Jesus is God - grasping equality

[Wootah]

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... ersion=ESV

Philippians 2:5-11
English Standard Version
5 Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus,[a] 6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. 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.

This is a clear: fully God, fully man situation.

However, depending on your Christian persuasion, there are some questions for you:

How can Jesus be in the form of God but not be God?

How can Jesus be in the form of a man but not a man?

If Jesus is not God, are you really going to bow down to a not God creature?

But mainly question 2. If Jesus cannot grab equality with God why would it phrase it as if He could grab it? So could Jesus have grasped equality with God or not?

if Jesus could have grasped equality with God then he is equal to God. Which dialect of Christianity is going to argue that Jesus could have been equal to God but chose not to but He is not God?

Let's put it this way. Suppose there was Thor's hammer and only the ones who are worthy can pick it up. That means everyone that can pick it up, regardless of whether they do pick it up are equally worthy of holding the hammer.

If Jesus could not have grasped equality then why is that statement in the Bible?

It sure seems like the statement is there in the Bible to show that Jesus could have been equal to God but chose not to.

[JehovahsWitness]

You are arguing (I think) that it means he never thought of the idea, the thought never crossed his mind.

If by "crossed his mind" you mean gave serious consideration to doing it, what does scripture say?

PHILIPIANS 2:7 - Berean Standard Bible

Who, existing in the form of God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,

So although Jesus of course knew intellectually there was the possibility of opposing God and attempting to rule mankind in opposition to the Father (thus seizing or grasping at something he had no right to) he never once considered doing such a vile thing.

To illustrate: I'm sure you know there are adults who rape babies. Have you considered doing so yourself? Is that something you have been thinking of doing? Surely although you know such a vile unspeakable act is possible, the very idea of doing it yourself is repugnant to you and something you would never ONCE even consider doing !

In a similar way, grasping for something he had no right to "never crossed Jesus mind".

[Wootah]

You are arguing (I think) that it means he never thought of the idea, the thought never crossed his mind.

If by "crossed his mind" you mean gave serious consideration to doing it, what does scripture say?

PHILIPIANS 2:7 - Berean Standard Bible

Who, existing in the form of God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,

So although Jesus of course knew intellectually there was the possibility of opposing God and attempting to rule mankind in opposition to the Father (thus seizing or grasping at something he had no right to) he never once considered doing such a vile thing.

To illustrate: I'm sure you know there are adults who rape babies. Have you considered doing so yourself? Is that something you have been thinking of doing? Surely although you know such a vile unspeakable act is possible, the very idea of doing it yourself is repugnant to you and something you would never ONCE even consider doing !

In a similar way, grasping for something he had no right to "never crossed Jesus mind".

I need it plainer.

If it never crossed his mind as in never entered his mind then I have an issue because usurping God's sovereignty is basic to humans and Jesus was tempted in every way and He has to be fully human to pay for human sins.

If it never crossed his mind means he thought it and didn't act in it. That is fine. Fully human. But then you are stuck with the plain reading of the text. He could grasp and didn't.

[historia]

The Greek word translated "grasp" by the ESV is harpagmon ; about this word The Expositora's Greek Testament makes the following comment:

We cannot find any passage where [har·pa zo] or any of its derivatives [including harpagmon] has the sense of holding in possession, retaining. It seems invariably to mean "seize/ snatch violently." (Grand Rapids, Mich.; 1967), edited by W. Robertson Nicoll, Vol. III, pp. 436, 437.

A Manual Greek Lexicon of the New Testament (George Abbot Smith), states "there is certainly a presumption in favour of the active meaning here" since the apostle does not use the LXX form harpagma. Paul thus speaks of an act of seizing [...] - A-S 60

So, this is rather old and outdated reserach you're quoting here. The Expositor's Greek Testament commentary was published in 1897 (the date you've given above is for a reprint), and Smith's lexicon is from 1922.

It seems to me that the majority position among scholars today -- following the ground-breaking work of Roy Hoover (1971), subsequently defended by Michael Martin (2016) -- is that, in koine Greek, harpagmos was synonymous with harpagma, and, in the form in which it appears in Phil. 2, is used as an idiom to mean "something to seize upon [for advantage’s sake]."

Martin neatly summarizes Hoover's study in "ἁρπαγμός Revisited: A Philological Reexamination of the New Testament's 'Most Difficult Word'," in JBL vol. 135 iss. 1 (2016), pp. 185-86:

Hoover argues that ἅρπαγμα and the poorly attested ἁρπαγμός are interchangeable within the idiom and have the same meaning, "something to seize upon, to take advantage of." He makes his case in two steps.

First, he assembles evidence that ἅρπαγμα and ἁρπαγμός were used synonymously in the Hellenistic period:

(1) the words were used interchangeably by the Greek Fathers, as Werner Foerster shows;

(2) the classical distinction between nouns ending in -μόν as active (expressing the action of the verb) and nouns ending in -μα as passive (expressing the results of the action of the verb) was breaking down in the Hellenistic period, as evidenced by the nouns listed by J. B. Lightfoot, Ernst Lohmeyer, and Ralph P. Martin;

(3) ἅρπαγμα was used in the LXX and by Plutarch both in the active sense (the act of seizure: "robbery") and in the passive sense (the thing seized: "booty," "prey"), which suggests that the classical distinction between ἁρπαγμός as active and ἅρπαγμα as passive is gone;

(4) the words are used synonymously in the idiom by Eusebius of Caesarea.

Second, Hoover examines the two occurrences of ἁρπαγμός in the double-accusative construction and shows what the evidence above would already suggest, that ἁρπαγμός has exactly the same meaning as ἅρπαγμα in this construction: "something to seize upon as advantageous."

Based on that more updated research, I think we can actually reach the opposite conclusion you have above: the Carmen Christi is likely saying that equality with God is something that the pre-incarnate Christ already possessed, but he did not consider it something to be exploited (so NRSV), but rather relinquished that by "emptying himself," etc. That also, I think, makes better sense of the hymn as a whole and Paul's use of it here within the wider context of Phil. 2.

[JehovahsWitness]

"something to seize upon, to take advantage of."

Thank you; useful references but I don't see that as representing any difference to the conclusion. The point surely being that Jesus did not seek to attain (snatch/seize ) something which impies that said thing was not integral his being. If he already had it , the entire verse is redundant as its impossible to seize (seize being to reach out and take hold of something) that which one already posses.

"Roy Hoover (1971), subsequently defended by Michael Martin (2016) -- is that, in koine Greek, harpagmos was synonymous with harpagma, and, in the form in which it appears in Phil. 2, is used as an idiom to mean "something to seize upon [for advantage’s sake].""

If the quality is an integral part of him, then the verb would surely be "use", "hold" or "expoit" or some other equivalent ; so whether it is to "seize" to take advantage of or "seize" as booty or even "seize" as ones right, the point is he did not have the equality if it (equality) was the object of the seize



Post Hooover debate rages on (personal blog entry) : https://fosterheologicalreflections.blo ... ns-26.html

[historia]

"something to seize upon, to take advantage of."

Thank you; useful references but I don't see that as representing any difference to the conclusion.

Let's see if we can unpack this a bit, then.

To 'seize' means to take hold of something. That can either have the sense of (a) seizing something from someone else ("robbing"), or (b) seizing upon something that you already possess in order to use it for your own advantage ("exploiting").

To illustrate the latter sense with regard to harpagmos, let's look at one of the examples that Hoover cites in his work.

In De Adoratione 1.25, Cyril of Alexandria provides some commentary on Genesis 19:1-3, in which Lot invites two angels to lodge at his house. The angels initially decline Lot's invitation, but he presses them to accept it, even though doing so puts him and his family at peril, since it could bring about later violence from the other residents of Sodom. Cyril commends Lot's courage, saying:

"Lot did not regard his entreaty as harpagmon, as if it were from a listless and wishywashy heart."

Martin explains (pg. 289):

That is, Lot did not merely extend a half-hearted invitation, one that would be easily declined, to preserve both his honor (which required the invitation) and his safety (which required its refusal). Rather, he regarded his invitation as a matter of honor over advantage, and so was persistent in his entreaty, knowing well the danger it would bring upon his house.

In this example, Lot already possess the thing that he can seize upon for his own advantage. He is the one offering the invitation. And thus he can choose to offer it in such a way as to get himself off the hook, thus exploiting it to his own personal advantage. But he chooses not to do that, taking the honorable course instead.

So here, contrary to the sources you cited above, we have a clear example of harpagmos used in the sense of something to exploit.

The blog post you referenced above approvingly cites J.C. O'Neill's article "Hoover on Harpagmos Reviewed, with a Modest Proposal concerning Philippians 2:6" in Harvard Theological Review vol. 8, iss. 4 (1988), which is critical of some of Hoover's conclusions. But in that article O'Neill actually agrees with Hoover's first point that harpagma and harpagmos are likely synonyms. O'Neill concludes that "we cannot have any confidence in the blank assertion that the second word [harpagmos] must always be active in sense and mean 'robbery'" (pg. 446).

So even O'Neill doesn't support the contention that harpagmos in Phil. 2 must be understood in the sense of snatching or robbery. All of these modern scholars agree it can refer to something that someone currently possess that they can exploit to their own advantage.

The question, then, is simply which of the two options makes the best sense in the context of the hymn and Paul's use of it in Phil. 2.

[Wootah]

"something to seize upon, to take advantage of."

Thank you; useful references but I don't see that as representing any difference to the conclusion.

Let's see if we can unpack this a bit, then.

To 'seize' means to take hold of something. That can either have the sense of (a) seizing something from someone else ("robbing"), or (b) seizing upon something that you already possess in order to use it for your own advantage ("exploiting").

To illustrate the latter sense with regard to harpagmos, let's look at one of the examples that Hoover cites in his work.

In De Adoratione 1.25, Cyril of Alexandria provides some commentary on Genesis 19:1-3, in which Lot invites two angels to lodge at his house. The angels initially decline Lot's invitation, but he presses them to accept it, even though doing so puts him and his family at peril, since it could bring about later violence from the other residents of Sodom. Cyril commends Lot's courage, saying:

"Lot did not regard his entreaty as harpagmon, as if it were from a listless and wishywashy heart."

Martin explains (pg. 289):

That is, Lot did not merely extend a half-hearted invitation, one that would be easily declined, to preserve both his honor (which required the invitation) and his safety (which required its refusal). Rather, he regarded his invitation as a matter of honor over advantage, and so was persistent in his entreaty, knowing well the danger it would bring upon his house.

In this example, Lot already possess the thing that he can seize upon for his own advantage. He is the one offering the invitation. And thus he can choose to offer it in such a way as to get himself off the hook, thus exploiting it to his own personal advantage. But he chooses not to do that, taking the honorable course instead.

So here, contrary to the sources you cited above, we have a clear example of harpagmos used in the sense of something to exploit.

The blog post you referenced above approvingly cites J.C. O'Neill's article "Hoover on Harpagmos Reviewed, with a Modest Proposal concerning Philippians 2:6" in Harvard Theological Review vol. 8, iss. 4 (1988), which is critical of some of Hoover's conclusions. But in that article O'Neill actually agrees with Hoover's first point that harpagma and harpagmos are likely synonyms. O'Neill concludes that "we cannot have any confidence in the blank assertion that the second word [harpagmos] must always be active in sense and mean 'robbery'" (pg. 446).

So even O'Neill doesn't support the contention that harpagmos in Phil. 2 must be understood in the sense of snatching or robbery. All of these modern scholars agree it can refer to something that someone currently possess that they can exploit to their own advantage.

The question, then, is simply which of the two options makes the best sense in the context of the hymn and Paul's use of it in Phil. 2.

I appreciate your ability to argue on the finer points.

Here are someone common usages of siezed:


The King siezed his sword and readied for battle.

Seems a common thing to use sieze about our own things.

Another one: As the fire burnt the house the woman siezed her jewellery and ran.

[JehovahsWitness]

The King siezed his sword and readied for battle.

Seems a common thing to use sieze about our own things.

Another one: As the fire burnt the house the woman siezed her jewellery and ran.

Fair enough.

That said, the context implies that we are talking about innate qualities, inseperable from the persons essence. If Jesus was equal to Almighty God he could not arguably seperate himself from that equality ( like a sword or jewells one chooses not to wear). For example if instead of Jewels or a sword we are talking about beauty or love then while one can choose or not chose to use (or abuse) such powers but since its part of who one is , it cannot be set aside to be taken up at a later moment like an adornment or a weapon.

Indeed Paul contrasts what Jesus did not do (seize equality) with what he did do (agree to being sent to earth ) and subsequently what the Father did, promote Jesus to a higher position - all of which it totally incompatible imo, with the interactions between two equally Almighty individuals.

Still given the complexity of the verse, and despite claims to the contrary, the debate continues.

[historia]

That said, the context implies that we are talking about innate qualities, inseperable from the persons essence. If Jesus was equal to Almighty God he could not arguably seperate himself from that equality ( like a sword or jewells one chooses not to wear). For example if instead of Jewels or a sword we are talking about beauty or love then while one can choose or not chose to use (or abuse) such powers but since its part of who one is , it cannot be set aside to be taken up at a later moment like an adornment or a weapon.

I think your example of beauty here is a good one. Often times a beautiful woman, in particular, can exploit her attractiveness to her own advantage, like going up to the doorman at a nightclub and convincing him to let her skip the long line of people waiting to go in. A beautiful woman who chooses to wait in the long line even though she could have skipped it hasn't "set aside" or "separated" herself from her beauty, she just isn't exploiting it to her advantage.

Keep in mind, too, that what Hoover, Martin, and other modern scholars have demonstrated is that this expression "consider X something to be grasped" is an idiom. It doesn't refer to something you might literally take hold of. It just means something you can use to your advantage, whether that means something you've taken from someone else to use to your advantage, or something you already possess (even your own innate qualities) that you might wield to your own advantage.

We might keep that especially in mind when considering its use here in Phil. 2, since the Carmen Christi is evidently an early Christian hymn or poem, and so is likely using poetic or metaphorical language throughout.

[myth-one.com]

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... ersion=ESV

Philippians 2:5-11
English Standard Version
5 Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus,[a] 6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.

Jesus was the Word made flesh:

John 1:14
And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us.

"Though he (Jesus) was (past tense) in the form of God (as the Word), the Word did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped.

That is, the Word is a spiritual bodied being in the same form as God.

And the Word in the form of God never made any efforts to grasp or challenge God the Father's superiority or attempt to become equal unto God the Father.

<=======================================>

The Word made flesh, or Jesus Christ, was born as a Jewish human on the earth. Therefore, He was subject to the Covenant between God and the Children of Israel.

Jesus lived a sinless human life and became the only human to qualify as an heir to everlasting spiritual bodied life under that covenant. That is: the wages of sin is death, but Jesus never sinned, therefore He became the only heir to everlasting life under the first covenant.

However, Jesus will not accept His inheritance, but offer it as a gift to all humans who accept Him as their Savior from the wages of their sins.

Here is the biblical justification for that:

Romans 5:17
For if by one man's offence death reigned by one (Adam); much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.

This was formalized under the New Testament Covenant as follows:

John 3:16
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Thus, salvation is now a gift of God through Jesus Christ:

Romans 6:23
For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

That gift is the everlasting life which is Jesus' inheritance which He earned under the Old Testament Covenant!

The man Jesus Christ will not be born again of the Spirit (God) as a new everlasting spiritual bodied being as a result of His living a sinless human life under the Old Testament Covenant -- as He has freely given that inheritance to those sinful humans who believe in Him as their Savior from the wages of their sins.

<=============== Why all this? ====================>

Because their was a fault in the original "everlasting" covenant between God and man. The fault was that the original covenant had produced no heirs unto salvation -- as no man had ever lived a sinless life as required to gain everlasting life under that covenant.

The above is the justification for allowing for the "replacement" of the original covenant with a "new" covenant which corrected that fault.

[Wootah]

[Replying to myth-one.com in post #39]

I don't see your point in connection to the thread. How is it connected?