A Godhead Question

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.

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. 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.

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'.

'...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.

'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. 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.

'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.

'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.

'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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

BUMP for TB...

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

God the Father was a phrase that cannot be found in the OT. No one prayed to God the Father in the OT. God is described as a Father in the OT but not called by the name, Father. Ironically the only one in the OT called Father, as a divine name of God, is the Son to be born in Isa 9:6 ..and his name shall be called ....the Everlasting Father.

God the Father was used by Jesus once in the gospels.

I don't have a problem with it as long as He, God the Father, is not called the first person of the Godhead.

In fact the phrase God THE Father is not as common as some might think in the NT either. Most of the time in the greek it's more like Father God or God Father.

Father was a commonly understood designation for God. The Jews called God Father. They were interchangable. So, though the Son is God, he distinguished Himself from God due to His humanity. Many people wrongly come to the conclusion then that the Son is just a man

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

In fact the phrase God THE Father is not as common as some might think in the NT either. Most of the time in the greek it's more like Father God or God Father.

Father was a commonly understood designation for God. The Jews called God Father. They were interchangable. So, though the Son is God, he distinguished Himself from God due to His humanity. Many people wrongly come to the conclusion then that the Son is just a man

The Jews thought of God as a Father but I can't find any prayers in the OT which started with 'our Father'.

[Truly Blessed]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

God the Father was a phrase that cannot be found in the OT. No one prayed to God the Father in the OT. God is described as a Father in the OT but not called by the name, Father. Ironically the only one in the OT called Father, as a divine name of God, is the Son to be born in Isa 9:6 ..and his name shall be called ....the Everlasting Father.

God the Father was used by Jesus once in the gospels.

I don't have a problem with it as long as He, God the Father, is not called the first person of the Trinity.

Paul used the term extensively.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

The Jews thought of God as a Father but I can't find any prayers in the OT which started with 'our Father'.

The don't. The term Father was rarely used in the OT and often when it did it was a paternal relationship with kings

[Praxeas]

In the greek the term is Theos Pater Tov...I wonder if the article is to modify Theos or Father

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

In the greek the term is Theos Pater Tov...I wonder if the article is to modify Theos or Father

It would be funny if it was translated...the God Father!

Originally Posted by mizpeh

It would be funny if it was translated...the God Father!

If Jesus was Italian He could have said "he that hath seen me hath seen the GodFather"

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by Truly Blessed

Paul used the term extensively.

In the greetings and other places.

It's a little awkward for Trinitarians for the term not to be used in the OT but they will chalk it up to progressive revelation.

Originally Posted by Truly Blessed

I spent 23 years in the UPC and have now been 10 years in the ACOP. I can tell you that in the UPC there is a greater reluctance to speak of God as Father compared to folks in the ACOP. The Fatherhood of God is not a prominent feature of UPC vernacular. Jesus placed great emphasis on the Father. The Apostle Paul placed great emphasis on "God the Father" in his epistles. Are you suggesting that I would hear "God the Father" freely used in UPC circles nowadays?

It has everything to do with realationships. If there is no Father/son relationship, one would of course be reluctant to address another as Father.