Most of the research on Philippians 2:5-11 focus on issues related to its origin and authorship (whether it is a hymn used in early Christian worship or an original composition by Paul), interpretation (whether kerygmatic or ethical interpretation is best suited), structure (whether it consists of six three-line stanzas2 or twelve irregular lines that form a chiasm3 or some other arrangements), and other major exegetical and theological issues. Most of the studies on Philippians 3:7-11 frequently investigate the theme of union with Christ (“in Christ”) and explain some key terms such as knowledge of Christ, power of his resurrection, fellowship in his 1Some of the well-known verses in Philippians are 1:6, 21; 2:5-11; 3:7-11; 4:4, 6-8, 13, 19. 2Silva cites this structure proposed by Lohmeyer as “attractive in its simplicity and exegetically useful.” Moisés Silva, Philippians, 2nd ed., BECNT (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005), 93. 3See Robert H. Gundry, “Style and Substance in ‘the Myth of God Incarnate’ according to Philippians 2:6-11,” in Crossing the Boundaries: Essays in Biblical Interpretation in Honour of Michael D. Goulder, ed. Porter Stanley, Paul Joyce, and David E. Orton, BIS 8 (Leiden, Netherlands: Brill, 1994), 280–82. 1 sufferings, and righteousness.4 Despite the overflow of secondary literature and intense scrutiny of these two passages, there is very little in-depth study on their relationship.5 William Kurz explains that this apparent neglect is because of critical methods which treat these two chapters as fragments from different letters and because Philippians 2:6-11, in particular, is treated as an isolated hymn.6 Hence, many fail to notice the parallelism.7
When I was very young and read this verse, to me it simply meant that he existed as a spirit creature as they are not flesh. But at Genesis 1:26 the phrase our image tells us it is not just a spirit creature but has all the qualities like love, wisdom, justice and power of God. But the son is of the highest order of these qualities especially as compared to other angels and humans.
A good example is the use of isa (“equal” at Isaiah 51:23) in the Septuagint: Here God is speaking about those oppressors who commanded Israelites to lie down flat on the ground so they could be walked upon, and the Israelites “made their bodies equal [isa] with the ground” so they could be walked upon. "Obviously the Israelites did not make their bodies absolutely equal with the ground thereby making themselves literal ground [or having the ‘absolute sameness of nature’ as the ground as Walter Martin would have to say] also, but merely made them equal in the attributes (neuter) of the ground: flatness, lowness, destined to be walked upon, of little worth, etc."
"Philosophical Use. morphe has no unequivocal sense in philosophy. .... The term never achieves any fixity that influences ordinary usage, and from Stoicism onward is rare in philosophy. Philo contrasts unformed matter with the creation, in which things have received their forms [appearances]. In general morphe in all its nuances represents what may be seen by the senses”
"those who advocated "form" as a definition of "morphe" simply stated that it means such, while those who advocated "external appearance" also provided support for their interpretation, such as 4 Macc. 15.3 (4), Mark 16:12, 1 Clement 39:3, Job 4:16 LXX, Xenophon, Philo, Lucian, and Libanius."
μορφή, ῆς, ἡ ⟦morphḗ⟧ (Hom.+) form, outward appearance, shape gener. of bodily form 1 Cl 39:3; ApcPt 4:13 (Job 4:16; ApcEsdr 4:14 p. 28, 16 Tdf.; SJCh 78, 13). Of the shape or form of statues (Jos., Vi. 65; Iren. 1, 8, 1 [Harv. I 67, 11]) Dg 2:3. Of appearances in visions, etc., similar to persons (Callisthenes [IV b.c.]: 124 Fgm. 13 p. 644, 32 Jac. [in Athen. 10, 75, 452b] Λιμὸς ἔχων γυναικὸς μορφήν; Diod S 3, 31, 4 ἐν μορφαῖς ἀνθρώπων; TestAbr A 16 p. 97, 11 [Stone p. 42] ἀρχαγγέλου μορφὴν περικείμενος; Jos., Ant. 5, 213 a messenger fr. heaven νεανίσκου μορφῇ): of God’s assembly, the church Hv 3, 10, 2; 9; 3, 11, 1; 3, 13, 1; Hs 9, 1, 1; of the angel of repentance ἡ μ. αὐτοῦ ἠλλοιώθη his appearance had changed m 12, 4, 1. Of Christ (ἐν μ. ἀνθρώπου TestBenj 10:7; Just., D. 61, 1; Tat. 2, 1; Hippol., Ref. 5, 16, 10. Cp. Did., Gen. 56, 18; of deities ἐν ἀνθρωπίνῃ μορφῇ: Iambl., Vi. Pyth. 6, 30; cp. Philo, Abr. 118) μορφὴν δούλου λαβών he took on the form of a slave=expression of servility Phil 2:7 (w. σχῆμα as Aristot., Cat. 10a, 11f, PA 640b, 30–36). This is in contrast to expression of divinity in the preëxistent Christ: ἐν μ. θεοῦ ὑπάρχων although he was in the form of God (cp. OGI 383, 40f: Antiochus’ body is the framework for his μ. or essential identity as a descendant of divinities; sim. human fragility [Phil 2:7] becomes the supporting framework for Christ’s servility and therefore of his κένωσις [on the appearance one projects cp. the epitaph EpigrAnat 17, ’91, 156, no. 3, 5–8]; on μορφὴ θεοῦ cp. Orig., C. Cels. 7, 66, 21; Pla., Rep. 2, 380d; 381bc; X., Mem. 4, 3, 13; Diog. L. 1, 10 the Egyptians say μὴ εἰδέναι τοῦ θεοῦ μορφήν; Philo, Leg. ad Gai. 80; 110; Jos., C. Ap. 2, 190; Just., A I, 9, 1; PGM 7, 563; 13, 272; 584.—Rtzst., Mysterienrel.3 357f) Phil 2:6. The risen Christ ἐφανερώθη ἐν ἑτέρᾳ μορφῇ appeared in a different form Mk 16:12 (of the transfiguration of Jesus: ἔδειξεν ἡμῖν τὴν ἔνδοξον μορφὴν ἑαυτοῦ Orig., C. Cels. 6, 68, 23). For lit. s. on ἁρπαγμός and κενόω 1b; RMartin, ET 70, ’59, 183f.—DSteenberg, The Case against the Synonymity of μορφή and εἰκών: JSNT 34, ’88, 77–86; GStroumsa, HTR 76, ’83, 269–88 (Semitic background).—DELG. Schmidt, Syn. IV 345–60. M-M. EDNT. TW. Spicq. Sv.
I would suggest reading the entire entry for eidos in F.E. Peters' "Greek Philosophical Terms," but here is something he writes on page 47 about eidos in Plato. BTW, eide is plural for eidos:
7. For Plato the eide did exist separately (see Tim. 52a-c) and the reasons may be sought in epistemological considerations as well as the ethical ones that troubled Socrates and that were almost certainly operative upon Plato as well. We have already noted the suggested influence of Heraclitus on Plato (see Meta. g87a, l078b) to the effect that, given the changing, fluctuating nature of sensible phenomena (see rhoe), true knowledge'(episteme) is impossible, impossible, that is, unless there is a stable, eternal reality beyond the merely sensible. The eide are that suprasensible reality and so the cause of episteme and the condition of all philosophical discourse (Phaedo 65d-e, Parm. 13Sbc, Rep. 508c ff.). For the further epistemological corollaries, see doxa, episteme, noesis.
By seeing the expression “in the form of God” against the common wisdom of antiquity that offspring bear the visible likeness of their parents, Paul's thought becomes much clearer. As the Son of God from heaven, Christ bore the outward morphe of his Father in his existence before becoming a man and divested himself (heauton ekenosen) of it in order to take the form of a slave. (C.A. Wannamaker, page 185)
You're last quote is just not going to wash. I am quite sure that the morphe of "god" (not the father) could be applied to Cesar and even Pilate of the period. Walk out on the street at the time with the purple and gold garb, see what would happen.
One would think that the fact that God possesses the nature of God would go without saying. Note please that there are NO scriptures that speak of the Father as being in the image(eikon) or form(morphe) of God he is plain and simply the God John8:54"Jesus replied, “If I glorify myself, my glory means nothing. My Father, whom you claim as your God(lit.the God of you), is the one who glorifies me."
"Best known are the divine honors paid to rulers of the Roman Empire, starting with Julius Caesar. We have an inscription dedicated to him in 49 BCE (five years before he was assassinated) discovered in the city of Ephesus, which says this about him:
I don't have BDAG, and now I know I will not be buying one:-
"This is in contrast to expression of divinity in the preëxistent Christ: ἐν μ. θεοῦ ὑπάρχων although he was in the form of God (cp. OGI 383, 40f: Antiochus’ body is the framework for his μ. or essential identity as a descendant of divinities; sim. human fragility [Phil 2:7]"
"Though he was in the similtude of a God he gave no thought to making equality with a God a prize"? Anything is possible I suppose ,but it does seem improbable.
For the Roman coinage as public, cf. the lex de Gallia Cisalpina, CIL I2 592, col II., 1. 1: 'pecunia ... signata forma p(ublica) p(opulei) R(omanei)' ('money ... minted with the public type of the Roman People').
Duncan, my comment about Caesar/Pilate was in response to what you said:
You're last quote is just not going to wash. I am quite sure that the morphe of "god" (not the father) could be applied to Cesar and even Pilate of the period. Walk out on the street at the time with the purple and gold garb, see what would happen.
Duncan, you also overlooked the most important part of BDAG and LSJ where it is explained that morphe can denote the outward form, shape, external appearance of a thing, and this has been one of the word's meanings since Homer. That is the most likely meaning in Phil. 2:6-7.
μορφή -ής, ή 0 form, figure, appearance Pa r m . B8.53 A e s c h l . ft; 210, al. Pind . O. 6.76, aL Ap. 4.1193 etc.; θεών of the gods Xe n . Mem . 4-3.13; τού στόματος of the mouth Ach . 2.1.3 I of a man figure, person Soph . EL 1159, al. | size, stature: μορφάν βραχύς small in stature Pind . /. 4.53; μέγας τήν μορφήν of great size (elephant) A c H. 4.4.31extens., of words good form, dignity Od. 8.170,11.367 H] form, appearance, aspect Aeschl . fir. 619M, aL So p h . TV. 699, aL etc.; όνειράτων άλίγκιοι μορφαίσι dreamlike in their form Aeschl . Pr. 449; άλλάττειν τό αύτοΰ είδος εις πολλάς μορφάς to change one's shape in many ways Plat. Rp. 38od | pL μορφαί external actions, gestures, postures Dio n . 14.9.4 (o f barbarians) [c] extens. species, sort, kind Eu r . Ion 382, aL Plat. Rp. 397c Aristot. G A . 737b 4, a l etc.; άλλαι βιότου μορφαί other ways of life Eur . Ion 1068; παντοδαπαι χρωμάτων μορφαί all kinds of colors Aristot. CoL 799b 18 [5] philos. form Aristot. Metaph. 1033b 6, aL; ή ουσία και ή έκάστου μ. the essence and the form of each thing A r ist o t. P A . 646b 2 || Christ nature or essence of God N T PhiL 2.6 G r e g .1 Eun. 3.2.55 • Dor. μορφά
You missed the part about morphe focusing on what's visible to the eye. And no one has seen eht Father except for his monogenes Son/god and the angelic sons in heaven who behold their Father's face constantly.
Just shows your lack of understanding. "a" does not exist in Greek but the definite article does, or is it more of your obfuscation?
"God is spirit" - in the same way as "god is love".
But in Philippians we have god with the definite article and also god qualified as father, but not in that verse. "You are god's", I think you get the point.
Also see https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/search?q=strimple
Did you notice that every instance from the LXX, I believe, supports the external appearance understanding of morphe in Phil. 2:6-7. The only occurrence that might militate against it, is from the Apocrypha (Tobit 1:13).
John6:46NIV"No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father. " Matthew28:10NIV"“See that you do not despise one of these little ones. For I tell you that their angels in heaven always see the face of my Father in heaven."
Duncan, not sure whom you're addressing about the Greek article, but when a noun does not have the definite article in Greek, it could still be definite semantically or it could be qualitative or indefinite/or combination thereof. So, just because the article is not in Phil. 2:6 with "God/god" doesn't mean it's not definite.
Instead of John 6:46, I actually had John 1:18 in mind and Matt. 18:10.
Up to this point, I've been addressing Kel's erroneous understanding of morphe, but I will be moving on to other parts of his video. I just think he's plainly mistaken about what morphe means in this account.
Even if status is a possible meaning (and it is), one can't just dogmatically insist that meaning is the correct one.
Duncan, sorry, but it's really sad how people take the Bible and twist it for their own ends. Talk about obfuscation. I read the interpretatioin set forth about Mt. 18:10 and they redefine everything from the heavens to the angels to the little ones. The interpretation they offer is so implausible that it would be funny if it were not so sad. Yes, angels can = messenger, but did they forget messengers can be human or spirit in the Bible? Did they also forget that heaven(s) and sky/skies are the same word in Greek and Hebrew?
I will offer some views from scholars, which those reading can accept or reject:
David Turner (BECNT, pages 439-440): In addition to dealing decisively with sin in their own lives, disciples must also avoid contempt for fellow members of the community (cf. Rom. 14:3, 10, 15; 1 Cor. 11:22; 1 Tim. 4:12), described here, as in 18:6, as “little ones.” These must not be despised, because angels represent them before God (cf. Heb. 1:14). Such angelic ministry to believers is real, albeit mysterious.1 All in all, the flow of Matt. 18:1–10 alternates between warnings of eschatological judgment (18:3, 6–10) and promises of eschatological blessing (18:4–5), depending on the course of action chosen.
Compare Psalm 34:7; 91:11-12; Ezek. 40:3 and many others that Turner cites.
Are we really going to doubt that angels can see God? Compare Isa. 6:1-3.
In the WB Commentary, Donald Hagner appliues Mt. 18:10 to angels, but he contends that in the ancient Jewish tradition, only certain angels could see God: he references Isa. 6:2; 1 Enoch 14:21; 1 Enoch 40; cf. 1 Enoch 100. Compare Luke 1:19; Tobit 12:15; Revelation 8:2 and Heb. 1:7, 14. The little ones (per the context) are members of the Christian community, not just little kids.
Hebrews2:16NIV"For surely it is not angels(superhuman messengers) he helps, but Abraham’s descendants. (Human messengers)" Hebrews2:9NIV"But we do see Jesus, who was made lower than the angels for a little while, now crowned with glory and honor because he suffered death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone." Matthew12:5,6"Or haven’t you read in the Law that the priests on Sabbath duty in the temple desecrate the Sabbath and yet are innocent? 6I tell you that something greater than the temple is here. " Jesus was never lower than any human messenger. After his resurrection he became greater than even the heavenly messengers.
Everybody here knows that there is no article in Greek or Hebrew Duncan so you're not intimidating anyone. For the record I did state that "a God" is a possible rendering. I was questioning the likelihood that this was the apostle's intended meaning. The idea that every occurrence of Theos minus the article must be indefinite is simply false, it may or may not be depending on the context, e. g: Matthew27:47NIV"About three in the afternoon Jesus cried out in a loud voice, “Eli, Eli, c lemasabachthani?” (which means “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”). d" Hopefully you are not going to claim that Theos here refers to anyone but the God and Father of our Lord.
I am not going get distracted this time. Form of of god is clearly contrasted with form of a servant.
Jesus was happy to come into Jerusalem in the status of a king, but did he dress like one. He was able to heal an perform many miracles, which he did, but he washed the feet of his disciples.
Philippians is quite clear in its contrast and the overall context in which it is used, anyone who claims otherwise has no choice but to assert that it is a "hymn" to remove it from its context, just like many other Pauline texts.
There are many factors that can make a noun definite including but not limited too the following: prepositions, Genitive constructions, Dative Constructions, participles, demonstratives, etc
In Phil 2:4, I would say its most likely definite (from my observations an indefinite genitive construction normally is inverted, again I may well be wrong) since he is also said to be in the "image of God" - while these 2 words do not specifically parallel one another, they sort of mean the same thing.
a problem encroaches for ones who say Jesus is "a man" - who is the only begotten son in John 1:18 (& other scriptures)? who is said to have seen God and is in the bosom position. A man cannot see God and live.. The LXX clears up ALOT of possible misunderstandings (whether the LXX is considered important to Jews is besides the point)
slightly offtopic: Edgar, not sure where I can post these last few questions now the other post is locked - I have compiled them all so they can all go into a single message to clear clutter Once again I much appreciate your help on these matters and continuing with Allins paper :)
1) Agreed that form of God is clearly contrasted with form of a servant
2) Yes, Jesus showed humility when he came to Jerusalem and when washing the feet of his disciples. However, that does not mean that form of God/a god applied while he was on earth or that existing in the divine form started at his birth or the beginning of his ministry. Additionally, I've yet to see one example where clothing applies to one's form unless I just missed it.
3) The early church fathers like Novatian and Tertullian did not believe that Philippians 2:5-11 is a hymn, yet the applied the account to the preexistent Christ. I don't believe it comes from a prior hymn but I affirm the preexistence of Christ and I know numerous scholars who think the same way. Preexistence and whether Phil. 2:5-11 is a hymn are two separate issues.
4) In my view, the context clearly suggests that form of God denotes external appearance, that along with the usages in LXX and the NT. Compare Mark 16:12.
1) Maybe you could post the questions you have to this thread and I could then assess where they might best belong or just start a new thread
2) Could you please limit them to two questions? I still want to comment on Allin's work and my schedule is going to change soon, then I'll be busier than I am now. Thanks
The Roman empire started to collapse during the time of Hadrian, This is why he built the walls for taxation. I think that the ubiquitous use of theos started to fade from this time onward. Need to see how the Term theos was used later.
Duncan, yes, I was talking about how those two fathers understood Philippians 2:5-11. And keep in mind that both of those men are bigger than any one journal article. I'm aware of both their histories although some elements of each one's story are disputable. In any event, how they understood Phil. 2:5ff is a separate issue.
My comments about not finding examples applied specifically to the phrase, morphe theou. Even for morphe, I don't see evidence yet for linking it with how one dresses.
God without the article clearly referring to the God and Father of Jesus same as at John1:18 by the way. Thus I'm compelled to reject your oversimplification of the issue of nominatives minus the article.
being made in HUMAN likeness." The Divine form is contrasted with the human form. He was always a Servant of JEHOVAH. When he became human became under the Law Galatians4:4NIV"But when the set time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, "
I've read the JETS article before and still have it. Is there something you wanted me to look for in that article? Admittedly, I don't remember everything he said, but I did quote Hellerman or post some quotes from him above.
I find Xenophanes interesting: just finished teaching about the Presocratics (among other things) last semester. Xenophanes is famous for railing against anthropomorphism but I'm not sure how he fits into this discussion. One of his criticisms pertained to demigods. For me, Jesus is not and never was a demigod.
I read the first ten pages of Hellerman's article and I now recall his argument. He concedes that morphe clearly denotes a thing'sperson's visible appearance but he wants to add social status to the sense/meaning of morphe in Philippians. I've said that status is a possible meaning, but it might not be a strong possibility like Hellerman thinks.
Just looked at that scripture in Matthew and it is contextually problematic - https://www.bibleref.com/Matthew/18/Matthew-18-10.html#:~:text=Matthew%2018%3A10%2C%20KJV%3A,Father%20which%20is%20in%20heaven.
Seems more than one interpretation does not see literal angels. I don't know which interpretation works best but I am certainly not going to hang too much on it.
I agree with those who have said that Θεοῦ could be either definite or indefinite at Philippians 2:6. I would just like to add that I think the view that it's indefinite has a lot going for it.
First, there is the literary correspondence between μορφῇ Θεοῦ and μορφὴν δούλου. All translators agree that δούλου is not definite, which, stylistically speaking, may favor taking Θεοῦ indefinitely.
Second, one almost gets the impression that the Prologue to GJohn was written with Philippians 2 in mind. There Θεὸς is clearly indefinite. If the writer of GJohn was thinking of Philippians 2, then I find it probable that he understood Θεοῦ to be indefinite.
I find it irresistible:
Although he existed in the form of a god, he did not consider equality with God as something to be seized.
Suddenly the text's difficulties vanish and we're left with a very clear statement that is theologically appropriate.
The context of Matthew 18:10NKJV"“Take heed that you do not despise one of these little ones, for I say to you that in heaven their angels always see the face of My Father who is in heaven. 11For[c] the Son of Man has come to save that which was lost.
12“What do you think? If a man has a hundred sheep, and one of them goes astray, does he not leave the ninety-nine and go to the mountains to seek the one that is straying? "
The context of Galatians4:4: Galatians4:1-5NKJV"Now I say that the heir, as long as he is a child, does not differ at all from a slave, though he is master of all, 2but is under guardians and stewards until the time appointed by the father. 3Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world. 4But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, born[a] of a woman, born under the law, 5to redeem those who were under the law, that we might receive the adoption as sons."
Sean, I know you didn't do this in your translation, but one could translate τὸ εἶναι ἴσα Θεῷ as "being equal to/with a god," but I don't think that was Paul's meaning. Yes, Christ could have existed in the form of a god, according to the apostle, but I look at God's form as something that is singular and different from the servant's form. The background of this account might also suggest that Christ existed in a way that resembled his Father's glory. Yet he still refused to usurp God's throne.
One other thing is when I consider how Paul used the anarthrous theos in Philippians.
1Corinthians11:7AKJV"For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, for as much as he is(Huparchon) the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. "
Edgar, your interpretation is just not viable to anyone who believed in god's at the time. This would be a striving to be equal and that would be unattainable, but Jesus did not even try. A status differentiation. John 13:16.
Sure, but I don't think "equal to a god" is anywhere near as smooth and stylistically attractive as "form of a god." The relationship that is in focus in the New Testament is the relationship between God and his Son, not between the Son and some unspecified god.
What would it mean to say that the Son was in the "form of a god"? It could signify a powerful spirit being, or an immortal being, or, as in Mike Heiser's model with respect to ELOHIM used of those who are not Jah, it could signify an occupant of heaven. Or, all of these senses/connotations could be involved.
If this is correct, then it would constitute good evidence against a Socinian reading.
Sean, I just think you are pushing the text beyond it intended purpose. Focusing on the "form of a servant" is the thrust of the whole analogy.
I also think that "a god" in English is just not a good translation. However understanding it as a striving for authority - which I think is entirely plausible for the time and those who claimed to be APO THEOS make this understanding a good option. John 12:49.
John14:9NIV"Jesus answered: “Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?" John1:18LSB"No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him." He was a God in his own right but unlike JEHOVAH his Godhood was derived from his own God and Father. Thus he never even attempted to match the only underived autotheos in glory though he bore the closest resemblance to that one of among all his brothers.
Duncan, I'm not sure what you're calling my interpretation of Phil. 2:6, but it's not a stretch to believe that some people, whether in the fifth century BCE or 1 st century CE, aspired to be like God or they strove to be divine. And this was not just about social status: the "king of Tyre" wanted to be a god; the Babylonian kings (despite what Hellermann asserts) wanted to be godlike/divine and there is a fabled story about the Greek philosopher Empedocles who died as he tried to become a god. I don't think apotheosis can be reduced to a matter of social status. See the Oedipus Rex.
Hi Sean, I do grant the possibility that the anarthrous noun could be translated "a god," and you've made the point about form of a servant being coupled with it. Maybe I'm bound to thinking of theos as God in this instance. One thing about Greek, it's more about possibilities than most folks think. Thanks.
Psalm8:5LSB" Yet You have made him a little lower than the angels(elohim), And You crown him with glory and majesty!" They are Gods thus they have the form of Gods so having the form of a God ,would not be remarkable for any of them let alone the greatest among them. An unusually striking resemblance to his God and Father would be something remarkable .
Duncan, I posted from more than BDAG to make the point about morphe meaning "outward/external appearance," but here is another witness, The Cambridge Greek Lexicon:
μορφή ής, dial, μορφα ας, Aeol. μόρφα ας/ 1 physical or visible form; form or appearance (of persons, deities, animals, things) Eleg. Lyr. Parm. Emp. Hdt. Trag. +; (specif.) shape or form (opp. είδος appearance) Arist. 2 attractive form or appearance, beauty (of persons or deities) Pi. E. X. Bion; (of speech) Od. 3 kind, sort or aspect (of non-physical or abstract things, such as calamities, activities, changes, life) E. PL Plu.
Duncan, but as you can see, LSJ, BDAG, Brill, and Cambridge Greek Lexicon all testify to the outer appearance definition for morphe and so do other works. Even Hellerman does not deny this denotation: he just doesn't want to stop there.
Form can be used in English as you mentioned, but one can use form to mean shape too. We talk about bodily form, a statue's form or form when it comes to works of art. Again, one has to consider the context.
I will look closer at Exod 7:1 later.
I never said the Jews were correct when imputing blasphemy to Jesus by illegitimately claiming God as his Father, but the point here is that being equal to God was not just a matter of social status in their eyes. Why would claiming a certain social status have been worthy of death? Why would that have arisen to a charge of blasphemy?
I'm actually focusing on John 5:18, but maybe that's what you meant.
I find the words of Trinitarian scholar G.R.B. Murray of interest:
"Bultmann, however, went on to point out that the Jews failed to grasp that Jesus is the Revealer; second, they made the mistake of viewing equality with God as independence from God, whereas for Jesus it meant total dependence on God ([Bultmann] 244). In light of these (undoubtedly correct) observations, the expression 'equal to God' is a misleading interpretation of the declaration of Jesus. That Jesus spoke of God as his own Father rightly points to the unique relation to God, and it is the Evangelist's concern to make plain the nature of that relationship. But in vv. 19-30 we see a twofold emphasis that exists in tension: on the one hand there is the acknowledgement by Jesus of the total dependence of the Son on the Father, and on the other a consciousness of the Father's appointment of the Son to perform on his behalf works that God alone has the right and power to execute (vv 19-20, 21, 22, 26-27, 30). It is perhaps not irrelevant to note that the Jews were ready, when they wished, to recognize that in certain conditions men could be spoken of as God. For example they viewed Ps 82:6, 'I said you are gods, sons of the Most High all of you,' as relating to the people of Israel. And they glorified in the fact that in Exod 7:1 God states that he has made Moses as God to Pharaoh, whereas since Pharaoh made himself as God he had to learn that he was nothing (Tanh. B sec. 12 in Str-B 2:462-64). It would seem that in their eyes God could exalt a man to be as God, but whoever MADE HIMSELF as God called down divine retribution on himself. They saw Jesus in the latter category" (John, 75).
While I do not agree with Murray's comments in toto, it seems that the quote provided above does shed light on how monotheism was construed in ancient Judaism. Having said the foregoing, I would still argue that certain Jews thought Jesus was making himself equal to God, but they were mistaken. Making himself equal to the Father (Jehovah) would have constituted blasphemy according to their laws.
After reviewing the verses again in Hebrew, Exod. 4:16 could be translated "as a god" or "as God," but 7:1 is different. Umberto Cassuto translates 7:1 this way: I have made you a god to Pharaoh.
He is still WRONG. Since when, for a singular using this plural has it ever been anything other than God?
I have made YOU God to pharaoh. Since pharaoh did not recognise Yehovah he would be made to recognise Moses of the staff and horns. Just like pharaoh with his staff and horns. There is nothing complicated about the Hebrew.
So why no definite article in neither the Hebrew or greek? At John 10:34 Jesus quotes Psalms82:6 as a defense when accused of making himself a God ,JEHOVAH has the right to exalt any servant he chooses and if such exalted ones can be identified as gods how can it be argued logically against calling any one of them a God John1:18LSB"No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him." Note please that the Lord JEHOVAH is not a begotten God Judges8:33NIV"No sooner had Gideon died than the Israelites again prostituted themselves to the Baals. They set up Baal-Berith as their god(Elohim) "
Exodus21:6NKJV"then his master shall bring him to the judges(Elohim). He shall also bring him to the door, or to the doorpost, and his master shall pierce his ear with an awl; and he shall serve him forever."
Servant, you still have much to learn about Hebrew. Going to lexicons and interlinear is just the beginning.
I will stick to basics. So see - https://biblehub.com/text/exodus/22-9.htm
But, in Genesis 1:1 where the sentence structure is singular but Elohim is Plural , the sentence structure dictates the meaning (as usual).
https://biblehub.com/text/genesis/1-1.htm
Note the combination of singular and plural. For this verse I would also translate as Heaven rather than Heavens.
Yehovah has the right to do anything, but this is YOU claiming to know what is being said and what Yehovah DID DO. Unlike Yehovah, you require evidence that you know his mind.
When you say that the sentence structure in Gen. 1:1 is singular, I assume you mean the verb is singular and the noun elohim is grammatically plural (plural suffix), which normally indicates that one should translate the noun, "God."
Not sure why you'd prefer "heaven" to heavens in this case although I'm not that bothered by either option.
Since when have we translated lê-lō-hîm as "house"?
I did not claim that, sorry if you misunderstood. I am referring to "Lord of Covenant" as the name of a house. Note https://biblehub.com/hebrew/habbealim_1168.htm . I don't really now the best way to translate that verse, its tricky.
When you say that the sentence structure in Gen. 1:1 is singular, I assume you mean the verb is singular and the noun elohim is grammatically plural (plural suffix), which normally indicates that one should translate the noun, "God." - agreed, but I gave servant the tools to work that out for himself. Especially since he keep trying to quote everything back at me like it makes a difference.
I did not translate any of those text and I never suggested that elohim was plural at Exodus so I'm not sure what you are on about. Baal Berith received worship as an elohim despite being singular that is the point if one lets the text speak for itself. His exalted servants are called gods thus there is nothing amiss about calling one of them a God. The evidence is right in front of you ,your choosing to ignore it notwithstanding. You were the one who claimed that Theos/Elohim without the article necessarily implies lower case g God remember.
Servant, note the paper I posted, god or god's? You have to make your own decision on that, but what seem to be rules can have exceptions. Papers like the above are accepted by the the journals because they seem to ask legitimate questions, but whether they come up with correct answers is another matter. Historical contexts and language usage of a particular period or place matter. History is a story so we can never know for sure and I concur with Edgar that we go with the best probability. Problem is we do not all weigh our probabilities in the same way.
1) People like Kel can assert that Colossians 1 is just about the new creation, and I've heard this claim ad nauseam, but I see no justified way that anyone can be dogmatic about the claim. Is it possible? Maybe so, but to assert that it's true without equivocation is another matter.
2) "in him" is possible, but I'm sure there are other possibilities as well.
There is no getting away from the fact that the assumption of pre-existence comes from circular cross referencing that seems to have Gjohn prologue at its core. The reason that a particular verse indicates pre existence is because another verse in another book or letter tells us so. Can't you see just how wrong this methodology can be?
Just been watching the debate between Craig and Tuggy.
All I see from Craig is appeal to authority fallacy, he does not even try to justify his position any other way.
The history of the church speaks for itself. I now find it no coincidence that the venerable bede was so driven to translate GJohn. The fulcrum upon which all there assumptions sit.
Preexistence is based on exegesis and historical considerations, like what early Jews and Christians taught. It's not simply based on cross-references.
Are you saying that the preexisting Messiah and Torah ideas all arose after the first century CE?
I know you seem to think that the pre-Nicenes have little to no value when it comes to understanding Christian doctrine, but it's hard to believe that Polycarp, Irenaeus or Ignatius of Antioch just invented preexistent Logos theology de novo or ex vacuo.
The Christological hymns of the New Testament including Col 1:15-20 are believed to be inspired from the tradition of resistance poetry of Second Temple Judaism. This Jewish form of “lyrical protest” literature, Gordley affirms, was “the ways in which they resist ideologies of empire and promote Jewish ways of thinking, being, and responding to crisis.”
Matthew E. Gordley, New Testament Christological Hymns: Exploring Texts, Contexts, and Significance (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press Academic, 2018), 136.
Due to a busy day, I did not check every link/reference that you gave, Duncan, but I did read at least three of them. Maybe I need to read more, but I'm wondering how Roman imperial ideology negates/rules out a preexistent Messiah.
I'm also very suspicious of the whole "new creation" approach to this issue. The phrase "new creation" appears in 2 Corinthians and Galatians, not in Colossians. Therefore, those advocating this view have to impose the new creation idea onto the Colossians text. Similar approaches attempt to explain away 1 Corinthians 8:6 as a text supporting preexistence. See also 2 Corinthians 8:9.
The article by Mark S. Medley is a stretch. He thinks, "the Colossians hymn draws upon the political ideology and imagery of the Roman Empire in the form of a counter-discourse, as was Jewish resistance poetry, in ways analogous to how Holiday’s 'Strange Fruit' evokes the imagery of white racial terror for the sake of raising political consciousness."
Oh sure! Paul had that in mind when he wrote Colossians :-)
Hi Edgar, sorry for the very late response, like youreself I have been caught up in work and stuff and just havent had time to narrow down my questions - I have narrowed it down too two, there are about 8 more, but Ill see if you answer those on other topics over the next few months otherwise Ill pose them when contextaully appropriate, just in a more round about way.
Here are the rest, a few different subjects but best to fire them all out in 1 big comment to hopefully keep the rest to a minimium - again these jump in subject slightly and some may have already been answered (First 2 are my main 2, others can be ignored)
- Do you think Harners genitive examples for qualitiveness are legit? I realise as a Witness you most likely understand Harners qualiative study and apply it to anarthorus nominatives, though I tend to agree with his genitive examples (even though some are likely definite) (I know witnesses use his study to say John 1:1c should not be rendered "God" NOT that he endorsed "a god" rendering) https://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.com/2009/10/harners-qualitative-jbl-article_12.html This person seems to disagree, however acouple of the examples cited are flawed for example: (3) Mark 6:49 - “they thought that apparition it is.” Harner correctly states: “there is no basis in the context, at any rate, for regarding the noun as definite.” True, because this is a proper example (not abstract, and not “prepositional”) if you accept clauses with the subject understood as part of the verb. But, unlikely as it is, he still insists on finding some kind of “qualitative” force even here:
“The qualitative significance appears to be secondary [anyone can “find” qualitative significance to some degree in any indefinite noun - it all depends on how much you want it to be there - RDB] in this clause, since it is concerned with the identification of a figure who is dimly perceived by the disciples rather than some attribute or quality of Jesus himself.”
My reasoning: In this example they dont actaully know what they are seeing. There is no reason to take this definitely we could take it as indefinitely but that would point to something they had confirmed was "an apparition". So the last way to take it would be that they were highlighting the quality of the thing they thought they were seeing (or apparition-like ).
(6) Mark 12:35 - “that the christ son of david is.” For this one Harner tells us with great ‘decisiveness’: “the predicate noun [‘son of David’] could be interpreted as definite, indefinite, or qualitative.” And, “the first or the second possibility, of course, does not preclude the third.” This type of reasoning, again, allows one to interpret anything he wants as “qualitative” - it’s purely subjective interpretation and, as a result, purely improper as evidence for a “qualitative” rule! And, of course, Harner somehow “sees” a “qualitative” force being prominent here. The real grammatical evidence would lean toward “the” being supplied in an English translation since this is a “prepositional” [more precisely it is a genitive-modified] predicate noun preceding its verb: “that the Christ is the Son of David.” - Also compare the parallel Luke 20:41 where the 'predicate noun' is actually an accusative noun and is after the verb in the Nestle, Westcott-Hort, and UBS texts! I would actaully agree the most likely interpretation of Marks writing is something about the "lineage" itself rather than the person, What? that remains unclear, perhaps emphasis on Jesus being the messiah (Note: I am no trinitarian, but I think Elijah's observations are somewhat flawed - this is very prevelant in the case of genitive constructions)
- Satan is called "the god of this age" (2 Corin 4:4) commentators state Satan is not actaully called "a god" rather just means Ruler - Trinitarians advocate "Nothing created can be a god" - How would you answer this? These people seem to ignore how the Biblical ones understood and used the term.
I think it is obvious that he is trying to use analogy. These papers stick to a conventional view of collisions. They are questioning what is meant rather than what is said. At the end of the day, something got Paul killed?
These are just a few of the papers I have found, most fairly recent.
I will have to seek out the relevant material evidence or Roman political speak of the period.
Duncan, I believe ancient lit can be applied rightly to present issues, but what interests me personally is trying to understand ancient texts.
It has been suggested that Paul died at the hands of Nero during a time when Rome intensely persecuted Christians. Why do we need a theory about resistance language to explain martyrdom? According to the NT, bearing witness to Jesus was enough to get Christians imprisoned or martyred. From time to time, Rome meted out harsh treatment to Jesus' followers. The time of Doodle town was another example.
Another consideration is that if Paul were politically neutral, he would not have resisted the empire in some of the ways suggested.
"According to the NT, bearing witness to Jesus was enough to get Christians imprisoned or martyred." - no it wasn't, it was the way Jesus was witnessed to. Lets not kid ourselves here, the language is seditious. As the video I posted Augustus revived the Religious aspect of Rome as a political tool. He even compared his life to Jewish ritual - but why compare to an insignificant race? As per the comments supposedly of Alexander the great, the greatness of a race was in its mystery. Paul's language was highly political - "Father" "Lord" "creation".
And its not just Paul - https://www.researchgate.net/publication/270437671_The_Divinity_and_Humanity_of_Caesar_in_1Peter_213
Hi Unknown, I don't have a major problem with Harner's remarks on Mark 6:49. He says only a few things about the verse, then moves on. My understanding of his remarks is that he's denying the noun is definite (contra people like Colwell) and he doesn't rule out indefiniteness IMO, and he states that qualitativeness is secondary in this case. So, if the noun does emphasize qualitativeness, tat would be a secondary consideration. Yet he does not make a big issue of whether Mark 6:49 is an example of qualitativeness being emphasized or not. One upshot of Harner's article, according to Daniel Wallace, is that he wanted to show there is a semantic continuum from indefiniteness to qualitativeness to definiteness.
I accept the idea that semanticity may be emphasized by syntactical structures, but I believe that Mark 6:49 is chiefly indefinite. The quality was not being emphasized here as I take you to say, but they wondered if they were seeing an apparition. It's like someone claiming they've seen a ghost: I don't think we would take that to mean that the person is talking about a quality or attribute.
This could be wrong, but I read Harner differently on the Matthean verse (12:35). Context would help to disambiguate the semantic force of the noun phrase in 12:35, and if that is true, the decision would not be purely subjective. Harner sets forth different possibilities, then concludes that Mark wants to make qualitativeness prominent. I don't believe Harner is being dogmatic here but he could be wrong. It's notoriously difficult to decide which semantic force (I-Q-D) is being emphasized in a particular case as Mark 15:39 illustrates.
Wallace's suggestion is interesting that maybe we need to side with Max Zerwick and use the categories, general and specific instead.
John wrote (Revelation 1:9, ESV): "I, John, your brother and partner in the tribulation and the kingdom and the patient endurance that are in Jesus, was on the island called Patmos on account of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus."
Rev. 2:10, which I cited earlier, doesn't say anything about the Devil having Christians thrown into prison because of their subversive language. I doubt that Satan is concerned about the "political ideology" of some Christians.
Rev. 12:11 (NET): But they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony, and they did not love their lives so much that they were afraid to die."
So, Rome wanted to kill Christians merely because their language was subversive? I think there was more to it than that. The persecution of Decian or Diocletian was not about subversive ideology. Jesus even said, "Then they will hand you over to be persecuted and will kill you. You will be hated by all the nations because of my name" (Matt 24:9, NET).
See also what the Romans themselves said about Christians.
Aside from what the Bible teaches, history itself doesn't support this whole subversive ideology claim.
Paul's use of Father and Lord grew out of his Judaic legacy. The same with creation. No need to multiply entities here.
Having said the foregoing, I'm not dismissing Roman influence on books of the NT. However, I don't consider Paul to be political and I think subversive ideology was not the ultimate cause of Christian persecution, even if Revelation contains an antilanguage.
Look, I have heard people making stuff up about Revelation, too many times.
1) Which John?
2) It does not spell out why this particular John was on Patmos, you can theorise all day long but we just don't know. https://biblehub.com/greek/thlipsei_2347.htm
3) The rest is imagery, imminent imagery. https://biblehub.com/greek/melleis_3195.htm
Have you read Hurtados book, destroyer of the god's? "Novelty was no Roman religious virtue."
1) Why is the identity of John so important? I don't see how that affects the reason why 1st century Christians were persecuted, according to their own witness and that of the Romans.
2) Rev. 1:9 doesn't say why this John was on Patmos? Consider the words, ἐγενόμην ἐν τῇ νήσῳ τῇ καλουμένῃ Πάτμῳ διὰ τὸν λόγον τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ τὴν μαρτυρίαν Ἰησοῦ.
Granted, it doesn't give a specific reason or elaborate, but this is enough information to tell us that he is saying he was on the isle because he proclaimed God's word/message and bore witness to Jesus. I don't think he was there by choice based on the tribulation he mentions and the immediate context of this verse.
3) Rev. 2:10 says the Devil will keep on throwing you into prison. My point is that Jesus tells these Christians that they will suffer because of the Devil, not because they're political. The Lord links the persecution with the Devil's opposition to the Christian ecclesia. Please review Rev. 12:10-11. Satan the Devil is depicted as the enemy throughout Revelation, even warring with Michael and his angels in heaven. It was not mere imagery for John and the early Christians.
I believe that I have Hurtado's book, but never read it.
Stephen Smalley (The Revelation to John, page 51) makes a number of observations about Rev. 1:9, but here is something that impinges on the persecution issue:
"John’s imprisonment was ‘on account of God’s word and the witness of Jesus’: that is, because he, as the leader of a strong Christian community, was preaching the gospel openly in Asia. It does not mean that the apostle went to Patmos to evangelize or to receive his apocalypse. Apart from the situation outlined above, John always uses διB (dia, ‘on account of ’) to introduce cause, not purpose (cf. Rev. 2.3; 4.11; et al.)."
Also from G.K. Beale (The Book of Revelation), pertaining to Rev. 1:9ff:
Although some contend that the διά clause at the end of v 10 expresses the purpose for John being on Patmos (he was there in order to receive “the word of God …” or, less typically, to preach the word), διά plus the accusative never has this meaning. It usually connotes cause or consequence (“because of”; cf. BAGD , 181). 91 This is confirmed by the use of the same clause in 6:9 and 20:4, which refer to Christians’ faithfulness as the reason for their persecution, and by the early tradition that held that John was exiled on Patmos.
I don't think "striving for authority" makes any sense as a meaning of μορφῇ Θεοῦ. Moreover, it directly contradicts context, as the text goes on to say that he did not even consider seizing equality with God, and the only equality that he could have attempted to seize would have involved authority, since you can't seize someone else's nature.
Edgar, I am not going to get distracted here, neither Paul nor Peter had this revelation and for them it is interpretation after the fact, from a writing that the early church was definitely not sure about.
You keep reading revelation and I will research the actual history. Like Jesus turning out the money lenders, did that have nothing to do with his trial and death.
Just a reminder that we were discussing the reason for Rome's persecution against the Christians. I cited Revelation because it shows that one doesn't need to resort to ideology hypotheses to explain the persecution. It's the same with Peter and Paul. Please consider what they actually wrote about the reason why Christians get persecuted.
I'm all for historical Jesus research, but one can do the same thing with epistles and with Revelation
Duncan, I don't think you meant to imply that Revelation is not actual history. Granted many things in Revelation had not happened yet, but some were taking place when it was written and the book contains plenty of history. For example, the letters to the seven congregations can be analyzed historically. What about the mention of seven heads and ten horns?
I don't consider Jesus throwing out the money lenders to be a political act. That's certainly not how he explained it either.
Duncan, in answer to Dustin's claims, see above (Beale and Smalley). Dia + accusative is never used in the way that he suggests. Granted, we have no independent corroboration yet that Patmos was used by the Romans for exiling Christians or others, but that doesn't make John's apparent reason impossible. We often find supporting archeological data after the fact.
Besides, other early Christians report being persecuted for the witness they bore. See Philippians 1:12-13; 2 Timothy 2:8-9 and I cited Revelation 6:9; 20:4-6 earlier. Other texts could be adduced to demonstrate why the early Christians said they were persecuted.
David Aune writes a lot about Revelation 1:9, so there's some things that Dustin did not mention. I quote part of Aune's remarks below from his commentary:
John‘s presence on Patmos has been explained in several ways: (1) He had been exiled to Patmos by the Roman authorities. (2) He traveled to Patmos for the purpose of proclaiming the gospel. (3) He went to Patmos in order to receive a revelation. The first explanation, held by many church fathers (Clement Alex. Quis Dives 42; Origen Hom. in Mt.M 7.51; 16.6; Eusebius Hist. Eccl. 3.18; Jerome Devirillustr; 10), appears most probable, even though it requires certain qualifications (see below). Tertullian preserves the view that John was exiled from Rome (Depraescr; 36), a view possibly confirmed by Eusebius (Demonstrevang; 3.5 [116c]). John states that he was on Patmos diav, ―because of,‖ the word of God and the testimony of Jesus. Yet since diav with the accusative can express both cause (―because of, on account of‖) and purpose (―for‖; cf. BDF § 222), there is no grammatical basis for excluding any of the three explanations. On the other hand, the use of similar phrases in 6:9; 20:4 in explicit connection with martyrdom suggests that John‘s presence on Patmos was the result of a capital penalty inflicted on him by Roman authorities. In Roman law poena capitalis, ―capital punishment,‖ denoted not only the death penalty but also loss of caput, i.e., citizenship or liberty (A. Berger, Roman Law, 634).
[End of quote]
Also, as stated before, look at how writers employ dia + the accusative in actual writings.
From Jurgen Roloff's Continental Commentary (Revelation):
Patmos, an island in the Aegean belonging to the group of the Sporades, lies relatively close to the west coast of Asia Minor; at that time it was a day's journey by ship to Ephesus. Why was John living on this sparsely populated mountainous island? Some have considered the possibility that he consciously sought solitude in order to await divine revelations (cf. Mark I: 12-13; Gal. 1:I7). That he was on the island "because of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus," however, can only mean that John was banished to Patmos because of his preaching activity, even if we lack clear evidence that this island was the site of a penal colony at the time. After all, the context makes plain a direct connection between the residence on Patmos and the reference to John's suffering perseverance. Consequently, in his banishment, John himself learned that the witness of Jesus leads to a common suffering with Jesus (cf. v. 9; 6:9; 20:4). Although there were no centrally organized measures by the state against Christians at that time, that does not contradict the fact that John was exiled to Patmos by the authorities in Ephesus as a promoter of official unrest on the basis of his strong views against the cult of the Caesar, which forced itself more and more to the forefront in the cities of Asia Minor.
First it was the trinitarians making no sense - now its the unitarians making crap up..
Where do they get the idea of Jesus' thinking is "from heaven"?
"No. He descended from heaven when he was sent into the world." - wasn't he "sent into the world", when Mary became pregnant with him (via holy spirit)?
"In other words, "the only one who has ascended into heaven is the one who descended." Has Jesus ascended into heaven? What about John 20:17, "do not hold on to me, for I have not yet ascended?""
We have talked about this subject before on the blog, but the material is scattered here and there. I read some of the guy's remarks and it seems he denies that Christ ascended to heaven. Admittedly, GJohn never mentions his ascending (just that he has not ascended yet) but other places, including Acts 1:9-11, do say the Son ascended to heaven. But Unitarians reinterpret many of the sayings like "Sent into the world" or descended from heaven.
To clarify what I said earlier, yes Unitarians deny that Jesus descended from heaven. However, they reinterpret or read differently texts that appear to say he did descend from heaven. For instance, John 6:51; 8:23.
Who's to say that the manna did not physically descend from the sky?
How many men can rightly say the words of John 6:38? If it was only talking about God being the source of someone's life or one originating with God, that would apply to all men.
Yahweh states that bread will rain down from heaven. The last thing Yahweh rained down from heaven was hailstones, which destroyed the land of Egypt (9:23). The change in setting signals a transition in the character of Yahweh from the warrior in the land of Egypt to the shepherd in the wilderness, who feeds his people. The "bread from heaven" is difficult to interpret. Scholars have sought any number of naturalistic interpretations identifying the food with desert shrubs or insects.' But the description in 16:14, 31, and in Num 11:7-9 emphasizes the supernatural character of the food. The bread does not grow from the earth, but descends from the air (Exod 16:14; Num 11:9). Once on the ground it appears as snow (mehuspds) in the desert (Exod 16:14).
Thomas B. Dozeman. Exodus (Eerdmans Critical Commentary) (Kindle Locations 5560-5564). Kindle Edition.
Duncan, you cited Exodus 16:4 like it goes against Jesus' preexistence. That is why I included details about bread coming from the sky. And I know Jesus is not literal bread.
Unitarians work awful hard to explain away John 6:33, 38.
200 comments:
Well someone is going to have to get the ball rolling with a challenge to any of his claims? Preferably quoting the time stamp in the video.
I will have something to say. Don't know if it will be tonight, but certainly by tomorrow night. I will check for other comments later.
https://dukespace.lib.duke.edu/dspace/bitstream/handle/10161/5426/Austino_duke_0066D_11271.pdf?sequence=1
In fact, cities often use forms of ὑπάρχω to stress that the parties were renewing current practices and agreements. pg157
https://www.billmounce.com/greek-dictionary/hyparcho
https://academic.oup.com/jts/article-abstract/66/1/90/2386177?redirectedFrom=fulltext
https://repository.sbts.edu/bitstream/handle/10392/5331/Tan_sbts_0207D_10384.pdf?isAllowed=y&sequence=1
Statement of the Problem
Most of the research on Philippians 2:5-11 focus on issues related to its origin and authorship (whether it is a hymn used in early Christian worship or an original composition by Paul), interpretation (whether kerygmatic or ethical interpretation is best suited), structure (whether it consists of six three-line stanzas2 or twelve irregular lines that form a chiasm3 or some other arrangements), and other major exegetical and theological issues. Most of the studies on Philippians 3:7-11 frequently investigate the theme of union with Christ (“in Christ”) and explain some key terms such as knowledge of Christ, power of his resurrection, fellowship in his 1Some of the well-known verses in Philippians are 1:6, 21; 2:5-11; 3:7-11; 4:4, 6-8, 13, 19. 2Silva cites this structure proposed by Lohmeyer as “attractive in its simplicity and exegetically useful.” Moisés Silva, Philippians, 2nd ed., BECNT (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005), 93. 3See Robert H. Gundry, “Style and Substance in ‘the Myth of God Incarnate’ according to Philippians 2:6-11,” in Crossing the Boundaries: Essays in Biblical Interpretation in Honour of Michael D. Goulder, ed. Porter Stanley, Paul Joyce, and David E. Orton, BIS 8 (Leiden, Netherlands: Brill, 1994), 280–82. 1 sufferings, and righteousness.4 Despite the overflow of secondary literature and intense scrutiny of these two passages, there is very little in-depth study on their relationship.5 William Kurz explains that this apparent neglect is because of critical methods which treat these two chapters as fragments from different letters and because Philippians 2:6-11, in particular, is treated as an isolated hymn.6 Hence, many fail to notice the parallelism.7
When I was very young and read this verse, to me it simply meant that he existed as a spirit creature as they are not flesh. But at Genesis 1:26 the phrase our image tells us it is not just a spirit creature but has all the qualities like love, wisdom, justice and power of God. But the son is of the highest order of these qualities especially as compared to other angels and humans.
https://www.biola.edu/blogs/good-book-blog/2012/in-the-form-of-god-phil-2-6
https://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/52/52-4/JETS%252052-4%2520779-797%2520Hellerman.pdf
https://skipmoen.com/2014/10/the-assumed-trinity-a-look-at-philippians-26/
Isaiah44:13 Septuagint"ἐκλεξάμενος τέκτων ξύλον ἔστησεν αὐτὸ ἐν μέτρῳ, καὶ ἐν κόλλῃ ἐρύθμισεν αὐτό, καὶ ἐποίησεν αὐτὸ ὡς Μορφὴν ἀνδρὸς καὶ ὡς ὡραιότητα ἀνθρώπου, στῆσαι αὐτὸ ἐν οἴκῳ
Also see https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon/g3444/lxx/lxx/0-1/
https://www.hebrew-streams.org/works/ntstudies/phil2-6.html
A good example is the use of isa (“equal” at Isaiah 51:23) in the Septuagint: Here God is speaking about those oppressors who commanded Israelites to lie down flat on the ground so they could be walked upon, and the Israelites “made their bodies equal [isa] with the ground” so they could be walked upon. "Obviously the Israelites did not make their bodies absolutely equal with the ground thereby making themselves literal ground [or having the ‘absolute sameness of nature’ as the ground as Walter Martin would have to say] also, but merely made them equal in the attributes (neuter) of the ground: flatness, lowness, destined to be walked upon, of little worth, etc."
"Philosophical Use. morphe has no unequivocal sense in philosophy. .... The term never achieves any fixity that influences ordinary usage, and from Stoicism onward is rare in philosophy. Philo contrasts unformed matter with the creation, in which things have received their forms [appearances]. In general morphe in all its nuances represents what may be seen by the senses”
See - Clarke’s Commentary, NT, pp. 1100-1101, vol. 6A, Ages Software, Version 2.0, 1997.
"those who advocated "form" as a definition of "morphe" simply stated that it means such, while those who advocated "external appearance" also provided support for their interpretation, such as 4 Macc. 15.3 (4), Mark 16:12, 1 Clement 39:3, Job 4:16 LXX, Xenophon, Philo, Lucian, and Libanius."
https://christianevidence.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/What-Did-Jesus-Wear.pdf
https://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/greek/kjv/morphe.html
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0057:entry=morfh/
Liddell, Scott and Jones on morphe.
From BDAG Greek-English LExicon:
μορφή, ῆς, ἡ ⟦morphḗ⟧ (Hom.+) form, outward appearance, shape gener.
of bodily form 1 Cl 39:3; ApcPt 4:13 (Job 4:16; ApcEsdr 4:14 p. 28, 16 Tdf.; SJCh 78, 13). Of the shape or form of statues (Jos., Vi. 65; Iren. 1, 8, 1 [Harv. I 67, 11]) Dg 2:3. Of appearances in visions, etc., similar to persons (Callisthenes [IV b.c.]: 124 Fgm. 13 p. 644, 32 Jac. [in Athen. 10, 75, 452b] Λιμὸς ἔχων γυναικὸς μορφήν; Diod S 3, 31, 4 ἐν μορφαῖς ἀνθρώπων; TestAbr A 16 p. 97, 11 [Stone p. 42] ἀρχαγγέλου μορφὴν περικείμενος; Jos., Ant. 5, 213 a messenger fr. heaven νεανίσκου μορφῇ): of God’s assembly, the church Hv 3, 10, 2; 9; 3, 11, 1; 3, 13, 1; Hs 9, 1, 1; of the angel of repentance ἡ μ. αὐτοῦ ἠλλοιώθη his appearance had changed m 12, 4, 1. Of Christ (ἐν μ. ἀνθρώπου TestBenj 10:7; Just., D. 61, 1; Tat. 2, 1; Hippol., Ref. 5, 16, 10. Cp. Did., Gen. 56, 18; of deities ἐν ἀνθρωπίνῃ μορφῇ: Iambl., Vi. Pyth. 6, 30; cp. Philo, Abr. 118) μορφὴν δούλου λαβών he took on the form of a slave=expression of servility Phil 2:7 (w. σχῆμα as Aristot., Cat. 10a, 11f, PA 640b, 30–36). This is in contrast to expression of divinity in the preëxistent Christ: ἐν μ. θεοῦ ὑπάρχων although he was in the form of God (cp. OGI 383, 40f: Antiochus’ body is the framework for his μ. or essential identity as a descendant of divinities; sim. human fragility [Phil 2:7] becomes the supporting framework for Christ’s servility and therefore of his κένωσις [on the appearance one projects cp. the epitaph EpigrAnat 17, ’91, 156, no. 3, 5–8]; on μορφὴ θεοῦ cp. Orig., C. Cels. 7, 66, 21; Pla., Rep. 2, 380d; 381bc; X., Mem. 4, 3, 13; Diog. L. 1, 10 the Egyptians say μὴ εἰδέναι τοῦ θεοῦ μορφήν; Philo, Leg. ad Gai. 80; 110; Jos., C. Ap. 2, 190; Just., A I, 9, 1; PGM 7, 563; 13, 272; 584.—Rtzst., Mysterienrel.3 357f) Phil 2:6. The risen Christ ἐφανερώθη ἐν ἑτέρᾳ μορφῇ appeared in a different form Mk 16:12 (of the transfiguration of Jesus: ἔδειξεν ἡμῖν τὴν ἔνδοξον μορφὴν ἑαυτοῦ Orig., C. Cels. 6, 68, 23). For lit. s. on ἁρπαγμός and κενόω 1b; RMartin, ET 70, ’59, 183f.—DSteenberg, The Case against the Synonymity of μορφή and εἰκών: JSNT 34, ’88, 77–86; GStroumsa, HTR 76, ’83, 269–88 (Semitic background).—DELG. Schmidt, Syn. IV 345–60. M-M. EDNT. TW. Spicq. Sv.
I would suggest reading the entire entry for eidos in F.E. Peters' "Greek Philosophical Terms," but here is something he writes on page 47 about eidos in Plato. BTW, eide is plural for eidos:
7. For Plato the eide did exist separately (see Tim. 52a-c) and
the reasons may be sought in epistemological considerations as well as
the ethical ones that troubled Socrates and that were almost certainly
operative upon Plato as well. We have already noted the suggested
influence of Heraclitus on Plato (see Meta. g87a, l078b) to the effect
that, given the changing, fluctuating nature of sensible phenomena
(see rhoe), true knowledge'(episteme) is impossible, impossible, that
is, unless there is a stable, eternal reality beyond the merely sensible.
The eide are that suprasensible reality and so the cause of episteme and
the condition of all philosophical discourse (Phaedo 65d-e, Parm. 13Sbc, Rep. 508c ff.). For the further epistemological corollaries, see doxa, episteme, noesis.
By seeing the expression “in the form of God” against the common wisdom of antiquity that offspring bear the visible likeness of their parents, Paul's thought becomes much clearer. As the Son of God from heaven, Christ bore the outward morphe of his Father in his existence before becoming a man and divested himself (heauton ekenosen) of it in order to take the form of a slave. (C.A. Wannamaker, page 185)
It does not hold up in overall context so it proposed to be another "hymn", to get round the obvious.
You're last quote is just not going to wash. I am quite sure that the morphe of "god" (not the father) could be applied to Cesar and even Pilate of the period. Walk out on the street at the time with the purple and gold garb, see what would happen.
https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/open_access_etds/1016/
I would also think this categorisation would apply to Pharisee and Sadducees.
One would think that the fact that God possesses the nature of God would go without saying. Note please that there are NO scriptures that speak of the Father as being in the image(eikon) or form(morphe) of God he is plain and simply the God
John8:54"Jesus replied, “If I glorify myself, my glory means nothing. My Father, whom you claim as your God(lit.the God of you), is the one who glorifies me."
"Best known are the divine honors paid to rulers of the Roman Empire, starting with Julius Caesar. We have an inscription dedicated to him in 49 BCE (five years before he was assassinated) discovered in the city of Ephesus, which says this about him:
Descendant of Ares and Aphrodite
The God who has become manifest (θεὸν ἐπιφανῆ)
And universal savior (σωτῆρα) of human life"
Also need to keep in mind that ancient statues were also painted to look quite life-like.
https://biblehub.com/text/philippians/1-3.htm "the god".
https://larryhurtado.wordpress.com/2017/04/19/the-form-of-god-philo-and-paul/
This article has a level of Eisegesis but -
"[1] The absence of the definite article in the Greek phrase leaves it possible to translate it either way."
I don't have BDAG, and now I know I will not be buying one:-
"This is in contrast to expression of divinity in the preëxistent Christ: ἐν μ. θεοῦ ὑπάρχων although he was in the form of God (cp. OGI 383, 40f: Antiochus’ body is the framework for his μ. or essential identity as a descendant of divinities; sim. human fragility [Phil 2:7]"
This is not textual analysis, it assumption.
Please give examples where Caesar or anyone like Caesar has morphe applied to him. In the NT, God is the Father as even some Trinitarians admit
Why would Ceasar ever have morphe applied him?
It might be applied to coins or other images of him, I am looking now.
"Though he was in the similtude of a God he gave no thought to making equality with a God a prize"? Anything is possible I suppose ,but it does seem improbable.
For the Roman coinage as public, cf. the lex de Gallia Cisalpina, CIL I2 592, col II., 1. 1: 'pecunia ... signata forma p(ublica) p(opulei) R(omanei)' ('money ... minted with the public type of the Roman People').
Duncan, my comment about Caesar/Pilate was in response to what you said:
You're last quote is just not going to wash. I am quite sure that the morphe of "god" (not the father) could be applied to Cesar and even Pilate of the period. Walk out on the street at the time with the purple and gold garb, see what would happen.
[End quote]
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0142064X8801103405
Duncan, you also overlooked the most important part of BDAG and LSJ where it is explained that morphe can denote the outward form, shape, external appearance of a thing, and this has been one of the word's meanings since Homer. That is the most likely meaning in Phil. 2:6-7.
I did not mis anything. Since no one has seen the father.
The Brill Dictionary of Ancient Greek (FYI):
μορφή -ής, ή 0 form, figure, appearance Pa r m .
B8.53 A e s c h l . ft; 210, al. Pind . O. 6.76, aL Ap.
4.1193 etc.; θεών of the gods Xe n . Mem . 4-3.13;
τού στόματος of the mouth Ach . 2.1.3 I of a
man figure, person Soph . EL 1159, al. | size,
stature: μορφάν βραχύς small in stature Pind .
/. 4.53; μέγας τήν μορφήν of great size (elephant)
A c H. 4.4.31extens., of words good form, dignity
Od. 8.170,11.367 H] form, appearance, aspect
Aeschl . fir. 619M, aL So p h . TV. 699, aL etc.;
όνειράτων άλίγκιοι μορφαίσι dreamlike in their
form Aeschl . Pr. 449; άλλάττειν τό αύτοΰ είδος
εις πολλάς μορφάς to change one's shape in
many ways Plat. Rp. 38od | pL μορφαί external
actions, gestures, postures Dio n . 14.9.4 (o f
barbarians) [c] extens. species, sort, kind Eu r .
Ion 382, aL Plat. Rp. 397c Aristot. G A . 737b
4, a l etc.; άλλαι βιότου μορφαί other ways of life
Eur . Ion 1068; παντοδαπαι χρωμάτων μορφαί all
kinds of colors Aristot. CoL 799b 18 [5] philos.
form Aristot. Metaph. 1033b 6, aL; ή ουσία και
ή έκάστου μ. the essence and the form of each
thing A r ist o t. P A . 646b 2 || Christ nature or
essence of God N T PhiL 2.6 G r e g .1 Eun. 3.2.55
• Dor. μορφά
You missed the part about morphe focusing on what's visible to the eye. And no one has seen eht Father except for his monogenes Son/god and the angelic sons in heaven who behold their Father's face constantly.
Just shows your lack of understanding. "a" does not exist in Greek but the definite article does, or is it more of your obfuscation?
"God is spirit" - in the same way as "god is love".
But in Philippians we have god with the definite article and also god qualified as father, but not in that verse. "You are god's", I think you get the point.
the Father
I am going to leave it here until I see any marked references/refutations of Kels video.
Also see https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/search?q=strimple
Did you notice that every instance from the LXX, I believe, supports the external appearance understanding of morphe in Phil. 2:6-7. The only occurrence that might militate against it, is from the Apocrypha (Tobit 1:13).
John 6:46 does not state that.
John6:46NIV"No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father. "
Matthew28:10NIV"“See that you do not despise one of these little ones. For I tell you that their angels in heaven always see the face of my Father in heaven."
https://christswords.com/main/content/mat-1810-take-heed-you-despise-not-one-these-little-ones
Duncan, not sure whom you're addressing about the Greek article, but when a noun does not have the definite article in Greek, it could still be definite semantically or it could be qualitative or indefinite/or combination thereof. So, just because the article is not in Phil. 2:6 with "God/god" doesn't mean it's not definite.
Instead of John 6:46, I actually had John 1:18 in mind and Matt. 18:10.
John 6:46 is good too. What do you think it says?
Up to this point, I've been addressing Kel's erroneous understanding of morphe, but I will be moving on to other parts of his video. I just think he's plainly mistaken about what morphe means in this account.
Even if status is a possible meaning (and it is), one can't just dogmatically insist that meaning is the correct one.
Another thing he got wrong, it seems, is Plato's technical meaning for eidos. But why be pedantic?
Duncan, sorry, but it's really sad how people take the Bible and twist it for their own ends. Talk about obfuscation. I read the interpretatioin set forth about Mt. 18:10 and they redefine everything from the heavens to the angels to the little ones. The interpretation they offer is so implausible that it would be funny if it were not so sad. Yes, angels can = messenger, but did they forget messengers can be human or spirit in the Bible? Did they also forget that heaven(s) and sky/skies are the same word in Greek and Hebrew?
I will offer some views from scholars, which those reading can accept or reject:
David Turner (BECNT, pages 439-440): In addition to dealing decisively with sin in their own lives, disciples must also avoid contempt for fellow members of the community (cf. Rom. 14:3, 10, 15; 1 Cor. 11:22; 1 Tim. 4:12), described here, as in 18:6, as “little ones.” These must not be despised, because angels represent them before God (cf. Heb. 1:14). Such angelic ministry to believers is real, albeit mysterious.1 All in all, the flow of Matt. 18:1–10 alternates
between warnings of eschatological judgment (18:3, 6–10) and promises of eschatological blessing (18:4–5), depending on the course of action
chosen.
Compare Psalm 34:7; 91:11-12; Ezek. 40:3 and many others that Turner cites.
Are we really going to doubt that angels can see God? Compare Isa. 6:1-3.
Correct to Matthew 18:10
In the WB Commentary, Donald Hagner appliues Mt. 18:10 to angels, but he contends that in the ancient Jewish tradition, only certain angels could see God: he references Isa. 6:2; 1 Enoch 14:21; 1 Enoch 40; cf. 1 Enoch 100. Compare Luke 1:19; Tobit 12:15; Revelation 8:2 and Heb. 1:7, 14. The little ones (per the context) are members of the Christian community, not just little kids.
See Daniel 7:9-10.
John6:46NIV"No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father. "
What does John 6:46 say?
1 Kings 22:19-022.
On that webpage, they claim that "always" in Matthew 18:10 should be changed to "all."
But they seem to overlook the fact that διὰ παντός is an idiom.
See Luke 24:53; Acts 10:2; 24:16
Hebrews2:16NIV"For surely it is not angels(superhuman messengers) he helps, but Abraham’s descendants. (Human messengers)"
Hebrews2:9NIV"But we do see Jesus, who was made lower than the angels for a little while, now crowned with glory and honor because he suffered death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone."
Matthew12:5,6"Or haven’t you read in the Law that the priests on Sabbath duty in the temple desecrate the Sabbath and yet are innocent? 6I tell you that something greater than the temple is here. "
Jesus was never lower than any human messenger. After his resurrection he became greater than even the heavenly messengers.
Everybody here knows that there is no article in Greek or Hebrew Duncan so you're not intimidating anyone. For the record I did state that "a God" is a possible rendering. I was questioning the likelihood that this was the apostle's intended meaning. The idea that every occurrence of Theos minus the article must be indefinite is simply false, it may or may not be depending on the context,
e. g: Matthew27:47NIV"About three in the afternoon Jesus cried out in a loud voice, “Eli, Eli, c lemasabachthani?” (which means “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”). d"
Hopefully you are not going to claim that Theos here refers to anyone but the God and Father of our Lord.
Correct to indefinite article.
Presumably you mean v46?
Θεέ μου - I know what it says, do you?
I am not going get distracted this time. Form of of god is clearly contrasted with form of a servant.
Jesus was happy to come into Jerusalem in the status of a king, but did he dress like one. He was able to heal an perform many miracles, which he did, but he washed the feet of his disciples.
Philippians is quite clear in its contrast and the overall context in which it is used, anyone who claims otherwise has no choice but to assert that it is a "hymn" to remove it from its context, just like many other Pauline texts.
See also Psalms 22:1.
http://www.rageforexplaining.com/in-through-the-back-door/#:~:text=Traditionally%2C%20Pilate%20paraded%20into%20Jerusalem,authority%20would%20not%20be%20questioned.
There are many factors that can make a noun definite including but not limited too the following: prepositions, Genitive constructions, Dative Constructions, participles, demonstratives, etc
In Phil 2:4, I would say its most likely definite (from my observations an indefinite genitive construction normally is inverted, again I may well be wrong) since he is also said to be in the "image of God" - while these 2 words do not specifically parallel one another, they sort of mean the same thing.
a problem encroaches for ones who say Jesus is "a man" - who is the only begotten son in John 1:18 (& other scriptures)? who is said to have seen God and is in the bosom position. A man cannot see God and live.. The LXX clears up ALOT of possible misunderstandings (whether the LXX is considered important to Jews is besides the point)
slightly offtopic: Edgar, not sure where I can post these last few questions now the other post is locked - I have compiled them all so they can all go into a single message to clear clutter
Once again I much appreciate your help on these matters and continuing with Allins paper :)
Duncan:
1) Agreed that form of God is clearly contrasted with form of a servant
2) Yes, Jesus showed humility when he came to Jerusalem and when washing the feet of his disciples. However, that does not mean that form of God/a god applied while he was on earth or that existing in the divine form started at his birth or the beginning of his ministry. Additionally, I've yet to see one example where clothing applies to one's form unless I just missed it.
3) The early church fathers like Novatian and Tertullian did not believe that Philippians 2:5-11 is a hymn, yet the applied the account to the preexistent Christ. I don't believe it comes from a prior hymn but I affirm the preexistence of Christ and I know numerous scholars who think the same way. Preexistence and whether Phil. 2:5-11 is a hymn are two separate issues.
4) In my view, the context clearly suggests that form of God denotes external appearance, that along with the usages in LXX and the NT. Compare Mark 16:12.
Hi Unknown, agree 100% with your points.
1) Maybe you could post the questions you have to this thread and I could then assess where they might best belong or just start a new thread
2) Could you please limit them to two questions? I still want to comment on Allin's work and my schedule is going to change soon, then I'll be busier than I am now. Thanks
We've discussed Philippians 2 a lot on this blog. See https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2012/02/notes-on-philippians-26-7-morfh.html
Just one instance.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/002114005201900104
Are these the 2 you are referring too?
The Roman empire started to collapse during the time of Hadrian, This is why he built the walls for taxation. I think that the ubiquitous use of theos started to fade from this time onward. Need to see how the Term theos was used later.
See also https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2017/06/john-hp-reumanns-commentary-on.html
Duncan, yes, I was talking about how those two fathers understood Philippians 2:5-11. And keep in mind that both of those men are bigger than any one journal article. I'm aware of both their histories although some elements of each one's story are disputable. In any event, how they understood Phil. 2:5ff is a separate issue.
My comments about not finding examples applied specifically to the phrase, morphe theou. Even for morphe, I don't see evidence yet for linking it with how one dresses.
God without the article clearly referring to the God and Father of Jesus same as at John1:18 by the way. Thus I'm compelled to reject your oversimplification of the issue of nominatives minus the article.
Phillipians2:7NIV"rather, he made himself nothing
by taking the very nature b of a servant,
being made in HUMAN likeness."
The Divine form is contrasted with the human form.
He was always a Servant of JEHOVAH. When he became human became under the Law
Galatians4:4NIV"But when the set time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, "
https://ia902708.us.archive.org/1/items/bub_gb_FF-uCZRXiO4C/bub_gb_FF-uCZRXiO4C.pdf
Google detects that this book contains the term "morphe" but I cannot word search so it will take a while to investigate.
scratch my last post - not relevant.
Did you read the JETS 52-4 article?
https://iep.utm.edu/ancient-greek-philosophy/
b. Xenophanes of Colophon
I've read the JETS article before and still have it. Is there something you wanted me to look for in that article? Admittedly, I don't remember everything he said, but I did quote Hellerman or post some quotes from him above.
I find Xenophanes interesting: just finished teaching about the Presocratics (among other things) last semester. Xenophanes is famous for railing against anthropomorphism but I'm not sure how he fits into this discussion. One of his criticisms pertained to demigods. For me, Jesus is not and never was a demigod.
I read the first ten pages of Hellerman's article and I now recall his argument. He concedes that morphe clearly denotes a thing'sperson's visible appearance but he wants to add social status to the sense/meaning of morphe in Philippians. I've said that status is a possible meaning, but it might not be a strong possibility like Hellerman thinks.
This paper interacts with Hellerman and others of like mind:
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwj15ri8nbv8AhUUtTEKHejMDfY4HhAWegQIAxAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Frepository.up.ac.za%2Fbitstream%2Fhandle%2F2263%2F41340%2FKaryakina_Social_2014.pdf%3Bsequence%3D1&usg=AOvVaw27kS228zkpXweCCZAslHR4
2021 thesis about Phil. 2:6
https://corpus.ulaval.ca/bitstreams/3bc8a610-da4f-4172-82a2-289bbdf590c9/download
I thought I had posted that one. If not I had already downloaded it.
See https://biblehub.com/greek/theon_2316.htm
https://dialnet.unirioja.es/descarga/articulo/5464554.pdf
Galatians 4:1, NASB: Now I say, as long as the heir is a child, he does not differ at all from a slave, although he is owner of everything
Just looked at that scripture in Matthew and it is contextually problematic - https://www.bibleref.com/Matthew/18/Matthew-18-10.html#:~:text=Matthew%2018%3A10%2C%20KJV%3A,Father%20which%20is%20in%20heaven.
Seems more than one interpretation does not see literal angels. I don't know which interpretation works best but I am certainly not going to hang too much on it.
Not going to discuss it here, but just saying.
Psalms22:1Septuagint"Ὁ θεὸς ὁ θεός μου, πρόσχες μοι· ἵνα τί ἐγκατέλιπές με; μακρὰν ἀπὸ τῆς σωτηρίας μου οἱ λόγοι τῶν παραπτωμάτων μου."
I agree with those who have said that Θεοῦ could be either definite or indefinite at Philippians 2:6. I would just like to add that I think the view that it's indefinite has a lot going for it.
First, there is the literary correspondence between μορφῇ Θεοῦ and μορφὴν δούλου. All translators agree that δούλου is not definite, which, stylistically speaking, may favor taking Θεοῦ indefinitely.
Second, one almost gets the impression that the Prologue to GJohn was written with Philippians 2 in mind. There Θεὸς is clearly indefinite. If the writer of GJohn was thinking of Philippians 2, then I find it probable that he understood Θεοῦ to be indefinite.
I find it irresistible:
Although he existed in the form of a god, he did not consider equality with God as something to be seized.
Suddenly the text's difficulties vanish and we're left with a very clear statement that is theologically appropriate.
~Sean
I like the paper by Karyakina as she uses the overall context and focuses on the words where there is a reasonable handle on the meanings.
The context of Matthew 18:10NKJV"“Take heed that you do not despise one of these little ones, for I say to you that in heaven their angels always see the face of My Father who is in heaven. 11For[c] the Son of Man has come to save that which was lost.
12“What do you think? If a man has a hundred sheep, and one of them goes astray, does he not leave the ninety-nine and go to the mountains to seek the one that is straying? "
The context of Galatians4:4:
Galatians4:1-5NKJV"Now I say that the heir, as long as he is a child, does not differ at all from a slave, though he is master of all, 2but is under guardians and stewards until the time appointed by the father. 3Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world. 4But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, born[a] of a woman, born under the law, 5to redeem those who were under the law, that we might receive the adoption as sons."
Sean, I know you didn't do this in your translation, but one could translate τὸ εἶναι ἴσα Θεῷ as "being equal to/with a god," but I don't think that was Paul's meaning. Yes, Christ could have existed in the form of a god, according to the apostle, but I look at God's form as something that is singular and different from the servant's form. The background of this account might also suggest that Christ existed in a way that resembled his Father's glory. Yet he still refused to usurp God's throne.
One other thing is when I consider how Paul used the anarthrous theos in Philippians.
1Corinthians11:7AKJV"For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, for as much as he is(Huparchon) the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. "
Edgar, your interpretation is just not viable to anyone who believed in god's at the time. This would be a striving to be equal and that would be unattainable, but Jesus did not even try. A status differentiation. John 13:16.
Can I throw this video into the mix - with particular attention to BDAG.
https://youtu.be/45Qk96sO62w
Hi Edgar,
Sure, but I don't think "equal to a god" is anywhere near as smooth and stylistically attractive as "form of a god." The relationship that is in focus in the New Testament is the relationship between God and his Son, not between the Son and some unspecified god.
What would it mean to say that the Son was in the "form of a god"? It could signify a powerful spirit being, or an immortal being, or, as in Mike Heiser's model with respect to ELOHIM used of those who are not Jah, it could signify an occupant of heaven. Or, all of these senses/connotations could be involved.
If this is correct, then it would constitute good evidence against a Socinian reading.
Psalm82:6"“I said, ‘You are “gods”;
you are all sons of the Most High.’"
Sean, I just think you are pushing the text beyond it intended purpose. Focusing on the "form of a servant" is the thrust of the whole analogy.
I also think that "a god" in English is just not a good translation. However understanding it as a striving for authority - which I think is entirely plausible for the time and those who claimed to be APO THEOS make this understanding a good option. John 12:49.
Numbers 20:11,12 may be useful background to Paul's dialogue.
https://www.studylight.org/interlinear-study-bible/greek/psalms/82-7.html
https://www.studylight.org/interlinear-study-bible/greek/exodus/7-1.html
Note the erroneous insertion, >>as<< a god.
Moses was a god, toward Pharaoh, with the staff.
Not a god toward Yehovah, with the staff & that's what he stole and why he was punished.
John14:9NIV"Jesus answered: “Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?"
John1:18LSB"No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him."
He was a God in his own right but unlike JEHOVAH his Godhood was derived from his own God and Father. Thus he never even attempted to match the only underived autotheos in glory though he bore the closest resemblance to that one of among all his brothers.
Duncan, I'm not sure what you're calling my interpretation of Phil. 2:6, but it's not a stretch to believe that some people, whether in the fifth century BCE or 1 st century CE, aspired to be like God or they strove to be divine. And this was not just about social status: the "king of Tyre" wanted to be a god; the Babylonian kings (despite what Hellermann asserts) wanted to be godlike/divine and there is a fabled story about the Greek philosopher Empedocles who died as he tried to become a god. I don't think apotheosis can be reduced to a matter of social status. See the Oedipus Rex.
Hi Sean, I do grant the possibility that the anarthrous noun could be translated "a god," and you've made the point about form of a servant being coupled with it. Maybe I'm bound to thinking of theos as God in this instance. One thing about Greek, it's more about possibilities than most folks think. Thanks.
Duncan,
doesn't the Hebrew for those verses (or one of them) say "as/like God"?
Psalm8:5LSB" Yet You have made him a little lower than the angels(elohim),
And You crown him with glory and majesty!"
They are Gods thus they have the form of Gods so having the form of a God ,would not be remarkable for any of them let alone the greatest among them. An unusually striking resemblance to his God and Father would be something remarkable .
Duncan, I posted from more than BDAG to make the point about morphe meaning "outward/external appearance," but here is another witness, The Cambridge Greek Lexicon:
μορφή ής, dial, μορφα ας, Aeol. μόρφα ας/ 1 physical or
visible form; form or appearance (of persons, deities,
animals, things) Eleg. Lyr. Parm. Emp. Hdt. Trag. +; (specif.)
shape or form (opp. είδος appearance) Arist.
2 attractive form or appearance, beauty (of persons or
deities) Pi. E. X. Bion; (of speech) Od.
3 kind, sort or aspect (of non-physical or abstract things,
such as calamities, activities, changes, life) E. PL Plu.
Regarding being equal with God:
Isotheos in Sibylline Oracles 5.738-9.
http://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/sib/sib07.htm
Accused of making himself equal to God by calling God his Father: John 5:18.
In English we have "forms of torture" "forms of address", etc.
It just demonstrates how influenced these web sites are by mainstream Christianity.
https://biblehub.com/text/exodus/7-1.htm
The "as" in this instance is not in the text. Yehovah made Moses Elohim. Not just El.
"but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God."
One only has to read the text. How would god being his father make him equal to god?
This accusation is coming from "the Jews" who misunderstood just about everything in GJohn and they told lies.
In Matthew Jesus say "our father".
It's just not a solid basis for being "equal" as I already pointed out earlier regarding Isaiah 51:23.
Incidentally, please don't forget what I said about the prologue 1:9,10 when reading 5:17.
Duncan, but as you can see, LSJ, BDAG, Brill, and Cambridge Greek Lexicon all testify to the outer appearance definition for morphe and so do other works. Even Hellerman does not deny this denotation: he just doesn't want to stop there.
Form can be used in English as you mentioned, but one can use form to mean shape too. We talk about bodily form, a statue's form or form when it comes to works of art. Again, one has to consider the context.
I will look closer at Exod 7:1 later.
I never said the Jews were correct when imputing blasphemy to Jesus by illegitimately claiming God as his Father, but the point here is that being equal to God was not just a matter of social status in their eyes. Why would claiming a certain social status have been worthy of death? Why would that have arisen to a charge of blasphemy?
I'm actually focusing on John 5:18, but maybe that's what you meant.
Something I blogged back in 2015:
I find the words of Trinitarian scholar G.R.B. Murray of interest:
"Bultmann, however, went on to point out that the Jews failed to grasp that Jesus is the Revealer; second, they made the mistake of viewing equality with God as independence from God, whereas for Jesus it meant total dependence on God ([Bultmann] 244). In light of these (undoubtedly correct) observations, the expression 'equal to God' is a misleading interpretation of the declaration of Jesus. That Jesus spoke of God as his own Father rightly points to the unique relation to God, and it is the Evangelist's concern to make plain the nature of that relationship. But in vv. 19-30 we see a twofold emphasis that exists in tension: on the one hand there is the acknowledgement by Jesus of the total dependence of the Son on the Father, and on the other a consciousness of the Father's appointment of the Son to perform on his behalf works that God alone has the right and power to execute (vv 19-20, 21, 22, 26-27, 30). It is perhaps not irrelevant to note that the Jews were ready, when they wished, to recognize that in certain conditions men could be spoken of as God. For example they viewed Ps 82:6, 'I said you are gods, sons of the Most High all of you,' as relating to the people of Israel. And they glorified in the fact that in Exod 7:1 God states that he has made Moses as God to Pharaoh, whereas since Pharaoh made himself as God he had to learn that he was nothing (Tanh. B sec. 12 in Str-B 2:462-64). It would seem that in their eyes God could exalt a man to be as God, but whoever MADE HIMSELF as God called down divine retribution on himself. They saw Jesus in the latter category" (John, 75).
While I do not agree with Murray's comments in toto, it seems that the quote provided above does shed light on how monotheism was construed in ancient Judaism. Having said the foregoing, I would still argue that certain Jews thought Jesus was making himself equal to God, but they were mistaken. Making himself equal to the Father (Jehovah) would have constituted blasphemy according to their laws.
After reviewing the verses again in Hebrew, Exod. 4:16 could be translated "as a god" or "as God," but 7:1 is different. Umberto Cassuto translates 7:1 this way: I have made you a god to Pharaoh.
He is still WRONG. Since when, for a singular using this plural has it ever been anything other than God?
I have made YOU God to pharaoh. Since pharaoh did not recognise Yehovah he would be made to recognise Moses of the staff and horns. Just like pharaoh with his staff and horns. There is nothing complicated about the Hebrew.
The other option is, I have made you god's to Phaeraoh. It is one way to look at when we see what happens to all the gods of Egypt.
So why no definite article in neither the Hebrew or greek?
At John 10:34 Jesus quotes Psalms82:6 as a defense when accused of making himself a God ,JEHOVAH has the right to exalt any servant he chooses and if such exalted ones can be identified as gods how can it be argued logically against calling any one of them a God
John1:18LSB"No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him."
Note please that the Lord JEHOVAH is not a begotten God
Judges8:33NIV"No sooner had Gideon died than the Israelites again prostituted themselves to the Baals. They set up Baal-Berith as their god(Elohim) "
Exodus21:6NKJV"then his master shall bring him to the judges(Elohim). He shall also bring him to the door, or to the doorpost, and his master shall pierce his ear with an awl; and he shall serve him forever."
Servant, you still have much to learn about Hebrew. Going to lexicons and interlinear is just the beginning.
I will stick to basics. So see - https://biblehub.com/text/exodus/22-9.htm
But, in Genesis 1:1 where the sentence structure is singular but Elohim is Plural , the sentence structure dictates the meaning (as usual).
https://biblehub.com/text/genesis/1-1.htm
Note the combination of singular and plural. For this verse I would also translate as Heaven rather than Heavens.
Yehovah has the right to do anything, but this is YOU claiming to know what is being said and what Yehovah DID DO. Unlike Yehovah, you require evidence that you know his mind.
https://www.thetextofthegospels.com/2019/01/john-118-some-patristic-evidence.html
https://biblehub.com/hebrew/berit_1170.htm more likely a house than a god. Since the "lord of the covenant" was a deity from 1800 BCE.
But in any case - https://biblehub.com/text/judges/8-33.htm Gods or God?
Duncan, just a couple of brief questions/remarks.
When you say that the sentence structure in Gen. 1:1 is singular, I assume you mean the verb is singular and the noun elohim is grammatically plural (plural suffix), which normally indicates that one should translate the noun, "God."
Not sure why you'd prefer "heaven" to heavens in this case although I'm not that bothered by either option.
Since when have we translated lê-lō-hîm as "house"?
I did not claim that, sorry if you misunderstood. I am referring to "Lord of Covenant" as the name of a house. Note
https://biblehub.com/hebrew/habbealim_1168.htm . I don't really now the best way to translate that verse, its tricky.
https://www.sefaria.org/Judges.8.33?lang=bi&with=all&lang2=en
Even here where they say "adopted", not sure about that.
https://biblehub.com/hebrew/vaiyasimu_7760.htm
When you say that the sentence structure in Gen. 1:1 is singular, I assume you mean the verb is singular and the noun elohim is grammatically plural (plural suffix), which normally indicates that one should translate the noun, "God." - agreed, but I gave servant the tools to work that out for himself. Especially since he keep trying to quote everything back at me like it makes a difference.
I did not translate any of those text and I never suggested that elohim was plural at Exodus so I'm not sure what you are on about. Baal Berith received worship as an elohim despite being singular that is the point if one lets the text speak for itself. His exalted servants are called gods thus there is nothing amiss about calling one of them a God. The evidence is right in front of you ,your choosing to ignore it notwithstanding. You were the one who claimed that Theos/Elohim without the article necessarily implies lower case g God remember.
https://www.sefaria.org/Judges.8.33?lang=bi&p2=Rashi_on_Judges.8.33.1&lang2=bi
This makes me chuckle. Its like saying definitively that Bethel HIS name.
https://biblehub.com/hebrew/hashshamayim_8064.htm
Also there is no reason that we cannot translate "Covenant of lord"
I found someone asking similar questions -
https://www.jstor.org/stable/3266894
https://ferrelljenkins.blog/2010/03/09/the-temple-of-baal-berith-at-shechem/
Okay, with Judges 8:33, I thought you were focusing on Elohim rather than berit. Gotcha.
Servant, note the paper I posted, god or god's? You have to make your own decision on that, but what seem to be rules can have exceptions. Papers like the above are accepted by the the journals because they seem to ask legitimate questions, but whether they come up with correct answers is another matter. Historical contexts and language usage of a particular period or place matter. History is a story so we can never know for sure and I concur with Edgar that we go with the best probability. Problem is we do not all weigh our probabilities in the same way.
Not saying this is the best way to translate Exodus 7:1, but Robert Alter does it this way (from The Five Books of Moses):
And the LORD said to Moses, “See, I have set you as a god to Pharaoh, and Aaron your brother will be your prophet."
That's the difference between theology and grammar again. I would have expected El not Elohim.
Also worth looking at Exodus 9:28 in the KJV.
ESV translates Exod 9:28 similarly in how it treats Elohim. I guess Elohim is being rendered as a superlative in KJV, ESV like some do with Gen. 1:2.
More ammunition from Kel - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HGOHK7qZrg8
https://biblehub.com/text/colossians/1-16.htm - "in him" NOT "by means of him all other things"
1) People like Kel can assert that Colossians 1 is just about the new creation, and I've heard this claim ad nauseam, but I see no justified way that anyone can be dogmatic about the claim. Is it possible? Maybe so, but to assert that it's true without equivocation is another matter.
2) "in him" is possible, but I'm sure there are other possibilities as well.
There is no getting away from the fact that the assumption of pre-existence comes from circular cross referencing that seems to have Gjohn prologue at its core. The reason that a particular verse indicates pre existence is because another verse in another book or letter tells us so. Can't you see just how wrong this methodology can be?
Just been watching the debate between Craig and Tuggy.
All I see from Craig is appeal to authority fallacy, he does not even try to justify his position any other way.
The history of the church speaks for itself. I now find it no coincidence that the venerable bede was so driven to translate GJohn. The fulcrum upon which all there assumptions sit.
Preexistence is based on exegesis and historical considerations, like what early Jews and Christians taught. It's not simply based on cross-references.
Preexistence also arises from Colossians and Philippians.
Sorry but NO, it does not as your Jews and Christians were not early enough, and those that were saw Logos somewhat differently.
Are you saying that the preexisting Messiah and Torah ideas all arose after the first century CE?
I know you seem to think that the pre-Nicenes have little to no value when it comes to understanding Christian doctrine, but it's hard to believe that Polycarp, Irenaeus or Ignatius of Antioch just invented preexistent Logos theology de novo or ex vacuo.
Lets get a little further back shall we:-
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0034637319879033?icid=int.sj-abstract.similar-articles.2
https://www.academia.edu/26975684/A_Sly_Civility_Colossians_and_Empire
The Christological hymns of the New Testament including Col 1:15-20 are believed to be inspired from the tradition of resistance poetry of Second Temple Judaism. This Jewish form of “lyrical protest” literature, Gordley affirms, was “the ways in which they resist ideologies of empire and promote Jewish ways of thinking, being, and responding to crisis.”
Matthew E. Gordley, New Testament Christological Hymns: Exploring Texts, Contexts, and Significance (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press Academic, 2018), 136.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0034637319878790
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-DGY9HvChXk
https://christspieces.files.wordpress.com/2016/07/walshkeesmaat2004_ch12sufferingethicbibliography_220-233.pdf
Due to a busy day, I did not check every link/reference that you gave, Duncan, but I did read at least three of them. Maybe I need to read more, but I'm wondering how Roman imperial ideology negates/rules out a preexistent Messiah.
I'm also very suspicious of the whole "new creation" approach to this issue. The phrase "new creation" appears in 2 Corinthians and Galatians, not in Colossians. Therefore, those advocating this view have to impose the new creation idea onto the Colossians text. Similar approaches attempt to explain away 1 Corinthians 8:6 as a text supporting preexistence. See also 2 Corinthians 8:9.
The article by Mark S. Medley is a stretch. He thinks, "the Colossians hymn draws upon the political ideology and imagery of the Roman Empire in the form of a counter-discourse, as was Jewish resistance poetry, in ways analogous to how Holiday’s 'Strange Fruit' evokes the imagery of white racial terror for the sake of raising political consciousness."
Oh sure! Paul had that in mind when he wrote Colossians :-)
Hi Edgar, sorry for the very late response, like youreself I have been caught up in work and stuff and just havent had time to narrow down my questions - I have narrowed it down too two, there are about 8 more, but Ill see if you answer those on other topics over the next few months otherwise Ill pose them when contextaully appropriate, just in a more round about way.
Here are the rest, a few different subjects but best to fire them all out in 1 big comment to hopefully keep the rest to a minimium - again these jump in subject slightly and some may have already been answered (First 2 are my main 2, others can be ignored)
- Do you think Harners genitive examples for qualitiveness are legit? I realise as a Witness you most likely understand Harners qualiative study and apply it to anarthorus nominatives, though I tend to agree with his genitive examples (even though some are likely definite)
(I know witnesses use his study to say John 1:1c should not be rendered "God" NOT that he endorsed "a god" rendering)
https://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.com/2009/10/harners-qualitative-jbl-article_12.html
This person seems to disagree, however acouple of the examples cited are flawed
for example:
(3) Mark 6:49 - “they thought that apparition it is.” Harner correctly states: “there is no basis in the context, at any rate, for regarding the noun as definite.” True, because this is a proper example (not abstract, and not “prepositional”) if you accept clauses with the subject understood as part of the verb. But, unlikely as it is, he still insists on finding some kind of “qualitative” force even here:
“The qualitative significance appears to be secondary [anyone can “find” qualitative significance to some degree in any indefinite noun - it all depends on how much you want it to be there - RDB] in this clause, since it is concerned with the identification of a figure who is dimly perceived by the disciples rather than some attribute or quality of Jesus himself.”
My reasoning: In this example they dont actaully know what they are seeing. There is no reason to take this definitely we could
take it as indefinitely but that would point to something they had confirmed was "an apparition". So the last way to take it
would be that they were highlighting the quality of the thing they thought they were seeing (or apparition-like ).
(6) Mark 12:35 - “that the christ son of david is.” For this one Harner tells us with great ‘decisiveness’: “the predicate noun [‘son of David’] could be interpreted as definite, indefinite, or qualitative.” And, “the first or the second possibility, of course, does not preclude the third.” This type of reasoning, again, allows one to interpret anything he wants as “qualitative” - it’s purely subjective interpretation and, as a result, purely improper as evidence for a “qualitative” rule! And, of course, Harner somehow “sees” a “qualitative” force being prominent here. The real grammatical evidence would lean toward “the” being supplied in an English translation since this is a “prepositional” [more precisely it is a genitive-modified] predicate noun preceding its verb: “that the Christ is the Son of David.” - Also compare the parallel Luke 20:41 where the 'predicate noun' is actually an accusative noun and is after the verb in the Nestle, Westcott-Hort, and UBS texts!
I would actaully agree the most likely interpretation of Marks writing is something about the "lineage" itself rather than the person, What? that remains unclear, perhaps emphasis on Jesus being the messiah
(Note: I am no trinitarian, but I think Elijah's observations are somewhat flawed - this is very prevelant in the case of genitive constructions)
- Satan is called "the god of this age" (2 Corin 4:4) commentators state Satan is not actaully called "a god" rather just means Ruler - Trinitarians advocate "Nothing created can be a god" - How would you answer this?
These people seem to ignore how the Biblical ones understood and used the term.
I think it is obvious that he is trying to use analogy. These papers stick to a conventional view of collisions. They are questioning what is meant rather than what is said. At the end of the day, something got Paul killed?
These are just a few of the papers I have found, most fairly recent.
I will have to seek out the relevant material evidence or Roman political speak of the period.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iqP-0dkuEJc
Duncan, I believe ancient lit can be applied rightly to present issues, but what interests me personally is trying to understand ancient texts.
It has been suggested that Paul died at the hands of Nero during a time when Rome intensely persecuted Christians. Why do we need a theory about resistance language to explain martyrdom? According to the NT, bearing witness to Jesus was enough to get Christians imprisoned or martyred. From time to time, Rome meted out harsh treatment to Jesus' followers. The time of Doodle town was another example.
Another consideration is that if Paul were politically neutral, he would not have resisted the empire in some of the ways suggested.
http://www.christianorigins.div.ed.ac.uk/2016/11/10/was-paul-anti-imperial/
https://larryhurtado.wordpress.com/2017/09/13/anti-imperial-paul/
Revelation 2:10; 12:10-11.
"According to the NT, bearing witness to Jesus was enough to get Christians imprisoned or martyred." - no it wasn't, it was the way Jesus was witnessed to. Lets not kid ourselves here, the language is seditious. As the video I posted Augustus revived the Religious aspect of Rome as a political tool. He even compared his life to Jewish ritual - but why compare to an insignificant race? As per the comments supposedly of Alexander the great, the greatness of a race was in its mystery. Paul's language was highly political - "Father" "Lord" "creation".
And its not just Paul - https://www.researchgate.net/publication/270437671_The_Divinity_and_Humanity_of_Caesar_in_1Peter_213
Hi Unknown, I don't have a major problem with Harner's remarks on Mark 6:49. He says only a few things about the verse, then moves on. My understanding of his remarks is that he's denying the noun is definite (contra people like Colwell) and he doesn't rule out indefiniteness IMO, and he states that qualitativeness is secondary in this case. So, if the noun does emphasize qualitativeness, tat would be a secondary consideration. Yet he does not make a big issue of whether Mark 6:49 is an example of qualitativeness being emphasized or not. One upshot of Harner's article, according to Daniel Wallace, is that he wanted to show there is a semantic continuum from indefiniteness to qualitativeness to definiteness.
I accept the idea that semanticity may be emphasized by syntactical structures, but I believe that Mark 6:49 is chiefly indefinite. The quality was not being emphasized here as I take you to say, but they wondered if they were seeing an apparition. It's like someone claiming they've seen a ghost: I don't think we would take that to mean that the person is talking about a quality or attribute.
This could be wrong, but I read Harner differently on the Matthean verse (12:35). Context would help to disambiguate the semantic force of the noun phrase in 12:35, and if that is true, the decision would not be purely subjective. Harner sets forth different possibilities, then concludes that Mark wants to make qualitativeness prominent. I don't believe Harner is being dogmatic here but he could be wrong. It's notoriously difficult to decide which semantic force (I-Q-D) is being emphasized in a particular case as Mark 15:39 illustrates.
Wallace's suggestion is interesting that maybe we need to side with Max Zerwick and use the categories, general and specific instead.
Unknown, please see https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2015/01/john-11-harner-dixon-and-qualitativeness.html
John wrote (Revelation 1:9, ESV): "I, John, your brother and partner in the tribulation and the kingdom and the patient endurance that are in Jesus, was on the island called Patmos on account of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus."
Rev. 2:10, which I cited earlier, doesn't say anything about the Devil having Christians thrown into prison because of their subversive language. I doubt that Satan is concerned about the "political ideology" of some Christians.
Rev. 12:11 (NET): But they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb
and by the word of their testimony, and they did not love their lives so much that they were afraid to die."
So, Rome wanted to kill Christians merely because their language was subversive? I think there was more to it than that. The persecution of Decian or Diocletian was not about subversive ideology. Jesus even said, "Then they will hand you over to be persecuted and will kill you. You will be hated by all the nations because of my name" (Matt 24:9, NET).
See also what the Romans themselves said about Christians.
Aside from what the Bible teaches, history itself doesn't support this whole subversive ideology claim.
Paul's use of Father and Lord grew out of his Judaic legacy. The same with creation. No need to multiply entities here.
Having said the foregoing, I'm not dismissing Roman influence on books of the NT. However, I don't consider Paul to be political and I think subversive ideology was not the ultimate cause of Christian persecution, even if Revelation contains an antilanguage.
1 Corinthians 2:6-10.
Look, I have heard people making stuff up about Revelation, too many times.
1) Which John?
2) It does not spell out why this particular John was on Patmos, you can theorise all day long but we just don't know. https://biblehub.com/greek/thlipsei_2347.htm
3) The rest is imagery, imminent imagery. https://biblehub.com/greek/melleis_3195.htm
Have you read Hurtados book, destroyer of the god's? "Novelty was no Roman religious virtue."
1) Why is the identity of John so important? I don't see how that affects the reason why 1st century Christians were persecuted, according to their own witness and that of the Romans.
2) Rev. 1:9 doesn't say why this John was on Patmos? Consider the words, ἐγενόμην ἐν τῇ νήσῳ τῇ καλουμένῃ Πάτμῳ διὰ τὸν λόγον τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ τὴν μαρτυρίαν Ἰησοῦ.
Granted, it doesn't give a specific reason or elaborate, but this is enough information to tell us that he is saying he was on the isle because he proclaimed God's word/message and bore witness to Jesus. I don't think he was there by choice based on the tribulation he mentions and the immediate context of this verse.
3) Rev. 2:10 says the Devil will keep on throwing you into prison. My point is that Jesus tells these Christians that they will suffer because of the Devil, not because they're political. The Lord links the persecution with the Devil's opposition to the Christian ecclesia. Please review Rev. 12:10-11. Satan the Devil is depicted as the enemy throughout Revelation, even warring with Michael and his angels in heaven. It was not mere imagery for John and the early Christians.
I believe that I have Hurtado's book, but never read it.
Stephen Smalley (The Revelation to John, page 51) makes a number of observations about Rev. 1:9, but here is something that impinges on the persecution issue:
"John’s imprisonment was ‘on account of God’s word and the witness of Jesus’: that is, because he, as the leader of a strong Christian community, was preaching the gospel openly in Asia. It does not mean that the apostle went to Patmos to evangelize or to receive his apocalypse. Apart from the situation outlined above, John always uses διB (dia, ‘on account of ’) to introduce cause, not purpose (cf. Rev. 2.3; 4.11; et al.)."
Also from G.K. Beale (The Book of Revelation), pertaining to Rev. 1:9ff:
Although some contend that the διά clause at the end of v 10 expresses the purpose for John being on Patmos (he was there in order to receive “the
word of God …” or, less typically, to preach the word), διά plus the accusative never has this meaning. It usually connotes cause or consequence (“because of”; cf. BAGD , 181). 91 This is confirmed by the use of the same clause in 6:9 and 20:4, which refer to Christians’ faithfulness as the reason for their persecution, and by the early tradition that held that John was exiled on Patmos.
[End quote]
Beale references Charles and Beckwith.
There is also Revelation 2:13
Duncan,
I don't think "striving for authority" makes any sense as a meaning of μορφῇ Θεοῦ. Moreover, it directly contradicts context, as the text goes on to say that he did not even consider seizing equality with God, and the only equality that he could have attempted to seize would have involved authority, since you can't seize someone else's nature.
~Sean
Sean, regarding seizing, see
https://leannacoylecarr.squarespace.com/s/Seeing-Rape-and-Robbery_Shaner.pdf
That particular conversation has moved on.
Edgar, I am not going to get distracted here, neither Paul nor Peter had this revelation and for them it is interpretation after the fact, from a writing that the early church was definitely not sure about.
You keep reading revelation and I will research the actual history. Like Jesus turning out the money lenders, did that have nothing to do with his trial and death.
Rev 1:1 - must soon take place 1:19 - the things that are, and the things that will take place after these.
Just a reminder that we were discussing the reason for Rome's persecution against the Christians. I cited Revelation because it shows that one doesn't need to resort to ideology hypotheses to explain the persecution. It's the same with Peter and Paul. Please consider what they actually wrote about the reason why Christians get persecuted.
I'm all for historical Jesus research, but one can do the same thing with epistles and with Revelation
Duncan, I don't think you meant to imply that Revelation is not actual history. Granted many things in Revelation had not happened yet, but some were taking place when it was written and the book contains plenty of history. For example, the letters to the seven congregations can be analyzed historically. What about the mention of seven heads and ten horns?
I don't consider Jesus throwing out the money lenders to be a political act. That's certainly not how he explained it either.
"seated at the right hand of power", https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adlocutio
https://biblearchaeology.org/research/new-testament-era/3099-the-king-and-i-exiled-to-patmos-part-2
https://dustinmartyr.wordpress.com/2014/02/18/insights-on-the-apocalypse-of-john-why-was-john-on-patmos/
Duncan, in answer to Dustin's claims, see above (Beale and Smalley). Dia + accusative is never used in the way that he suggests. Granted, we have no independent corroboration yet that Patmos was used by the Romans for exiling Christians or others, but that doesn't make John's apparent reason impossible. We often find supporting archeological data after the fact.
Besides, other early Christians report being persecuted for the witness they bore. See Philippians 1:12-13; 2 Timothy 2:8-9 and I cited Revelation 6:9; 20:4-6 earlier. Other texts could be adduced to demonstrate why the early Christians said they were persecuted.
David Aune writes a lot about Revelation 1:9, so there's some things that Dustin did not mention. I quote part of Aune's remarks below from his commentary:
John‘s presence on Patmos has been explained in several ways: (1) He had been exiled to Patmos by the Roman authorities. (2) He traveled to Patmos for the purpose of proclaiming the gospel. (3) He went to Patmos in order to receive a revelation. The first explanation, held by many church fathers (Clement Alex. Quis Dives 42; Origen Hom. in Mt.M 7.51; 16.6; Eusebius Hist. Eccl. 3.18; Jerome Devirillustr; 10), appears most probable, even though it requires certain qualifications (see below). Tertullian preserves the view that John was exiled from Rome (Depraescr; 36), a view possibly confirmed by Eusebius (Demonstrevang; 3.5 [116c]). John states that he was on Patmos diav, ―because
of,‖ the word of God and the testimony of Jesus. Yet since diav with the accusative can express both cause (―because of, on account of‖) and purpose (―for‖; cf. BDF § 222), there is no grammatical basis for excluding any of the three explanations. On the other hand, the use of similar phrases in 6:9; 20:4 in explicit connection with martyrdom suggests that John‘s presence on Patmos was the result of a capital penalty inflicted on him by Roman authorities. In Roman law poena capitalis, ―capital punishment,‖ denoted not only the
death penalty but also loss of caput, i.e., citizenship or liberty (A. Berger, Roman Law, 634).
[End of quote]
Also, as stated before, look at how writers employ dia + the accusative in actual writings.
From Jurgen Roloff's Continental Commentary (Revelation):
Patmos, an island in the Aegean belonging to the group of the Sporades, lies relatively close to the west coast of Asia Minor; at that time it was a day's journey by ship to Ephesus. Why was John living on this sparsely populated mountainous island? Some have considered the possibility that he consciously sought solitude in order to await divine revelations (cf. Mark I: 12-13; Gal. 1:I7). That he was on the island "because of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus," however, can only mean that John was banished to Patmos because of his preaching activity, even if we lack clear evidence that this island was the site of a penal colony at the time. After all, the context makes plain a direct connection between the residence on Patmos and the reference to John's suffering perseverance. Consequently, in his banishment, John himself learned that the witness of Jesus leads to a common suffering with Jesus (cf. v. 9; 6:9; 20:4). Although there were no centrally organized measures by the state against Christians at that time, that does not contradict the fact that John
was exiled to Patmos by the authorities in Ephesus as a promoter of
official unrest on the basis of his strong views against the cult of the
Caesar, which forced itself more and more to the forefront in the cities of
Asia Minor.
So, was this John a Roman citizen?
Exile was for the privileged.
Duncan, for the question about John's social status, see Ian Boxall, Patmos in the Reception History of the Apocalypse, pages 174-175.
First it was the trinitarians making no sense - now its the unitarians making crap up..
Where do they get the idea of Jesus' thinking is "from heaven"?
"No. He descended from heaven when he was sent into the world." - wasn't he "sent into the world", when Mary became pregnant with him (via holy spirit)?
"In other words, "the only one who has ascended into heaven is the one who descended." Has Jesus ascended into heaven? What about John 20:17, "do not hold on to me, for I have not yet ascended?""
https://www.reddit.com/r/BiblicalUnitarian/comments/z7ybuv/john_313_no_one_has_ascended_into_heaven_but_he/
was wondering if you had any comments or perhaps refutations to this Edgar?
John 17:18
Anonymous,
We have talked about this subject before on the blog, but the material is scattered here and there. I read some of the guy's remarks and it seems he denies that Christ ascended to heaven. Admittedly, GJohn never mentions his ascending (just that he has not ascended yet) but other places, including Acts 1:9-11, do say the Son ascended to heaven. But Unitarians reinterpret many of the sayings like "Sent into the world" or descended from heaven.
He denies Jesus descended from Heaven
To clarify what I said earlier, yes Unitarians deny that Jesus descended from heaven. However, they reinterpret or read differently texts that appear to say he did descend from heaven. For instance, John 6:51; 8:23.
Exodus 16:4
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elyon
See John 6:38 and its use of καταβέβηκα
Who's to say that the manna did not physically descend from the sky?
How many men can rightly say the words of John 6:38? If it was only talking about God being the source of someone's life or one originating with God, that would apply to all men.
Yahweh states that bread will rain down from heaven. The last thing Yahweh rained down from heaven was hailstones, which destroyed the land of Egypt (9:23). The change in setting signals a transition in the character of Yahweh from the warrior in the land of Egypt to the shepherd in the wilderness, who feeds his people. The "bread from heaven" is difficult to interpret. Scholars have sought any number of naturalistic interpretations identifying the food with desert shrubs or insects.' But the description in 16:14, 31, and in Num 11:7-9 emphasizes the supernatural character of the food. The bread does not grow from the earth, but descends from the air (Exod 16:14; Num 11:9). Once on the ground it appears as snow (mehuspds) in the desert (Exod 16:14).
Thomas B. Dozeman. Exodus (Eerdmans Critical Commentary) (Kindle Locations 5560-5564). Kindle Edition.
https://biblehub.com/hebrew/mamtir_4305.htm
A high probability of liquid rain.
And rain in the desert causes things to sprout including fungi.
But if the manna came from the sky, it proves nothing.
John 6:51 makes the contrast. Eat this bread and live forever.
https://www.dubiousdisciple.com/2011/04/john-741-43-was-jesus-born-in-bethlehem.html
What is interesting here is that "house of bread" is a theme regardless of place of birth.
Duncan, you cited Exodus 16:4 like it goes against Jesus' preexistence. That is why I included details about bread coming from the sky. And I know Jesus is not literal bread.
Unitarians work awful hard to explain away John 6:33, 38.
But this is why church fathers and also into more descent times many did not like the book of James - James 1:17. How hard am I trying?
Those who try hard are the ones who try to read pre-existence in to ALL of the gospels.
Not many have tried reading preexistence into all of the Gospels: very few scholars have done it.
Why didn't the fathers supposedly not like James?
Not many have tried reading preexistence into all of the Gospels: very few scholars have done it.
Why did the fathers supposedly not like James?
Post a Comment