11).
  
  Have among yourselves the same attitude that is also yours in Christ Jesus,
  Who, though he was in the form of God,
  did not regard equality with God
  something to be grasped.
  Rather, he emptied himself,
  becoming obedient to death,
  even death on a cross. (Ephesians 2:5-8 NAB)
  
  
  The Jehovah’s Witnesses argue that these verses are not grounds for equating the Word with God, and focus their analysis on the latter part of verse 6 which reads “…who, though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God something to be grasped (NAB; “gave no consideration for a seizure” NWT; “thought it not robbery to be equal with God” NKJV). They teach that “robbery” (Greek harpagmos) does not convey the idea of holding in possession or retention in the sense of holding on to equality, but that it means to seize or snatch violently (Reasoning, 420). Therefore, Christ was not holding on, or trying to hold on, to equality with God but thought it as something that could not or should not be attained or grasped or reached for, being only a man.
  
  Strong and Vine’s disagrees with their assessment and applies “robbery” (harpagmos) in a different way that comports more with the context of the entire sentence and accompanying verses. “At Philippians 2:6 “robbery” (harpagmos), “as a verb, means “to seize, carry off by force” (Strong and Vine’s, 42). “The middle/passive sense gives meaning to the passage as the purpose of the passage is to set forth Christ as the supreme example to the Philippians (and us) of humility and self-renunciation: “Who though He was subsisting in the essential form of God, yet did not regard His being on an equality of glory and majesty with God as a prize and a treasure to be held fast, he would not feel as if He had been robbed to give up His shared glory” (ibid., 42). Strong and Vine’s application of “robbery” (harpagmos) is diametrically opposed to the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ use of that same term.
  
  In all fairness to the Jehovah’s Witnesses it should be noted that there are at least two views on the matter, one of which agrees with the Jehovah’s Witnesses. With reference to Philippians 2:6 the Catholic New American Bible (NAB) states that it is:
  
  Either a reference to Christ’s preexistence and those aspects of divinity that he was willing to give up in order to serve in human form, or to what the man Jesus refused to grasp at to attain divinity. Many see an allusion to the Genesis story: unlike Adam, Jesus, though … in the form of God (Gn 1, 26-27), did not reach out for equality with God, in contrast with the first Adam in Gn 3, 5-6.
  
  
  So, equality with God is something Christ was willing to relinquish, or as the Jehovah’s Witnesses interpret verse 6, Christ gave no consideration to seizing or grasping for equality with God.
  
  The Jehovah’s Witnesses, however, have utterly missed the point again by focusing on the wrong issue. Equality within the immanent Godhead is not established by the Word relinquishing it prior to His incarnation or grasping for it as a man after He became incarnate. Even though the latter part of verse 6 assumes His equality one way or the other, the first part establishes that assumed equality because the Word existed in the “form” of God. Focusing on “robbery” or “seizure” or “grasping” in order to determine the Word’s equality with God detracts from the primary issue of Christ’s subsisting in God’s “form” (morphe).
  
  That His existing in God’s form equates Him with God is only emphasized by His stated “equality” (verse 6) regardless of whether it could be retained by God the Son or grasped for by the created humanity of Jesus.
  
  “Form” (Greek morphe) denotes “the special or characteristic form or feature” of a person or thing; … it is used with particular significance in the NT only of Christ … in Phil 2:6, “being in the form of God,” and … 2:7 “taking the form of a servant” (Strong and Vine’s, 167).
  
  An excellent definition of the word is: morphe is therefore properly the nature or essence, not in the abstract, but as actually subsisting in the individual, and retained as long as the individual itself exists …. (3a) Thus in the passage before us morphe Theou is the Divine nature actually and inseparably subsisting in the person of Christ …. (b) For the interpretation of ‘the Form of God’ it is sufficient to say that (3b1) it includes the whole nature and essence of Deity, and is inseparable from them, since they could have no actual existence without it; and (3b2) that it does not include in itself anything ‘accidental’ or separable, such as particular modes of manifestation, or conditions of glory and majesty, which may at one time be attached to the ‘form,’ at another separated from it ….
  
  (4) The true meaning of morphe in the expression “form of God” is confirmed by its recurrence in the corresponding phrase “form of a servant.” It is universally admitted that the two phrases are directly antithetical, and that “form” must therefore have the same sense in both. (Strong and Vine’s, 167)
  
  In other words, if the Word existed in the form of a servant He was that servant, and if the Word existed in the form of God He was that God. This complete similarity, the consubstantial existence, includes of necessity the divine person Christ’s eternal existence and all other relevant characteristics of the immanent triune God - the “fullness” of the Godhead. Had the Word been created, the imprint or stamp (Hebrews 1:3) would have been far less than “complete,” or “whole.”
  
  The Jehovah’s Witnesses want you to believe that Jesus was not God because he did not consider seizing or acquiring equality with God, which would mean he was just a man, and therefore He could not be God. But at the expense of repetition, Trinitarians hold that the created humanity of Jesus is not God, and accordingly His grasping for equality has no bearing on whether God the Son, the preexistent Word, was divine, which is the primary issue. Conversely, if “robbery” or “seizure” or “grasping” refers to Christ hanging on to equality Christ would have to be equal because it says he was equal and because He was in the form of God. As such, the created Jesus’ thoughts and actions would have been immaterial in proving or disproving His preexistent equality. Philippians 2:6 means in part:
  
  Christ possessed equality with God prior to His incarnation, and then for a time veiled that glory, being always God in all of the co-equal attributes, but in the incarnation never using His Godly powers to better Himself. He was fully God, fully man, God taking on the likeness of sinful flesh (Rom 8:3), not a man adding Godliness. (Strong and Vine’s, 42)

  Regards,

  JD II
• 

  Lieu

  .... and he was praying to himself and raised himself up too?

  Schitzo or Gremlin?
• 

  reniaa

  Hi guys, I am always surprised at people deductions on this scripture. it is a complete denial of equality God. but rather than put it in my words lets look at this. (my words are not so clear when dealing with oxymoron rhetoric scripture.)

  Jesus considering it not robbery to be divinely equal with God is completely inconsistent with the following words, "but he emptied himself." Indeed, how can it make sense to say "Jesus didn't think it was wrong to be God so he emptied himself taking the form of a servant." It is ridiculously nonsensical.

  And the divergence continues in their interpretations. At this point, some say he gave up his "glory." Others say he gave up some of his "divine perogatives." Yet others say he simply subjected himself to God the Father for a time. None of these claims comes with any evidence which is why there is such a wide variety of claims.

  And even further. Paul is telling the Philippians they need to have the same attitude as Jesus. What kind of ridiculous thing were the Philippians supposed to imitate here? Since Jesus decided it was not robbery to keep his divine nature were the Philippians to have a similar attitude and keep something for themselves? And does this not make Jesus into a hypocrite who asks others to give up everything when he himself will not? Even further, with what kind of ridiculous thinking do we suppose the Trinitarian God the Son would not consider it robbery to be God when he is God? What kind of nonsense are we supposed to believe here?

  The noun form harpagmos is sometimes translated as "a plunder" in the sense that a plunder is "a capture" or a "catch," something "caught." the central idea is something "seized upon" or "grasped" or "snatched." When it is translated as "robbery" that particular English word over translates "harpazo" by putting a spin upon it the Greek word does not convey. It has a much wider field of meaning and is not restricted to doing something negative like stealing. The verb form simply means "to catch up" or "to be caught up," "snatch up," "seize upon," "be seized," depending whether it is active or passive. When one actively snatches or seizes something he is actively "catching it up" or passively "being caught up" with respect to himself. Now notice what Paul is talking about here. He is saying we should have the same "attitude" or "mind" of Christ. What he is saying is that Christ in his mind or attitude did not selfishly "seize upon" being equal with God but humbled himself for our sakes in love. He did not "seize upon" esteeming this equality with God, the form of his God. The idea here is that a son of God is a noble thing in contrast to being a humble commoner of a man. As the Hebrews writer says, "although he was a son, he learned obedience from what he suffered. In other words, Jesus did not focus on his nobility as a son but humbled himself and served others. He did not come to be served but to serve. Paul's is telling the Philippian sons of God to do the same thing and not regard their high estate in Christ but to humble themselves and have the same attitude.

  It is to this expression of glory that the words, being in the form of God, refer. The word God is anarthrous here, referring not to any single person of the Godhead but to deity as such... essence in the translation comes from the demands of the Greek text here since theos is anarthrous. The presence of the Greek article identifies, its absence qualifies. Its absence emphasizes nature, essence. In this state of preincarnate being, Paul says that our Lord thought it not robbery to be equal with God. Equality with God here does not mean equality with the other person of the Godhead, but equality with deity as such. The word God is again anarthrous. And this equality here is not equality in the possession of the divine essence but in its expression, as the context indicates. However, the expression presupposes the possession of that essence. (When Jesus Emptied Himself, Kenneth Wuest, 1958, emphasis mine)

  http://www.angelfire.com/space/thegospeltruth/trinity/verses/Php2_6.html

  Another thought is morphe - form of which mean likeness

  Another shapes wood, he extends a measuring line; he outlines it with red chalk. He works it with planes and outlines it with a compass, and makes it like the form of a man, like the beauty of man, so that it may sit in a house. (Isaiah 44:13).

  I will put more later.

  Reniaa
• 

  Deputy Dog

  reniaa

  Php 2:6

  who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God, 7 but made Himself of no reputation, and took upon Himself the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men.

  I will put more later.

  Please, could you just tell us, what came down, in John 6?
• 

  jonathan dough

  Lieu wrote:

  .... and he was praying to himself and raised himself up too?

  Schitzo or Gremlin?

  Response:

  Jesus wasn't praying to himself but to his Father. The Trinity does not teach that the created humanity of Jesus, the creature, was God Almighty, which is one of the JW's greatest deceptions. It was the creature, the man in the God-man equation that was praying to his Father. Read this introduction here for a clearer explanation: http://144000.110mb.com/trinity/index.html#1

  And yes, the God in the God-man equation of the hypostatic union did resurrect himself just as Jesus claimed. Look here:

  http://144000.110mb.com/trinity/index-5.html#22

  I'll reproduce some of it for you.

  Jesus Christ resurrected Himself - (John 2:19 - 22)

  Jesus made it clear that he would resurrect himself from the dead. Referring to his body Jesus said, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up,” (John 2:19-22). Acts 2:32 appears to contradict Jesus. It provides, “This Jesus God raised up” (see also Galatians 1:1). To resolve this inconsistency the Jehovah's Witnesses argue that John 2:19-22 does not really mean that Jesus would raise himself up, even though it says so, but that “Jesus himself was responsible for his resurrection” (Reasoning, 423,424). They rely on Luke 8:43-48 where the ill woman with the flow of blood was healed not because she healed herself but because she exercised faith in Christ’s power to heal (ibid., 423), and this exercise of faith made her responsible for the healing.

  This analogy, however, is misplaced because John 10:17, 18 says that Christ’s power to resurrect himself was a command (NAB) or charge (RS) given to Jesus from the Father. Yes, he was responsible for his resurrection as the obedient servant on a mission, but he also exercised a power granted to Him to raise Himself from the dead, a power and command which the ill woman of Luke 8:43-48 was not given, and who was not the product of a hypostatic union of God and woman.

  This is why the Father loves me, because I lay down my life in order to take it up again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down on my own. I have power to lay it down, and power to take it up again. This command I have received from my Father. (John 10:17, 18 NAB)

  Jesus was not talking about some abstract “responsibility” for his resurrection as the Jehovah's Witnesses claim (Reasoning, 424). The language is unambiguous. He had the “power,” and he exercised it.

  Neither was Jesus claiming, as the Jehovah's Witnesses argue, that Jesus raised “himself from the dead independently of the Father as the active agent…” (ibid.) because it was not the dead created humanity of Christ - who was not God - who resurrected Jesus, but the divine second Person of the Trinity, God the Son who is fully God, and who never dies (Habakkuk 1:12 NWT). And it was He who was in a position to raise up the dead body of Christ. Recall that the three Persons of the Trinity never act independently of each other (New Bible Dictionary, 1299, 1300), so the act of the divine Jesus was the act of the Father. “All works of the triune God ad extra are indivisibly one (Encyclopedia of Religion, 56).

  This illustrates a fundamental flaw in the Jehovah's Witnesses’ analytical process, their inability to reconcile two “apparently” conflicting concepts which do not conflict at all. Galatians 1:1 states that God raised up Jesus, but John 2:19-22 says that Jesus raised himself. Rather than reading both passages together, they discard one in favor of the other. Or ignore it. Or try to reason it away, or just change the Bible to accommodate their theology, but in so doing they violate their own often repeated admonition to read different verses pertaining to a particular topic together.

  Looking at Scripture from their point of view, then, the Bible would be full of irreconcilable contradictions: both Jesus and God can’t be Lord, but there is only one true Lord in the highest sense (Ephesians 4:5). Both Christ and God if separate entities can’t be Savior granting eternal salvation, yet there is only one such Savior (Isaiah 43:11; Titus 1:4, 2:6). If Jesus is God and the Father is God and there can only be one God, there is no contradiction in the Trinitarian world, but not so with the Jehovah's Witnesses whose answer lies in reducing all of Jesus to the status of man and denying the divine unity, nothing more.

  If Jesus is alone in “having immortality” (1 Timothy 6:16 Green’s Literal Translation) it would mean, for the Jehovah's Witnesses, that the Almighty is not immortal, but we know that is not true (Isaiah 57:15). Similarly, all things were created and exist for God, but all things were created for Jesus as well (Colossians 1:16). And, Isaiah 44:24 states that God made all things, but at John 1:3 and Colossians 1:16 it is the Word who made all things and all things were created through Him and for Him, to mention just a few of these examples.

  And, if there is only one true God (John 17:3) and Jesus is the true God (1 John 5:20), is there really a conflict? Not if you believe in the triune God which supplies a very reasonable answer if you take the time to understand what the doctrine actually teaches. These apparently mutually exclusive concepts aren’t exclusive at the expense of one or the other, but must be read together and combined which leads to only one conclusion - Jesus was, and is, God.
  
  The Almighty would never inspire such blatant contradictions in His Bible, and He didn’t. So if God raised up Jesus and the divine Person of Christ raised himself then Jesus must be God if one is to give weight and meaning to both passages within the Trinitarian context.

  JD II
• 

  isaacaustin

  Nice and simple Deputy Dog. If only she'd answer you now.