Philippians 2:7 Specifically ἑαυτὸν

froggy

Active member
Sure it is. Forgive me if I misunderstood you, but it appeared to me that you identify a pronoun as reflexive as if that is it's only function. Note Smyth:

1218. Direct Reflexives.—The reflexive pronouns are used directly when they refer to the chief word (usually the subject) of the sentence or clause in which they stand.
γνῶθι σεαυτόν learn to know thyself P. Charm. 164e

In the example "learn to know thyself" (γνῶθι σεαυτόν) the reflexive pronoun is reflexive and also the accusative direct object of the verb. The object of knowing is "thyself."

At Philippians 2 the reflexive pronoun is also the accusative direct object of the verb. Therefore what is known is "thyself" and what was emptied was "himself."

Being a reflexive pronoun and the direct object are not mutually exclusive properties.
I was talking specifically about that text.
 

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
I was talking specifically about that text.
Yes, I know.

The syntax and interpretation of an accusative direct object that is also a reflexive pronoun does not change for Philippians 2. The Smyth example fits it perfectly.

Are you inferring that it does not?

Once @Gryllus Maior saw I considered that κενόω was transitive and had the example from the 1911 JTS article by WWarren he argued based on other parts of the verse in favor of your shared theology.

The fact that "himself" is a reflexive pronoun is not something that advances your theological position because the subject of the verb empty is Jesus already.
 
Last edited:

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
Μορφή is "form, outward appearance, shape gener. of bodily form." (BDAG) God is a spirit and so I see form of God as a spirit body.
So "a spirit body" is an outward representation of God's formless Spirit which Jesus apparently had in Heaven prior to being born ?

Form of a slave is a baby human.
I thought you said Μορφή denotes outward appearance, shape etc. ? A human baby denotes a human being, an ontology.
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
Μορφή is "form, outward appearance, shape gener. of bodily form." (BDAG) God is a spirit and so I see form of God as a spirit body.
So "a spirit body" is an outward representation of God's formless Spirit which Jesus apparently had in Heaven prior to being born ?

Form of a slave is a baby human.
I thought you said Μορφή denotes outward appearance, shape etc. ? A human baby denotes a human being, an ontology.
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
I was mulling over Genesis 1:26 and noticed that ὁμοίωσις is used interchangeably with εἰκών to reiterate that man is created in the image of God. In other words the two words mean the same thing there:
καὶ εἶπεν ὁ θεός ποιήσωμεν ἄνθρωπον κατ᾽ εἰκόνα ἡμετέραν καὶ καθ᾽ ὁμοίωσιν καὶ ἀρχέτωσαν τῶν ἰχθύων τῆςθαλάσσης καὶ τῶν πετεινῶν τοῦ οὐρανοῦκαὶ τῶν κτηνῶν καὶ πάσης τῆς γῆς καὶπάντων τῶν ἑρπετῶν τῶν ἑρπόντων ἐπὶτῆς γῆς
So at James 3:9 we only have ὁμοίωσις to denote the fact:

ἐν αὐτῇ εὐλογοῦμεν τὸν Κύριον καὶ Πατέρα, καὶ ἐν αὐτῇ καταρώμεθα τοὺς ἀνθρώπους τοὺς καθ’ ὁμοίωσιν Θεοῦ γεγονότας·

μορφή , εἰκών, ὁμοίωσις
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
The same is true in Hebrew, where צֶלֶם (εἰκών) and דְּמוּת (ὁμοίωσις) mean the same thing:

1:26 וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹהִים נַֽעֲשֶׂהאָדָם בְּצַלְמֵנוּ כִּדְמוּתֵנוּ וְיִרְדּוּבִדְגַת הַיָּם וּבְעוֹף הַשָּׁמַיִםוּבַבְּהֵמָה וּבְכָל־הָאָרֶץוּבְכָל־הָרֶמֶשׂ הָֽרֹמֵשׂעַל־הָאָֽרֶץ׃
 

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
So "a spirit body" is an outward representation of God's formless Spirit which Jesus apparently had in Heaven prior to being born ?


I thought you said Μορφή denotes outward appearance, shape etc. ? A human baby denotes a human being, an ontology.
That you have a theological that God is a formless spirit is not evidence. At 1 John 3:2 Christians will see God as he is when they are resurrected. The form that is apparent to the eyes is μορφή.

As for the human baby being a slave, it's Paul who says this about the baby Jesus at Galatians 4:1-5, the same author as Philippians.

I don't know why you speak of ontology. That's a philosophical Trinitarian argument for μορφή at Philippians 2. I eschew philosophy.
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
That you have a theological that God is a formless spirit is not evidence. At 1 John 3:2 Christians will see God as he is when they are resurrected. The form that is apparent to the eyes is μορφή.

As for the human baby being a slave, it's Paul who says this about the baby Jesus at Galatians 4:1-5, the same author as Philippians.

I don't know why you speak of ontology. That's a philosophical Trinitarian argument for μορφή at Philippians 2. I eschew philosophy.

Quite peculiar indeed.

(1) I'm saying that there is no place in Scripture where "a spirit body" (whatever you mean by that) equals "the form of God," as you are suggesting. The very idea is incoherent.

(2) In Galatians 4 the apostle is not even alluding to the "baby Jesus" let alone saying that the "baby Jesus" was "a slave" or that "the baby Jesus" = "the form of a slave." Rather, the apostle is applying the slave motif here to the elect of God, who has received adoption as a son and an heir, and therefore no longer a slave.

ὥστε οὐκέτι εἶ δοῦλος ἀλλὰ υἱός· εἰ δὲ υἱός, καὶ κληρονόμος διὰ Θεοῦ.

Gal. 4:7
 

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
Quite peculiar indeed.

(1) I'm saying that there is no place in Scripture where "a spirit body" (whatever you mean by that) equals "the form of God," as you are suggesting. The very idea is incoherent.
And yet you also interpret the form of God in a way that is never done in Scripture. All BUs do. You do the same with the verb "empty" which is the topic that prompted your question


(2) In Galatians 4 the apostle is not even alluding to the "baby Jesus" let alone saying that the "baby Jesus" was "a slave" or that "the baby Jesus" = "the form of a slave." Rather, the apostle is applying the slave motif here to the elect of God, who has received adoption as a son and an heir, and therefore no longer a slave.

Nonsense.

In Galatians 1:1-5 Paul makes a point that uses νήπιός and applies that to Jesus.

Danker's concise:

νήπιος, α, ον [etym. complex] ‘a child in an early period of life’—a. infant Mt 21:16; child 1 Cor 13:11; in legal sense minor Gal 4:1, 3;
 

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
You will probably be glad to know that I'm not going to jump on the terrible argument you just made in the Trinity forum. I'll continue to let the blind argue with the blind.
I did not think you would. But you do make sure to mention any mistake I do make if you can support it, like the trivial typo on Galatians 4;1-5, so that's how O know it's an unassailable argument.

It's the literal view of the direct object of the verb that is also reflexive, and supported by the JTS article from 1911.

Good stuff!
 
Last edited:

Gryllus Maior

Well-known member
And yet you also interpret the form of God in a way that is never done in Scripture. All BUs do. You do the same with the verb "empty" which is the topic that prompted your question




Nonsense.

In Galatians 1:1-5 Paul makes a point that uses νήπιός and applies that to Jesus.

Danker's concise:

νήπιος, α, ον [etym. complex] ‘a child in an early period of life’—a. infant Mt 21:16; child 1 Cor 13:11; in legal sense minor Gal 4:1, 3;
νήπιος is applied to the Galatians (and by extension, to all believers), not directly in any way to Christ in this context. It is a law gospel contrast.


οὕτως καὶ ἡμεῖς, ὅτε ἦμεν νήπιοι, ὑπὸ τὰ στοιχεῖα τοῦ κόσμου ἤμεθα δεδουλωμένοι...

Christ is introduced primarily as the solution... ἵνα τοὺς ὑπὸ νόμον ἐξαγοράσῃ
 

John Milton

Well-known member
I did not think you would. But you did make sure to mention any mistake I do make if you can support it, like the trivial typo on Galatians 4;1-5, so that's how O know it's an unassailable argument.

It's the literal view of the direct object of the verb that is also reflexive, and supported by the JTS article from 1911.

Good stuff!
I correct scriptural citations as a courtesy. If I put the wrong scripture, I would want someone to point it out to me.
 

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
νήπιος is applied to the Galatians (and by extension, to all believers), not directly in any way to Christ in this context. It is a law gospel contrast.


οὕτως καὶ ἡμεῖς, ὅτε ἦμεν νήπιοι, ὑπὸ τὰ στοιχεῖα τοῦ κόσμου ἤμεθα δεδουλωμένοι...

Christ is introduced primarily as the solution... ἵνα τοὺς ὑπὸ νόμον ἐξαγοράσῃ
And that's how I apply it too.

The fact remains that in the culture of the time where and when Paul wrote Philippians and Galatians a child that was not of age was considered δούλος.
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
And yet you also interpret the form of God in a way that is never done in Scripture. All BUs do. You do the same with the verb "empty" which is the topic that prompted your question
.You are doing that.

Nonsense. In Galatians 1:1-5 Paul makes a point that uses νήπιός and applies that to Jesus.

Danker's concise:

νήπιος, α, ον [etym. complex] ‘a child in an early period of life’—a. infant Mt 21:16; child 1 Cor 13:11; in legal sense minor Gal 4:1, 3;
Repeating something false does not make it true. “Paul” never directly applies νήπιός to Jesus here. Even an indirect application to him would be hard to justify.
 
Top