“Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: 7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: 8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, —Philippians 2:6-8.
You may view the video version of this epistle at this link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FQ6aEdhKLnI&t=11s
I. Pluralists’ Objection
II. Modalism’s Response
Defending Against the Pluralists’ Understanding of Philippians 2:6-8.
The Trinitarian understanding of Philippians 2:6-8 challenges at least three fundamentals of New Testament Godhead theology. First, the Monotheism of the Bible is challenged by the introduction of the plurality of persons concept; secondly, the Trinitarian willingness to accept the idea of a person of God divesting Himself of His deity brings into question the doctrine of the Incarnation; thirdly, the integrity of the teaching of the Immutability of God is brought into dispute. We will look at these three points in turn.
A. Denies the Radical Monotheism of the Bible.
First, the way they present ὃς ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ ὑπάρχων (existing in the form of God) is that Jesus as God the Son shared the essence of deity with God the Father and God the Holy Spirit. Thus, the word for God (theou, genitive form of theos) is presented as qualitative. Not that Jesus existed from eternity in the form of the Father, but only that He manifested the quality of being God, which quality was shared by two other god-persons
The Pluralists’ understanding is debunked by observing how the author of the Epistle to the Philippians employed the Greek word for “God” - Theos. We have already presented this information in Part I of this exegesis, but will review it here.
The word Theos occurs 602 times in the writings of Paul, if we include the book of Hebrews (1,330 times in the Greek NT) as a title for the Deity (Father). Theos is definitely used of Christ in John 1:1, 20:28, Rom 9:5, 1 Tim 3:16; Titus 2:13, 2 Pet 1:1, John 1:18, Acts 20:28, and 1 John 5:20. There are 3 unchallenged times when theos is a reference to Christ in the writings of Paul (Rom 9:5, 1 Tim 3:16; Titus 2:13).
The manner in which theos is used in the Epistle to the Philippians is important in understanding the Apostle’s intent concerning Christ, in v6. Paul employs theos (God) 23 times; 22 in reference to the Father and 1 time to reference the idol of one’s belly (3:19): even when the Apostle employs “theos” to reference one’s own belly, he is employing it in the same manner as he does in all other places, e.i. one’s supreme God.
Philippians 1:2 and 4:20 form bookends to Paul’s use of the word theos (God).
- 1:2, Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father (θεοῦ πατρὸς), and from the Lord Jesus Christ. And,
- 4:20, Now unto God and our Father be glory for ever and ever. Amen.
Though it may be a bit tedious I will present each place theos is used in the Epistle to the Philippians:1:2 Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father (θεοῦ πατρὸς), and from the Lord Jesus Christ.
1:3 I thank my God (Εὐχαριστῶ τῷ θεῷ μου) upon every remembrance of you,
1:8 For God is my record (μάρτυς γάρ μου ὁ θεός), how greatly I long after you all in the bowels of Jesus Christ.
1:11 Being filled with the fruits of righteousness, which are by Jesus Christ, unto the glory and praise of God (εἰς δόξαν καὶ ἔπαινον θεοῦ.)
1:28 And in nothing terrified by your adversaries: which is to them an evident token of perdition, but to you of salvation, and that (or this) of God (καὶ τοῦτο ἀπὸ θεοῦ:) .
2:6 Who, being in the form of God (ὃς ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ ὑπάρχων), thought it not robbery to be equal with God (εἶναι ἴσα θεῷ,):
2:9 Wherefore God also (διὸ καὶ ὁ θεὸς) hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:
2:11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father (εἰς δόξαν θεοῦ πατρός).
2:13 For it is God (θεὸς γάρ ἐστιν ὁ [the ONE]) which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.
2:27 For indeed he (Epaphroditus) was sick nigh unto death: but God (ἀλλὰ ὁ θεὸς) had mercy on him; and not on him only, but on me also, lest I should have sorrow upon sorrow.
3:3 For we are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit (οἱ πνεύματι θεοῦ λατρεύοντες), and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh.
3:9 And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God (ἐκ θεοῦ) by faith:
3:14 I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God (τοῦ θεοῦ) in Christ Jesus.
3:15 Let us therefore, as many as be perfect, be thus minded: and if in any thing ye be otherwise minded, God (ὁ θεὸς) shall reveal even this unto you.
3:18-19 (For many walk, of whom I have told you often, and now tell you even weeping, that they are the enemies of the cross of Christ: 19 Whose end is destruction, whose God (ὁ θεὸς) is their belly, and whose glory is in their shame, who mind earthly things.)
4:7 And the peace of God (καὶ ἡ εἰρήνη τοῦ θεοῦ), which passeth all understanding, shall keep your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus.
4:9 Those things, which ye have both learned, and received, and heard, and seen in me, do: and the God of peace (καὶ ὁ θεὸς τῆς εἰρήνης) shall be with you.
4:19 But my God (ὁ δὲ θεός μου) shall supply all your need according to his riches in glory by Christ Jesus.
4:20 Now unto God and our Father (τῷ δὲ θεῷ καὶ πατρὶ ἡμῶν) be glory for ever and ever. Amen.
It seems to be clear that the Apostle’s use of theos is always a reference to the Father.
Second, In the Pluralists’ understanding, v6 identifies Jesus as another person from God the Father, Who was equal with God the Father; i.e. “Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God.” This understanding presents a theological problem, in view of the many Scriptures which show clearly that the equality of another person with God is anathema to Holy Scripture. Notice the following texts carefully:
- “That thou mayest know that there is none like unto the LORD our God” — Exodus 8:10.
- In Exodus 15:11 Moses sings out this question, “Who is like unto thee, O LORD, among the gods?” To his own question, Moses gives the answer, “There is none like unto the God of Jeshurum” (a symbolic name for Israel, means Upright) —Deuteronomy 33:26.
- Furthermore, David declared in 2 Samuel 7:22, “Wherefore thou art great, O LORD God: for there is none like thee ... .”
- Then there is 1 Kings 8:23, “LORD God of Israel, there is no God like thee, in heaven above, or on earth beneath ... .”
- The Psalmist asked, “For who in the heaven can be compared unto the LORD?” — Psalms 89:6.
- Isaiah asked a like question, “To whom will ye liken unto God?” —Isaiah 40:18.
- The LORD God asked the same question Himself, “To whom will ye liken me, and make me equal, and compare me, that we may be like?” —Isaiah 46:5.
- Finally, the scribe concurs with Christ when he says, “Well, Master, thou hast said the truth: for there is one God; and there is none other but he:” —Mark 12:32.
B. A Person of God divesting (emptying) Himself of Deity Denies the Incarnation.
The second challenge presented by the Pluralists’ view is to the integrity of Yahweh Himself, and is found in vv7-8, “But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.” It is alleged by Pluralists that the second person of God, i.e. Jesus Christ, “emptied” Himself of His deity in order to live and die as a man, thereby, becoming inferior to the Father. The theological problem with this interpretation is that Apostle Paul teaches that just the opposite is true: “For in him (Jesus Christ) dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power” — Colossians 2:9-10. Thus the doctrine of the Incarnation as is demonstrated, not only by 1 Corinthians 2:9-10, but also by John 1:14 (“And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, … full of grace and truth.”) is undermined by the understanding that Jesus, while on earth, was not fully and completely God Almighty. (If the Pluralists object to this assertion, we would point out that they have no other way of explaining the diminutive knowledge and power of the Son—unless they will embrace the Modalists’ understanding of the Dual Nature of Christ and assign the subornation of the Son to the Father to the locus of the humanity of Christ. Which position they are loath to do.
Thus, the doctrine of the Incarnation (enfleshing) of the Almighty God is actually denied by the Pluralists’ interpretation of Philippians 2:6-8.
Paul’s statement, as it appears in English, is: “But make himself of no reputation ...” This statement in the Greek is: ἀλλὰ ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσεν, (alla eauton ekenōsen). While the Pluralists want to interpret this as “poured out (or empitied) himself” (and by that, implying that the second person of the Godhead emptied Himself of deity in order to suffer as a man), the testimony of holy Scripture just will not allow it. The word ekenōsen is kenoō (Strong’s #G2758 from #G2756; to make empty, i.e. [figuratively] to abase, neutralize, falsify:-make (of none effect, of no reputation, void), be in vain.) Although the root of this Greek word (kenos) has as one of its meaning “to make empty,” our word “kenoō” is never so translated in the New Testament. Kenoō is used four other times in the New Testament, and that, by the same writer, Paul:
Romans 4:14 “... faith is made void.”
1 Corinthians 1:17 “lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.”
1 Corinthians 9:15 “should make my glorying void.”
2 Corinthians 9:3 “lest our boasting of you should be in vain.”
In our text (Phil 2:7) kenoō is used in the same context as its other uses, and is so translated by the KJV translators as “no reputation.” The kenosis, then, was a self-renunciation, not an emptying Himself of deity nor an exchange of deity for humanity. During His sojourn on Earth as a man, Jesus did not cease being God.
Not only does the “divesting” interpretation go counter to Colossians 2:9-10, but it, also, is a denial of the Incarnation of the Mighty God in Christ. In this understanding of Philippians 2:2-8, which takes the imagined second person of Deity and empties Him of His God-ness, we do not have Yahweh God manifest in flesh, as 1 Timothy 3:16 would teach. But instead, we have a God that has divested (emptied) Himself of His deity in order to BECOME human. The problem exists in the fact that the Scripture states: “To wit, that God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself” (2 Corinthians 5:19). Now the question, simply put, is: “Was Jesus Christ, God IN man? Or, was Jesus Christ, God BECOME man?” For the integrity of the Incarnation to remain intact, it must be admitted that Jesus was God IN man.
Some Pluralists will deny that they teach the emptying of deity from the Second Person of the Trinity. Yet, they argue for the kenosis (Philippians 2:7) whenever it is pointed out that Jesus was not equal to the Father in either knowledge (Mark 13:32) or power (John 14:28). This is a case of wanting to have one’s cake and eat it too. However, such an illustrious Trinitarian personality as A. T. Robertson seems to support the teaching of the actual kenosis: “Undoubtedly Christ gave up his environment of glory. He took upon himself limitations of place (space) and of knowledge and of power, though still on earth retaining more of these than any mere man. It is here that men should show restraint and modesty, though it is hard to believe that Jesus limited himself by error of knowledge and certainly not by error of conduct.” —A.T. Robertson, Word Pictures (Bolding and underlining mine.)
“(The Biblical manner of explaining this subordination of the Son is to acknowledge the Dual Nature and thereby locate the subordination in the humanity of Christ.)
Moreover, the duplicity of Trinitarianism is seen in living color in the manner in which they deal with John 17:5 in light of Philippians 2:7. In John 17:5 Jesus says: “And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.” They often present this text to assert that Jesus is another god-person from the Father who is praying to the Father asking to be restored to the glory of deity that He had with the Father before the world was created but does not now (when He prayed this prayer) have. At this point they will point to Philippians 2:6-8 as evidence for the emptying of deity that He is NOW praying to have returned to Him. The problem is: When exegeting Philippians 2:7 they denied that Jesus REALLY emptied Himself of deity, but only chose not to function in His God prerogatives. But, when interpreting John 17:5 they argue just the opposite by having a diminutive Son of God praying to receive His deity back again. We point out that this would not make sense IF He never lost it in the first place. The meaning of duplicity is: deceitfulness; double-dealing—surely the Pluralists demonstrate the very meaning of the word in their dealing with Philippians 2:7 as they relate it to John 17:5.
(The Biblical way to interpret John 17:5 is: The human Christ is praying to His Father to receive the glory He (the human Christ) had in the plan of God in eternity past. The human Christ was crucified before the world began. It is that glory He is not praying to receive.)
C. Does Violence to the Immutability of God.
Another part of this problem is that if Jesus, as God, divested Himself of Deity in order to become a man, it would require a change in the nature of God. It would be God giving up what He was, in order to become what He was not: which is to say that God, who IS not and WAS not human, became human; He became something that He was not before. This presents a problem of some magnitude, in that the Word of God states emphatically: “Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither a shadow of turning” (James 1:17). Furthermore, God says of Himself: “For I am the LORD, I change not” (Mal 3:6). So, not only is the emptying, or divesting, interpretation of Philippians 2:6-8 a denial of the Incarnation of the Mighty God in Christ, but it is, in the same instance, a rejection of the Immutability (the impossibility of change) of God, which doctrine is taught clearly in Scripture.
Conclusion
So, by consideration of Part I and Part II of our exegesis of Philippians 2:6-8 we, now, face the text in its proper context. (This will avoid the pretext of the Pluralists.) That is, although Jesus was All Important, All Superior, All God, Almighty (Rev 1:8), He did not display His importance, His superiority or His deity before men. Instead, He appeared as a servant. This, however, did not lessen His importance, His superiority, His deity, but rather, exalted it. Notice the spiritual principle of holy Scripture, “So the last shall be first and the first last ...” (Matt 20:16). The Christian gets by giving (Luke 6:38), lives by dying (Matt 16:25), is exalted by being abased (Matt 23:12).
Apostolically Speaking,
Bp. Jerry L Hayes
Read Part I of this epistle at the following link:
https://www.blogger.com/blog/post/edit/1382446098927616078/2284811500726155476
No comments:
Post a Comment