"Consider" in Phil 2:6 proves the Deity of Jesus.

Towerwatchman

Active member
"Consider" in Phil 2:6 proves the Deity of Jesus.



He [Satan] was apparently close enough to God to “taste” what it would be like to be Him, and considered such “equality” enough of a possibility that he thought he could get away with grasping for it. Instead, he lost his relationship with his Creator (because he apparently overlooked the fact that he was created), [ One God & One Lord: Reconsidering the Cornerstone of the Christian Faith]

Consider = think carefully about (something), typically before making a decision.

According to the above, what was Satan carefully thinking about? To make a decision one needs to have more than one option therefore, he decided between considering it something to be grasped and not to be grasped and then executed his choice. Satan a created being considered possessing something, that by the very definition of ‘created’ disqualifies him from possessing? Question: when did Satan sin? When he coveted what was not his.

If Jesus is a created being, then the same that applied to Satan when he considered equality with God, should apply to Jesus when He considers His equality with God. But that is not the case, why?

Note: to have not considered equality with God something to be grasped, Jesus would have considered it something to grasp also. How is this established? By the conjunction “but” [Phil 2:7]= which is contrastive suggesting an oppositional thought or relationship to the word, phrase, or clause to which it is connected.
How does a created being come to the conclusion that he is equal with God? The very fact that he is created, makes him a creation of the creator; therefore not eternal. If Jesus and Satan are both created beings, why is Satan condemned for the same thing that Jesus is rewarded for?
 

Yahchristian

Well-known member
"Consider = think carefully about (something), typically before making a decision.
To make a decision one needs to have more than one option therefore, he decided between considering it something to be grasped and not to be grasped and then executed his choice.

Good point.

Since the Son of God was considering this BEFORE he was born to Mary...

What were the options Jesus was considering (BEFORE he was born to Mary)?

I believe Jesus’ options were...
A) remain “in the form of God” (GOD in the universe as a human with a glorious body)
B) exchange his glorious body for a mortal body to be “in the likeness of men” so he could make reconciliation for our sins

Here is an overview of what I believe...

For this creation, GOD (the only one who transcends all creations) determined to create a universe with a kingdom of redeemed humans for his glory where he would reign as a human himself. The Scriptures describe how GOD would accomplish his plan. In an instant, eternal GOD (called God the Father) created the supernatural and spacetime of this universe and also became immanent in the universe as spirit (called the Spirit of God) and as a human with a glorious body (called the Son of God). God the Father then created all things within the universe by the power of the Spirit of God commanded by the Son of God (whose name is Jesus). But whereas GOD created a spirit and soul for each of us, GOD himself became the spirit and soul of Jesus. At his conception, Jesus' glorious body was changed to a mortal body to be made like us so he could make reconciliation for our sins. At his resurrection, Jesus' mortal body was changed back to a glorious body and he will also give each of his elect a glorious body when he returns to reign in his kingdom forever.
 

Towerwatchman

Active member
Good point.

Since the Son of God was considering this BEFORE he was born to Mary...

What were the options Jesus was considering (BEFORE he was born to Mary)?

I believe Jesus’ options were...
A) remain “in the form of God” (GOD in the universe as a human with a glorious body)
B) exchange his glorious body for a mortal body to be “in the likeness of men” so he could make reconciliation for our sins
That is not what the text reads. It reads “Being in the form of” = the actual state of being. Paul is writing chronologically. 1st Jesus has always been in the form of God. 2nd takes on the form of man. 3rd Dies. 4th Exulted by God.
The narrative does not start off with Jesu being in human
Here is an overview of what I believe...

For this creation, GOD (the only one who transcends all creations) determined to create a universe with a kingdom of redeemed humans for his glory where he would reign as a human himself.
Have a problem here. If God pre-planned that we will be redeemed, then the fall of Adam was His doing.
Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am tempted by God”; for God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does He Himself tempt anyone.[Ja 1:13]
In your scenario God is deceitful.
The Scriptures describe how GOD would accomplish his plan. In an instant, eternal GOD (called God the Father) created the supernatural and spacetime of this universe and also became immanent in the universe as spirit (called the Spirit of God) and as a human with a glorious body (called the Son of God). God the Father then created all things within the universe by the power of the Spirit of God commanded by the Son of God (whose name is Jesus). But whereas GOD created a spirit and soul for each of us, GOD himself became the spirit and soul of Jesus. At his conception, Jesus' glorious body was changed to a mortal body to be made like us so he could make reconciliation for our sins. At his resurrection, Jesus' mortal body was changed back to a glorious body and he will also give each of his elect a glorious body when he returns to reign in his kingdom forever.

What you have here is Modalism. Following the OP. What was Jesus thinking carefully about? To make a decision Jesus needed to have more than one option to decide on, therefore He decided between considering it something to be grasped, and not to be grasped. Therefore to be able to consider between two options Jesus would have to have the cognitive ability to freely choose, otherwise known as free will, which originates from a center of consciousness. And if a center of consciousness wth free will and cognitive ability to think, [consider] His equality with a separate center of consciousness from Himself [Father, HS, or both] = three centers of consciousness within the being God.

Following your narrative, God the Father considered His equality with Himself. Does that make sense?
 

Yahchristian

Well-known member
To make a decision Jesus needed to have more than one option to decide on, therefore He decided between considering it something to be grasped, and not to be grasped.

I am pretty sure you believe this refers to the Word (Jesus’ divine nature) making a decision, and not his human nature (which does not exist at that moment).

Are you saying the divine nature of Jesus was deciding between being equal with God and not being equal with God?

If not, please fill in the blanks...


The Word was deciding between __________ and ________.

I believe believe the Word was deciding between remaining “in the form of God” (GOD in the universe as a human with a glorious body) and exchanging his glorious body for a mortal body to be “in the likeness of men” so he could make reconciliation for our sins.
 

OldShepherd

Well-known member
I am pretty sure you believe this refers to the Word (Jesus’ divine nature) making a decision, and not his human nature (which does not exist at that moment).
Are you saying the divine nature of Jesus was deciding between being equal with God and not being equal with God?
If not, please fill in the blanks...
The Word was deciding between __________ and ________.
I believe believe the Word was deciding between remaining “in the form of God” (GOD in the universe as a human with a glorious body) and exchanging his glorious body for a mortal body to be “in the likeness of men” so he could make reconciliation for our sins.
The KJV was the best that mortal man could produce at the time of its translation but since that time additional scrolls and manuscripts have been discovered which reveals information not known at that time.
Jesus existed in one form, Philippians 2, vs. 6, but took upon himself another form, vs. 7.
What was Jesus’ form before? If he was literally, actually a man afterward what was he literally, actually before?
Philippians 2:6-11 6. Who, being [continual existence] in the form [μορφη] of God, thought it not robbery [something to be grasped] to be equal with God:
(Greek Interlinear) Philippians 2:6-11 ος {who,} εν {in [the]} μορφη {form} θεου {of god} υπαρχων {subsisting,} ουχ {not} αρπαγμον {something to be used to his own advantage} ηγησατο το {esteemed it} ειναι {the being} ισα {equal} θεω {with god;}
The verb ειναι, translated ”to be,” in the KJV, which appears to be a future tense in English, is a present infinitive, not a future tense. “the being equal with god,” was a, then, present reality not something considered and rejected.
7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him[self] the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:​
Jesus’ earthly ministry occurred between verses, 7 and 8. Where the one who was equal with God, vs. 6, the one who, acting upon himself, became flesh, cf. John 1:14, made himself of no reputation, vs. 7, cf. Heb 2:17, took upon himself the form of a servant, and was in the likeness of men, vs. 7. After which God, not merely exalted him, but “highly exalted” him, and glorified him with the same glory he had with the Father before the world existed (John 17:5)
It was here where all the things anti-Trinitarians cannot comprehend happened, e.g. “If Jesus was God, why didn’t he know the hour of his return?” etc., etc., etc.
8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.​
If Jesus was only a mere human being, how does a human being, “humble himself and become obedient unto death?” All mankind is appointed to death, no obedience or humbling involved! Heb 9:27. Were the criminals who were crucified with Jesus also obedient, did they also humble themselves unto death on the cross?
9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:
10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, cf. [יהוה/YHWH, Isa 45:23] of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;
11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, cf. [ יהוה/YHWH, Isa 45:23] to the glory of God the Father.​
In verses 10,11 Paul applies Isaiah 45:23, which refers to יהוה/YHWH], to Jesus as I have shown above!
 

OldShepherd

Well-known member
The Committee on Bible Translation worked at updating the New International Version of the Bible to be published in 2011.
In it's notes under "Progress in Scholarship" it discusses the following change:
When the NIV was first translated, the meaning of the rare Greek word αρπαγμον /harpagmos, rendered ‟something to be grasped,” in Philippians 2:6 was uncertain. But further study has shown that the word refers to something that a person has in their possession but chooses not to use to their own advantage. The updated NIV reflects this new information, making clear that Jesus really was equal with God when he determined to become a human for our sake: ‟[Christ Jesus], being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage.”​
See full translators notes at: Bible Gateway NIV Translator’s Notes
A short excerpt from the 25 page Harvard theological review article αρπαγμον /harpagmos, by Roy Hoover, referenced in the NIV.
O petros de arpagmon ton dia stavrou thanton epoieito dia tas soterious elpidas
(And Peter considered death by means of the cross harpagmon on account of the hope of salvation, Comm in Luc 6)
Tines…ton thanaton arpagma themenoi ten ton dussebon moxtherias
(Since some regarded death as harpagma in comparison with the depravity of ungodly men. Hist. Eccl VCIII,12.2)
Not only are arpagma and arpagmos used synonymously in these two statements, but they are used synonymously by the same author in reference to the same object—death—and in expressions whose form precisely parallels that of the arpagmos remark in Phil 2:6.
What [Eusebius] wants to say, rather, is that because of the hope of salvation crucifixion was not a horror to be shunned, but an advantage to be seized.
“Arpagma” is used exactly this way in Hist. Eccl. VIII,12.2. At this point Eusebius is recounting the sufferings of Christians in periods of persecution. Some believers in order to escape torture threw themselves down from rooftops. There can be no suggestion of “robbery” or of violent self-assertion in this remark, nor can self-inflicted death under such circumstances be considered an unanticipated windfall.
Roy W. Hoover, Harvard Theological Review (1971) 95-119, pg. 108
Link to: Hoover Article
 

Yahchristian

Well-known member
The KJV was the best that mortal man could produce at the time of its translation but since that time additional scrolls and manuscripts have been discovered which reveals information not known at that time.

Are you able to fill in the blanks?

The Word was deciding between __________ and ________.

I believe the Word was deciding between remaining “in the form of God” (GOD in the universe as a human with a glorious body) and exchanging his glorious body for a mortal body to be “in the likeness of men” so he could make reconciliation for our sins.
 

OldShepherd

Well-known member
Are you able to fill in the blanks?
The Word was deciding between __________ and ________.
I believe the Word was deciding between remaining “in the form of God” (GOD in the universe as a human with a glorious body) and exchanging his glorious body for a mortal body to be “in the likeness of men” so he could make reconciliation for our sins.
Not exactly how I might phrase it but close. The point I made was "the being equal with God" [the correct way of translating the phrase] was a then and there reality not something external to Jesus to be sought or obtained somehow as various heterodox groups try to rephrase it. The Greek word "harpagmos" incorrectly translated "robbery" in the KJV means something the individual already possesses, which may or may not be used to their advantage. The links I provided thoroughly explain this.
 

Yahchristian

Well-known member
Not exactly how I might phrase it but close.

I wasn’t asking you if you agreed with how I phrased it.

I want to know how YOU would phrase it.

So please tell us how YOU would fill in the blanks...

The Word was deciding between __________ and ________.

I believe the Word was deciding between remaining “in the form of God” (GOD in the universe as a human with a glorious body) and exchanging his glorious body for a mortal body to be “in the likeness of men” so he could make reconciliation for our sins.
 

OldShepherd

Well-known member
I wasn’t asking you if you agreed with how I phrased it.
I want to know how YOU would phrase it.
So please tell us how YOU would fill in the blanks...
The Word was deciding between __________ and ________.
I believe the Word was deciding between remaining “in the form of God” (GOD in the universe as a human with a glorious body) and exchanging his glorious body for a mortal body to be “in the likeness of men” so he could make reconciliation for our sins.
I don't do this type of post. I gave the only answer I choose to if that is not satisfactory too bad.
 

johnny guitar

Well-known member
Good point.

Since the Son of God was considering this BEFORE he was born to Mary...

What were the options Jesus was considering (BEFORE he was born to Mary)?

I believe Jesus’ options were...
A) remain “in the form of God” (GOD in the universe as a human with a glorious body)
B) exchange his glorious body for a mortal body to be “in the likeness of men” so he could make reconciliation for our sins

Here is an overview of what I believe...

For this creation, GOD (the only one who transcends all creations) determined to create a universe with a kingdom of redeemed humans for his glory where he would reign as a human himself. The Scriptures describe how GOD would accomplish his plan. In an instant, eternal GOD (called God the Father) created the supernatural and spacetime of this universe and also became immanent in the universe as spirit (called the Spirit of God) and as a human with a glorious body (called the Son of God). God the Father then created all things within the universe by the power of the Spirit of God commanded by the Son of God (whose name is Jesus). But whereas GOD created a spirit and soul for each of us, GOD himself became the spirit and soul of Jesus. At his conception, Jesus' glorious body was changed to a mortal body to be made like us so he could make reconciliation for our sins. At his resurrection, Jesus' mortal body was changed back to a glorious body and he will also give each of his elect a glorious body when he returns to reign in his kingdom forever.
God does NOT have a body. You sound like a Mormon.
 

Towerwatchman

Active member
I am pretty sure you believe this refers to the Word (Jesus’ divine nature) making a decision, and not his human nature (which does not exist at that moment).
Decisions do not originate from 'nature'.

Essence =is properly described as that whereby a thing is what it is; the essence of a thing is that which is expressed by its definition.
Nature = is that whereby it acts as it does,
Mind =set of faculties such as thought, will, memory which are responsible for perception, emotion, desire, etc.
Center of consciousness = having a first-person perspective, possessing individual thought, being aware of what is happening internally and externally.
Will = minds faculty that selects.
What initiates my mind to select [will], what decides which memory to bring up, what line of reason to use, or which desire is appropriate? Essence, nature, or mind? No, my center of consciousness.

Following your narrative, to a logical conclusion, your Jesus possesses two centers of consciousness divine and human. Your Jesus has a psychological condition.

The Word was deciding between __________ and ________.
Made Himself of no reputation (ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσεν). Lit., emptied Himself. The general sense is that He divested Himself of that peculiar mode of existence which was proper and peculiar to Him as one with God. He laid aside the form of God. In so doing, He did not divest Himself of His divine nature. The change was a change of state: the form of a servant for the form of God. His personality continued the same. His self-emptying was not self-extinction, nor was the divine Being changed into a mere man. In His humanity He retained the consciousness of deity, and in His incarnate state carried out the mind which animated Him before His incarnation. He was not unable to assert equality with God. He was able not to assert it.[1]



Lit. Literally.
[1] Vincent, M. R. (1887). Word studies in the New Testament (Vol. 3, pp. 432–433). New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.
I believe believe the Word was deciding between remaining “in the form of God” (GOD in the universe as a human with a glorious body) and exchanging his glorious body for a mortal body to be “in the likeness of men” so he could make reconciliation for our sins.
Again you have a problem that you either cannot or will not reconcile.
Paul is writing chronologically. 1st Jesus has always been in the form of God. 2nd takes on the form of man. 3rd Dies. 4th Exulted by God. It does not read that Jesus existed in the universe as a human.
BTW you don't get to redefine terms. “in the form of God” has never equated to (GOD in the universe as a human with a glorious body).
“Being in the form of” = the actual state of being. =GOD.
 

Yahchristian

Well-known member
Ditto he/she is utterly ridiculous and will rephrase the question a 1000 different ways ad nauseum

A TRINITARIAN started this thread by saying...

What was Satan carefully thinking about? To make a decision one needs to have more than one option therefore, he decided between considering it something to be grasped and not to be grasped and then executed his choice.
If Jesus is a created being, then the same that applied to Satan when he considered equality with God, should apply to Jesus when He considers His equality with God.

So TRINITARIANS believe the Word was deciding between (A) equality with God was something to be grasped and (B) equality with God was not to be grasped.

Correct?
 

Our Lord's God

Well-known member
"Consider" in Phil 2:6 proves the Deity of Jesus.



He [Satan] was apparently close enough to God to “taste” what it would be like to be Him, and considered such “equality” enough of a possibility that he thought he could get away with grasping for it. Instead, he lost his relationship with his Creator (because he apparently overlooked the fact that he was created), [ One God & One Lord: Reconsidering the Cornerstone of the Christian Faith]

Consider = think carefully about (something), typically before making a decision.

According to the above, what was Satan carefully thinking about? To make a decision one needs to have more than one option therefore, he decided between considering it something to be grasped and not to be grasped and then executed his choice. Satan a created being considered possessing something, that by the very definition of ‘created’ disqualifies him from possessing? Question: when did Satan sin? When he coveted what was not his.

If Jesus is a created being, then the same that applied to Satan when he considered equality with God, should apply to Jesus when He considers His equality with God. But that is not the case, why?

Note: to have not considered equality with God something to be grasped, Jesus would have considered it something to grasp also. How is this established? By the conjunction “but” [Phil 2:7]= which is contrastive suggesting an oppositional thought or relationship to the word, phrase, or clause to which it is connected.
How does a created being come to the conclusion that he is equal with God? The very fact that he is created, makes him a creation of the creator; therefore not eternal. If Jesus and Satan are both created beings, why is Satan condemned for the same thing that Jesus is rewarded for?

The passage doesn't say Jesus considered equality with God. It says this was something he didn't do.
 

Leatherneck0311

Well-known member
I wasn’t asking you if you agreed with how I phrased it.

I want to know how YOU would phrase it.

So please tell us how YOU would fill in the blanks...

The Word was deciding between __________ and ________.

I believe the Word was deciding between remaining “in the form of God” (GOD in the universe as a human with a glorious body) and exchanging his glorious body for a mortal body to be “in the likeness of men” so he could make reconciliation for our sins.
Between the cross and or summoning legions of angels to deliver Him.
 

Towerwatchman

Active member
The passage doesn't say Jesus considered equality with God. It says this was something he didn't do.
6 who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, [nkjv]

Note 'robbery' Because of the translation most people read it as a verb, but in reality, it is a noun.

The rare Greek word αρπαγμον /harpagmos, rendered ‟something to be grasped,” in Philippians 2:6 refers to something that a person has in their possession but chooses not to use to their own advantage. The NIV reflects this new information, making clear that Jesus really was equal with God when he determined to become a human for our sake: ‟[Christ Jesus], being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage.”

It is a noun and not a verb, referring to equality as something already possessed by Jesus, but He did not choose to use it.
 

Anthony

Active member
God does NOT have a body. You sound like a Mormon.
He did have from the beginning in heaven. God as Spirit can't interact with the physical world. That's why there was The WORD with God and The WORD was God.

The OT fathers have seen God face to face with God. Yet God as Spirit, no one has seen nor can see.

The Son of God in NT is the same One Who appeared as The Messenger and spoke as The Father to Israel.

Read Gen 1:3 and see Apostle Paul's interpretation of the same in 2Cor 4:6.

He has been with the Body as the firstborn of old creation:

Col 1:15 who is the likeness of the invisible Elohim, the first-born of all creation.

He is now firstborn of new creation

Col 1:18 And He is the Head of the body, the assembly, who is the beginning, the first-born from the dead, that He might become the One who is first in all.

That's why He refers Himself as the Son of Man.

Mary had nothing to do with the body of Christ as His body was prepared from heaven. That's He could be the Lamb without spot. His blood was God's own. He the bread that came down from heaven - the bread that we eat for eternal life.

He came in likeness of sinful flesh but not exactness. That's why He wasn't called The Son of Man by the virtue of His birth through Mary but He was called The Christ, The Son of the living God.

YHWH is a Man of war:

Exod 15: 3 The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name.

Isaiah 42:13 The LORD shall go forth as a mighty man, he shall stir up jealousy like a man of war: he shall cry, yea, roar; he shall prevail against his enemies.

EZK 1:26 And above the firmament that was over their heads was the likeness of a throne, as the appearance of a sapphire stone: and upon the likeness of the throne was the likeness as the appearance of a man above upon it.
 
Top