Philippians 2:7 Specifically ἑαυτὸν

[Roger Thornhill]

Can you point out where exactly you are seeing the word “took” in the following ?

Lol!

It's the verse named in the thread and the continuation of the sentence you partially quoted.

 

[The Real John Milton]

Lol!

It's the verse named in the thread and the continuation of the sentence you partially quoted.

Precisely, that's Phil. 2:7. But the text does NOT say that he "took" the form of God in verse 6,... that was my point.

So you're not to see an equivalent contrast here between "the form of God" in verse 6 on the one hand, and "the form of a servant" on the other in verse 7. He was existing in the form of God, but he took on the form of a servant. See the difference ?

 

[The Real John Milton]

In other words, "the form of God" is not something Jesus could have "taken," anymore than Adam could have "taken" "the image of God." It is rather something Jesus was born with, just as it was something Adam was created with. But Jesus could certainly have lost or defiled this "form of God," just as Adam did defile "the image of God" when he sinned. "The form of a servant" on the other hand is something Jesus appropriated to himself willingly, he was not born into it, not "existing" as such.

 

[Roger Thornhill]

Precisely, that's Phil. 2:7. But the text does NOT say that he "took" the form of God in verse 6,... that was my point.

So you're not to see an equivalent contrast here between "the form of God" in verse 6 on the one hand, and "the form of a servant" on the other in verse 7. He was existing in the form of God, but he took on the form of a servant. See the difference ?

But we do see a contrast between "in the form of God" and "in the likeness of man."

The verb empty with the object of emptying being "himself" empties himself from the form of God and into the likeness of man.

 

[The Real John Milton]

But we do see a contrast between "in the form of God" and "in the likeness of man."

Yes, "form of God" (ἐν μορφῇ Θεοῦ) suggests a man in a sinless state (kind of like Adam pre-sin). "Likeness of men" (not singular "man," ἐν ὁμοιώματι ἀνθρώπων) suggests the status of all of us, sinful humanity. In other words he who had no sin became sin. You should remember the following words when you read this portion of Phil. 2:6-7--

τὸν μὴ γνόντα ἁμαρτίαν ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν ἁμαρτίαν ἐποίησεν, ἵνα ἡμεῖς γενώμεθα δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ ἐν αὐτῷ.

-------

The verb empty with the object of emptying being "himself" empties himself from the form of God and into the likeness of man.

That's nonsense. ἀλλὰ ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσεν suggests that he sacrificed himself for us, gave his all, poured out his soul. You should remember the following prophesy when you read these words --

διὰ τοῦτο αὐτὸς κληρονομήσει πολλοὺς καὶ τῶν ἰσχυρῶν μεριεῗ σκῦλα ἀνθ᾽ ὧν παρεδόθη εἰς θάνατον ἡ ψυχὴ αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐν τοῗς ἀνόμοις ἐλογίσθη καὶ αὐτὸς ἁμαρτίας πολλῶν ἀνήνεγκεν καὶ διὰ τὰς ἁμαρτίας αὐτῶν παρεδόθη

Isaiah 53:12

And also the following words,

καὶ περιπατεῖτε ἐν ἀγάπῃ, καθὼς καὶ ὁ Χριστὸς ἠγάπησεν ὑμᾶς καὶ παρέδωκεν ἑαυτὸν ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν προσφορὰν καὶ θυσίαν τῷ Θεῷ εἰς ὀσμὴν εὐωδίας.

Eph. 5:2

 

[The Real John Milton]

"The form of a slave having taken" (μορφὴν δούλου λαβών) reminds me of the following words of Jesus --

ἀπεκρίθη αὐτοῖς ὁ Ἰησοῦς Ἀμὴν ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν ὅτι πᾶς ὁ ποιῶν τὴν ἁμαρτίαν δοῦλός ἐστιν τῆς ἁμαρτίας.

John 8:34

 

[John Milton]

RT:
Dative is the case of instrument. Εν specifies location. Both elements are present.

Smyth shows that the instrumental dative can have more than one function simultaneously.

1521. The comitative form of the instrumental dative denotes the persons or things which accompany or take part in an action.

There is only one person mentioned in the activities of John 1:3-4. It's funny to watch you introduce things you don't understand.

The person or thing is the location of the action.

So life came to be "in" the Son by his Father giving it to him, J 5:26.

You have the cart before the horse. John 1 should be used to understand John 5. You wouldn't have access to John 5 if you were reading the gospel for the first time. I shouldn't have to explain that to you.

That being said, John is fond of double meanings. If εν + dative in a particular context can mean two different things he may have had both in mind.

I doubt it.

 

[John Milton]

You said:
Unfortunately for you, it isn't circular reasoning. The author clearly wrote that "all things were made through him" and emphatically adds "not even one thing arose without him" to make clear that was exactly what he meant to say. The ONLY way for that to be true is if the word wasn't made.

Did I miss your rebuttal to the fact that the Father is a thing too in 1 Co 15? You have more than a theological assertion, I hope.

The Greek Grammar by Blass and Debrunner (BDF) says:

"Further ellipses: (1) The omission of the notion 'other, whatever' (§ 306 (5)) is specifically Greek."

And so we find examples like:

NRS Sirach 1:4 Wisdom was created before all other things, and prudent understanding from eternity. προτέρα πάντων ἔκτισται σοφία καὶ σύνεσις φρονήσεως ἐξ αἰῶνος

No, you didn't miss anything. The passage you cited and the remarks you made here and there are not relevant to the conversation as far as I can tell so I didn't feel the need to address them. If you think they help you in some way, feel free to make your case.

 

[John Milton]

Can you point out where exactly you are seeing the word “took” in the following ?

I forgot you don't read Greek for a moment. My fault. It's the phrase "μορφὴν δούλου λαβών" in Philippians 2:7.

 

[Roger Thornhill]

There is only one person mentioned in the activities of John 1:3-4. It's funny to watch you introduce things you don't understand.

BDAG says :
Christ as intermediary in the creation of the world J 1:3, 10; 1 Cor 8:6; Col 1:16

Wallace says oh J 1:3:
The Logos is represented as the Creator in a “hands-on” sort of way, with the implication that God is the ultimate agent.

You have the cart before the horse. John 1 should be used to understand John 5. You wouldn't have access to John 5 if you were reading the gospel for the first time. I shouldn't have to explain that to you.

Well BDAG got you again, didn't it?

β. of Christ, who received life fr. God J 5:26b (ἡ ζωὴ τῆς πίστεως ParJer 9:14). ἐν αὐτῷ ζ. ἦν 1:4a; cp. 1J 5:11b.

I do use John 1 to understand John 5. And I have expressed my view.

But you cannot and still maintain the evangelical view.

 

[John Milton]

BDAG says :
Christ as intermediary in the creation of the world J 1:3, 10; 1 Cor 8:6; Col 1:16

Wallace says oh J 1:3:
The Logos is represented as the Creator in a “hands-on” sort of way, with the implication that God is the ultimate agent.

This is in agreement with my previous remarks, so why are you bringing it up?

Well BDAG got you again, didn't it?

β. of Christ, who received life fr. God J 5:26b (ἡ ζωὴ τῆς πίστεως ParJer 9:14). ἐν αὐτῷ ζ. ἦν 1:4a; cp. 1J 5:11b.

I do use John 1 to understand John 5. And I have expressed my view.

But you cannot and still maintain the evangelical view.

If you weren't attempting to insult me, I would pity your foolishness, but as it is you deserve this. If you were less concerned with cherry picking your sources and more concerned with understanding them, you might (Now, there's a remote possibility!) have noticed that the author disagrees with the punctuation you feel is correct. This, of course, changes the meaning of the clause and verse quite a bit. So I'll let you tell me: why do you feel you can use BDAG here in support of your position when it contradicts your foundational premise?

And I don't know why you think I haven't expressed my view about John 1. I have done such a good job doing so that you have abandoned discussion about the passage and are appealing to theological arguments from all over scripture. You know you have no answer for what I have said!

 

[The Real John Milton]

There is only one person mentioned in the activities of John 1:3-4. It's funny to watch you introduce things you don't understand.

You have the cart before the horse. John 1 should be used to understand John 5. You wouldn't have access to John 5 if you were reading the gospel for the first time. I shouldn't have to explain that to you.

I doubt it.

Could you point out the “person” mentioned in John 1:3-4 ? I don’t see one.

 

[The Real John Milton]

So why did apostle Paul not use εἰκών , but rather used μορφή in Phil. 2:6 ? I believe one of the reasons is because of the participle ὑπάρχων. I think “image” is a word with a sort of a snapshot meaning where else μορφή is more appropriate if we want to say something about an on-going existence about someone, even though both words basically mean the same thing in many contexts.

So notice the following:

ὃς ἐν μορφῇ Θεοῦ ὑπάρχων

ὅς ἐστιν εἰκὼν τοῦ Θεοῦ

Clearly the two words εἰκών and μορφή have the same meaning in the above two clauses. A good writer after all often has more than a vocabulary of one word to denote an identical concept. And apostle Paul ( unlike apostle John for instance) seemed to have a formidable Koine vocabulary.

 

[The Real John Milton]

Also I doubt very much if anyone ever says someone is existing “in” as in ἐν “the image” of God. It is as odd in English as it is in Koine. One might be “made” in “the image of God,” but if we want to say someone is “existing” as such, we would use the cognate term “form,” as in “existing in the form of God.” Same in Greek.

 

[Gryllus Maior]

Perhaps it’s terrible because it doesn’t reflect your theology?

Under no theology should ἁπαργμός be rendered as you did.

 

[The Real John Milton]

Under no theology should ἁπαργμός be rendered as you did.

Not sure why you think “existing” for ἁπαργμός is bad? Look at Berean Literal Translation, for instance:

Who, existing in the form of God, did not consider to be equal with God something to be grasped,

 

[Roger Thornhill]

So why did apostle Paul not use εἰκών , but rather used μορφή in Phil. 2:6 ? I believe one of the reasons is because of the participle ὑπάρχων. I think “image” is a word with a sort of a snapshot meaning where else μορφή is more appropriate if we want to say something about an on-going existence about someone, even though both words basically mean the same thing in many contexts.

So notice the following:

ὃς ἐν μορφῇ Θεοῦ ὑπάρχων

ὅς ἐστιν εἰκὼν τοῦ Θεοῦ

Clearly the two words εἰκών and μορφή have the same meaning in the above two clauses. A good writer after all often has more than a vocabulary of one word to denote an identical concept. And apostle Paul ( unlike apostle John for instance) seemed to have a formidable Koine vocabulary.

Sorry, you used mere statistics on me for "child" at Ga 4:1-4 and so you are not permitted to make allowances for yourself. It's only fair.

 

[Roger Thornhill]

Not sure why you think “existing” for ἁπαργμός is bad? Look at Berean Literal Translation, for instance:

I think you are confusing αρπαγμος and υπάρχον.

 

[Roger Thornhill]

Also I doubt very much if anyone ever says someone is existing “in” as in ἐν “the image” of God. It is as odd in English as it is in Koine. One might be “made” in “the image of God,” but if we want to say someone is “existing” as such, we would use the cognate term “form,” as in “existing in the form of God.” Same in Greek.

The image of God is not found in the Philippians passage.

 

[Roger Thornhill]

So why did apostle Paul not use εἰκών , but rather used μορφή in Phil. 2:6 ? I believe one of the reasons is because of the participle ὑπάρχων. I think “image” is a word with a sort of a snapshot meaning where else μορφή is more appropriate if we want to say something about an on-going existence about someone, even though both words basically mean the same thing in many contexts.

So notice the following:

ὃς ἐν μορφῇ Θεοῦ ὑπάρχων

ὅς ἐστιν εἰκὼν τοῦ Θεοῦ

Clearly the two words εἰκών and μορφή have the same meaning in the above two clauses. A good writer after all often has more than a vocabulary of one word to denote an identical concept. And apostle Paul ( unlike apostle John for instance) seemed to have a formidable Koine vocabulary.

To say that you have proves a particular point "clearly" with no evidence is to commit the "obviously" fallacy that Carson speaks of in his book, Exegetical Fallacies.