The Trinity.

[Elijah John]

Are these questions actually problems inherent with the doctrine of the Trinity?

1) If the Father is Spirit, (and according to John he is) and the Holy Spirit is Spirit, doesn't that make two Spirits? Why the distinction between the two?

2) Does a person recieve the "Risen Christ" or does a person recieve the Holy Spirit when a person becomes a Christian? Who "knocks on the door" of our heart? Who empowers the Christian to do the will of God? Who leads and guides the believer?

3) And if we consider that Jesus is (according to the Creed) is "eternally begotten of the Father" and had a pre-existance, doesn't that make three disctict Spirits in the Christian pantheon? How is that not three Gods?

4) Was Jesus full of the Holy Spirit, annointed of the Holy Spirit, and led by the Holy Spirit? If Jesus was already God, why would he need this?

In addition to the whole 3 in 1 "mystery" do these questions further illustrate that the doctrine of the Trinity causes more problems than it solves?

[PinSeeker]

I have asked another question still waiting for an answer: if they consider the spirit of the Father another god-person, and Jesus another god-person in the triune god, why don't they put a fourth person in that compound god, the spirit of the god-son? Something like:

1) father
2) father's spirit
3) son
4) son's spirit

If some want to include a mother there would be two more. Can people add god-persons to a supposedly compound god, every time they want to, as they did in the Third Century?

Well this is an easily answerable question, the answer being that Scripture only posits that there are three, that's why. It's most clear in John 14. There, Jesus says:

• "Let not your hearts be troubled. Believe in God; believe also in me. In my Father’s house are many rooms. If it were not so, would I have told you that I go to prepare a place for you? And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and will take you to myself, that where I am you may be also. And you know the way to where I am going. ... I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you had known me, you would have known my Father also. From now on you do know him and have seen him. ... Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority, but the Father who dwells in me does his works. Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me, or else believe on account of the works themselves. ... If you love me, you will keep my commandments. And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Helper, to be with you forever, even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him. You know him, for he dwells with you and will be in you. ... These things I have spoken to you while I am still with you. But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you..." (emphasis added)

There is no mistaking that Jesus is talking about the One True God/Jehovah existing as three distinct Persons. There is not a fourth. Addin a fourth would be adding to Scripture itself, which is heresy defined. As Peter says:

• "...there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction." (2 Peter 2:1, emphasis added)

Grace and peace to all.

[Overcomer]

Eloi wrote:

I have asked some Trinitarians if they would have believed in that doctrine if they would have been living in Israel times or in the First Century following Jesus and authentic Christians. My proposition to them is to visualize themselves in any of those times ... They said NO. My question is: if they think so, then why they do believe in that?

I would believe the doctrine of the Trinity in the first century. I would have been just one of Christ's followers who believed that including Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter, Timothy, Titus, James, Lydia, etc, and the members of the Christian churches in Ephesus, Corinth, Galatia, Philippi, Rome, etc. The fact that not everyone believed that Jesus was who he said he was (God Incarnate) does not mean that he wasn't who he said he was (God Incarnate).

So the question would be -- why did those people you asked say that they wouldn't have believed it in the first century? What was their reasoning? And why do they believe it now?

[Overcomer]

Elijah John wrote:

Are these questions actually problems inherent with the doctrine of the Trinity?

No, they are not. They are questions that stem from someone's misunderstanding of the Trinity. The Trinity is ONE God who exists in three persons. God the Father, God the Son and God the Spirit are one in essence. The fact that they are ontologically one makes these questions nonsensical.

Take the first question:

If the Father is Spirit, (and according to John he is) and the Holy Spirit is Spirit, doesn't that make two Spirits? Why the distinction between the two?

Because God the Father, God the Son and God the Spirit are ontologically one, they are not two.

Same problem with the question about Christ's pre-existence:

And if we consider that Jesus is (according to the Creed) is "eternally begotten of the Father" and had a pre-existance, doesn't that make three disctict Spirits in the Christian pantheon? How is that not three Gods?

They are one in essence. There is no pantheon. A pantheon consists of separate beings, that is, beings that are not ontologically one. But the God of the Bible is a Triune Godhead with its three members identical in essence. They are part and parcel of each other. They have distinct roles, but they are the same being. If someone can understand that, he/she can understand the Trinity.

And the following question is answered by one's understanding of what it meant for Jesus to be God Incarnate:

Was Jesus full of the Holy Spirit, annointed of the Holy Spirit, and led by the Holy Spirit? If Jesus was already God, why would he need this?

I point you yet again to Phil. 2:6-11, that is, the hymn of Christ which presents the doctrine of the Trinity clearly.


Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;
7 rather, he made himself nothing
by taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
8 And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
by becoming obedient to death—
even death on a cross!

9 Therefore God exalted him to the highest place
and gave him the name that is above every name,
10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
11 and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father.


In Greek, the word "being" means ongoing existence pointing to the eternality of Jesus. The word "nature" means that which makes something what it is, that is, what it is in essence and, in this case, it is saying that Jesus is God.

But Jesus came to earth and set aside his rights and privileges as God to live as a man (making himself nothing -- in Greek, it's "kenosis", emptying himself). This means that Jesus, the man, relied on the Holy Spirit just as his followers have done ever since Pentecost when the Holy Spirit was made available to all believers.

And in the future, Christ will return and every knee will bow and every tongue confess that he is Lord.

And the last question:

In addition to the whole 3 in 1 "mystery" do these questions further illustrate that the doctrine of the Trinity causes more problems than it solves?

It does not present any problems when you understand it. One God exists in three persons. There is one unity within which there is diversity in role, but not of being. The only people who have problems with the Trinity are those who don't understand it.

[Revelations won]

Dear Overcomer,

I look forward to your answers to each of the following.

1 Peter 1:
18 Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; 19
But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot: 20
Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,


Could you kindly and clearly explain who ordained Christ to be our redeemer before the foundations of the world were laid?


If Christ was the Father as you claim, then why would he need to foreordain himself?


Acts 13:33 God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.


Why, as shown in the second psalm and Acts 13 would God need to get Mary pregnant to have himself born again by Mary?



Luke 1-30 And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God. 31And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS.

32He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:


I would also ask, how could he be the Son of the Highest and have any need to inherit all things?

33And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.

Does God the Father have a body of flesh and bone?

Does Jesus Christ have a body of flesh and bone?

Kind regards,
RW

[PinSeeker]

Dear Overcomer,

I look forward to your answers to each of the following.

1 Peter 1:
18 Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; 19
But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot: 20
Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,


Could you kindly and clearly explain who ordained Christ to be our redeemer before the foundations of the world were laid?


If Christ was the Father as you claim, then why would he need to foreordain himself?


Acts 13:33 God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.


Why, as shown in the second psalm and Acts 13 would God need to get Mary pregnant to have himself born again by Mary?



Luke 1-30 And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God. 31And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS.

32He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:


I would also ask, how could he be the Son of the Highest and have any need to inherit all things?

33And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.

Does God the Father have a body of flesh and bone?

Does Jesus Christ have a body of flesh and bone?

Kind regards,
RW

Well, I'm not Overcomer, obviously, but I'll speak to this.

1. "Could you kindly and clearly explain who ordained Christ to be our redeemer before the foundations of the world were laid? If Christ was the Father as you claim, then why would he need to foreordain himself?"

• Overcomer is clearly referring to God the Father and God the son as two distinct Persons (the first and second person of the trinity). So he's not claiming Christ was the Father. They are one in essence, but distinct in person-hood. Because they are not the same Person, God the Father did not "foreordain Himself before the foundation of the world, He foreordained -- as Peter says -- God the Son before the foundation of the world.

2. "Why, as shown in the second psalm and Acts 13 would God need to get Mary pregnant to have himself born again by Mary?"

• a.) Whether you believe God is Who He says He is is not altogether clear to me, RW (although your moniker certainly seems to indicate that you do), but Christians believe God is omnipotent -- that He can make anything He wants to happen happen. So using His omnipotence -- via the third Person of the Trinity, the Holy Spirit, Who is the Agent of His sovereign omnipotence/power -- to make a human being pregnant with child (as was the case with Mary) is not a problem. If He can create the universe by declaring it, then making a woman pregnant in the same fashion is really kind of trivial in comparison.
  
  b.) God had to fulfill His own covenant, pay the wages of sin (death), and satisfy His own uncompromising justice on behalf of man in order to redeem man to Himself. To do this, it was necessary to send the second Person of the Godhead to do it -- to provide a Mediator between God and man Who is both God and man... necessary because no one else would have been remotely qualified (Hebrews 8-12)

3. "I would also ask, how could he be the Son of the Highest and have any need to inherit all things?"

• God the Son doesn't "need" to inherit all things, but it was necessary for Him to intercede on our behalf to enable us to inherit all things with Him -- for us to be co-heirs.

4. "Does God the Father have a body of flesh and bone?"

• God the Father is Spirit (John 4:24) and therefore does not have a physical body like men.

5. "Does Jesus Christ have a body of flesh and bone? "

• God the Son, Jesus Christ, is flesh and bone, yes. This is true before His incarnation, during His time on earth, and after His resurrection. From eternity past to eternity future. Jesus Christ is unchanging (as God the Father and God the Spirit are also), the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow (Hebrews 13).

Grace and peace to you, RW.

[PinSeeker]

Excellent post above, Overcomer! The only thing I might quibble is the following concluding remark:

"The only people who have problems with the Trinity are those who don't understand it."

To this, I would say the following (with which I feel sure you would agree):

None of us, in our finite-ness, fully understands it. But this has no bearing on our ability to accept it and believe it. So, therefore, all of us are going to and do have some 'problem" with it on some level. Anyone who says they completely understand it is deceiving himself, really.

But, speaking to what you're speaking to, I would say that the only people who have problems with the Trinity are those who ... well... refuse to accept it, for one reason or another. And our job is merely to proclaim. Others' acceptance is first a heart matter and thus a work of the Holy Spirit, the third Person of the triune Godhead/Jehovah.

Grace and peace to you, brother.

[Revelations won]

Matthew 28: 17And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted.
18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.

You should so duly observe that Christ stated that ALL POWER WAS GIVEN UNTO ME IN HEAVEN AND IN EARTH.

Could this have happened on the mount when he was transfigured before Peter, James and John? Does it really matter whether ALL POWER was given to him either in heaven or on the earth Or was this done after his resurrection?

It might be very interesting to observe that this refutes the “Trinity Doctrine”, because he obviously did not have “ALL POWER” UNTIL IT WAS GIVEN TO HIM BY GOD THE FATHER, Who is the only one who could bestow such power.

Kind regards,
RW

[tigger 2]

Overcomer wrote about Phil. 2:6 (post 33, "The Trinity," DC&R): "In Greek, the word "being" [huparchon] means ongoing existence pointing to the eternality of Jesus. The word "nature" [morphe] means that which makes something what it is, that is, what it is in essence and, in this case, it is saying that Jesus is God."

The first of three problems with most trinitarian translations of Phil. 2:6.

A. Huparchon "being?" "ongoing existence?"

The rendering of “being in form of God (or a god)” by a some trinitarian scholars involves the Greek word huparcho (translated “being” above). Huparcho (huparchon [ὑπάρχων in Greek letters] is the actual form of huparcho used in this scripture) is sometimes “interpreted” by a few trinitarians in an attempt to show an eternal pre-existence (see TEV). This is done in an attempt to deny the actuality of Jesus’ creation by God. Similarly, Dr. Walter Martin in his The Kingdom of the Cults declares:

“Christ never ceased to be Jehovah even during His earthly incarnation. It is interesting to note that the Greek term uparchon, translated ‘being’ in Philippians 2:6 [KJV], literally means ‘remaining or not ceasing to be’ (see also 1 Corinthians 11:7), hence in the context Christ never ceased to be God.” - p. 94, 1985 ed.

If huparchon really had such a meaning, we would expect it to be used especially for God. What else that exists has an eternal existence? But search as we will we never see this word used for God! Some examples where we would expect to see it used (if it really meant ‘eternal existence’) in the Bible Greek of the ancient Septuagint are Is. 43:10, 25; 45:15, 22; 46:4, 9. Like all other scriptures referring to God, they use forms of the “be” verb (eimi), which may be used to mean an eternal existence, but they never use huparchon to show his eternal existence! (Is. 45:22, for example, says, “I am [eimi] the God and there is no other.” - cf. James 2:19 [estin, form of
eimi]).

So why is huparchon never used to show the eternal existence for the only thing that has always existed (and which will never cease to exist)?

Huparchon [ὑπάρχων in Greek letters] is never used for God because it actually, literally means (in spite of Martin’s “scholarly” declaration above):

“to make a beginning (hupo, ‘under’; arche, ‘a beginning’)” - W. E. Vine’s An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, p. 390.

Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance also defines huparcho as “to begin under (quietly), i.e. COME INTO EXISTENCE” - #5225.

And the authoritative (and trinitarian) An Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon by Liddell and Scott tells us:
“[huparcho] ... to begin, make a beginning ... 2. to make a beginning of ... 3. to begin doing ... 4. to begin [doing] kindness to one ... Pass. to be begun” - p. 831, Oxford University Press, 1994 printing.

So, even though it may be rendered into English as “existed” or “is,” it nevertheless seems to me that it must also be understood as something that has also come into existence at some point.

In that sense, then, huparchon may be very much like another NT word, ginomai, γινόμαι
[#1096, Thayer’s], which also literally means “become” or “come into existence” but is sometimes translated into English as “is,” “are,” etc. E.g., 1 Peter 3:6 “whose daughters ye are [ginomai],” KJV, NKJV, NAB, RSV, NIV, is more properly understood as “you have become [ginomai] her children,” NASB, NRSV, NEB, NWT - Cf. John 6:17, “It was [ginomai] dark.”

As respected trinitarian NT Greek expert Dr. Alfred Marshall tells us:
“[Ginomai] denotes the coming into existence of what did not exist before.... This verb [just like huparchon - T2] is therefore not used of God....”

Marshall further explains that although ginomai is often translated into English as “is,” “are,” “were,” etc. it must nevertheless be remembered that it still retains the additional meaning of having come into existence! - p. 106, New Testament Greek Primer, Zondervan Publishing House, 1978 printing.

For another good example of the similarity of huparchon with ginomai see Luke 16:23 and 22:44.
Lk. 16:23 - “he lifted up his eyes, being [huparchon] in torment,” NASB.
Lk. 22:44 - “and being [ginomai] in agony he was praying,” NASB.

In very similar statements Luke has used the very similar (in meaning) huparchon and ginomai and the NASB has rendered them both “being.” But in both cases their fundamental meanings of “coming into existence” (or “coming to be”) must be remembered. In other words, the person had not always been in torment or agony, but at some point had “come to be” in such a condition!

If you examine the following examples of the Biblical usage of huparcho, you will find they are clearly speaking of conditions which once did not exist but which have come into existence (“have begun to be”): Luke 16:23; Acts 2:30; Acts 7:55; Acts 8:16; Ro. 4:19; 1 Cor. 11:18; 2 Cor. 8:17; James 2:15.

These last four verses not only show a state that has begun recently but a state that is transient, temporary - e.g., Abraham hadn’t always been [huparchon] 100 years of age and certainly wouldn’t continue to be 100 years of age: he had begun to be [huparchon] about 100 years old at this point - Ro. 4:19.

1 Cor. 11:18, KJV says:
“I hear that there be [huparchon] divisions among you [the Corinthian congregation].”
Such divisions certainly had not always existed there. Nor must they always continue to be there, or Paul would not have bothered to counsel them to heal their divisions. The complete understanding for this verse is, more likely:
“I hear that there have begun to be [huparchon] divisions among you.”

2 Cor. 8:16, 17 tells us:
“But thanks be to God, who puts the same earnestness on your behalf in the heart of Titus. For he [Titus] ..., being [huparchon] himself very earnest, he has gone to you of his own accord.” - NASB.

It should be obvious to everyone that Titus hasn’t been earnest from all eternity. He obviously came to be earnest at some point in time. And, in fact, we are even told in verse 16 that at some point in time God put this earnestness in Titus’ heart. Obviously it was not always there if God put it in his heart at some point! The meaning of huparchon as “having come [or begun] to be” is very certain from the context alone in these two verses.

James 2:15 tells us, in the KJV: “If a brother or sister be [huparchon] naked [‘without clothes’ - NIV, NASB],” we must help him to become clothed again. Obviously the brother has not been naked for all eternity but has very recently come to be in this condition. It’s equally obvious that the brother will not always continue in this condition. In fact his brothers are commanded to ensure that he not continue in this naked state. (Famed trinitarian Bible scholar Dr. Robert Young noted the correct, complete meaning for huparchon in this verse: “BEGIN to be [huparchon] naked” - Young’s Concise Critical Bible Commentary, Baker Book House, 1977 ed.)

Therefore, huparcho (or huparchon) does not mean “eternal pre-existence” as claimed by some trinitarians, and it certainly does not have to mean a condition that must continue to exist as Dr. Walter Martin also implies. Notice the solitary example (1 Cor. 11:7) he has selected to “prove” that huparchon means “not ceasing to be”: “For a man ... is [huparchon] the image and glory of God” - NASB. My trinitarian NASB reference Bible refers this scripture to Gen. 1:26; 5:1; 9:6; and James 3:9. These scriptures all state that man was created or made in the image of God. (In fact James 3:9 literally says that men “have come to be [ginomai, #1096] in the likeness of God” and is usually translated in trinitarian Bibles as “have been made [or created] in the likeness of God.” - NASB, NIV, RSV.)

So there is the real parallel meaning for the huparchon of 1 Cor. 11:7 - created! There obviously was a time (before he was created) when a man was not the image of God. Furthermore, this solitary “example” given by Martin states that “a man” (NASB) is the image of God. This means that every man who lives has these qualities in some degree. However, not every man will have these qualities forever. Many, when they return to the dust of the earth, will cease to reflect God’s qualities and glory! It would be much better to translate this verse literally as “For a man ought not to have his head covered, since he has come into existence [huparchon] in the image and glory of God.”

There is little doubt about what huparchon was actually intended to mean (regardless of how modern trinitarian translators wish to translate it). Noted trinitarian scholar and translator Dr. Robert Young (Young’s Analytical Concordance to the Bible; Young’s Literal Translation of the Holy Bible; etc.) has even admitted in his Young’s Concise Critical Bible Commentary (p.134, Baker Book House, 1977) that his own rendering of huparchon as “being” at Phil. 2:6 in his own published Bible translation should be, to be more literal,
“beginning secretly [huparchon] in (the) form of God ....” - Phil. 2:6.

So, rather than any “eternal pre-existence” being implied by Paul’s use of huparchon at Phil. 2:6 (“who ‘always having been’ in God’s form” - cf. TEV), it is more likely just the opposite: “Who came into existence (or was created) [huparchon] in a form [morphe] similar to God (or in God’s image)”! Of course, if Jesus first came into existence in God’s image, then he cannot be the eternal, always-existent God of the Bible (nor even the always-existent God of the trinity doctrine)!

Or, put even more simply, since huparchon is never used in scripture for God himself, then its use for the pre-existent Jesus indicates, again, that Jesus is not God!

[tigger 2]

The second problem with most trinitarian translations of Phil. 2:6.

B. Morphe "nature?"

"6 Who, being in very nature [morphe] God," from the NIV is a false translation.

Morphe

Although it has been rejected by even many trinitarian Bible scholars, some others attempt to force an interpretation of morphe (μορφῇ) that includes the idea of “essence” or “nature.” They do this only at Phil. 2:6 (Jesus “was in the form [morphe] of God”) because the true meaning of morphe will not allow for the trinitarian interpretation that Jesus is God. But with their forced interpretation of morphe at Phil. 2:6 they can say that Jesus had the “absolute essence” and “full nature” of God!

As even many trinitarian Bible scholars admit:

“Morphe is instanced from Homer onwards and means form in the sense of outward appearance.” - The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, 1986, Zondervan, p. 705, vol. 1.
Thayer agrees that morphe is
“the form by which a person or thing strikes the vision; the external appearance” - Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, p. 418, Baker Book House. [Also see Young’s Analytical Concordance]

Liddell and Scott’s An Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon, p. 519, Oxford University Press, 1994 printing, tells us that morphe can mean “form, fashion, appearance” but does not include a meaning for “nature” or “essence.” It also shows that if one truly intends the meaning of “being, essence, nature of a thing” it may be defined by the Greek word ousia (p. 579) or phusis (p. 876) not morphe.

The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (abridged in one volume), Eerdmans, 1985, says “In general morphe in all its nuances represents what may be seen by the senses and not what is mentally apprehended.” - p. 608. It also tells us that when “nature” is intended by Paul, he uses physis (phusis). E.g., Ro. 11:21, 24; Gal. 2:15;4:8. - p. 1286.

The highly-esteemed BAGD (and BDAG) also defines morphe as “form, outward appearance, shape.” - p. 530.

It’s easy to see why even many trinitarian scholars disagree with the forced “nature” interpretation of morphe when you look at all the scriptural uses of morphe (according to Young’s Analytical Concordance, Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1978 printing and A Concordance of the Septuagint, Zondervan Publishing House, 1979 printing): Mark 16:12; Phil. 2:6, 7 in the New Testament and in the Old Testament Greek Septuagint of Job 4:16 “there was no form [morphe] before my eyes;” Is. 44:13 “makes it [a piece of wood] as the form [morphe] of a man;” Dan. 4:33 “my natural form [morphe] returned to me;” 5:6, 9, 10 “the king’s countenance [morphe] changed;” 7:28 “[Daniel’s] countenance [morphe] was changed.” - The Septuagint Version, Greek and English, Zondervan, 1976 printing.

"In the visual form [morphe] of God" cannot be properly rendered "in very nature [morphe] 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).

[tigger 2]

The third problem with most trinitarian translations of Phil. 2:6.

C. Harpagmos "Grasp?"

Now notice how these two very trinitarian Bibles have rendered it:
1. “He did not think to snatch at [harpagmos, ἁρπαγμὸς] equality with God” - NEB.
2. “He did not think that by force [harpagmos] he should try to become equal with God” - TEV (and GNB).

We believe that the translations by the trinitarian NEB and TEV Bibles of this part of Phil. 2:6 must be the intended meaning of the original writer of this scripture because (in part, at least) of the obvious meaning of the New Testament (NT) Greek word harpagmos (ἁρπαγμὸς).

Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance (by trinitarian writer and trinitarian publisher) tells us that harpagmos means “plunder” and that it comes from the source word harpazo which means: “to seize ... catch away, pluck, take (by force).” - #725 & 726, Abingdon Press, 1974 printing.

“725 harpagmós – to seize, especially by an open display of force. See 726 (harpazō).” - HELPS Word-studies, copyright © 1987, 2011 by Helps Ministries, Inc.

And the New American Standard Concordance of the Bible (also by trinitarians) tells us: “harpagmos; from [harpazo]; the act of seizing or the thing seized.” And, “harpazo ... to seize, catch up, snatch away.” Notice that all have to do with taking something away by force. - # 725 & #726, Holman Bible Publ., 1981.

In fact, the trinitarian The Expositor’s Greek Testament, 1967, pp. 436, 437, vol. III, tells us:
“We cannot find any passage where [harpazo] or any of its derivatives [which include harpagmos] has the sense of ‘holding in possession,’ ‘retaining’ [as preferred in many trinitarian translations of Phil. 2:6]. It seems invariably to mean ‘seize’, ‘snatch violently’. Thus it is not permissible to glide from the true sense [‘snatch violently’] into one which is totally different, ‘hold fast.’ ”

Even the very trinitarian NT Greek expert, W. E. Vine, had to admit that harpagmos is “akin to harpazo, to seize, carry off by force.” - p. 887, An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words.

And the trinitarian The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology tells us that the majority of Bible scholars (mostly trinitarian, of course)
“have taken harpagmos to mean a thing plundered or seized..., and so spoil, booty or a prize of war.” - p. 604, vol. 3, Zondervan, 1986.

The key to both these words (harpagmos and its source word, harpazo) is: taking something away from someone by force and against his will. And if we should find a euphemism such as “prize” used in a trinitarian Bible for harpagmos, it has to be understood only in the same sense as a pirate ship forcibly seizing another ship as its “prize”!

We can easily see this “taken by force” meaning in all the uses of harpazo (the source word for harpagmos) in the New Testament. But since harpagmos itself is used only at Phil. 2:6 in the NT, Bible scholars must go to the ancient Greek translation of the Old Testament (which is frequently quoted in the NT), the Septuagint.

In the Septuagint harpagmos (in its forms of harpagma and harpagmata) is used 16 times according to trinitarian Zondervan’s A Concordance of the Septuagint, p. 32, 1979 printing. And in every case its meaning is the taking of something away from someone by force. Here they are in the Bagster Septuagint as published by Zondervan: Lev. 6:4 “plunder;” Job 29:17 “spoil” (a “prize” taken by force); Ps. 61:10 (Ps. 62:10 in most modern Bibles) “robberies;” Is. 42:22 “prey;” Is. 61:8 “robberies;” Ezek. 18:7 “plunder;” Ezek. 18:12 “robbery;” Ezek. 18:16 “robbery;” Ezek. 18:18 “plunder;” Ezek. 19:3 “prey;” Ezek. 19:6 “take prey;” Ezek. 22:25 “seizing prey;” Ezek. 22:27 “get dishonest gain” (through the use of “harpazo” or “force”); Ezek. 22:29 “robbery;” Ezek. 33:15 “has robbed;” and Malachi 1:13 “torn victims” (compare ASV).

So, in spite of some trinitarians’ reasonings and euphemistic renderings, it is clear from the way it was always used in scripture that harpagmos means either taking something away by force (a verb), or something which has been taken by force (a noun).

Many trinitarian translators, however, either make nonsense out of the meaning of Phil. 2:6 by actually using the proper meaning of “robbery” or “taken by force” without showing God’s clear superiority over Jesus which the context demands, or, instead, making sense of it by choosing a word that doesn’t have the proper meaning of “taking by force.”

For example, the King James Version (KJV) does use “robbery” (a nearly-accurate meaning for harpagmos) but obviously mangles the meaning of the rest of the statement so that it doesn’t even make proper sense: “thought it not robbery to be equal with God.” This is a nonsensical statement even by itself. In context it is even more inappropriate!

Yes, even in the KJV it is apparent from context that the purpose of this example is to emphasize lowliness of mind, humility: to regard others as better than yourself (vv. 3-5). Paul certainly wouldn’t destroy this example of humility for fellow Christians by saying that Jesus is thinking that it isn’t robbery for him to be equal with the Most High! Besides being a nonsensical statement, it is just the opposite of humility! Instead, to be in harmony with the purpose of Paul’s example, we must find a Jesus who regards God as superior to himself and won’t give even a moment’s thought about attempting to take that most high position himself, but, instead, humbles himself even further.

Trinitarian scholar R. P. Martin, for example, feels the context (especially the obvious contrast of verses 6 and 7) shows that harpagmos in verse 6 means Christ refused to seize equality with God. Emphasizing the fact that this is a contrast with verse 6, verse 7 begins with “but [alla].” In accord with this, he tells us,
“V[erse] 6b states what Christ might have done [or could have attempted to do], i.e. seized equality with God; v. 7 states what he chose to do, i.e. give himself.” - The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, vol. 3, p. 604.

When even a number of trinitarian scholars are willing to admit the actual meaning (or even an equivalent compromise) of harpagmos at Phil. 2:6, it becomes necessary for honest-hearted, truth-seeking individuals to admit that Phil. 2:6 not only does not identify Jesus as God, but that it clearly shows Jesus is not God! .