Do JWs believe Jesus is an angel?

by slimboyfat 152 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  slimboyfat

  Paula Fredriksen explains that Jesus is distinguished from God in Philippians 2.

  The Greek, however, does not quite correspond to the RSV’s English. In Philippians 2, Jesus is not "in the form of the (high) God,” but in the form of "a god." Jesus does not demur from equality with God the Father, but from "god-status" or, closer to Paul's word choice, equality with "a god." The god who exalts Jesus in verse 9, by contrast, is the high god (ho theos, the god), referred to as "God the Father" in verse 11. The conventions of English capitalization - "God" with the upper-case G in all clauses - obscure Paul's Greek. Paul distinguishes between degrees of divinity here. Jesus is not "God."
  Paula Fredriksen, (2017). Paul: The Pagans’ Apostle. Yale University Press, page 138.
• 

  aqwsed12345

  @slimboyfat

  The accusation that Trinitarian scholars approach the text with a prior commitment to the doctrine of the Trinity can be turned back on those who oppose this view. Scholars who reject the Trinitarian interpretation of Philippians 2 often do so from their own prior commitments, whether theological, philosophical, or denominational. For instance, scholars aligned with Jehovah's Witnesses or other non-Trinitarian groups also bring their theological biases to the text, interpreting it in ways that conform to their pre-existing beliefs. Every interpreter, whether Trinitarian or not, brings some level of prior belief to their reading of the text. The critical issue is not whether a scholar has a prior belief but whether their interpretation is consistent with the historical and textual evidence.

  It’s often argued that reading Philippians 2 in a Trinitarian way "imposes" fourth-century doctrine onto a first-century text. However, this overlooks the fact that the seeds of Trinitarian doctrine are found within the New Testament itself, even if not fully developed until later. The early Church’s reflection on texts like Philippians 2:5-11 led to the formulation of the doctrine of the Trinity because the text itself speaks to the divine nature of Christ.

  The language of Philippians 2, particularly phrases like "existing in the form of God" and "equality with God," strongly suggests that Paul viewed Christ as possessing a divine status that is more than just that of a high-ranking angel. The development of the doctrine of the Trinity was an attempt to faithfully express what was already present in the New Testament in light of the broader canon.

  For example, I have no idea who this Paul Holloway is, and I have no idea where he got the idea that "According to Phil 2:6-11 Christ was a mighty angel" when there is no """"mighty angel""" in the text all.
  

  His interpretation, which suggests that Paul viewed Christ as a pre-existent angelic being who was exalted to an even higher status after the resurrection, is certainly one perspective, but it is not without its problems. For example, interpreting "form of God" (μορφῇ θεοῦ) as merely angelic diminishes the weight of Paul’s language and the broader context in which Paul portrays Christ’s role in creation (e.g., Colossians 1:16) and His divine authority (e.g., Philippians 2:10-11, where every knee bows to Christ).

  Moreover, the New Testament consistently distinguishes Christ from angels. Hebrews 1:3-4, for example, explicitly states that Christ is superior to the angels, being the "exact representation of God's being". This makes it difficult to reconcile Holloway’s interpretation with the broader New Testament witness.

  Trinitarian scholars are not merely retrofitting later doctrine onto earlier texts. Rather, they argue that the New Testament itself contains the raw material for the doctrine of the Trinity. Passages like John 1:1, Colossians 1:15-20, and Philippians 2:5-11 are understood within the context of Jewish monotheism and the unique claims the early Christians made about Jesus. Trinitarian readings of Philippians 2 consider how the early Christians, many of whom were Jewish monotheists, came to the conviction that Jesus was worthy of worship and identified Him with Yahweh. This worship of Jesus as divine can be seen as a key reason why the early Church, guided by the Holy Spirit, eventually articulated the doctrine of the Trinity.

  While it’s true that a broad range of scholars, including those from non-Trinitarian backgrounds, have studied Philippians 2, there remains a strong consensus among many scholars that the text points to a high Christology. Even scholars who do not hold to traditional Trinitarian orthodoxy often recognize that Philippians 2 presents Christ as more than a mere creature. The passage’s language of "equality with God" and the universal worship of Jesus strongly suggests a divine status. The diversity of scholarly opinion does not negate the validity of the Trinitarian interpretation. In fact, the persistence of Trinitarian readings across centuries, despite the emergence of various non-Trinitarian movements, underscores the strength of the evidence supporting this view.

  The claim that Trinitarian interpretations of Philippians 2 are merely the result of theological bias ignores the fact that all interpretations are shaped by prior commitments. The key issue is whether the interpretation is faithful to the text and consistent with the broader scriptural witness. The Trinitarian interpretation of Philippians 2, far from being anachronistic, is grounded in the text’s language and its place within the early Christian understanding of Jesus’ identity. This interpretation aligns with the New Testament’s portrayal of Jesus as fully divine, worthy of worship, and sharing in the essence of God, rather than as a mere angelic or created being.

  Fredriksen claims without any basis that the Son is just a "lesser divine being", based on Philippians 2:6. If being "in the form of God" only means that he existed as a spirit and nothing more, then why does the Bible never claim that angels exist "in the form of God"? Furthermore, the second half of the verse makes it clear that His existence "in the form of God" also meant "equality with God", just he did not consider this a "harpagmos" (a booty, what he needs/wants to retain at all cost), so he did not cling to this glory arising from equality with God at all costs, etc. Holloway also speaks without any basis: where does Philippians 2 say that Jesus is an "angelic being"? Nowhere.

  Fredriksen’s claim that Jesus was "in the form of 'a god'" rather than "in the form of the (high) God" seems to hinge on an interpretation of the Greek text that isn’t supported by the broader context of Paul's writings or by the grammar of the passage itself. The Greek phrase "ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ" (en morphē theou) does not suggest "a lesser" divine being or a polytheistic context. Rather, "theou" is a genitive noun meaning "of God," and "morphē" means "form" or "nature." The phrase "ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ" is best understood as Paul affirming that Christ existed in the very nature or essence of God. If Paul had meant to indicate a lesser divine being or an angel, he would have used different language. The term "theos" in this context is understood within the framework of Jewish monotheism, where God is singular and unique, and "God" is a monadic term. There is no hint of Jesus being "a god" among many, but rather, Paul is emphasizing that Jesus shared in the divine essence.

  Fredriksen’s reading appears to ignore the broader theological context of Philippians 2:6-11. The passage isn’t just about "degrees" (?) of divinity but is a profound statement on the incarnation and the humility of Christ. The "form of God" and the subsequent "form of a servant" are central to understanding Jesus' pre-existence, incarnation, and ultimate exaltation by God the Father. The notion of "equality with God" (τὸ εἶναι ἴσα θεῷ) in verse 6 supports the traditional understanding that Jesus, though fully divine, did not cling to His divine privileges but humbled Himself by becoming human. The interpretation that Jesus merely had "god-status" as a lesser being undermines the clear implications of equality with God that Paul conveys.

  Fredriksen’s and other anti-Trinitarian scholars' claims that Philippians 2 refers to Jesus as a kind of lesser divine being or angelic figure are not supported by the text. Nowhere in Philippians 2 does Paul refer to Jesus as an angel or a lesser god. In fact, the New Testament consistently portrays Jesus as superior to angels (see Hebrews 1:4-5), and as someone who possesses the same divine attributes and authority as God the Father. If Paul had intended to convey that Jesus was simply an exalted angel or "a lesser god", he could have used specific language to indicate this, as he does elsewhere when referring to angels or other spiritual beings. Instead, the language of Philippians 2 points to a unique and unparalleled relationship between Jesus and God the Father, where Jesus is both fully divine and fully human.

  The traditional interpretation of Philippians 2, which sees Jesus as fully divine and equal with God, is supported by a vast array of scholarship, both ancient and modern. While it's true that some modern scholars, like Fredriksen, have sought to reinterpret these passages through different lenses, their interpretations often hinge on speculative readings that depart from the more straightforward understanding of the text. The consensus among early Church Fathers and later theologians is that Philippians 2 articulates the doctrine of Christ’s full divinity, His voluntary humility, and His subsequent exaltation. This is consistent with the broader witness of the New Testament and early Christian theology, which sees Jesus as fully God, worthy of worship, and distinct from any created being, including angels.

  Fredriksen's interpretation that Jesus is distinguished from the "high God" and exists as "a lesser divine being" does not hold up when scrutinized against the Greek text, the broader context of Paul's theology, and the testimony of early Christian thought. The Greek phrase "ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ" is best understood as indicating that Jesus possessed the very nature of God, and the text itself suggests that Jesus' equality with God was something He chose not to cling to for the sake of humanity. Rather than supporting a subordinationist view of Jesus as a lesser god, Philippians 2:6-11 emphasizes the profound mystery of the incarnation: that the one who was equal with God took on human nature, humbled Himself, and was exalted by God the Father to a position of universal authority. This passage, therefore, is not about degrees of divinity but about the unique identity and mission of Jesus Christ as fully God and fully man.
• 

  vienne

  Your are in error from the first statement. You wrote:

  "Philippians 2:6-8 explains that Jesus, though being in the form of God, did not consider equality with God something to be exploited but emptied Himself, taking on the form of a servant and being made in human likeness."

  There is no thought of exploitation. Instead the Greek word means repine, to steal, an attempt to attain something that did not belong to him.

  If you would let the Bible speak for itself instead of cutting and pasting Catholic theology, you'd do better.
• 

  vienne

  Additionally you write:

  "Jesus is both God and the mediator between God and man (1 Timothy 2:5). His priesthood is not a sign of inferiority but a function of His role in the economy of salvation. He mediates as the God-man, fully God and fully man, reconciling humanity to God through His sacrificial death."

  This is nonsense. A mediator stands outside the parties to a covenant, in the context of I Tim 2, the New Covenant. If God meant to institute an unilateral covenant, there would be no mediator. The only example of a unilateral covenant is in Genesis made between Jehovah and Abraham. There is no mediator but an obligation God placed on himself. The New Covenant has a mediator, Jesus, who in the pattern of the Old Covenant stands between the two parties. You have repeated Catholic theology, but you've done violence to the plain meaning of scripture.

  You ignore the writer of Hebrews' plain words and intent to overlay it with your theology. Is your grasp on Catholic heresy so desperate that you cannot rely on the plain meaning of Paul's (or whom ever the writer was) words?
• 

  vienne

  AND you wrote:

  "The statement that Jesus was "made perfect" (Hebrews 5:9) does not imply that He was imperfect in His divine nature. Instead, it refers to His human nature being perfected through the fulfillment of His mission, culminating in His sacrificial death and resurrection."

  Human nature or divine nature, in some sense Christ needed to be perfected. That's never true of Jehovah/Yahweh who is perfect in every sense at every instant. Even by your definition Christ had to be perfected in some sense. That implies the possibility of failure. God cannot fail.
• 

  aqwsed12345

  @vienne

  Your argument criticizes my interpretation of Philippians 2:6, particularly regarding the word "harpagmos," and claims that it means "to steal" or "to attain something that did not belong to him." However, this interpretation overlooks the broader context and the nuances of the Greek language used in the passage. Let's delve into why this criticism doesn't hold up and how the term "harpagmos" should be understood.

  The term "harpagmos" is indeed rare in Greek literature and appears only once in the New Testament, in Philippians 2:6. The word itself can have an active sense (raptus, the act of seizing or robbery) or a passive sense (res rapta, something already seized or a prize). However, the context of Philippians 2:6-8 suggests that "harpagmos" should be understood in the passive sense, as something to be grasped or clung to. This interpretation aligns with the broader message of the passage, which emphasizes Christ's humility and willingness to relinquish His divine privileges.

  The phrase "oukh harpagmon hēgēsato" is better understood as "He did not consider equality with God as something to be grasped", or "He did not insist on (stick to) the equality with God at all costs". This translation captures the passive sense of "harpagmos" (res rapta), meaning that Christ did not view His equality with God as something to be held onto tightly or clung to. This also results in the 'res retinenda' (“a thing to be retained”) interpretation, because how does the robber feel about the stolen thing? He wants to keep it at all costs, as desirable prey, clings to it, like Gullum in LOTR to the One Ring. The passage negates this rapacious attitude for Christ regarding the "equality with God", so instead of this, He was willing to empty Himself, taking on the form of a servant.

  This interpretation is crucial because it contrasts with the idea that Christ was trying to "seize" or "steal" equality with God. The text explicitly states that Christ already existed "in the form of God" (en morphē Theou), indicating that He did not need to attain equality with God—it was already His. The focus is on Christ's voluntary renunciation of His divine privileges, not on any attempt to acquire something that wasn't His.

  Historically, various groups, including the Arians, have attempted to reinterpret this passage to diminish Christ's divinity, there are three typical strategies:

  1. Wulfila's Gothic Translation: Wulfila, an Arian bishop, translated "equal" (isa) as "similar" (galeiko) in his Gothic version of the Bible, which downplays the equality of the Son with the Father.
  2. JW Interpretation: They argue that "harpagmos" should be understood as "something to be seized" (res rapienda) implying that Christ did not attempt to "usurp" equality with God. However, this interpretation conflicts with the passive sense suggested by the context.
  3. Relativizing "God": Some interpretations, like the ones slimboyfat propagates here, attempt to diminish the significance of the term "God" (Theos) here, when applied to Christ, suggesting that it refers to a lesser, "god-like" status, and asserting being "in the form of God" only means existing as a spirit, as an angel. This, however, contradicts the consistent use of the term in the New Testament to denote full divinity.

  Philippians 2:6-8 is a profound passage that underscores Christ's humility. It begins by stating that Christ existed "in the form of God," which means He shared in the divine nature and glory. Despite this, He "did not regard equality with God as something to be grasped" but "emptied Himself" by taking on human nature. This self-emptying is not a denial of His divinity but an expression of His willingness to humble Himself for the sake of humanity.

  The passage culminates in Christ's exaltation by God the Father, showing that His humility and obedience led to His glorification. This sequence—humility, obedience, and exaltation—demonstrates the Christian virtue of humility and the ultimate victory of Christ as both God and man.

  The interpretation that "harpagmos" in Philippians 2:6 refers to an attempt by Christ to steal or usurp something that was not His is not supported by the context of the passage. Instead, the word is better understood as referring to something that Christ did not cling to or grasp tightly—His equality with God. The passage highlights Christ's humility and His willingness to relinquish His divine privileges to become human and fulfill His redemptive mission. This understanding is consistent with the broader theological message of the New Testament and the historical interpretations upheld by the Christian Church.

  * * *

  1 Timothy 2:5 emphasizes Jesus' unique role as the mediator, which is perfectly aligned with His dual nature as fully God and fully man. It does not suggest He is merely a created being standing outside of God’s nature. This passage could be rather problematic for theJW theology, because they assert that Christ ceased to be a man after his death (and is now only an archangel), and according to the text, the man Christ is the mediator, so now there is no mediator for mankind (sorry, actually just for the 144k "class").
  

  The claim that a mediator must be entirely separate from the parties involved in a covenant misunderstands the unique role of Jesus as described in the New Testament. In 1 Timothy 2:5, Paul states, "For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus." This verse does not imply that Jesus is separate from God in essence or being, but rather emphasizes His unique position as both fully God and fully man, perfectly suited to mediate between humanity and God.

  As the God-man, Jesus Christ is uniquely qualified to be the mediator. His dual nature means that He can represent both parties: as fully divine, He can represent God to humanity; as fully human, He can represent humanity to God. This does not diminish His divinity but rather affirms His unique role in the economy of salvation.

  The assertion that the New Covenant would not require a mediator if it were unilateral is correct in the sense that God initiates and guarantees the covenant. However, the role of Jesus as mediator does not imply that He is a third party. Instead, it demonstrates the way God chose to enact the covenant—through the person of Jesus Christ, who is both God and man. This mediatorship is not a sign of inferiority but an essential function within the framework of God’s redemptive plan.

  The role of a mediator in the New Testament is distinct from that in human legal or contractual terms. In the Old Testament, mediators like Moses served as intermediaries between God and Israel, but they were not divine themselves. Jesus, however, as the mediator of the New Covenant, is not merely an intermediary but the incarnate God who bridges the gap between humanity and the divine. His priesthood, as explained in Hebrews, is a fulfillment of the Old Covenant priesthood but is superior because He is both the high priest and the sacrifice (Hebrews 7:26-28).

  The book of Hebrews elaborates on Jesus’ high priesthood, showing that He fulfills the role of mediator in a way that no mere human could. Hebrews 9:15 states, "Therefore he is the mediator of a new covenant, so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance." This mediatorship is effective because Jesus is God incarnate, who offers Himself as the perfect sacrifice.

  * * *

  Your observation that “in some sense Christ needed to be perfected” based on Hebrews 5:9, and that this implies the possibility of failure, is rooted in a misunderstanding of what “perfected” means in this context. The Greek word translated as “made perfect” in Hebrews 5:9 is teleioō, which means “to complete” or “to bring to full maturity.” It does not suggest that Jesus was morally or ontologically imperfect, either in His divine or human nature. Instead, it refers to the completion of His mission as the Messiah. Jesus’ perfection in this context is about reaching the goal set for His incarnate mission: to become the source of eternal salvation for those who obey Him. This is not about overcoming moral flaws but about fulfilling the work He came to do.

  In Christian theology, Jesus is recognized as having two distinct natures—divine and human—united in one person. His divine nature, being fully God, is indeed perfect and unchangeable, as Hebrews 13:8 attests: “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever.” However, in His human nature, He experienced growth and development as any human would. Luke 2:52 tells us that Jesus “increased in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man.” This growth was part of His experience as a true human being.

  Hebrews 5:8-9 emphasizes that Jesus “learned obedience through what He suffered” and was “made perfect” as a result. This does not imply that He was ever disobedient or imperfect but that He fully experienced and accomplished what it meant to be obedient even unto death (Philippians 2:8). The perfection mentioned here refers to the completion of His qualifications as the perfect High Priest who could fully empathize with human weakness and offer Himself as the ultimate sacrifice for sin.

  The idea that being “perfected” implies the possibility of failure misunderstands the nature of Christ’s mission. While Jesus experienced real human struggles and suffering, His divine nature ensured that His mission would not fail. The perfection of Christ was not a process of overcoming potential moral failure but of fully accomplishing the purpose for which He was sent—redeeming humanity through His death and resurrection. The possibility of failure is a characteristic of finite, created beings, not of the divine. In Jesus’ case, the process of being “perfected” was not about moral or ethical perfection, which He already possessed, but about completing His role as Savior. It was a journey through which He fulfilled all righteousness (Matthew 3:15) and became the “author of eternal salvation” (Hebrews 5:9).

  Finally, it’s crucial to understand that Jesus, as God incarnate, could not fail in His mission. His divine nature ensured the success of His redemptive work. The incarnation was God’s plan for humanity’s salvation, and as such, it carried the certainty of divine fulfillment. The idea of Jesus being “perfected” is thus about the unfolding of God’s perfect plan within human history, not about correcting any imperfection or overcoming a possibility of failure.

  In summary, Hebrews 5:9’s statement that Jesus was “made perfect” must be understood within the broader context of His mission and the hypostatic union of His divine and human natures. The perfection refers to the completion of His role as the Messiah and High Priest, not to any moral or ontological deficiency. God’s plan in Christ was never at risk of failure, and Christ’s “perfection” was the realization of that divine plan within human history.
• 

  Duran

  [1 Corinthians 15:24 Next, the end, when he hands over the Kingdom to his God and Father,..]

  Who is he/his referring to?

  Who is God/Father referring to?
• 

  aqwsed12345

  @Duran

  Check this up: Arian Objections To The Trinity Refuted

  In 1 Corinthians 15:24-28, the Apostle Paul speaks of the ultimate victory and the handing over of Christ's kingdom, which signifies the end of the mediatorial kingdom, not the cessation of Christ's eternal rule. The context makes it clear that Christ's rule does not end but transforms. Christ subjects Himself to the Father so that God may be all in all. This does not imply the end of Christ's rule but rather the establishment of a new order in the relationship between the Father and the Son.

  The context here speaks of the end of the world after the universal resurrection, which is separated from God by sin; for the final act of Christ's redemption, everything is completed by the resurrection, so that Christ can return humanity to God, over which the power of sin, death, the flesh, the world, and the devil ceases. Paul says: to God and the Father; for humanity is then generally subjected to God, the three divine persons, but especially to the Father, as Christ's holy humanity is united with the Son of God, and thus in this humanity united with the Son, the whole redeemed human race enters into a special, filial relationship with the Father.

  However, Paul wants to say, since all power is with the Son, we shouldn't believe that the Father has given up everything, or even subjected himself to the Son, as often happens with earthly fathers when they transfer power and possession to their sons. The apostle may have found it necessary to note this for the pagans converted to Christianity, who might think of the pagan myths in which Jupiter deprived his father, Saturn, of his kingdom and authority.

  And after all enemies are defeated, and all humans, as well as angels, are subjected to the Son, then he himself will also be subjected to God, so that God may be the sole ruler, and everything depends directly on him. – Since Christ, with the reborn, redeemed humans, forms the new humanity, the new generation, and he, as the head, is inseparable from the body: it is natural that he will also be subjected to God, like every member of this new generation; however, this subjection can only actually refer to his human nature. This expression "that God may be all in all" denotes God's perfect dominion over the creatures.

  After the resurrection comes the Last Judgment and the end of the world. According to His holy humanity, the Lord Jesus is the lord and king of the entire created world, primarily of humanity, but also the mediator of the redeemed humanity before the heavenly Father. After the Last Judgment, Christ's mediating role ceases, and eternal happiness will directly be the kingdom of God.

  So, after the Last Judgment, the reign of Jesus Christ transitions into God's direct, eternal rule. The Son submits himself to the Father in terms of his human nature.

  Scripture also teaches that, in a certain sense, the Father also "receives" something from the Son (e.g., Jn 16:15.23). Jesus submitted himself (hypotassó) to the Father (1 Cor 15:28), "that God may be all in all", but this in no way implies (ontological) inferiority, as he also subjected himself (hypotassó) to Mary and Joseph (Lk 2:51), and Col 3:11 claims that "Christ is all, and in all".

  This passage (as Jn 17:3; 20:17; 1 Cor 11:3 and similar New Testament statements) can only be correctly understood from the perspective of the order of salvation ("status oeconomiae") and the relationship within the Trinity. God the Father has placed His Son above all creation, "putting everything under his feet" (v. 27). However, this only applies to the time until the final fulfillment. In the end, the Son hands everything over to the Father, who has subjected everything to him, and he himself forever exercises his filial position ("subordination"), which he occupied relative to the Father even before the foundation of the world. Otherwise, he would not be the Son - even if he is begotten eternally, without beginning by the Father - and thus divine in essence. (That is, Jesus differs only in being the Son - this is expressed as "begotten by the Father from eternity, without beginning" - otherwise, he possesses the same divine essence, power, "from eternity, without beginning").

  Wouldn't he subject himself if he was also begotten of the Father, so in terms of origin he comes after the Father? The relationship between the Father and the Son is based on love, so this act of submission does not diminish Christ's true divinity, as if he were renouncing some of his dignity.

  Hence 1 Corinthians 15:24-28 should therefore be understood in the context of the order of salvation and the relations within the Trinity. Here, the Apostle Paul discusses how Christ, during His reign, defeats all His enemies and ultimately subjects Himself to the Father so that God may be all in all. This does not mark the end of Christ's rule but the fulfillment of the order of salvation.

  1 Corinthians 15:24-28 speaks of Christ handing over the kingdom to the Father after the final victory. This signifies the end of the mediatorial kingdom, not the cessation of Christ's eternal rule. The context clarifies that Christ's reign continues but in a different form. The text discusses that after the universal resurrection, the world, which had been separated from God by sin, will come to an end; for Christ's redemptive work will be completed through the resurrection, allowing Him to present humanity back to God, free from all powers of sin, death, the flesh, the world, and the devil.

  Christ, together with the reborn, redeemed people, constitutes the new humanity, the new generation, and as the head, He cannot be separated from the body. After the final judgment, Christ's mediatorial role will cease, and the eternal bliss will be directly God's kingdom. Thus, after the final judgment, the reign of Jesus Christ will transition into God's direct, eternal rule. The Son will subject Himself to the Father according to His human nature.

  Paul says "to God and the Father" because, thereafter, humanity will be subjected to God, to the three divine persons, but particularly to the Father, as Christ's holy humanity is united with the Son of God. In this holy humanity united with the Son, the entire redeemed human race enters into a special, filial relationship with the Father. Nevertheless, Paul wants to make it clear that since all power is with the Son, one should not believe that the Father has relinquished everything or subjected Himself to the Son, as often happens with earthly fathers when they hand over power and possessions to their sons. The apostle deemed it necessary to make this remark for the sake of the Christians converted from paganism, who might have thought of pagan mythology, where Jupiter deprived his father Saturn of his kingdom and authority.

  Numerous biblical verses emphasize Christ's eternal reign, such as Luke 1:33: "And he will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom, there will be no end." This clearly shows that Christ's rule is eternal, not "merely until the end of the ages." In Hebrews 1:8, we also read: "But about the Son he says, 'Your throne, O God, will last forever and ever; a scepter of righteousness will be the scepter of your kingdom.'"

  Christ's rule does not end at the end of the ages. 1 Corinthians 15:24-28 speaks of the conclusion of Christ's mediatorial role, and eternal bliss will directly be God's kingdom. However, Christ's eternal rule remains, and He will reign with the Father in eternity. Christ's submission to the Father pertains to His human nature and does not imply the loss of His divine dignity. This submission is a voluntary act of love, which does not diminish His divine essence and authority.
• 

  Duran

  I have more respect/understanding for atheists then I do for those that claim to believe the Bible but who twist/ignore/fail to reason/acknowledge all the Scriptures.

  When it comes to atheist, I can understand why they don't believe there is an almighty God, and that the Bible is a book written from idiot men. I get it!

  But to me Trinitarians prove to be the truest of idiots in their reasoning (or should I say lack of reasoning).

  Proverbs 26:4
  
• 

  vienne

  What you’ve written condenses to “It can’t be that way because I do not want it to be that way.” You seem to think that extended verbiage, regardless of the logic flaws, will provide some sort of refutation. You’re not alone; it’s a fairly common problem among expositors, especially Trinitarians. H. L. Baugher, a professor at Pennsylvania College, acknowledging that many translators found the passage ‘difficult,’ wrote:

  “The scope of the whole passage (in Philippians) from ver. 6 to ver. 11 includes all three states of the one person spoken of, pre-incarnate, incarnate, and glorified. He "took upon him the form of a servant," but evidently was in some other form before this, and that is called in verse 6 ‘the form of God,’ and after this he was ‘highly exalted’ to a Kingship, which he did not have before” – Lutheran Quarterly, 1/78, p 120

  This is clearly a non-Trinitarian statement. Yet, Baugher turned it all into a Trinitarian statement in his next words. That aside, what really is the context of Philippians 2:6? Paul wrote from house arrest, relaying the more positive aspects of his imprisonment. Rome was a theocratic state with the Emperor worshipped as god. In the Christian view this was an usurpation, a ‘grasping’ at what did not belong to him. It mirrored Satan’s rebellion.

  Paul’s words set up a contrast everyone in the Philippi Church would have grasped without a further prompt. Jesus was not like the emperors who grasped at divine status they did not have. In that light Jesus is not changing from God as spirit to God in the flesh. In fact the verses do not call him god at all. It says he subsisted (vnaрxov) “in the form of God.” We have no way of knowing what God’s form is, but we can understand much about it. Jesus defined God as a spirit. John tells us we do not know what that is like, but tells us that “Beloved ones, now we are children of God, but as yet it has not been made manifest what we shall be. We do know that whenever he is made manifest we shall be like him, because we shall see him just as he is. And everyone who has this hope set upon him purifies himself just as that one is pure.” (I John 3:2) God created his angels as spirits. (Hebrews 1:7) These and similar scriptures indicates the ‘form of God’ to be spirit.

  John one, often used by Trinitarians to support their argument, says exactly what we observe above. Jesus was God ... became flesh. John does not point to Jesus godhood, his identity, but to his nature. He like God was a spirit, in God’s form. Some translators note this by having it “what God was the word was.” John continues (in verse 18) “No one has seen God at any time; God the only Son, who is in the arms of the Father, He has explained Him.” (NSAV) This does not define Jesus as God, but as his son and as the one who explains God. Many saw Jesus. No one has seen God at any time. Jesus is thus not God.

  Returning to Philippians: The word μορφῇ (form) is further explained for us in other verses. At Colosians 1:15 Jesus is called “the image (eixór) of the invisible God,” and, at 2 Corinthians 4:4 and Hebrews 1:3, “the brightness (reflection, effulgence) of God's glory, and the express image (impress, stamp) of God’s substance. (τῆς ὑποστάσεως αὐτοῦ)” Note that Hebrews 1:3 focuses on what God is as a spirit and not who he is as a person.

  I’ve fallen into your unfortunate pattern of writing a book to make a point. Yet, observe this: Although he was "in the form of God," that he "emptied himself” of this glory by assuming the contrasted "form of a servant" and being made "in the likeness of men." He laid aside God's likeness to take up man's likeness. Again, this speaks of Christ’s nature as a spirit as was God.