CAN oneness explain Phil. 2:6?

5 Comments

• 

  Reply June 26, 2019

  RichardAnna Boyce

  Philippians 2:5-6 Jesus Christ is the example par excellence of the humility Paul is talking about. The oneness of mind (let this mind be in you translates
  phroneœ) that Paul desires for the Philippian church is reflected in the person of Christ.

  The pre-incarnate Christ is described as being in the form (morph¢) of God. This pertains to His essence as God. Since Christ is God in His nature, His equality with God was not something to be grasped for. The NKJV translates harpagmos as robbery. Its basic meaning is to seize, desire, or hold on to. In other words, since Jesus was already fully God, He had no need to seek additional divine honor and status.

  So the first example of the humility of Christ is in heaven before the incarnation. He could simply rest in who He was and had no need to strive for additional prestige or position. In the same way, the Philippians were to in meekness put aside conceit and put others first.

• 

  Reply June 27, 2019

  Varnel Watson

  the person, the form, the shape or the type?

• 

  Reply June 27, 2019

  RichardAnna Boyce

  The Son of God”s preincarnate state is quite clearly in view here (cf. 2 Corinthians 8:9). He existed in the form of God. The word translated “form” (NASB) or “nature” (NIV, Gr. morphe) refers to outward appearance that accurately reveals the inward nature. It does not mean outward appearance that changes as a result of time and circumstances (Gr. schema, Philippians 2:7).

  “To say that he was existing in the essential metaphysical form of God is tantamount to saying that he possessed the nature of God.” [Note: Kent, p123.]

  The verb translated “existed” (NASB) or “being” (NIV) is in the present tense in the Greek text and points to the Lord”s continuing existence with the full nature of God. His full deity is not something Jesus Christ gave up or laid aside when He became a man at the Incarnation. [Note: See Dennis W. Jowers, “The Meaning of Morphe in Philippians 2:6-7 ,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society49:4 (December2006):739-66.]

  “This, then, is what it means for Christ to be “in the “form” of God”; it means “to be equal with God,” not in the sense that the two phrases are identical, but that both point to the same reality. Together, therefore, they are among the strongest expressions of Christ”s deity in the NT. This means further that “equality with God” is not that which he desired which was not his, but precisely that which was always his.” [Note: Fee, Paul”s Letter . . ., pp207-8.]

  The Lord Jesus” equality with God did change in some sense, however. The manner in which He existed as God changed when He became a man. He willingly adopted a manner of existence that was different from His father”s, namely, that of the God-man.

  “Our doctrine of Christ”s humiliation will be better understood if we put it midway between two pairs of erroneous views, making it the third of five. The list would be as follows: (1) Gess: The Logos gave up all divine attributes; (2) Thomasius: The Logos gave up relative attributes only [i.e, omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence]; (3) True View: The Logos gave up the independent exercise of divine attributes; (4) Old Orthodoxy: Christ gave up the use of divine attributes; (5) Anselm: Christ acted as if he did not possess divine attributes.” [Note: A. H. Strong, Systematic Theology, p704.]

  “. . . while it is not true that Christ in the incarnation surrendered the relative attributes of omnipresence, omnipotence and omniscience, He did embark upon a program where it was necessary to submit to a voluntary nonuse of these attributes in order to obtain His objectives. Christ does not seem to have ever exercised His divine attributes on His own behalf though they had abundant display in His miracles. This is qualified to some extent by the fact that His omniscience is revealed in His prophetic ministry, but He did not use His divine knowledge to make His own path easier. He suffered all the inconveniences of His day even though in His divine omniscience He had full knowledge of every human device ever conceived for human comfort. In His human nature there was growth in knowledge, but this must not be construed as a contradiction of His divine omniscience. Limitations in knowledge as well as limitations in power are related to the human nature and not to the divine. His omnipotence was manifested in many ways and specifically in the many miracles which He did, in some cases by the power of the Holy Spirit and in others on the basis of His own word of authority. Here again He did not use His omnipotence to make His way easy and He knew the fatigue of labor and travelling by walking. Though in His divine nature He was omnipresent, He did not use this attribute to avoid the long journeys on foot nor was He ever seen in His ministry in more than one place at a time. In a word, He restricted the benefits of His attributes as they pertained to His walk on earth and voluntarily chose not to use His powers to lift Himself above ordinary human limitations.

  “The act of kenosis as stated in Philippians 2may therefore be properly understood to mean that Christ surrendered no attribute of Deity, but that He did voluntarily restrict their independent use in keeping with His purpose of living among men and their limitations.” [Note: John F. Walvoord, Jesus Christ Our Lord, pp143-44. Cf Robert P. Lightner, Evangelical Theology, p84; and Charles C. Ryrie, Basic Theology, p262.]

  Jesus Christ did not regard His former manner of existence something that He wanted to hold onto. In view of the context this seems to be the correct interpretation. Another less likely possibility is that He did not need to grasp after equality with God since He already possessed it. A third undesirable alternative is that He did not grasp equality with God prematurely, as Adam did, but waited for the Father to bestow it on Him after His passion.

  Jesus was willing to alter His behavior for the welfare of others, and in this He is an example of submissiveness for us.

  “. . . his true nature is characterized not by selfish grabbing, but by an open-handed giving …” [Note: Hawthorne, p85.]

  Contrast Adam, who considered equality with God something to be seized. Adam tried to become like God by grasping, but Christ, who was God, became man by releasing. This analogy is only conceptual, however, since there are no linguistic parallels to the Genesis narrative here. [Note: Fee, Paul”s Letter …, p209.]

• 

  Reply June 27, 2019

  Varnel Watson

  RichardAnna Boyce I dont disagree I am trying to apply how oneness twists it to say Jesus changed from one role/shape/form into another – clearly NOT Biblical

• 

  Reply June 27, 2019

  Varnel Watson

  Philip Williams person, the form, the shape or the type? Wayne Scott