John 1:1 and Jesus’ Sonship in Adoptionist thought

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

dak

Well-Known Member
Feb 9, 2013
1,457
188
63
Messianica
sites.google.com
Faith
Other Faith
Country
United States
Gender
Male
It isn't my intention to empty the spiritual meaning of the passage by insisting on the physical one. However, I'm concerned you might be doing the converse - emptying the literal meaning to uphold the spiritual one.

I think we can have both.

But yeah... to have a physical child, physical σπέρμα is required, not just a spiritual seed.

Neither was it my intention to negate or empty the possibility of the physical meaning: I am well aware of that argument. However, the way in which the Son is formed within us has nothing to do with a physical man supposedly called the Morning Star or Day Star forming in our hearts. The Son being formed within us, (Immanuel), and the Day Star, (KJV), or Morning Star rising up in our hearts, (2Pet 1:19), has nothing to do with a physical man rising up within us.
 

Hiddenthings

Well-Known Member
May 19, 2025
3,777
415
83
Leeton NSW
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
@Wick Stick why would God pierce a Son who is already eternal and a Son? Also, we are still waiting for dak to explain his pre-existent Eternal Son in the Bosom and the anointed One doctrine.

If Jesus were already a divine Son, how could God pierce a servant and make him a son (forever)? The law of the bond–servant which Christ fulfills (Deut. 15:17) pictures one who chooses to serve and is marked forever. Psalm 40:6–8 and Hebrews 10:5–7 apply this to Christ: He is raised up out of Adam (second Adam) as the obedient Servant, fulfills the Father's will, and is exalted as Son and heir. If he were already Son in the ultimate sense, this process would be unnecessary.

More than that...insincere as if it were a show!
 
Last edited:
M

Muna

Guest
Jesus is the door

Deut 15:17 Then thou shalt take an aul, and thrust it through his ear unto the door, and he shall be thy servant for ever. And also unto thy maidservant thou shalt do likewise.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hiddenthings

Hiddenthings

Well-Known Member
May 19, 2025
3,777
415
83
Leeton NSW
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
Jesus is the door

Deut 15:17 Then thou shalt take an aul, and thrust it through his ear unto the door, and he shall be thy servant for ever. And also unto thy maidservant thou shalt do likewise.
Correct and also choose to become a Servant and God pierced him publicly and made him a Son.

These are elementary principles of the "begotten Son"...this day!

Notice how the Master took the Servant to the front of the home so everyone could see this incredible act.
 
M

Muna

Guest
Correct and also choose to become a Servant and God pierced him publicly and made him a Son.

These are elementary principles of the "begotten Son"...this day!

Notice how the Master took the Servant to the front of the home so everyone could see this incredible act.

Jesus is called God's righteous servant in Isaiah also

Isaiah 53:11 He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.

Here is Stephens mentioning of uncircumcised ears as it relates to the Holy Ghost

Acts 7:51 Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye.

As far as that ear to the door I might have typically caught that as "the singular" ear (of a servant) to the door (meaning Christ)

Or servant of Christ, in respects to the household of God, or that "singular ear" to what the Spirit says in the Churches

Rev 2:29 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches.
 

Hiddenthings

Well-Known Member
May 19, 2025
3,777
415
83
Leeton NSW
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
Jesus is called God's righteous servant in Isaiah also

Isaiah 53:11 He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.

Here is Stephens mentioning of uncircumcised ears as it relates to the Holy Ghost

Acts 7:51 Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye.

As far as that ear to the door I might have typically caught that as "the singular" ear (of a servant) to the door (meaning Christ)

Or servant of Christ, in respects to the household of God, or that "singular ear" to what the Spirit says in the Churches

Rev 2:29 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches.
The issue being raised to @Wick Stick and @dak is that both the Old Testament writer and the Apostle affirm that the law concerning a bondservant being made a son finds its fulfillment in Christ.

How can Yahweh make Christ a Son (pierce him) if he already pre-existed as a Son?
 
M

Muna

Guest
The issue being raised to @Wick Stick and @dak is that both the Old Testament writer and the Apostle affirm that the law concerning a bondservant being made a son finds its fulfillment in Christ.

How can Yahweh make Christ a Son (pierce him) if he already pre-existed as a Son?
You will have to discuss the issue they raised with you with them, and I dont ask the same questions as you do as I told you before, thats why questions always sound strange to me.
 

Hiddenthings

Well-Known Member
May 19, 2025
3,777
415
83
Leeton NSW
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
You will have to discuss the issue they raised with you with them, and I dont ask the same questions as you do as I told you before, thats why questions always sound strange to me.
You are free to use your mind to consider such conundrums.
 
  • Wow
Reactions: Lambano

Wick Stick

Well-Known Member
Sep 21, 2023
2,424
1,486
113
46
Phoenix
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
How can Yahweh make Christ a Son (pierce him) if he already pre-existed as a Son?
The question is wrong. Nobody claimed CHRIST pre-existed. It is that the LOGOS that pre-exists. If you can't put a difference between the two, you're going to have trouble understanding.

This topic is about Adoptionist thought. The thinking there is that the man, Jesus, did NOT start out as CHRIST, but was anointed, becoming Christ during His life. Again, the idea of Adoptionism is that Jesus did not start out as Son-of-God, but was adopted and became the Son at His baptism.

At that event, the Spirit of God (pre-exists) and Word of God (pre-exists) came down and rested on/in Jesus (doesn't pre-exist).

Is it clear?
 
  • Like
Reactions: dak

Hiddenthings

Well-Known Member
May 19, 2025
3,777
415
83
Leeton NSW
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
Truly, but let’s assume you are correct, that God, the Master of the House, took Jesus and appointed Him to be eternally the Son of God with power. In doing so, God went beyond the Law of the Bondservant, for the Master’s possessions still belonged to Him and His children. Yet God exalted Christ far above His current family, giving him the highest position at His right hand.

So, not only do Dak and Wick wrestle with the question of how God made Christ His Servant and Son, but also with the inheritance the Son received. Dak, Wick, and perhaps you, may believe that Christ was always the Son of God and that this Son always possessed everything that belongs to God (and is God).
 

Hiddenthings

Well-Known Member
May 19, 2025
3,777
415
83
Leeton NSW
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
The question is wrong. Nobody claimed CHRIST pre-existed.
This is not true Wick - hundreds of Trinitarians in this forum believe he did.
It is that the LOGOS that pre-exists.
Agree
If you can't put a difference between the two, you're going to have trouble understanding.
The difference between Yahweh's Power and that which that Power creates?
This topic is about Adoptionist thought.
Which to date we have no clear view from dak as to how his Eternal Son became the Lord Jesus Christ.
The thinking there is that the man, Jesus, did NOT start out as CHRIST, but was anointed, becoming Christ during His life.
He was born to be the Seed of the Woman Wick - he was born to be a living sacrifice!
Again, the idea of Adoptionism is that Jesus did not start out as Son-of-God, but was adopted and became the Son at His baptism.
Again, the "idea" you speak of and its doctrine is not known to me, you or dak. Jesus Christ chooses his Father Will over the will of the Flesh and it wasn't until he was raised in Glory (eternal nature) that he became Logos, the Son of the Living God as we have clearly proven in this thread.
At that event, the Spirit of God (pre-exists) and Word of God (pre-exists) came down and rested on/in Jesus (doesn't pre-exist).
This is true. However, as I understand Dak’s teaching, he holds that the Eternal Son has always been in the bosom of the Father,past, present, and future. If I am mistaken, I am willing to accept correction, but he has stated this view numerous times.
Is it clear?
As mud :gd
 

Hiddenthings

Well-Known Member
May 19, 2025
3,777
415
83
Leeton NSW
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
At that event, the Spirit of God (pre-exists) and Word of God (pre-exists) came down and rested on/in Jesus (doesn't pre-exist).
John 6:63 - these are one and the same, both of which were manifested in a son, born of a woman, raised to Glory.
 
Last edited:

Wick Stick

Well-Known Member
Sep 21, 2023
2,424
1,486
113
46
Phoenix
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
This is not true Wick - hundreds of Trinitarians in this forum believe he did.
I should have used more qualifiers. What I meant was that neither @dak nor I have made that claim in this particular topic.
Which to date we have no clear view from dak as to how his Eternal Son became the Lord Jesus Christ.
I understand him now. I don't share all his nomenclature - I wouldn't use the word "Son" as regards to the pre-existing Word of God.
Again, the "idea" you speak of and its doctrine is not known to me, you or dak. Jesus Christ chooses his Father Will over the will of the Flesh and it wasn't until he was raised in Glory (eternal nature) that he became Logos, the Son of the Living God as we have clearly proven in this thread.
So... I'm not actually an Adoptionist. I find it useful to "wear the shoes" of others' beliefs, to understand them. Here in this thread, I'm "trying on" Adoptionist ideas.

I find it to be a pretty robust theology, tbh. It's quite clear to me how one would understand Luke and Acts as teaching Adoption. Dak has made a pretty good case for Matthew, as well (though I remain a little doubtful of the gospel of the Ebionites being part of the redaction).
Does anyone really understand the Godhead? My own understanding is more Binatarian than Trinitarian, and relies on the idea of Emanation, which I'm pretty sure was formally condemned as heretical by one of those Synods. I AM skeptical of the virgin birth.

Those things notwithstanding, I belong to a church that IS Trinitarian, and DOES believe in the virgin birth. I defer to my church in these things, despite a little cognitive dissonance.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dak

Hiddenthings

Well-Known Member
May 19, 2025
3,777
415
83
Leeton NSW
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
I should have used more qualifiers. What I meant was that neither @dak nor I have made that claim in this particular topic.
I did not know your understanding on this subject.
I understand him now. I don't share all his nomenclature - I wouldn't use the word "Son" as regards to the pre-existing Word of God.
I agree the Word of God (LOGOS) is of course pre-existing but not in a person - it is the Powerful Divine Expression of Yahweh to do with as He pleases.
So... I'm not actually an Adoptionist. I find it useful to "wear the shoes" of others' beliefs, to understand them. Here in this thread, I'm "trying on" Adoptionist ideas.
Okay.
I find it to be a pretty robust theology, tbh. It's quite clear to me how one would understand Luke and Acts as teaching Adoption. Dak has made a pretty good case for Matthew, as well (though I remain a little doubtful of the gospel of the Ebionites being part of the redaction).
Where common teaching about our adoption into Christ differs from the Lord himself in that Jesus’ Father is God, yet through his lineage he is also a descendant of Adam, Abraham, David, and others. In his mortal state, he was fully human, but he possessed remarkable spiritual insight, able to discern the things of God far more swiftly and sharply than those around him

Does the Apostle Paul include Christ into the teaching of adoption?

Galatians 4:4–7 “But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, to redeem those under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons. And because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, ‘Abba! Father!’ So you are no longer a slave, but a son, and if a son, then an heir through God.”

Can you see the difference?

Again:

Ephesians 1:5 “He predestined us for adoption to himself as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will.”

Because Jesus is the Son of God, the Word made flesh (John 1:14) we too become ‘sons and daughters of God,’ for His Word, planted in our minds and hearts of flesh, causes us to be ‘born from above.’ On His Father’s side, Jesus represents the first generation from God.

Once again, the issue of inheritance challenges this adoptionist theology. Because Jesus is sinless and the Son of God, confirmed (appointed by the HS) and by his resurrection, he is able to receive an inheritance directly from God, whereas we share in that inheritance only through union with Christ.

The Bible does not present the idea of adoption toward Christ as it does for us.
 

dak

Well-Known Member
Feb 9, 2013
1,457
188
63
Messianica
sites.google.com
Faith
Other Faith
Country
United States
Gender
Male
I don't share all his nomenclature - I wouldn't use the word "Son" as regards to the pre-existing Word of God.

That also comes from the Matthew immersion narrative.

Matthew 3:16-17
[16] And having been immersed [having gone through the third plunge] Ι̅Η ascended straightway from the water, and behold, the heavens were opened unto him, and he beheld Pneuma Theou [Ruach Elohim - Gen 1:2] descending as a dove, and coming upon him,
[17] And behold, a voice out of the heavens, saying unto him, This is My Son, the Beloved, in whom I am well-pleased [with whom I set seal].

So the Spirit of Elohim, which is Ruach Elohim, (Hebrew Gen 1:2), and Pneuma Theou, (Mat 3:16 Greek and Gen 1:2 LXX), is both the Dove and the Son: all of which are anthropomorphic-zoomorphic representations, (the Spirit of Elohim in Gen 1:2 is brooding over the face of the waters, (like a mother-hen of the doves, see Luke 13:34 KJV).

Psalm 68:13-18
[13] Though you have lien between the hooks: wings of a dove covered with silver, and pinions with yellow gold.
[14] When the Almighty scattered kings therein it snowed in Tzalmon.
[15] The mount of Elohim is a fruitful mountain: the fruitful mountain is a high mountain.
[16] Why are you jealous, O high hills? this is the mountain which Elohim has desired to dwell in, yea, YHWH will dwell in it continually.
[17] The chariots of Elohim are two myriads and thousands of changed ones: Adoni is among them in Sinai, the holy place.
[18] You have ascended on high, You have led captivity captive, You have brought gifts among men, but wrath to the rebellious, that Yah Elohim the Blessed might tabernacle therein.

The OG LXX contains blessed twice instead of only once, as found in the M/T at the beginning of the next verse: essentially at the break between verses eighteen and nineteen the word for blessed appears twice, divided at the break, and thus those who rendered the LXX were reading in the Hebrew text, "Yah Elohim the Blessed", (κυριος ο θεος ευλογητος).

Psalm 68:18-19 OG LXX
18 ανεβης εις υψος ηχμαλωτευσας αιχμαλωσιαν ελαβες δοματα εν ανθρωπω και γαρ απειθουντες του κατασκηνωσαι κυριος ο θεος ευλογητος
19 ευλογητος κυριος ημεραν καθ ημεραν κατευοδωσει ημιν ο θεος των σωτηριων ημων διαψαλμα

Psalm 68:18
18 You have ascended on high, You have led captivity captive, You have brought gifts among men and wrath to the rebellious, that Yah Elohim the Blessed might tabernacle therein.

Translation note: I do not read אף as H637 yea in the Hebrew text here, but as H639 wrath, and thus I place it here in my LXX reading also, though it is a departure from the Greek text above.

And who is it that quotes a portion of Psalm 68:18 and applies it to the Son?

Ephesians 4:7-13
7 But unto each one of us was the grace given according to the measure of the gift of the Χ̅Ρ.
8 Wherefore he saith, When he ascended on high, he led captivity captive, And gave gifts unto men. [Psa 68:18]
9 Now this, "He ascended", what is it but that he also descended into the lower parts of the earth?
10 He that descended is the same also that ascended far above all the heavens, that he might fill all things.
11 And he gave some to be apostles, and some, prophets, and some, evangelists, and some, pastors and teachers,
12 for the perfecting of the saints, unto the work of ministering, unto the building up of the body of the Χ̅Ρ,
13 until we all attain unto the unity of the faith-belief, and of the knowledge of the Son of Elohim, unto a fully-grown man, unto the measure of the stature of the fullness of the Χ̅Ρ:

Paul therefore, by his exegesis of the first half of the verse, inextricably links the Χ̅Ρ to Yah Elohim. Therefore I would strongly suggest a prayerful deep study into the context and background context of the Eph 4 passage quoted above. The Father has no need to descend or ascend because the heavens and the heaven of the heavens cannot contain Him, (Deut 10:14, 1Kgs 8:27, 2Chr 2:6, 6:18), and if one could ascend into the heavens, He is already there, and if one could descend into Sheol, He is already there, (see Psa 139:7-12). To descend and-or ascend, even from the highest heavens to the lowest inward parts of the earth and back up again, is by default an anthropomorphism: but the Father is not any kind of anthropomorphic figure. However the Word, the Torah scroll, is indeed likened to a king dressed in purple or red robes and crown, and thus, an anthropomorphic figure.

The nomina sacra Iota-Eta + Chi-Rho (Ι̅Η Χ̅Ρ).

Ι̅Η = Yah Elohim
Χ̅Ρ = Chrestos (Good, Gracious, (in Hebrew, Tob))
Ι̅Η Χ̅Ρ = Yah Elohim the Gracious

And the Meshiah confirms this:

Matthew 11:28-30
28 Come to me, all you that labor and are burdened, and I shall give you rest.
29 Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am meek and humble in heart, and you shall find rest for your souls:
30 for my yoke is chrestos, and my burden is light.

His yoke is chrestos? What or who is his yoke? From his immersion his yoke is clearly Ruach Elohim from Gen 1:2, the Spirit of the Father, the one-and-only, one-of-a-kind Son who is ever in the bosom of the Father: Yah Elohim the Gracious, (Chrestos). Taste and see that Yah is Gracious, (Chrestos).

But as for the Meshiah, the Christos, the Anointed One, or the Chosen One: his name is also Ι̅Η Χ̅Ρ, but not understood in the same manner, for example, obviously Χ̅Ρ stands for Christos, (rather than Chrestos), when the scripture speaks of the Meshiah, Anointed One, or Chosen One.
 

Hiddenthings

Well-Known Member
May 19, 2025
3,777
415
83
Leeton NSW
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
[18] You have ascended on high, You have led captivity captive, You have brought gifts among men, but wrath to the rebellious, that Yah Elohim the Blessed might tabernacle therein.
Jesus, who ascended on high after his resurrection, will in due time receive gifts for men, literally ‘for the man,’ that is, the one perfect man, his ecclesia (Eph 4:13). He will then return in blessing to lead captivity captive, bringing Israel into a gentler form of bondage, so that the Lord God, through His Son may dwell among them. Yet, as Paul emphasizes, the ascension presupposes a prior descent into the lower parts of the earth, the grave. His triumph required first a full sharing in human weakness, a path that led inevitably to his death.
 

dak

Well-Known Member
Feb 9, 2013
1,457
188
63
Messianica
sites.google.com
Faith
Other Faith
Country
United States
Gender
Male
@Wick Stick - A second strong confirmation from Paul.

In the two quotes to follow Paul is quoting not from the Hebrew text but from the OG-LXX, (Old Greek Septuagint). There are many places in the OG LXX where the Tetragrammaton is actually divided at the waw, producing Yah, which would have appeared that way in the Paleo Hebrew text but do not now appear that way in the M/T, which is not likely due to anything nefarious, but because of the problem of separating the Ashuri text, (having a waw separator and written in a semi-scriptio continua form like the older Paleo text), if perhaps you no longer had the Paleo text to guide you in that separation process. Another thing which is critical to understand is that Yah may be rendered as either Kurios or Theos in the LXX, and here Yah is rendered as Theos, and this is really only evident because we have now both the LXX and the Hebrew texts to investigate and compare, to get an idea of what has happened.

Philippians 2:9-11
9 Wherefore also Elohim highly exalted him, and gave unto him the name which is above every name: [that is named, Eph 1:21]
10 that in the name of Ι̅Η every knee should bow, of things in heaven and things on earth and things under the earth,
11 and that every tongue should confess that Κ̅Ϲ Ι̅Η Χ̅Ρ, to the glory of Elohim the Father.

The above contains two portions from Yeshayah 45:23, (LXX), but they are not the larger precise quote: for he also quotes from this passage almost verbatim in Romans 14:11, where he likewise quotes from the OG LXX. Why is he not quoting from the Hebrew since he clearly knew Hebrew like the back of his hand, having formerly been a Pharisee the son of Pharisees? (moreover the Master spoke to him in Hebrew during the conversion vision near Damascus). After the Hebrew text was rendered into Greek, (beginning about circa 285BC), the Pharisees, not long after, began to separate the Hebrew text their own way, according to their understandings and doctrines regarding the scripture text.

This was a process that was not completely finalized until about 1000AD, and the beginning of this process can first be seen in scrolls and fragments discovered at Damascus-Qumran, (Qumran by the modern Arabic name Khirbet Qumran). It appears to me that Paul had realized that even in his day the Perushim were already beginning to subvert the Hebrew text: for they went against the precedent set by those who separated the text before them in order to render it into the Greek OG LXX. And we know that at the very least those who rendered the Torah portions of the LXX would have been Tzadokim, the order of the highest priestly line through the sons of Tzadok the Kohen, for no one but the Kohanim were allowed to copy Torah scrolls besides the Kohanim and Levim, even down to the days wherein the LXX began to be translated. Howbeit, aside from all the arguments pertaining to such things, Paul quotes from the OG LXX, knowing Hebrew, which is significant in this much more critical instance than other passage quotes.

Romans 14:11
11 For it is written, As I live, says the LORD, (YHWH), every knee shall bow to Me, and every tongue shall confess by God.

Romans 14:11 (N/A, T/R, BYZ, W/H, all the same)
11 γεγραπται γαρ ζω εγω λεγει κυριος οτι εμοι καμψει παν γονυ και πασα γλωσσα εξομολογησεται τω θεω

In the above, which is quoted from the OG LXX, the Tetragrammaton is divided in the middle at the waw, exactly where we read τω θεω, thus we see that the Kohen who rendered this text into the Greek OG LXX separated the text radically different than the Masoretes who came along much later: and herein Paul approves the separation of the text found in the OG LXX. And because we know that the Tetragrammaton is in the Hebrew text; one should therefore know and understand that Theos in this case cannot be Elohim, (God), and is surely therefore YH, (Yah).

Isaiah 45:23-25 OG LXX
23 κατ εμαυτου ομνυω η μην εξελευσεται εκ του στοματος μου δικαιοσυνη οι λογοι μου ουκ αποστραφησονται οτι εμοι καμψει παν γονυ και εξομολογησεται πασα γλωσσα τω θεω
24 λεγων δικαιοσυνη και δοξα προς αυτον ηξουσιν και αισχυνθησονται παντες οι αφοριζοντες εαυτους
25 απο κυριου δικαιωθησονται και εν τω θεω ενδοξασθησονται [Hebrew reads hallu] παν το σπερμα των υιων ισραηλ

The answer using both the Hebrew and the OG LXX:

Yeshayah 45:23-25
[23] By Myself have I sworn, the righteous Word has gone forth from My mouth and shall not be turned back, that unto Me every knee shall bow: and every tongue shall surely confess by Yah unto Me, saying, He is my righteousness and strength!
[24] All those incensed against Him shall come and be ashamed: [25] by YHWH shall they be justified, and all the seed of Yisrael shall hallu-in-Yah!
 

Hiddenthings

Well-Known Member
May 19, 2025
3,777
415
83
Leeton NSW
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
Romans 14:11 is a quotation which combines Isa 49:18 and Isa 45:23. In Philippians 2:10–11, the same passages are cited to show that because the Son of God humbled himself even to death, the Father will exalt him and grant him all authority and power. At his return and the final judgment, all accountable beings will acknowledge his lordship (see Luke 14:14; 1 Thessalonians 4:13–17; 1 Corinthians 4:5; 2 Timothy 4:8; Revelation 22:12; Isaiah 26:19; Daniel 12:2)

The point is Son to Servant NOT Yahweh to Servant!

Christ chose to relinquish the privileges of being the Son of God and instead became a suffering Servant, humbling himself to crucify the flesh and manifest the righteousness of God.

@Wick Stick - T believers fail to see the basis of Paul's exhortation in Phil 2 as they force essence and nature rather than the humbling of mind.
  • “But made himself of no reputation…”“But he humbled himself…”
  • “But emptied himself…”“But he willingly set aside his privileges…”
  • Isaiah 53:12“I will divide Him a portion with the great, because he poured out his soul (life) unto death.”
As Dak has demonstrated above, it is impossible to interpret Paul’s vivid language without drawing on Isaiah Servant Songs (x4)

Verse 2:7 – ‘taking the form of a bondservant…’ uses the same word as in the LXX of Isaiah 49:3, 5: ‘…who formed me from the womb to be his servant.

"Mind" phroneo is the key which unlocks the whole letter!

1762729941594.png
 
Last edited:

Hiddenthings

Well-Known Member
May 19, 2025
3,777
415
83
Leeton NSW
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
@Wick Stick

“‘Form’ – why this word?

Theme: Servant Prophecies (Isaiah 40–66)

  • ‘Formed’ (to mould) occurs 26× in Isaiah:
    • Chapters 1–39 → 5×
    • Chapters 40–66 → 21×
  • Jeremiah → 11×; Psalms → 8×
Key verse to unlock Phil 2:7 is Isaiah 49:5

And now the Lord says, he who formed me from the womb to be his servant, to bring Jacob back to him; and that Israel might be gathered to him—for I am honored in the eyes of the Lord, and my God has been my strength

Significance: ‘In the form’ implies a ‘former’—God’s workmanship!

The work of God’s Logos was to shape Christ into an obedient Son, tasked with breaking the power of sin (Romans 8:1-4). This is why the Anointed One could not come from two earthly parents; only the Son of God, who inhaled the Logos, could accomplish such an extraordinary purpose.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Wick Stick