From: Grant (grant@cajun.net)
Date: Thu Dec 23 1999 - 01:43:14 EST
B-Greek:
I think regarding this subject, it may be wise to compare some of
Paul's other writing of Ephesians and Colossians. The reason I say this is
because as regards Christ's "wanting equality", "trying for equality," "not
needing the equality he had," or any other understanding may best be
understand when comparing other writings. Doesn't the same person usually
have a similar style?
Also, I think it is important that we view how the Philippians would
view such a statement. Paul, no doubt, in his mind expressed it clearly.
So when writing to the "average" person of that time--the members of the
congregation--it is important to see whether they would have come to that
conclusion. Paul no doubt would have expressed the same idea of his
conception of Christ to the other congregations as well. After all, the
letters were to be circulated.
Colossians 4:16 "And when this letter has been read among you, arrange that
it also be read in the congregation of the Laodiceans and that you also read
the one from Laodicea."
So a cross reference of Philippians 2:6 to Colossians 1:15 and Hebrews 1:3
may help clarify this "form of God."
Also, Philippians 2:5 says to have Christ' mental attitude. I think the key
lies in the identification of the "mental attitude."
For example, the attitude that Christ didn't strive for equality?
the attitude of humbleness?
the attitude that even Christ didn't try for equality?
the attitude that Christ didn't need to try for equality since he had it?
the attitude that Christ strived for it but not unrighteously?
at Philippians 2:6 hARPAGMON is found.
Notice some of it's verb meanings:
snatch away, carry off
seize hastily, snatch up
seize, overpower, overmaster
Since verse 6 says that Jesus did or did not attempt equality with God, a
person if forced to agree that the understanding of God here is "Father"
being that Jesus is the Son. Is that not simply logical?
so verse 6 would be understood to mean "existing in the father's form."
After all, it would not be sound reasoning to assign two different
definitions to God within one passage. (I'll probably regret that statement
but that's what makes sense)
So if we take this scripture to mean that he didn't attempt equality
with the **Father**, it would be abundantly in agreement with John 14:28
".....because the Father is greater than I [Jesus--Son] am."
Hence, from this sound logic, Jesus could properly say, "My father."
However, John 20:17 "... I am ascending to my Father and your Father and to
my God and your God."
He seemed (and this is an observance not a theological notion) to direct any
sense of Godship away from him.
it's interesting how Jesus linked the Father to his disciples' God.
So to interpret the passage of Philippians 2:6 within this perspective,
would reach a final understanding:
"Jesus did not attempt equality to the Supreme Height [not just the Father].
"
I think that this is the "mental attitude," namely, of lowliness of mind and
to lack pride.
I think verse 6 was merely an illustration (factual one of course) in which
he taught a quality in addition to the others. this would in turn build
their faith so they would have as Ken Johnson wisely brought out: "Courage
and Steadfastness"
grant Polle
usa
--- B-Greek home page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/bgreek You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu] To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-329W@franklin.oit.unc.edu To subscribe, send a message to subscribe-b-greek@franklin.oit.unc.edu
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:40:51 EDT