Isaiah 6:8 - And I heard the voice of the Lord, saying: "Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?" Then I said: "Here am I; send me."
A trinitarian argues from the above the scripture that Isaiah heard the voice of Yahweh [in eternity past], and is referring to himself as more than one person.
Obviously, there is nothing here about these words being said in "eternity past". Such an idea has to be added to and read into what Isaiah said. If one would be consistent in following such reasoning, one would conclude that Isaiah himself had been hearing these words in "eternity past", and thus that Isaiah himself had existed in "eternity past" so as to be hearing these words in "eternity past".
We believe that Isaiah himself is playing a part in the prophetic role, depicting the church of Jesus who was yet to be. Each believer is depicted as hearing the voice of the Lord, asking, "Whom shall I send", and thus is depicted as responding: "Here am I."
The Masoretic text has "Adonai" (transliterated) where "the Lord" appears in most translations. The claim is made by some that this is one of the places copyists replaced Jehovah (Yahweh) with Adonai, and thus some translations have the Holy Name in the scripture. Nevertheless, the Great Isaiah Scroll does not have the holy name in Isaiah 6:8, but rather the Hebrew characters representing Adoni [transliterated, meaning "my Lord"] or Adonai [Literally, my Lords, used singularly, however, it means superlative or superior "Lord"].
At any rate, it is probable that Isaiah originally meant this to be "my Lord" [adoni], referring to the coming Lord of Isaiah [representing the believer]. From the New Testament, the coming "lord" is shown to be Jesus, the promised Messiah. In such a case, the words in question, who will go for us, appears to be those of Jesus directed toward his God, Jehovah. If so, the "us" refers to both Yahweh and Jesus. The one to "go" for them would be Isaiah (picturing the church individually). The fulfillment of the prophecy supports that ADNY (transliterated) in Isaiah 6:8 is not Jehovah, but Jesus.
This is in harmony with what Jesus said, for he recognized that no one could come to him except that his God and Father should draw such an one to Jesus.
John 6:44 - No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him.
John 6:45 - Everyone who hears from the Father, and has learned, comes to me.
John 6:65 - No one can come to me, unless it is given to him by my Father.
The "us" would be both Jehovah and Jesus. The one to "go" for them would be represented by Isaiah, individually those who learn of Jehovah and come to Jesus.
However, the Great Isaiah Scroll does have the Hebrew word of God's name in Isaiah 6:11 -- not Adoni or Adonai. Thus it is possible that "the Lord" in Isaiah 6:8 is referring to Jehovah. Assuming that "the Lord" here is Jehovah, then this would only mean that Jehovah is simply speaking to Jesus, saying who will go for us?
Regardless, "us" would still be Yahweh and Jesus, and in no wise would mean that Jesus is Yahweh. If Tom says to his son, "Who will represent us in court?", is Tom saying he and his son are one sentient being?
See also:
Isaiah Saw His Glory
Wednesday, May 17, 2017
Genesis 1:26 - Let Us and Elohim
By Ronald R. Day
Genesis 1:26 - God [ELOHIM] said [singular verb], "Let us make [plural] man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the sky, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth."
Obviously, God here is speaking to someone. Normally, if a person says to his friend, "Let us do this or that according to our plans," we do not think that the person who is speaking is speaking to another person of himself. Likewise, in those instances where God says "let us", "we", etc., God is not speaking to another person of Himself, but he is speaking to someone else who is not Himself. Indeed, the default reasoning should be that Jehovah is speaking to someone else who is not Himself.
The truth is that the idea that God is here speaking to Himself (allegedly as two different persons of Himself) has to be imagined, assumed, added to, and read into what the scripture actually says, and such has to be assumed only to conform to preconceived doctrine, which also has to be imagined, assumed, added to, and read into, each and every scripture that is used to allegedly support the extra-Biblical doctrine.
The plurality of ELOHIM means "gods", not "persons" or "attributes"; thus, to apply this word to the Creator in plural terms would mean that Jehovah is gods [plural], not persons in one God. Nevertheless, the word in its meaning contains the attribute of mightiness, but this is one attribute, not attributes (plural).
Nevertheless, the scriptures do not apply ELOHIM to Jehovah with plurality, anymore than Jehovah Himself applies ELOHIM to Moses with plurality. (Exodus 7:1) Indeed, if ELOHIM used of Jehovah means that Jehovah is more than one person, then to be consistent, the one making such a claim should also claim that God made Moses more than one person to Pharaoh. When Jesus quoted Exodus 6:3, as recorded in Matthew 22:32, Jesus did not use a plural form of the word THEOS; he uses the singular form.
In reality, like several other Hebrew words, the plural forms of EL can be used in singular contexts to denote what we in English might call the superior or superlative degree. Regarding this usage in Biblical Hebrew (as well as some other ancient languages), scholars often call this the "plural intensive" usage, where a plural form of a word is used in a singular context and thus the plural form is viewed as singular, but is intensified in meaning (similar to the English superior or superlative degree). In other words, the plural form of a word is treated as though it were singular, but only intensified in meaning. In English we do this by adding "er" or "est" to many words, such as high, higher, highest, or we might add "more" or "most" before words. (However, in English, especially in its archaic forms, the plural is often employed as a plural intensive when addressing majesty, a judge, etc., as in "your Majesty", and "your Honour", instead of "thy Majesty" or "thy honour.") Therefore, in Exodus 7:1, Jehovah stated that He was making Moses, not persons, to Pharaoh, but rather one person of superior might (ELOHIM) to Pharaoh.
The point, however, is that ELOHIM is used of the one Jehovah, the "one God" who is the Creator of His people. Jehovah is not more than one Jehovah, nor more than one god, nor is he more than one person, or individual, nor does a Supreme Being consisting of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. "Hear, Israel: Jehovah is our God; Jehovah is one." "Hasn't one God created us?" -- Deuteronomy 6:4; Malachi 2:10.
So who was Jehovah speaking to as recorded in Genesis 1:26? Although there are some hints in the Old Testament, we have to look to the New Testament for the answer to this. John 1:1,2 tells us that the one who became flesh was with God in the beginning that is spoken of there. That "beginning" is not the beginning of the entire universe, as many have assumed, but it is the "beginning" of the "world" (Greek, Kosmos) that God created through the one called "the Word." (John 1:10) All in this world was made through the one called "the Word". Not one thing (pertaining to the world that was made through the Word) was made without the Word. (John 1:3) This one titled "the Word" became flesh, and came into the world that was made through him, and that world did not recognize him. (John 1:1,2,10) Jesus identified himself as that one who was with the "only true God" before the world of mankind was made. (John 17:1,3,5) "God", whom the Word was with, refers to the One whom Jesus addressed as "the only true God", that is, his God and Father. Jesus was with the only true God, and thus John 1:3,10 is really speaking of Jesus as the one through whom "God" made the world of mankind. Therefore, by comparing spiritual revealing with spiritual revealing (1 Corinthians 2:10-12), we can see that the one whom "the only true God" was addressing in Genesis 1:27 is Jesus.
However, someone may object, doesn’t John 1:1 tell us that, not only was the Word with [or toward, in service of] God, but also that the Word was "God"? Doesn’t this prove the trinitarian idea that God is more than one person? No, it doesn't! It should be obvious, by comparing John 1:1,2 and John 17:1-5, that Jesus was with, or in service of, the only true God. Would John then say that Jesus "was" the only true God whom he was with? John twice states that the Word was with God, thus giving emphasis to this thought. The thought of two persons as the only true God is not inherent in the words of John 1:1,2, but the idea has to be imagined, assumed, added to, and read into what John wrote. One has to imagine and assume that John, in referring to "God" whom the Word was with, does not mean the alleged triune "God", but that it means the first person of the alleged trinity as the Father. We know it is true that "God" whom the Word was with, toward or in service of, is the God and Father of Jesus, because of Jesus’ words as recorded in John 17:1,3,5. However, the part about the Father being a person of a trinity has to be imagined, assumed, added to, and read into, what John wrote in John 1:1,2, and Jesus’ reference to the Father as the "only true God" in John 17:3 has to either be ignored, or in some manner be interpreted (again this is often done by imaginative assumptions being added to and read into what Jesus stated) in order make Jesus’ words still mean that Jesus is a person of the only true God. Likewise, the trinitarian has to imagine, assume, add to, and read into what John said that the Word is the alleged second person of the trinity.
So why would John say that the Word was "God", if we are not to imagine and assume he is a person of the only true God? Is there not only one God? Can Jesus be "God" who is not the only true God? And wouldn’t this mean that there is more than one true God? The answer again lies in comparing spiritual revealing with spiritual revealing (1 Corinthians 2:10-12), not by imagining, adding, and reading into the scripture a lot of assumptions that would make Jesus a person of his God. What is the true scriptural answer to why John would refer to Jesus as God?
It is obvious that John is not referring to Jesus as "God" in the same manner in which he speaks of "God" whom Jesus was with. In other words, it should be obvious that Jesus is not "God" whom he was with, and as mentioned before, John emphasized this by repeating it again in John 1:2. If Jesus is "God" who he was with, or in service of, then Jesus is the Father, since Jesus says that he with his Father, but trinitarians deny that Jesus is the Father.
The Greek word for God is usually transliterated as THEOS, and forms of this word are used twice in John 1:1. Forms of THEOS, in the New Testament, are used to translate forms of the Hebrew word that is often transliterated as EL; it should be apparent that the Hebrew writers of the New Testament were using THEOS in the same manner, and with same meaning, as the Hebrew writers of the Old Testament. In the words recorded at John 10:34,35, was Jesus saying that all the sons of the Most High are persons of the Most High, that they are all the only true God?
What many do not realize is that there is a scriptural Hebraic tradition that allows the usage of the words for "God" in a more general sense of might, power, authority, etc. Most translations of the Bible into English as well as other languages recognize this usage. We can use the most popular English translation — the King James Version — to illustrate such usage. This can be demonstrated in such verses where the KJV renders the word for "God" (forms of EL and ELOHIM in the Hebrew) so as to denote strength, power, might, rulership, etc., such as in the following verses: Genesis 23:6 (mighty); Genesis 30:8 (great); Genesis 31:29 (power); Deuteronomy 28:32 (might); 1 Samuel 14:15 (great); Nehemiah 5:5 (power); Psalm 8:5 (angels); Psalm 36:6 (great); Psalm 82:1 (mighty); Proverbs 3:27 (power); Psalm 29:1 (mighty); Ezekiel 32:21 (strong); Jonah 3:3 (exceeding). If one were to substitute "false god" in many of these verses, we would have some absurd statements. This proves that these words are used in a sense other than the only true God, or as "false god."
If such Hebraic usage is applied to Jesus (who was with the only true God -- John 17:1,3) in John 1:1, we would have "the Word was mighty," and all makes perfect sense without adding all of the imaginations and assumptions that would have to accompany viewing the scripture through the tint of the trinity doctrine, or the oneness doctrine. Jesus was indeed a mighty one with the only true MIGHT before the world of mankind was made. Thus, the scriptural conclusion is that it was this "mighty" one that the only true God addressed in Genesis 1:26, using the term "let us."
Related:
Written by Others
We do not necessarily agree with all given by the authors whose writings are linked to below.
We do not necessarily agree with all given by the authors whose writings are linked to below.
Early Church's Understanding of Genesis 1:26 - This is evidently written by a trinitarian.
Originally published April 12, 2009; Updated and Republished November 25, 2014; Republished May 17, 2017; November 14, 2016.
Genesis 1:26,27 - Who Is God Speaking To?
Many have claimed that the above scripture is one person of God (Jehovah, Yahweh) speaking to another person of Jehovah. Actually, there is certainly nothing here to give us any reason to think that one person of Jehovah was here speaking to another person of Jehovah. Jehovah was indeed speaking to someone, and other scriptures indicate that this was the pre-human LOGOS, Jesus, who was with the only true God before the world of mankind was made (John 1:1,2; 17:5), and who acted as God's agent in the creation of the world of mankind. (John 1:3,9; Ephesians 3:9) Additionally, there is nothing in Genesis 1:26 about three persons in one God, only an indication that Jehovah was speaking to someone who was already in his image and likeness. -- 2 Corinthians 4:4; Colossians 1:15; Hebrews 1:3.
Often many will point to Isaiah 44:24, which speaks of Jehovah's creating the material universe, and claim that this scripture shows that Jehovah was also alone when he created the world of mankind, as recorded in Genesis 1,2. Evidently, Jehovah was alone when he first produced the material universe, but, after that, he most certainly was not alone in the creation of the world of mankind, the heavens and the earth being spoken of in Genesis 1,2.
==========
See our studies related to God's Creation through Jesus.
Others have suggested that God was speaking to the angels here. The angels were certainly present at the creation of man, for they were the sons of God who rejoiced at earth's creation. (Job 38:4-7) God certainly could have been speaking to the angels here, although the Bible does not directly state that the angels participated in the creation.
We certainly find nothing here to indicate that one person of Jehovah is speaking to another person of Jehovah, or that there is more than one person in Jehovah.
Some of our trinitarian neighbors often make the claim that the plural/singular usage of language in Genesis 1:26,27 gives proof of their trinity doctrine. It has been claimed that when God spoke of "us" in creation, that this indicates that Jehovah is Jesus. Trinitarians claim that this means that there are more than one person in the Creator/God. The usage of the Hebrew word elohim, translated as "God" in this verse, is also offered as proof of the trinity, since elohim is plural, not singular. It is also claimed that man -- made in God's image -- is also a trinity, with reference to 1 Thessalonians 5:23. Please see our study on 1 Thessalonians 5:23.
The Word ELOHIM
While Jehovah did create by means of his Son, there is nothing in the word elohim as used in Genesis 1:26 that means a plurality of individuals, any more than its use of Moses in Exodus 7:1, where Jehovah states to Moses: "See, I have made thee a god [ELOHIM] to Pharaoh." (Webster translation) Moses is certainly not a plurality of individuals. Thus there is definitely nothing in that word that identifies a plurality of individuals. If used to denote plurality, it means gods, nor a multiple of persons in one god.
The Hebrew Scriptures do often use the plural word Elohim in singular settings, usually with the singular article or singular verbs, etc. This has been called the "plural intensive" -- where the plural is used in a singular context. It has nothing to do with the trinity doctrine.
As pointed out, Moses is also called elohim -- plural. (Exodus 7:1) The scriptures concerning Moses indicate that elohim, although plural, is applied to the singular person, Moses (who is a type of Jesus -- Deuteronomy 18:18,19; Acts 3:19-23). Moses is not more than one person, so why the plural usage here? It is plural used in a singular setting to denote supremacy (plural intensive), that is, to denote the supremacy of the power given to Moses by Jehovah over the power of Pharaoh and the gods of Pharaoh.
We should also note that elohim -- when used with a plural application -- means "gods" -- not persons. Thus the argument that its plural usage means a trinity would tend to mean that there are three gods, not three persons in one God, as is claimed for the trinity doctrine. ELOHIM in Genesis 1:26 is used as the plural intensive, or superlative, of the singular, and refers to one person speaking to another person, saying "Let us..." If ELOHIM is used as a plural in Genesis 1:26, then we would have several Gods saying to another or others: "Let us..." But in reality, ELOHIM refers to one: Jehovah, and then that one is speaking to another or to others.
For more on the usage of the world *elohim*, see our studies related to ELOHIM AND PLURALITY:
Image and Likeness
Someone has argued: "As in "Let US make MAN in our IMAGE and LIKENESS. Now, do tell us how God made man in 'his image and likeness' if God is a spirit? Does a spirit have an image? A likeness?"
This argument would appear to be making God Almighty to be a flesh being like man, who is flesh, earthly. God is spirit in substance, heavenly, not earthly, fleshly. (Psalm 8:5; 1 Corinthians 15:39-41; Hebrews 2:7) To be in God's image and likeness does not mean that if Jehovah is an invisible spirit being that we also must also be invisible spirit beings. Having been created in the image of God certainly does not mean that the first human pair were invisible, which is an attribute of God Almighty. (Colossians 1:15) Likewise, since Jesus' exaltation, we read that he dwells in unapproachable light; whom no human has seen, nor can see. -- 1 Timothy 6:16.
The word "image" is used in different ways in the Bible; Adam was created in God's image; (Genesis 1:26) Does this mean that God has a fleshly body, as man does? Absolutely not!
An image of anything is a representation or copy of it, though of inferior substance. So the first man was an earthly or clay copy of his heavenly, spiritual Maker -- a copy of God! yes, he was to be a manifestation of God in flesh.
There is nothing in Genesis 1:26 about three persons in one God, only an indication that Jehovah was speaking to someone who was already in his image and likeness. -- 2 Corinthians 4:4; Colossians 1:15; Hebrews 1:3.
Man was originally created in the likeness of God, crowned with glory. -- Genesis 1:26; 5:1; Psalm 8:5
Man was created in the mental and moral image and likeness of God, with the ability to reason and to exercise his free will to choose right or wrong. Man exists on a higher plane than the animals and "a little lower than the angels [elohim]." (Psalm 8:5; Hebrews 2:7) It is difficult to judge from present human conditions all that is meant by God's image, because we have no sample (save that recorded of Jesus) of perfect humanity for comparison. "All have sinned and come short of the glory of God" in which Adam was created. -- Romans 3:23; Psalm 8:5.
Now we note some other scriptures concerning the likeness of God. David hoped to be raised again in the likeness of God. (Psalm 17:15) The new creature in Christ is in the likeness of God, having been reckoned as justified through faith in the blood of Jesus. -- Ephesians 2:24
However, more specifically the context indicates how man was created in the image and likeness of God: "Let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the sky, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth." In other words, man was not only made morally and intellectually to resemble his Creator, so that he would be able to think and reason on higher planes than would be possible to the lower animals, but he was also endowed with the authority to control the lower creatures, to be the EL -- powerful ruler -- of earth as Jehovah is the EL of the universe. This agrees well with the statement of Psalm 8:5-8, in which it is declared that God created man but a little lower than the angels, so far as his intelligence and capacity were concerned, and that thus he was "crowned with glory and honor" and given dominion over the lower creatures. It further agrees with Paul's statement in 1 Corinthians 15:39-41. Nevertheless, Paul says concerning this dominion: "But now we don't see all these things subjected to him, yet," indicating what he said elsewhere concerning man's fall from divine likeness, yet with the hope of recovery from this fall. -- Romans 1:21-2:2; 3:10,23; 5: 15-19; 8:19-21; Hebrews 2:7.
And we should note the reading of the following verse, also verse 31, which show that God not only purposed the work and proposed it to his Son, his agent in the creation of all things (John 1:3; Colossians 1:16), and that he not only began the work, but that he also completed it: -- "So God created man [past tense] in his own image; in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them." "And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good." (Compare Genesis 1:27,31; 5:1; 9:6; Ecclessiastes 7:29; 1 Corinthians 11:7; James 3:9) And this creature which God "had made," completed, and declared to be a copy, an image of himself, a manifestation of himself in flesh, he was also pleased to own as his son (Luke 3:38), and as Paul says -- "if a son, then an heir;" (Galatians 4:7) for God brings no son into existence for whom he has not made ample provision. Therefore as a son he had the rich token of his Father's loving providence in the vast domain of earth which he was to subdue and take possession of as his posterity would increase and require it; and all its products -- animal, vegetable and mineral -- were subject to his control and use: "And God blessed them, and God said to them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living animal that moveth upon the earth. And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which [is] upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in which [is] the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for food." -- Genesis 1:28,29
And not only did God thus give to Adam the whole earth as an inheritance for himself and his posterity, telling them to appropriate it and cultivate it as their increasing necessities should require, but he had already prepared a choice portion of it as a fit home for the perfect pair, and a sample of what the whole domain of earth would become under the process of industrious cultivation with his added blessing. -- "And Jehovah God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.... And Jehovah God took the man and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it." -- Genesis 2:8,15
Thus the context indicates the image of God in Adam, as well as can be seen in Psalm 8:5-8. It is not an image of physical likeness; but to Adam was given the ability to rule, to have a dominion. He had the ability of perception like God; of understanding; as well to reflect all the general attributes and qualities of God on a lesser scale. Man was given perception, imagination, the power of original suggestion, memory, reason, judgment and will, corresponding to these various intellectual qualities in God. He has also the Godlike moral quality of conscience, which enables him to discern the right and the wrong, to distinguish one from the other and to estimate them properly. As originally created, all of these powers worked together perfectly and harmoniously, all being subject to that supreme mental faculty, the will, which, being free to act independently, though aided by the suggestions of all the other mental and moral faculties, determines the course and constitutes the character of the man.
The glory of God-likeness and dominion was to a great extent lost when Adam disobeyed. (Romans 3:23) The apostle tells us that now we do not see all things subjected to man. (Hebrews 2:6-7) Thus the original purpose for mankind has yet to be seen. When Adam sinned, in effect God disowned him as his son, as he no longer reflected the qualities of God.
Therefore we see from the Bible testimony that man was originally perfect, an image or copy of God in flesh. Of the fall from that original perfection and the results to the entire race of Adam, we also have the clear testimony of the Scriptures, showing just how it came about -- that it was a willful transgression of a known righteous law, in the face of a distinct warning of the penalty of such a course. It was a sin on man's part only, and from which God is fully exonerated in that man was left under no necessity of want and with full instruction as to the right course and as to the results of a wrong course of action. The only cause of man's fall, then, which is traceable to the Creator, lies in the fact that he created him in his own image -- with a free will of his own. But this endowment, we see, was the crowning act of God's favor to man, and man's choicest blessing. And so it was the lack of appreciation, and an abuse of God's abounding favor and goodness, and not any lack on God's part, which led to the fall.
As a consequence of that fall from original perfection and favor on the part of the head and representative of the race, another law of our being, designed for our highest good -- the law of heredity -- has brought upon all Adam's posterity its entailment of imperfection and proneness to evil. And thus all the race is in the same wretched plight. An evil tree cannot bring forth good fruit, nor a bitter fountain send forth sweet waters. The present state, therefore, of the entire race is a degenerating and dying one. Had it not been for the redemption through the ransom sacrifice of Jesus, the plight of man would have been without remedy.
Ronald R. Day, Sr.
Links for studies related to Genesis 1:26,27:
https://jesusnotyhwh.blogspot.com/p/genesis.html#gen1-26
https://jesusnotyhwh.blogspot.com/p/genesis.html#gen1-26
******************
Isaiah 61:1 - Jehovah Sent His Messiah
The above scripture is sometimes offered as proof of the trinity, evidently simply because Jehovah is mentioned, and the spirit of Jehovah is mentioned, and the one sent by Jehovah is mentioned. The trinitarian has to imagine and assume that "Jehovah" refers to one person of their idea of the "one Jehovah" (Deuteronomy 6:8) of three persons, while the spirit of Jehovah they imagine and assume to be referring another person of the one Jehovah of three persons, and the one sent by Jehovah would have to be imagined to be another person of the one Jehovah of three persons. All of this has to be imagined, thought "beyond the things which are written" (1 Corinthians 4:8), and then added to, and read into what is written, although it seems that most trinitarians rarely try to reason their own belief out when they look at scriptures such as this.
Actually, the one Jehovah is here completely distinguished from the one sent by Jehovah. Nor is the spirit of Jehovah depicted as a person of Jehovah to whom that spirit belongs. Jesus identifies himself with God's people in Isaiah 61:2 where he speaks of Jehovah as "our God" [Elohim]. He thus identified God as one person, and it is that one person who sent him. (John 17:1,3,5) Micah 5:4 identifies Jehovah as the God of the Messiah. Isaiah 61:1,2 alone (although there are many similar) should be enough to convince one that the default reasoning is that Jesus is not Jehovah, his God.
As the scripture reads, it was Jehovah -- one person -- who anointed the one sent, thus making the one sent the Messiah (anointed one) of Jehovah. This agrees with the rest of the Bible. In the Bible, we find that Jehovah is always presented as one person, and never is Jehovah presented as more than one person.
Colossians 2:9 - The Plenitude of Deity
For in Him all the fullness [Greek, pleroma, plenitude] of Deity [Greek, Theotes; Strong's #2320] dwells in bodily form and in him you are made full, who is the head of all principality and power. -- Colossians 2:9,10, New American Standard Bible translation
https://www.studylight.org/lexicons/greek/2320.html
This form of THEOS, that is, THEOTES, appears only this one time in the Scriptures, thus we have a lack of scriptural comparison for its particular usage. We have, however, the Hebrew background of words that are translated into Greek as THEOS, that is, forms of EL and ELOHIM. We have given before the Hebriac usage of these words in the Hebrew scriptures, showing that when they are used of others than Jehovah (or idols of men), they take on a more general meaning of might, power, strength, etc, rather than of the Supreme Mighty One of the universe. Without assuming and adding to Colossians 2:9 the idea that Jesus is being spoken of here as the Supreme Being, it certainly can be seen that Paul would be using theotes to describe what God has given to Jesus as being power and might, not any idea that Jesus is Jehovah, or that Jesus is a person of Jehovah.
See our study:
Hebraic Usage of the Titles for "God"
See our study:
Hebraic Usage of the Titles for "God"
The Greek form of the word often transliterated as Soma (body) that appears in Colossians 2:9, is often transliterated as Somatikos (adverb form of "Soma", bodily), which form likewise does not appear anywhere else in the Scriptures. Paul speaks of Jesus' spiritual, heavenly, body in the resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:44), when he says that Jesus, the last Adam, "became a life-giving spirit." (1 Corinthians 15:45) Thus, he is speaking in Colossians 2:9 about that spiritual body, as can be seen from the context, and not the body of flesh and blood that Jesus had already given in sacrifice. -- Hebrews 10:10.
See:
Jesus Died a Human Being - Raised a Spirit Being
See:
Jesus Died a Human Being - Raised a Spirit Being
The plenitude of godship -- ruling might -- does dwell permanently in the mighty spiritual body of Jesus. It is not just an authority that is given to him, but his very being, after he became the life-giving spirit, now possesses all the power needed to carry out the works of his Father, thus "it was the Father's good pleasure for all the fullness to dwell in Him," (Colossians 1:19, NAS) and so that now he "is the head of all principality and power." (Colossians 2:10; see also Ephesians 1:3,17-23) This might -- godhead, godship -- is given to Jesus from his God. -- Psalm 45:7; Matthew 28:18; Hebrews 1:2,6,9; 1 Corinthians 8:6; Philippians 2:9; Colossians 2:10; Ephesians 1:3,17-23; Psalm 2:7,8; 110:1,2; Isaiah 9:6,7; Luke 1:32; Jeremiah 23:5; Daniel 7:13,14. -- Ronald R. Day, Sr.
See also:
The Fullness of Deity
See also:
The Fullness of Deity
************
Tuesday, May 16, 2017
Monday, May 15, 2017
Luke 24:39 - Jesus' Appearances in the Locked Room
By Ronald R. Day, Senior
Jesus certainly did raise his body for the appearances in the locked room; however, we need to distinguish his raising up his body for such appearances from his being raised in the spirit. There is no scripture that says that Jesus arose in his human body from the grave.
Jehovah, the God and Father of Jesus (Ephesians 1:3), is the Only one who is the source of all (1 Corinthians 8:6), and hence the only one person who is the Supreme Being, Jehovah is He who anointed and sent Jesus (Isaiah 61:1; John 17:1,3), prepared a body of flesh for Jesus (Hebrews 10:5), and made Jesus a little lower than the angels so that Jesus could offer that body of flesh with its blood to Jehovah his God for our sins. -- Matthew 26:26-28; Luke 22:19; Romans 3:25; Colossians 1:14; Ephesians 5:2; Hebrews 2:9; 9:14; 10:10; 1 Peter 2:24; 3:18; 1 John 1:7; Revelation 1:5.
It is the God and Father of Jesus who has made Jesus both Lord and Christ (Ezekiel 34:23,24; Isaiah 61:1,2; Acts 2:36), and has exalted him to the highest position in the universe, far above the angels, next to the only Most High.-- Acts 2:33,36; 5:31; Philippians 2:9; Ephesians 1:3,17-23; 1 Corinthians 15:27; Hebrews 1:4,6; 1 Peter 3:22.Indeed, Jesus, himself, was not raised as a human being, with the terrestrial bodily glory that is a little lower than the angels. Jesus, in being raised from the grave, was given a body by his father as is true of all who are to be raised from the dead in the last day. (1 Corinthians 15:35-38) The body given to Jesus when he was raised from death is not the glory of a human being, which is lower than the angels (Hebrews 2:9), since Jesus is not still a human being a little lower than the angels. (Hebrews 2:9) Jesus is no longer in the "days of his flesh." (Hebrews 5:7) He is now a "life-giving spirit". -- 1 Corinthians 15:45, New American Standard translation.
All must agree that Jesus is now a spirit being. The trinitarian claims that Jesus is indeed God, and thus Jesus must be an invisible spirit being, since God is spirit. (John 4:24; Colossians 1:15) So even from the trinitarian standpoint, Jesus is a spirit being. However, many trinitarians, and some others, will contradict this by quoting Jesus' statement: "a spirit doesn't have flesh and bones, as you see that I have," and then claim that Jesus was saying that he is not a spirit being, but a human of flesh and bones. They do no seem to reason very well on this, for if he is not a spirit, then he must not be God, and he must only be a human of flesh and bones. Of course, Jesus is indeed a spirit being, even as God is a spirit being. Jesus was not saying that he was not a spirit being here, because he most definitely was raised as a spirit being. -- 1 Peter 3:18.
So what did Jesus mean when he said "a spirit doesn't have flesh and bones, as you see that I have?"
He certainly could not have been denying that he is a spirit being. Our trinitarian, as well as our "oneness" neighbors, even claim that he is God, who is indeed spirit in being. We should look to the context of Luke 24:39 to see what Jesus was speaking of. The context, and other scriptures, help us to gain some understanding, by comparing what God has revealed through his holy spirit, comparing spiritual revealing with spiritual revealing. -- 1 Corinthians 2:10,12,13.
He certainly could not have been denying that he is a spirit being. Our trinitarian, as well as our "oneness" neighbors, even claim that he is God, who is indeed spirit in being. We should look to the context of Luke 24:39 to see what Jesus was speaking of. The context, and other scriptures, help us to gain some understanding, by comparing what God has revealed through his holy spirit, comparing spiritual revealing with spiritual revealing. -- 1 Corinthians 2:10,12,13.
Of course, spirit beings usually do not have a flesh and bone body. However, angels, who are spirits (Hebrews 1:7,14; Psalm 104;4) have appeared many times with flesh bodies. In such cases, they were not flesh, but they did manifest themselves in such a way that they were called "men," even eating and drinking. Were they actually men? No. But in their appearance, in their manifestation, they were 'men'. -- Genesis 18:2; 19:1,8,12,15; Judges 6:11-22; 13:11,20; Joshua 5:13-15.
We know that the angels that sinned also were allowed to take on a form of humans before the flood of Noah's day. Evidently, this privilege was taken away from them, since we do not see them doing this today. Instead, these spirits at times make appearances as phantoms, without bodies of bones and flesh.
While we can see the possibility that Jesus was actually in his own fleshly body in which he died at this scene, for he could have produced it for this purpose, even though he was a spirit being, in a manner similar to the angels who appeared as men as recorded in the Hebrew Scriptures, we should not assume that this means that Jesus was raised from death back to his body of flesh.
So let's return to our question concerning Jesus' statement, "a spirit does not have flesh and bones", and note carefully the context of Luke 24:39 in order to understand what had happened before and also similar experiences in other scriptures, comparing spiritual revealing with spiritual revealing.
"But they were terrified and affrightened, and supposed that they had seen a spirit. And he said unto them, Why are ye troubled? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts? Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have." -- Luke 24:37-39.
The disciples were afraid because they thought they had seen a spirit, the word "spirit" is being used as a phantom -- a manifestation, a resemblance, produced by a wicked spirit, usually pretending to be the spirit of a dead person. (Luke 24:37) The disciples were aware of God's law forbidding communicating with such spirits (Leviticus 19:31; 20:6; Deuteronomy 18:10,11), and that it was forbidden for a spirit medium to be in the land of Israel (Leviticus 20:27; Deuteronomy 18:10,11; 1 Samuel 28:7-9); thus they had reason for concern that such a spirit might appear to them. They certainly would not want to be used as a medium by such spirits.* Matthew 12:12,18 identifies such spirits a unclean spirits, demons.
==========
*See the Dawn study on "Spiritualism -- Its Claims"
http://www.dawnbible.com/booklets/spiritualism.htm
==========
*See the Dawn study on "Spiritualism -- Its Claims"
http://www.dawnbible.com/booklets/spiritualism.htm
On a different occasion, we read: "But when they saw him [Jesus] walking upon the sea, they supposed it had been a spirit, and cried out." (Mark 6:49) Matthew reports the same incident as: "And when the disciples saw him walking on the sea, they were troubled, saying, It is a spirit; and they cried out for fear." (Matthew 14:26) The Greek word translated "spirit" in these accounts is Strong's #5326, phantasma, meaning "a mere show", or "simulacrum", as in an appearance or apparition like a human form made by a wicked spirit.
In Luke 24:37, the wording is similar, "But they were terrified and filled with fear, and supposed that they saw a spirit." However, the Greek word translated "spirit" here is not *phantasma*, but rather Strong's 4151, *pneuma*, meaning, breath, or in usage, force, energy, spirit, and has a variety of applications. It is the word used in Matthew 24:12,18 of demons.
The following is a list of some of the scriptures where *pneuma* is used of demons: Matthew 8:16; 10:1; 12:43,45; Mark 1:23,26,27; 3:11,30; 5:2,8,13; 6:7; 7:25; 9:17,20,25; Luke 4:33,36; 6:18; 7:21; 8:2,55; 9:39,42; Luke 10:20; 11:24,26; Acts 5:16; 8:7; 16:16,18; 19:12,15,16; Ephesians 6:21; 1 Peter 3:19; Revelation 16:13,14.
Since the flood of Noah's day we only read of God's obedient angels being permitted at times to materialize in the form of men, as in Judges 13:3-20, where an angel of Jehovah appeared to the mother and father of Samson. They thought they were talking to a man, but it was an angel, because he ascended in the flame of the altar and disappeared. Likewise, we read in Genesis 18:2-19;25, when Abraham lifted up his eyes and saw three men coming to him, and he greeted them, he made them welcome, and prepared a meal, and they ate and talked with Abraham. Paul, mentioning them, said that we should not forget to entertain strangers, because some had entertained angels without knowing it. In other words, because these angels appeared with a body of bones and flesh, they were assumed to be men, not spirit beings. (Hebrews 13:2) Paul is referring to exactly what Abraham did when he entertained those angels without knowing they were angels. They appeared as men, and they were men to all intents and purposes until they had performed their work, and then they dematerialized the fleshly form of man and returned to the spirit realm. So just as the angels of Jehovah appeared to Abraham, ate with him, and talked with him, and had all the functions of men, just so with the angels prior to the flood. All the angels had this power, and not merely the good angels, for they were all originally good.
But some of God's angels disobeyed God, left their original estate as angels, and materialized in the form of men. They preferred not only to materialize in the human form to appear to man, but preferred to live as human beings. They left their habitation, the spirit realm, and lived as men in the world, and they had wives. They raised families.* Their children were spoken of as "men of renown." They were gigantic in size. God saw that the whole earth was being corrupted by the influence of these disobedient angels. The imagination of the human mind was evil, and only evil, and that continually. Therefore God said: "I will destroy man from the face of the earth." "The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and behold, I will destroy them with the earth." (Genesis 6:7,13) So Jehovah destroyed those giants as well as all mankind, save Noah and his wife, his two sons and their wives.
==========
See the study, "Thousands of Demons Infest Earth's Atmosphere":
http://mostholyfaith.com/Beta/bible/Harvest_Gleanings_3/HG131.asp?xRef=HGL467:8
Peter and Jude tell us that those angels who sinned at that time were sentenced by God. (2 Peter 2:4; Jude 1:6) They were restrained in chains -- not literal chains, but chains of darkness, so that they could not materialize in the form of man, so that they could not come out, so to speak, during the day.
These demons, or disobedient angels, had been cast out by Jehovah from his realm of spiritual light into a realm of spiritual darkness. Today, as in the days of Jesus, these demons are still not permitted to materialize in the form of human flesh. But often they do something else: they take possession of human bodies. They get into a person's body in order to continue themselves in their desires to live as humans, and in so doing they continue themselves as servants of the original serpent, Satan the Devil. We read that on one such occasion, there was a legion of these demons in one man. They said: "My name is Legion, for we are many." God has given all of us a will whereby we may resist these intrusions. These demons are working more active today than ever before. They represent themselves as being "ghosts", "disembodied spirits", "aliens from other planets", and they even possess a person when he is a near-death condition, giving them "visions" of "heaven", "hell", "Paradise", "Jesus", "Mohammed", "Buddha", or whatever else a person might have a tendency to believe in. They know all about people who have died, so they can easily impersonate a dead person. Likewise, they can give persons all sorts of visions, or false "memories" about things that never really happened, or of another person's life hundreds or even thousands of years before you were born. All of this activity is happening in order to keep people from looking into the truth about the only way provided by Jehovah to come to him, that is, through his Son, Jesus, less any might come to a knowledge of the truth, and, especially to keep any from developing into receiving joint-heirship with Christ. If the thought that the number of 144,000 is to be taken literally, or that this number represents a limitation, regardless of how many, who are to become joint-heirs, then we can see why it would be of concern to the fallen angels to keep as many as possible under deception, for once the number is sealed, then the time for their abyssment and judgment will shortly follow.
With this background, we can understand that Jesus demonstrated that his appearance or manifestation (Strong's 5319 -- used in Mark 16:12,14; John 21:1,14) was not that of a demon, by producing his fleshly body and temporarily inhabiting the fleshly body he had died in (not his resurrection body, his heavenly, spiritual body.) The flesh he used for these appearances no longer had the life or soul in it, and thus Jesus does not refer to its blood (the life [nephesh, sentiency, soul] of the flesh in in the blood -- Leviticus 17:11), so instead of describing it as a body of flesh and blood, Jesus described it as a body of flesh and bones. (verse 39) This is appropriate because Jesus was now a spirit being, and did not take back his human soul (Hebrew, nephesh, Greek, psyche) which he had made an offering for humanity's sin. (Isaiah 53:10,12; Matthew 20:28; Mark 10:45; John 10:11,15,17; 13:37; 15:13 - The Greek word for soul, psuche, is often translated as "life") He only temporarily incarnated himself into his former human body for the purpose of demonstrating that it was actually him, and not some demon spirit impersonating him.
Thus we see that there is nothing in Jesus' appearance that would lead us to believe that Jesus, although now exalted above the angels, is yet encumbered with a human body of flesh lower than the angels. Paul, in speaking of resurrection bodies, and in answer to the question as to what kind of body one is raised with (1 Corinthians 15:35), after describing flesh bodies here on earth (1 Corinthians 15:39), makes a sharp distinction between heavenly bodies, and earthly bodies, using illustrations of the sun, moon and stars, to describe the glories of heavenly bodies. (1 Corinthians 15:40,41) Instead of saying, "Don't you know that you will receive back your present body, only glorified with a spiritual body, he speaks of a seed, as though developing into the body that will be, according to what was sown. Those who sow earthly fruitage only receive earthly bodies. Those who go beyond the earthly seed into the heavenly seed receive heavenly, spiritual bodies. Paul does not mix the two. Earthly bodies are earthly. Heavenly bodies are heavenly. The Christian, in whom the seed of righteousness is sown, receives either one or the other in the resurrection, according to the level of sowing.
==========
See: "The Manner of the Resurrection"
==========
See: "The Manner of the Resurrection"
Therefore, when the disciples thought they had seen an apparition of a wicked spirit, Jesus did materialize his body of flesh in order to show them that he is not such a wicked spirit, for the demons are restrained from taking on the form of flesh.
The Empty Tomb
Some refer to the empty tomb of Jesus as proof that Jesus' body was raised from the dead. Actually, the fact that the tomb was empty does not prove anything concerning his body one way or the other. All it was designed to prove was that Jesus was raised from the dead.
The apostles at this time had not yet received any understanding of a resurrection of anything other than a physical body. The spirit of truth had not yet been given to them. (John 7:39; 16:31; Acts 1:6) Even after receiving the revealing through the holy spirit, while the truth was revealed especially to the apostles (John 16:4-13; Galatians 1:12; Ephesian 3: 5; 2 Timothy 2:2), many still had problems with understanding what kind of body one is raised with. -- 1 Corinthians 1:2; 3:1; Hebrews 5:12.
The disciples had seen Jesus raise various ones to life, and in each instance the body of the individual became alive again. Thus, the apostles during the period before the outpouring of the holy spirit, would have associated the resurrection with the body. Although the apostles apparently had begun to preach something concerning a spiritual body in the resurrection, this evidently was causing some confusion amongst believers, since the questions were raised: How are the dead raised?" and, "With what kind of body do they come?" (1 Corinthians 15:35) The apostle Paul showed that there are two basic kinds of bodies in the resurrection, that of a heavenly, spiritual body, and that of an earthly, physical body. He showed that Jesus now has a spiritual body, that he is now a "life-giving spirit". Thus it seems probable that it was some time after Jesus' ascension that it became clear that Jesus was raised, not in a physical, earthly body, but with a mighty spirit body.
Thus, when Jesus appeared to the disciples in the locked room, the disciples probably had no concept of anyone being raised with a spiritual body. The scriptural account shows that Thomas was not present when Jesus first appeared to the disciples. To convince them that he had indeed been raised, Jesus showed his apostles "his hands and his side." (John 20:20; Luke 24:39) This he did because they thought they were seeing a spirit -- a phantom, a demon who was impersonating Jesus. (Luke 24:38) Thomas, later hearing of this, said, "Unless I see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe." -- John 20:25.
It has been suggested that perhaps Thomas felt hurt and left out at being the last to witness the resurrection; regardless, he was being a little stubborn concerning this whole matter. In effect, his demand insinuated that the others had not required enough proof, and they may have been deceived. This also fits the above argument concerning the apostles fear that they had seen a spirit -- a demon masquerading as Jesus -- instead of actually seeing Jesus. However, Thomas should have remembered Jesus' earlier testimony concerning himself, "they will kill him; and when he is killed, on the third day he will rise again." (Mark 9:31) Extreme though Thomas may have been, when Jesus presented himself in his body, and showed the marks Thomas requested, Thomas believed fully.
Thomas demonstrated a lack of faith by insisting upon being able to put his hand into the side of Jesus, but it does demonstrate how much thought was associated with the "body" regarding the resurrection, a thought that had to be later removed through the apostle Paul. How easily the church later was led astray in believing the resurrection of the body rather than the soul, which they had come to believe was immortal. That is one the great mistakes to take root in the church - The Apostle's Creed, while correct in every other matter, errs in this matter - stating "I believe in the resurrection of the body." After receiving the enlightenment of the holy spirit, Paul says, "You foolish one [one fooled] ... God gives it [the seed sown] a body [in the resurrection day] even as it pleased him, and to each seed a body of its own." -- 1 Corinthians 15:36,38.
After being raised from the dead, we fint that Jesus possibly did not always use the same form (morphe) when he made his appearances, manifestations. (phaneroo) After these things he was revealed (phaneroo) in another form (morphe - outward appearance) to two of them, as they walked, on their way into the country. -- Mark 16:12. (Some claim that this verse was not written by Mark. However, even if it was not written by him, whoever wrote it showed that he/she thought that Jesus appeared in different forms, and that such a thought existed at some time in the early church.) Afterward, he was revealed (phaneroo) to the eleven themselves as they sat at the table, and he rebuked them for their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they didn't believe those who had seen him after he had risen. (Mark 16:14) After these things, Jesus revealed (phaneroo) himself again to the disciples at the sea of Tiberias. He revealed (phaneroo) himself this way. (John 21:1) This was the third time that Jesus was revealed (phaneroo) to his disciples, after he had risen from the dead. -- John 21:14
But what about the witnesses of Jesus' resurrection? Did they not see Jesus' body being raised? Actually, there were no human witnesses of the actual moment of Jesus' resurrection. Read all the accounts given in the Bible, and you will not find one human witness of the actual event of his resurrection. All that any human witnessed was the empty tomb after the resurrection of Jesus. What we have recorded for us is recorded in Acts 2:31, that "neither was his soul left in Hades, nor did his flesh see decay." We also have recorded that there were women and then later Mary who were witnesses of the empty tomb. Later Peter and John also saw the empty tomb. There was also a soldier who confirmed that the tomb was empty. But none of these witnesses actually witnessed the resurrection of Jesus.
When Jesus was buried we read that his body was "bound ... in linen cloths with spices, as the custom of the Jews." (John 19:40) Had it been understood, they would have known that Jesus' body did not need any spices, for it was foretold that his body would not see corruption, decay. (Psalm 16:10) After the Sabbath, the two Marys, evidently with some others, brought more spices to anoint his body (Mark 16:1; Luke 24:1), an angel appeared and rolled away the stone from the door. (Matthew 28:2) Luke speaks of two angels who asked them: ""Why do you seek the living among the dead?" (Luke 24:5) One of the angels told them that Jesus had risen. -- Mark 16:5,6.
Later two of the disciples came to the tomb, and they saw the linen cloths in the tomb. (Luke 24:12; John 20:5,6) No mention is made of the spices.
After being raised from the dead, Jesus "appeared to over five hundred brothers at once." (1 Corinthians 15:6) Last of all he was seen of Paul as one born out of due season, shining above the sun at noonday. -- 1 Corinthians 15:6-8,
We need to note something very important regarding Jesus' appearances: all of these appearances were to those who accepted him as the Messiah sent by God; not once did he appear to non-believers. If Jesus had appeared to Annias, Caiaphas, the Sanhedrin, Pilate, Herod, Caesar, the Roman Senate, he certainly could have put the "fear of God into their hearts", as some say. Why didn't he appear to others? Because the truth is not for the non-believers, it is only for believers. Of the unbelieving religious leaders, Jesus said: "They are blind guides of the blind. If the blind guide the blind, both will fall into a pit." But to his disciples, he said: "To you it is given to know the mysteries of the Kingdom of Heaven, but it is not given to them." (Matthew 13:11) Additionally, if the enemies of Jesus had seen, then out of their evil hearts they could have borne evil testimony (Matthew 12:34; 15:19), or God's purposes could have been otherwise twarted. In due time, the world will understand, but for the present the world is kept in darkness.
==========
See our study:
Understanding Kingdom Mysteries
==========
See our study:
Understanding Kingdom Mysteries
Had Jesus' body been left in the tomb, then Jesus' enemies could have displayed the body as proof that he had not been raised. The scriptures reveals that they posted guards to make sure that his body was not removed. is to prevent any of Jesus' enemies from showing proof that The empty tomb was bad news for Jesus' enemies. They had it guarded to prevent the body from being carried away. When the angel rolled away the entrance to Jesus' tomb, we read that that "the guards shook, and became like dead men." (Matthew 28:4) The body was gone. Some of the guards went into the city and told the chief priests what had happened. (Matthew 28:11) The evil heart of these priests can be seen in that they bribed these guards to spread the rumor that the "his disciples came by night, and stole him away while we slept." (How could they know what happened if they were sleeping? -- Matthew 28:12-14) But, had Jesus' body remained in tomb, they could have offered it as proof that Jesus had not been raised. Nevertheless, it is noted that they did not send out any kind of search party in an effort to try to find the body, which they surely would have done had they disbelieved the guard's report. There is nothing in the scriptures that indicates that they actually believed that Jesus' body was stolen. Thus the empty tomb did provide a problem for these enemies, who evidently did recognize the truth of implications, that Jesus had been raised from the dead, but sought to cover up that truth.
Nevertheless, it evidently was not Jesus' purpose to demonstrate at that time that he had been raised without his former body. His disciples, at that time, were not looking for a risen Jesus in a spiritual body (1 Peter 3:18; 1 Corinthians 15:45), but they were looking for a flesh and blood Jesus. Thus, the empty tomb provided evidence of the resurrection.
Ronald R. Day, Sr., Restoration Light (RlBible, ResLight) Bible Study Services. This study may be reproduced and distributed for non-profit purposes.
For links to some our studies related to Jesus' resurrection body:
https://ransomforall.blogspot.com/p/jesus-resurrection-body.html
https://ransomforall.blogspot.com/p/jesus-resurrection-body.html
****************
Wednesday, May 10, 2017
Sunday, May 7, 2017
Wednesday, May 3, 2017
Monday, May 1, 2017
Philippians 2:5-11 - Humility of Mind
Do nothing from selfishness or empty conceit, but with humility of mind regard one another as more important than yourselves; do not merely look out for your own personal interests, but also for the interests of others. Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. For this reason also, God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus EVERY KNEE WILL BOW, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. -- Philippians 2:5-11, New American Standard Bible translation
THOSE WHO naturally have a humble mind have no particular difficulty in esteeming others better than themselves. But there are some who naturally have another attitude of mind. This is not necessarily their fault, for they may have been born with larger self-conceit than were others, due to the subjection of mankind to vanity and futility as a result of Adam's sin. (Ecclesiastes 1:2,13-15; Romans 1:21-2:1; 8:20) But even if we were born with humbleness of mind, we should need to take care that self-conceit and pride do not come in. Sometimes in their own heart some people feel boastful of the knowledge they possess. They like to shine, even though they know they have no more brilliancy than others; they would like to obscure the shining of others that they might be the more noticed in the darkness.
(2) It would, therefore, be a safe matter for each of us to follow the Apostle's suggestion to cultivate this humility of mind and never allow it to be lost. "Humble yourselves, therefore under the mighty hand of God, that he may exalt you in due time;" "for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted." (1 Peter 5:6; Luke 14:11) God would do this abasing, not of a vengeful spirit, but because the one who would vaunt himself must be brought low.
(2) There might, however, be circumstances when some who appear to be vaunting themselves really are not doing so, but circumstances and conditions make it seem so. Therefore, to best fulfill the apostle's injunction, we should, as he suggests in this text, cultivate the spirit of humility -- not considering our own good qualities so much as those of others. If we have good qualities, we should certainly be glad and humbly acknowledge that we do not have such qualities of ourselves. Thus, we should make use of them to bring attention to our Heavenly Father and His Son. Nevertheless, at the same time, let us look for the good qualities of others, especially any quality that we ourselves may be lacking or fall short of, that we may be appreciative, not envious, of their qualities.
(3) In comparing ourselves with others, let us look at our own blemishes. There are very few in whom we cannot see some good qualities, good traits. If, therefore, we look at our own imperfections (1 Corinthians 11:31) and the good qualities of others, we shall find ourselves more and more appreciative of others; and this will be of assistance to us in running the race.
(4) As an illustration of seeing something to admire, even in our enemies, we have the suggestion of the old lady to her nieces. One niece said to the other, "Auntie can say something good about everybody. I believe she could say something good even about the Devil." "That is so," answered the other. "Let us ask her." Then she called, "Auntie, is there any good about the Devil?" "My dear," replied Auntie, "I wish we all had as much perseverance as he has."
(5) So if we could find something in the Adversary that we could admire and commend, we can certainly find something in all others to admire and commend and give recognition to. Thus we will cultivate the spirit that will be most helpful to ourselves for our future work.
(6) The consideration of our own imperfections should, as we have suggested, make us very humble of mind and keep us in a very humble attitude of mind. This might discourage us unless we have the proper relationship with Jehovah (Yahweh)* through his son, Jesus, as revealed by means of the holy spirit as recorded in the written word by which we come to know them. (Mark 4:11; John 14:26; 16:4-13; 17:1-3; 1 Corinthians 2:7-10; Galatians 1:12; Ephesian 3:3-12; Colossians 1:25,26; 2 Timothy 2:2; 1 John 4:6) We know that "all things work together for good for those who love God." (Romans 8:28) Through his word Jehovah has provided for such the "Balm of Gilead" (Jeremiah 8:22) for their encouragement, and the anointing oil and the comfort of the Scriptures. -- Psalm 51:17; Isaiah 57:15; Romans 15:4; Hebrews 4:12.
(7) Jehovah does not entirely cast us off if we are not, as new creatures, willfully practicing sin and if we take those things that humiliate us in the right spirit. That lowly disposition is what he wants to see in us. Those things which would humiliate us in the sight of others and in the sight of Jehovah himself, will, if we are rightly exercised by them, work together for good to us. (Romans 8:28) Such lowly ones he will bless and lift up and give an appreciation of his Love. This he purposes to do. We have every evidence that Jehovah will give the necessary encouragement, and we have the assurance of the scriptures that those who obey his Word to the best of their ability shall not be overcome by sin.
(8) For each one to look merely upon his own things, interests, welfare or talents and to ignore those of others would manifest a general selfishness and, consequently, a dearth of the spirit of Christ, which is a spirit of love and generosity. (Romans 8:9) In proportion as we are filled more and more the fruits of the holy spirit, especially love (Galatians 5:22,23), we will find ourselves interested in the welfare of others. This was the mind, attitude, disposition, or spirit which was in our dear Redeemer, which he so wonderfully manifested, which we must copy and develop in our characters if we would ultimately receive any reward of eternal life, but especially is it true of those who would be joint-heirs with Christ, concerning whom God has predestinated that to be accepted with Him to this position they must be "conformed to the image of his Son." -- Romans 8:29.
OUR GREAT EXEMPLAR
(9) That we may partially discern how our Lord Jesus exemplified this spirit of humility, the apostle briefly sums up the story of His humiliation and shows how it led to his present exaltation. He points out to us that when our Lord Jesus was a spirit being, before He stooped to take the plane of human life and to bear the penalty of our sin, He was in "a form of God" -- a mighty spirit form, a high and glorious condition. Jesus described his plane of existence before coming to the earth as a glorious position that he had beside his Father before the world existed. (John 17:5) But instead of being moved selfishly and ambitiously to grasp for higher things than God had conferred upon Him -- instead of seeking to set up a rival Empire, as Satan did -- he did not meditate a robbery of God to make Himself the Father's equal (Satan's course, depicted by the king of Babylon -- Isaiah 14:13,14), and say, "I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God [the bright ones, the angelic hosts];... I will make myself like the Most High." [His peer, His equal]. Quite to the contrary of this, our Lord Jesus, "the Beginning of the Creation of God," (Revelation 3:14, New American Standard Bible translation) was willing, in harmony with the Father's plan, to humble Himself, to take a lower plane of life and to do a work which would involve, not only a great deal of humiliation, but also a great deal of pain and suffering.
(10) The apostle points out how the "Only Begotten" (John 1:14, King James Version) proved his willingness and humility by complying with this arrangement; and that after he became a man he continued of this same humble spirit, willing to carry out the Divine Plan to the very letter by dying as man's ransom-price (Matthew 20:28; Mark 10:45; Romans 3:25; 1 Timothy 2:6; 1 John 2:2; 4:10); and not only so, but when it pleased the Father to require that the death should be a most ignominious one in every respect, he did not draw back, but said, "not my will, but yours, be done," and stooped even to the ignominious "death of the cross"! -- Philippians 2:8.
(11) Here we have the most wonderful demonstration of the attitude of humility, meekness and obedience to God that has ever been manifested or that could be conceived of. And this is the pattern the apostle points out that we should seek to copy. "Have this [humble] attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus." -- Philippians 2:5-10, New American Standard Version.
(12) This humility enabled our Lord to render perfect obedience (Romans 5:19; Philippians 2:8; Hebrews 4:15; 5:8), on account of which the Heavenly Father has so highly honored Him as to raise Him from the dead to the highest plane (excepting God -- 1 Corinthians 15:57), to a divine station far above angels, principalities and powers, and every name that is named. (Epehsians 1:13-23; Hebrews 1:4; 1 Peter 3:22; Philippians 2:9) That this is the apostle's argument is shown by the word "For this reason also," -- that is, on this account, on account of this humility and obedience just described -- "God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name [position of honor, glory] which is above every name." -- Philippians 2:9
(13) Not only did our Lord's beautiful and perfect humility and obedience demonstrate that He was to the core loyal to the Heavenly Father, but it also demonstrated that in Him the Father's spirit of love dwelt richly, for He shared the Father's love for the race He redeems. (John 3:16,17; 15:9; Romans 5:8; 8:35,39; Galatians 1:3,4; 2:20; Ephesians 5:2; 1 Timothy 2:5,6; Titus 2:13,14; 1 John 4:9,10) On this account also He is found worthy to be the Divine Agent in the blessing of all the families of the earth, according to the terms of the Divine Covenant made with Father Abraham. -- Genesis 22:18; Luke 22:29; Galatians 3:16; Hebrews 1:2.
(14) Thus He has become the "seed of Abraham" that is to bless the race redeemed; and hence it will be through his name that "every knee shall bow and every tongue confess" when Jehovah's "due time" shall come for the pouring out of Divine blessings upon the redeemed world -- that all may come to a knowledge of the truth and, if they will, into full harmony with God, and to eternal life.
(15) Not only does the apostle hold up the Lord Jesus as the great example of a proper humility, self-abnegation and obedience to God in the interest of others, but he also gives us hope of obtaining a reward with him, as joint-heirs with him. (Romans 8:17) God exalted his Son to the highest position in the universe, next to the Most High Himself. (Acts 2:33,36; 5:31; Philippians 2:9; Ephesians 1:3,17-23; 1 Corinthians 15:27; Hebrews 1:4,6; 1 Peter 3:22) This was part of the "joy" that was set before Jesus (Hebrews 12:2), adding to his courage and faith to endure through all his trials, and remain obedient to his God. If we follow Jesus' example, we will also sit with him on his Father's throne as joint-heirs with Christ. But even with thought before us, we should always be on guard lest we judge ourselves as having already obtained the reward, and think more highly of ourselves than we ought. -- Romans 12:3; Philippians 3:12-16.
(16) All of us who belong to Jesus should apply to ourselves the loving exhortation of the Apostle to the Church at Philippi, contained in the succeeding verses (Philippians 2:12-16), and continue in the way upon which we have entered, making more and more progress in the race-course, working out in ourselves through humility and obedience the character, the disposition of Christ, with fear and trembling, and thus working out each our own share in the great salvation to glory that God has promised.
WORKING OUT OUR SALVATION
(17) We cannot work out our own justification, that is, our initial salvation from sin and death, but after being justified by the blood of Christ, and being called to strive to joint-heirs with Christ, we can make our calling and election sure. (2 Peter 1:10) We can work out our own share in the great salvation to which we have been called in Christ by giving heed to the instructions of our great Pastor (Hebrews 13:20), by following the pattern which He has set for us; not that we will attain perfection in our present sinful flesh, but rather more importantly, perfection of faith, will, of intention, of heart (1 Thessalonians 3:10; Hebrews 6:1), and if we bring the body into submission to the new will (1 Corinthians 9:27), its weaknesses and imperfections will be reckoned as covered by the merit of our Lord. -- 1 John 1:9.
(18) It is encouraging also for us to know that this warfare against weakness and sin is not merely one of our own, but that God, through his Son and by means of his holy spirit, is for us, has called us, and is helping us. (Romans 8:31,34; Hebrews 10:23) He already works in us, by his word of promise, and has led us thus far in the willing and the doing of his will, his good pleasure; and he will continue thus to lead and to help us and to work in us by his word of truth, if we will continue to give heed to His counsel. "Sanctify them in your truth. Your word is truth." (John 17:17) The Gospel is "the power of God to salvation" (Romans 1:16) to every one that so accepts it; and no greater stimulus to true godliness can be found than "his precious and exceedingly great promises; that through these you may be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped from the corruption that is the world by lust." -- 2 Peter 1:4.
(19) Moreover, in following in the footsteps of our Lord Jesus, running the race for the great prize set before us in the Gospel, we are not to murmur by the way, finding fault with its difficulties and narrowness; nor are we to dispute respecting it, nor seek to have any other way than that which Divine providence marks out for us, realizing that Jehovah knows exactly what experiences are necessary to our development in the school of Christ; and realizing also that, if obedience were possible, while our mouths are full of complaints and dissatisfaction with Jehovah and our lot in this present life which He has permitted, it would indicate that we are at least out of sympathy with the spirit of His arrangement; and such an obedience, if it were possible (but it would not be possible), would not meet the Divine approval, nor gain us the "prize." Hence, as the apostle exhorts, we should "do all things without murmurings and disputes, that you may become blameless and harmless, children of God without blemish in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation, among whom you are seen as lights in the world, holding up the word of life." -- Verses 14-16.
(20) Many, however, have sought to dispute the straightforwardness of Paul's statements, and wish to read into what he said things that he never said, meant or implied. Many read his statement concerning Jesus' prehuman existence in a "form of theos" to mean that Jesus was God Almighty. Many even read into Paul's statement that "being" in this form means eternity. Additionally, they read into the statement "equality with God" as meaning Jesus is equal with God. These views are often expressed to support the trinity doctrine, that is, that there are three persons in one God, and sometimes also the oneness doctrine.
(21) While we believe that there is no support for the trinity or oneness doctrines in Philippians 2, we will admit that one can argue concerning the Greek syntax to make it appear to support the trinity, and this is reflected in many translations. Many prefer the King James rendering of Philippians 2:6 because it does seem to lend support the trinitarian dogma: "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God."
(22) However, not all translators agree with this, and translators render what Paul stated in many different ways, as can be seen from the following: "He was in every way like God. Yet he did not think that being equal to God was something he must hold on to." (WorldWide English Bible translation) "Who, being in the form of God, thought [it] not robbery to be equal to God." (Young's Literal Translation) "Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped." (New International Version) "who, subsisting in the form of God, did not esteem it an object of rapine to be on an equality with God;" (Darby's Translation) "who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped." (New American Standard Bible translation) "who, though being in God's Form, yet did not meditate a Usurpation to be like God." (Diaglott) Except for the last translation, all of these are renderings given by trinitarian translators. This does, at least, show that there is not agreement, even among trintiarian scholars, as to how this verse should be translated.
(23) The Greek, as taken from the transliteration of the Westcott and Hort text, as it appears on the "Bible Students Library DVD", is: "hos en morphee theou huparchwn ouch harpagmon heegeesato to einai isa thew." Let us look at the various expressions used to see what they say, and what they do not say, or what one would have to read into the saying in order to make the words appear to mean that Jesus is God Almighty.
Morphe and Theos
(24) Trinitarians will usually take the stance that all scriptures should be viewed through trinitarian assumptions, with the idea that anyone who objects has to disprove the trinitarian applications that they read into the scriptures. The reality is that the trinitarian concept is not found any where in the Bible. Additionally, the writers of the Bible did not write their thoughts in an effort to disprove a doctrine that did not exist, and yet it remains that trinitarians can and to dream up ways in which to make it appear that the Bible writers appear to support the trinity doctrine. Sadly, this indoctrination has become so common and yet so great, that they appear to think that whatever they imagine beyond what is written has to be so, and thus see nothing wrong with adding this and that assumption to the scriptures. Indeed, most appear to not realize that they are adding a lot of assumptions to the Bible. The truth is that there is not one scripture that supports the "three persons in one God" fable. It is the for the trinitarian to prove that the Bible does actually say that there are there is a triune god; it is not for us to "disprove" the trinity dogma, but to only point out that the scriptures are in harmony without adding this idea to the scripture. Nevertheless, in considering the rendering of Philippians 2:6, we have take all in context with Paul's intent. The context indicates that Paul is using the Greek word often transliterated as "morphe" (rendered "form" in the King James Version) in parallel with Greek word often transliterated as "Homoioma", meaning likeness in appearance, as in Romans 8:3, where Jesus is said to have been in "likeness" of sinful flesh. Jesus' flesh was not sinful, for he was without sin; yet because he suffered as though he were a sinner under bondage as men are due to Adam's sin, Jesus was in the likeness of sinful flesh.
(25) Let us examine the word "morphe", itself often translated "form" or "nature". The meanings given to the word are "the form by which a person or thing strikes the vision; external appearance." (Thayer) "form, outward appearance; nature, character." (Mounce) The word only appears three times in the Greek New Testament. It is the the King James Versions translates as "form" in Mark 16:12: "After that he appeared in another form unto two of them, as they walked, and went into the country." The account in Luke (24:13-35) shows that the disciples' failure to recognize Jesus on this occasion was due to the altered external appearance of Jesus, not an altered 'essential nature'. The word "morphe" is the basis of some words in English, such as morphology (the study of shape or appearance), and metamorphosis (a change of shape). Morphe in the Septuagint is used in Daniel 4:33; 6:6,9,10; 7:28, where it is translated from the Hebrew word Ziv (splendor); in Isaiah 44:13 from the word Tabnith (structure, model, pattern, -- as in a building); and in Job 4:16 from the Hebrew word Temuna (appearance, form, shape, image, likeness). The word morphe is used in reference to the heathen gods by the classic writers, denoting their aspect or appearance when they became visible to men.
Metamorphosis (Wikitionary)
(26) Barnes tells us that the word morphe, as used of Jesus in Philippians 2:6, can have one of two meanings:
(1.) splendour, majesty, glory--referring to the honour which the Redeemer had, his power to work miracles, etc.; or(2.) nature, or essence--meaning the same as ~fusiv~, nature, or ~ousia~, being. The first is the opinion adopted by Crellus, Grotius, and others, and substantially by Calvin. Calvin says, "The form of God here denotes majesty. For as a man is known from the appearance of his form, so the majesty which shines in God is his figure. Or, to use a more appropriate similitude, the form of a king consists of the external marks which indicate a king --as his sceptre, diadem, coat of mail, attendants, throne, and other insignia of royalty; the form of a consul is the toga, ivory chair, attending lictors, etc. Therefore Christ, before the foundation of the world, was in the form of God, because he had glory with the Father before the world was, John 17:5. For in the wisdom of God, before he put on our nature, there was nothing humble or abject, but there was magnificence worthy of God." --Comm. in loc. The second opinion is, that the word is equivalent to nature, or being; that is, that he was in the nature of God, or his mode of existence was that of God, or was Divine. This is the opinion adopted by Schleusner (Lex.;) Prof. Stuart (Letters to Dr. Channing, p. 40;) Doddridge, and by orthodox expositors in general, and seems to me to be the correct interpretation. In support of this interpretation, and in opposition to that which refers it to his power of working miracles, or his divine appearance when on earth.
Barnes, Albert. "Commentary on Philippians 2". Barnes' Notes on the New Testament.
(27) We believe that we could add to these a third meaning of the Hebrew word Temuna: appearance, form, shape, image, likeness, as in Job 4:16, and as shown in is usage in Mark 16:12.
(28) However, it is difficult to treat the word "morphe" without also considering the word "theos", translated "God", as well as the usage of morphe in verse 7. Our trinitarian neighbors adamantly conclude that theos applied to Jesus means that Jesus is God Almighty [and not in a general sense of mightiness], and say that Jesus could not have been in the form of God without being God, by which they mean "God Almighty". It is argued by some that "morphe" in some of the classical Greek philosphical writings is used in the sense of "essence" or "genuine nature of a thing", and that for Jesus to be the genuine nature of God means that Jesus is God. There are many trinitarian scholars that have seized on this as supposed definite proof that Jesus is God Almighty, and thus gives a reason for creating all the trinitarian assumptions that they have added to, and read into the scriptures. Thus it is claimed that "morphe" is used in Philippians 2:6 in a different sense than it was used in Mark 16:12. One site gives a variety of quotes which we reproduce here.
"Who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped" (Phil. 2.6). The English word "form" (Gk. morphe) is misleading because it gives the impression that Jesus is not of the same essence as God, or that Jesus is somehow a lesser, or subordinate deity. However, the Greek word morphe denotes, "The set of genuine characteristics which constitutes a thing what it is. It denotes the genuine nature of a thing" (Christian Theology, p.325). "Morphe means the essential attributes as shown by form. In his preincarnate state Christ possessed the attributes of God and so appeared to those in heaven who saw him. Here is a clear statement by Paul of the Deity of Christ" (Robertson, vol. 4, p..444). "[Morphe] always signifies a form which truly and fully expresses the being which underlies it" (MM p. 417).
(29) Most of the definitions, although designed purposely to fit the trinity doctrine, do well fit the meaning, "who in mighty form." The first part of the verse is "hos en morphee theou", literally, "who in god form", or if one transfers the Hebraic usage of EL to "theou", this could be understood as "who in mighty form," or "who in mighty appearance". Theos is the Greek equivalent of forms of the Hebrew word "el" which can mean "mighty" as in Genesis 30:8 and 1 Samuel 14:15. The Hebrew forms EL and ELOHIM [which are often translated as "God"], when used in reference to others than Jehovah or false gods, take on a more general form of special mightiness, but not as the exclusive might that only belongs to Jehovah as the source of all might. (1 Corinthians 8:6; Ephesians 4:6) Thus we suggest the possibility of the rendering, "who in mighty form" in Philippians 2:6. For one who has no axe to grind in otherwise seeing in this that Jesus is Jehovah, this appears to be a possible way to understand Paul's words in the context in which he is speaking. Jesus was existing in the essence of mightiness, the very nature of a celestial glory with the Father, before he came to the earth, which glory he did not possess while in the days of his flesh. (John 17:5; 1 Corinthians 15:40; Hebrews 2:9; 5:7) We know that he did not possess this glory while in the flesh, for if he did, why did he ask that it be returned to him? (John 1:1,2; 17:5) Nevertheless, if Jesus is God Almighty, there would be no need to use the word morphe at all to tell of such, for Paul could have easily said, "being God, he did not...".
(31) As we have shown in our study, "Hebraic Usage of the Titles for 'God'", the Greek word theos does not always mean God Almighty, and based upon Hebraic usage of forms the word often transliterated as EL (including forms of ELOHIM), it can legitimately be applied to others who have power as given to them by God Almighty. Thus being a form of Theos -- a mighty being -- does not necessarily mean that such a person would be God Almighty, anymore than Moses, by being made "god" -- elohim [mighty] -- to Pharaoh, is God Almighty. -- Exodus 7:1.
(32) It is obvious, however, that morphe in Philippians 2:6, does not refer to a physical shape, but Paul may have left us a clue to its meaning in this verse as he uses the word again in verse 7, saying that Jesus had taken the form (morphe) of a bondservant, a slave, one in bondage. How was Jesus in the form of a bondservant? Was not Jesus a servant of God? Many seem to apparently like to have Paul mean that Jesus took on himself the form of serving God No, we do not believe this is what is being referred to. Jesus, in his prehuman condition, although in the form of theos, was an obedient servant to God before he came to the earth (John 3:16,17; 5:30,36; 6:38,44; 8:29,38,42; 10:36; 17:3; Galatians 4:4; Hebrews 10:5; 1 John 4:9,10), so the servitude being spoken of here evidently means more than just that he took on himself the servitude of God. Thus, this relates to the purpose for which Jesus came to earth, that is to give his soul as a ransom for many -- for all. (Matthew 20:28; Mark 10:45; 1 Timothy 2:6; Hebrews 2:9) The human race came to be in bondage to sin and death due to Adam's sin. (Romans 5:15-19; 1 Corinthians 15:21,22) Paul elsewhere spoke of this bondage. (Romans 8:15,21; Galatians 4:3) Was Jesus in bondage to sin and corruption as the rest of the human race? Obviously not. Jesus had no sin, but he did come in the likeness of sinful flesh to be sin on our behalf. (John 8:46; 1 Peter 2:2; 2 Corinthians 5:21; Hebrews 4:15) Thus, he did have a form of that bondage, the outward appearance, so to speak, of that bondage. God sent his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh. (Romans 8:3) Jesus suffered the consequences of sin in order to pay the price for the human race, although he himself was not sinful.
(33) Understanding how Jesus was in the form [morphe] of a bondservant should give us a clue concerning the usage of the word morphe relating to the form he was in before. The application is good regardless of whether one believes that "form of THEOS" refers to being form of God Almighty, or "mighty form." Jesus left the glory he had, he was rich, and became poor -- as a suffering bondservant. (2 Corinthians 8:9) Jesus was also, before taking on the form of a bondservant, in the form, or outward appearance of God Almighty. Jesus, when he had his celestial glory with his God and Father before he became flesh, had the external appearance, the outward likeness, of God, for no angel could then accuse him of sin. Then he became flesh, and Jesus found himself in the form, likeness, of a bondservant, by which he was made to appear to be a sinner, and the Jewish leaders accused him of being a sinner. Paul further describes the condition that Jesus came to be in as "likeness [Greek, Homoioma] of man", "the likeness [Homoioma] of sinful flesh" (Roman 8:3), that is, man who is enslaved to sin. Again, Jesus did not share the sinful nature that man was enslaved under, but he did possess the form of the slavery in that he suffered with mankind in order to pay the price for mankind. The two conditions are contrasted, the one of being fully known to be without sin, in the likeness of God, the other of slavery, in the likeness of man enslaved in sin. Jesus was not God Almighty, but he did have a likeness to God Almighty because of his being fully esteemed as righteous before he became flesh; likewise, neither was Jesus actually a sinful man, but he did have a likeness of a sinful man.
(34) If the word Theos in the phrase "form of God" does refer to God Almighty -- which we believe it most probable what Paul meant, "God" is distinguished from the Son in the Philippians 2:6, because of Jesus it is said that he "did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped." (New American Standard) In harmony with this, it does not follow that the phrase "form of God" means that Jesus was existing as God Almighty, since "form" can mean image, or likeness, and thus his form of existence before coming to earth can be seen to be in some manner like that of God's esteemed righteousness, that is, that Jesus, in his prehuman condition, was fully esteemed as righteous like his God, in full harmony with his God. Jesus was not suffering as a sinner before coming the earth, and since Jehovah, the God and Father of Jesus, is not suffering as sinner, Jesus was be in the likeness of his God.
(35) Several scholars have voiced the opionion that morphe in Philippians 2:6 is being used as a synonym of the Greek word often transliterated as "eikon", meaning "image" or "likeness" as in the phrase "image of the invisible God" in Colossians 1:15. Here are some quotes given to us from offered on the earlier site of Juan Baixeras, which evidently no longer exists:
R.P. Martin ("Morphe in Philippians 2:6," Expository Times, Vol. 70, no.6, March 1959, 183-184) states:
"That morphe and eikon are equivalent terms that are used interchangeably in the LXX."
James Dunn states in Christology in the Making pg.115:
"It has long been recognized that morphe and eikon are near synonyms."
An understanding of "image" will help us in the understanding of form. Let us look at their definitions. According to Strong’s Greek Dictionary:
Form (morphe) – nature. Comes from the base of the word meros that means to have an allotment, a division or share, piece, portion.Image (eikon) – likeness, or figuratively a representation.
(36) We know that in common usage that an image of something is not actually that of which it is an image. Something can be the exact representation of the original in external appearance and yet not actually be the original of which it is an image. Thus, if John has taken a photograph of his wife and he looks at it, and he might show it to someone and say: "This is my wife." He doesn't mean that the photograph is actually his wife, but that it represents his wife. He might say that it is an exact image of her, and in no way would this mean that the photograph is actually his wife.
(37) The scriptures tell us that Jesus "is the image of God," (2 Corinthians 4:4) and that "he is the image of the invisible God." (Colossians 1:15) In Hebrews 1:3, we read that he is "the brightness of [God's] glory and the express image of [God's] person." (New King James Version) The expression in Philippians 2:6, we believe, could be seen to be similar to these other expressions. At any rate, we see no reason to read into the expression that Jesus is God Almighty.
**** below still needs to be edited....
(38) Paul also states: "And being found in human form, he humbled himself, becoming obedient to death, yes, the death of the cross." (Philippians 2:8) The word translated "form" in this verse in the World English Bible translation, however, is not morphe, but rather schema (Strong's #4976), which is defined as: "the habitus, as comprising everything in a person which strikes the senses, the figure, bearing, discourse, actions, manner of life etc." The English word "scheme", as meaning, arrangement, figure, design, etc., is derived from this Greek word, schema. This Greek word is used only twice in the Greek New Testament. The other place is in 1 Corinthians 7:31: "and those who use the world, as not using it to the fullest. For the mode (Greek, Schema) of this world passes away." As used in Philippians 2:8, it refers to the mode of Jesus' existence as a human being. In context, it implies also the condition that man is in, but as we have seen, Jesus was not sinful, but he did submit to the same sufferings experienced by the rest of mankind whose very flesh is sinful by nature.
(39) We will add that not all trinitarian scholars think that "form of God" refers to Jesus as God Almighty before coming to the earth. Adam Clarke, although he believed that Jesus was God Almighty, wrote concerning "form of God" in Philippians 2:6: -- Clarke, Adam. "Commentary on Philippians 2". The Adam Clarke Commentary". 1832.
This verse has been the subject of much criticism, and some controversy. Dr. Whitby has, perhaps, on the whole, spoken best on this point; but his arguments are too diffuse to be admitted here. Dr. Macknight has abridged the words of Dr. Whitby, and properly observes that, "As the apostle is speaking of what Christ was before he took the form of a servant, the form of God, of which he divested himself when he became man, cannot be any thing which he possessed during his incarnation or in his divested state; consequently neither the opinion of Erasmus, that the form of God consisted in those sparks of divinity by which Christ, during his incarnation, manifested his Godhead, nor the opinion of the Socinians, that it consisted in the power of working miracles, is well founded; for Christ did not divest himself either of one or the other, but possessed both all the time of his public ministry...." This interpretation is supported by the term {{morphe}}, form, here used, which signifies a person's external shape or appearance, and not his nature or essence.
(40) Thus we conclude that the usage of the morphe and theos Philippians 2:6 does not offer any proof that Jesus is Jehovah.
Huparcho
(41) The word translated "existed" in the The New American Standard Version in the phrase "although he existed" is the Greek word huparchon, present active particple of Huparcho (Strong's #5225) Huparchon is also sometimes transliterated as huparcon, huparxwn, as well as huparchwn. It is claimed that huparchon means eternity, that Paul, by using this word of Jesus' prehuman existence, was saying that Jesus was eternal and never had a beginning. There is nothing inherent in the word *huparchon* that means "eternal" -- either as never having a beginning or never having an ending; such a thought has to be read into what was said. The word can denote a continuous action that was past as well as a continuous action that continues into the present.
(42) Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament, confirms this meaning, by saying; “’Being,’ denoting being which is from the beginning. It has a backward look into an antecedent condition, which has been protracted into the present.” This is in agreement with what we have said. While some read into this definition as meaning "without beginning", that is not what it says. Rather it states "being which from the beginning." Nothing in this definition means "without beginning or ending".
(43) Let us look at Vines Dictionary of New Testament Words: “huparcho ‘to exist,’ which always involves a preexistent state, prior to the fact referred to, and a continuance of the state after the fact.” Again, this agrees with what we have said. Nevetheless, there is nothing in this definition that means without beginning or without ending.
(44) We are told that Bible scholar Robert Reymond commenting on the word huparcho notes that the word should be understood to mean “continually subsisting.” Again, this agrees with what we have said. The word "continual" means "continuing indefinitely in time without interruption ."* "Continual" does not mean without beginning or without end, for one cannot be continually in fear for all eternity past, present and future. Likewise "subsist" simply means "to have existence". Nothing in this term means having no beginning nor having no ending.
==========
* Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=continually
(45) Someone tells us that Biblical scholar John F. Wavood [Walvood?] says that the meaning here is that “Christ always has been in the form of God with the implication that He still is.” This was given without any reference as to which of Mr. Walvood's writings one can find this quote in, and we haven't been to locate this statement. Regardless, it is evidently Mr. Walvood's opinion regarding the usage of huparchon in Philippians 2:6, and not necessarily the meaning of the word in general.
(46) We are told that Rienecker and Rogers point out, “The word huparcho expresses continuance of an antecedent state or condition” (Linguistic Key to the Greek New Testament p. 550). Again, this still agrees with what we have been stating. There is nothing in this definition that means that the continuance of an antecedent state or condition has no beginning.
(47) We are told that William Hendricsen (possibly William Hendricksen?) explains, “The present participle huparcho stands in sharp contrast with all the aorists which follow it, and therefore points in the direction of continuance of being: Christ Jesus was and is eternally 'in the form of God'.” (A Commentary on the Epistle to the Philippians p. 103, n. 82). We have no quarrel with the first part of the statement. The last part is true in that Jesus will for all eternal future be in the form of theos; however, more than likely the author meant the word eternity to mean uncreated, without beginning and without end, which would just be his opinion.
(48) We can see that there is nothing inherit in the word huparchon itself that gives it the meaning of a continous eternal past and future. This can be seen by examining other scriptures that use the word huparchon.
Luke 9:48: and said to them, "Whoever receives this little child in my name receives me. Whoever receives me receives him who sent me. For whoever is [huparchon] least among you all, this one will be great."
(49) The argument is made that this means that one continues to be least, to which we agree in the duration in which one continues to be least, but does it mean that such an one continues to be least for all eternity? We do not see this to necessarily be so. Jesus says they will be great, indicating a time when they will no longer be the least, and we believe this refers to the honors given to the saints in the kingdom.
(50) One responds that the word least is about attitude, and that this attitude will cease at some future point when the person becomes great. Yes, it is about attitude as far as how one regards himself in this life. It is about not exalting oneself. Nevertheless, "least" is contrasted with "great". After being exalted by God to the "great" position, it is true that the one so exalted will still not seek to exalt himself, but he can not actually esteem himself the least anymore, for such would be a lie.
Luke 23:50: Behold, a man named Joseph, who was [huparchon] a member of the council, a good and righteous man.
(51) The New American Bible renders Luke's words as, “Now there was (haparchon) a virtuous and righteous man named Joseph who, though he was a member of the council.” While some translations render this differently, we should see that from the translation above that, while Joseph continued as a member of the council at the time being spoken of, he probably was not a member at the time that Luke wrote his Gospel. Joseph certainly is not still existing as a member of the council to this day. Accepting the rendering of the New American Bible translation, it still shows that harpochon, as related to the past, does not mean eternity, for Joseph, was not existing in an eternity past, nor did he exist from the time of his death to the resurrection, except that he was probably reckoned alive to God, counted, concluded, imputed (Greek, Logizomai, Strong's #3049*) as justified for life in view of the resurrection promise**. -- Luke 20:37,38; Romans 3:28; 4:3-24; 6:11; Galatians 3:6.
==========
*http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=3049
**See our document, Hope of Life After Death, beginning especially with paragraph #124.
==========
*http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=3049
**See our document, Hope of Life After Death, beginning especially with paragraph #124.
Acts 2:29,30: Brothers, I may tell you freely of the patriarch David, that he both died and was buried, and his tomb is with us to this day. Therefore, being [huparchon] a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that of the fruit of his body, according to the flesh, he would raise up the Christ to sit on his throne.
(52) Here *huparchon* is definitely speaking of a condition that did exist in the past, but did not exist at the time that Peter spoke these words. David, at the time that David lived, was a prophet, and existed at that time as prophet. David was not still existing as a prophet in the days of Peter. The usuage here is very similar to that of Philippians 2:6.
(53) Regarding Acts 2:29-30, it has been claimed that David is still existing as is Joseph, and that David is still a prophet, etc., evidently based on the idea of inherent immortality. To read that David is still existing and is still actively giving prophecies is really reading a whole lot into the text!
(54) In reality, David is buried and is in sheol, the realm of nonsentiency, to this day. Jesus is not still in the realm of nonsentiency [sheol], because he has been raised from the realm of nonsentiency, the realm into which all go when they die, both good and bad. (Ecclesiastes 9:5,10) That was Peter's point. David was not with them in life -- he was still dead, nonsentient, still in the tomb (Acts 2:29); Jesus was with them -- Jesus was alive, having been raised back to sentiency! If David was alive somewhere and had gone to heaven, and was still giving prophecies to us as claimed, then he would still be with us, but I wonder where, and in what way is he prophesying, being that he is still in sheol, unable to praise Jehovah? In this regard, please note that in sheol, where David was then and is still, David indicated that he would not even be able to praise or give thanks to Jehovah, much less actively prophecy for him. (Psalm 6:5*) In truth, all who go to sheol (hades) are in the realm of nonsentiency. They return to the same condition they were before they born, except that, due to the ransom sacrifice of Jesus, there is the hope of the resurrection, for which the spirit -- the life force from God -- returns to God, that he might give it back in the resurrection day, and that if there be no resurrection, there is no hope at all, our faith is in vain, our hope has only been in this life, and there is no reason to be baptized into Christ's death. -- Genesis 2:7; Job 14:10; 17:1; Psalm 31:5; 140:3; 146:4; Ecclesiastes 12:7; 1 Corinthians 15:14,-19,29,32, Romans 6:3-13.
==========
*See our document, What Does the Bible Actually Say About Hell?
Acts 3:2: A certain man who was [huparchon] lame from his mother's womb was being carried, whom they laid daily at the door of the temple which is called Beautiful, to ask gifts for the needy of those who entered into the temple.==========
*See our document, What Does the Bible Actually Say About Hell?
(55) Again, at the time of the writing of Acts, it should be apparent that the lame man, although he had been existing as a lame man from his birth, did not continue to be lame, for he was healed. (Acts 3:6-9) Another good example of something that did have a continous action in the past, but was not continued in such action indefinitely.
(56) The argument is that it is modified by a preposition, *ek*, translated "from". This preposition only shows that huparchon is limited in its scope to that which is being spoken, and thus proves what we are saying. The preposition does set a time limit for the beginning of his *being" lame, but it doesn't set a time limit for an end to his being lame. It definitely proves that the word itself does not mean eternal past, as some trinitarians have claimed. Also, at the time that Luke wrote this the man was no longer lame, thus Luke is writing of an condition that continued to be in the past, but which was longer existing at the time he wrote the account, thus it also proves that the word *huparchon* does not necessarily continue to the present time, or for eternity. If the word *huparchon* itself means without a beginning and without and ending, as some have claimed, then it could not be modified by anyother word to mean other than what it supposedly means. Of course, the word itself does not mean "without beginning or end", and thus this is shown in the context of this verse.
Romans 4:19: Without being weakened in faith, he didn't consider his own body, already having been worn out, (he being [huparchon] about a hundred years old), and the deadness of Sarah's womb.(57) Paul here speaks of Abraham's existence, being spoken of from the standpoint of that time in that past, of when Abraham was about a hundred years old. Not that Abraham has always been about a hundred years old, or that he was at the time that Peter spoke still about a hundred years old, but that in that time period in the past, Abraham had been about a hundred years old. Likewise, in the same manner, Paul in Philippians 2:6,7 speaks of Jesus' being in the form of theos before he came to earth, as contrasted to his being in the form of a slave -- in order to the price for sin -- while on earth. He who was rich became poor for our sakes. (2 Corinthians 8:9) This would be the most straightforward way of viewing the verses.
(58) We are informed here that the word haparcho is modified by the adverb " about" (Gr. pou). We are not sure what the import is meant for this; it certainly doesn't do away with removing the limit of the continuance of the time when Abraham was about 100 years old. The adverb confirms that the word *huparchon* does not necessarily mean that the condition spoken of continues for all eternity in the past or into the present. Thus the very fact that huparchon is limited to the time period when Abraham was "about 100 years old" proves the point. The word is used in a past time reference, which did have beginning and a continuance for a time in the past, but did not continue into the present.
(59) Someone objects the above cannot apply to Philippians 2:6, since Greek scholars are adamant that the meaning of huparcho at Philippians 2:6 is otherwise, that it is to be understood to involve an existence or condition both previous to the act mentioned and continuing after it, as Greek expert Kenneth Wuest explains, “Paul, by the use of the Greek word translated ‘being,’ informs his Greek readers that our Lord’s possession of the divine essence did not cease to be a fact when He came to earth to assume human form. The Greek word is not the simple verb of being, but a word that speaks of an antecedent condition protracted into the present. That is, our Lord gave expression to the essence of Deity which He possesses, not only before He became Man, but also after becoming Man, for He was doing so at the time this Philippian epistle was written. To give expression to the essence of Deity implies the possession of Deity, for this expression, according to the definition of our word ‘form,’ comes from one’s inmost nature. This word alone is enough to refute the claim of Modernism that our Lord emptied Himself of His Deity when He became Man” (Word Studies in the Greek New Testament, volume II, page 63).
(59) We realize that there are many trinitarian scholars who argue for application of Greek words in exceptional ways toward Jesus, so as to make these words appear to be saying what they want them to say, that Jesus was uncreated, had no beginning, etc. One will have to agree that there is nothing in the word itself that means eternal past being, or eternal past being in whatever capacity is being spoken of, nor does it of itself mean that a past continuous condition necessarily have to continue into the present, as we have demonstrated. The idea that there is something inherit in its usage that would make it mean eternal past or a continuation of such a past condition into the present, has to be read into Philippians 2:6, because it simply is not there. Thus we conclude that most of what we read by trinitarian scholars the usage of this word in Philippians 2:6 is biased toward the trinity.
2 Corinthians 12:16 - But be it so, I did not myself burden you. But, being [huparchwn] crafty, I caught you with deception. -- 2 Corinthians 12:16.
(60) This scripture has been viewed in two ways. One is that Paul was using irony of the accusation that he was crafty, and another that Paul himself was saying that he cunningly caught the Corinthians in deception. Paul is not saying that he is in a constant state of being crafty, but that he is speaking of the condition of his mind that existed in that past situation, as the context shows.
(61) In the context of Philippians 2:6, we are told that God is the one who exalted Jesus, which by common language should tell anyone of common sense that Jesus is not God who exalted him. But our trinitarian neighbors would have us believe that Paul had just stated that Jesus was God Almighty and therefore, which should lead to the conclusion, by reason of his being God Almighty, he could not possibly be exalted, but to make it fit their doctrine, they will either say that it is Jesus as the man who is exalted, also contrary to many scriptures, or that it is a person -- who is supposed to be, not part of, but fully the Supreme Being -- who is in subjection to another person -- who also is supposed to be, nor part of, but fully the Supreme Being, and is exalted by that other person who is supposed to be, not part of, but fully the Supreme Being, and say to believe this contradiction is being spiritual-minded, and to not believe it is being carnal minded. Of course, to overcome normal language they had to invent new, unique meanings for common words and terminology in order to force the trinity dogma into the scriptures.
(62) We are presented with Psalm 148:13 with the claim that only Jehovah is exalted, thus if Jesus is exalted, then Jesus must be Jehovah. Psalm 148:13 reads: "Let them praise the name of Yahweh {Jehovah}, For his name alone [Hebrew, bad, Strong's #905] is exalted [Hebrew, sagab, Strong's #7682]. His glory is above the earth and the heavens." Does this scripture mean that no one else but Jehovah can be exalted? Once we examine and compare scriptures, we will see that this is not so.
(63) The word "only" is translated from the Hebrew word bad*. [Strong's #905] It is a word that used in comparison, and does not necessarily mean totally alone, but rather alone in relation to what is being spoken of. (Genesis 2:18; 32:24; Judges 6:40) Thus, in comparison with the humans spoken of in the context (Psalm 148:11,12), only Jehovah is exalted above the earth and earth's skies (heavens). This exalted position of Jehovah is not an elevated position from a lower position, but it is an permanent state in which he is exalted, although one person's estimation of Jehovah can be exalted from a lower position to a higher position in his heart.
==========
*Brown, Driver, Briggs and Gesenius. "Hebrew Lexicon entry for Bad". "The KJV Old Testament Hebrew Lexicon".
http://www.biblestudytools.net/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=905.
(64) Can another than Jehovah be legitimately exalted? The Hebrew word "sagab"* is often used of Jehovah's exaltation, but in so doing it is used in the sense of being "inaccessibly high", not in the sense of exaltation from a lower position or office to a higher position or office. (Isaiah 2:11,17; 12:4; 33:5) Nevertheless, it is also used of others, especially of those made safe (inaccessible to those who would do harm) by Jehovah (Psalm 59:1; 69:29; 107:41; Proverbs 18:10,11; 29:25), but it is also used of inanimate things (Deuteronomy 2:36; Psalm 139:6). In Psalm 20:1, we have a statement that is evidently a prophetic prayer concerning Jesus, although it could have had an application also to either David himself, or to David's son, Solomon: "May Yahweh [Jehovah] answer you in the day of trouble. May the name of the God of Jacob set you up on high [exalt you -- sagab]." While again the meaning here seems to be to related to being given a safe haven, applying this scripture to Jesus, as many do, we can see that it is Jehovah's name that exalts Jesus. We need to remember that the Anointed One came and spoke in the name of Jehovah, which agrees with Psalm 20:1. (Deuteronomy 18:15-19) Being faithful to his God, Jehovah, Jesus is exalted from a low position to a high position by Jehovah. "He [Jesus] is the one whom God exalted to His [God's] right hand as a Prince and a Savior, to grant repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins." (Acts 5:31, New American Standard Bible translation) This agrees with Philippians 2:9, where we read that is God who "highly exalted him, and gave to him the name which is above every name." Since it is God who exalts Jesus, it doesn't look like that this means that Jesus is the God who exalts him.
==========
*Brown, Driver, Briggs and Gesenius. "Hebrew Lexicon entry for Sagab". "The KJV Old Testament Hebrew Lexicon".
http://www.biblestudytools.net/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=7682.
==========
*Brown, Driver, Briggs and Gesenius. "Hebrew Lexicon entry for Sagab". "The KJV Old Testament Hebrew Lexicon".
http://www.biblestudytools.net/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=7682.
(65) In the case of Jesus' exaltation as spoken of in Philippians 2:9, we see that Jesus was "highly exalted" by God. (Huperupsoo* -- a combination of huper (meaning, beyond, above, more) and Hupsoo (to lift up, to exalt, to raise to dignity, honor). God exalted Jesus, giving the highest honor and position of rulership ever given to any creature.
==========
*Thayer and Smith. "Greek Lexicon entry for Huperupsoo". "The KJV New Testament Greek Lexicon".
http://www.biblestudytools.net/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=5251.
==========
*Thayer and Smith. "Greek Lexicon entry for Huperupsoo". "The KJV New Testament Greek Lexicon".
http://www.biblestudytools.net/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=5251.
No one else is exalted to the same high position as that to which God exalts Jesus, nevertheless, the heirs of God are told: "Humble yourselves therefore under the mighty hand of God, that he may exalt you in due time." (1 Peter 5:6) "He who humbles himself will be exalted." -- Luke 14:11; 18:14.
(66) We are presented with the idea that Paul is applying Isaiah 45:23 to Christ in Philippians 2:10,11 in order to say that Jesus is Jehovah; such has to be read into what is being said. Paul does say that all will bow at the name of Jesus, but Isaiah 45:23 says that all will bow to Jehovah. This does not mean that Jesus is Jehovah, and this is shown in the context of what is said in Philippians. The homage given to Jesus is as Jehovah's anointed king who represents Jehovah, not as Jehovah himself. Philippians 2:9-11 actually states:
(67) Therefore God also highly exalted him [thus he is not God who exalted him], and gave to him the name which is above every name [thus he is not God who gives him this name]; that at the name of Jesus every knee would bow, of those in heaven, those on earth, and those under the earth, and that every tongue would confess that Jesus Christ is Lord [the one made so by Jehovah], *to the glory of God*, the Father.
(68) Thus the homage given to Jesus is as the representative of God, and to the glory of God. Nothing is said about the homage being equal to that given to Jehovah, anymore than we would say that the worship given to the king of Israel and to Jehovah are equal.
(69) Is the "worship" given to the king of Israel equivalent to the worship given to Jehovah? "And David said to all the assembly, Now bless Jehovah your God. And all the assembly blessed Jehovah, the God of their fathers, and bowed down their heads, and worshipped Jehovah, and the king." (1 Chronicles 29:20, American Standard Version) One must admit that the worship given to the King is not equal to that Jehovah, nor is the worship given to the One anointed by Jehovah equal to that of Jehovah.
See our studies:
The Worship Due Jesus
Jesus Received Worship
See our studies:
The Worship Due Jesus
Jesus Received Worship
(70) It is claimed regarding Philippians 2:9, that "if Jehovah is only the name of the Father and Jesus is only the name of the Son, then there is no way that Jesus would be the name that is above every name. The name of the Son cannot be higher than the name of the Father." It is further being claimed "this would only make sense if: (1) The Father and the Son are one God, and (2) Jehovah and Jesus were both the names of God." We have touched on this earlier.
(71) First, we need to note that "God" is not presented in Philippians 2:9 as three persons, but only as one person. It is this one person identified as "God" who exalts Jesus, and gives to Jesus a "name" that is above every name. The very fact that Jesus is exalted indicates that Jesus is not the Most High, since the Most High cannot be exalted to a higher position by anyone. So when was it that God exalted Jesus? We read “that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory,” “raised Jesus from the dead, and made him to sit at his right hand in the heavenly places, far above all rule, and authority, and power, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come. He put all things in subjection under his feet, and gave him to be head over all things to the assembly.” (Ephesians 1:17,20-22) Paul refers to this elsewhere, and states: “when he says, ‘All things are put in subjection,’ it is evident that he is excepted who subjected all things to him.” This would mean that whatever position that Jesus was exalted to, it does not include the position the Most High “God” who exalted him. However, if Jesus’ being given a name that is above every name by “God” means that Jesus is “God”, then the logical conclusion would be that Jesus was not “God” until he was raised and exalted by “God”. Of course, in reality, there is nothing in Philippians 2:9 that means that Jesus is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
(72) We should also note that by use of the word “name”, that this does not mean that “God” gave to Jesus the name Jesus, and that in giving to the Jesus the name “Jesus”, that this name was already above every name that is named. Jesus, of course, already had the appellation “Jesus” before he was exalted and given the name above every name that is named. Therefore, his being given this “name” does not mean that he was at that time given the appellation, “Jesus”. Rather the word “name” is being used in Philippians 2:9 related to an office, a position of power and authority associated with name. According to Ephesians 1, this exaltation did not happen until after Jesus was raised from death, so it is at that time that God gave the his Son, Jesus, name that is above every name that is named, meaning that the name he already had was given an honor greater than all other names that has been named. The Geneva Study Bible has the following note regarding the word “name” in Philippians 2:9: “Dignity and high distinction, and that which accompanies it.”
(73) "You must call his name Iesoun (transliteration from the Greek Received Text)." (Matthew 1:21) The Messiah's name means "Jehovah is savior" or "Jehovah delivers." Its meaning carries us forward from the mere word to the then future exalted official position, on account of which he can "save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him" as the means of salvation provided by his God and Father, Jehovah. -- Hebrews 7:25; John 3:16,17; Acts 5:31; 1 John 4:14; 1 Peter 1:3.
(74) Thus, regarding his exaltation, the Messiah's position is contrasted with that of man and angels, as he is Lord of both, having "all power in heaven and earth." (Matthew 28:18) Hence it is said: "Let all the angels of God bow before him." (Hebrews 1:7; Daniel 7:14,27) The reason is because he has "obtained a more excellent Name than theirs.' (Hebrews 1:4) Again, in obtaining this more excellent name, the word used for his name did not change. It is not a word (Yahshua, Iesous, or Jesus) that is being spoken of here, but rather the position of Messiah. It is the official capacity of the Son of God as Savior and King in the inheritance from his Father, which is far superior to the angels. He has been given a name that is above every name, that at the name of Yahshua (Jesus) every knee should bow both in heaven and earth. (Philippians 2:10) There is "no other name under heaven given among men whereby we must be saved." -- Acts 4:12.
(75) It is in a similar sense that "a good name is to be chosen rather than great riches." (Proverbs 22:1) The success of Jehovah's work is to Him "for a name" -- an honor. (Isaiah 55:13) Additionally, to the obedient Jehovah promises an "everlasting name." -- Isaiah 56:5.
(76) "The name of the wicked will rot." (Proverbs 10:7) Does this mean that the word used to distinguish the person would rot? No. It is the reputation of the person bearing the name that actually rots, not the word used to represent the name. The word and the name here as elsewhere are not one and the same.
(77) With this view before our minds that the Messiah's name refers to his official position, and not just to the use of a word to express his name. We certainly find nothing in this that would mean that the only way that this would make sense is if Jesus and His God are one God, or that both Jesus and Jehovah are the names of one God. Indeed, the scripture itself presents us with the evidence that this is not true, and that if it were true, that it would mean that the name Jesus was not the name of God until God had exalted Jesus, that the name of Jesus was not the name of God before, and Jesus would have become “God” when “God” exalted him. There is also a discussion on Philippians 2:9 in our study:
The Holy Name in the New Testament
The Holy Name in the New Testament
(76) It is claimed that in Philippians 2:11, that application of Isaiah 45:23 to Jesus in Philippians 2:11 means that the divine worship given to Jesus brings glory to the Father since Jesus is God. While it appears that Isaiah 45:23 is indirectly applied to Jesus by Paul, the idea that Paul meant this to say that Jesus is God who exalted Jesus and gave Jesus the high position has to be read into what is said. We Christians who believe that Jesus is the Son of God -- not God Almighty -- have no reason to add the idea that Jesus is Jehovah to the scriptures.
(77) Again, it is absolutely and positively apparent that the worship -- homage -- given to the Son of God is that which is due to him as the Son of God, the one anointed as King by Jehovah, not as God Almighty who anointed him.
(78) No one can come to Jehovah but through Jesus (John 14:6), and no other means has been given by Jehovah for salvation than the name of Jesus. (Acts 4:12) Jesus' name -- being the same name as often rendered as "Joshua", means: "Jehovah saves" or "Jehovah is savior," which ascribes the actual source of salvation to Jehovah. (John 3:16; Romans 5:8,10; 1 Corinthians 15:57; 2 Corinthian 5:19-21; Titus 3:5,6; Hebrews 13:21; 1 John 4:9,10) Thus to properly bow before Jesus as the spokesperson and one anointed by Jehovah (Deuteronomy 18:15,18,19; Psalm 45:7; Isaiah 61:1; Matthew 12:18; Luke 4:18,21), would essentially be the same as bowing to Jehovah. -- Matthew 10:14; Mark 9:37; Luke 9:48; John 13:20; Romans 1:8; 7:25; 14:26; Philippians 1:11; 2:11.
By Ronald R. Day, Sr. (Reslight, RlBible, Restoration Light Bible Study Services)
By Ronald R. Day, Sr. (Reslight, RlBible, Restoration Light Bible Study Services)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)