A Godhead Question

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by TheLayman

Mizpeh:

Are you suggesting Jesus became a man twice? You see, you claim He was a man in verse 6 where it actually says He has eternal existence in the form of God. Notwithstanding, in verse 7 Jesus "takes" (2aor/act/part) the form of a servant and was made (begins to exist 2aor/midD/part) in the "likeness" of human beings.

So if Jesus was a man in verse 6, what was he doing beginning to exist in the likness of human beings in verse 7?

TheLayman

Verse 7 is a replay of verse 6.

Phi 2:5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
Phi 2:6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
Phi 2:7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
Phi 2:8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

I just want to add I don't see these verses as a SERIES of events that happened before the birth of Christ then continued after the birth of Christ. I understand these verses to take place after the birth of Christ and not necessarily in a series of steps.

[TheLayman]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

Verse 7 is a replay of verse 6.

Phi 2:5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
Phi 2:6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
Phi 2:7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
Phi 2:8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

No it's not. Do you seriously read verse 7 as if it is a repeat of verse 6 when there is nothing similar about the two of them? I pointed that out even in my short post. Besides, that little word "but" completely does away with such a notion. At any rate, I will respond to the post of Eliseus as soon as I have time to write a detailed response.

TheLayman

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by TheLayman

No it's not. Do you seriously read verse 7 as if it is a repeat of verse 6 when there is nothing similar about the two of them? I pointed that out even in my short post. Besides, that little word "but" completely does away with such a notion. At any rate, I will respond to the post of Eliseus as soon as I have time to write a detailed response.

TheLayman

Phi 2:5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
Phi 2:6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
Phi 2:7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
Phi 2:8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.


I just want to add I don't see these verses as a SERIES of events that happened before the birth of Christ then continued after the birth of Christ. I understand these verses to take place after the birth of Christ and not necessarily in a series of steps.

When did Jesus humble himself? Did he humble himself twice? Before coming in the flesh and then once being found in the flesh? I understand these verses as Christ humbling himself as a man.

The mind that was in Christ, is it the same mind that said..of my own self I can do nothing? Is this something someone would say who was God and was speaking as God? It is something that a man would say, even a man who is God in the flesh but considers himself other than God. vs 6

The 'but'.... even though Jesus was God in the flesh, the image of the invisible God, and every bit equal to his God, He humbled himself (as a man) and made himself of no reputation, though he was the King of Kings.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

When did Jesus humble himself? Did he humble himself twice? Before coming in the flesh and then once being found in the flesh? I understand these verses as Christ humbling himself as a man.

He didn't humble Himself BEFORE coming in the flesh. He humbled Himself WHEN He came in the flesh.

These verses are telling us He always existed as God, but though He had always existed as God He did not consider being God something to be grasped after (while a man). But or rather or instead when he became a man he became a servant and humbled himself.

These verses are not a chronology but a statement of fact of being and attitude. If we look at it as a chronology instead we miss the point

[TheLayman]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

Phi 2:5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
Phi 2:6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
Phi 2:7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
Phi 2:8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.


I just want to add I don't see these verses as a SERIES of events that happened before the birth of Christ then continued after the birth of Christ. I understand these verses to take place after the birth of Christ and not necessarily in a series of steps.

When did Jesus humble himself? Did he humble himself twice? Before coming in the flesh and then once being found in the flesh? I understand these verses as Christ humbling himself as a man.

The mind that was in Christ, is it the same mind that said..of my own self I can do nothing? Is this something someone would say who was God and was speaking as God? It is something that a man would say, even a man who is God in the flesh but considers himself other than God. vs 6

The 'but'.... even though Jesus was God in the flesh, the image of the invisible God, and every bit equal to his God, He humbled himself (as a man) and made himself of no reputation, though he was the King of Kings.

Yes I know, who cares what the Bible says, that's why we always have difficulty communicating. At any rate, in verse 7 He began to exist in the likeness of human beings, and that is most definitely after the "but" in time.

TheLayman

[mizpeh]

Eliseus,

Originally Posted by Eliseus

Whereas the first Adam was made in the image or form of God, and chose to grasp equality with God, and was punished by being demoted to the lowly state of mortal and weak humanity, made a servant of death, the second or last Adam, Jesus Christ, chose a different path. He chose a path of obedience, choosing not to step upon the stage as the equal of God but rather as a lowly, mortal servant. And this submission of the Son of God resulted in His exaltation to equality with God, meaning that the worship and honour due to God is now due to Jesus Christ. Christ's re-enactment of the fall of man, with the key elements reversed by His obedience, resulted in His exaltation and the redemption and salvation of mankind.

Loved reading this post!



I have a few questions. How did Christ reenact the fall of man, in what way?

1. First and foremost, it inserts into Paul's theology what is everywhere else missing - the idea of a pre-incarnate divine intermediary being. The only New Testament passages which could even be supposed to so much as suggest or hint at such an idea are found much later, in the apostle John's writings, and even those are not wholly supportive of the 'intermediary divine being' hypothesis which is the foundation of Trinitarian and Arian theology.

What do you mean by an 'intermediary divine being'? I've never read anything about this by Trinitarians and I've read quite a few Trinitarian interpretations of this passage.

You also wrote:

Notice that Paul is speaking of the mind which was in 'Christ Jesus', literally 'The Anointed One, Jesus. Thus Paul is speaking of the post-incarnate Jesus, Jesus considered as the Messiah, a human being, the Son of God, anointed by God to be the vessel of Redemption and Salvation for all mankind, sent to reverse the curse brought upon Adam's kin, brought upon us by Adam's disobedience in the Garden. So we are not speaking of the mentality or attitude possessed by the pre-incarnate Logos, but of the human Son of God.

I take it the reference to 'Christ' is why you say it must be speaking only of God incarnate, not his preexistence as the Logos. Or is it because it is talking about the 'mind which was in Christ'? If you say it is just because Christ refers to the 'anointed Messiah', how do you explain other verses when the name, Christ, is used and it has to be speaking of his preexistence as God? for instance:

1Co 10:4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

1Pe 1:11 Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow.

Originally Posted by mizpeh

Eliseus,



Loved reading this post!

Thank you. I only have a few moments before I have to sign off for the day, so my responses at this point will be somewhat brief. I'll post more tomorrow, Lord willing.

I have a few questions. How did Christ reenact the fall of man, in what way?

My previous post explains this somewhat, in that Christ as the Last Adam was faced with circumstances similar (theologically) to the first Adam's, and yet He (Christ) made the proper choices whereas Adam made the wrong choices. Through the medium of Christ reversing those Adamic decisions God provided Redemption to us all.

What do you mean by an 'intermediary divine being'? I've never read anything about this by Trinitarians and I've read quite a few Trinitarian interpretations of this passage.

Most modern trinitarians will not use the language of 'divine intermediary being' however it is found in some trinitarian scholars. It is expressly used by James Dunn in his Christology in the Making which by the way provides a good solid exegesis of Adam Christology in the New Testament.

By this term I mean a divine (as opposed to human) being or sentient entity which functions as an intermediary between the Divine Reality and mankind. Essentially the function of the Logos in trinitarian thought.

You also wrote:

I take it the reference to 'Christ' is why you say it must be speaking only of God incarnate, not his preexistence as the Logos. Or is it because it is talking about the 'mind which was in Christ'? If you say it is just because Christ refers to the 'anointed Messiah', how do you explain other verses when the name, Christ, is used and it has to be speaking of his preexistence as God? for instance:

Generally speaking, the term 'Jesus Christ' or 'Christ Jesus' refers to the Son of God, that is, God existing as a human being. The two scriptures you quoted I do not take to be referring to the pre-Incarnate Deity, but rather to Jesus Christ (the Messiah, the human Son of God, or in other words, God existing as a genuine human being) which is then transposed back in time to qualify and define the Rock or Spirit being referred to. In other words, the Rock is YHVH (see Deut 32) and the Spirit is the Spirit of YHVH, but both apostles identified that Rock (DEITY) and Spirit as being CHRIST - ie that which was the Rock and Spirit in the Old Testament is the CHRIST of the New Testament. I will try to explain this better tomorrow when I have more time.

Originally Posted by TheLayman

Yes I know, who cares what the Bible says, that's why we always have difficulty communicating. At any rate, in verse 7 He began to exist in the likeness of human beings, and that is most definitely after the "but" in time.

TheLayman

If true, then he took upon himself the form of a servant PRIOR to the Incarnation.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

He didn't humble Himself BEFORE coming in the flesh. He humbled Himself WHEN He came in the flesh.

These verses are telling us He always existed as God, but though He had always existed as God He did not consider being God something to be grasped after (while a man). But or rather or instead when he became a man he became a servant and humbled himself.

These verses are not a chronology but a statement of fact of being and attitude. If we look at it as a chronology instead we miss the point

BUMP.

[TheLayman]

Originally Posted by Eliseus

If true, then he took upon himself the form of a servant PRIOR to the Incarnation.

Taking the form of a servant is part of the incarnation and I don't know why you would make the assertion you made. But perhaps you will wait for my response to your in depth post (i.e. you detailed post regarding the passage). Right now is my busy time of the week clear through the weekend, but I will get to it.

TheLayman