The Assumed Trinity: A look at Philippians 2:6

who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped Philippians 2:6 NASB

I apologize that this is long and technical. There is no other way to do this.

Frankly, I would just as soon let this go. I don’t like coming back to an investigation of verses used to support the doctrine of the Trinity. In fact, thinking about these things really bothers me. It keeps me up at night. It scares me. All my life I thought that the statement “Jesus is God” was unassailable, fixed in concrete theologically, fundamental to faith. Now I’m scared that I might have simply swallowed the doctrine without examination. Now the foundation of what I used to believe (and maybe still do) is a bit shaken. But I am not about to just sweep the issues under the Pope’s rug and pretend everything is perfectly fine in Bibleland. Everything isn’t perfectly fine. The more I dig into the Jewish world of the first century, the more I see how my own presuppositions may have been in error. I grew up on Calvin, Berkouwer and Campus Crusade. I know the drill. But the drill has bored through to something I never expected.

Ureil ben-Mordechai[1] points out that the Greek negative in this verse (ouk) is not attached to the verb (hegesato) but rather to the noun harpagmon. That means the reading of this verse should be “counted not something to be grasped,” instead of “not counted something to be grasped.” Let me make the difference clearer. The standard Christian translation of this Greek phrase suggests that Yeshua did not consider equality something to be grasped. But the actual Greek text reads, “counted equality not something that could be grasped.” In other words, if the negative particle ouk is tied to the noun rather than the verb, the implication is the Yeshua saw equality with God as something unattainable. Do you realize what this means? It means that this verse does not say that Yeshua gave up equality with God voluntarily because it did not serve the purposes of the Messiah. It says that Yeshua never aspired to be equal with God because equality with God is not possible.

Before you go crazy, remember that the Greek text is the issue, not the translation. In the Greek text, the negative ouk is clearly present before the noun, not before the verb. The Greek reads hos en morphe theos hyparchon ouk harpagmon hegesato, literally, “who in morphe theos (we will get back to this) is, was regarded not something to be gained (or esteemed).” So, was is it that he did not regard equality as something or was it that he regarded equality as not something. Oh, my aching head!

Do you suppose that Paul, in this great Trinitarian passage, isn’t really talking about the Trinity at all? What if Paul is saying that Yeshua, as the Messiah, didn’t try to be equal with God because no one can be equal with God? What if the entire purpose of Paul’s statement is not a declaration of “Jesus is God” but rather a proclamation that Yeshua took on the role of a servant as Messiah, rather than trying to be God? The Greek text puts the ouk in a very funny place if Paul meant to say something about Yeshua’s God-likeness. The same negative particle + noun arrangement is found in Hebrew 12:8 and in the LXX at 2 Chronicles 15:3. The particle negates the noun, not the verb. It’s a problem. A big problem.

Whatever we discovered about the relationship of the negative particle (ouk) and the noun (harpagmon) seems to make absolutely no difference at all if the translation of hos en morphe theou really means, “although He existed in the form of God.” Could there be any clearer statement of the pre-existence of Yeshua as God? If He already existed as God before He emptied Himself, then the rest of the discussion is moot. But what does hos en morphe theou really mean?

There’s not much debate about hos. It means “who, which, as long as, that means,” depending on context. Here is must mean “who.” But now we have a problem. There is no Greek word for the translation “although.” And, by the way, there is no Greek word for “He existed” either. The verb, hyparchon, comes from hypo and archomai, literally means, “to begin under (quietly).” The verb here is a participle in the present tense so it cannot be translated “He existed.” It should be translated as “existing” or “belonging” or “being present as.” Without a past tense it is difficult to understand why the translators determine that this is a statement about pre-existence. But consider the statement of F. F. Bruce:

“Who, being in the very nature of God: literally, ‘being already in the form of God.’ Possession of the form implies participation in the essence. It seems fruitless to argue that these words do not assume the pre-existence of Christ. In another example where Paul points to Christ’s self-denial as an example for his people—‘Though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, so that you through his poverty might become rich’ (2 Cor. 8:9)—his pre-existence is similarly assumed (although there Paul makes his own choice of language, whereas here he uses a form of words that lay ready to hand).[2]

But is Bruce’s assumption so evident? Does possession of form imply participation in essence? It might is you are Aristotle or Plato[3], but does it if you are a rabbinic scholar steeped in Torah? Existence in Hebrew is a function of purpose. Everything exists because it fulfills the purpose that the Creator intended. Merely having the form of something does not presuppose its essential characteristic. If that were the case in biblical Hebrew, then God’s complaint (and Paul’s) about having the form of worship but not exhibiting the purpose or essence of righteousness would make no sense at all. According to Bruce’s logic, if I have the proper form of worship, then that means I automatically have the essence of worship. But we all recognize that this isn’t the case. Why, then, does Bruce claim that it must be the case in Philippians 2?

Aristotle proposed that essence is the characteristics or attributes that make something what it is by necessity, not accidentally. Plato viewed essence as a relation to “Form,” that is, the abstract ontological universal that separates one individual object from another. Individual examples of these universal forms are “copies” of the universal. For example, in Platonic thought there is a universal form of the essence of a chair. Each individual example of a chair is a chair because it is related to the universal idea of a chair. The combination of Aristotle’s idea of essence and Plato’s idea of Form leads theologians to say that anything that participates in the essence of God must be God even if its individual representation isn’t exactly the same. With this Greek metaphysics in mind, Bruce can claim that if Yeshua is in the “form” of God (reading this as a Greek philosophical statement), then Yeshua is of the same “essence” as God. Therefore, Yeshua is God even if he appears in slightly different ways. Of course, if we applied this logic to Genesis 1:26-27, we would have to conclude that Man is God since Man is made in God’s image (image must mean, in some sense, logical form, especially since God has no physical image).

But Hebraic thought does not make this Greek philosophical equivalence. In the thought of the ancient Middle East (in Semitic cultures), essence is a functional concept related to purpose, not attribute.   In Hebrew thought, I am what I do. God is not defined by some set of attributes (e.g. the via negativa of Aquinas) but rather by His actions. Purpose determines existence. So Man is not God even though he bears the divine image because image is about purpose, not attribute, and Man can act according to God’s purposes. If we apply this Hebraic, rabbinic idea to the “Son of God,” we discover that the purpose of the Son is to fulfill the role of the Messiah, not necessarily to be God Himself. Read according to Hebraic thought, this passage in Philippians does not make any claim about equivalent “essence.” It says that Yeshua the Messiah did not attempt to become God but rather took on the role of the Messiah as servant.

The remaining text says merely en morphe theou, literally, “in form of God.” The word “form” is dative (i.e., an indirect object of the preposition en. The word “God” is genitive, i.e., indicating possession, therefore “of God.” There is no definite article (no “the”). So now we need to know what morphe (“form”) means. It turns out that morphe in the LXX is associated with “facial expression” or “facial color.” In classical Greek, morphe theou is often used of the gods of Greek religion; gods who have obvious physical forms. Of course, the Tanakh absolutely rejects any such application to YHVH, as does Yeshua in John 4. While YHVH manifests Himself in physical form (not always as a man), He has no form in His essence, as the second commandment clearly implies. No Jew in the first century would have ever thought of God in terms of physical form. But when Christian thought interprets Paul’s remark in Philippians, Behm’s statement is typical:

Exhorting to unselfish humility, the passage says that Jesus took the form of a doúlos in an act of exemplary renunciation. Prior to the incarnation he is in the form of God, i.e., he bears the image of the divine majesty, and after the incarnation he is exalted again as the kýrios. In antithesis to the earlier and the later glory, his incarnation is a time of humble service when he bends his own will to that of others. His self-denial is not just the opposite of a selfish exploitation of his position but stands in the sharpest possible contrast to his former mode of being in divine power and splendor. He comes down from the height of glory to the abyss of lowliness as the Redeemer who is both above history and in history. There is here no mythical concept of a god in human form, nor is there any idea of a metamorphosis. Materially the phrase morphē theoú is wholly in the biblical tradition;[4]

Consider once more Behm’s statement. If it is true, then prior to the incarnation Yeshua as God had no form because God has no form. In what way did He then bear the “image of divine majesty”? In function? Behm hints at this in his remark about “divine power and splendor.” But again, there is no morphe here. Morphe is a word about appearance, matter, what is perceived by the senses and not what is mentally apprehended. If this is the standard usage of morphe, then Paul is saying that Yeshua looked like God. How? How did Yeshua look like God? That is the whole point of Paul’s argument. He looked like God because he chose the way of humility rather than glory. He acted as God would act and in so doing appeared as God-like in purpose. It simply cannot be the case that Yeshua existed in some human form as God prior to the incarnation since that would violate everything the Tanakh teaches about God, so Paul must mean that Yeshua exhibited characteristics like God and in this way morphe theou (is perceived in appearance like God). This makes all the more sense if we take into account that Yeshua is the Messiah, the unique, only-begotten, divinely appointed Savior and Ruler who will act as Judge before turning all glory back to the Father. There is no textual justification for translating the words with the added “although He existed.” Those are theological imports, not Greek inclusions.

What if Paul is saying, “who, existing [being present] as an appearance of God [in character and action], considered equality with God unattainable, and humbled himself and took on the form of a slave”? What if this is a statement of the contrast between ha-Satan, who attempted to be equal with God, and Yeshua, who didn’t even try to do such a thing?

Could you live with that? I am not sure if I can, but it’s hard to kick against the grammar.

There is so much at stake in this verse that understanding what Paul says must be very carefully considered. First we need to clean up the obvious translation additions. We start by removing the capital letters. The Greek text was written in all capitals, so any insertion of capitals to signify definite nouns is merely a translator’s decision. This is particularly important when the capitalization of the pronoun presupposes divinity (“He”). The Greek text actually doesn’t even include the pronoun as a separate word. It is assumed in the verb construct (present, active, singular, masculine).

Secondly, we must recognize that the verb, hyparcho, is in the present tense, not the past tense. It cannot mean “he existed.” At best it must mean, “he exists.” But hyparcho has other translation problems. It is the combination of two Greek words, hypo and archomai. Hypo is a preposition usually meaning “under” (in relation to place) or “through” (in relation to agency, i.e., with verbs). Combined, these words usually mean “to commence, to begin, to exist,” but you can see that the nuance of the verb is not a continually state of being but rather the beginning of existence (as archomai means the first in a temporal order). The verb is also a participle, so we must remove the idea that this is about a past state of being and correct the translation to something like, “who, beginning in morphe theou,” or “who, existing in morphe theou.” There is no necessity to posit that this person existed in some past state as God. That means that the key to this verse is the translation of morphe theou (“form of God). We have already investigated morphe, discovering that it usually means external appearance in classical Greek and is rarely used in the LXX. Morphe theou is connected to the representation of pagan gods (their physical appearance) in Greek religion but philosophically the terms take on the idea of the “works” of the gods or the ideals found in the gods. Greek philosophers did not think of the gods in human forms like the legends of Homer but rather as superterrestrial beings who are “seen” in actions and values.

The use of morphe in the apostolic writings often means outward appearance (Mark 16:12, Luke 24:16). When Paul uses the term in Philippians, the point of the comparison is focused on the “form” of a slave. The passage is not primarily about a pre-existent state of being but rather about the choice to become a doulos, a man who in outward appearance is completely humble and subservient. Behm’s comment in the TDNT seems particularly theologically motivated rather than linguistically accurate. The theological interpretation of the terms morphe theou cause other English translations to follow the same path, sometimes even more explicitly Trinitarian and unwarranted. For example,

Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage; NIV

Notice the change from morphe (appearance) to “very nature,” a thought that would require a completely different word in Greek.

Who, though existing in the demut of the mode of being of Elohim [His etzem or essential nature], nevertheless Moshiach did not regard being equal with G-d as a thing to be seized   Orthodox Jewish Bible

Even though the claim is that this translation accurately depicts a Jewish view, the choice of demut and etzem suggest that Mashiach is connected directly to the Genesis account. The addition of “the mode of being of Elohim” is theologically motivated, not warranted by the Greek text.

Though he was God, he did not think of equality with God
as something to cling to. NLT

This translation (?) is as boldly Trinitarian as one could wish, simply asserting that morphe theou means “he was God.” There is no linguistic justification for this but it certainly settles the issue for any reader unaware of the Greek grammar.

Who, although being essentially one with God and in the form of God [possessing the fullness of the attributes which make God God], did not think this equality with God was a thing to be eagerly grasped or retained, Amplified Bible

The Amplified Bible does more than amplify the meanings of the terms. It adds a complex layer of theology to the text, essentially compressing an entire Trinitarian doctrine into the two Greek terms morphe theou.

What’s the bottom line? Unless you recognize the oddities of the Greek text (the present participle, the nuances of hyparcho, the complexities of morphe theou), you would assume that the English translation in any of the Bible choices proves that the Messiah is God. And you would be mistaken. This text isn’t enough. Stripped of its theological additions, the text says nothing more than Yeshua appears with god-like actions but chose to be a humble slave. Which version is more likely to be consistent with first century rabbinic Jewish thought?

Topical Index: Philippians 2:6, form, morphe, Trinity

This is the last of my ruminations on this subject. I am sure it will also engender many comments. But before we get fast and furious with each other, perhaps you might consider reading some or all of the following:

Patrick Navas Divine Truth or Human Tradition

Anthony Buzzard The Doctrine of the Trinity: Christianity’s Self-Inflicted Wound

Anthony Buzzard Jesus was not a Trinitarian  This is particularly good to demonstrate that opposition to the doctrine of the Trinity has been around since the second century.

Ureil ben-Mordechai If: the End of a Messianic Lie

 

[1] Ureil ben Mordechai, If: the End of a Messianic Lie, p. 427 ff.

[2] F. F. Bruce, Philippians: New International Biblical Commentary, p. 68.

[3] Aristotle, “By form I mean the essence of each thing and its primary substance.” (Z7, 1032b1-2)

[4] J. Behm in Kittel, G., Friedrich, G., & Bromiley, G. W. (1985). Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (608–609). Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans.

Subscribe
Notify of
109 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Kevin Rogers

Well done Skip, very thorough.
Since I first read you on this subject, I have struggled with it, nay wrestled with God! I am reading Abraham Heshel “man is not alone” “a philosophy of religion.” I think that what he says about doubt and wonder being gifts from God is so true, it is a blessing indeed.
I praise God that I have been blessed with discernment, what you reveal always rings true with me.
I thank you for the truth you reveal and the courage you exhibit.
May God continue to bless you mightily

carl roberts

Hail Him or Nail Him

Jesus was not God. Jesus was only (another) man.

Alright then. Let’s roll with this- shall we? Let us (together) identify the one who “claims” to be equal with God. Isn’t this considered “blasphemy?” – and what do we do with blasphemers? I say we crucify Him!!
But before we do- now that we have the facts before us (just the facts m’am!)- let us (together) consider the evidence that demands a verdict! This one called Jesus received (and still receives) the worship of men and of angels!

This One, (the carpenter’s son) has spoken these words: ” Which of you convinces Me of sin?” Accusers? -Please step forward and take the stand. Bring your best attorney with you- the one who holds the title: “Accuser of the Brethren.” Let’s put the One who said, “before Abraham was – I AM” on the stand- the judgment bar of our mind and examine this Lamb of God thoroughly- put Him under the microscope! – shall we?

It seems the courtroom is divided. One half says “Crucify Him” – If I recall, the words were – “away with HIm- let Him be crucified!” But which of you convinces Him of sin? And what of the others? This raging ragtag remnant of rowdy ragamuffins. They seem to be singing something! “Crown Him!!” What is this song of the redeemed ones they sing? ~ Worthy is the Lamb who was slain!! Holy- Holy is He. Sing a new song to Him who sits on Heaven’s Mercy Seat!!

There is One who has been vindicated and validated by God. One who was pierced for our transgressions. One was crushed for our sins. One who was beaten so we could be made whole. One who was whipped so we could be made whole. One who rose again on the third day- “just as He said.” One who I have never seen- yet love with all my heart-soul-mind- and strength! One of whom I will also testify: ~”You are worthy, our LORD and God, to receive glory and honor and power, for You created all things, and by Your will they were created and (now) have their being.” ~

There is One whose words give Life. One who taught us how to love. One who is coming again to receive those who belong to Him. One who is Savior. One who is Redeemer. One who humbled Himself to become a man and One was obedient unto death. One who God has highly exalted and One unto whom “all authority” has been given. One resurrected-LIving One who ever lives to make intercession for us.

The verdict is in: ~ I find no fault in Him! ~ Sinless. Spotless. Sovereign. Savior. He said, (seven times) – I AM and I agree (seven times) – He is!

HSB

Carl: just a few comments to respond to your post. You provide a useful metaphor in the reference to a trial/courtroom scene. In fact Jesus WAS tried in a court before the Sanhedrin. Let us look at the charges that were made against him. Please refer to the accounts in Matthew, Mark and Luke (John is silent on the actual trial). You say Jesus claimed to be God, received worship, identified Himself as the divine I AM multiple times… simply put this would constitute blasphemy. You might have added “forgave sins” since that was mentioned in the same three gospels as making the Pharisees think Jesus was blaspheming (even though the crowd at large gave glory to God for giving such authority to a man.) So SURELY all or at least many of these things would have been raised at the trial. In fact NONE of them were introduced in charges against Jesus. WOW. And here we already know they want to have Jesus killed. Why not simply execute him on the spot. NO. Actually Jesus deserves and gets a trial. The charges that are read out against Him amount to ONE! That is correct, ONE! There was a charge made that He claimed He would destroy the Temple and rebuild it in three days… oh but the witnesses cannot agree on what Jesus actually said in the Temple. Now I’m sure that you know that two or more witnesses MUST agree on testimony before the court, otherwise the charge is dismissed. In fact if you are interested I can explain what is going on with this alleged “destruction of the Temple” comment in light of John’s gospel. But I digress.
I want you to carefully consider what I have just outlined. The people who want Jesus dead have him in there power and provide a trial. Turns out there is only ONE charge and that is groundless when the two witnesses cannot agree…. That means there is NO CASE against Jesus…no case of claiming to be God (blasphemy), desecrating the Sabbath (itself a potential capital offense) etc. Now Jesus COULD have turned to the Sanhedrin and said “Look, I’m tired, exhausted, aching from the beatings etc I’m also hungry and thirsty. If you will excuse me I am going to get some sleep” and walked out. I repeat there is NO CASE against Jesus. They had no legal reason to hold Him any longer!

But of course the story does not end there. Jesus came to die so he must, but NOT because he violated ANY of the Torah commandments. Problem: How can this be reconciled? Jesus then helps them out by SELF-INCRIMINATION. When asked directly by the High Priest if He was the Messiah, the Son of God (note the High priest is not asking him if he is God, simply using the full title of the Messiah) Jesus STILL could have simply said “Yes, so what?” It is NOT a capital offense to claim to be Messiah, even a failed one. Note that Bar Kokva was a failed Messiah but is still considered a hero to the Jews. The Sanhedrin might have sonsidered Jesus to be deluded and sent him away with a flogging. But Jesus goes further. The three gospels do not agree on exactly what Jesus said next. Did He say “You will see the Son of Man sitting at right hand of power” or was it “God” or was it “The power of God”? The gospels are divided here. Why? Because there has been a substitution made. Check out Psalms 110:1 (the most quoted OT verse in the NT) “YHWH said to my lord Sit at my right hand…” Jews do not pronounce out loud the actual name of God, they substitute with Adonai, Hashem, Power, Heaven etc. Do you think Jesus did that??? Or do you think he wrote The Name on a piece of paper and pointed to it? Hardly! He SAID the Name out loud, and according to the Talmud such utterance in the time of the second Temple was considered blasphemy! Oh the Talmud also declares that the High priest was to rip his clothes (never to be mended) and pronounce the death sentence against the offender. That is why the High Priest says “Why do we need witnesses? You have heard IT (the blasphemy!) he turns to the Sanhedrin and they say “He is worthy of death!”

Let’s review. Jesus NEVER broke or twisted ANY of the Torah commandments. Yet he is found guilty of blasphemy according to the Oral Law. That was the result of the court case. Note that he was NOT accused of claiming to be the “I AM”. If you study John’s gospel note that the blind man standing before the Sanhedrin on examination also says “I am”. Translators typically add a little word not found in the original Greek “he”. I am (he)! Do you not think the lawyers who were continually outmaneuvered by Jesus would not have used every available possible charge against Him. No!! They send him the crucifixion because of an Oral Law infraction they have invented, just like the ceremonial washing of “the fists” before eating.

I agree with much of what you wrote: Jesus was vindicated, validated by God, pierced for us, crushed, beaten, whipped and rose against after death. He is in fact One whose words give life, taught us how to love, is coming again, Savior, Redeemer, humbled Himself, obedient to death, exalted by God (The Father) and given all authority. The verdict of his trial found “acquittal of all Torah violations”, sinless, spotless, etc. We disagree about who is sitting on the throne in Rev 4:11. I think it is YHWH as per Rev 4:8

The big obstacle for most Christians is separating the idea of Messiahship from deity. Jews in the book of Acts, by the myriads, came to belief in the fact that Jesus/Yeshua was the promised Mashiach of Israel. It is a totally different question whether he was actually God as well. We can agree that Jesus is the Christ (Messiah) the Son of the Living God! amen.

Ian Hodge

But nailed to the cross was a statement objectionable to the Jews of the Day . . .THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEW . The Jews quibbled about this statement, for it was too declaratory for them.

So in the mix of this discussion, there needs to be some explanation why Yeshua thought he now had the prerogative to insist that people should obey “my” [i.e. his] commandments. From when did such authority arise that “his” commandments could replace Torah? Or was Torah really “his” commandments? IN which case, in what sense is the Torah a possession of the Messiah?

Ian Hodge

If kingship is delegated to the Messiah, whose laws were delegated at the same time. Yeshua seems convinced that the Torah was “his” commandments. Delegation would required the Father to give up his Kingship and hand over equal authority to another. But that does not appear to be how ‘delegation’. Like tha parable of the stewards, they were ‘delegated’ responsibilities then held accountable. To whom is the Messiah accountable? Himself? And to what standard will he be held accountable? Torah? If so, Torah is the possession of the Father, not the Son. So the question becomes, what does it mean for the Father to ‘delegate’ his Kingship to the extent that Thomas can proclaim, “My Lord and my God.”

David F.

Perhaps this may help (or confuse things):
Proverbs 3:1 “My son, forget not my law; but let thine heart keep my commandments: 2 For length of days, and long life, and peace, shall they add to thee. 3 Let not mercy and truth forsake thee: bind them about thy neck; write them upon the table of thine heart: 4 So shalt thou find favour and good understanding in the sight of God and man.”
Proverbs 6:20 “My son, keep thy father’s commandment, and forsake not the law of thy mother: 21 Bind them continually upon thine heart, and tie them about thy neck. 22 When thou goest , it shall lead thee; when thou sleepest , it shall keep thee; and when thou awakest , it shall talk with thee. 23 For the commandment is a lamp; and the law is light; and reproofs of instruction are the way of life”

So is Solomon talking about his own set of rules or is he speaking of YHWH’s Torah? I’ve always read this as YHWH’s commands with Solomon providing the commentary to his son, so to speak. If that’s the case then Solomon has no problem calling them “My commands; your father’s commands; the Torah of your mother” and neither would the rabbi’s in the days of Yeshua

Ian Hodge

How does this apply to my closing sentence? I don’t recall anyone addressing Solomon, “My Lord and my God”.

David F.

Sorry this is what I was addressing Ian. (Not very computer savvy): If kingship is delegated to the Messiah, whose laws were delegated at the same time. Yeshua seems convinced that the Torah was “his” commandments. Delegation would required the Father to give up his Kingship and hand over equal authority to another. But that does not appear to be how ‘delegation’. Like tha parable of the stewards, they were ‘delegated’ responsibilities then held accountable. To whom is the Messiah accountable? Himself? And to what standard will he be held accountable? Torah? If so, Torah is the possession of the Father, not the Son. So the question becomes, what does it mean for the Father to ‘delegate’ his Kingship to the extent that Thomas can proclaim, “My Lord and my God.”

Ian Hodge

Thus, if the Messiah is elevated to any kind of status of deity because he was not that in the first instance, to the extent that he can be called “My Lord and my God” we have, right there, polytheism. Maybe this is one of the reasons the early church believers accepted trinitarianism over unitarianism – to avoid polytheism.

David F.

Sorry again. This is what I was addressing (Now that everyone is confused!): “So in the mix of this discussion, there needs to be some explanation why Yeshua thought he now had the prerogative to insist that people should obey “my” [i.e. his] commandments. From when did such authority arise that “his” commandments could replace Torah? Or was Torah really “his” commandments? IN which case, in what sense is the Torah a possession of the Messiah?”

IF Solomon could proclaim the Torah as his commands/his wife’s Torah, then why could Yeshua not do the same, as King of the Jews or one sent with authority from YHWH? And if that is the case then why would polytheism even be in question with the early church fathers? Or trinitariansim for that matter…

Maybe as Skip pointed out, “If Yeshua is the Messiah and the rabbinic authority over his disciples, then why should they not follow “his” commandment since it would be completely and perfectly in line with Torah?” Seems like that applied in Solomon’s case in the scriptures I mentioned. Unless there is something of the Hebrew there I do not grasp….

Ian Hodge

You make a valid point concerning Solomon’s use of “my” law. But . . . another question that falls out is this question of YHVH ‘delegating’ his Kingship to another? Is Kingship something that God ‘possesses’ in such a way that it can be given away and yet YHVH remains God in his fullest extent? It is true that he made man in his image, and theologians speak of this as prophet, priest, and king. But if man is merely an analogy of YHVH, has YHVH really ‘given up’ any of his divine attributes? And would doing that make the recipient some kind of divinity? This merely leads us back to the ‘relationship’ between YHVH and the Messiah, the meaning of the word used by the church fathers “begotten” rather than “created”, the issue of the incarnation itself, and how do we avoid polytheism in any form.

Ian Hodge

BTW, identifying similarities between Solomon and Yeshua on the divine law does not conclude the issue. Solomon never said those intriguing words, “Follow Me!” 🙂

Rosanne Martino

I think we also need to consider that Jesus may have been considered to have blasphemed against the High Priest. The High Priest could forgive sins and presided over a council of 70. Jesus forgave sins and appointed 70. We need to remember the times they were living in with a corrupt High Priest who was in collusion with the Roman Empire. Rome expected the High Priest to keep the people in submission and to quell any rebellions against their authority. The High Priest would have considered Jesus and his followers a threat to his own position and security and may have felt that Jesus was setting up an alternate Sandhedrin.

Haydee

I love it!!!

Haydee

Wonderful!!!

Lori Johnson

Thank you, Skip. Thank you for your willingness to parse Greek correctly and effectively, to remind us of the diametrically opposed mindsets between Greek and Hebrew thinkers, and to be willing to share what you’ve learned. Such a mensch!

derek

I think the stumbling block for people seems to be the idea, “In order to be Messiah you have to be God”. Once you lose that notion and realize that the argument is not, “He is Messiah or not?”, but rather, “Does the Messiah have to be God or not?” it becomes way less emotional. I don’t think anyone here is arguing that Yeshua was not the Messiah. Obviously there are different ‘religions’ or beliefs that don’t see Yeshua as not but to a christian and especially a christian finding their roots, there is over whelming evidence that Yeshua is indeed the Messiah.

I appreciate your hard work that you have put into this Skip. Thank you

Michael C

I have been reading Anthony Buzzard’s book “The Doctrine of the Trinity: Christianity’s Self-Inflicted Wound.”

VERY interesting. He makes some strong points worthy of considering as does Skip in his shared quest of discovery regarding the issue of who Yeshua is.

I look forward to reading the other three.

That question: “Who do you say that I am?” What a challenging question.

Ian Hodge

I have not read any of Buzzard’s books on this subject. But I will be interested to know if he makes any comment on why the emperors favored Arianism over Trinitarianism? Is it possible that Arianism somehow lends itself – unintentionally, perhaps – towards the idea of divinity at the head of the political pyramid?

Ian Hodge

It’s an intriguing – and important – question. I’ll be interested in what you find out.

Ian Hodge

I will also be interested to know what commentary might be made on these words of Arius, from his Thalia: “To speak in brief, God is ineffable to His Son. For He is to Himself what He is, that is, unspeakable. So that nothing which is called comprehensible does the Son know to speak about; for it is impossible for Him to investigate the Father, who is by Himself. For the Son does not know His own essence, for, being Son, he really existed, at the will of the Father. What argument then allows, that He who is from the Father should know His own parent by comprehension? For it is plain that for that which hath a beginning to conceive how the Unbegun is, or to grasp the ideas, is not possible.”

This seems to indicate that the Son can know nothing about the Father at all. And what does Arius allude to by saying ” For He is to Himself what He is, that is, unspeakable.”? Is he saying the Father cannot even speak about himself? And that final sentence seems to say that no being which has a beginning can know the Unbegun. Which would mean that we can know nothing of the Father.

Skip, you really like selecting complex issues to discuss. 😉

Ian Hodge

BTW, just to explore the issue here, you’ve already made reference to Aristotle and Plato concerning unity and diversity, the one and the many. So the question really becomes: does Arianism emphasize unity over particularity? If so, how does it conceive of unity in the political sphere?

The same question relates to marriage and the relationship of the individuals (particulars) to the marriage itself (unity). What’s more important: the individuals in the marriage or the marriage? How do we know which one is more important, or why they might even be of equal importance? How does any form of unitarianism find a solution to the one and the many?

Michael C

Ian,

Buzzard/Hunting dedicate a few chapters to theater of thought: VI. The Trinity and Politics, VII. The Nature of Preexistence in the New Testament, VIII. Joh, Preexistence and the Trinity, also V. From the Hebrew World of the Bible to the Twentieth Century via Greek Philosophy.

But I don’t see Constantine favoring the Arian view of Trinitarian, but the opposite, according to Buzzard. Constantine’s “illiterate biblical knowledge” ended up favoring, according to Buzzard, the minority opinion of the Alexandrian view of Jesus as coequal, coeternal and preexistent with the Father (basically ‘decetic’) as opposed to Arius’s view that “Jesus, as Son of God, must have had a beginning and, though preexistent, could not have been coeternal and coequal with the Father.” (Buzzard, pg 149.)

Buzzard also argues that there is no preexistence for Yeshua in Matthew, Mark or Luke.

After finishing this book, I will endeavor to read your recommended book as well.

Regarding your other question as to whether there was a genuine incarnation, I am certainly not yet equipped to even begin to answer. After gathering more info I will attempt to address that issue. You are more armed with relative information than I am at this stage, however, thank you for the insightful and direction of questions.

I’m running fast and trying to catch up but the farther I run the “behinder” I get, it seems!

Ian Hodge

Constantine wasn’t the only emperor. It is necessary to follow the debate from Nicea (325 A.D.) to Constantinople (381 A.D.) and perhaps beyond to see how politics of the time were intertwined with the religious arguments of the day.

Truthful Loving Kindness

Skip, I know haven’t heard from me in very very long time: My abilities to understand what I read have drastically dramatically dropped (to point don’t understand paragraph when still writing it). But from what I could get, looks like you are where I was 5yrs ago. Literally cried self to sleep ever night for 24months. (( Hugs )) very hard to keep looking at it objectively. I am still here & writing truthfulkindness.com as long into my dementia as possible. I can read 4th grade still. It has been 14yrs since I first became disabled so doing real well :D. Every1 has their niche & sometimes I think writing thru this dementia is a big part of why I was created. I was told 25yrs ago (by stranger) that I was in training to deliver msg. People -LOTS of people would be hanging on my every word & it is happening now. Asked to submit abstract big dementia conference 2015 Australia but decided against it. Very very blessed & passing it on. — Truthful Loving Kindness

Haydee

I was living in other dimension and had lost my memory. Couldn’t remember if I had fed my baby and my other 3 kids. My world was a strange dimension of confusion. The trees, the sky, my house were all distorted. Couldn’t do anything anymore but lay in a couch looking at my pale hands. To make a long story short, Jesus Christ healed me completely in a matter of seconds. God’s power overcame my whole body, a powerful electricity got a whole of my body from the sole of my feet to my head and I got completely healed for the glory of the Almighty God! Watch my testimony in youtube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JtQeGTVNOQo&list=UUoXX2hhtbClg3aR46s7Vi3w

Michael Stanley

Off topic, but where else to post.

Knowing and believing in the power and efficaciousness of community prayer I ask those who read this and are willing to stand with my wife, myself and multiple believers in Jamaica against the enemies encroachment upon our island this very day (Sunday Oct 19, 2014). At 2 pm (EST) Louis Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam will be staging a “Million Man March” in our capital city of Kingston. Please pray and stand with us that their seeds of deception do not take root in the souls of the men and women of Jamaica. Pray that Yah will raise up voices shouting from the moutain tops, proclaiming the truth of Torah for the nation to behold, hear and obey it’s author – Yeshuha HaMashiach.
Thank you. Michael and Arnella

Michael Stanley

3 pm EST, not 2 pm. An hour behind us… Island time, you know.

LaVaye Billings

Dear Michael and Arnelle, So glad to see the female’s smiling picture again! Yes, since I lived in a third world Islamic country, and have kept abreast with its teachings, and more recently seen it on TV, DVD, computer news, yes I will stand with you in prayer over the deceptions of all that you mention. If all of us to do not have a great burden and sincerely intercede against the forces of this old evil. Our own dear families, & people, other Christians everywhere will be total slaves to the Islamic religion.
To all: please do not take this lightly! Pay attention to this prayer request-the hours of marching, speaking may be over; their deeds will never be over!

sharon

To His elect,

Dear Skip,

Your visitation draws near.

I was woke up in the night with a dream about you, it shook me awake and I started to pray.
I am willing to share the dream with you if you like.
I only bring this to you now because it is about this very subject, and I know you are greatly loved by your heavenly Father who might have a message for you.

Blessings,
Abigail

Ian Hodge

It seems the real question is whether or not the Messiah had a beginning? If he did, he is either a special class of ontology, different again from human beings or the being of YHVH who is uncreated. So is the Messiah a ‘god’ but not ‘God’, as some people try to explain him? Is the Messiah deity in any sense or merely just one of us – ontologically speaking?

And so we legitimately ask: who is the real Savior? YHVH or the Messiah? Isa. 43:1ff might help.
And who is the King? YHVH or the Messiah? That is, who is the law-maker – because that’s what kings do. Keep reading Isa. 43 and then pop over to Revelation.

And if anyone is looking for an alternative view on the implications of Trinitarian doctrine and what will be given up by abandoning a triune God, I suggest The One, the Three And the Many: God, Creation and Culture of Modernity – Colin E. Gunton

Michael C

Hi Ian,

If Yeshua was uncreated, how can he be born human via a human mother via a fetus in a mothers womb. Some kind of trickery?
Isn’t being born human, created? Didn’t he begin at conception or was that an illusion?

Just some questions I started wrestling with in regard to your questions and statements.

What a mind bender this topic is!

Ian Hodge

So the question then becomes, was there are genuine Incarnation?

Robin

Michael and Ian,
Good day fellow followers! I am struggling with this concept being discussed and taught on here and I truly want to grasp YHWH’s truth. Help me here:

How do we reconcile that Yeshua says,”Moses wrote about Him”? (Especially all of the prophecies).
And Colossains 1:13-20?
Oh, and all authority is given to Yeshua? There’s no greater name?
Or in Revelation 5, only the Lamb is worthy to open,”The Books”?

Please help… SHALOM!

Michael C

I’m not sure which Michael you were addressing, Robin. Regardless, this has and still is an ongoing issue with my search.

I must confess that I have a need to become more disciplined and focused. It is difficult to keep up with all Skip presents. I have been dabbling in too many issues of late. My original intent was to throw pretty much everything off my overly crowded table of doctrinal comforts and then pick them up again, one at a time, and inspect them. If anything remained substantial then I’d put it back on the table, if not, into the trash bin.

Unfortunately, I have seemed to pick up too many ideas at one time and have neglected to adequately weigh each. The trinity is such a topic. Tons of things to look at and verify.

That said, I look forward to anything you share regarding this trinity issue. I will attempt to make offerings as I get to them. I thank YHVH for Skips acumen on these many topics. I have many years of study to simply understand what the conversation is about. Hopefully, I will get there. Presently, my time has become more divided. Less time for the study part.

vivian garner

Finally, a logical examination of the Trinitarian doctrine. Thank you, Skip for sticking with this. Long overdue.

Heiki

Food for thought, what can I say… this is not milk nor for the faint of heart. I have mulled over what you have written several times, and will still have to mull over it and search the scriptures; Acts 17, Berean thing to do.
The Bereans only had the OT so the answer is there…

Brian

This is from James D. G. Dunn’s book “The Theology of Paul the Apostle.” In this section of the book he is dealing with the Philippians 2:6-11 passage.

“A vigorous debate still continues around this hymnic passage. However, the suggestion that the hymn has been constructed with strong allusion to Adam or even modeled on the template of Adam christology is still persuasive.
Before elaborating the claim and dealing with the strong critique leveled against it, and important preliminary point needs to be made. That is on the nature of allusion. For the fact of the manner is that too much of the debate on the exegesis of this passage has displayed rather crass artistic or literary insensitivity. as we have occasion to observe more than once in the present study, allusions by their nature are not explicit. Poets or literary critics who had to spell out every allusion and echo would undermine their art and deprive their more perceptive readers of the moment of illumination, the thrill of recognition. Their artistic skills would be reduced to the level of high school examination cribs.” (pp. 282-283)

His conclusion on this section is what follows.

“It is precisely the function of such allusive poetry to set in motion such a sequence of reflection and parallels. But the fact remains that it has also set in motion the thought of Christ’s preexistence. And a commentator could hardly draw out the one while disallowing the other. The problem would then remain of filling out that thought of preexistence. Is Christ Jesus then to be envisaged as making an Adamic choice at some time (!) in eternity? A choice in effect to become man? That is the inevitable corollary. The only qualification which needs to be made is once again that this is an extended metaphor. In the parallel Wisdom christology we observed that it was not simply Christ, God’s Son, who was being spoken of in the Wisdom christology, but Christ as Wisdom. So here it is not simply Christ Jesus as such of whom the hymn speaks, but Christ Jesus in the role of Adam, the Adam that God intended. Wisdom’s preexistence allowed amazing language to be used of Christ. So also Adam’s prehistory allowed similarly amazing language to be used of Christ. The mistake would be to collapse the metaphor into a straight-to lose sight of and hold on what it expresses. The metaphor is the message.
Whatever the actual (range of) imagery, however, the basic message of the hymn is clear enough. As a continuation of the appeal of 2.1-4, Christ is presented as one who did not stand on status but emptied himself, as one whose life speaks of serving not grasping, as one whose way to exaltation was only through death.” (p. 288)

Brian

I believe it is vitally important we understand that this was a hymn already in use within the followers of the Way. I am also convinced the imagery it evoked must be appreciated to rightly approach this provocative and poetic hymn.

Craig

Brian (and anyone else, of course), if you’re still reading here, I wholeheartedly agree with your comment at 12:47 pm, though I think I’ll arrive at a different destination than you. In addition, I like Dunn’s work, even when I disagree with him, as he is consistently thought-provoking. I can’t say that I disagree with the overall point he’s making in the quotes provided. Poetic language, good poetic language – of which Philippians 2:6-11 clearly is – is usually meant to be understood at multiple levels, and typically has some fluidity, in ‘poetic license’. I would say there is an echo of Adam here, but not an “Adam Christology”, in agreement with Gordon Fee (“The New Testament and Kenosis Christology”, in C. Stephen Evans, Ed. Exploring Kenotic Christology: The Self-Emptying of God, Regent College Publishing, Vancouver, BC, 2010 – a work I thoroughly reviewed on Amazon and on my own blog). Fee states that we should not begin our exegesis with a framework that this is an Adam Christology.

Among other things, Fee points out that, in disagreement with Dunn, that morphē, which is also used in verse 7 of the hymn, the subject verse of the work cited just above, is not synonymous with eikōn, and that the former never carries the sense of “image” here or elsewhere, to include verse 6 (p 32). Fee goes on [Greek transliterated] as he takes Dunn to task on this:

T]his view seems to make little or no sense at all of the primary verb in the opening sentence, ekenōsev, especially if taken literally (how can Christ as second Adam empty himself by becoming a slave?). One could, however, make some sense of it as a metaphor (as the new Adam, Christ made himself nothing by bearing the very nature of a slave). But then the question must be, Why such a strong metaphor, when all the second Adam must do is to reject/renounce Adam’s grasping after ‘god-likeness’ in order to show the way of servanthood? The verb kenoō (to empty), taken either literally or metaphorically, is simply too strong to sustain the analogy with Adam (p 32).

I’ll have more to say about Skip’s exegesis on Philippians 2:6 below.

Brian

Craig, how are you doing? I have been a big fan of Dunn’s work for well over a decade. He is a brilliant scholar with a pastoral heart. I agree with you, he is engaging to read, even when you may come to a different conclusion. He is a writer that should be carefully and critically read.

Would you please give me the link to your review above.

Many blessings on you today!

Craig

Brian,

Doing well; hope you’re same. Sticking with Mark’s request to leave off links, you should be able to find the review by searching “Crosswise exploring kenotic”. The book reviewed is a series of essays by different authors, and the one by Fee is the only one to engage with Dunn. The book discusses the various ways in which some interpret “kenosis” in Philippians 2:7, so it’s more about the various kenosis theories than Dunn. I state this, as you may be disappointed that my review really doesn’t discuss much at all about Dunn. In fact, my comment here discusses more!

I have a couple books by Dunn, as well as his WBC commentary on Romans (2 vols.) and his NIGTC commentary on Colossians and Philemon.

Craig

Interestingly, as I reread your October 21, 2014 12:46 pm quotation of Dunn, I realized that a portion of this is in an essay I just quoted from in my April 9, 2017 2:06 pm comment just below!

laurita hayes

I want to know why, to speak about ‘beginning’, we just can’t seem to get a time line of some sort out of the terminology, if not out of the head? Why cannot the Son be a Derivative, in the sense that He is Begotten, or Come From, instead of Begun? There is that sneaky time language again! It is entirely probable, if that is so, that there never was a ‘time’ when there was a Source without His Derivative, a Lover without His Beloved, is it not? And how else is He going to love Himself?

Ian Hodge

“That means the reading of this verse should be “counted not something to be grasped,” instead of “not counted something to be grasped.” Let me make the difference clearer. The standard Christian translation of this Greek phrase suggests that Yeshua did not consider equality something to be grasped. But the actual Greek text reads, “counted equality not something that could be grasped.”

By the time you’ve arrived at your second attempt of translating the text, the word ‘could’ has been inserted. What drives the inclusion of that particular word? For it seems that “counted not something to be grasped” and “counted equality not something that could be grasped” are not identical statements.

Lowell Hayes

For all of us dummies out here like me, please reduce this down to a few conclusions that we can fully understand. We need help to understand.

Ester

Oh dear, this is a confounding and so challenging issue.
WHO is the Aleph Tav/The Beginning and The End?
Isaiah 41: 4
מִֽי־פָעַל וְעָשָׂה קֹרֵא הַדֹּרֹות מֵרֹאשׁ אֲנִי יְהוָה
רִאשֹׁון וְאֶת־אַחֲרֹנִים אֲנִי־הֽוּא׃
Who hath wrought and done it, calling the generations from the beginning?
I YHWH, the first, and with the last; I am he.

Rev 1:8

I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.
Lord/κύριος
he to whom a person or thing belongs, about which he has power of deciding; master, lord
the possessor and disposer of a thing
the owner; one who has control of the person, the master

“which is, and which was, and which is to come (heyah hoveh v’yiheyeh), the Almighty (EL Gibbor)” is generally known to us as “I AM” -there is NONE like Him in any way, He is the Set-apart One, He is Eternal, The Creator, YHWH.
This brings us to Isaiah 9:6 :- (
“To whom does El-Gibbor refer in Isaiah 9?
Broadening our context from Isaiah 9 over to chapters 7 and 8, we find three examples of children being named according to their respective occasions. If we broaden our context to Isaiah’s contemporaries, we find another prophet also giving names to children in Hosea 1.

The name is not intended to describe the child. Rather, the names describe the prophetic context to which each child was born. It seems probable that Pele’-yo’ez-‘el-gibbor-‘abiy’ar-sar-shalom, if it is indeed a prophetic name is not meant to describe the child, but the situation to which that child is born (established in Isaiah 7-8): that God would preserve the throne of David in the kingdom of Judah through the threat of Israel, Syria, and Assyria.

This seems verified by the phrase found in the next verse, 9.7: ‘The zeal of YHWH of hosts will do this’.
While Isaiah did not, of course, write the historical appendix found in Isaiah 36-39 (= 2 Kings 18.13-20.19), these chapters are part of the final form of the book, and shed light on how Isaiah 9.6-7 was understood in the sixth century BC by the book’s editors.
That particular phrase, ‘The zeal of YHWH of hosts will do this’, is not found anywhere else in the Hebrew scriptures, nor the New Testament… except for Isaiah 37.32 (= 2 Kings 19.31), where it is found in a historical context immediately relevant to Isaiah 7-8: Judah is under threat by Assyria, after Assyria had just conquered Syria and Israel (2 Kings 16.1-18.12, which is just prior to the section that has been copied from 2 Kings into the book of Isaiah).
Given all of the above, it seems most likely that the prophetic name Pele’-yo’ez-‘el-gibbor-‘abiy’ar-sar-shalom refers to King Hezekiah, and describes what God would do for Judah through that king’s reign.” StackExchange.

Very interesting and enriching indeed. Thank you for challenging us to dig deeper. Blessings to you, Skip.

Mel Sorensen

Skip, thanks for referencing the book by Ureil ben Mordechai, “If: the End of a Messianic Lie”. It caught my attention and I was even more interested when I looked it up on the internet. I just received my copy of the book and am looking forward to an interesting and challenging read. Thanks again for all your work on this subject.

Anthony Buzzard

Might I suggest something simple: If one quotes or alludes to an Old Testament passage about 23 times, it must have gigantic significance. Jesus, after affirming the unitarian, non-Trinitarian creed of Israel, agreeing with a fellow Jew, goes on to answer the obvious question about his own relation to that one and only YHWH. Alas, translations have played tricks on you with the Curse of the Capital. The second lord of Psalm 110:1 is unequivocally non-Deity. Adoni, in all 195 occurrences, designates someone who is not Deity. Add to that 1300 occurrences of God = the Father in the New Testament, and 11,000 of the various words for God, none of which can be shown to mean a Triune God. Is any reasonable person still convinced that Bible writers were Trinitarians? Note even the favorite John 8:58: Is this “Before Abraham comes to be [in the resurrection], I am he [ the Messiah]” ? Even if we take the aorist infinitive in a past tense, the promise of the Messiah antedates even Abraham, who looked forward to Messiah’s day. Really, if we cannot accept the Shema and obey it, how serious are we about discipleship? Thanks for having a look at my two books on this subject: The Doctrine of the Trinity: Christianity’s Self-Inflicted Wound and Jesus Was Not a Trinitarian.

Lilly

Do you have a link of the debate that you and Joseph Good refute the trinity while Dr. michael Brown and James White defend it?

Brad Freeman

Could you please “Anthony Buzzard” incorporate into your insight above a specific topic: Emendations of the Sopherim. I read somewhere that verse 5 of Psalm 110 is an emendation from YHWH to Adonay?

Haydee

[Ureil ben-Mordechai[1] points out that the Greek negative in this verse (ouk) is not attached to the verb (hegesato) but rather to the noun harpagmon. That means the reading of this verse should be “counted not something to be grasped,” instead of “not counted something to be grasped.” Let me make the difference clearer. The standard Christian translation of this Greek phrase suggests that Yeshua did not consider equality something to be grasped. But the actual Greek text reads, “counted equality not something that could be grasped.” In other words, if the negative particle ouk is tied to the noun rather than the verb, the implication is the Yeshua saw equality with God as something unattainable. Do you realize what this means? It means that this verse does not say that Yeshua gave up equality with God voluntarily because it did not serve the purposes of the Messiah. It says that Yeshua never aspired to be equal with God because equality with God is not possible.]

I think that in order to discard Yeshua’s deity as many want to do, we not only need this simple verse analysis but the whole others that prove His deity. I mean they would need to come with a whole new Testament. Not only that but they would need to prove wrong all the great miracles that has happened in Yeshua’s name even the resurrection of many declared dead people that has happened in Yeshua’s name on this era. They would also need to prove that the miracle healing of the creation of a new kidney in my body, the restoring of my paralyzed face and the healing of my amnesia in the Name of Yeshua was false .

Chris

Yeshua’s dying words were “Eli, Eli, llama sabachtani” which is a call for all in hearing to recall Psalm 2 but doesn’t that also mean that Yeshua has a God?

José

Well. Losing all assumptions, how about translating the Greek and Hebrew for what it says?

Ric

“What if this is a statement of the contrast between ha-Satan, who attempted to be equal with God, and Yeshua, who didn’t even try to do such a thing?”

What if this is a statement of the contrast between the first Adam, who failed when tempted to have “equality with God” (“your eyes will be opened and you will be like God “) and Yeshua (the second Adam) who didn’t even try to do such a thing?

Ric

While the first Adam was in the image (form?) of God, he/she chose to be like God thus bringing forth death to all. Perhaps Yeshua (the second Adam) overcame the same temptation thus bringing life to all.

Ric

By the way, another good, thorough book on the subject is “The Only True God : a Study of Biblical Monotheism” by Eric H. H. Chang.

Craig

From the OP:

Ureil ben-Mordechai points out that the Greek negative in this verse (ouk) is not attached to the verb (hegesato) but rather to the noun harpagmon. That means the reading of this verse should be “counted not something to be grasped,” instead of “not counted something to be grasped.”

While I can understand ben-Mordechai seeing it this way, philological evidence illustrates that the two words harpagmon hēgēsato form a stereotyped idiom in contemporaneous extra-biblical literature, including Eusebius [see Roy W. Hoover, The Harpagmos Enigma: A Philological Solution, Harvard Theological Review, Jan. 1971]. So, the negative particle negates the two-word phrase, not harpagmon only – essentially negating the verbal phrase. Hence “not counted something to be grasped” or, better, “not regarded as something to use for advantage”, and variations thereof, are suitable translations.

The same negative particle + noun arrangement is found in Hebrew 12:8 and in the LXX at 2 Chronicles 15:3.

These two are not parallel, as the syntax is different. In Philippians 2:6, though the negative particle precedes the noun, the noun is a predicate accusative (direct object) – and, as just noted, part of a stereotyped idiom to include the noun-verb combination. In Hebrews 12:8, on the other hand, the negative particle precedes a predicate nominative, with both preceded by the conjunction kai (“and”) and a predicate adjective before the conjunction, which places the predicate adjective (“illegitimates/bastards”) in apposition with the negated predicate nominative (“not [God’s] sons”). The entire phrase comprises the predicate nominative. Word-for-word it is “illegitimates/bastards and not [God’s] sons”. Adding the verb, which is placed at the end in the Greek: “illegitimates/bastards and not [God’s] sons you are” (nothoi kai ouch huioi este). Proper English would be “you are illegitimates/bastards and not [God’s] sons”.

The LXX of 2 Chronicles 15:3 is a series of datives negated by the particle, separated by the conjunction kai, though the purported parallel is a genitive functioning as a dative (indirect object) in the following form: conjunction + particle + genitive (noun acting as a dative) + genitive participle (participles are verbal adjectives, and in this case it’s acting as adjective for the genitive/dative noun). In transliterated Greek it’s ouch hiereōs hypodeiknyontos, which, word-for-word in a ‘wooden’ translation is “not priest teaching”. It’s better rendered “without a teaching priest”.

In summary, in both Hebrews 12:8 and 2 Chron. 15:3 the negative particle negates the noun; however, these function quite differently than Philippians 2:6. In the former the negative particle is negating a noun placed in apposition with an adjective (adjectival noun), the entire phrase functioning as the predicate nominative. In the latter case, a series of datives are separated by kai (“and”), with one of these datives in the form of noun–participle (negative particle + noun + verbal adjective), which is not the same as noun–verb.

[A technical correction is in order: It’s not ouk in Philippians 2:6, rather it’s ouch – the difference between a kappa (κ) and a chi (χ). A very understandable error, as when the particle ou precedes a word beginning with a vowel, either a kappa is added (when the initial vowel has the smooth breathing mark such as ρχή, archē), or a chi (when the initial vowel has the rough breathing mark – resulting in a verbalized “h” sound in front of the vowel in pronunciation). Since harpagmon has the rough breathing mark (οὐχ ρπαγμὸν γήσατο – both noun and verb have a rough breathing mark over the initial vowel), it is transliterated with an initial “h”.]

Craig

…But hyparcho has other translation problems. It is the combination of two Greek words, hypo and archomai. Hypo is a preposition usually meaning “under” (in relation to place) or “through” (in relation to agency, i.e., with verbs). Combined, these words usually mean “to commence, to begin, to exist,” but you can see that the nuance of the verb is not a continually state of being but rather the beginning of existence (as archomai means the first in a temporal order).

Meanings of compound words do not necessarily conform to a simple adding of the meanings of their constituent parts. To think in this way is to fall prey to what is known as the root fallacy. In fact, it’s not uncommon for Koine Greek words to adopt a completely new meaning apart from preposition + word. As but one example, hypoballō is the combination of hypo and ballō, the latter meaning (a) throw, (b) expel, (c) bring about a change in state/condition, (d) deposit money, (e) rush down. Yet the compound word hypoballō takes on the whole new meaning of “instigate (secretly), suborn” (BDAG).

The verb hyparchō is used quite a bit in the NT, with the meaning “exist”, “be”, with no connotation of “beginning” in the verb itself: Lk 9:48; 16:14; Ac 2:30; 3:2; 7:55; 8:16; 16:3; 16:20, 37; 17:24, 29; 19:31; 22:3; 27:12; Ro 4:19; 1 Cor 7:26; 11:7; 12:22; 2 Cor 8:17; 12:16; 12:22; Gal 1:14; 2:14; Js 2:15; 2 Pt 2:19; 3:11. BDAG states that in some of these passages the meaning “be inherently (so)” cannot be ruled out. The BDAG definition applicable here (the 2nd of two) is “to be in a state or circumstance, be as a widely used substitute in H[omeric] Gk. for einai”, this last word (einai) is the very one used in the latter part of Philippians 2:6 – the infinitive form of “be” = “being”.

Most Greek scholars assert that the article (to) preceding einai indicates that the phrase “being equal to God” anaphorically refers back to hyparchō, that is, that the clause including einai is directly related to the clause including hyparchō. In other words, “who, existing in morphe theou” is directly correlative with “being equal with God”. Since it was determined above (March 29, 2017 3:45 pm) that ouch harpagmon hēgēsato means “not regarded as something to use for advantage”, we can tentatively complete the verse thusly: “who, existing in morphe theou, did not regard as something to use for advantage being equal with God”. Rearranging for better English: “who, existing in morphe theou, did not regard being equal with God something to use for advantage”.

Yet to fully explain is the present tense-form use of hyparcho with its implications, and the meaning of morphe theou. God-willing, that will be later this evening or tomorrow…

George Kraemer

I have been reading the musings and analysis of the Trinity issue off and on for years now. Some of it is highly technical and educational while others are interpretive and yet others are paradigmatic and some imaginative. Endless splicing and dicing all ways. Today I read from How the Church Lost its Way by Steve Maltz, a Jewish Messianic Christian (is that an oxymoron?) the following;

“The Greek mind says that man is at the centre of life, the Hebrew mind says that God is at the centre of life. The Greek mind says that the things of God must be deduced from our logical minds, the Hebrew mind says that the things of God can only be understood by faith and revelation. The Greek mind that we should strive for knowledge ABOUT God, the Hebrew mind says that we should KNOW God.”

Maltz also says; “Being Hebraic is to ask questions, to open up our minds, rather than arguing over doctrine, which is an important exercise in defining tenets of our faith but sometimes can serve to close up minds when our arguments are fuelled by hot air and intransigence. It has been said that there is no such thing as theology (or any other ‘ologies’) in Judaism as God and His ways are taken as a given, rather than something to be dissected and analysed but on the other hand, it continues to fail to accept the Jewish messiah!” (Hardly surprising given the Trinity issue. My comment.)

So, vive la difference! Game set and match for me, trying to be Hebraic. The duality of the Greek mindset and the Trinitarian mindset of Constantine’s Church ruling support for it ends it all, (for me). Why did we have to make it so complex? No wonder we have thousands of interpretations of doctrines and creeds and are so unhappy with them (that we disagree with).

Sh’ma! Shalom. Shabbat.

Craig

I don’t think doctrine (“Greek mindset”) and experience (“Hebrew mindset”) are mutually exclusive. Nor do I think one should side on one to the exclusion of the other. In fact, this very post is about doctrine – a disagreement with a particular doctrine, with an attempt at establishing an opposing doctrine.

Given that, according to the Gospel of John, Jesus came to reveal/exegete the Father (1:18), why is it that the Ioudaioi rejected him? Of which “mindset” were the Ioudaioi?

Craig

Finally, continuing from the March 31, 2017 7:47 am comment:

Regarding the word morphē, “form”, I agree with much of what Skip writes here. I don’t think we should look to contemporaneous Greek philosophy, and the word cannot refer to attributes. Morphē should be compared with verse 8’s schēma, the latter best understood as outward appearance, (physical) form. I also agree that we should look to the LXX for the meaning of “form” in Phil 2:6 and 2:7. The idea represented in (the non-canonical) Mark 16:12, in which morphē is probably best defined as visible manifestation, seems to work well enough in both Philippians verses, and visible manifestation seems to best capture LXX usage (Judges 8:18; Job 4:16; Isa 44:13; Dan 3:19), as well. But I’m not sure we can arrive at a definitive answer here, as we must consider that this is most likely poetic language.

Taking what we have so far, the clause should be “who, in the form of God existing”, which can be rearranged for better English as “who, existing in the form of God…”.

From the OP:

…[W]e must recognize that the verb, hyparcho, is in the present tense, not the past tense. It cannot mean “he existed.” At best it must mean, “he exists.”…The verb is also a participle, so we must remove the idea that this is about a past state of being and correct the translation to something like…“who, existing in morphe theou.” There is no necessity to posit that this person existed in some past state as God.

With hyparchōn explained above (March 31, 2017 7:47 am), let’s move to the implications of its present tense-form. This will necessarily have to be very technical.

Most Koine (NT) Greek scholars now agree that the verb forms primarily encode what is called aspect, which will be defined just below. Temporal reference – what most native English speakers call “tense” – is determined by context. This doesn’t mean that, e.g., what is known as the Greek present tense-form (t-f), does not indicate present temporal reference. In fact, it does quite often. However, it can also be found in contexts in which another temporal sphere (past, future, timeless) is indicated.

Though the verbal system in English is “tense” (time) dominant, aspect is also a feature. If I were to tell you “I walked to the store”, this would be an example of perfective aspect. That is, I described the event in summary, as a whole, as a complete action, not in its particulars. Alternatively, I could describe the very same event this way: “I was walking to the store.” Here the action is described as a continuous action, as in progress, or as a process. This is imperfective aspect. In both statements, the same event is depicted, but the action is stated from a different perspective. As an analogy, consider a parade: the perfective aspect is the view of the parade from a helicopter, seeing it in its entirety, while the imperfective aspect is the view from the street, viewing it in is particulars.

Imperfective aspect is suited for details: “I was walking to the store, when, suddenly, two men came running toward me”. Perfective aspect is better suited to stating events simply (like in narrative). Using our example: “Where have you been?” “I walked to the store.” “Why?” “I bought some milk.”

A great Biblical example of the difference between the two is the feeding of the 5000. Matthew (14:19) records that Jesus gave (perfective aspect; helicopter view) the loaves to the disciples, while in Mark (6:41) Jesus “kept giving” (imperfective aspect; street view) the loaves. Of course, the latter, by its context, does not indicate that Jesus kept giving out the loaves ad infinitum; Mark is just more vividly describing the action of that particular miracle.

Unfortunately, the Greek verb tense-forms had already been given names that were roughly equated with English tense forms (t-fs) before Koine Greek’s aspect-prominence was discovered, causing confusion. In Koine Greek there is only one verb with perfective aspect – the aorist t-f. There are two verbs with imperfective aspect – the present t-f, and the imperfect t-f (the difference between these two is not germane to the subject verse, so I’ll dispense with further technicalities). [There are two other verb forms, the perfect t-f, and the pluperfect t-f, but there’s no consensus on their respective aspects (though I have a strong opinion). No need to discuss those here. If anyone desires, I wrote a multi-part article on aspect – use keywords “crosswise verbal aspect” to find it.]

Since this comment is already very lengthy, this explanation will continue in the next comment…

Craig

…Continuing where we left off just above:

The participle (a verbal adjective) hyparchōn is in the Greek present tense-form (t-f), which makes it imperfective in aspect, describing a continuous state of “being”. The question to answer, of course, is its temporal sphere. The temporal reference of a participle, a nonfinite verb, must be determined relative to the controlling verb, i.e., the finite verb with which it is associated. Generally, if the participle (participial clause) precedes the controlling verb, its action precedes it, though its action can be coincident. And, generally, if the participle follows its controlling verb, its action is either coincident with the controlling verb, or its action follows it.

However, en morphȩ̄ theou hyparchōn is functioning adjectivally, modifying the initial pronoun, this pronoun corresponding to the assumed pronoun He of the controlling/finite verb regarded. That is, each finite verb encodes person and number, and in this case, of course, it’s 3rd person singular to match the subject, Christ. With this in mind, we could dispense with the initial pronoun, taking the pronoun from the controlling verb, and placing it at the beginning of the clause, like this: He, existing in the form of God, did not regard…. This does not yet answer the temporal relationship between the controlling verb and the participial phrase, but it gets us closer to a possible answer.

The key to go forward is to identify the finite verbs in verses 6, 7 and 8, to get complete context. Going back to the OP:

What if Paul is saying, “who, existing [being present] as an appearance of God [in character and action]…and humbled himself and took on the form of a slave [in character and action]”? What if this is a statement of the contrast between ha-Satan, who attempted to be equal with God, and Yeshua, who didn’t even try to do such a thing?

This seems plausible, in and of itself. Some translational corrections are in order, though. The Greek word rendered “and” above (first one), is properly translated as “but” or “rather” (see any English translation). Also, the Greek word translated “humbled”, the controlling verb of verse 7, should be “emptied”, though obviously understood metaphorically. This latter correction is especially important, as the controlling verb in verse 8 is “humbled”. In addition, keeping with the usual form for participles, let’s change “took” to “taking”. Locating the three finite/controlling verbs, we have:

6 He regarded
7 He emptied
8 He humbled

In all three finite verbs above, we find the aorist t-f. With finite verbs, as a trial, generally, it’s probably OK to tentatively assume past for the aorist t-f, and present temporal reference for the present t-f (and the imperfect t-f); however, after exegeting the rest of the clause, sentence (and larger context, if necessary), temporal reference can usually be more definitively ascertained. Past temporal reference makes perfect sense in this context, since this is speaking of Jesus’ earthly life after his ascension.

Looking at the larger context, we can begin to determine temporal reference of the participles. The two in verse 7 are adverbial, following the finite verb. We have the finite verb and the first participle already: “But he emptied himself, taking the form of a slave”. Importantly, the verb for “taking” (labōn) is an aorist active participle (in the active voice like the controlling verb “emptied”), and since it follows the verb it is most likely either coincident with the controlling verb or it follows it. Here’s a literal translation of the final clause word-for-word:

en homoiōmati anthrōpōn genomenos
in likeness of-humanity was-born/made

“In” is the translation of the same preposition found in the beginning of verse 6, and “likeness” is a dative (indirect object). Anthrōpōn is a plural genitive (possessive) modifying “likeness”. The final word is an aorist (middle) participle. The best way to translate into English, while keeping the main thrust, is: “being made/born in human likeness”. Thus, verse 7 should be: “But he emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, being made/born in human likeness”. Taking verses 6 and 7 together, we have:

6 Who, existing in the form of God, did not regard equality with God something to exploit
7 But, he emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, being made/born in human likeness

Notice the flow of verse 7: “but, he emptied himself” > how? > by “taking the form of a slave” > how? > by “being made/born in human likeness”. In other words, the very event of his birth was coincident with Jesus becoming a slave, emptying himself. But, is this conclusion too hasty? Let’s look at verse 8.

It appears verse 8 reverses the clauses in 7, in chiastic relation with it. Its form is: adverbial participial phrase (aorist) + aorist controlling verb + adverbial participial phrase (aorist). Since this comment is long enough, and there really isn’t any difficulty exegetically, I’ll just translate quickly:

8 And being found in appearance as a human, he humbled himself, becoming obedient to the point of death (– even death on a cross).

So, the first clause precedes the action of the controlling verb “humbled”, while the last clause follows it.

Continued…

Craig

Continuation:

Recapping:

6 Who, existing in the form of God, did not regard equality with God something to exploit
7 But, he emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, being made/born in human likeness
8 And being found in appearance as a human, he humbled himself, becoming obedient to the point of death (– even death on a cross).

Putting this all together, we see the strong adversative (“but”) between verses 6 and 7, and the chiasm of 7 and 8. The million dollar question is this: Is “existing in the form of God” coincident with “did not regard” is does it antecede (come before) it? Working backwards from verse 7, if “being born in human likeness” means “taking the form of a slave”, which is a [metaphorical] self-emptying, then how does this relate to “existing in the form of God”? It seems best to understand the adjectival phrase as expressing preexistence, an existence predating the time at which he had been “born in human likeness”.

This is also consistent with Hoover’s philological work (cited in comment @ March 29, 2017 3:45 pm). As part of his conclusion he writes, regarding the (ouch) harpagmon hēgēsato phrase as part of an idiom:

…[I]t should be observed that this understanding of the άρπαγμὀς [harpagmos] statement carries with it the assumption that τὸ εἶναι ἴσα θεῷ [to einai isa theō̧, “to be equal with God” in Philippians 2:6] represents a status which belonged to the preexistent Christ…in every instance which I have examined this idiomatic expression [it] refers to something already present and at one’s disposal. The question in such instances is not whether or not one possesses something, but whether or not one chooses to exploit something…(p 118).

With this in mind, the NASB translation is merely taking the adjectival participle and translating it in a sort of dynamic equivalence:

who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped

In the mid-1800s, some (liberal) Christian theologians, beginning with Gottfried Thomasius, argued that the preexistent 2nd ‘Person’ of the Trinity (the one “existing in the form of God” – verse 6), literally “emptied himself” (verse 7), in “being born in human likeness”. In Thomasius’ case, it was because he couldn’t comprehend how God could also be man at the same time. This is known as a doctrine of “kenosis” (the controlling verb of verse 7). Of course, this is not the standard Christian explanation. But, the point is that he understood this verse correctly in its context; he just interpreted its outcome differently.

The NIV is a dynamic equivalency translation, which has as its purpose to render passages less literally, less ‘woodenly’. Their rendition goes a bit further than the NASB, assuming that God cannot cease to be God, and, hence, must still be God as the incarnate Christ, quite possibly as a reaction to, or preemptive action against, the “kenosis” doctrines of the likes of Thomasius:

Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage

No doubt the NIV interprets a bit in its translation. But, then again, no matter the intention of the translator/s, a certain amount of interpretation is inevitable…

George Kraemer

……..a certain amount of interpretation is inevitable…

Whew! I am not sure where that leaves us. I think I need to go to bed.

Craig

Where does this leave us? Perhaps we should ask Hillel. Or Shammai. Or, perhaps even better, Gamaliel.

On a more serious note, I appreciate that you read all the way to the end (at least of the most recent comment). I meant that final comment to be understood generally, and I do think it applies to anyone, no matter how impartial they may attempt to be. Using Koine Greek grammar rules from the most recent scholarship, and applying what I think is the best scholarship in terms of lexical and philological investigation, my goal was to exegete the passage devoid of any preconceived notions or by imposing any of my own prejudices. I hope I succeeded. (There were times in this process I thought the ‘standard’ Christian exegesis could be overturned, or at least questioned, and I was prepared to change my paradigm on this passage, if necessary – which accounts, in part, for my delay in posting these recent comments.)

George Kraemer

Craig, it will not be long before your extensive time and effort in lexical and philological investigation will be dramatically reduced by artificial intelligence that does the work of translations and understanding for you. The new AI of neural networks will blow you away (and no doubt many more) who do the kind of work you put into this study. Meanwhile I applaud your effort although I do not agree with your interpretation. Thanks.

Craig

George,

I do think AI can dramatically reduce some of the time involved in finding philological and lexical data; however, as for translating, I don’t think it can ever be accurate. Words have too many meanings and nuances for a ‘machine’; and, perhaps more importantly, AI cannot really feel emotion in order to determine the love, pain, frustration, etc. that may lie behind the text. I’d call our subject text “exalted prose”, or something like that. I know this much, I’m going to ask Paul/Saul of Tarsus myself just what he meant!

Just today I located a book I’d forgotten: Where Christology Began by Martin and Dodd, Eds., which contains essays on the Philippians ‘hymn’. It features individual essays, one of which affirms an “Adam Christology” (by J.D.G. Dunn), which may interest some here. There’s also a rebuttal to Dunn.

George Kraemer

Craig, I have no idea what your understanding of AI is as the term is used today but it does not remotely resemble the robotic Boolean logical AI of 40 years ago. Today it mimics speech and image recognition to the same degree of accuracy as humans for example and improves upon the accuracy of human medical diagnosis for conditions such as skin cancer diagnosis and X-ray and imaging interpretation.

The use of a neural net as a translator involves feeding a computer network a mountain of words and word fragments such as the bible. The system figures out the meaning of a sentence, then feeds that into another neural net to spit out the sentence in another language, without the use of programming or linguistic rules. It even learns the difference between the active and the passive voice – by itself, the same as your children do.

As you likely know, computers have long since proven their worth in biblical works such as the analysis and re-assemblage of Dead Sea scroll parchment scraps for example and the discrediting or questioning of texts redacted by other than the original writer and confirmed by traditional experts after the fact. We may or may not like it but computers already know more about us than we may like. How this information is applied is always up to us.

You say, “AI cannot really feel emotion in order to determine the love, pain, frustration, etc. that may lie behind the text. I’d call our subject text “exalted prose”, or something like that. I know this much, I’m going to ask Paul/Saul of Tarsus myself just what he meant!”

I agree but is this the problem or the solution?

Craig

Regarding AI, this I do know – you know more about it than me. Having said that, what I do know is GIGO. Garbage in, garbage out. AI can only know what it has been exposed to. Certainly, it can make (I’d think limited) extrapolations and inferences based on info it currently possesses, but it can’t “think” beyond that.

For example, in Koine (NT) Greek, which is a dead language, bearing some resemblance to modern Greek, but radically different in other ways, one of the tense-forms used in the NT, the perfect t-f, eventually disappeared altogether; however, before its obsolescence, it began to take on the properties of the aorist t-f. Some NT Greek scholars opine that some examples of this switch can be found in the NT, though others disagree. Who’s correct? How can we know for sure? This is further complicated by scholarly disagreement on just how the Koine Greek perfect t-f functions. Diachronic study – looking at Greek both before and after the Apostolic period – is helpful, but not conclusive.

Colloquialisms and idioms are problematic – especially when it’s a Koine Greek translation for a Jewish idiom (Galatians 4:19, e.g.). Modern slang can pose problems, as well. If the AI only ‘knows’ American English, including some slang, yet does not know British English or slang, what will it think when it reads, “you have a fag?” (cigarette)? Or, “the woman was pushing a pram” (baby carriage)? One can only imagine the former, and, on the latter, would it think “pram” was a typo?

You wrote: … the discrediting or questioning of texts redacted by other than the original writer and confirmed by traditional experts after the fact. But, can AI discern whether the redaction was: (a) the copyist’s “proper” correction of the “original writer”; (b) a “correction” by the copyist for a presumed error; or (c) the copyist’s “correction” for his own theological motivation? That’s rhetorical, of course, as these are things that experts in the field would try to discern.

Regarding just the first clause in the subject verse in this OP, can AI ascertain whether it has the sense of because he exists (/existed), or though he exists (/existed)? And, in general, can AI determine whether the Philippians ‘hymn’ is strictly (or mostly) a theological treatise or if it (also) contains allusions or merely echoes of other texts, or…? Quoting Dunn (“Christ, Adam, and Preexistence”) from the aforementioned work:

The fact of the matter is that too much of the debate on the exegesis of this passage has displayed a crass artistic or literary insensitivity. Allusions by their nature are not explicit. Poets or literary critics who had to spell out every allusion and echo would undermine their art, and deprive more perceptive readers of the moment of illumination, the thrill of recognition…(p 75).

I may disagree with Dunn’s overall conclusions, but I agree wholeheartedly here!

Can AI always discern the use of paranomasia (puns, double-entendres), hyperbole, tongue-in-cheek statements, and other literary devices?

George Kraemer

You are already seeing the new AI (neural networks) everyday if you have a Smart Phone or seen a driverless car or listened to SIRI answer your questions. Neural networks as you correctly say are only as good as the info available and will never be smarter that a human. Just massively faster and far more accurate as well as being self-learning, all based on enormous computing power and data processing of ALL the available information on the subject.

The bible just happens to be one of the best abstract subjects to use for this type of technology (and probably one of the easiest). IF Koine Greek CAN be relearned based on available knowledge, AI will be years ahead of the best experts doing it. IF it cant be done then your interpretation is as good as anyone else and both are just opinions and nothing changes. Either way you will still love it. It will undoubtedly answer SOME questions definitely but never “is there a God.”