I have written this short study for Netchaplin and others who misquote Phil 2:6,7 to infer Jesus is God.
Hopefully your minds will be opened to its truth.
Phil 2:5,6,7
"Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus: who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: but made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men."
In what sense can the above Scripture support the idea that Jesus was a co-equal, co-eternal, pre-existent part of the One Eternal God?
Firstly ,no such language is used to demonstrate equality on any level with the One Eternal Father.
However, it does declare that Christ - though he recognized himself to be by birth the Son of God, did not presume this supremely exalted relationship in any way, but humbly submitted to the fact that he, like all other men (Netchaplin & Insight) required obedient and active service to God the Father. Jesus like us was required to "work out his salvation with fear and trembling' (See Phil 2:12).
The true meaning of this passage is in fact found in in Heb. 5:8 "Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered."
I keep reinforcing the need to study in context and here highlights the case. What is the context of this passage in Phil 2?
Phil 2:9 "Wherefore (RV etc. Therefore) God also hath highly exalted him."
So here is the problem for Trinity believers.
Here we would have one co-equal part (Jesus) of the Supreme One God highly exalting another co-equal part, because the latter had humbly submitted to death at the command of the former?
Now where in the Bible is found or taught such confusion?
If so, please provide another section of Scripture to support such an understanding.
Let look at this passage in greater detail:
"Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery (RV: thought it not a thing to be grasped) to be equal with God."
This is so well illustrated by Heb 5:8 that no deeper understanding is required.
Take a look at this contrast:
"form of God cmp form of a servant."
And compare this with the contrast of "Son & servant" in Heb. 3:5,6.
A humble Christian will start to ask question that aim to define the relationship and position Christ held with his Father.
Also in Gal. 4:2 "The heir, as long as he is a child, differeth nothing from a servant, thou he be lord of all; but is under tutors and governors (learned obedience) until the time appointed of the father."
Clearly, therefore, "being in the form of God" refers to the fact that his birth by the overshadowing Spirit-Power constituted him the "Son of God" (Luke 1: 35).
This understanding agrees with be Word and remains within the inspired account.
So Jesus being directly related to God, he did not presume a position or "grasp at" equality with God.
By implication Phil 2:6 proves without any doubt Jesus was NOT co-equal with God, and that he did not "grasp at" or Rob co-equality?
Though today Trinitarian believers so do.
But learned he obedience in like manner as those who were also made (created) and given life to save. Heb 2:17
Amen
Hopefully your minds will be opened to its truth.
Phil 2:5,6,7
"Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus: who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: but made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men."
In what sense can the above Scripture support the idea that Jesus was a co-equal, co-eternal, pre-existent part of the One Eternal God?
Firstly ,no such language is used to demonstrate equality on any level with the One Eternal Father.
However, it does declare that Christ - though he recognized himself to be by birth the Son of God, did not presume this supremely exalted relationship in any way, but humbly submitted to the fact that he, like all other men (Netchaplin & Insight) required obedient and active service to God the Father. Jesus like us was required to "work out his salvation with fear and trembling' (See Phil 2:12).
The true meaning of this passage is in fact found in in Heb. 5:8 "Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered."
I keep reinforcing the need to study in context and here highlights the case. What is the context of this passage in Phil 2?
Phil 2:9 "Wherefore (RV etc. Therefore) God also hath highly exalted him."
So here is the problem for Trinity believers.
Here we would have one co-equal part (Jesus) of the Supreme One God highly exalting another co-equal part, because the latter had humbly submitted to death at the command of the former?
Now where in the Bible is found or taught such confusion?
If so, please provide another section of Scripture to support such an understanding.
Let look at this passage in greater detail:
"Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery (RV: thought it not a thing to be grasped) to be equal with God."
This is so well illustrated by Heb 5:8 that no deeper understanding is required.
Take a look at this contrast:
"form of God cmp form of a servant."
And compare this with the contrast of "Son & servant" in Heb. 3:5,6.
A humble Christian will start to ask question that aim to define the relationship and position Christ held with his Father.
Also in Gal. 4:2 "The heir, as long as he is a child, differeth nothing from a servant, thou he be lord of all; but is under tutors and governors (learned obedience) until the time appointed of the father."
Clearly, therefore, "being in the form of God" refers to the fact that his birth by the overshadowing Spirit-Power constituted him the "Son of God" (Luke 1: 35).
This understanding agrees with be Word and remains within the inspired account.
So Jesus being directly related to God, he did not presume a position or "grasp at" equality with God.
By implication Phil 2:6 proves without any doubt Jesus was NOT co-equal with God, and that he did not "grasp at" or Rob co-equality?
Though today Trinitarian believers so do.
But learned he obedience in like manner as those who were also made (created) and given life to save. Heb 2:17
Amen