CLEAR CHALLENGES FOR THE TRINITY DOCTRINE

[tigger2]

CLEAR CHALLENGES FOR THE TRINITY DOCTRINE

"trinity ...1. [cap.] Theol. The union of three persons or hypostases (the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost) in one Godhead, so that all the three are one God as to substance, but three persons or hypostases as to individuality. 2. Any symbol of the Trinity in art. 3. Any union of three in one; a triad; as the Hindu trinity, or Trimurti." - Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, G. & C. Merriam Co., 1961. (emphasis added by me.)
………………………………..

Athanasian Creed:

"And in this Trinity none is afore, or after other, none is greater or less than others; but the whole three persons are co- eternal together; and co-equal. So that in all things as is aforesaid: the Unity in Trinity, and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped.

"HE THEREFORE THAT WILL BE SAVED MUST THUS THINK OF THE TRINITY."
....................................................
"Trinity, the Most Holy

"The most sublime mystery of the Christian faith is this: 'God is absolutely one in nature and essence, and relatively three in Persons (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) who are really distinct from each other." - p. 584, The Catholic Encyclopedia, Thomas Nelson, Inc., Publishers, 1976.
........................................................

The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia
"1. The Term 'Trinity':
"The term "Trinity" is not a Biblical term, and we are not using Biblical language when we define what is expressed by it as the doctrine that there is one only and true God, but in the unity of the Godhead there are three coeternal and coequal Persons, the same in substance but distinct in subsistence." - p. 3012, Vol. IV, Eerdmans, 1984.

………………………………....

Challenges from scripture itself:

(A) Please carefully and thoroughly search to find a vision, dream, or clear description in scripture wherein God is visibly shown as more than one person.

(This is really not that difficult. Either there is a vision, dream, description, etc. somewhere in scripture clearly visibly showing the one God as three persons or there isn't. Either way, it should not be difficult to ascertain and admit truthfully.)
………………………………............

(B) Please show where in scripture God is ever described using the word "three."

(Either God is described somewhere in scripture using the word "three" or its clear equivalent (just as He is clearly described with the word “one� or its equivalent - “alone,� “only,� etc. ), or He is not. Either way it should not be difficult to ascertain and admit truthfully.)
……………………………….............

(C) Please find clear, direct, undisputed statements (equivalent to “Jesus is the Christ� or "YHWH is God" which are found repeatedly in clear, undisputed scriptures) which declare:

“YHWH is the Son,� or “YHWH is the Firstborn,� or, “YHWH is the Messiah (or ‘Christ’),� or any other equally clear, undisputed statement that “Jesus is YHWH� (the only God according to scripture).
……………………………….................

Since the Father is clearly, directly, and indisputably called "God, the Father," many, many times, and the Son and Holy Spirit are said by trinitarians to be equally the one God (in ‘three distinct persons’):

(D) Please give equally clear, undisputed scriptures where Jesus is called "God, the Son," (equal to those which declare "God, the Father" – Ro. 15:6; 1 Cor. 1:3; 1 Cor. 8:6; 2 Cor. 11:31; Gal. 1:1; Eph. 4:6; 1 Thess. 1:1; 2 Thess. 1:2; etc.)

and,
………………………………....................

(E) Please give equally clear, undisputed scriptures (such as "God, the Father") where the Holy Spirit is called "God, the Holy Spirit."
......................................................................

(F) If Jesus and/or the first century Christians (considered a sect of Judaism at that time) truly believed that Jesus was God, How could they possibly be allowed to teach in the temple and synagogues as they were?
………………………………...................

(G) If John truly believed a stunning new essential ‘knowledge’ of God that Jesus is equally God, why would he summarize and conclude his Gospel with, “But these [the Gospel of John] are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God…�

……………………………….................

(H) When the chief priests and the whole Sanhedrin were attempting to gather evidence to kill Jesus, why did they have to hire false witnesses? And why did these same priests and false witnesses never say that Jesus believed (or taught) that he was God? Instead the high priest finally said to Jesus: “Tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God.� - Matt. 26:59-63 NIV.

Obviously these officials had never heard anyone accuse Jesus or his followers of claiming that Jesus was God!

[tigger2]

[Replying to post 30 by bjs]



The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, 1986, Zondervan, says:

“Although the Son of God in his pre-existent being was in the form of God, he resisted the temptation to be equal with God (Phil. 2:6). In his earthly existence he was obedient to God, even unto death on the cross (Phil. 2:8) .... After the completion of his work on earth he has indeed been raised to the right hand of God (Eph. 1:20; 1 Pet. 3:22) .... But he is still not made equal to God. - p. 80, vol. 2. (It doesn’t seem that this popular trinitarian work would consider morphe to mean ‘essence’ or ‘substance’ in Phil. 2:6 when we examine the first sentence above.)

The 1969 French lectionary rendered morphe at Phil. 2:6 as image!

In 1969 the Roman Catholic bishops of France authorized a new lectionary for their country. The Holy See in Rome approved it on September 16, 1969. In this new lectionary Phil. 2:6 was translated: “Christ Jesus is God’s image [morphe, ‘form’]; but he did not choose to seize by force [harpagmos] equality with God.�

Also notice how the first Christian writers after the Apostolic fathers understood the meaning of morphe at Phil 2:6 itself:

“... who being in the shape of God, thought it not an object of desire to be treated like God� - Christian letter from 177 A.D. sometimes ascribed to Irenaeus, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (ANF), p. 784, vol. 8.

“... who being in the image of God, ‘thought it not ...’� - Tertullian, about 200 A.D., ANF, p. 549, vol. 3.

“...who being appointed in the figure of God ...� - Cyprian, about 250 A.D., ANF, p. 545, vol. 5.

We can see, then, that, with the originally-intended meaning of morphe, Paul is saying that before Jesus came to earth he had a form or an external appearance resembling that of God (as do the other heavenly spirit persons, the angels, also).

So one in the morphe of a slave is one who has the appearance of a slave (but is not in actuality - thus, “taking the disguise [morphe] of a slave� - Phil. 2:7, Living Bible.).

This is the obvious meaning of “form� here and it is still used in this sense even today.

Isaiah 44:13, for example, says in the Septuagint: “The artificer having chosen a piece of wood, marks it out with a rule, and fits it with glue, and makes it as the form [morphe] of a man� - Zondervan, 1976 printing. Now a “Wooditarian� might well claim that the wood in this scripture ‘clearly has the full and complete essence, nature, etc. of Man,’ but no objective, reasonable person would accept his wishful interpretation! Instead an honest interpretation can only be that the artificer made the piece of wood to appear like a man.

The fact that it is in the form (morphe) of a man shows conclusively (as we should know anyway) that it is not a man! If the writer of this scripture had somehow intended to say that the artificer had indeed made the piece of wood into a real man, he would not have used morphe. He would have written that the artificer “makes it into a man.� And, of course, it is equally true that Paul would not have said Jesus was in the form (morphe) of God if he had meant that Jesus was God! The use of morphe there shows that Jesus was not God!


Yes, the fact that some trinitarians insist that morphe can mean the very essence or nature of a thing does not make it so. We know that ‘essence,’ ‘nature,’ ‘essential nature,’ etc. were not intended here by Paul simply because of the way this word is always used in scripture. We know it also by the fact that there were words available to Paul which really did mean ‘essence’ or ‘nature.’ If Paul, or any other Bible writer, had ever wished to use a word indicating the nature, substance, or essence of something, he could have used a word which clearly means that: phusis or, possibly, even ousia.

Phusis, “φύσις ... nature, i.e, .... d. the sum of innate properties and powers by which one person differs from others� - Thayer, #5449.

Phusis, “φύσις, ... the nature, natural qualities, powers, constitution, condition, of a person or thing� - Liddell and Scott, p. 876.

“Phusis (φύσις), ... signifies (a) the nature (i.e., the natural powers or constitution) of a person or thing� - W. E. Vine, p. 775.

Ousia, “ο�σία ... that which is one’s own, one’s substance, .... III. the being, essence, nature of a thing� - p. 579, Liddell and Scott’s An Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon, Oxford Press.

Paul himself was very familiar with at least one of these terms:

Formerly, when you did not know God, you were enslaved to beings that by nature [phusis] are not gods. - Gal. 4:8, NRSV. (Cf. 2 Pet. 1:4)

Yes, if Paul had intended ‘nature,’ ‘very essence,’ etc., he certainly would not have used a word which so often means only external appearance (morphe). He would have used one of the words which really mean absolute equality!

[Checkpoint]

[Replying to post 1 by tigger2]

For everyone on the Phil 2 passage, I am just curious: how do you interpret the last words "and gave him the name that is above every name"?

Note it doesn't say, "made his name (i.e. Jesus) greater than every name (if so, the verb would be ποιεῖ ) but gave him (�χα�ίσατο α�τῷ) a name already in existence.

So, what was that name?

Paul tells us the simple answer:

9 Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name,

10 so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 32 by Checkpoint]

I can't tell if you understood the question; or if I didn't understand the answer.

So...

Jesus already had that name Jesus, before he was crucified.

After he was crucified, God bestowed upon him the name that is above all names. This implies it was a new name.

What is the name that was "bestowed" upon Jesus.


I believe you are right to a degree...

"...Jesus Christ is Lord..."

In Greek:

κύ�ιος Ἰησοῦς Χ�ιστὸς (Phi 2:11)

Therein lies the answer.

How does knowledge of the LXX and the literature of 2nd T. Judaism inform our reading of this passage?

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 24 by tigger2]

tigger.


There are many lexicons out there. The fact that you are claiming what a greek word "really means" is fascinating.

Considering the amount of scholarly discussion over Koine Greek that is happening to this day, I think you should publish, considering your certainty. Fame awaits you.

Here is a lexicon that I had to use once upon a day. Unfortunately, the Greek did not survive the transition. But the sources should be familiar.

The word is ��παγμὸν

• a`rpagmo,j, ou/, o` (rare in nonbibl. Gk.; not found at all in the Gk. transl. of the OT; in our lit. only in Phil 2:6).

1. a violent seizure of property, robbery (s. a`rpa,zw; Plut., Mor. 12a; Vett. Val. 122, 1; Phryn., Appar. Soph.: Anecd. Gr. I 36. Also Plut., Mor. 644a a`rpasmo,j), which is next to impossible in Phil 2:6 (W-S. §28, 3: the state of being equal w. God cannot be equated w. the act of robbery).

2. As equal to a[rpagma, someth. to which one can claim or assert title by gripping or grasping, someth. claimed w. change fr. abstr. to concr. (as qerismo,j Rv 14:15, cp. J 4:35; i`matismo,j J 19:24). This mng. cannot be quoted fr. non-Christian lit., but is grammatically justifiable (Kühner-Bl. II p. 272; RLipsius, Hand-Comment. ad loc.). Christian exx. are Eus., In Luc. 6 (AMai, Nova Patrum Bibliotheca IV 165), where Peter regards death on the cross as a`rpagmo,j ‘a prize to be grasped eagerly’, and Cyrill. Alex., De Ador. 1, 25 (MPG, LXVIII 172c), Lot does not regard the angels’ demand (Gen 19:15ff) as a a`rpagmo,j ‘prize’.—Acc. to FVokes, on Phil 2:5-11 in Studia Evangelica 2, ’64, 670-75, forms in -ma may approach -moj forms in mng., but not vice versa, cp. porismo,j 1 Ti 6:5 (for rejoinder s. RMartin, Carmen Christi ’67, 137).

a. If a`rpagmo,j approaches a[rpagma in mng., it can be taken ‘sensu malo’ to mean booty, (a) grab (so for a[rpagma LXX), and only the context and an understanding of Paul’s thought in general can decide whether it means holding fast to someth. already obtained (a`.=‘res rapta’; so the Gk fathers, s. Lampe, s.v. B 1) or the appropriation to oneself of someth. that is sought after (a`.=‘res rapienda’).

b. But a good sense is also poss., a piece of good fortune, windfall, prize, gain (Heliod., 7, 11, 7; 7, 20, 2 [=e[rmaion]; 8, 7, 1; Plut., Mor. 330d; Nägeli 43f)=e[rmaion (Isid. Pelus., Ep. 4, 22); again it remains an open question whether the windfall has already been seized and is waiting to be used, or whether it has not yet been appropriated. In favor of the former is the contrast between Adam (implied as a dramatic foil) and his anxiety about death and equality w. God and Jesus’ majestic freedom from such anxiety, with culmination in the ultimate vindication of Jesus, whose destiny contrasts with Adam’s implied fate: ouvc a`rpagmo.n h`gh,sato to. ei=nai i;sa qew/| did not consider equality w. God a prize to be tenaciously grasped. (Cp. the fortunes of Zeus: Diod. S. 3, 61, 4-6.)

3. Another, and less probable, mng. is (mystical) rapture, s. a`rpa,zw 2b and LHammerich, An Ancient Misunderstanding (Phil. 2:6 ‘robbery’), ’66, who would translate the phrase ‘considered that to be like God was no rapture’; a similar view was expressed by PFlorensky (1915), quoted in Dictionnaire de la Bible, Suppl. V, ’57, col. 24 s.v. kénose.—LSaint-Paul, RB n.s. 8, 1911, 550ff (pretext, opportunity); WJaeger, Her. 50, 1915, 537-53 (w. further support, RHoover, HTR 64, ’71, 95-119); AJülicher, ZNW 17, 1916, 1-17; PSchmidt, PM 20, 1916, 171-86; HSchumacher, Christus in s. Präexistenz u. Kenose nach Phil 2:5-8, I 1914, II 1921; FLoofs, StKr 100, 1927/28, 1-102; ELohmeyer, Kyrios Jesus: SBHeidAk 1927/28, 4 Abh.; WFoerster, ZNW 29, 1930, 115-28; FKattenbusch, StKr 104, ’32, 373-420; EBarnikol, Mensch u. Messias ’32, Philipper 2, ’32; KBornhäuser, NKZ 44, ’33, 428-34; 453-62; SMowinckel, NorTT 40, ’39, 208-11; AStephenson, CBQ 1, ’39, 301-8; AFeuillet, Vivre et Penser, Sér. 2, ’42, 61f; AFridrichsen: AKaritz Festschr. ’46, 197ff; HAlmqvist, Plut. u. d. NT, ’46, 117f; JHering, D. bibl. Grundlagen des Christl. Humanismus ’46, 31f; AEhrhardt, JTS 46, ’45, 49-51 (cp. Plut., Mor. 330d; Diod. S. 3, 61, 6); EKäsemann, ZTK 47, ’50, 313-60; HKruse, Verbum Domini 27, ’49, 355-60; 29, ’51, 206-14; LBouyer, RSR 39, ’51, 281-88; DGriffiths, ET 69, ’57/58, 237-39; RMartin, Carmen Christi (Phil 2:5-11) ’67, esp. 134-64; 320-39 (lit.). NWright, JTS 37, ’86, 321-52; SVollenweider, NTS 45, '99, 413-33 (surveys of debate).—S. also s.v. keno,w 1b.—EDNT. DELG s.v. a`rpa,zw. M-M. TW. Sv.

1123 a`rpa,zw
• a`rpa,zw fut. a`rpa,sw J 10:28; 1 aor. h[rpasa; pf. 3 sg. h[rpaken Hos 6:1. Mid.: fut. a`rpw/mai LXX. Pass.: 2 fut. a`rpagh,somai 1 Th 4:17; 1 aor. h`rpa,sqhn Rv 12:5 (cp. Jos., Bell. 2, 69); 2 aor. h`rpa,ghn 2 Cor 12:2, 4; Wsd 4:11 (Jos., Ant. 6, 14; 12, 144; B-D-F § 71, 2) (s. a`rpagh,; Hom.+) ‘snatch, seize’, i.e. take suddenly and vehemently, or take away in the sense of
1. to make off w. someone’s property by attacking or seizing, steal, carry off, drag away (so mostly LXX; En

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 10 by Pierac]

Are you saying you support the Kenotic Doctrine?

Ignoring what theological doctrines have come out of the verses; how do you translate the following; giving special attention to the verb in question?

Τοῦτο φ�ονεῖτε �ν ὑμῖν ὃ καὶ �ν Χ�ιστῷ Ἰησοῦ,
ὃς �ν μο�φῇ θεοῦ ὑπά�χων ο�χ ��παγμὸν ἡγήσατο τὸ εἶναι ἴσα θεῷ,
ἀλλὰ ἑαυτὸν �κένωσεν μο�φὴν δούλου λαβών, �ν �μοιώματι ἀνθ�ώπων γενόμενος· καὶ σχήματι εὑ�εθεὶς ὡς ἄνθ�ωπος
�ταπείνωσεν ἑαυτὸν γενόμενος ὑπήκοος μέχ�ι θανάτου, θανάτου δὲ σταυ�οῦ.
διὸ καὶ � θεὸς α�τὸν ὑπε�ύψωσεν καὶ �χα�ίσατο α�τῷ τὸ ὄνομα τὸ ὑπὲ� πᾶν ὄνομα,
ἵνα �ν τῷ ὀνόματι Ἰησοῦ πᾶν γόνυ κάμψῃ �που�ανίων καὶ �πιγείων καὶ καταχθονίων
καὶ πᾶσα γλῶσσα �ξομολογήσηται ὅτι κύ�ιος Ἰησοῦς Χ�ιστὸς εἰς δόξαν θεοῦ πατ�ός. (Phi 2:5-11)

From my point of view, the kenotic doctrine is just one possible interpretation...and one that has no familiarity with 2nd Temple Judaism/Jewish categories of thought

[dio9]

Really If we and all things are in deed created in the image of God the principle of life itself involves the relationship between male and female parts and all creations reflect their creator . Show me where trinity is reflected in the creation.

Really , where are we to find God, In a book or in life itself ?

God is real not a literary character .

The bible only tells a story that points at God .

Trinity is just a theological attempt to say Jesus is coequal with God the father .

It resulted from the long suffering Arian controversy legally concluded at Nicea 325 as to whether Jesus preexisted with God before time began .

Is Jesus God? This is the question trinity attempts to answer.

The answer is Yes but we don't need philosophy to prove it. The realization is rather mystically arrived at . Words cannot adequately prove Jesus is God.

[Elijah John]

Is Jesus God? This is the question trinity attempts to answer.

The answer is Yes but we don't need philosophy to prove it. The realization is rather mystically arrived at . Words cannot adequately prove Jesus is God.

You had me until this portion. Some things are compatible with Reason, some transcend Reason, and some things contradict Reason.

It seem to me the assertion that "Jesus is God" defies Reason.

How does that belief transcend Reason, in any mystical way?

Words may fail, but any analogy from nature?

I see nothing in God's Creation that indicates He has a literal "Son" let alone anything that reflects the idea that Jesus himself is "God".

Nothing but the "Bible tells me so" and the Bible isn't even clear on that!

So we are left with the "Church tells me so".

[dio9]

[Replying to Elijah John]

I understand one with God to mean one in mind and heart . Divinity is a matter of mind and heart . I have come to believe Jesus was whole heartedly one with God . And his message was for all to be and trust whole heartedy in God . That's what divine means to me. That Jesus is God doesn't separate us from Jesus it rather unites us with God ..

[onewithhim]

……………………………….............

(C) Please find clear, direct, undisputed statements (equivalent to “Jesus is the Christ� or "YHWH is God" which are found repeatedly in clear, undisputed scriptures) which declare:

“YHWH is the Son,� or “YHWH is the Firstborn,� or, “YHWH is the Messiah (or ‘Christ’),� or any other equally clear, undisputed statement that “Jesus is YHWH� (the only God according to scripture).
……………………………….................
Since the Father is clearly, directly, and indisputably called "God, the Father," many, many times, and the Son and Holy Spirit are said by trinitarians to be equally the one God (in ‘three distinct persons’):

I am unaware of any use of the term YHWH in the New Testament. As far as I know, the all the writers used the term theos, which is the Greek word for God, to refer to God the Father.

Philippians 2:6 says of Jesus, “Who, being in very nature God…�

"YHWH"---the Tetragrammaton---appeared in the N.T. in early manuscripts. The Anchor Bible Dictionary states: "There is some evidence that the Tetragrammaton, the Divine Name, YHWH, appeared in some or all of the O.T. quotations in the N.T. when the N.T. were first penned." Scholar George Howard says: "Since the Tetragram was still written in the copies of the Greek Bible [the Septuagint] which made up the Scriptures of the early church, it is reasonable to believe that the N.T. writers, when quoting from Scripture, preserved the Tetragram within the biblical text."

Hebrew versions of the N.T. from the 16th century onward used the Tetragrammaton in many passages. In the German language alone, at least 11 versions use "Jehovah" or "Yahweh" in the N.T., while four translators add the name in parentheses after "Lord." More than 70 German translations use the divine name in footnotes or commentaries. Many African, Native American, Asian, European, and Pacific-island languages use the divine name liberally in their versions of the N.T. (See The New World Translation, Reference Bible, pp.1736-1743.)


Lastly, what version are you using? Philippians 2:6 doesn't read that way in MANY versions. BIAS is indicated in the version you are using; the translators already believed that Jesus is God, so they translate accordingly. If you look at the verse in a word-for-word Interlinear Bible, you can see that it is a verse that can be translated in more than one way.....according to a person's bias.

"[Christ Jesus] who in the form of God subsisting not robbery thought it to be equal with God"


That is how it is translated, word-for-word from the Greek, in the Interlinear Bible from Hendrickson. It sets forth a possible meaning that is a bit different from your version. Jesus existed IN THE FORM OF GOD---that is, a spirit person (see John 4:24). It doesn't really say that Jesus WAS God.

There are many versions that render Phil2:6 like this:

"Who, though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God something to be grasped."


("Grasped" has the connotation of procuring something that someone did not have before, as does "seized.") Some of the versions that render the verse that way are The New American Bible, the New International Version, the 21st Century New Testament, the James Moffatt Translation, and The Interpreter's Bible (which says in the footnote: "literally translated, reads, 'Who being in the form of God did not consider equality with God a thing to be seized.' The whole passage turns upon this clause, which is EXCEEDINGLY DIFFICULT, and has been interpreted in many different ways."

It isn't a verse to base one's belief system on.

[liamconnor]

The Philippian passage has come up a few times here, as well as certain "doctrines" derived from it.

There are some things that need to be remembered:

1) Paul wrote in koine Greek. It was not a sophisticated Greek. Thus the dictionary game is dangerous here.

2) Greek categories of thought were not employed until Christianity became dominated by Greek members. Thus language and categories which we find in the later fathers should not be imposed on the N.T., since the latter was written almost entirely by Jews.

3) Jewish thinking differs from Greek in two regards. Firstly, its theology is exegetically driven, rather than philosophically. Jews turned to their sacred text to find answers about God; Greeks employed logic.

4) Jewish theology is prominently "functional", of which the Greek opposite is "ontological". Greeks asked questions like "What is God?" And their answers were typically attributes, like "omniscient, incorporeal, omnipresent etc.". Jews asked "Who is God?" The question is relational. And to find the answer they, once again, looked to their sacred texts. Jews thought of God in terms of how he relates first, to Israel, and second to the world. YHWH is the God who redeemed Israel. YHWH is the God beside which there are no other Gods. YHWH is the God who created the universe. YHWH is sovereign over the universe and all its inhabitants.

Keeping this in mind, I turn to the Philippians passage, 2.5-11.

I provide the Greek, accompanied by a translation

5 Τοῦτο φ�ονεῖτε �ν ὑμῖν ὃ καὶ �ν Χ�ιστῷ Ἰησοῦ,

Have this frame of mind among you, which was also in Christ Jesus,

6 ὃς �ν μο�φῇ θεοῦ ὑπά�χων ο�χ ��παγμὸν ἡγήσατο τὸ εἶναι ἴσα θεῷ,

Who, being in the form of God, did not regard being equal with God as something to be held on to.

7 ἀλλὰ ἑαυτὸν �κένωσεν μο�φὴν δούλου λαβών, �ν �μοιώματι ἀνθ�ώπων γενόμενος· καὶ σχήματι εὑ�εθεὶς ὡς ἄνθ�ωπος

But he emptied himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, being made in the likeness of men; and being found in appearance as a man

8 �ταπείνωσεν ἑαυτὸν γενόμενος ὑπήκοος μέχ�ι θανάτου, θανάτου δὲ σταυ�οῦ.

He humbled himself, becoming obedient to the point of death, and death of a cross.

9 διὸ καὶ � θεὸς α�τὸν ὑπε�ύψωσεν καὶ �χα�ίσατο α�τῷ τὸ ὄνομα τὸ ὑπὲ� πᾶν ὄνομα,

Therefore also God highly exalted him and bestowed upon him the name that is above every name

10 ἵνα �ν τῷ ὀνόματι Ἰησοῦ πᾶν γόνυ κάμψῃ �που�ανίων καὶ �πιγείων καὶ καταχθονίων

In order that, in the name of Jesus, every knee should bow, of those who are in heaven and of those upon the earth and of those under the earth;

11 καὶ πᾶσα γλῶσσα �ξομολογήσηται ὅτι κύ�ιος Ἰησοῦς Χ�ιστὸς εἰς δόξαν θεοῦ πατ�ός.

And every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of the Father.


Let's first apply a functional, rather than ontological hermeneutic.

It should be noted that the passage begins with "having this same mindset" or "attitude". Already we should be wary of imposing on this texts questions of Jesus' ontological "substance". We are being exhorted; it would be a very strange exhortation for Paul to encourage us to alter our "substances", since that is impossible.

Central to this passage is how we regard ourselves: note 2:3 which is functional--how we relate to one another! "Regarding one another as more important than himself". From this verse he offers Jesus as an example of this posture of humility.

Thus turning back to 2:6 "although he existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God as something to be grasped/or held on to. (Augustine renders it "taken advantage of").

This verse has nothing to do with ontological equations. It is a moral example for the Philippians. Jesus forsook not a metaphysical attribute, but the dignity of being equal with God; all the comforts of the palace, so to speak--instead, he abandoned his throne and took up the posture of a servant--that is, as a man (since man's task in Jewish theology is to be God's servants). This posture of humility was so complete that, not only did he stoop so low as to be man before God, but even to be an executed slave before men. Truly, Jesus, though having rights to the dignity of God, regarded all as better than himself.

Now at this point in the Phil passage, I turn away from the distinction between ontological and functional categories, and towards our other hermeneutical principle: Jewish theology is driven by exegesis; and this includes Jewish Christian theology.

There are two principle monotheistic texts for Jews. One is the Shema of Deut 6.4.; the other is Isaiah 40-55. In isaiah 45:22-23 Isaiah anticipates a day when all the world will recognize Israel's God as the only God.

It reads: Turn to me and be saved, all ends of the earth! For I am God, and there is no other. By myself I have sworn, from my mouth has gone forth in righteousness, a word that shall not return: To me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear.

This passage is high monotheism: There is only one God; he alone deserves recognition and worship.

But in the Phil passage is precisely Jesus who is accredited this honor:

Jesus (whose very name includes the root of "salvation") is given the name which is above every name. But what name could that be for a Jewish Christian like Paul? It is not, as some here have thought, the name Jesus; he already had that name, and so did other men (Joshua of the O.T.).

The name Paul has in mind is "YHWH", God's covenantal name in the O.T.

We will notice the allusions to Isaiah, given above.

It is at the name of Jesus that "every knee should bow"...and "every tongue confess"...

confess what? That Jesus is Lord. The Greek term Kurios is the very same word used to translate the Hebrew YHWH. That is the name which Paul has in mind when he proclaims that Jesus has been given the name that is above all names.


Now, this does raise a problem: does this mean that Jesus was not God previously? Not at all. We come full circle to our distinction between ontological vs. functional theology.

The point is not that Jesus, post-resurrecton, acquired an ontology, a metaphysical attribute, which he lacked previously. The point Paul is making is that, always being God, now enjoys the prerogatives of YWHW in relation to the world. Having defeated death and sin and all that is rebellious to God in this world, Jesus now reigns on his father's throne, as Lord.

hope that helps.