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.
OK, I’m amending my exegesis a bit. I just found out something in the grammar of verse 6 that shines much more light on it. In Daniel Wallace’s Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics he argues that the article, to, preceding einai serves to identify einai as the direct object in an “object-complement construction”, with (ouch) harpagmon its complement. In other words, harpagmon is functioning as a predicate of to einai isa theō̧. This seems to make good sense of the double accusative construction.
With this in mind, I’d exegete the verse (still keeping Hoover’s conclusions), retaining the negative particle’s place in front of harpagmon: Who, existing in the form of God, regarded being equal with God not something to exploit.
After (re)reading Dunn’s piece in Where Christology Began, it dawned on me that I’d not adequately addressed “something to be grasped” as a translation, which I’ll do now. This translation is partly based on the notion that harpagmos is similar to harpazō, the latter appearing in 1 Thess 4:17, meaning “to snatch away” (used for the “rapture” theory). You can see a similar idea in the KJV translation of Phil. 2:6 as “not robbery”.
In the OP it is claimed “that Yeshua never aspired to be equal with God because equality with God is not possible (bold added). In other words, the idea here is “it’s not something within his grasp”. This is not a viable translation. One could possibly translate this “not something to grasp toward”, with the understanding that there’s an opportunity available. This is what’s borne out in Hoover’s research. The contexts in which the idiom is used is always one in which the individual has a choice to seize the opportunity or not (see the Hoover quote @ April 6, 2017 6:19 pm). One such example is found in Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History: “Some regarded death as harpagma compared to the depravity of these impious men” (VIII.12.2).
An astute reader may wonder “why is ouch harpagmon in front of the verb hēgēsato if it’s the complement of an ‘object-complement construction’”? Excellent question! The ‘standard’ word order is Verb + Subject (when specifically expressed) + Object. Any deviations from this VSO format can be an instance of (de)emphasis, and when the object precedes the verb, as it does here, it is likely for emphasis. In linguistics, this is called fronting. With this in mind, we could bold the appropriate words as a way to indicate this in translation: Who, existing in the form of God, regarded being equal with God not something to exploit.
hmmm. My bolding didn’t come out. Should be: Who, existing in the form of God, regarded being equal with God not something to exploit.
Craig, you are not the first person I have seen that has exegeted this passage and come to this conclusion, as it is the simplest one that does the least ‘straining’ (i.e. choosing more obscure over less obscure) of the possible meanings.
Wouldn’t things be a lot easier if Paul and the other NT writers simply came out and called Jesus God, even a small fraction of the times they call him the Messiah (by my count a mere 568 times)? Paul, peter et al call Jesus a man many times after the ascension when surely his status as God would seem to be more respectful. I am impressed with the scholarly gymnastics however Craig…
It would have been so much easier had it been explicitly spelled out! But, I’d argue that it’s at the very least implicit in many places, to include here. In any case, going back to our subject verse, Philippians 2:6, would you mind specifically pointing out what you would call “scholarly gymnastics”? I’m fine if one wishes to disagree with me, but let’s discuss the particular area/s of disagreement. Fruitful discussions then may be possible.
Craig: I meant the comment about scholarly gymnastics as a compliment not criticism. My youngest daughter was a national level competitive gymnast. I see the same sort of commitment in your posts. I admire your zeal, even if we disagree on the conclusions. So why was “it” not explicitly spelled out?in my opinion the apostles did not believe it to be so (re deity). They were certainly very explicit regarding Messiahship. The reference to “mere” before the 568 was, I confess said tongue in cheek, or Greek if you prefer. 🙂
Glad you cleared that up, as I initially thought it was criticism (even possibly meant as ad hominem) and was going to reply with that in mind, but, figuring, on 2nd look, that it may not have been, I posted a more neutral reply. Congrats on your daughter’s gymnastic success. I enjoy watching an excellent gymnast. I enjoyed it myself in high school (should have started sooner).
I definitely understood the “mere” as tongue-in-cheek! I think the Apostles were, in general, confused and obtuse much of the time – as I’m sure I would have been, had I been in their sandals!
Aahhh… Confused and obtuse? After 40 days of tutorial with the risen Messiah being taught about the Kingdom of YHWH …wow! Do you really think it took another 300 years for the Greek philosophers to make sense of everything… What is very clear to me is the collision of paradigms about which Skip so often speaks. I put my trust in the spiritual maturity and courage of these apostles. Sorry to say I part company with you on this important point. I think you just drove your truck into a swamp/smowbank. You may wish to rephrase your last comment.
Messiah had to constantly explain his parables, and after performing many miraculous deeds, they still panicked on the boat when the storm came, which Jesus then quelled, and after which Christ asks, “Why are you so afraid; have you no faith?” Jesus walks on water, Peter says, “If it’s you tell me to come to you on the water”. Yeshua beckons him, Peter walks a few steps, becomes afraid and starts to sink. I mean, he walked a few steps on water, then succumbs to sinking fear?! And this occured after the feeding of the 5000.
Jesus spells out that he is going to be betrayed, condemned to crucifixion and then be raised on the third day. Peter even says “May it never be!”, with Jesus exclaiming in response “Get behind me Satan”, correcting Peter. When the throng came to get Yeshua in the night, Peter whacks off one guy’s ear(!), with Jesus subsequently miraculously reattaching it. And yet still, the disciples were all despondent just before the Villa Dolorosa, with Peter thrice denying even knowing the man – and upon hearing the rooster crow, cried bitterly, recalling Jesus’ prophecy.
Even still, they didn’t believe – or it hadn’t sunk in – that he’d rise again. It was post-resurrection when Yeshua had to remind them what he had told them prior to his death (Luke 24:36-46). Doubting Thomas specifically said he wouldn’t believe in the resurrection without definitive proof, so Jesus had to specifically show him the holes in his hands (wrists?), with Thomas finally proclaiming, “My Lord and my God!” Indeed!
God is not God because He says He is; He is God because of what He DOES. So many false messiahs saying they were messiah…
There was something about the Resurrection, specifically, that turned the corner, and the Ascension, too, not to mention Pentecost. Some things look different in hindsight. I think we think we have God all figured out; what He can be, and what He can’t. Is there a person ever on this earth that actually was able to do that? Craig is right; put yourself in their shoes. And, what makes us so sure?
Laurita,
Thanks for your comment. I really tried to lose all preconceptions and just exegete at face value. This is really how one is supposed to do it. In fact, using any sort of preconceived of what the text “should” state is eisegesis, imposing one’s own views onto the text – the opposite of exegesis.
Oooh, new word for paradigm! Thanks, I needed that!
Both terms are compounds, prefixed by a preposition. Ex, or ek if in front of a consonant, means “from”, “out of”. Eis means “into”, “toward”, or “to”. One should think of extract as opposed to insert, such that, comparatively, it’s either to extract (exegete) meaning from the text, or insert (eisegete) meaning into the text.
Craig as HSB phrased it I humbly applaud your zeal.
In my searches and questionings I found the shocking truth that there exists more questions the more answers are provided. And the reason being as Skip once pointed out the number of Jews alive would be a nice one indication of how many different understandings or exegeses there could be.
Apostle Paul said something else about Christ and our relationship with God that we should bear in mind whenever we seek to understand Jesus relationship.
His mother raised him as dedicated to God… Jewish covenant agreement. Jesus grew in wisdom through his scholarship in the synagogues where he related to the things of God with the purity of a child…
Here is were Paul says Jesus died off the human nature to seek or chase the Godly nature live no longer for sin… In doing this Paul explains in other writings that we are filled with the Spirit of God when we search the truth concerning the depths of God. Not to know all I add but to understand our relationship in the community God has placed us in… Thanks Skip for the earlier discussions on prayer and faith which explains this peculiar relationship well.
In short Craig ask and seek to understand your peculiar roll within a peculiar relationship and you will become like God… Sorry be the individual God intended you to be as was Jesus for that peculiar era.
Keep seeking the kingdom and be clothed even better that Solomon himself with wisdom from God… How I long for that day, maybe I should start doing what I already know for in doing Christ will be revealed…
Craig (and Laurita). Great discussion!
The context for my comments is found in the April 10 post at 10:36am. It concerned the NT writings which were all completed well after the ascension and Pentecost. Can we trust them? I certainly consider them inspired Sripture. So the writers are not “confused or obtuse” in their writings. In my opinion they “got it” by Acts 2. So the lack of explicit references to the deity (as distinct from agency) of Jesus is problematic. Late in the book of Acts in chapter 21:20 we read of myriads of Jews who are believers, all of whom are zealous for Torah. Was that a bad thing? The Jerusalem leadership appears to be enthusiastic about this state of affairs. In my opinion none of these people believed in the Trinity or the actual deity of Jesus. All believed in his servant role as Messiah (As per Acts 3:13) by which God has certainly ‘visited us’.
How is this a “great discussion” when obviously I didn’t address your initial comment in my comments above? Would I really call all the NT writings the product of individuals “confused and obtuse”, and yet to try to base anything meaningful from them? My comment at April 10, 2017 9:56 pm was on the historical context of the Apostles during Jesus’ ministry as indicated in the Gospels. I see now you meant something much wider.
In any case, if we’re going to discuss something on this particular thread, let’s limit it to the subject verse: Philippians 2:6. You’ve already implied that you disagree with my conclusions; can you tell me specifically what about my exegesis you take issue with?
Craig we are both seeking truth. I have huge respect for your insights and commitment. It may not show clearly in simple print. I have reread Skip’s initial presentation numerous times. I found it helpful. However I am not a Greek scholar. I cannot debate your exegesis. I acknowledge you have studied this deeply for some time. My attempt was to broaden the context of what the NT wrtiters actually understood and believed generally.
I grew up in a family with four older brothers. While it was not Jewish it sure had many diverse and strong opinions. I considered our, at times, heated debates to be “great discussions”. I appreciate your reflections, even when I have not been clear in questions. Thanks for engaging.
I don’t think you were unclear in your questions (at least the initial one); I didn’t read it closely enough and only engaged with part of it. After that, we were, in essence, talking past one another. That’s what I meant by this not being a “great discussion”. Mine wasn’t a ‘heated’ response, so much as it was an attempt to illustrate that we were talking past each other a bit, though that is a bit frustrating. Comparatively, it’s so much easier with the give and take of ‘real time’ face-to-face exchanges, as it better alleviates those misunderstandings. And I certainly do at times have heated conversations with others!
I’ll have something more to say regarding the subject verse, as, the way I read my exegesis above, one could still see it as an instance of agency…
Seeker,
Exegesis is usually considered a two-, or maybe three or four-step process. I’m interested in the first one: going to the ‘bald’ text to determine what it says, which means going to the original Greek (I don’t know Hebrew, and I know only a little Greek – though I have a plethora of study helps). After that comes interpretation, which may or may not follow easily from the first. Interpretation is usually where the subjectivity comes in, though, unfortunately, not a few eisegete, that is, impose their own views upon the ‘bald’ text.
Let’s take a simple example: The sky is blue. We can all understand this sentence. Yet, someone may say, “But the sky isn’t always blue.” This is certainly true, but this goes beyond what our example is saying. Without any further context, we just don’t know anything beyond this simple sentence. Once additional context is added, then we may interpret further. If the complete context is: “The sky is blue this morning“, we now know that the context is limiting the blue sky to just this morning. Given that, we cannot make any judgments about tomorrow morning’s sky, or even this afternoon’s sky, etc. from this text, as that would be eisegesis.
Thank you Craig
I will need to formulate a more in-depth response as your openness requires it. In short I understand PRaDeS and Hermeunetics as tools to be used if needed not relevant with all scriptures may I add. My Milton file is 1 000 km from where I am so I cannot even use this in my response…
What both you and Skip highlight is to know exactly what was recorded before trying to understand and apply it, with that I agree…
Till later…
Morning Craig
On Hermeneutics of the Bible
Hebraic Rabbanic way PRDS
Pshat – Literal or simple understanding as is recorded (Breadth)
Remez – Parables and allegory understanding through explanatory examples (Length)
Derasha – Seek or search understanding through parallel versus and historical records (Depth)
Sod – Inner or mystical understanding through exegeses or spiritualistic interpretation (Open ended Height of the scriptural records
The same process Paul explains in Ephesians 3: 17 – 19
While general western hermeneutical studies of the bible require:
1. The temporal movement of the narrative which runs from creation to the eschatological future, from the old to the new, reconstructing the past in memory and constructing the future in expectation.
2. The spatial or geographical movement of the biblical narrative runs from one place to every place, from the centre to the periphery, from Jerusalem to the ends of the earth, easy to difficult light to heavier burden etc. This too is the divine movement of God’s saving purpose from his particular presence…
3. Movement in time and space is also movement of people, movement from person to person, people to people.
A different approach to read the Scripture is explained by Arthur Licursi which is the following:
The answer is explained by seeing that God ordained differing relationships with man in each time period or dispensation. In fact, it is good to determine the following when studying the Bible. we must ask; 1) Who is speaking? 2) To whom is this spoken? 3) Concerning what? 4) At what time (dispensation)?
1) Who is speaking?
Moses “law”, “to the children of Israel”
“I, Peter” …speak of conditional blessing according to the “law”.” Ye men if Israel…”, “If thou …”
“I Paul … speak of unconditional blessing”.
2) To whom is he speaking?
“I, Peter, … do not refer to the Gentiles, only the lost sheep of the house of Israel – Jews only” (Matt 10:5-7)
“But now, I, Paul, speak to you Gentiles”
3) What is he speaking about?
“I, Peter, speak about the Kingdom that was prophesied for Israel.”
“I, Paul, speak about the complete revelation of the body of Christ, the church”.
4) When was it spoken?
“I, Peter, speak about sins covered before Jesus Christ died on the cross.
“I, Paul, speak about your sins being forgiven and taken away once and for all after Jesus Christ paid for your sins on the cross.
But yes as you warn if we do not have the right facts it does not matter which process we follow we will always end with the incorrect understanding. And that is why I love this forum we see to discover the more correct and complete records rather than just discuss.
One concern I have in our studies is that we still tend to use the modern numbered and divided text as even this could be incorrect. E.g. when placing a comma or full stop in a sentence where it is not really needed, as this will alter the meaning… It would be interesting to have the literal translations and nothing else to work from for then we can really add personal insight…
As said I read the records as what was said, to whom, for what reason and how can we use this information as an example of how we can adapt our lives… More than this I still find difficult to digest and apply in my simple approach to life…
Well, it was afternoon when you said “morning” a few hours ago. You’re in South Africa, correct?
If you compare English translations, you’ll find one uses a comma, while another may use a full stop. Some of this can be accounted for because the translation is a “functional equivalency” vs. a “formal equivalency”. The objective of the former is to capture the essence of the original and make it more readable, while the latter attempts to stick to the original structure as closely as possible. Skip uses the NASB because it’s a more ‘literal’ translation (formal equivalency) than most of the others (some are more ‘literal’) – at least I presume so.
Just go to biblehub_dot_com/multi/matthew/20-2.htm and see how the different versions translate this passage. The Greek word dēnarion, for a Roman coin which was equivalent to a day’s wage, is rendered “denarius” (English from Latin) “daily wage”, “penny”, “shilling”, etc. So, which is correct? If you compare the first few words, the differences are due to the translation of the initial participial clause.
I agree with your last sentence, but I’d just change “literal” (there are no such translations, because languages just do not translate word-for-word) to “formal equivalency”. This is what I’ve been striving for in Philippians 2:6.
Evening Craig
Yep 2 pm by us and very hot… That for autumn/fall weather…
As for Phil 2:6 the KJV makes it part of a greater sentence which will require that you read the complete sentence to find the message. For me Paul is saying become one of mind with God and in doing this you will not be insulted to be a servant but rather uplifted as the humbleness empowers not the source of the power… As Dan said an alternative view…
It’s morning here in Texas, for the moment a bit cool for this time of year, but it’ll warm up a bit this afternoon…I think here the KJV is correct, that is, verses 5-8 should be seen as one long sentence, if not one long thought unit. This verse, 2:6, needs to be seen in its larger context of verses 5-8 for proper context.
Your view on this text I’d not consider wrong, as that’s part of the larger point Paul is making, if one goes back to 2:1-4. Unfortunately, some have made this text to be strictly about Christ’s [some here would say “supposed”] Deity at the expense of his example of humility.
Both Monotheist and Trinitarian present good arguments but when neither side can persuade the other after 2,000 years of debate I think a third viewpoint should be considered. The issue that keeps me somewhere in between is that God is invisible and inaudible. Note that John and Paul do not say “was” invisible, but apparently still is.
Joh 5:37 And He sending Me, the Father Himself, has borne witness of Me. Neither have you heard His voice at any time nor seen His shape.
Col 1:15 Who is the Image of the invisible God, Firstborn of every creature,
1Ti 1:17 Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen.
For those who believe YHWH is the one supreme deity, how do they explain His appearances and voice heard in the Old Testament?
And for those who believe Yeshua is, and/or/was, equal as a supreme deity, how do they explain His visible earthly existence?
It seems to me they either have to explain away these three verses or we need to come up with a third view. Harmonising both views, I believe YHWH must be the “heavenly” visible and audible manifestation of this greater forever invisible spirit God and, similarly, Yeshua must also be His “earthly” manifestation.
What’s wrong with that?
Dan
On the three verses.
God declared Jesus to be His Son. The same as God declares others that meet His prerequisites. It is this confirmation that makes belief in God and salvation the hope for every generation. A similar comment is made by Paul as Christ being the rock which followed in the desert… Should we understand this a literal or symbolic / allegoric comments?
As for the invisible God it fits in with the rest of the scripture, Moses looked upon his face and was transformed. Yet Jesus came and declared that he came to declare the father, for me implying to explain God so that others can understand who or what they are serving – the same claim the apostles said in Acts come to declare the unknown God…. From this view many doctrines have been formed and may I say some very convincing and this is where the difference lies for me. I believe in one God and only one why to find favour in His eyes – be an example for others. God’s works have been revealed, His power been witnessed throughout generations. And it is this that makes us fear Him not serve Him. Our trust and reliance on this awesome power and how we help others trust in it is what makes us humble servants. I think it is this that Paul is explaining in these verses. Remember that Paul served God through the tribe of Pharisees. His change to be a servant for the heathens happened in blindness an unseen invisible Christ and God.. That is all he can testify about his personal experience… Are we not called to do the same?
Just claiming to trust and believe in an individual who lived 2000 years ago is risky as we never new Him and He did not even come to save us. He ordained and sent apostles to do that… Are we trusting their testimony or are we seeking others…
I accept that we are troubled by misleading translations and political influenced records, unfortunately that is what we have and we need to do the best we can with these records…
I mentioned earlier that it seems possible that one could interpret the way I exegeted this verse as Yeshua acting as God’s agent:
If so, it would be the sense of “Who, existing [temporally] in the form [as agent] of God, regarded being equal with God [acting as his agent] not something to exploit”.
On the face of it, I would argue that the Greek word for “equal” here really means equality (see John 5:18 for an equivalent usage), but we’ll put that aside for now. The central question otherwise is: does “existing” correlate in time with “regarded”? In other words, is the action of the participial clause (containing existing) concurrent with the action of the main clause (regarded)? The argument in the OP is that because the participle is in the Greek present tense-form, we should not regard it as past temporal reference but present instead; however, the Greek word for “regarded” is in the aorist tense-form, which is understood as conveying past temporal reference, so how would that work? Moreover, this participial clause is actually acting as an adjective, modifying “who”.
Earlier, in my April 6, 2017 5:59 pm comment, I mentioned aspect, explaining the difference between the Greek present tense-form and aorist tense-form as regards aspect, and that temporal reference is a secondary feature of the tense-forms. Let’s put aspect aside for the moment. Regarding temporal reference, in short, it depends on the context, and we shouldn’t just assume the aorist is past and the present is present. Context is the determiner.
Let’s look at two similarly formed English sentences:
Here it’s clear the timing of the participial phrase is concurrent with the main verb “has” – they are both in the present. [The car may have been sitting in the driveway for a while before the tire went flat but that’s not determinable by the above context, and to assume so is eisegesis.] Here’s another:
Here we have the temporal marker “night” juxtaposed with “morning” so that we can see that the action of the participle precedes that of the main verb “was scolded”.
So, as we can see using these English examples, context will be the determining factor in the temporal relationship between the main verb and the participle. But, in Philippians 2:6 it just isn’t clear. So, how do we tell? Can we know for sure? Is it possible to definitively state that the rendering in the beginning of this comment, with Yeshua as agent, is the correct one to the exclusion of any other (assuming we can overcome the “equal” issue)? Alternatively, is it possible, without straining out a gnat, to understand it as the following?:
Craig, may I also thank you for all the work you are putting into this discussion which, although some of it may be beyond me, I attempt to get the gist of it and I believe you are being fair to both sides. But as to whether Yeshua is equal to and/or preexisted or not, I want to leave that out of this debate for the time being, so as not to distract from my main point.
Is God forever invisible and inaudible or not? That is a point I have touched on several times in this debate. I would think it is a very important factor in figuring this out and yet no one, over many months, has touched on it. Why not?
Considering my statement rocks the boat of both Trinitarians and Yahweh Monotheists I was expecting both sides to eagerly defend their position and correct me. Yet, nothing.
So, once again, how does either view explain the verses I cited? Or do we need a third option? A new paradigm to harmonize both.
LOVE the question, Dan, but have been simmering it for a while. Totally valid AND it goes along with some of what I was raising with you before, I think, for the underlying question then to me becomes, does the property (that would be a FORM, or attribute, Greekly speaking) of visibility lie with the viewed object or with the viewer? In other words, is this a question about the form the said object (God) is limited by, or is it a question of our optometry?
We THINK so many times when we make a statement, particularly when we make a statement about God, that we are being objective; in other words, when we say “God is invisible” we think we are saying something about an attribute (form) of God; i.e. His invisibility. But perhaps the verses that state that are not putting God in the invisible box (form), but are instead talking about the form, or, attribute of our own eyesight. IF that is the case, we perhaps would be making a similar statement if we were to say that our eyesight is limited in some way from seeing Him. Perhaps that blindness could then be a property of, say, sin, or perhaps mortality, or perhaps because we are still undecided about whether to choose Him (exercise faith) or not, and at that point, invisibility could be part of the chaos package that enables our will to be free.
I know for a fact that if I could see God, I would immediately lose all ability to choose to believe that He does not exist and have all power. If I could see God in my current state of sinfulness (putting something else on the throne ahead of Him) I think I would wink out of existence, for I think that probably that current choice in His presence would become an utter fact something akin to the fact of denying the authority of the emperor to his face. God is the love that holds life in all creation, with grace being His unilateral choice to continue to grant us life in the very teeth of our insistence on choosing death almost continuously on a daily basis, for to choose other than God is the same as to choose not to be, but perhaps grace may only operate in a neutral zone where God’s choices do not match ours. I think that may be a statement that is equally about Him as it is about His creation, which would include said eyesight. Perhaps. Certainly a face to face confrontation would end all other choices for His will in His presence is surely an inexorable force that would be difficult to impossible to disagree with!
Sorry to dodge your question, though, as I think the above may do.
I think I may hazard saying something else, from the position of believing that God Himself has, in fact, shown up on our planet, but it goes along with the above in that if God stood in front of me and stated “I am God” I would quit choosing (exercising my will) then and there, for I would see that my choices, as a sinner, are already not in alignment with His will (choices), but that is not how He designed me, for I am designed to exercise my free will to choose His will, but if I am not, in fact, choosing at all I am still not doing my part. If God came to earth, then, to keep our wills, feeble as they are, free to choose, He would, of necessity, given our frailty, not reveal His identity, except perhaps to those who have already chosen Him. Wow, is that a paradigm statement or what?
I still do not think anyone has seen the Father, or the ultimate Will, but I believe that the representation of Him can and has been seen in the form of Salvation, or YHVH (Yeshua) and that it is grace that enables Him to do that as a unilateral gesture of love, in the form of our salvation, to this fractured world.
Dan,
Thanks for your thoughts. I didn’t ignore your previous comment, I just didn’t have time yet to address it (my most recent comment took a while to complete). Regarding what I wrote, if you’d like any clarification, let me know, and I’ll be happy to attempt to.
Is God invisible and inaudible? I think Scripture indicates neither. God is spirit (John 4:24), yet though no one sees God and lives (Ex 33:20), Moses did see YHWH’s ‘back’ and/or Glory (33:21-23). Yeshua rephrases Ex 33:30 (John 1:18), yet he claims to see the Father (John 5:19-21) – without apparent restriction (unlike Moses). Moreover, at the Oaks of Mamre, Abraham saw YHWH (or was it YHWH’s messenger/s?) and conversed with the three visitors.
As regards John 5:37, which you quoted earlier, the context is indicating Yeshua making the claim that the Ioudaoi don’t “hear his voice nor seen his form” because they refused to “believe the one he sent” (5:38). “His voice” in that context could well be figurative; however, Moses heard God at Mount Sinai (Ex 19:3).
In reference to what Laurita just posted, I think “form” in Philippians 2:6 and 7 may be figurative. Why do I say that? Because we must try to determine what “’form’ of a slave” is (2:7). What “form” does a human slave take; what differentiates the “form” of a slave from a non-slave? In any case, I interpreted “form” in these two verses as visible manifestation (following the late Dr. Rodney Decker). See my comment @ April 6, 2017 5:59 pm.
FWIW, I think a grappling with the grammar/syntax and context of Philippians 2:6 will yield a conclusion on this issue.
I am amazed at how a simple response of general interest, AI, (April 1, 2017) has lead to the furtherance of this topic for me. I have had a hiatus (since April 9, 2017 8:18 p.m.) from TW to return from Florida to Canada. Along the way we attended a coincidental Jewish Seder presentation on Tuesday Passover evening in a Baptist Church with Baptist friends who live on a mountain top in the Blue Ridge Mountains of South Carolina. What a dramatic way to return!
It was most pleasant to find the subsequent contributions from Craig, Laurita, HSB and Dan all adding so much to this subject and particularly from Seeker (April 12, 2017 12:38 p.m.) when I got back;-
“I believe in one God and only one way to find favour in His eyes – be an example for others. God’s works have been revealed, His power been witnessed throughout generations. And it is this that makes us fear Him not serve Him. Our trust and reliance on this awesome power and how we help others trust in it is what makes us humble servants. I think it is this that Paul is explaining in these verses. Remember that Paul served God through the tribe of Pharisees. His change to be a servant for the heathens happened in blindness (of) an unseen invisible Christ and (also) God. That is all he can testify (to) about his personal experience… Are we not called to do the same?
Just claiming to trust and believe in an individual who lived 2000 years ago is risky as we never knew Him and He did not even come to save us. He ordained and sent apostles to do that… Are we trusting their testimony or are we seeking others?
I accept that we are troubled by misleading translations and political influenced records, unfortunately that is what we have and we need to do the best we can with these records.”
LIKE!