Philippians 2:7 Specifically ἑαυτὸν

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
.You are doing that.

It's unavoidable because the term is only found here. So you will do it as well if you exegete the passage.

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.

What I said was:

"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."

I don't maintain that it is applied to Jesus at Galatians 4.
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
So you are retracting the following then , which you wrote ?

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

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
You said this about Gal. 4:1-5

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.

So you gave the wrong verse and chapter. Why couldn’t you just have said so , especially since you are hiding your posts from my view ? But Gal. 1:1-5 also does not call Christ a νήπιός. You seem to be very confused.
 

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
You said this about Gal. 4:1-5



So you gave the wrong verse and chapter. Why couldn’t you just have said so , especially since you are hiding your posts from my view ? But Gal. 1:1-5 also does not call Christ a νήπιός. You seem to be very confused.
I see Ga 4:1 as an allusion to Christ as it refers to the Lord of all things. But I also agree with @Gryllus Maior that the main thrust is Christ as the solution.

So I nuanced my argument a bit better than before.

But as for the use of child for δούλος and applying that concept to Philippians 2, I think it does just fine.
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
The word νήπιος occurs about 15 times in the bible, it is NEVER used of Jesus ( either directly or indirectly). You need to retract that false assertion publicly before “nuancing” your argument. Otherwise foolish/unsuspecting posters at Carm. might just take your word for it and be led astray.
 

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
The word νήπιος occurs about 15 times in the bible, it is NEVER used of Jesus ( either directly or indirectly). You need to retract that false assertion publicly before “nuancing” your argument. Otherwise foolish/unsuspecting posters at Carm. might just take your word for it and be led astray.
Lol!!!

So because that specific word for child is never used of Jesus you deny he ever was one? What, was he born an adult?
 

Gryllus Maior

Active member
So you are retracting the following then , which you wrote ?

In Galatians 1:1-5 Paul makes a point that uses νήπιός and applies that to Jesus.
Some clarification would be nice, and the point of comparison is not that Jesus is a νήπιος, but that God's people were prior to coming into relationship with Jesus. νήπιος often has implications of foolishness, and it's hard to see that applied to Jesus. Similarly δοῦλος -- the son and heir is not a δοῦλος per se, but shares certain elements of being under that type of authority until he comes into his inheritance. In a parallel fashion, God's people are slaves (to what?) until they turn to Christ and become heirs and sons. BTW, in Latin, the freeborn children of the paterfamilias (head of the household) were called liberi (literally "free") where as a slave child was called a verna. So at least the Romans made this distinction quite sharply, and Paul must have been aware of that, living as a Roman citizen in the Empire.
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
Lol!!!

So because that specific word for child is never used of Jesus you deny he ever was one? What, was he born an adult?

Why try to change the subject with a red herring?

I’m not denying that Jesus was ever a child ofcourse, just your false assertion that “Paul” applies the word νήπιός to Jesus in Galatians ( or anywhere else in scripture, for that matter). When Jesus is called a “child” in the GNT, the words used are βρέφος and παιδίον , never νήπιός. βρέφος is a term for a new born, παιδίον someone who is slightly older but still not an adult.
 

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
Some clarification would be nice, and the point of comparison is not that Jesus is a νήπιος, but that God's people were prior to coming into relationship with Jesus. νήπιος often has implications of foolishness, and it's hard to see that applied to Jesus. Similarly δοῦλος -- the son and heir is not a δοῦλος per se, but shares certain elements of being under that type of authority until he comes into his inheritance. In a parallel fashion, God's people are slaves (to what?) until they turn to Christ and become heirs and sons. BTW, in Latin, the freeborn children of the paterfamilias (head of the household) were called liberi (literally "free") where as a slave child was called a verna. So at least the Romans made this distinction quite sharply, and Paul must have been aware of that, living as a Roman citizen in the Empire.
Clarification is good and BDAG does a good job. Rather than "silly" the νήπιοι are the child-like, innocent ones, unspoiled by learning, with whom God is pleased Mt 11:25; Lk 10:21

Liddell Scott does give a metaphorical usage from Homer for silly. But BDAG does not because it is not "our literature."

Don't you think that we should inform our Christian view from what Jesus said?


5112 νήπιος
• νήπιος, ία, ιον (Hom.+; ins, pap, LXX, En; TestSol 18:25 L; Test12Patr; JosAs 12:7 cod. A; ApcEsdr 5:3 p. 29, 27 Tdf.; SibOr; Philo, Joseph.; Ar. 10, 7; Tat. 30, 1; Ath., R. 17 p. 68, 31) in Gk. lit. ν. gener. refers to beings ranging from fetal status to puberty. In our lit.

1. a very young child, infant, child
a. lit. (ViDa 1 [p. 76, 13 Sch.]; Jos., Ant. 6, 262; Ar. [Milne 76, 40] ἐὰν δὲ νήπιον ἐξέλθῃ; Orig., C. Cels. 3, 48, 26 ἀμαθὴς καὶ ἀνόητος καὶ ἀπαίδευτος καὶ ν.; Theoph. Ant. 2, 25 [p. 160, 6] Ἀδὰμ ἔτη ν. ἦν) ὡς ν. βρέφη like veritable babes Hs 9, 29, 1. Usu. subst. child sing. 1 Cor 13:11abcd (for ν. opp. ἀνήρ Orig., C. Cels. 3, 59, 23); τὰ τοῦ ν. childish ways vs. 11e. Pl. τὰ ν. (sc. βρέφη) Hm 2:1; s 9, 29, 1. The gen. pl. of the neut. is prob. to be understood Mt
21:16 (Ps 8:3; s. JGeorgacas, ClPl 76, ’58, 155).

b. fig.; the transition to the fig. sense is found Hb 5:13 where the νήπιος, who is fed w. the milk of elementary teaching, is contrasted w. the τέλειος=‘mature person’, who can take the solid food of the main teachings (s. also 1 Cor 3:1f). In this connection the ν. is one who views
spiritual things fr. the standpoint of a child. W. this can be contrasted

α. the state of the more advanced Christian, to which the ν. may aspire (Ps 118:130; Philo, Migr. Abr. 46; Iren. 4, 38, 1 [Harv. II 293, 2]) ITr 5:1. ἵνα μηκέτι ὦμεν νήπιοι Eph 4:14. A Judean as διδάσκαλος νηπίων Ro 2:20. νήπιος ἐν Χριστῷ immature Christian 1 Cor 3:1 (cp. ὡς νηπίοις, ὁ ἄρτος ὁ τέλειος τοῦ πατρὸς, γάλα ἡμῖν ἑαυτὸν παρέσχεν [on the accent s. Schwyzer I 391] ‘seeing that we were but infants, the perfect bread [=the Son of God] of the Father gave himself as milk to us’ Iren. 4, 38, 1 [Harv. II 293, 8]; JWeiss, Paulin. Probleme: Die Formel ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ, StKr 69, 1896, 1-33). Harnack, Die Terminologie d. Wiedergeburt: TU XLII 3, 1918, 97ff.

β. The contrast can also be w. the ideas expressed by σοφός, συνετός, and then the νήπιοι are the child-like, innocent ones, unspoiled by learning, with whom God is pleased Mt 11:25; Lk 10:21 (GKilpatrick, JTS 48, ’47, 63f; WGrundmann, NTS 5, ’58/’59, 188-205; SLégasse, Jésus et l’enfant [synopt.], ’69). Cp. also 1 Cl 57:7 (Pr 1:32).

2. one who is not yet of legal age, minor, not yet of age, legal t.t. (UPZ 20, 22 [II BC] ἔτι νηπίας οὔσας ὁ πατὴρ ἀπέδωκεν εἰς σύστασιν Πτολεμαίῳ) ἐφ᾿ ὅσον χρόνον ὁ
κληρονόμος ν. ἐστιν as long as the heir is a minor Gal 4:1. Fig. vs. 3.—In 1 Th 2:7 νήπιοι is accepted by Lachmann and W-H., as well as by interpreters fr. Origen to Wohlenberg, Frame, et al.; Goodsp., Probs. 177f. S. also SFowl, NTS 36, ’90, 469-73: the metaphors of infant and nurse are complementary. Others, incl. Tdf., HermvSoden, BWeiss, Bornemann, vDobschütz, Dibelius, Steinmann, prefer ἤπιοι (v.l.), and regard the ν of νήπιοι as the result of dittography fr. the preceding word ἐγενήθημεν (s. the entry ἤπιος). MLacroix, Ηπιος/Νηπιος: Mélanges Desrousseaux ’37, 260-72.; B. 92.—New Docs 1, 116; 4, 40. DELG. M-M. TW. Sv.
 

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
Why try to change the subject with a red herring?

I’m not denying that Jesus was ever a child ofcourse, just your false assertion that “Paul” applies the word νήπιός to Jesus in Galatians ( or anywhere else in scripture, for that matter). When Jesus is called a “child” in the GNT, the words used are βρέφος and παιδίον , never νήπιός. βρέφος is a term for a new born, παιδίον someone who is slightly older but still not an adult.
If you applied this hermeneutic to your view of passages like the Word that supposedly was spoken by God facing him at John 1:1b, you would have no argument whatsoever and mine looks good by comparison. It's easy to poke holes in someone else's view when you won't defend your view of what it meant for Jesus to go from the form of God to the form of a slave.

Care to share?
 

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
Some clarification would be nice, and the point of comparison is not that Jesus is a νήπιος, but that God's people were prior to coming into relationship with Jesus. νήπιος often has implications of foolishness, and it's hard to see that applied to Jesus. Similarly δοῦλος -- the son and heir is not a δοῦλος per se, but shares certain elements of being under that type of authority until he comes into his inheritance. In a parallel fashion, God's people are slaves (to what?) until they turn to Christ and become heirs and sons. BTW, in Latin, the freeborn children of the paterfamilias (head of the household) were called liberi (literally "free") where as a slave child was called a verna. So at least the Romans made this distinction quite sharply, and Paul must have been aware of that, living as a Roman citizen in the Empire.
Upon more reflection the passage does represent Jesus as being born under the law. Humans under law were slaves until he freed them from it. So the form of a slave could be a Jew born under the law which applies to Jesus in this passage.
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
Roger wrongly thinks that Jesus went from the form of God to the form of a slave. The text says no such thing:

ὃς ἐν μορφῇ Θεοῦ ὑπάρχων οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγήσατο τὸ εἶναι ἴσα Θεῷ, ἀλλὰ ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσεν μορφὴν δούλου λαβών, ἐν ὁμοιώματι ἀνθρώπων γενόμενος· καὶ σχήματι εὑρεθεὶς ὡς ἄνθρωπος

The text is saying that although Jesus was existing ὑπάρχων (i.e. continued existing) in the form/image of God, he took on the characteristics of a slave.

This is the first order of business, to understand that it's not either one (form of God) or the other (form of a slave), but both were true of Jesus while he was here with us.
 

Gryllus Maior

Active member
Clarification is good and BDAG does a good job. Rather than "silly" the νήπιοι are the child-like, innocent ones, unspoiled by learning, with whom God is pleased Mt 11:25; Lk 10:21

Liddell Scott does give a metaphorical usage from Homer for silly. But BDAG does not because it is not "our literature."

Don't you think that we should inform our Christian view from what Jesus said?


5112 νήπιος
• νήπιος, ία, ιον (Hom.+; ins, pap, LXX, En; TestSol 18:25 L; Test12Patr; JosAs 12:7 cod. A; ApcEsdr 5:3 p. 29, 27 Tdf.; SibOr; Philo, Joseph.; Ar. 10, 7; Tat. 30, 1; Ath., R. 17 p. 68, 31) in Gk. lit. ν. gener. refers to beings ranging from fetal status to puberty. In our lit.

1. a very young child, infant, child
a. lit. (ViDa 1 [p. 76, 13 Sch.]; Jos., Ant. 6, 262; Ar. [Milne 76, 40] ἐὰν δὲ νήπιον ἐξέλθῃ; Orig., C. Cels. 3, 48, 26 ἀμαθὴς καὶ ἀνόητος καὶ ἀπαίδευτος καὶ ν.; Theoph. Ant. 2, 25 [p. 160, 6] Ἀδὰμ ἔτη ν. ἦν) ὡς ν. βρέφη like veritable babes Hs 9, 29, 1. Usu. subst. child sing. 1 Cor 13:11abcd (for ν. opp. ἀνήρ Orig., C. Cels. 3, 59, 23); τὰ τοῦ ν. childish ways vs. 11e. Pl. τὰ ν. (sc. βρέφη) Hm 2:1; s 9, 29, 1. The gen. pl. of the neut. is prob. to be understood Mt
21:16 (Ps 8:3; s. JGeorgacas, ClPl 76, ’58, 155).

b. fig.; the transition to the fig. sense is found Hb 5:13 where the νήπιος, who is fed w. the milk of elementary teaching, is contrasted w. the τέλειος=‘mature person’, who can take the solid food of the main teachings (s. also 1 Cor 3:1f). In this connection the ν. is one who views
spiritual things fr. the standpoint of a child. W. this can be contrasted

α. the state of the more advanced Christian, to which the ν. may aspire (Ps 118:130; Philo, Migr. Abr. 46; Iren. 4, 38, 1 [Harv. II 293, 2]) ITr 5:1. ἵνα μηκέτι ὦμεν νήπιοι Eph 4:14. A Judean as διδάσκαλος νηπίων Ro 2:20. νήπιος ἐν Χριστῷ immature Christian 1 Cor 3:1 (cp. ὡς νηπίοις, ὁ ἄρτος ὁ τέλειος τοῦ πατρὸς, γάλα ἡμῖν ἑαυτὸν παρέσχεν [on the accent s. Schwyzer I 391] ‘seeing that we were but infants, the perfect bread [=the Son of God] of the Father gave himself as milk to us’ Iren. 4, 38, 1 [Harv. II 293, 8]; JWeiss, Paulin. Probleme: Die Formel ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ, StKr 69, 1896, 1-33). Harnack, Die Terminologie d. Wiedergeburt: TU XLII 3, 1918, 97ff.

β. The contrast can also be w. the ideas expressed by σοφός, συνετός, and then the νήπιοι are the child-like, innocent ones, unspoiled by learning, with whom God is pleased Mt 11:25; Lk 10:21 (GKilpatrick, JTS 48, ’47, 63f; WGrundmann, NTS 5, ’58/’59, 188-205; SLégasse, Jésus et l’enfant [synopt.], ’69). Cp. also 1 Cl 57:7 (Pr 1:32).

2. one who is not yet of legal age, minor, not yet of age, legal t.t. (UPZ 20, 22 [II BC] ἔτι νηπίας οὔσας ὁ πατὴρ ἀπέδωκεν εἰς σύστασιν Πτολεμαίῳ) ἐφ᾿ ὅσον χρόνον ὁ
κληρονόμος ν. ἐστιν as long as the heir is a minor Gal 4:1. Fig. vs. 3.—In 1 Th 2:7 νήπιοι is accepted by Lachmann and W-H., as well as by interpreters fr. Origen to Wohlenberg, Frame, et al.; Goodsp., Probs. 177f. S. also SFowl, NTS 36, ’90, 469-73: the metaphors of infant and nurse are complementary. Others, incl. Tdf., HermvSoden, BWeiss, Bornemann, vDobschütz, Dibelius, Steinmann, prefer ἤπιοι (v.l.), and regard the ν of νήπιοι as the result of dittography fr. the preceding word ἐγενήθημεν (s. the entry ἤπιος). MLacroix, Ηπιος/Νηπιος: Mélanges Desrousseaux ’37, 260-72.; B. 92.—New Docs 1, 116; 4, 40. DELG. M-M. TW. Sv.
Glad you can quote BDAG. However, I believe the idea of "foolishness" is implicit in such passage as 1 Cor 13:11,

ὅτε ἤμην νήπιος, ἐλάλουν ὡς νήπιος, ἐφρόνουν ὡς νήπιος, ἐλογιζόμην ὡς νήπιος· ὅτε γέγονα ἀνήρ, κατήργηκα τὰ τοῦ νηπίου.
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
ὃς ἐν μορφῇ Θεοῦ ὑπάρχων οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγήσατο τὸ εἶναι ἴσα Θεῷ,

Who existing in the image of God, DID NOT consider equality with God as something to be aspired to,

The writer here wants us to remember the Genesis account , with a clear contrasting allusion to the first Adam , who existing in the image of God, DID aspire to equality with God (by eating of the forbidden fruit).
 

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
Glad you can quote BDAG. However, I believe the idea of "foolishness" is implicit in such passage as 1 Cor 13:11,

ὅτε ἤμην νήπιος, ἐλάλουν ὡς νήπιος, ἐφρόνουν ὡς νήπιος, ἐλογιζόμην ὡς νήπιος· ὅτε γέγονα ἀνήρ, κατήργηκα τὰ τοῦ νηπίου.
1 Cor 13:11 is a normal child, not a silly adult. Jesus spoke favorably of them.

I know you can and do quote BDAG when it supports your view.

;)

That being said, a closer look at Galatians 4:4 shows that Jesus was born of a woman and under law which made him a slave like the Christians who he released from slavery.

Wouldn't you say that being born of a woman harkens to J 1:14 and also Phil 2:6-7 where he took the form of a Jew under the law?
 

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
Roger wrongly thinks that Jesus went from the form of God to the form of a slave. The text says no such thing:



The text is saying that although Jesus was existing ὑπάρχων (i.e. continued existing) in the form/image of God, he took on the characteristics of a slave.

This is the first order of business, to understand that it's not either one (form of God) or the other (form of a slave), but both were true of Jesus while he was here with us.
I started by exegeting ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσεν and you skipped over that. You will find no parallel to your view of that.
 

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
Roger wrongly thinks that Jesus went from the form of God to the form of a slave. The text says no such thing:



The text is saying that although Jesus was existing ὑπάρχων (i.e. continued existing) in the form/image of God, he took on the characteristics of a slave.

This is the first order of business, to understand that it's not either one (form of God) or the other (form of a slave), but both were true of Jesus while he was here with us.

Jesus was "in" the form of God and emptied "himself" from the only thing he was "in" in context. Then he was "in" the form of a slave, a human being under law born of a Jewish woman. (Gal 4:4).

The verb "empty" with the direct object of himself (what was emptied from being "in" the form of God) makes the form of God and the form of a slave mutually exclusive.
 
Top