Puppets of Satan?

 

The throne of JEHOVAH'S Son demystified II

  

Another consideration is that later Church copyists would often change the wording of a scripture if it seemed to contradict a teaching of the Roman Church.[1] Therefore, if the wording of an ancient manuscript seems to contradict a later teaching of the Roman Church, it is more likely to have the original wording than another ancient manuscript which (at the same verse) seems to agree with that Church teaching.

Using these criteria, the UBS Committee unanimously agreed with all the wording of Heb. 1:8 except for one word. They agreed that the original writing of Heb. 1:8 should read literally (in the NT Greek): “toward but the son the throne of you the god into the age of the age and the staff of the straightness staff of the kingdom [‘of him’ or ‘of you’].”

It was the very last word of Heb. 1:8 that caused a “considerable degree of doubt” among those textual scholars. This very last word was either the NT Greek word sou (translated into English as “of you” or “your”) or autou (translated “of him” or “his”).

Why is it so important? Because these trinitarian scholars agreed that if autou (“his”) were used here by the author of Hebrews 1:8, then the verse “must be” translated “God is thy throne” and not “thy throne, O God”!! If, however, sou (“your”) was the original wording, then it could be translated either way. Obviously, then, a trinitarian would strongly prefer the reading of sou. [See end note 4]

In discussing this problem the UBS Committee noted that all the very oldest and best manuscripts (p46 - circa 200 A.D.; 'Aleph' - 4th century; and B - 4th century) all agree that the original wording was “his (autou) kingdom.” 

They also noted that later manuscripts which read “your (sou) kingdom” are now in agreement with the corresponding passage in the Greek OT Septuagint! (Remember that the UBS Committee recognizes, as do most Bible scholars, that the NT manuscript that differs slightly from the Septuagint is more likely to be correct than another one which perfectly agrees because copyists strongly tended to deliberately “correct” Septuagint quotes they found in the NT .) 

Furthermore, since autou is not repeated near the word in question in this NT manuscript quote of Ps. 45:6, 7, but sou is repeated, before and after, it would have been easy for a copyist to have inadvertently miscopied sou here. Autou, then, is more likely to have been original than sou for more than one reason.

It is also important to realize that all the oldest manuscripts (which were probably written before the full trinity doctrine was officially declared by the Roman Church in 381 A. D. and certainly written well before it was popularly accepted through the efforts of such men as Augustine in the early 5th century) use the word autou which will not properly allow for the trinitarian-preferred interpretation. Whereas many of the later manuscripts now use the word sou which will allow for the trinitarian-preferred interpretation of Heb. 1:8.

Isn’t it significant that the very earliest manuscript to use the trinitarian-preferred sou is Manuscript A from the 5th century which is shortly after the trinity doctrine was fully and officially declared at the Council of Constantinople in 381 A. D. and during the highly successful efforts of Augustine and others to defend and popularize this newly established “truth” of the Roman Church? (Remember the correlation between new church doctrines and changes in later manuscripts.) - See the HIST study paper. 

So even though there is overwhelming evidence that “his” (autou) was in the original manuscript of Hebrews 1:8 (even the trinitarian scholars who developed the Westcott and Hort text and the Nestle text use autou at Heb. 1:8), the UBS Committee finally agreed to choose “your” (sou) and label that choice as “having considerable degree of doubt,” anyway! 

Why did they bend their own rules of evidence? Because (1) they said there were so many later manuscripts that used sou, and (2) they admitted that they didn’t like what that verse actually said if autou had really been used in the original!

Oh, they did soften the arbitrariness of their choice slightly by labeling it as “having considerable degree of doubt,” but if any honest impartial scholar will examine their own comments on the evidence, he must agree that the UBS Committee’s choice is purely an emotional one and the evidence rules otherwise (as other trinitarian texts noted above admit).

Sou not only has “considerable degree of doubt,” it is nearly impossible. The UBS Committee’s own comments on the evidence make autou virtually certain as the original word, and, therefore, in the committee’s own word’s, Hebrews 1:8 “must be” translated “God is thy throne” and not “thy throne, O God.” - (study pp. 662-663 in A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, United Bible Societies, 1971.) 

It might be worthwhile to see that that same UBS textual committee said (p. 522) when discussing Romans 9:5: 

“In fact, on the basis of the general tenor of his theology it was tantamount to impossible that Paul would have expressed Christ’s greatness by calling him God blessed for ever.” And, “Nowhere else in his genuine epistles does Paul ever designate [‘the Christ’] as theos [‘God’ or ‘god’].”

So, for those of us who believe that Paul wrote the Bible book of Hebrews, the UBS committee provides yet another reason why Heb. 1:8 must be translated “God is your throne” not “your throne, O God.” (But don’t forget that some scholars don’t consider Paul to be the author of Hebrews even though they may still consider Hebrews to be inspired scripture.) 

Some trinitarians have objected that “it does not make sense [or even, ‘it’s ridiculous’] to call God a ‘throne.’”[2] However, to any serious Bible student, it is entirely reasonable and appropriate. Calling God “the throne of Jesus” is an excellent figurative way to show that God approves and upholds Christ’s kingly reign (as in Westcott’s comment previously quoted).

Is God ever called “unlikely” things in a figurative sense that are as equally “ridiculous” as calling him “a throne”? Every Bible student of any experience knows that He is, repeatedly!

Many times he is called someone’s “Rock” (e.g., Ps. 78:35). 

He is called a “fortress” (e.g., Ps. 91:2). 

He is called a “lamp” in 2 Samuel 22:29. 

He is called a “crown” (“in that day will Jehovah of hosts become a crown of glory, unto the 
residue of his people” - Is. 28:5, ASV). 

Jehovah is called “our dwelling place” - Ps. 90:1, KJV. 

And “Jehovah is my ... song” - Ps. 118:14. 

Also notice Ps. 60:7, 8 “Ephraim is my helmet, Judah my scepter, Moab is my washbasin”, NIV. And in Is. 22:23 we find Eliakim, whom Jehovah said he would call and commit authority to (Is. 22:20, 21), called a “throne” (“and he will become a throne of honor to his father’s house,” RSV). 

Not only is it made very clear by many trinitarian translators [3] and text writers [4] themselves that Heb. 1:8 may be honestly translated “God is your throne,” but all real evidence shows that it should be so translated!

So we find once more that Jesus cannot possibly be God. Just as we saw in the case of the Israelite king in Ps. 45:6, 7, if God is his throne (the one supporting him - giving him power and authority), then he cannot be that God!

............................................................................


NOTES



1. An example of this is the omission of the words “nor the son” in the majority of manuscripts at Matt. 24:36. However, the two oldest and best manuscripts, Aleph and B (as well as Manuscript A of the 5th century), do have “nor the son” after the word “heaven” (as it is in Mark 13:32). Bible scholars have come to the conclusion that the words were first omitted by a copyist sometime shortly after the development of the trinity doctrine by the Roman Church in the 4th century (see the HIST study) because it seemed to contradict the trinity doctrine: Jesus as equal to the Father. - See A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, p. 62, United Bible Societies, 1971. Also see The Codex Sinaiticus and the Codex Alexandrinus, published by the trustees of the British Museum (quoted in the Feb. 1, 1984 WT, p. 7) or see the Manuscripts at . http://www.codex-sinaiticus.net/en/ and http://www.csntm.org/Manuscript/View/GA_02 and http://www.csntm.org/Manuscript/View/GA_03 



2. Bowman, in his Why You Should Believe in the Trinity, after explaining that Heb. 1:1-6 describes the Son as in essence God, says:

It should come as no surprise, then, that in verse 8 God the Father says “of the Son, ‘Your throne, O God, is forever and ever...’” (translating literally). 

To circumvent this plain statement, the NWT renders verse 8 as “God is your throne forever and ever....” On merely grammatical considerations, this translation is possible, and some biblical scholars have favored this rendering. According to such a reading, the point of the statement is then that God is the source of Jesus’ authority. 

However, this seems to be an unusual, if not completely odd, way of making that point. In Scripture a “throne” is not the source of one’s authority, but the position or place from which one rules. Thus, heaven is called “the throne of God” (Matt. 5:34). Surely God does not derive his authority from heaven, or from anyone or anything! But, even assuming that “God is your throne” would be understood as having that meaning, in context this makes no sense. The writer of Hebrews is quoting Psalm 45:6 and applying it to the Son to show that the Son is far greater than any of the angels. However, if all this verse means is that the Son’s authority derives from God, this in no way makes him unique or greater than the angels, since this could be said of any of God’s obedient angels. - pp. 106-107, Baker Book House, 1991 ed. 

To take things in the order Bowman states them, 

(A) his “literal” translation of Heb. 1:8 is certainly not literal. As we saw at the beginning of this paper, the actual NT Greek literally says “the throne of you the god into the age of the age.” The understood verb “is” may be inserted anywhere in the sentence, but it is not literally in the original manuscript, and to insist that it must be inserted and interpreted as Bowman has done is simply (literally) untrue! In fact it seems much more probable, whether one inserts it before or after “the god,” to mean: ‘the throne of you IS the God into the age of the age.’ (Although it is less likely, it is possible that ho theos could be considered a vocative [‘O God’] - but see trinitarian Dr. Westcott’s quote above). But, at any rate, Bowman is not being truthful when he says he is “translating literally” as ‘your throne, O God, is forever and ever...’! 

Posted by Elijah Daniels 

Darwinism is atheism's creation myth? Pros and Cons.

 

The throne of JEHOVAH'S Son demystified III

  

(B) Bowman declares, “In Scripture a ‘throne’ is not the source of one’s authority, but the position or place from which one rules.”

Isn’t it terribly strange that famed trinitarian New Testament scholars such as Dr. Westcott, Dr. Moffatt, Dr. Goodspeed (Smith-Goodspeed’s AT), and Dr. William Barclay (The Daily Study Bible Series) all prefer the interpretation “Thy throne is God”? (And highly respected trinitarian Bibles ASV, RSV, and NEB also give this rendering as a proper alternate.) Would these respected trinitarian authorities really render this scripture that way if “throne” could only be interpreted in a literal way? 

The trinitarian New Bible Dictionary tells us that in Scripture “the throne symbolizes dignity and authority” - p. 1196 (2nd ed.), Tyndale House, 1984. (Compare Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance.) 

And the equally trinitarian (and highly respected - by trinitarians) The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia tells us about “throne”: “Usually the symbol of kingly power and dignity .... It symbolizes: (1) The exalted position of earthly kings, ... their majesty and power .... (2) The majesty and power of JEHOVAH as the true king of Israel; .... (3) The rule of the promised theocratic king (the Messiah), its everlasting glory and righteousness. He, too, is JEHOVAH’S representative [so JEHOVAH is the Messiah’s ‘throne’ (“power,” “authority,” and “glory”)]....” - p. 2976, Vol. IV, Eerdmans, 1984 printing. 

Please examine the implied meanings of “throne” in the following scriptures: Gen. 41:40; 2 Sam. 7:13, 14, 16; 2 Sam. 14:9; 1 Ki. 1:37, 47; Ps. 94:20 (“rulers,” RSV, Mo; “tribunals,” JB, NAB) ; Col. 1:16 (compare the very trinitarian TEV and GNB: “spiritual powers” and the Phillips translation: “power”). These clearly do not exclusively mean just “a place” as Bowman insists. In fact, the very trinitarian Good News Bible (GNB) actually renders the Hebrew “throne” at Gen. 41:40 as ”authority.” Also note that even IF Heb. 1:8 were translated “Your throne, O God, is forever,” it would certainly mean more than “the seat you sit upon is everlasting”! It still speaks of the kingly power and authority which will last forever! Bowman is clearly wrong in saying that ‘throne’ must mean the “position or place from which one rules” and denying many other figurative uses. 

(C) “The writer of Hebrews is quoting Ps 45:6 and applying it to the Son to show that the Son is far greater than any of the angels [see quotes by Barclay and Robertson: HEB 2-3]. However, if all this verse means is that the Son’s authority derives from God, this in no way makes him unique or greater than the angels...” says Bowman. 

However, the complete quote from Ps. 45:6, 7 which begins at Heb. 1:8 includes Heb. 1:9. This verse not only specifies that God is the God of the king (Jesus), but also concludes with “God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.” Jesus was “anointed” (brought into a position he didn’t originally have) by God and, at that point, came to be above his fellows. This is why Heb. 1:8, 9 was quoted by the writer of Hebrews: to show that Jesus is now (after God appointed [Heb. 1:2, 4] and anointed him) higher than the angels (who had been his “fellows”). 

Corroborating this is respected trinitarian Bible scholar, Dr. E. F. Scott, Emeritus Professor at the Union Theological Seminary, who wrote: “The author of Hebrews ... thinks of [Jesus] as an angel, whom God had exalted above all others, investing him with his own majesty and calling him by the name of Son.” - p. 726, An Encyclopedia of Religion, 1945 ed. 

And, again, the trinitarian The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible tells us that at this time the Jewish expectation was that the Christ was “a pre-existent, heavenly ANGELIC being who, at the end of time, will appear at the side of God as judge of the world [see Acts 7:55-56].” - p. 364, Vol. 3, Abingdon Press, 1962. 

Similarly, that most famous of Jewish scholars and teachers of the first century A. D., Philo (see the LOGOS study), wrote about Hagar erroneously describing her seeing the Angel of God as seeing God:

“For just as those who are unable to see the sun itself see the gleam of the parhelion [a ‘mock sun’ - an optical illusion, not the true sun - RDB] and [erroneously] take it for the sun, ... so some regard the image of God, His angel the Word, as His very self.” - p. 423, Philo, vol. V, “On Flight and Finding,” Harvard University Press, Loeb Classical Library, 1988 printing.

“Angel of the Lord [angel of JEHOVAH] - occurs many times in the Old Testament, where in almost every instance it means a supernatural personage to be distinguished from JEHOVAH .... Some feel the pre-incarnate Christ is meant.” - p. 39, Today’s Dictionary of the Bible (trinitarian), Bethany House Publ., 1982. 

“Angel of the Lord. ... Christ’s visible form before the incarnation.” - p. 40, Smith’s Bible Dictionary (trinitarian), Hendrickson Publ. 

“ANGEL OF THE LORD, ... is represented in Scripture as a heavenly being sent by God to deal with men as his personal agent and spokesman [‘word’] .... In the NT [which trinitarians agree explains and amplifies the OT] there is no possibility of the angel of the LORD being confused with God. .... mostly when appearing to men he is recognized as a divine being, even though in human form, and is [sometimes] addressed as God” - p. 38, New Bible Dictionary, Tyndale House (trinitarian), 1984 printing.

“The Angel of the LORD.... Traditional [from 2nd century A. D. (at least)] Christian interpretation has held that this ‘angel’ was a preincarnate manifestation of Christ as God’s Messenger-Servant. It may be ..., the angel could speak on behalf of (and so be identified with) the One [Jehovah] who sent him” - footnote for Gen. 16:7 in the trinitarian The NIV Study Bible by Zondervan Publishing, 1985.

It is not uncommon for a trusted servant to actually represent his master in dealings with others. “What a servant says or does is [sometimes] ascribed to the master” - Young’s Analytical Concordance to the Bible, “Hints and Helps to Bible Interpretation,” Eerdmans Publishing, 1978 printing.

The angel of JEHOVAH “is a heavenly being given a particular task by YAHWEH [JEHOVAH], behind whom the angel’s personality entirely disappears .... because YAHWEH'S holiness could have destroyed Israel, only his angel was to go with the people.” - [see 1 John 4:12; John 6:46.] - The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology (trinitarian), Vol. 1, p. 101, Zondervan Publ., 1986.

[Even the person speaking to Moses from the burning bush was an angel! Even though he spoke Jehovah's words and seemed to Moses to be JEHOVAH, we know that it was an angel speaking and acting for JEHOVAH: Acts 7:30.]

Please compare the following scriptures: Gen. 16:10, 11 and 13; Gen. 31:11 and Gen. 31:13; Gen. 32:24-30 and Hosea 12:4; Judges 6:16 and 6:20-23. 

It should be obvious that the Angel of JEHOVAH is NOT JEHOVAH himself! Even many trinitarian scholars admit the obvious here. However, some are unwilling to let any opportunity go by, no matter how poor, (since there is no real evidence for it to begin with) to insist that Jesus is JEHOVAH. So, although admitting that Jesus was (or probably was) the Angel of JEHOVAH in the OT (at least part of the time) they also insist that he was also JEHOVAH! 

Consider, however, if “Angel of JEHOVAH ” really meant that the one who had that title was JEHOVAH (even though the term literally means “messenger OF JEHOVAH ”), no inspired prophet of God or inspired Bible writer would ever use that term for anyone else. And yet Luke used it for the angel Gabriel, and Haggai actually used it for himself! 

Yes, Luke tells us at Lk 1:11, 19 “Then there appeared to him the angel of the LORD [the very same wording as found in the Septuagint at Gen. 16:7] .... The angel replied, ‘I am Gabriel who stands in God’s presence, and I have been sent to you’” - The Jerusalem Bible, also see NJB and NAB (‘91).

And the prophet and inspired Bible writer Haggai writes at Haggai 1:13 “Then Haggai, the messenger of JEHOVAH, spoke JEHOVAH’S message to the people.” The words are identical to both the Greek and Hebrew of Genesis 16:7: “the messenger [or angel] of JEHOVAH ”! And, of course, the NT shows that other angels [in addition to the “pre-incarnate” Jesus] may use the same title “angel of the LORD.” Even though the angel may, at times, actually identify himself as God (or JEHOVAH), it obviously does not mean he is JEHOVAH himself! He is perfectly representing JEHOVAH as his messenger and is speaking JEHOVAH’S very words at times. 

(Let’s not overlook the fact that King David was described as being “like the Angel of God.” - 2 Sam. 19:28, NJB (c.f., 2 Sam. 19:27 in NASB, NEB, NKJV, AT, RSV). If this angel were really God Himself, such a statement would not have been made - or tolerated by David when he heard it. Instead, King David is often compared to the Messiah in Scripture!)

When JEHOVAH (God alone) created his workman, his firstborn, as his first and only direct creation (the highest of angels or servants of God: Jesus, the Word), he became the Father. This is why Jesus may be called the “Firstborn” and the “onlybegotten” (only direct creation by JEHOVAH himself). When Jesus (the Word), at the command and direction of JEHOVAH God (the Father), became the instrument by which the material universe was made, the other angels (his fellows) were present. When he spoke to men in behalf of JEHOVAH (often using JEHOVAH’S very words which his Father spoke through him), he was called “the Angel of JEHOVAH.” When he had finished his sacrifice on earth, he became much superior to his fellow angels by appointment and anointment from JEHOVAH (but even at this time he certainly did not become equal to God). 

- - - - - - - - - - 

3. A. Some translations of Heb. 1:8 by trinitarians:

“God is your throne” - AT (Dr. Goodspeed)

“God is thy throne” - Mo (Dr. Moffatt)

“God is your throne” - Byington

“God is your throne” - Dr. Barclay

“God is thy throne” - Dr. Westcott

“God is thy throne” - A.T. Robertson (Alternate translation)

“God is thy throne” - Dr. Young (Alt.)

“God is thy throne” - RSV (Alt.) 

“God is your throne” - NRSV (Alt.)

“God is thy throne” - NEB (Alt.)

“Thy throne is God” - ASV (Alt.)

B. Some translations of Ps. 45:6 (quoted at Heb. 1:8) by trinitarians:

“Your Divine throne” - RSV

“Your throne is like God’s throne” - NEB

“God is your throne” - Byington

“The kingdom that God has given you” - GNB

“God has enthroned you” - REB

“Your throne is from God” - NJB

“Your throne is a throne of God” - NRSV (Alt.)

“Thy throne is the throne of God” - ASV (Alt.)

- - - - - - - - - - -

4. New Testament texts produced by trinitarians in which Autou (“His”) was chosen as part of the original text ("... the scepter of his [autou] kingdom":

Westcott and Hort

Nestle’s

It has been admitted by respected trinitarian scholars (UBS text writers) that if autou ("his") were in the original writing of Heb. 1:8, the proper rendering earlier in the same verse must be “God is your throne”! – p. 663, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, United Bible Societies, 1971.

Even the highly respected NASB renders this as "... the scepter of his kingdom." The Jerusalem Bible; New Jerusalem Bible; The New English Bible; Revised English Bible; AT (Smith and Goodspeed); Rotherham; Byington; C.B. Williams; etc. also render it using "his." 

---------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------

Posted by Elijah Daniels 

Isaiah 48:16 demystified.

  Isa. 48:16

Another example of "speaker confusion" I have seen attempted by certain anti-Watchtower trinitarians is found at Is. 48:16 in the KJ

Is. 48:16 - Come ye near unto me, hear ye this; I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; from the time that it was, there am I: and now the Lord GOD [Jehovah], and his spirit, hath sent me. - KJ

Commenting on this scripture some trinitarians will say: "The speaker of Is. 48:16 is Jehovah as identified by context in the first part of the verse and as shown by his identification in verse 17 where he continues to speak. But notice that Jehovah, who is speaking, says: `The Lord GOD [Jehovah] ... hath sent me.' Therefore there must be at least two persons who are Jehovah!

The answer to such "proof" is obvious: "speaker confusion." Isaiah, like most other Bible writers, often interspersed the conversation of one person with statements by others and often doesn't identify the new speakers. Very often they appear to be comments by Isaiah himsel

That this is very likely the case here is shown, not only by context, but by these modern trinitarian Bible translations: The RSV and the NIV Bibles show by quotation marks and indenting that Isaiah himself made the final comment in Is. 48:16

The NAB also indicates a new speaker there, and, in the St. Joseph edition of the NAB, a footnote for Is. 48:16 tells us that the final statement was made by Cyrus! And the very trinitarian Holy Bible: Easy-to-Read Version, World Bible Translation Center, 1992, comes right out and says at Is. 48:1

" 'Come here and listen to me! ... from the beginning, I spoke clearly, so that people could know what I said.' Then Isaiah said, `Now the Lord [Jehovah] my master sends me and his Spirit to tell you these things.'

The New English Bible (NEB), The Revised English Bible (REB), and the Bible translation by Dr. James Moffatt (Mo) consider the last statement of Is. 48:16 to be spurious and leave it out of their translations entirel

Certainly these trinitarian translations would have rendered this scripture (and punctuated it accordingly) to show a two-Jehovah meaning (or given such an alternate rendering in the footnotes) if their trinitarian translators had thought there was even the slightest justification for such an interpretation! (Also analyze Jer. 51:19 - Jacob is the former of all things - Jehovah of hosts is his name, according to this trinitarian-type "speaker confusion" reasonin

Some notes by trinitarians on this scriptur

"The prophet himself, as a type of the great prophet, asserts his own commission to deliver this message: Now the Lord God (the same that spoke from the beginning and did not speak in secret) has by his Spirit sent me, v. 16." - Matthew Henry Complete Commentary on the Whole Bible, Isaiah Chapter 48 verse 1

..........................................

"And, like almost every other prophecy of Christ in the Old Testament, it is subject to all kinds of interpretations. Calvin and many other scholars have seen it as a prophecy of the sending of Isaiah. Barnes agreed with this, stating that, 'The scope of the passage demands, it seems to me, that it should be referred to the prophet Isaia

"However, we believe that Hailey is correct in his declaration that, 'The coming of Jesus is the theme of this prophecy; the entire Old Testament looks forward to Christ's coming to carry forward the purpose of Jehovah; and the Holy Spirit would accompany Christ on that mission, and then complete the work after the Son's return to the Father; let it be remembered that the prophecy is here declaring new things to come in the future

"Lowth explained the passage thus: 'Who is it that saith in Isaiah, "And now hath the Lord sent me and his Spirit"? in which, as the passage is ambiguous, is it the Father and the Holy Spirit who hath sent Jesus; or the Father who hath sent both Christ and the Holy Spirit? The latter is the true interpretation.' The Father sent Jesus when he was born in Bethlehem; and the Father sent the Holy Spirit upon the occasion of the baptism of Christ (Matthew 3:16

"Thus, as Kidner put it, 'This is a glimpse from afar of the Trinity.' [?] As Cheyne expressed it, 'I cannot but think that we have both here and in Gen. 1:2 an early trace of what is known as the Christian doctrine of the Holy Spirit.' [

"The speaker here is therefore, the pre-incarnate Christ who identifies himself as the one sent ... to convey God's message of salvation to mankind. ..

"Jamieson, noting that Isaiah, not Christ, is the author of the passage, stated that, 'Isaiah here speaks not in his own person so much as in that of the Messiah, to whom alone, in the fullest sense, the words apply.'" - Coffman Commentaries on the Old and New Testament, Is. 48:1

Posted by Elijah Daniels 6...?])..'h.'...6.e:g!)y. "6,. f." V.V., Is. 48:16.

Posted by Elijah Daniels 

Substitutionary atonement a brief history.

 

 Substitutionary Atonement 

 Wikipedia 

 Substitutionary atonement, also called vicarious atonement, is a central concept within Christian theology which asserts that Jesus died "for us",[1] as propagated by the Western classic and objective paradigms of atonement in Christianity, which regard Jesus as dying as a substitute for others, "instead of" them.

Substitutionary atonement has been explicated in the "classic paradigm" of the Early Church Fathers, namely the ransom theory,[2] as well as in Gustaf Aulen's demystified reformulation, the Christus Victor theory;[2][note 1] and in the "objective paradigm," which includes Anselm of Canterbury's satisfaction theory,[3] the Reformed period's penal substitution theory,[4] and the Governmental theory of atonement.[note 2] 

Definition 

Substitutionary atonement, also called vicarious atonement, is the idea that Jesus died "for us".[1] There is also a less technical use of the term "substitution" in discussion about atonement when it is used in "the sense that [Jesus, through his death,] did for us that which we can never do for ourselves".[note 3]

The English word atonement originally meant "at-one-ment", i.e. being "at one", in harmony, with someone.[5] According to Collins English Dictionary, it is used to describe the redemption through Jesus' death and resurrection, to reconcile the world to himself, and also of the state of a person having been reconciled to God.[note 4][6][7]

The word "atonement" is often used in the Old Testament to translate the Hebrew words kipper and kippurim, which mean 'propitiation' or 'expiation'. The word occurs in the KJV in Romans 5:11 and has the basic meaning of reconciliation. In the Old Testament (Hebrew Bible or Tanakh), atonement was accomplished by the sacrifice of specified animals such as lambs to pay for one's sins.[8]

A distinction has to be made between substitutionary atonement (Christ suffers for us), and penal substitution (Christ punished instead of us), which is a subset or particular type of substitutionary atonement.[9] Care should be taken when one reads the language of substitution in, for example, patristic literature, not to assume any particular substitution model is being used but should, rather, check the context to see how the author was using the language.[note 5] 

"Only begotten" demystified.

 

 ONLY-BEGOTTEN

The Greek word mo·no·ge·nes′ is defined by lexicographers as “single of its kind, only,” or “the only member of a kin or kind.” (Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the NewTestament, 1889, p. 417; Liddell and Scott’s Greek-English Lexicon, Oxford, 1968, p. 1144) The term is used in describing the relation of both sons and daughters to their parents.

The Scriptures speak of “the only-begotten son” of a widow who lived in the city of Nain, of Jairus’ “only-begotten daughter,” and of a man’s “only-begotten” son whom Jesus cured of a demon. (Lu 7:11, 12; 8:41, 42; 9:38) The Greek Septuagint uses mo·no·ge·nes′ when speaking of Jephthah’s daughter, concerning whom it is written: “Now she was absolutely the only child. Besides her he had neither son nor daughter.”—Jg 11:34.

The apostle John repeatedly describes the Lord Jesus Christ as the only-begotten Son of God. (Joh 1:14; 3:16, 18; 1Jo 4:9) This is not in reference to his human birth or to him as just the man Jesus. As the Lo′gos, or Word, “this one was in the beginning with God,” even “before the world was.” (Joh 1:1, 2; 17:5, 24) At that time while in his prehuman state of existence, he is described as the “only-begotten Son” whom his Father sent “into the world.”—1Jo 4:9.

He is described as having “a glory such as belongs to an only-begotten son from a father,” the one residing “in the bosom position with the Father.” (Joh 1:14, 18) It is hard to think of a closer, more confidential, or more loving and tender relationship between a father and his son than this.—See BOSOM POSITION.

The angels of heaven are sons of God even as Adam was a “son of God.” (Ge 6:2; Job 1:6; 38:7; Lu 3:38) But the Lo′gos, later called Jesus, is “the only-begotten Son of God.” (Joh 3:18) He is the only one of his kind, the only one whom God himself created directly without the agency or cooperation of any creature. He is the only one whom God his Father used in bringing into existence all other creatures. He is the firstborn and chief one among all other angels (Col 1:15, 16; Heb 1:5, 6), which angels the Scriptures call “godlike ones” or “gods.” (Ps 8:4, 5) Therefore, according to some of the oldest and best manuscripts, the Lord Jesus Christ is properly described as “the only-begotten god [Gr., mo·no·ge·nes′the·os′].”—Joh 1:18, NW, Ro, Sp.

A few translations, in support of the Trinitarian “God the Son” concept, would invert the phrase mo·no·ge·nes′ the·os′ and render it as “God only begotten.” But W. J. Hickie in hisGreek-English Lexicon to the New Testament (1956, p. 123) says it is hard to see why these translators render mo·no·ge·nes′ hui·os′ as “the only begotten Son,” but at the same time translate mo·no·ge·nes′ the·os′ as “God only begotten,” instead of “the only begotten God.”

Paul referred to Isaac as Abraham’s “only-begotten son” (Heb 11:17), even though Abraham also fathered Ishmael by Hagar as well as several sons by Keturah. (Ge 16:15; 25:1, 2; 1Ch 1:28, 32) God’s covenant, however, was established only through Isaac, Abraham’s only son by God’s promise, as well as the only son of Sarah. (Ge 17:16-19) Furthermore, at the time Abraham offered up Isaac, he was the only son in his father’s household. No sons had yet been born to Keturah, and Ishmael had been gone for some 20 years—no doubt was married and head of his own household.—Ge 22:2.

So from several viewpoints in regard to the promise and the covenant, the things about which Paul was writing to the Hebrews, Isaac was Abraham’s only-begotten son. Hence, Paul parallels “the promises” and the “only-begotten son” with “‘your seed’ . . . through Isaac.” (Heb 11:17, 18) Whether Josephus had a similar viewpoint or not, he too spoke of Isaac as Abraham’s “only son.”—Jewish Antiquities, I, 222 (xiii, 1).

Phillipians2:6-8 demystified

   Philippians 2:6-8 [pt 1] 

ὃς ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ ὑπάρχων οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγήσατο τὸ εἶναι ἴσα θεῷ, 7 ἀλλὰ ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσεν μορφὴν δούλου λαβών, ἐν ὁμοιώματι ἀνθρώπων γενόμενος· καὶ σχήματι εὑρεθεὶς ὡς ἄνθρωπος....
                                   
"Who, being [huparchon] in the form [morphe] of God [theou], thought it not robbery [harpagmos] to be equal [ison] with God.  But ... took upon him the form [morphe] of a servant, and was made in the likeness [homoiomati] of men:  And being found in fashion [schemati] as a man...." - Phil. 2:6-8, KJV.

"Who, although He existed [huparchon] in the form [morphe] of God [theou], did not regard equality [ison] with God a thing to be grasped [harpagmos], but emptied Himself, taking the form [morphe] of a bond-servant and being made in the likeness [homoiomati] of men.  And being found in appearance [schemati] as a man...." - Phil. 2:6-8, NASB.

Some trinitarians insist that this scripture proves that Jesus was (and is) "equal with God."  But all the real evidence proves just the opposite!  Phil. 2:6 is, in reality, proof that Jesus has never been equally God with the Father! 


To begin with, as the Watchtower Society has pointed out, the context of Phil. 2:3-8 indicates how Phil. 2:6 should be understood.  The context stresses the concept of humility and obedience, and Phil. 2:6 itself is clearly meant as the prime example of this for all Christians.  The extremely trinitarian The Amplified Bible, for example, translates Phil. 2:3, 5 this way: 


"Instead, in the true spirit of humility (lowliness of mind) let each regard the others as better than and superior to himself.... Let this same attitude and purpose and [humble] mind be in you which was in Christ Jesus. - Let Him be your example in humility."

Then that very example of Jesus (Phil. 2:6-8) is given. - Cf. The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, vol. 1, p. 547.

Most trinitarian interpretations of Phil. 2:6, however, as above, do not show Jesus as regard-ing God as "better than and superior to himself" in the beginning (as the context demands for this example)!  Most of them, instead, twist that proper example of humility into just the opposite: an example of a person who regards himself already as equal to the Most High, Almighty God ("thought it not robbery to be equal to God").  Such an interpretation destroys the very purpose (Phil. 2:3) of Jesus' "example in humility" here! 

Paul is not telling us to regard ourselves as equal to others.  (Whether we obey them or not is very important but is not the main point here.)  He is clearly using Jesus as his example to teach that each Christian must, as the very trinitarian Amplified Bible above puts it, "regard others as better than and superior to himself"!  And yet most trinitarian translations show Jesus doing the very opposite in this "example in humility" for all Christians!

Something, then, is very wrong with the translation of Phil. 2:6 in most trinitarian Bibles!

 --------------------------------------------------------------

  

                                                          Harpagmos

Now notice how these two very trinitarian Bibles have rendered it:


1.  "He did not think to snatch at [harpagmos, ἁρπαγμὸς ]  equality with God"[1]  -  NEB. 

  
2.  "He did not think that by force [harpagmos] he should try to become  equal with God" - TEV (and GNB).

We believe that the translations by the trinitarian NEB and TEV Bibles of this part of Phil. 2:6 must be the intended meaning of the original writer of this scripture because (in part, at least) of the obvious meaning of the New Testament (NT) Greek word harpagmos. 
 There could be some doubt about the meaning of the word harpagmos if we looked only at the NT Greek Scriptures (since harpagmos occurs only at Phil. 2:6 in the entire New Testament).  We would then only have the meaning of the source words for harpagmos to determine its intended meaning.

Even so, Strong's Exhaustive Concordance (by trinitarian writer and trinitarian publisher) tells us that harpagmos means "plunder" and that it comes from the source word harpazo which means: "to seize ... catch away, pluck, take (by force)." - #725 & 726, Abingdon Press, 1974 printing. 

And the New American Standard Concordance of the Bible (also by trinitarians) tells us:  "harpagmos; from [harpazo]; the act of seizing or the thing seized."  And, "harpazo ... to seize, catch up, snatch away."  Notice that all have to do with taking something away by force. - # 725 and #726, Holman Bible Publ., 1981.

In fact, the trinitarian The Expositor's Greek Testament, 1967, pp. 436, 437, vol. III, tells us:

"We cannot find any passage where [harpazo] or any of its derivatives [which include harpagmos] has the sense of `holding in possession,' `retaining' [as preferred in many trinitarian translations of Phil. 2:6].  It seems invariably to mean `seize', `snatch violently'.  Thus it is not permissible to glide from the true sense [`snatch violently'] into one which is totally different, `hold fast.' " 

Even the very trinitarian NT Greek expert, W. E. Vine, had to admit that harpagmos is "akin to harpazo, to seize, carry off by force." - p. 887, An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words. 

And the trinitarian The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology tells us that the majority of Bible scholars (mostly trinitarian, of course) 

"have taken harpagmos to mean a thing plundered or seized..., and so spoil, booty or a prize of war." - p. 604, vol. 3, Zondervan, 1986. 

The key to both these words (harpagmos and its source word, harpazo) is: taking something away from someone by force and against his will.  And if we should find a euphemism such as "prize" used in a trinitarian Bible for harpagmos, it has to be understood only in the same sense as a pirate ship forcibly seizing another ship as its "prize"! 

We can easily see this "taken by force" meaning in all the uses of harpazo (the source word for harpagmos) in the New Testament.  But since harpagmos itself is used only at Phil. 2:6 in the NT, Bible scholars must go to the ancient Greek translation of the Old Testament (which is frequently quoted in the NT), the Septuagint. 

In the Septuagint harpagmos (in its forms of harpagma[2,3]  and harpagmata) is used 16 times according to trinitarian Zondervan's A Concordance of the Septuagint, p. 32, 1979 printing.  And in every case its meaning is the taking of something away from someone by force.  Here they are in the Bagster Septuagint as published by Zondervan:  Lev. 6:4 "plunder;" Job 29:17 "spoil" (a "prize" taken by force); Ps. 61:10 (Ps. 62:10 in most modern Bibles) "robberies;" Is. 42:22 "prey;" Is. 61:8 "robberies;" Ezek. 18:7 "plunder;" Ezek. 18:12 "robbery;" Ezek. 18:16 "robbery;" Ezek. 18:18 "plunder;" Ezek. 19:3 "prey;" Ezek. 19:6 "take prey;" Ezek. 22:25 "seizing prey;" Ezek. 22:27 "get dishonest gain" (through the use of "harpazo" or "force"); Ezek. 22:29 "robbery;" Ezek. 33:15 "has robbed;" and Malachi 1:13 "torn victims" (compare ASV). 

So, in spite of some trinitarians' reasonings and euphemistic renderings, it is clear from the way it was always used in scripture that harpagmos means either taking something away by force (a verb), or something which has been taken by force (a noun). 

Many trinitarian translators, however, either make nonsense out of the meaning of Phil. 2:6 by  actually using the proper meaning of "robbery" or "taken by force" without showing God's clear superiority over Jesus which the context demands, or, instead, making sense of it by choosing a word that doesn't have the proper meaning of "taking by force." 

For example, the King James Version (KJV) does use "robbery" (a nearly-accurate meaning for harpagmos) but obviously mangles the meaning of the rest of the statement so that it doesn't even make proper sense: "thought it not robbery to be equal with God."  This is a nonsensical statement even by itself.  In context it is even more inappropriate! 

Yes, as we have seen above, even in the KJV it is apparent from context that the purpose of this example is to emphasize lowliness of mind, humility: to regard others as better than yourself (vv. 3-5).  Paul certainly wouldn't destroy this example of humility for fellow Christians by saying that Jesus is thinking that it isn't robbery for him to be equal with the Most High!  Besides being a nonsensical statement, it is just the opposite of humility!  Instead, to be in harmony with the purpose of Paul's example, we must find a Jesus who regards God as superior to himself and won't give even a moment's thought about attempting to take that most high position himself, but, instead, humbles himself even further.  

Trinitarian scholar R. P. Martin, for example, feels the context (especially the obvious contrast of verses 6 and 7) clearly proves that harpagmos in verse 6 means Christ refused to seize equality with God.  Emphasizing the fact that this is a contrast with verse 6, verse 7 begins with "but [alla]."  In accord with this, he tells us, 

"V[erse] 6b states what Christ might have done [or could have attempted to do], i.e. seized equality with God; v. 7 states what he chose to do, i.e.  give himself." - The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, vol. 3, p. 604. 

The Phil. 2:6 footnote for ‘grasped’ (harpagmos) in the NAB (2002, by United States Conference of Catholic Bishops) : 

[6] "Either a reference to Christ's preexistence and those aspects of divinity that he was willing to give up in order to serve in human form, or to what the man Jesus refused to grasp at to attain divinity.  Many see an allusion to the Genesis story: unlike Adam, Jesus, though . . . in the form of God (Genesis 1:26-27), did not reach out for equality with God, in contrast with the first Adam in Genesis 3:5-6."  

The NASB, on the other hand, chooses an English word for harpagmos that doesn't clearly bring out its full intended meaning: "[Jesus] did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped [harpagmos]," when, of course, it should be: "did not regard equality with God a thing to be taken by force [harpagmos]."  (Review the quote from the Expositor's Greek Testament above.)[4] 

An excellent illustration of the trinitarian's dilemma concerning an honest translation of Phil. 2:6 can be shown by the 1971 "Palm Sunday Controversy" in France (see  June 15, 1971 WT):

At every Palm Sunday Mass, Phil. 2:5-11 is read.  The 1959 lectionary for France's Catholic Church read:  "Being of divine status, Christ did not greedily hold on to [harpagmos] the rank that made him equal to God." 


In 1969 the Roman Catholic bishops of France authorized a new lectionary for their country.  The Holy See in Rome approved it on September 16, 1969.  In this new lectionary Phil. 2:6 was translated:  "Christ Jesus is God's image [morphe, `form']; but he did not choose to seize by force [harpagmos] equality with God."

This new translation, needless to say, started a great controversy and demonstrations by many Catholics throughout France.  As one French Catholic magazine explained:  "If he [Jesus] refused to seize it [equality with God], it must be that he did not already possess it." 

So much pressure was brought to bear upon the Church in France that the trinitarian Catholic bishops who had insisted upon the new honest translation were forced to change it.  So, in an attempt to compromise, they rendered it:  "He [Jesus] did not choose to claim to be the same as God."


This newest version was also thoroughly condemned by the same trinity-defending French Catholic magazine.  It noted that if Christ "did not choose to claim to be the same as God," this implied that he was not "the same as God," and "the practical effect of this substitution amounts to heresy and blasphemy."


But, in spite of threats and demonstrations, the French episcopate refused to compromise any further.  Le Monde reported, 


"this translation ... was accepted by the entire body of French-speaking bishops.  The Permanent Council of the French Episcopate, that has just met in Paris, has ratified it; so it will stand."

Why did these trinitarian Catholic scholars and Church officials insist on a translation of Phil. 2:6 that so obviously denies the "central doctrine" of the Catholic Church?    
                                                
This question was answered by an article in Le Monde (6 April 1971): 


 "The scholars responsible for this change - a change ratified by the majority of French bishops - consider the new translation more faithful to the Greek text than the former [1959] one was." 


So the French Catholic cardinals, archbishops, and bishops found themselves in a dilemma.  They could either give up their new, more honest, translation of Phil. 2:6 which would show they are more loyal to their trinitarian traditions than to the truth of the inspired scriptures (Matt. 15:6-9; 1 Cor. 4:6; Gal. 1:8, 9; 2 Tim. 4:3, 4; John 8:31-32), or they could keep their new official translation and thereby admit that many other French trinitarian Bibles (as well as many translations in other languages) have mistranslated Phil. 2:6.  In order to take the latter course required not only a strong stand against tradition but the strength and courage to stand against the desires (and demonstrations, politics, economic pressures, etc.) of a large number of their countrymen.  Courage of such a magnitude is rare in the ranks of tradition-bound Christendom! 


When even a number of the best trinitarian scholars are willing to admit the actual meaning (or even an equivalent compromise) of harpagmos at Phil. 2:6, it becomes necessary for honest-hearted, truth-seeking individuals to admit that Phil. 2:6 not only does not identify Jesus as God, but that it clearly shows Jesus is not God!


The highly regarded (and trinitarian) The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, 1986, Zondervan, says: 


"Although the Son of God in his pre-existent being was in the form of God, he resisted the temptation to be equal with God (Phil. 2:6).  In his earthly existence he was obedient to God, even unto death on the cross (Phil. 2:8) .... After the completion of his work on earth he has indeed been raised to the right hand of God (Eph. 1:20; 1 Pet. 3:22) .... But he is still not made equal to God.  Although completely co-ordinated with God, he remains subordinate to him (cf. 1 Cor. 15:28)." - p. 80, vol. 2. [Emphasis found in quotations is nearly always added by me, as it also is here.]
  Ison: "Equal" 


Of course most trinitarians ignore the proper translation of harpagmos.  Among such "scholars" was the influential Dr. Walter Martin, the anti-"cult" Trinity defender.  He tells us, in fact, that the word "equal" here further proves Jesus' absolute equation with God [but only if you mistranslate harpagmos first, of course]. 



(Please consider:  Being "equal to someone or something" [like being "the image of someone"] is really a statement that you are not really that person or thing at all!  When we intend to identify someone or something, we come right out and say it.  We do not say, "David is equal to the king of Israel;" "Jesus is equal to the Christ;" "Jehovah is equal to God;" etc.!  No, we clearly say, "David is King over Israel" - 2 Sam. 5:17; "Jesus is the Christ" - 1 Jn 5:1; "Jehovah is God" - 1 Ki 18:39, Living Bible, ASV, Young's, and The Interlinear Bible; Ps 100:3, ASV, Young's, and The Interlinear Bible.  - - - Remember, "LORD" in most Bibles is a mistranslation of "Jehovah.")


 "The term `equal' here," Martin writes, "is another form of ison [see MINOR 7-10], namely isa, which again denotes absolute sameness of nature, thus confirming Christ's true Deity." - p. 68, KOTC.  


So Martin tries to tell us that Phil. 2:6 is asserting that Jesus "thought it not something to be retained [harpagmos] to be of the absolute same nature with God."  But, as we have seen (MINOR 7-11), isos does not mean "absolute equality of nature" - cf. Matt. 20:12; Luke 20:36 (esp. LB).  


Even the highly acclaimed trinitarian authority The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology admits that ison (and its related forms) 


"indicates more strongly an external, objectively measurable and established likeness and correspondence"  - p. 497, vol. 2.  

A careful study of the NT uses of this word not only shows that it means an external likeness but that it may even be limited to a likeness of only one aspect of the original [MINOR 8 - "John 5:18 (`Equal': Ison)"].

Isos (isa, neut.) "ἴσος ... prob. from 1492 [eido] (through the idea of seeming); similar (in amount or kind)" - Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible.

  So when one thing is described as isa [ison] with another thing, they are still two separate different things.  One is merely like or similar to another in a certain aspect.

The very trinitarian The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, vol. 2, p. 968, discussing isos, reveals: 


"In Mt 20:12, `made them equal' means `put them upon the same footing,' i.e. regarded their brief service as though it were the very same as our long hours of toil.  In Lk 20:36 the context restricts the equality to a particular relation." - Eerdmans Publ., 1984 reprint.


In other words, ison at Matt. 20:12 makes the workers measurably "equal" to one another in only one external aspect: the amount of money they were to receive.  They were really very unequal otherwise.  Also in Luke 20:36, as the trinitarian reference quoted above tells us, those resurrected humans and God's angels are not necessarily considered equal in essence in this scripture but in only one particular relation: they will not die again.  (See Living Bible.) 


And we see the same thing in the OT Septuagint:


"so thy quarrel and enmity shall not depart, but shall be to thee like [isos] death." - Prov. 25:10, Septuagint Version, Zondervan Publ., 1970, p. 813.  


"Quarrel" and "enmity" certainly are not absolutely equal to death (in spite of the fact that some could render this "shall be equal [isos] to death")!   The similarity of the single quality of permanence is the only thing being equated here.  The "quarreling" and "enmity" are a never-ending condition, like death itself.


Furthermore, the fact that isa is neuter in this verse in Philippians means that Paul is not saying that Jesus is perfectly equal to God himself.  You see, the word `God' here is the masculine form of the word, and for the word `equal' (whatever its intended meaning) to be applied wholly to the word `God' itself it must be of the same gender (masculine in this case - isos). - see the similar use of the neuter `one' used for the masculine `God' in the ONE study.  


Therefore, even if isa could mean absolute equality, only some thing (or things)  about God are being considered - not God as a whole.[5]  So Jesus is refusing to seize some thing or things (authority, power, immortality, ...?) that are similar to God's.


That is why 4th century trinitarians were forced to use a non-Biblical word instead of isos in an attempt to provide just such a meaning for their trinitarian creeds (see MINOR 8-9). 

So if we translated this passage with the actual, full meaning of the word ison, the literal NT Greek - ("not taking by force [harpagmos] considered [hegeomai] the to be `equal' [isa] with god [theo]") - would be rendered: "did not even consider forcefully trying to become like God (even in any single aspect)."

----------------------------------------------------


                                          Theos: "God"/"a god"



Another thing we should know about Phil. 2:6, 7 concerns the phrase "of God" (θεοῦ or theou).  A perfectly honest alternate translation of this verse can be: "though he was existing in the form of a god [i.e., `a mighty individual' in a similar sense that the Bible calls angels and Israelite judges `gods' - see the DEF and BOWGOD studies]."  The NWT does not translate it that way, but grammatically and doctrinally it is a perfectly honest rendering and probably accounts for the 1959 French translation of Phil. 2:6, "being of divine status" and the NEB's "divine nature" and the renderings in Moffatt and the JB.  (See the first part of the DEF study which discusses "god/divine.") 

This scripture contrasts Jesus as, first, being in "form of god" (morphe theou) and, then, (2:7) being in "form of slave" (morphen doulou).  Both of these phrases use the word "form" followed by an anarthrous genitive noun.  This means that we are being given a contrast of two grammatical parallels.

 If we should decide to translate the second half of this parallel as "form of a slave," then there can be no honest objection on grammatical grounds for translating the first part of this parallel as "form of a  god."  In fact it would seem more appropriate to translate it this way instead of "form of [the] God."


That means it would certainly not be improper to interpret Phil. 2:6, 7 as "although he was existing in the form of one in a high position of mightiness and/or authority (as, in a lower sense, the position of angels, and even certain Israelite judges and kings, qualified them to be called `gods' occasionally in the inspired scriptures), he never even gave a thought about an attempt to seize equality with God, but instead, he gave up that exalted position he already had and took on the form of one in a lowly position."


To show further that the anarthrous genitive theou ("God" or "a god") as found at Phil. 2:6 may be honestly translated "of a god," compare Acts 12:22 in any NT Greek-English interlinear Bible  - "the voice of a god." 


The Watchtower Society, however, interprets Phil. 2:6 to mean that Jesus  was in the form of God.  That is, he was a spirit person as are all heavenly persons - see WORSHIP-1.  The Father is a spirit person (John 4:23, 24 KJV, ASV); the angels are spirit persons (Heb. 1:7 KJV - also see Aid book, p. 1542 - and pp. 39 and 593 in the trinitarian Today's Dictionary of the Bible); men resurrected to heaven become spirit persons (Phil. 3:20, 21; 1 Cor. 15:44-53); and Jesus is (and was in the beginning also) a spirit person (1 Pet. 3:18, 1 Cor. 15:45).


---------------------------------------------------                                                     

                                                                Morphe



Although it has been rejected by even many trinitarian Bible scholars, some others attempt to force an interpretation of morphe (μορφῇ) that includes the idea of "essence" or "nature." They do this only at Phil. 2:6 (Jesus "was in the form [morphe] of God") because the true meaning of morphe will not allow for the trinitarian interpretation that Jesus is God.  But with their forced interpretation of morphe at Phil. 2:6 they can say that Jesus had the "absolute essence" and "full nature" of God!
 However, as even many trinitarian Bible scholars admit: 


"Morphe is instanced from Homer onwards and means form in the sense of outward appearance."  -  The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, 1986, Zondervan, p. 705, vol. 1.  


Thayer agrees that morphe is 


"the form by which a person or thing strikes the vision; the external appearance" - Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, p. 418, Baker Book House.  [Also see Young's Analytical Concordance (also compare the closely-related morphosis) and Liddell and Scott's An Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon, p. 519, Oxford University Press, 1994 printing.] 


It's easy to see why even many trinitarian scholars disagree with the forced "nature" interpretation of morphe when you look at all the scriptural uses of morphe (according to Young's Analytical Concordance, Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1978 printing and  A Concordance of the Septuagint, Zondervan Publishing House, 1979 printing): Mark 16:12; Phil. 2:6, 7 in the New Testament and in the Old Testament Greek Septuagint of Job 4:16 "there was no form [morphe] before my eyes;" Is. 44:13 "makes it as the form [morphe] of a man;" Dan. 4:33 "my natural form [morphe] returned to me;" 5:6, 9, 10 "the king's countenance [morphe] changed;" 7:28 "[Daniel's] countenance [morphe] was changed." - The Septuagint Version, Greek and English, Zondervan, 1976 printing.  


Morphe is found at Mark 16:12 which is part of the "Long Ending" for the Gospel of Mark.  Many scholars do not consider this as inspired scripture, but, instead, a later addition by someone to Mark's original inspired writing.  However, even if this is the case, it is still an example of how morphe was used in those times since copies of the "Long Ending" were in existence at least as early as 165 A.D. (Justin Martyr).


So notice especially how the New American Bible (1970), the Living Bible, The New English Bible, the Douay version, the New Life Version, and the Easy-to-Read Version translate morphe at Mark 16:12:


"he was revealed to them completely changed in appearance [morphe]" - NAB.


"they didn't recognize him at first because he had changed his appearance [morphe]." - LB.


"he appeared in a different guise [morphe]" - NEB.


"he appeared in another shape [morphe]" - Douay.


"he did not look like he had looked [morphe] before to these two people" - NLV.


"Jesus did not look the same" - ETRV.


Mark 16:12 - "He appeared in another form. Luke explains this by saying that their eyes were held. If their eyes were influenced, of course, optically speaking, Jesus would appear in another form." - People's New Testament Notes.

These trinitarian translations show the meaning of morphe to be that of "external appearance" not "essence" or "nature"![6]  


The hyper-trinitarian Living Bible even renders morphe at Phil. 2:7 as "disguise"!  And the 1969 French lectionary (see section on harpagmos above) rendered morphe at Phil. 2:6 as image!


The further uses of morphe, the very same form as used at Phil 2:6, by those first Christian writers to write after the NT itself was written (the Apostolic Fathers - about 90 A.D. to 150 A.D.) make a trinitarian rendering at Philippians 2:6 even more incredible:


      "There was no form [μορφῇ] before my eyes, but I heard a breeze and a voice." 1 Clem. 39:3, The Apostolic Fathers, Sparks, 1978, Thomas Nelson, Inc., Publ.


      "I want to show you what the holy Spirit, which spoke with you in the form [μορφῇ] of the Church, showed you" - Hermas, Sim. 9:1:1, Sparks.


Also notice how the first Christian writers after the Apostolic fathers understood the meaning of morphe at Phil 2:6 itself:


"... who being in the shape of God, thought it not an object of desire to be treated like God" - Christian letter from 177 A.D. sometimes ascribed to Irenaeus, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (ANF), p. 784, vol. 8.


"... who being in the image of God, `thought it not ...'" - Tertullian, about 200 A.D., ANF, p. 549, vol. 3.


"...who being appointed in the figure of God ..." - Cyprian, about 250 A.D., ANF, p. 545, vol. 5.


We can see, then, that, with the originally-intended meaning of morphe, Paul is saying that before Jesus came to earth he had a form or an external appearance resembling that of God (as do the other heavenly spirit persons, the angels, also).[7]  


So one in the morphe of a slave is one who has the appearance of a slave (but is not in actuality - thus, "taking the disguise [morphe] of a slave" - Phil. 2:7, Living Bible.). 


This is the obvious meaning of "form" here and it is still used in this sense even today.  As an example The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology (TNIDONTT) says:


 "According to Gen 18:1 ff., God appeared to Abraham in the form of three men." - p. 706, vol. 1.  


Although scripturally incorrect (see the IMAGE study: "Actual physical representations") some trinitarians today say that God was in the form of three men (or angels).  Obviously they mean only that he appeared that way to men, but really was not what his outward appearance seemed: he was not actually three men!!).


Isaiah 44:13, for example, says in the Septuagint: "The artificer having chosen a piece of wood, marks it out with a rule, and fits it with glue, and makes it as the form [morphe] of a man" - Zondervan, 1976 printing.  Now a "Wooditarian" might well claim that the wood in this scripture `clearly has the full and complete essence, nature, etc. of Man,' but no objective, reasonable person would accept his wishful interpretation!  Instead an honest interpretation can only be that the artificer made the piece of wood to appear like a man. 

The fact that it is in the form (morphe) of a man shows conclusively (as we should know anyway) that it is not a man!  If the writer of this scripture had somehow intended to say that the artificer had indeed made the piece of wood into a real man, he would not have used morphe.  He would have written that the artificer "makes it into a man."  And, of course, it is equally true that Paul would not have said Jesus was in the form (morphe) of God if he had meant that Jesus was God!  The use of morphe there shows that Jesus was not God!


Yes, the fact that some trinitarians insist that morphe can mean the very essence or nature of a thing does not make it so.  We know that `essence,' `nature,' `essential nature,' etc. were not intended here by Paul simply because of the way this word is always used in scripture.  We know it also by the fact that there were words available to Paul which really did mean `essence' or `nature.'    If Paul, or any other Bible writer, had ever wished to use a word indicating the nature, substance, or essence of something, he could have used phusis or, possibly, even ousia.



Phusis, "φύσις... nature, i.e,  ....  d. the sum of innate properties and powers by which one person differs from others" - Thayer, #5449.

  Phusis, "φύσις, ... the nature, natural qualities, powers, constitution, condition, of a person or thing" - Liddell and Scott, p. 876.


"Phusis (φύσις), ... signifies (a) the nature (i.e., the natural powers or constitution) of a person or thing" - W. E. Vine, p. 775.


Ousia, "οὐσία ... that which is one's own, one's substance, ....   III. the being, essence, nature of a thing" - p. 579, Liddell and Scott's An Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon, Oxford Press.

 For example, Philo, the most popular Jewish scholar and teacher of these times (early to middle first century A.D.), used these two terms in speaking of God's nature:


"[The prophet asks concerning the Creator:] Is He a single Nature (phusis) ... or a composite Being? .... Nevertheless he did not succeed in finding anything by search respecting the essence [ousia] of Him"  -  p. 99, Philo, vol. V, "On Flight and Finding," Harvard University Press, Loeb Classical Library, 1988 printing.


(Philo, as well as all other Jewish and Christian writers of this time never considered God to be more than one person, the Father alone! - see CREEDS, ISRAEL, and LOGOS studies.)

Paul himself was very familiar with at least one of these terms:


Formerly, when you did not know God, you were enslaved to beings that by nature [phusis] are not gods. - Gal. 4:8, NRSV.  (Cf. 2 Pet. 1:4)


Yes, if Paul had intended `nature,' `very essence,' etc., he certainly would not have used a word which means only external appearance (morphe).   He would have used one of the words which really mean absolute nature!


We also have morphe and isa as parallels in the "exalted pre-existent" (Phil. 2:6) first part of this passage.  And we have morphe, homoiomati, and schemati as parallels in the humble "fleshly existent" follow-up (Phil. 2:7-8).  Furthermore, the latter humbled "fleshly" part of this passage ("himself emptied taking morphe of a slave, becoming in homoiomati of men and having been found in the schemati of a man") is the antithetic parallel of the first "exalted" part ("morphe of God").


In other words, there is a common meaning in all these parallel terms.  They are used nearly synonymously.  For example, even hyper-trinitarian W. E. Vine admits: 


"`It is universally admitted that the two phrases ["morphe of God" and "morphe of a slave"] are directly antithetical, and that `form' [morphe] must therefore have the same sense in both.'"  - extreme trinitarian Vine is quoting from extreme trinitarian Gifford's "The Incarnation." -  An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words,  p. 454.


Therefore, if we can determine the meanings of the descriptive parallels (homoiomati and schemati) to "morphe" in the `humbled, fleshly' portion of this scripture, we will then know exactly what was intended by the word morphe in that phrase ("morphe of a slave").  And if we thus determine the meaning of morphe in "morphe of a slave," we will know exactly how morphe was intended to be understood in its exalted parallel: "morphe of God."

What meaning do all these parallel words share?  Like "image" they all mean, not the actual thing but a representation, a similarity, something with only the outward appearance of some other thing.  Therefore, since "morphe" in the phrase "morphe of a slave" is proven by its synonymous parallels (homoiomati, schemati) to mean merely a likeness, then "morphe" in the further parallel of "morphe of God" must also mean merely a likeness!  So, just with its own internal meaning alone, Phil. 2:6-8 shows that "morphe of God" must mean in a form like God's or similar to God!


In other words, when we see `morphe of a servant' being further paralleled (and explained) by "likeness [homoiomati] of men" and "in fashion [schemati] [8]  as a man," there should be no doubt left as to what Paul actually intended when he wrote `morphe of a servant'!  Homoioma (which, of course, includes the form used in Phil. 2:7 - homoiomati) means nothing else but `likeness'![9]   


Even if, as a few trinitarians improperly claim, homoiomati meant "the same as" [and it clearly does not!], it would be asinine to say "he came to be the same as a man" if you intended to say "he came to be a man"!  Either he is a man, or he is not!  Saying he is "the same as" a man clearly indicates he is not really a man!  


And when we know that `morphe of a servant' means `external appearance like  that of a servant,' then we know that this morphe's parallel in `morphe of God' must mean an "external appearance like that of God (or `a god')"!


Paul simply would not have written that Jesus was merely SIMILAR in appearance (morphe) to God (as all real evidence plainly shows) if he thought that Jesus was God!



---------------------------------------------- 


                                           Huparchon (or `Uparchon')


Another less than forthright rendering of  "being in form of God (or a god)" by a few trinitarian scholars involves the Greek word huparcho (translated "being" above).  Huparcho (huparchon or uparchon [ὑπάρχων in Greek letters] is the actual form of huparcho used in this scripture) is sometimes "interpreted" by a few trinitarians in an attempt to show an eternal pre-existence (see TEV).[10]   This is done in an attempt to deny the actuality of Jesus' creation by God. Similarly, Dr. Walter Martin in his The Kingdom of the Cults declares: 


 "Christ never ceased to be Jehovah even during His earthly incarnation.  It is interesting to note that the Greek term uparchon, translated `being' in Philippians 2:6 [KJV], literally means `remaining or not ceasing to be' (see also 1 Corinthians 11:7), hence in the context Christ never ceased to be God."  - p. 94, 1985 ed. 


If uparchon really had such a meaning, we would expect it to be used especially for God.  What else that exists has an eternal existence?  But search as we will we never see this word used for God!  Some examples where we would expect to see it used (if it really meant `eternal existence') in the Bible Greek of the ancient Septuagint are Is. 43:10, 25; 45:15, 22; 46:4, 9.  Like all other scriptures referring to God, they use forms of the "be" verb (eimi), which may be used to mean an eternal existence, but they never use uparchon to describe his existence!  (Is. 45:22, for example, says, "I am [eimi] the God and there is no other." - cf. James 2:19 [estin, form of eimi])[11]  So why is uparchon never used for the only thing in existence that has always existed (and which will never cease to exist)? 


Uparchon is never used for God because it actually, literally means (in spite of Martin's "scholarly" declaration above): 


"to make a beginning (hupo, `under'; arche, `a beginning')" - W. E. Vine's An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, p. 390. 

Strong's Exhaustive Concordance also defines huparcho as "to begin under (quietly), i.e. COME INTO EXISTENCE" - #5225.  


And the authoritative (and trinitarian) An Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon by Liddell and Scott tells us: 

"[huparcho] ... to begin, make a beginning ... 2.  to make a beginning of ... 3.  to begin doing ...   4.   to begin [doing] kindness to one ...  Pass. to be begun" - p. 831, Oxford University Press, 1994 printing. [12]


So, even though it may be rendered into English as "existed" or "is," it nevertheless seems it should also be understood as something that has come into existence at some point. 


In that sense, then, huparchon is very much like another NT word, ginomai, γινόμαι  [#1096, Thayer's], which also literally means "become" or "come into existence" but is sometimes translated into English as "is," "are," etc.  E.g., 1 Peter 3:6 "whose daughters ye are [ginomai]," KJV, NKJV, NAB, RSV, NIV, is more properly understood as "you have become [ginomai] her children," NASB, NRSV, NEB, NWT - Cf. John 6:17, "It was [ginomai] dark."   
 As respected trinitarian NT Greek expert Dr. Alfred Marshall tells us:


"[Ginomai] denotes the coming into existence of what did not exist before.... This verb [just like huparchon] is therefore not used of God...."[13]  


Marshall further explains that although ginomai is often translated into English as "is," "are," "were," etc. it must nevertheless be remembered that it still retains the additional meaning of having come into existence! - p. 106, New Testament Greek Primer, Zondervan Publishing House, 1978 printing. 


For another good example of the similarity of huparchon with ginomai see Luke 16:23 and 22:44.


Lk. 16:23  -  "he lifted up his eyes, being [huparchon] in torment," NASB.


Lk. 22:44  -  "and being [ginomai] in agony he was praying," NASB.


In very similar statements Luke has used the very similar (in meaning) huparchon and ginomai and the highly respected NASB has rendered them both "being."  But in both cases their fundamental meanings of "coming into existence" (or "coming to be") must be remembered.  In other words, the person had not always been in torment or agony, but at some point had "come to be" in such a condition!


If you examine the following examples of the Biblical usage of huparcho, you will find they are clearly speaking of conditions which once did not exist but which have come into existence ("have begun to be"): Luke 16:23; Acts 2:30; Acts 7:55; Acts 8:16; Ro. 4:19; 1 Cor. 11:18; 2 Cor. 8:17; James 2:15.


These last four verses not only show a state that has begun recently but a state that is transient, temporary - e.g., Abraham hadn't always been [huparchon] 100 years of age and certainly wouldn't continue to be 100 years of age: he had begun to be [huparchon] about 100 years old at this point - Ro. 4:19.


1 Cor. 11:18, KJV says: 


 "I hear that there be [huparchon] divisions among you [the Corinthian congregation]."  


Such divisions had not always existed there.  Nor must they always continue to be there, or Paul would not have bothered to counsel them to heal their divisions.  The complete understanding for this verse is, obviously:


 "I hear that there have begun to be [huparchon] divisions among you." 


2 Cor. 8:16, 17 tells us: 


"But thanks be to God, who puts the same earnestness on your behalf in the heart of Titus.  For he [Titus] ..., being [huparchon] himself very earnest, he has gone to you of his own accord." - NASB. 


It should be obvious to everyone that Titus hasn't been earnest from all  eternity.  He obviously came to be earnest at some point in time.  And, in fact, we are even told in verse 16 that at some point in time God put this earnestness in Titus' heart.  Obviously it was not always there if God put it in his heart at some point!  The meaning of huparchon as "having come [or begun] to be" is very certain from the context alone in these two verses. 


James 2:15 tells us, in the KJV: "If a brother or sister be [huparchon] naked [`without clothes' - NIV, NASB]," we must help him to become clothed again.  Obviously the brother has not been naked for all eternity but has very recently come to be in this condition.  It's equally obvious that the brother will not always continue in this condition.  In fact his brothers are commanded to ensure that he not continue in this naked state.  (Famed trinitarian Bible scholar Dr. Robert Young noted the correct, complete meaning for huparchon in this verse: "BEGIN to be [huparchon] naked" - Young's Concise Critical Bible Commentary, Baker Book House, 1977 ed.) 


Therefore, huparcho (or huparchon) does not mean "eternal pre-existence" as claimed by some trinitarians, and it certainly does not have to mean a condition that must continue to exist as Dr. Walter Martin also implies.  Notice the solitary example (1 Cor. 11:7) he has selected to "prove" that uparchon means "not ceasing to be":

"For a man ... is [huparchon] the image and glory of God" - NASB. 

My trinitarian NASB reference Bible refers this scripture to Gen. 1:26; 5:1; 9:6; and James 3:9.  These scriptures all state that man was created or made in the image of God.  (In fact James 3:9 literally says that men "have come to be [ginomai, #1096] in the likeness of God" and is usually translated in trinitarian Bibles as "have been made [or created] in the likeness of God." - NASB, NIV, RSV.) 


So there is the real parallel meaning for the huparchon of 1 Cor. 11:7 -  created!  There obviously was a time (before he was created) when a man was not the image of God.  Furthermore, Martin's solitary "example" states that "a man" (NASB) is the image of God.  This means that every man who lives has these qualities in some degree.  However, not every man will have these qualities forever.  Many, when they return to the dust of the earth, will cease to reflect God's qualities and glory!  It would be much better to translate this verse literally as "For a man ought not to have his head covered, since he has come into existence [huparchon] in the image and glory of God."


There is little doubt about what huparchon was actually intended to mean (regardless of how modern trinitarian translators wish to translate it).  Noted trinitarian scholar and translator Dr. Robert Young (Young's Analytical Concordance to the Bible;  Young's Literal Translation of the Holy Bible; etc.) has even admitted in his Young's Concise Critical Bible Commentary (p. 134, Baker Book House, 1977) that his own rendering of huparchon as "being" at Phil. 2:6 in his own published Bible translation should be, to be more literal,

"beginning secretly [huparchon] in (the) form of God ...." - Phil. 2:6 [14]  


So, rather than any "eternal pre-existence" being implied by Paul's use of huparchon at Phil. 2:6 ("who `always having been' in God's form" - cf. TEV), it is more likely just the opposite:  "Who came into existence (or was created) [huparchon] in a form [morphe] similar to God (or in God's image)"![15]    Of course, if Jesus first came into existence in God's image, then he cannot be the eternal, always-existent God of the Bible (nor even the always-existent God of the trinity doctrine)! 


Or, put even more simply, since huparchon is never used for God himself, then its use for the pre-existent Jesus shows, again, that Jesus cannot be God!


[To be honest, I must admit that a friend who is a NT Greek scholar disagrees with my understanding of huparchon. He believes that it is properly used as 'being' without regard to 'beginning.']


What we really have at Phil. 2:6-7, then, may be more accurately rendered: 


"who, even though he had come into existence as a glorious spirit person in a likeness [external form or guise] of God (or a god), never gave even the slightest consideration that by force he should try to become equal to God (in even a single aspect or quality), but, instead, emptied himself of his glorious form and took on the likeness [external form or guise] of a slave, being born in the likeness of men." 


When all is examined, Phil. 2:6 is, in reality, proof that Jesus has never been equally God with the Father! 

PHIL 2:6 - pt 2 (Notes)
NOTES



1. It is significant that it speaks of “equality with God” not “equality with the Father” in these two trinitarian Bibles. With their wordings of this verse one cannot even say that Jesus was equally God, although, somehow, subordinate to the Father, as some trinitarians attempt. 



2. No less an authority than highly trinitarian NT Greek scholar Dr. A. T. Robertson has admitted that “the few examples of harpagmos ... allow it to be understood as equivalent to harpagma, like baptismos and baptisma.”  - p. 444, vol. IV, Word Pictures.

Furthermore, the trinitarian The Expositor’s Greek Testament also admits that “It is generally admitted now that ἁρπαγμὸς [harpagmos] may be regarded as = ἁρπαγμa  [harpagma, as often found in the Septuagint OT].”

 If there should still be any question about the different endings here (harpagma / harpagmon) for the same basic word harpagmos, you can show the example of “blasphemous / blasphemer” as used in the New Testament Greek. Under the designation of blasphemos (#989 in Strong’s; Thayer’s; and the New American Standard Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible) we find this same NT Greek word has these endings: Blasphema (Acts 6:11) and Blasphemon (1 Tim. 1:13). Yes, like harpagmos: harpagma / harpagmon, the same basic NT word (blasphemos) is used as a noun at 1 Tim. 1:13 (blasphemon) and as an adjective at Acts 6:11 (blasphema). See Vine, p. 124; Thayer, p. 103; Strong’s, #989 in the “Greek Dictionary”; New American Standard Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, #989, p. 1639; and The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology (Zondervan 1986), vol. 3, p. 345. Another example is #1199 (desmos): Luke 8:29 (desma) and Mk. 7:35 (desmos). - See Thayer, Strong’s, etc. Also see Vine, p.88.



3. Robertson, desperately trying to maintain a trinitarian interpretation, goes on to ‘explain’ that at Phil. 2:6 Paul means “a prize [harpagmos interpreted as ‘a result’] to be held on to rather than something to be won [harpagmos interpreted as ‘an act’, e.g. ‘robbery,’ ‘seizure’]” - p. 444, vol. IV, Word Pictures. 

But if we really take harpagmos at Phil. 2:6 “to be equivalent to harpagma,” as Robertson states, we find it probably should be interpreted as an act (Robertson himself also admits that words ending in -mos were originally so intended) rather than a result. For example, Ezekiel (as found in the Septuagint) uses forms of harpagmos (harpagma and harpagmata) more than any other OT writer. In Ezek. 18:7, 12, 16, and 18 he uses harpagma, whereas in Ezek. 19:3, 6; 22:25, 27, and 29 he uses harpagmata. 

Each one of the 4 uses of harpagma in Ezek. 18 means an act of seizing by force. Each one of the 5 uses of harpagmata means a result: a “prize” or “spoil” or “prey” (all of which are the results of “taking by force”). So even if, as Robertson says, harpagmos is equivalent to harpagma, harpagmos still means an act of “taking by force”. 

In addition, even when the “result” meaning is used (harpagmata in the above Septuagint references), it always has a verb with it (usually harpazo, “taken by force”) showing what was being done to the “spoil.” So even if the “result” meaning (“spoil,” “prey”) were intended, it would have a verb indicating its use: “taken” (or, perhaps, even “held on to” as trinitarians want at Phil. 2:6). But there is no such verb at Phil. 2:6. Even if there were such a verb there, it would still be saying: “He didn’t even consider [holding on to his] forcefully-seized spoil: to be equal to God.” This is an unacceptable interpretation due to the inherent meaning (“forcefully seized”) of harpagmos (or harpagma or harpagmata). The only proper understanding at Phil. 2:6 must be: Even though he was in a likeness (or ‘outward appearance’) of God, he never gave any consideration to trying by forceful seizure to be equal to God.” - Compare GNB.



4. The trinitarian Revised English Bible’s rendering of Phil. 2:6 is also a compromise, but still more honest than NASB: “Yet he laid no claim to equality with God” - REB. This compromise is a result of recognizing the significance of harpagmos but giving a rendering which only allows the possibility of its true meaning. The REB gave up the usual trinitarian insistence that, somehow, Jesus was equal with God. They managed to twist the meaning just enough to imply that he may or may not have actually been equal to God, whereas a totally honest translation of harpagmos reveals that he definitely was NOT equal to God!



5. A good example is the use of isa (“equal” at Isaiah 51:23) in the Septuagint: Here God is speaking about those oppressors who commanded Israelites to lie down flat on the ground so they could be walked upon, and the Israelites “made their bodies equal [isa] with the ground” so they could be walked upon. Obviously the Israelites did not make their bodies absolutely equal with the ground thereby making themselves literal ground [or having the ‘absolute sameness of nature’ as the ground as Walter Martin would have to say] also, but merely made them equal in the attributes (neuter) of the ground: flatness, lowness, destined to be walked upon, of little worth, etc. 



6. As for the wishful thinking of a few trinitarian apologists that morphe had been used by the early pagan Greek philosophers with some kind of “essence” meaning and then slipped into the common language and then into the NT in this single verse: Most words used with different meanings by specialists (including philosophers) today do not slip into the common language, and they didn’t in the first centuries either. Morphe was no exception:

“Philosophical Use. morphe has no unequivocal sense in philosophy. .... The term never achieves any fixity that influences ordinary usage, and from Stoicism onward is rare in philosophy. Philo contrasts unformed matter with the creation, in which things have received their forms [appearances]. In general morphe in all its nuances represents what may be seen by the senses” - p. 608

“Phil. 2:6-7 speaks in hymnic style of the “form” of Christ. .... Prior to the incarnation he is in the form of God [Phil. 2:6], i.e., he bears the image of the divine majesty, and after the incarnation he is exalted again as the kyrios. In antithesis to the earlier and the later glory, his incarnation is a time of humble service when he bends his own will to that of others.” - p. 609, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (trinitarian) Abridged in One Volume (‘Little Kittel’), 1985, Eerdmans (trinitarian).

Phil. 2:6: [Trinitarian Dr. Adam Clarke agrees with the interpretation of trinitarians Dr. Macknight and Dr. Whitby. He quotes Dr. Macknight who says his] “interpretation is supported by the term μορφῇ  [morphe], form, here used, which signifies a person’s external shape or appearance, and not his nature or essence. Thus we are told, Mark 16:12, that Jesus appeared to his disciples in another μορφῇ, shape, or form. And, Matthew 17:2, μετεμορφώθη, he was transfigured before them — his outward appearance or form was changed. .... this sense of μορφῇ  [morphe] θεοῦ [theou], is confirmed by the meaning of μορφὴν δούλου  [morphe doulou], Philippians 2:7; which evidently denotes the appearance and behavior of a servant or bondman, and not the essence of such a person. See Whitby and Macknight.” - Clarke’s Commentary, NT, pp. 1100-1101, vol. 6A, Ages Software, Version 2.0, 1997.

    In a discussion concerning the definition of morphe, Paul R. wrote: 


“…. those who advocated "form" as a definition of "morphe" simply stated that it means such, while those who advocated "external appearance" also provided support for their interpretation, such as 4 Macc. 15.3 (4), Mark 16:12, 1 Clement 39:3, Job 4:16 LXX, Xenophon, Philo, Lucian, and Libanius.


“Can one prove a theory without supporting evidence?   I don't think so.”



7.  However, even if we allowed the modern, forced “nature” meaning for morphe, we still wouldn’t necessarily have to understand Jesus as being equally God with the Father. As the trinitarian Today’s Dictionary of the Bible, 1982, Bethany House Publ., tells us: 

“the name [‘angel’] does not denote their nature [just as the title ‘God’ or ‘god’ does not necessarily denote one’s nature], but their office as messengers” - p. 38. “As to their nature, they are spirits.” - p. 39.

Or, as the equally trinitarian New Bible Dictionary (2nd ed.), Tyndale House, 1982, tells us, angels are “uncorrupted spirit in original essence.” - p. 36.

Today’s Dictionary of the Bible also tells us that this nature (“spirit”) of angels is “the divine nature” - p. 593. And the New Bible Dictionary admits: “in his nature God is pure spirit.” - p. 427. 

Therefore, God, Jesus, and the angels all have the “essence” or “nature” of spirit. This obviously does not make them all equally God! Man, mouse, and canary are certainly not all equally man simply because they all have the same “essence” or “nature” of flesh! 




8.   “General. The term schema [which includes its form of schemati] denotes the outward structure or form that may be known by the senses. .... Philo [contemporary with NT writings] makes rich use of the term with the primary sense of what may be known from outside, e.g, forms, artistic or mathematical figures, forms of speech, also human bearing, disposition, posture, or position. He also uses the word for ‘distinctive character.’ Thus at the Passover every house takes on the schema of a sanctuary. [In this example, then, we see that Kittel’s ‘distinctive character’ is something which is not the reality but resembles it in ‘character’ only!]” - pp. 1129, 1130, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament Abridged in One Volume, (‘Little Kittel’).


9.    “homoioma. This rare word means ‘what is similar,’ ‘copy,’ with a stress on the aspect of ‘similarity.’ .... In Rom. 8:3 and Phil 2:7 Paul uses [homoioma] with reference to Christ’s earthly life. In Rom. 8:3 he stresses the reality of Christ’s humanity by saying that he came in the ‘likeness’ of sinful flesh; he entered the nexus of human sin but without becoming subject to the power of sin, as would be implied if Paul had simply said ‘in sinful flesh.’ The homoioma denotes likeness in appearance but distinction in essence. .... The term homoioma is clearly an attempt to overcome the difficulty of having to say that the Christ in whom human sin is condemned is not himself a sinner. .... It is not implied that he has ceased to be God [or ‘divine’ for non-trinitarians]; even in his humanity Christ is at the same time a being of another kind. In the fathers Ignatius refers to the resurrection of believers corresponding to Christ’s ‘likeness’ (Trallians 9.2), and an early sacramentary calls the bread the ‘likeness’ of Christ’s body.” - pp. 685, 686, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Abridged in One Volume, (‘Little Kittel’). The scholarly acclaim for this work is great, but so is its trinitarian bent!

Yes, as even most trinitarian scholars will tell you, homoiomati means “a likeness” “that which is made like something, a resemblance”! - W. E. Vine. Even super-trinitarian Vine himself agrees that Paul intended that Jesus only resembled men in that he was “not simply and merely man ... but the Incarnate Son of God” - W. E. Vine, quoting Gifford, quoting Meyer). 

It should be obvious that the trinitarian tactic of insisting that “likeness” here actually means the reality itself is unacceptable. But, to those who insist on such an interpretation, let’s look at James 3:9. Here James speaks of men “who have been made in the likeness of God” - NASB. Those trinitarians who insist that “likeness” at Phil. 2:7 provides a parallel with ‘morphe of God’ that makes Jesus God should, then, also insist that “likeness” at James 3:9 makes men God! (We might also examine “likeness” at Gen. 5:1. Here the Bible tells us that man was created “in the likeness of God”! - KJV; NKJV; NASB; ASV; NIV; RSV; NRSV; NAB; NJB; NEB; AT; MLB; etc. Again, then, trinitarian-type ‘evidence’ makes even men God!)



10. TEV (Today’s English Version, American Bible Society) reads at Phil. 2:6, “He always had [huparchon] the very nature [morphe] of God ...” 

There is no honest justification for such a rendering of huparchon. It simply emphasizes the desperation of trinitarians to find (or invent) some scriptural justification for their very unscriptural belief. See the HIST study to see how and why the trinity doctrine was developed in the 4th century A.D.

Even trinitarian NT scholar W. E. Vine tells us: 

“the present participle of huparcho, to exist, which always involves a pre-existent state, prior to the fact referred to, and a continuance of the state after the fact. Thus in Phil. 2:6, the phrase ‘who being (huparchon) in the form of God,’ implies His pre-existent Deity, previous to His Birth, and His continued Deity afterwards.” - p. 108, An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, Nelson, 1983 printing. 

This is sheer poppycock, of course! There is no example to support objectively such a wishful interpretation and plenty to refute it! (See how huparchon is used at Ro 4:19, for example.)



11. The forms of the be verb (which include εἰ, ἐστὶν, ἦν,ἔσομαι, etc.) may or may not include the understanding of eternal existence. Therefore, they may be used to describe either God’s existence (eternal) or the existence of one of God’s transient creations. For example, Is. 46:9 says in the Greek of the Septuagint, ego eimi ho theos (ἐγὼ εἰμί ὁ θεὸς  - ‘I am God’), and Peter said at Acts 10:26 “stand up; I myself also am (εἰμί) a man.” In the first example eimi may be understood as including the meaning of eternal existence. In the second example it surely does not include such a meaning.



12. Even the extremely trinitarian A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature tells us: “ὑπάρχω  [huparcho] impf. ὑπάρχων … the basic idea: came into being fr[om] an originating point and so to take place; gener. ‘inhere, be there’.” – p. 1029, University of Chicago Press, 2000. Unfortunately, the rest of the entry attempts to show that its use in the NT is to be simply understood as to exist or be (ignoring the literal meaning of the word and a proper analysis of the word as used in the NT.) This trinitarian lexicon lists the following as examples of Paul’s use of the word: Ro. 4:19; 1 Cor. 7:26; 11:7; 11:18; 12:22; 13:3; 2 Cor. 8:17; 12:16; Gal. 1:14; 2:14; Phil. 2:6; 3:20.


 13. This is similar to the distinction between the use of kalos, the Greek NT word for “good” and agathos, another NT Greek word for “good.” One is never used for God, but only for His creations. The other may be used for God and his creations.

A man addressed Jesus as “Good [agathos] Teacher.” Jesus replied, “Why do you call me good [agathos]? No one is good [agathos] except one, God.” - Mark 10:17,18. Jesus clearly states that only God should be called agathos and strongly indicates that he, Jesus, is not that one who is to be called agathos. (It would appear that Jesus meant that only God is agathos in the ultimate sense of the word.)

However, Jesus also calls himself “the good [kalos] Shepherd.” - Jn 10:11. Not only does this not use the NT word agathos, but we see that true Christians are also “good” [kalos] just like Jesus! They are “good [kalos] ministers” - 1 Tim. 4:6, ASV, and “good [kalos] stewards” - 1 Peter 4:10, ASV. 

In fact, God Himself is described as “good” with agathos, but never with kalos in all the Greek Scriptures. The reason kalos is never (in its hundreds of uses in OT and NT) used for the person of God may be explained by the use of kalos at Gen. 1:4-31 in the Septuagint where each of God’s creations is called “good” [kalos]. Paul reinforces this usage at 1 Tim. 4:4 - “For every creature of God is good [kalos]”, ASV. 

The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology also admits that in the OT “kalos, as opposed to agathos, is what is pleasing to Yahweh, what he likes or what gives him joy, whereas agathos suggests more the application of an ethical standard.” - p. 103, vol. 2, Zondervan, 1986. And Thayer writes, “Thus even in the usage of the O.T. we are reminded of Christ’s words, Mk. x. 18, [‘no one is agathos except one, God’].” - p. 3, #18, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, Baker Book House, 1984 printing. 

The fact that Christians are called kalos in Scripture proves they are not God who, for whatever reason, is never called kalos! It also proves Jesus is not God! 



14. Early Christian writer Cyprian (ca. 250 A.D.) wrote of Phil. 2:6 that Paul wrote: “Who being established [translation of huparchon into Latin – constitutus(?)] in the form of God….” – p. 521; and “Who being appointed [another rendering of huparchon into the Latin used by Cyprian – constitutus (?)] in the figure of God….” – p. 545, vol. 5, The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Eerdmans Publishing, 1990.



Even earlier, Tertullian quoted Phil. 2:6 in his 'On the Resurrection of the Flesh,' 6:4 (see ANF, vol. 3, p. 549, f.n. #14) by using the Latin constitutus in place of the Greek huparchon: "qui in effigie dei constitutus non rapinam existimavit pariari deo" ["who in image of god having been created (constitutus) ...."]. - http://tertullian.org/articles/evans_res/evans_res_03latin.htm  

……………..

Charlton T. Lewis, Charles Short, A Latin Dictionary:


"con-stituo , ui, ūtum, 3, v. a. [statuo] , to cause to stand, put or lay down, to set, put, place, fix, station, deposit a person or thing somewhere (esp. firmly or immovably), etc. (the act. corresponding to consistere; class.). 


“....


"B. With the access. idea of preparation, to set up, erect, establish, found, build, construct, prepare, make, create, constitute (class[ical] and very freq[uent])."


……………………………………..

"constituo, constituere, constitui, constitutus V (3rd) [XXXAO] set up/in position, erect; place/dispose/locate; (call a) halt; plant (trees); decide/resolve; decree/ordain; appoint, post/station (troops); settle (colony); establish/create/institute; draw up, arrange/set in order; make up, form; fix" - William Whitaker's Words. - http://lysy2.archives.nd.edu/cgi-bin/words.exe?constituo



15. The knowledge of the intended meaning of huparchon helps correct the trinitarian mistranslation of the commentary on Gen. 49:21-26 by Hippolytus (ca. 160-235 A.D.) where he paraphrases Phil. 2:6 - 

“For as the only begotten Word [Logos] of God, being God of God [theos huparchon ek theou], emptied himself, according to the Scriptures, humbling himself of his own will to that which he was not before, and took unto himself this vile flesh, and appeared in the ‘form of a servant,’ and ‘became obedient to God the Father, even unto death,’ so hereafter he is said to be ‘highly exalted’...” - p. 167, vol. 5, The Ante-Nicene Fathers, the Rev. Alexander Roberts, D.D., and James Donaldson, LL.D., Eerdmans Publishing Co. 

We can see that, with the honest meaning of huparchon, this trinitarian interpretation (like Phil. 2:6 itself) actually becomes anti-trinitarian: “The only-begotten Word of God, a god who came into being from [ek - "out of"] God....” (It was previously admitted, in effect, by the translation of Hippolytus’ words on Ch. xxix of 'The Refutation of All Heresies' that God had made the Word “a god” - p. 151, vol. 5, The Ante-Nicene Fathers.)

Respected trinitarian historian Williston Walker, in his acclaimed A History of the Christian Church, also admits that Hippolytus taught that the Logos (the Word) was “created by God for the carrying out of his will.” - p. 86, Fourth Edition, Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1985. (Also see the LOGOS study.) 

Equally trinitarian and highly respected The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, also admits that we cannot honestly say that Hippolytus definitely taught that the Logos (the pre-existent Christ) was even a person before being born on earth. This, of course, would mean that Hippolytus certainly did not teach that the Son was the always-existent, second person of the orthodox trinity doctrine. This trinitarian publication also tells us that Hippolytus did not even consider the Holy Spirit to be a person. (So much for the trinity doctrine being taught by “the most important 3rd century theologian of the Roman Church.”) - p. 652, F. L. Cross, Oxford University Press, 1990 reprint. - See the CREEDS study.

Posted by Elijah Daniels 

Posted by Elijah Daniels