"who, although He existed in the form and unchanging essence of God [as One with Him, possessing the fullness of all the divine attributes—the entire nature of deity], did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped or asserted [as if He did not already possess it, or was afraid of losing it];" (Philippians 2:6, Amplified Bible)
Sorry, but there is great overreach in this verse by the Amplified Bible. While this passage is a highly contentious verse in NT scholarship, rendering morphe as "unchanging essence" does not seem warranted here at all and the bracketed "amplification" isn't any better.
P. M. Casey writes:
"On a strict definition of 'incarnation,' Philippians 2:6-11 does not qualify because Jesus was not fully divine, in the view of the original author" (From Jewish Prophet to Gentile God [Cambridge, UK and Louisville, KY: James Clarke and Westminster/John Knox, 1991], 112-114).
While the NIV translates Phil. 2:6, "Who being in very nature God," Carolyn Osiek believes that this translation is not wholly faithful to the Greek text. Contra the NIV, she does not think 2:6 teaches the absolute Deity of Christ (See Osiek 2000:60ff).
C.A. Wannamaker's article on Phil. 2:6ff contains the following observation:
"In this passage Paul maintains that Christ's universal sovereignty derives from the Father and that ultimately the Son shall be subject to the Father when he returns his present sovereignty to God. The subordinationist character of 1 Cor. 15:24-28 demonstrates quite clearly that Paul did not believe in Christ's absolute equality with God" (Wannamaker 187-188).
Observations from Wannamaker's article are found in my Christology and Trinity book, which can be purchased on amazon.com.
See C.A. Wannamaker (NT Studies, Vol. 33, 1987, pp. 179-193).
The Catholic New Jerusalem Bible treats the Greek this way: "Who, being in the form of God, did not count equality with God something to be grasped."
The Catholic NABRE reads similarly and contains this footnote on Phil. 2:6:
"[2:6] Either a reference to Christ’s preexistence and those aspects of divinity that he was willing to give up in order to serve in human form, or to what the man Jesus refused to grasp at to attain divinity. Many see an allusion to the Genesis story: unlike Adam, Jesus, though…in the form of God (Gn 1:26–27), did not reach out for equality with God, in contrast with the first Adam in Gn 3:5–6."
In any event, the Catholic Bibles I've consulted don't translate the Greek phrase, morphe theou as "in very nature God"
19 comments:
couldn't you also render the verse "the form of a god"? to contrast with "the form of a slave"
I realise I have said before its likely definite, but I also see a good argument for it maybe being indefinite.
due to the fact angels are called "gods" (granted not in the NT, but that's besides the whole point)
Christ is called "a god" "another God" etc
The ones in John 10 individually would be called "a god" ("gods" because they are all lumped into a group)
Moses is called "a god" (rendering by the Church fathers)
Paul is called "a god"
(note: the sense doesn't matter)
Yes, it's grammatically possible to render the construction, "form of a god." It could be treated that way.
https://academic.oup.com/jts/article-abstract/66/1/90/2386177?redirectedFrom=fulltext
I think I have posted before but I just noticed the mention of robbery. https://brill.com/view/journals/bi/25/3/article-p342_4.xml
https://www.bible.ca/trinity/trinity-texts-philippians2-6.htm
"In the form of God": Gr. morphē = form, shape: the essential characteristics and nature of deity were revealed to us in this form. This is a clear and unequivocal declaration of Jesus' deity. A related word, metamorphoó = to transform, to transfigure, expresses Jesus' transfiguration (Mt 17:2; Mk 9:2; cf. Rom 12:2; 1Cor 15:44 and following; 2Cor 3:18), although its primary meaning refers to Jesus' human form. Morphē is used in a similar sense: Mk 16:12 (cf. Lk 24:16).
"Equality with God": Gr. isos = equal, identical: This word appears in Jn 5:18, where Jesus "called God his Father, thereby making himself equal with God" (cf. Jn 10:30-33). The New Testament often asserts that Jesus is God, for example, Mk 9:37; Jn 1:1-4.14.18; 8:58; 13:19; 14:9; 17:11; 20:28; Acts 20:28; Rom 9:5; Col 1:15-19; 2:9-10; 1Tim 3:16; Tit 2:13; 2Pet 1:1; Heb 1:3,8.
"Emptied Himself": kenoó = to empty, to make void. In becoming human, it was necessary for the Son to empty Himself of certain states or privileges of deity and Godhood. However, He remained fully God and fully Man (the doctrine of hypostatic union was definitively articulated at the Council of Chalcedon in A.D. 451). Theologians influenced by Arianism erroneously interpret this doctrine by associating Jesus' divinity with Jn 14:28 ("...the Father is greater than I"), as if Jesus was essentially lesser than the Father; of lower rank; or even a created being. However, Scripture also teaches that in a sense the Father also "receives" from the Son (e.g., Jn 16:15.23). Jesus submitted Himself (hypotassó) to the Father (1Cor 15:28), "that God may be all in all," but this in no way implies (ontological) inferiority, since He also submitted Himself (hypotassó) to Mary and Joseph (Lk 2:51), and Col 3:11 states that "Christ is all, and in all."
@Anonymous
We also need to take into account not only that there is a difference in theological background between the OT and the NT, it was written in a different language, so here it is not necessary to look at the general sense in which "elohim" is used in the OT, but to whom and in what sense "theos" was used in the NT originally written in Greek. And it is decisive: no inspired biblical text originally written in Greek calls anyone other than the true God "theos" in a positive sense. There is no biblical precedent for calling a person ontologically inferior to the Almighty God as "theeos" in a positive sense.
The NT manuscripts did not differentiate between "THEOS" with a lowercase, and "THEOS" with upper case, they distinguished whether Nomina Sacra were used or not. For example P46 gives a very interesting example in the text of 1 Corinthians 8:4-6, in which references to “God” and “Lord” (in reference to Jesus) are written as Nomina Sacra, but the "so-called" (thus false) “gods” and “lords” are written out in their entirety:
“With regard then to eating food sacrificed to idols, we know that an idol in this world is nothing, and that there is no God [ΘΣ] but one. If after all there are so-called gods [ΘΕOI], whether in heaven or on earth, as there are many gods [ΘΕOI] and many lords [KYPIOI], yet for us there is one God [ΘΣ], the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we live, and one Lord, Jesus Christ [KΣ, IHΣ XPΣ], through whom are all things and through whom we live."
"THEOS" when applied to Jesus is always 'nomen sacrum' in the ancient MSS, so it should be translated with a capital letter.
Fun fact: The Arians of the 4th century interpreted John 1:1c by putting a full stop after «God was», and "the Word" was placed as the beginning of sence in the next verse. The ancient manuscripts did not use full stops, commas, etc., and I did not claim that such an NT manuscript exists, but that this is how the Arians interpreted away John 1:1c.
Ninc - I will say this once again, quoting Bowman "some good information,... but not entirely accurate"
And I will also note: your claims on the theological environment are very much unfounded, even the Church fathers disagree. If the theological environment was so different why refer so much to the OT and quote it, why translate it into Greek? if the environment was so different, according to many encyclopaedias the second temple period ended after Jesus' death (if my understanding is correct)
A problem with your nomina sacra claim is the forms not in nomina sacra are plural not singular - plurals are not in any list for forms of nomina sacra ALL nomina sacra are singular (source Wikipedia/ David trobish)
are you going to make the claim that everything written in nomina sacra is God?
" no inspired biblical text originally written in Greek calls anyone other than the true God "theos" in a positive sense." - but "gods" don't have to be in a positive sense (worshippable) or false/negative (if worshipped = idolotry) the word simply means "mighty" or "ruler" its a neutral term - your claim has no founding among any critics I can find. I would need to see significant evidence of this (Which you dont provide), which I can not find anywhere - evidence suggests they were similar and used the words in a similar way.. They were also under the same law - The mosaic law, I highly doubt any significant change occurred - its more likely once again you are omitting information.
elohim is translated theos rather than theoi for linguistical reasons not theological.
@Anonymous
The fact that the OT belongs to inspired writings does not mean that there are no substantial theological-linguistic-cultural differences between the NT. This distinction was made by the Church Fathers, who opposed both Marcionism, which rejected the OT as a whole, and the Ebionites, who professed the supremacy of the OT. The Church Fathers established a consensus on the relevance of the OT within the context of Christianity.
For Christians, only the moral commandments of the Old Testament are obligatory (since they cannot change), but the various liturgical, social, and other so-called casuistic laws are no longer binding on them. Thus, dietary habits, such as the prohibition of pork, are also not obligatory. The Law refers to that part of the Old Testament revelation that is written in the five books of Moses; the prophets, on the other hand, represent the later revelation of the OT, which is recorded in the books of the prophets in both the narrower and broader sense. The expression 'the law and the prophets' together briefly signifies the entire OT revelation. However, the fulfillment of the law and the prophets occurred in different ways, depending on whether we consider the OT scriptures and the Mosaic religion in terms of theoretical (doctrines, promises, and prophecies) or practical (moral, ceremonial, and civil laws) aspects.
In its theoretical content, namely 1. the doctrines (dogmatics), Jesus completely retained, better illuminated, defined, and expounded them, and even expanded them with new doctrines; 2. the Old Testament promises and messianic prophecies were fulfilled by His life and institutions.
In its practical content, that is, the law, which includes 1. moral (lex moralis), 2. ceremonial (lex caeremonialis), and 3. civil (lex judicalis) laws, Jesus fulfilled.
Regarding the concept of God, there is a continuous development even within the OT, the earliest OT books do not assert pure monotheism, but rather monolatric henotheism, it seems that the existence of the gods of the pagans was not denied on a principle-categorical level, rather their worship was comdemned as being "idolatry" (the corresponding Hebrew term means adultery, referring to the marriage-like relationship between God and his people) and forbidden. Pure monotheism can be demonstrated for the first time in the book of Isaiah, according to which Yahweh is the only existing God, the other gods are not only "false", but also non-existent.
That is why the Old Testament concept of "elohim" cannot correspond to the pure concept of God. This morphologically plural noun with a singular verb, then it refers to Yahweh, but when it is a plural verb, it is not really a concept of God, it does not establish a kind of demiurge-demigod category. Jesus is not simply an "el" or "eloah" but Elohim.
The fact that the evangelists translated a Hebrew text, or an Aramaic into Greek does not mean that they considered the Hebrew concept el/eloah/elohim equivalent to the meaning of theos/theoi. Of course, the pun came out just like that, but this is not unprecedented. For example, in Matthew 16:18 Jesus called Shimon Bar-Yonah not "Petros" but "Kepha" and then said "...and on this 'kepha' I build my my 'qahal'", etc. Then Matthew was forced to use a morphological distinction, since he could not call the grammatically feminine 'ekklesia' as 'petros', and he could not call the male Shimon as 'petra'.
But the bottom line is that no inspired, Greek-language text establishes this god-like, (partly) divine-demiurge-type, demigod concept for "theos", there is simply no biblical precedent for this. The Greek language used various terms to describe godlike, mythical beings, with the term "theos" corresponding to their "proper gods".
Why didn't the apostles call the Son for example "theios", "theïkós" (godlike) or "hemitheos" (demigod) instead of simply "theos" (in Nomen Sacrum, just like in the case of the Father) if Arian Christology is correct? How does it become clear to the contemporary readers of the apostolic writings that in the case of the Son, being ΘΣ denotes a different, ontologically inferior category of divinity/deity from that of the Father?
Ninc, you have gone way off topic of the original post, my prev comments still stand
unless of course Edgar doesn't mind me poking holes - But tbh I'm getting rather sick of the blatent theologically motivated rubbish, rather than just giving all important information
I don't mind you poking holes, Anonymous
I'm not going to go full force here, as I have not researched what Ninc mentions specifically, but considering the track record I would not be surprised if information is omitted to make it look more one sided than it actually is.
"since he could not call the grammatically feminine 'ekklesia' as 'petros', and he could not call the male Shimon as 'petra'." - this is not only misleading but also incorrect, if I understand this argument correctly that is. A feminine noun can modify a masculine noun, this is done numerous times throughout
"Why didn't the apostles call the Son for example "theios", "theïkós" (godlike) or "hemitheos" (demigod)" - because none of these words express what the apostle wants to say, a first year Greek student could tell you this.
You go by the adopted meaning or philosophical meanings which has been proven to not be what was intended by the apostles, as they were not philosophers.
Justin calls the Word "Another God" subject to the Maker of all things and refers to John 10 as proof for Jesus' deity - What you are trying to do is simply restrict others into 1 view (your own) with arguments that seem plausible such as limiting to the NT (and inspired), However almost no person worth their weight in Gold would agree with you, because this is not the right method to use. see Strongs
The word "god" implies ANYTHING you are wholly devoted too False or True.
"How does it become clear to the contemporary readers of the apostolic writings that in the case of the Son, being ΘΣ denotes a different, ontologically inferior category of divinity/deity from that of the Father?" - it is debated whether Theos is applied to the son at all in the NT (as what you are trying to make out)
You can take my next words out of context and twist them all you like, however honest hearted ones will know what I mean.
Theos is NEVER applied directly the son (with the article, Origen makes this distinction)
again you omit to mention what else is written in nomina sacra.
If Edgar can add more, I would appreciate as I have work to do (for work)
"it is debated whether Theos is applied to the son at all in the NT"
No, even the JWs do not dispute this either, that "theos" is freely applied in the NT to the Son as well, only in his case they claim that "theos" here means something different than in the case of the Father, some lesser degree, second-class divinity. In fact, without biblical precedent, it is axiomatically presupposed that the worldview of the NT recognizes the diversity of the concept of "theos" similar to the Canaanite pantheon, where there is one chief god (Yahweh), and in comparison there are also "gods" who share in the divinity to different (lesser) degrees, and in this sense the Son is "a god." For this, they use the dilettantish argument that "god" (theos) without the definite article (ho) indicates that he is just a minor god, and that only the definite article establishes the real (almighty) deity.
All of this also ignores the fact that this monolatric henotheism existed latently in early, First Temple Israel, but already in the more mature phase of the Old Testament, the view that lesser gods also exist besides Yahweh was rejected on a principled level.
Thus this "theos" - "ho theos" distinction has no linguistic, logical, or theological basis, and the NT also calls the Father "theos" without the article (ho), and sometimes also uses "ho theos" in relation to the Son. This is just the usual terminology of the NT, the Father is usually "ho theos", the Son is "ho kyrios", while the Holy Spirit is "to pnenuma", not because these attributes are not true of the other two persons.
Some JWs I have debated with in the past have argued that Trinitarianism is a scandal to Muslims, for whom their (practically Arian) Christology is much easier for a Muslim to accept. Well, that's not true. This is how the Muslim confession of faith (Shahada) begins
"I bear witness that there is no deity but God", "there is no god (ʾilāh) except the God (Allāh)", or "There is no god but God". Or even more: "there are no ilahs" (Arabic cognate of the Hebrew "eloah"), but only "the God."
So for a Muslim, the existence of lesser gods, eloahs, apart from the one God, is a greater scandal than Trinitarianism, which strictly, sharply distinguishes God from non-god, the uncreated Creator from the created. There is no place in this system for a demiurge-like, part-divine entity existing somewhere halfway between the One God and the created world.
"There is no place in this system for a demiurge-like, part-divine entity existing somewhere halfway between the One God and the created world." - this is your opinion, It is NOT Origen's or some of the other Church fathers. Origen makes a clear distinction between hupo and dia
inferior or not, agency is expressed by the use of the passive verb + dia - Who said Christs work is inferior anyway? an agent under the laws of those days was just as important as the "sender" or in this case "creator" though they have someone "behind it" as the "source"
and again even hardcore trinitarians (including catholics) acknowledge this si the most likely meaning to the text, even back to the church fathers.
You would have to prove the greatest scholars of all time wrong - something I don't think you can do.
"Thus this "theos" - "ho theos" distinction has no linguistic, logical, or theological basis" - not according to Origen and numerous others - it is more likely you are simply not providing a piece of the story. (or ignoring it)
" and the NT also calls the Father "theos" without the article " - what you fail to note, is when the article is omitted with the Father, is it the same grammatical construction as it is with the son? or is their a grammatical reason for it to be definite?
a nominative on its own without any other conditions will be taken as indefinite, but its works differently with the other forms. Datives and genitives don't need the article to be definite. demonstratives, prepositions are the same. Other contextual factors also, such as what is a genitive connected too.
""I bear witness that there is no deity but God", "there is no god (ʾilāh) except the God (Allāh)", or "There is no god but God". Or even more: "there are no ilahs" (Arabic cognate of the Hebrew "eloah"), but only "the God."" - but again its how you take this statement, this could mean 3 different things (2 of which are lies)
1) There is no God (taken in the context of the statement) but YHWH, that we should worship
2) There is no God, but YHWH - basically denying the existence of false Gods (Which Bible writers knew existed)
3) There is no God but YHWH - as in there is no "creator" but YHWH (compare: psalms 86:8,9 ) - this being a possible interpretation to this text.
The word differences are "easy" to explain away - you haven't exactly provided all the details.
"the view that lesser gods also exist besides Yahweh was rejected on a principled level." - this isn't entirely accurate or true. (see Justin Martyr for just one example of many)
and again Justin views Logos/ Wisdom as "another God" subject to the Maker of all things. He believes Logos was "made himself a beginning" (whatever that means to him) "before all creatures" - so at least on a basic level, Justin believes God "made" somethings before "the beginning"
None of this is as straight foreword as what you are trying to make out... also providing all information wouldn't go a miss either..
"couldn't you also render the verse 'the form of a god'?"
I prefer that rendering. Interestingly, if one sets aside the presupposition of trinitarianism then that rendering suddenly seems quite natural.
It may help to keep in mind that the two-powers theology probably emerged from within Judaism. Some scholars take the Son of Man in Daniel as the starting point for the two-powers contemplations, and, of course, the early Christians identified Jesus as the Son of Man. I think Phil. 2 is consistent with this branch of theology.
Sean - I could see it going both ways, they are both valid translations imo - unless you try to separate OT / NT theology (compare phil 3:19)
idk your opinion, I take son of man to be synonymous with "Christ" (or messiah)
Post a Comment