A Godhead Question

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

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

I'm not sure what you mean. I would think He would have had to humble Himself before or after but not when He came as man. Are you saying something like: "when He came in the flesh" requires prethought on the part of the preincarnate God or God foreknew that He would be humbled by taking on a temporal form, but the actual doing of the deed (coming in the flesh) was when the humbling was experienced?

Though I agree with this, I don't think this is what this passage is saying. I think Jesus Christ, as a man, intentionally humbled himself. He submitted to the will of his God even though He as a man was in the form of God = the image of God. Like you said, as a man He did not think it robbery to be equal to God (since He truly was and knew that He was God incarnate) but humbled himself and took on the form of a servant.

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.

I'm not sure if it is just the wording, but I would say as a man, He became a servant (even though He knew His origin, that He was the Almighty) and humbled himself. He didn't insist on being treated as the King of Kings and Lord of Lords. Though He was rich (all the silver and gold belongs to God) He made himself poor for our sakes as a man (incarnate). Maybe you understand 'form of God' differently than I do.

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

Everything that happens in these verses is happening to the man, Jesus Christ, or post incarnate. A Trinitarian follows a chronological concept in this passage. Christ starts our existing with God and though Christ is the same essence as God (in the form of) in his preexistent state, He doesn't consider it robbery to be equal with God. This is where a Trinitarian has to reinterpret the meaning. Instead of 'consider it robbery to be equal with God' they must say something like 'did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped' which still doesn't make sense because if Christ preexisted as the second person of God then He was God and therefore equal to God. There was no grasping or robbery to be equal with God. This is one of the points which tells me the passage is from Christ's perspective as a man or incarnate and not as Trinitarians assert a chronological series of God humbling himself prior to becoming man and humbling himself again as a man in going to the cross.

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.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

I'm not sure what you mean. I would think He would have had to humble Himself before or after but not when He came as man. Are you saying something like: "when He came in the flesh" requires prethought on the part of the preincarnate God or God foreknew that He would be humbled by taking on a temporal form, but the actual doing of the deed (coming in the flesh) was when the humbling was experienced?

Im saying He humbled himself WHEN he became a man.
NOtice that humbling himself follows being made a man
Php 2:8 And being found in fashion as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
Not "He humbled himself (in heaven) and became a man"

Though I agree with this, I don't think this is what this passage is saying. I think Jesus Christ, as a man, intentionally humbled himself. He submitted to the will of his God even though He as a man was in the form of God = the image of God.

Well first of all I never denied he as a man humbled himself and submitted to the will of God, however the point with "who being in the form of God" means not "while being a man he was God"...it means "He has always BEEN GOD" see this is not chronology but a statement of fact or reality. He is not giving a time line, but rather is stating a fact. That fact is that Jesus has always been God. He became a man. As a man he did not consider being God a thing to be grasped at but rather humbled himself to the point of obedience and death on the cross. Paul is not teaching chronological order of events but a fact of reality, the MIND of Christ. Attitude. Not chronology.

So yes, even though He has always been in the form of God and still was when he was a man, he did not consider being God a thing to be grasped after but instead as a man humbled himself to be obedient to the will of God. BTW will does not require two persons in this case since the will of God is God's own desires and God's will for us and Christ was determined long ago.

I'm not sure if it is just the wording, but I would say as a man, He became a servant (even though He knew His origin, that He was the Almighty) and humbled himself. He didn't insist on being treated as the King of Kings and Lord of Lords. Though He was rich (all the silver and gold belongs to God) He made himself poor for our sakes as a man (incarnate). Maybe you understand 'form of God' differently than I do.

Form here is nature. The point I am making is this is saying Christ had always been God even before the incarnation. He is God Himself, not just NOW while being man, but even before being man He was God.

Who being means not only "while he was a man he was also God", but is a statement of fact not a time line of when. SO in other words He was always God even before being man.

Everything that happens in these verses is happening to the man, Jesus Christ, or post incarnate. A Trinitarian follows a chronological concept in this passage. Christ starts our existing with God and though Christ is the same essence as God (in the form of) in his preexistent state, He doesn't consider it robbery to be equal with God. This is where a Trinitarian has to reinterpret the meaning. Instead of 'consider it robbery to be equal with God' they must say something like 'did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped' which still doesn't make sense because if Christ preexisted as the second person of God then He was God and therefore equal to God. There was no grasping or robbery to be equal with God. This is one of the points which tells me the passage is from Christ's perspective as a man or incarnate and not as Trinitarians assert a chronological series of God humbling himself prior to becoming man and humbling himself again as a man in going to the cross.

Im saying he exists (past to future) as God Himself, but since this is not a chronology but is about attitude his not grasping at equality with God is a statement of reality of his incarnation, The whole thing is about mindset, not chronology and actually it's not that they must say such and such...that's just the right translation.

[Truly Blessed]

I just wanted to thank you who have taken time to post in this thread. I have really enjoyed reading your insights on this passage of Scripture and the resulting interaction between some of you.

[TheLayman]

Originally Posted by Eliseus

Hi, TB. I do not believe this passage is referring to any pre-incarnate state at all!

Rather, it is s specimen of Paul's Adam-Christology.

Paul presents several Christologies, meaning that Paul views Christ in several ways, or from several different perspectives. One of those perspectives concerns His role as the Second Adam. He speaks of this in his letter to the Romans, as well, and hints of it in several other places.

Here, Paul expresses Adam Christology and its practical application to the believer.

I am always curious (truly) when I see Biblical Unitarian arguments from Oneness Pentecostals. The idea that Phil 2 expresses an “Adam Christology” is very much from Biblical Unitarians who believe that Jesus was not God but rather a separate person and being from God. That is what this “Adam Christology” in Phil. 2 is supposed to argue in favor of hence, my curiosity at why Oneness Pentecostals use this idea.

That said, I do not want to commit a genetic fallacy so I’m not saying you are wrong because it is a view held by Biblical Unitarians, I will examine it on its own merit. But I would make clear that your assertion that Paul here expresses such an “Adam Christology” is purely that, your unsupported assertion as it is not to be found in the text.

Originally Posted by Eliseus

He begins with 'let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus.' This sets the context, Christ's attitude and state of mind.

Forgive me for commenting on the first sentence of what you wrote as a paragraph, I don’t mean to chop up your thoughts (but I do say this to bring it to the attention of anyone who may be reading). However, I do disagree with this statement and I wanted to separate my comments here from what follows as it is two different issues in my view. First of all I would argue that the context is what precedes 2:5, to wit:

3 Do nothing from selfishness or empty conceit, but with humility of mind regard one another as more important than yourselves; 4 do not merely look out for your own personal interests, but also for the interests of others.

Though I highlighted “humility of mind” in the preceding passages I would say that every word is important to the context, the entire thought. “Do nothing from selfishness or empty conceit,” i.e. don’t do things for your own selfish purposes and ego. That seems pretty straightforward and direct. Then, “But (i.e. rather) with humility of mind regard one another as more important that yourselves…” Keep the conjunction “but” in mind as it begins verse 7 as well. Suffice it to say it shows sharp contrast with what preceded it in these passages. So Paul here says regardless of whom you are, your worth, your status, and so on, treat others as if they are more important than you. And while you’re at it, look out after their interests. So it is this humility of mind that leads to passages concerning “the mind” that was in Jesus.

Originally Posted by Eliseus

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.

First, the word “mind” does not mean “brain.” I suppose the NASB comes closest to communicating the meaning:

“Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus,”

Or as Vincent’s puts it: “think this in yourselves.”

Secondly, you create a false dichotomy where the personal identity of Jesus Christ is concerned. Indeed, your argument which is by the way circular, would have us believe that if Paul was to here speak of Jesus pre-incarnate and post incarnate he would have to refer to him with two different names. This is eisegesis as Jesus Christ is the personal identity of a specific person, the Son of God, and pre or post incarnate His personal identity does not change (i.e. He is the same person). The person possesses the thought, not a nature.

Originally Posted by Eliseus

He then says "Who being in the form of God..." Here Paul recalls the words of Moses who described the first Adam as being made in the image of God. Paul will begin a comparison and contrast between the first Adam and the second Adam (Christ). Whereas BOTH were in the form of God, they followed two very different paths, because of their different attitudes or 'minds'.

Several points:

1. Paul never mentions Adam in these passages so needless to say, Paul makes no comparison to Adam. This is again pure eisegesis on your part.

2. If I’m understanding you, you are asserting that “being in the form of God” actually means being a man which turns the meaning of the passage on its head as there is nothing in 2:6 which says anything of the sort. The phrase “being in the form of God,” has no resemblance to “God made man in His own image.” The words “form” and “image” are not the same words and they certainly don’t convey the same meaning here. Additionally, “being” (pres/act/part) speaks of Jesus existing, which is also dissimilar to God making man. This does not recall any words “Moses” used to describe Adam, as it could never be said of Adam that he was “existing in the form of God” (nor was it ever said).

3. Once again, while it is true that Jesus and Adam followed a different path, Adam is nowhere to be found in these passages. But again, Adam is not in these passages in any way, there is no analogy to him, no comparison to him, etc. You and I may make a comparison but the passages are about Jesus with Adam nowhere to be found in them.

The word “form” (morphe) here means the outward expression of the nature/essence, not the nature/essence itself. It is enough here to say that one can not “exist in the form of God” without actually being God, i.e. the outward expression of God can only come from being in nature/essence God. But while the expression is dependent on the nature/essence, the nature/essence is not dependent upon the expression. More on this when we get to “form of a slave” in verse 7 as this is the antithesis of what we see in verse 6 (in fact, verse 7 is itself antithetical to verse 6, but more on that when we get to it).

Originally Posted by Eliseus

'...thought it not robbery to be equal with God'. Some translators render this along the lines of '...did not think equality with God was something to be grasped.' This is precisely the opposite of the first Adam's inclination, who being in the form of God was not content to merely be a microcosm of God but chose to 'be as God'. Christ however did NOT pursue that path.

Two things:

1. You continue to the eisegesis of making this passage a comparison to Adam when in actuality, no such comparison exists in the text. This is something that you have read into the text.

2. As with the first portion of verse 6 you have again ignored the actual meaning of the words and the grammar. In short, what you assert it means is nowhere to be found in what it actually says.

Now if I’m understanding you, it is your assertion that the passage paraphrased would read (and I’m using active listening, or active reading if you will, to see if I’m understanding you):

“Who being a man (i.e. created in the image of God) did not believe equality with God could be stolen…”

or

“Who being a man (i.e. created in the image of God) did not think equality with God was something to be seized.”

I would first point out what it does not say: It never states that He did not consider equality with Himself a thing to be grasped, or if you prefer, it never states that He did not consider it robbery to be equal with Himself. There is nothing reflexive with regard to equality; indeed, equality by its very definition requires a comparison between two things.

Secondly, equality with God is something Jesus already possesses in the passage. You attempt to take this equality away from Christ by literally changing the passage from what it says, i.e. being in the form of God, to what you want it to mean, i.e. being a man.

Third, this God equality is said to be something He (Jesus) did not consider “harpogmas.” Let’s look at the 3 basic meanings from Strong’s so as to not over complicate this (#725):

1) the act of seizing, robbery
2) a thing seized or to be seized
a) booty to deem anything a prize
b) a thing to be seized upon or to be held fast, retained

Number #1 is out because the passage does not talk about an act of robbery. While #2 would fit, it would be very awkward in that if Jesus exists in the form of God (i.e. exists as God) it would be stating the obvious to say that He does not consider His “God equalit” booty which He has stolen and does not fit with the contrast that Paul is making. Thus, most scholars, and I would agree, take the definition of “a thing to be held fast, retained at all cost.”

In short, the meaning you are attaching to the words do not exist in the text. To assert that the passage means “Who being create in the image of God” is not found in the text anywhere, either literally or figuratively. And to assert that it means “Being created in the image of God (i.e. being a man)” leaves the phrase nonsensical, for a man does possess “equality with God” to count as either booty or something to hold fast to. Whichever definition from above you choose to attach to it you must remember this: Jesus Christ already possesses it (i.e. God equality) in the passage, that is the grammar and the meaning of the words and it is inescapable.

CONTINUED NEXT POST

[TheLayman]

Originally Posted by Eliseus

‘But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men...' The first Adam attempted by his disobedience to make himself of quite some reputation, in attempting to usurp God's role and position for himself, and taking upon himself the form of a god, but was rendered mortal by the judgement of God.

I have to harp on this. While a comparison of Adam actions in Genesis and the actions of the Son of God here in Philippians makes both a nice sermon and/or teaching (I have used it myself), the comparison is nowhere to be found in the text. What you are doing is the perfect example of eisegesis as opposed to exegesis. The immediate context is verses 3, 4, and 5.

Originally Posted by Eliseus

The second Adam, however, did just the opposite, in that He voluntarily took upon himself the form (appearance) of a servant (instead of a master, as He himself so declared several times). He was voluntarily reduced to the likeness or sameness of mortal man, whereas the first Adam was involunatrily reduced to such a state.

You have already dichotomized Jesus Christ, the Son of God and here you dichotomize Adam implying that his “form,” likeness,” and “appearance” changed as a result of sin and is directly analogous to this passage. First, that isn’t true and secondly, Adam is not found here and no such analogy is being made (and any further argument of this point is beyond the scope of the exegesis of this passage). The comparison being made is between Jesus Christ the Son of God in His preincarnate state and His incarnation and as the ultimate example of the “attitude” or “way of thinking” that should be in them (Paul’s audience).

In fact verse 7 begins with the conjunction “but.” This conjunction is a “marker of contrastive emphasis” between what comes before it and after it (this is true even in English). Here it serves to contrast verse 6 with verse 7 and would well be translated “rather.” You will note as we go that verse 7 is the antithesis of verse 6 both in part and in whole.

In verse 6, Jesus is existing (pres/act/part) in the form of God. In verse 7, Jesus empties (makes of no reputation, nullifies) Himself (so He does not cling to the form of God at all cost) by taking (lambanō, 2aor/act/part, laying hold of, taking upon Himself) the “form of a servant,” is the antithesis of the “form of God” in which He was “existing” in verse 6. So, the outward expression that Jesus takes upon Himself (not one which He before possessed) in not even that of a King or Prince among men, but that of a servant (of no reputation in contrast to the form of God, in a manner nullifying that which it is the antithesis of).

There is also no conjunction “and” here. Jesus emptied Himself taking the form of a servant “…being made…”: 2aor/midD/part, Wuest calls an ingressive aorist, which “signifies entrance into a new state” (Wuest’s Greek NT).

1) to become, i.e. to come into existence, begin to be, receive being
2) to become, i.e. to come to pass, happen
a) of events
3) to arise, appear in history, come upon the stage
a) of men appearing in public
4) to be made, finished
a) of miracles, to be performed, wrought
5) to become, be made

Please note the contrast in “being or existing” in verse 6 pres/act/part (timelessness) to becoming here in verse 7, 2aor/midD/part (entering into a new state, come into existence).

…n the likeness of men. The word “likeness” means:

1) that which has been made after the likeness of somethinga) a figure, image, likeness, representation
b) likeness i.e. resemblance, such as amounts almost to equality or identity

As Robertson states: “It is a likeness, but a real likeness, not a phantom…” So Jesus here enters into a new state at a point in time and in contradistinction to “existing in the form of God” empties Himself “taking upon Himself the form of servant becoming in the likeness of human beings.”

Originally Posted by Eliseus

'And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.' Here Christ is said to have humbled himself, having taken the path of servanthood and mortality, and submitted to the death of the cross. This is in stark contrast to the first Adam, who being found in fashion as God (in the image and likeness of God) was disobedient (because of his grasping at being equal with God) and was forced into the path of lowly servanthood and mortality, weakness and death.

Verse 8 is immediately connected to verse 7 by the conjunction “kia,” (i.e. and). And being found in “fashion a man.” The word “fashion” here is:

Schema: the habitus, as comprising everything in a person which strikes the senses, the figure, bearing, discourse, actions, manner of life etc.

This is in contrast to “morphe” (i.e. form) in that form is the outward expression of the inward nature of something. Schema, i.e. fashion describes the way in which Jesus appeared to those outside of Him (though He was much more than merely a man).

And “being found in fashion as a man, He humbled Himself…” When Jesus “humbled” Himself here, this is not the same as “emptying” or “making Himself of no reputation” in verse 7. Verse 7 was the Son condescending to “become” human, verse 8 is the Son humbling Himself as a human. And in being obedient even to death on the cross the Son has condescended from eternal God to a human being dying an ignominious death of the cross among criminals for our sakes.

A quick review of the antithetical phrases, verse 6 compared to those that follow in 7 and 8:

In verse 6 the Son exists in the form of God, and “all things were created by Him and for Him.”
In verse 7 the Son condescends and takes the form of a servant to serve creation.

In verse 6 the Son exists as God in equality with God.
In verse 7 the Son condescends and begins to exist as man in equality with man.

In verse 6 the Son exists as God and is known as God
In verse 8 the Son because He has condescended is found in appearance as man.

To summarize in somewhat of cross between amplified Bible and Living Bible:

Who, though being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be to be held fast and retained at all cost, but instead emptied Himself (made Him of no reputation) taking upon Himself the form of a servant and began to exist as human beings. And now being found in appearance as a man He humbled (abased) Himself and He who was eternal became obedient to death, even the humiliation of death on the cross.

This is the attitude, the mindset that Paul was telling them to have. Regardless of their wealth, power, status, and so on, they were to consider others more important than themselves, and look out after others and not just themselves. Paul reminds them of what the Son of God had done for them.

Originally Posted by Eliseus

'Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name...' The first Adam was demoted and cast down, because of his disobedience in attempting to be equal with God, whereas the second Adam was exalted and lifted up and placed on an equal footing with God because of His obedience and submission.

Once again, this passage never speaks of Adam. As I have said, we may compare what the Son of God did as compared to Adam, but this passage is about what the Son of God did.

CONTINUED NEXT POST

[TheLayman]

Originally Posted by Eliseus

'That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.' Jesus (the man, the Son of God, the second or 'last' Adam) was exalted into a place of equality with God so that the prophetic declaration of Isaiah concerning YHVH would be fulfilled in Christ, and this is the method by which glory is given to YHVH (God, the Father). This is a wonderful statement of the Oneness doctrine, by the way, in that the only acceptable way of glorifying God is to glorify Jesus Christ.

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.

Perhaps I’m keep misunderstanding you but this sounds very much like adoptionism, which is also very similar to Biblical Unitarianism. Or perhaps I am understanding you? At any rate, Jesus always was God and therefore possessed equality with God. That’s how the description of Jesus begins.

Originally Posted by Eliseus

Trinitarians have for a long time seen this passage as a declaration of the pre-existence of Christ, and as referring to his 'kenosis' in incarnating and becoming human. There are however serious problems with this interpretation.

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.

Your tendentious style of arguing sometimes has so many layers it’s difficult to peel. Trinitarians do not teach that the Son is a pre-incarnate divine intermediary being so that is a complete misrepresentation and straw man. Trinitarians do teach that the person of the Son did actually preexist the incarnation, but Trinitarians believe God to be a single being. And Paul certainly does speak explicitly of the preexistent Son in places other than Philippians (not that there is anything that would require him to do so):

It is explicit in Col. 1:13-17; 1Cor. 8:6; Heb. 1:1-3, 1:8-12, 2:9-10, 2:14-17. It is implicit if not explicit in passages such as Rom. 8:3, Gal. 4:4, 2Cor 8:9. I will not debate these passages with you here; it is enough to say that I obviously disagree. Further, every time Paul spoke of the deity of Jesus Christ he spoke of a preexistent Son.

Lastly, speaking of John’s writings, when they were written in relation to other NT documents is irrelevant; they also say what they say. And of course John’s writings are quite clear on both the deity and preexistence of Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father.

Originally Posted by Eliseus

2. Secondly, if the preincarnation interpretation be accepted, it requires us to believe that Jesus Christ (the man) was indeed a distinct personage from God prior to incarnation, yet at the same time LESS than God Himself and someone distinct from GOD (not merely distinct from 'God the father' but from GOD in toto.) This is nothing else than Arianism. If this is preincarnation doctrine, then Christ is simply a second God-like being, not God Himself, contrary to both trinitarian and Oneness theology.

With all due respect, that looked like one non-sequitur after another. As I said at the beginning of this, Jesus Christ was a “person” before He was incarnated (which is why we call it an incarnation). Philippians 2:6 states quite clearly that He was equal with God so contrary to your assertion that it requires a belief that He was less than God, it requires a belief that He had God equality. The Son is indeed a distinct person and always has been, but I’m afraid I don’t understand your assertion that it requires the Son to be distinct from God in toto (unless you are imposing you misunderstanding of “did not consider equality with God a thing to be grasped). If that is the case you misunderstanding would lead you to believe that the preincarnate Son “did not grasp after equality.” But as I pointed out, that is incorrect, Jesus possessed equality with God but did not consider this equality a thing to be grasped, held at all costs. However, the idea that this is somehow Arian is an absolutely false and unsupported claim.

With regard to this being contrary to “Oneness” theology, the question is always “which Oneness theology.” The only thing you have described is Jesus Christ as a man as any Biblical Unitarian would. You have not described a Jesus Christ who is God, indeed, if the person of Jesus Christ did not exist pre-incarnation, then there was no incarnation by definition. That is the just one of the problems with trying to blend the arguments of those who wish to disprove the deity of Christ (Biblical Unitarians, Christedelphians, Ebonites, etc.) with Oneness theology.

Originally Posted by Eliseus

3. The Adamic Christology interpretation is consistent with Paul's theology everywhere else, in presenting Christ as (among other things) a God-sent Saviour who recapitulates not only Israel's spiritual history, but all mankind's, yet in such a way as to reverse the fall of man and secure Redemption and immortality instead of death and mortality (as the first Adam did).

You say “The Adamic Christology interpretation is consistent with Paul’s theology everywhere else…” I will repeat, Adam is nowhere to be found in Philippians 2, this is your invention. And you keep using the term “Adamic Christology” which I believe to be incorrect in any fashion. Adamic typology yes, but Adamic Christology again sounds very Unitarian as if it reduces Jesus Christ to just a man. Incidentally, Paul only used Adam as a type 3 times so trying to impose Adam into Paul’s teaching of Christology “everywhere else” doesn’t hold water (please see again all the passages above speaking of the preexistent SON). I could not help but notice that your description of Jesus sounds very Unitarian or perhaps Adoptionist. Is it your contention that Jesus was just a man and not God?

Originally Posted by Eliseus

Moreover, the idea of Christ as being a pre-existent divine intermediary being is simply repugnant to the whole tenor of the rest of Scripture, ESPECIALLY the old testament scripture which was familiar to Paul and upon which he relied for teaching material.

There is that Tendentious style of argumentation again. And the straw man argument of intermediary “being.” I suppose what is found to be “repugnant” is subjective. Many more would find it “repugnant” that in spite of the explicit teaching of Scripture that anyone would deny the love of the Father’s Son who, being God condescended to become man, and a servant among men, and to a curse upon a tree because of His great love for us.

At any rate, this has become a slippery slope of sophistry. With regard to the Old Testament and Logos theology, here are two threads at the GNC that deal with some of this material:

http://goodnewscafe.net/forums/showthread.php?t=9606
http://goodnewscafe.net/forums/showt...66814#poststop

TheLayman

[TheLayman]

Just wanted to bump once so everyone understands accurately what Trinitarians believe and why regarding Phil 2.

TheLayman

[Praxeas]

As someone that believes God is singular in person, I also see Phil as showing that Christ had a pre-existence and that His pre-existence was as God.

Additionally the "mind" Paul was speaking of is in the previous verse "this" refers to what came before "this"..let THIS mind be in you, or this attitude.

[Steve Epley]

He pre-existed as the Eternal God. He made himself known through theophanies for specific purposes then became incarnate in the Son of God. The Second Person did not become incarnate but the Eternal God Himself became incarnate.

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Im saying He humbled himself WHEN he became a man.
NOtice that humbling himself follows being made a man
Php 2:8 And being found in fashion as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
Not "He humbled himself (in heaven) and became a man"

5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
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 him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

Verse 7 as well as verse 8 in my mind speaks of a humbling also....made himself of no reputation and took on the form of a servant.

A Trinitarian would say this humbling happened prior to the incarnation (I haven't read TLM's response to Eliseus yet so he may disagree with me) They would have to say that, morphe, has to do with an inner state in both instances of the word in this passage... the form of God and the form of a servant, yet they interpret form of God as divine essence or nature and form of a servant as something like an attitude or way of thinking. Which would be an equivocation of the meaning of the word, morphe, in this passage. Otherwise if they understood morphe to have the same meaning for both form of God and form of a servant then form would have to be an ontological aspect of the preexistent Christ which Christ would always have to have and not be able to "take on".

Anyways, Prax, I think the humbling Paul speaks of in verse 7 and verse 8 are both referring to the man, Jesus Christ, incarnate not preexistent. I'm not sure how you would explain 'took on the form of a servant'. Do you think Jesus did this before He became man? and why? Having said all that I do believe God willingly and lovingly condescended to becoming like us for a number of reasons the least not being to redeem us from our sins and give us eternal life. I just don't believe these verses are teaching that.

Well first of all I never denied he as a man humbled himself and submitted to the will of God, however the point with "who being in the form of God" means not "while being a man he was God"...it means "He has always BEEN GOD" see this is not chronology but a statement of fact or reality. He is not giving a time line, but rather is stating a fact. That fact is that Jesus has always been God. He became a man. As a man he did not consider being God a thing to be grasped at but rather humbled himself to the point of obedience and death on the cross. Paul is not teaching chronological order of events but a fact of reality, the MIND of Christ. Attitude. Not chronology.

6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:

Okay, I think I understand what you're saying. You're saying the 'form of God' means that Jesus is God and has always been God because form refers to...what..hypostasis, nature?

Strongs gives the word, morphe, this meaning: the form by which a person or thing strikes the vision, external appearance. Because of this definition I believe form of God is speaking to Christ being the image of God. When you see Jesus, you see the Father. And being found in the form of God means Christ as God in human form.

I agree the mind of Christ is an attitude or way of looking at things that causes us to feel and think a certain way.

So yes, even though He has always been in the form of God and still was when he was a man, he did not consider being God a thing to be grasped after but instead as a man humbled himself to be obedient to the will of God. BTW will does not require two persons in this case since the will of God is God's own desires and God's will for us and Christ was determined long ago.

You lost me when you started talking about the will of God after the "BTW".

6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:

If the form of God solely speaks of the image of the invisible God then that would be the same as being the Son of God. The Son of God, the man whose Father is God, came to exist on a certain day in time. Prior to that the Son of God existed in the plan of God and was very much real to God as the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. You can see we are looking at the 'form of God' very differently.

Form here is nature. The point I am making is this is saying Christ had always been God even before the incarnation. He is God Himself, not just NOW while being man, but even before being man He was God.

I agree with everything you said except the definition of form to mean nature. I agree that God preexisted his incarnation as man but I don't think this passage is speaking to that.

Who being means not only "while he was a man he was also God", but is a statement of fact not a time line of when. SO in other words He was always God even before being man.

I think a Trinitarian would present this as a timeline, but I understand what you're saying. Again I agree Jesus was and always has been God. Jesus is God with us. But I disagree with your interpretation of 'who being'.

Im saying he exists (past to future) as God Himself, but since this is not a chronology but is about attitude his not grasping at equality with God is a statement of reality of his incarnation, The whole thing is about mindset, not chronology and actually it's not that they must say such and such...that's just the right translation.

Are you saying the mindset is an attitude of humility of Christ as a man, thinking as a man? Though Christ is God in the flesh [and knows this fact] which makes Him equal to God, yet Christ doesn't seek as a man to be treated as such but humbles himself and instead of insisting on being treated as royalty, he becomes as a slave.