PDA

View Full Version : John 1, and Philippians 2:5-7.



Cerebrum123
11-05-2014, 01:44 PM
I was hoping that John Reece could answer this, but anyone with knowledge of the original languages would be appreciated too.

First we have John 1.

John 1 New International Version (NIV)

The Word Became Flesh
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

Boxing Pythagoras says this.


I'd say that the definition of Arianism which you provided is somewhat inadequate. Arias did not deny the divinity of Jesus. He simply denied that Jesus and the Father were of one substance. I know quite a number of Christians who have held that view, ignorant of the complicated theology behind the Trinity.

Incidentally, I'm not a fan of the usual translation of John 1:1, and prefer καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος be translated as "and the Word was divine."

Then we have Phillipians.

Philippians 2:5-7New International Version (NIV)

5 In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus:

6 Who, being in very nature[a] God,
did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;
7 rather, he made himself nothing
by taking the very nature[b] of a servant,
being made in human likeness.


His answer to that is this.


The word which the NIV is translating as "nature" is μορφῇ which more usually means "form" or "shape" or "outward appearance." I don't think this verse really works against Arianism, either.

So, what do the language experts here have to say on this subject.

John Reece
11-05-2014, 04:01 PM
So, what do the language experts here have to say on this subject.

I do not pretend to be a "language expert" [robrecht is our resident "language expert"]; however, my name was mentioned in the OP, so I will do the best that I can, which is to refer to a couple of excellent commentaries: D. A. Carson's 1991 Pillar commentary on John, and Peter T. O'Brien's 1991 NIGTC commentary on Philippians.

First, The Gospel According to John (Pillar: Eerdmans, 1991), by D. A. Carson (via Accordance):


Because this Word, this divine self-expression, existed in the beginning, one might suppose that it was either with God, or nothing less than God himself. John insists the Word was both. The Word, he says, was with God. The preposition translated ‘with’ is pros, which commonly means ‘to’ or ‘toward’. On that basis, many writers say John is trying to express a peculiar intimacy between the Word and God: the Word is oriented toward God, like lovers perpetually running toward each other in a beach scene from a sentimental film. That surely claims too much. In first–century Greek pros was encroaching on the territory normally occupied by other words for ‘with’. In the NIV, the following instances of ‘with’ all have pros behind them: ‘Aren’t his sisters here with us?’ (Mk. 6:3); ‘Every day I was with you’ (Mk. 14:49); ‘at home with the Lord’ (2 Cor. 5:8); ‘I would have liked to keep him with me’ (Phm. 13); ‘the eternal life, which was with the Father’ (1 Jn. 1:2). What we notice about all these examples, however, is that in all but one or two peculiar constructions (e.g. 1 Pet. 3:15), pros may mean ‘with’ only when a person is with a person, usually in some fairly intimate relationship. And that suggests that John may already be pointing out, rather subtly, that the ‘Word’ he is talking about is a person, with God and therefore distinguishable from God, and enjoying a personal relationship with him.

More, the Word was God. That is the translation demanded by the Greek structure, theos ēn ho logos. A long string of writers has argued that because theos, ‘God’, here has no article, John is not referring to God as a specific being, but to mere qualities of ‘God-ness’. The Word, they say, was not God, but divine. This will not do. There is a perfectly serviceable word in Greek for ‘divine’ (namely theios). More importantly, there are many places in the New Testament where the predicate noun has no article, and yet is specific. Even in this chapter, ‘you are the King of Israel’ (1:49) has no article before ‘King’ in the original (cf. also Jn. 8:39; 17:17; Rom. 14:17; Gal. 4:25; Rev. 1:20). It has been shown that it is common for a definite predicate noun in this construction, placed before the verb, to be anarthrous (that is, to have no article; cf. Additional Note). Indeed, the effect of ordering the words this way is to emphasize ‘God’, as if John were saying, ‘and the word was God!’ In fact, if John had included the article, he would have been saying something quite untrue. He would have been so identifying the Word with God that no divine being could exist apart from the Word. In that case, it would be nonsense to say (in the words of the second clause of this verse) that the Word was with God. The ‘Word does not by Himself make up the entire Godhead; nevertheless the divinity that belongs to the rest of the Godhead belongs also to Him’ (Tasker, p. 45. ‘The Word was with God, God’s eternal Fellow; the Word was God, God’s own Self.’

From The Epistle to the Philippians (NIGTC: Eerdmans, 1991), by Peter T. O'Brien (via Accordance):



(f) ‘He became a slave to God and is the Lordly Example.’

In accordance with his principle of interpreting the hymn, and especially the meaning of Jesus’ actions in 2:6–8, in the light of the use of the terminology of early Christianity (see above), L. W. Hurtado claims that the unseen and ineffable action of the preexistent, heavenly Christ, referred to in 2:6–7, is ‘described after the fashion of the observed, historical action’ since the former is directly linked with the action of the earthly Jesus in 2:8: μορφὴν δούλου λαβών is clearly intended to correspond to ἐταπείνωσεν ἑαυτόν and γενόμενος ὑπήκοος. When Paul (or the author of the hymn) describes Jesus as having taken the role of a δοῦλος in 2:7 he is using language with rich positive overtones for himself and his readers.111 G. F. Hawthorne, as noted above, suggested that this statement, μορφὴν δούλου λαβών, which speaks of a person without advantage, rights, or privileges of his own, may have been chosen as the author of the hymn meditated on one particular event from the life of Christ, namely Jesus’ washing his disciples’ feet (Jn. 13:3–17).

Hurtado argues that although it is not expressly stated in Phil. 2:7 that Jesus was δοῦλος to God there are good reasons for understanding it in this way: a. the δοῦλος word group is found in Paul more frequently with reference to the Christian life and service than in connection with the unredeemed conditions of humans and (against Käsemann) never means human existence as such. b. The immediate context of vv. 6–7 with its contrast suggests that service towards God, or for his sake, is meant. c. In the light of the striking διό of 2:9 and the fact that God is the actor in 2:9–11, the service of 2:7–8 should be seen as offered to God, with 2:9–11 describing the divine response. God’s act of exalting Christ is a consequence of Christ’s obedience.

Finally, the expressions of Jesus’ redemptive work in vv. 6–8, including the term δοῦλος, are often used in connection with exhortations in the apostle’s letters and are intended at the same time to present that work as something of a pattern for those who call him Lord. He is indeed the ‘Lordly Example’.

We conclude with a summary evaluation. Bearing in mind that the apostle is writing to Christian readers in Philippi with a pagan past, it seems best, on balance, to understand the expression μορφὴν δούλου λαβών against the background of slavery in contemporary society. Slavery pointed to the extreme deprivation of one’s rights, even those relating to one’s own life and person. When Jesus emptied himself by embracing the divine vocation and becoming incarnate he become a slave, without any rights whatever. He did not exchange the nature or form of God for that of a slave; instead, he displayed the nature or form of God in the nature or form of a slave, thereby showing clearly not only what his character was like, but also what it meant to be God. A particularly telling example of this, as Hawthorne and Bruce note, was Jesus’ washing the disciples’ feet and drying them with a towel he had tied around his waist (Jn. 13:3–5). Jesus’ extreme act of humble service became the pattern of true servanthood, and it is understandable how Christian vocabulary would then come to reflect this, as Hurtado points out. But the action of Jesus serves as the model and explains the servant language.

Boxing Pythagoras
11-05-2014, 06:21 PM
As regards John 1:1c, Daniel Wallace argues in Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, page 269, that the anarthrous θεὸς is best understood as being qualitative rather than definite. That is to say, given the syntax, the wording seems to suggest that ὁ λόγος is being ascribed the quality of God, rather than being identified with a specific being called God. Wallace suggests that "what God was, the Word was" or "the Word was divine" are translations which accurately represent the intention of the original text.

In terms of Philippians 5:6, looking at the Liddell-Scott-Jones and the Autenrieth lexica, it seems that "form," "shape," or "outward appearance" are what is intended by use of the word μορφῇ. In fact, I can find no instance of μορφῇ in Greek literature in which the word refers to "nature" or the underlying essence, as opposed to the common denotation of outward appearance.

μορφ-ή , ἡ,
A.form, shape, twice in Hom. (not in Hes.), σοὶ δ᾽ ἔπι μὲν μορφὴ ἐπέων thou hast comeliness of words, Od.11.367 (cf. Eust. ad loc.); so prob. ἄλλος μὲν . . εἶδος ἀκιδνότερος πέλει ἀνήρ, ἀλλὰ θεὸς μορφὴν ἔπεσι στέφει God adds a crown of shapeliness to his words, Od.8.170: freq. later, “μορφὰς δύο ὀνομάζειν” Parm.8.53; “μορφὴν ἀλλάξαντα” Emp.137.1; “μορφὰν βραχύς” Pi.I.4(3).53; μορφῆς μέτρα shape and size, E.Alc.1063: periphr., “μορφῆς φύσις” A.Supp.496; μορφῆς σχῆμα, τύπωμα, E.Ion992, Ph.162; “τὴν αὐτὴν τοῦ σχήματος μορφήν” Arist.PA640b34; “καὶ Γαῖα, πολλῶν ὀνομάτων μ. μία” A.Pr.212; ὀνειράτων ἀλίγκιοι μορφαῖσιν ib.449; “νυκτέρων φαντασμάτων ἔχουσι μορφάς” Id.Fr.312; “προὔπεμψεν ἀντὶ φιλτάτης μ. σποδόν” S.El.1159; of plants, Thphr.HP1.1.12 (pl.); esp. with ref. to beauty of form, “ὑπέρφατον μορφᾷ” Pi.O.9.65; οἷς ποτιστάξῃ χάρις εὐκλέα μ. ib.6.76, cf. IG42 (1).121.119 (Epid., iv B. C.), LXX To.1.13, Vett.Val.1.6, etc.; “σῶμα μορφῆς ἐμῆς” OGI383.41 (Commagene, i B. C.); μορφῆς εἰκόνας ib.27; χαρακτῆρα μορφῆς ἐμῆς ib.60.
2. generally, form, fashion, appearance, A.Pr.78, S.Tr.699, El.199 (lyr.); outward form, opp. “εἶδος, ἑκατέρω τῶ εἴδεος πολλαὶ μ.” Philol.5; “ἀλλάττοντα τὸ αὑτοῦ εἶδος εἰς πολλὰς μορφάς” Pl.R.380d; “μ. θεῶν” X.Mem.4.3.13, cf. Ep.Phil.2.6, Dam.Pr.304; “ἡρώων εἴδεα καὶ μορφάς” A.R.4.1193; κατά τε μορφὰς καὶ φωνάς gesticulations and cries, D.H.14.9; τὴν μ. μελάγχρους, τῇ μ. μελίχροας, in complexion, Ptol.Tetr.143, 144.
3. kind, sort, E. Ion 382, 1068 (lyr.), Pl.R.397c, etc. (Possibly cogn. with Lat. forma for morg[uglide]hmā, with f by dissimilation, cf. μύρμηξ.)

John Reece
11-05-2014, 07:20 PM
As regards John 1:1c, Daniel Wallace argues in Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, page 269, that the anarthrous θεὸς is best understood as being qualitative rather than definite. That is to say, given the syntax, the wording seems to suggest that ὁ λόγος is being ascribed the quality of God, rather than being identified with a specific being called God. Wallace suggests that "what God was, the Word was" or "the Word was divine" are translations which accurately represent the intention of the original text.

Selective quoting just won't do.

From Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics (Zondervan, 1996), by Daniel B. Wallace (via Accordance):


c. Is Θεός in John 1:1c Qualitative?

The most likely candidate for θεός is qualitative. This is true both grammatically (for the largest proportion of pre-verbal anarthrous predicate nominatives fall into this category) and theologically (both the theology of the Fourth Gospel and of the NT as a whole). There is a balance between the Word’s deity, which was already present in the beginning (ἐν ἀρχῇ . . . θεὸς ἦν [1:1], and his humanity, which was added later (σὰρξ ἐγένετο [1:14]). The grammatical structure of these two statements mirrors each other; both emphasize the nature of the Word, rather than his identity. But θεός was his nature from eternity (hence, εἰμί is used), while σάρξ was added at the incarnation (hence, γίνομαι is used).

Such an option does not at all impugn the deity of Christ. Rather, it stresses that, although the person of Christ is not the person of the Father, their essence is identical. Possible translations are as follows: “What God was, the Word was” (NEB), or “the Word was divine” (a modified Moffatt). In this second translation, “divine” is acceptable only if it is a term that can be applied only to true deity. However, in modern English, we use it with reference to angels, theologians, even a meal! Thus “divine” could be misleading in an English translation. The idea of a qualitative θεός here is that the Word had all the attributes and qualities that “the God” (of 1:1b) had. In other words, he shared the essence of the Father, though they differed in person. The construction the evangelist chose to express this idea was the most concise way he could have stated that the Word was God and yet was distinct from the Father.

Boxing Pythagoras
11-05-2014, 07:33 PM
Selective quoting just won't do.

From Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics (Zondervan, 1996), by Daniel B. Wallace (via Accordance):


c. Is Θεός in John 1:1c Qualitative?

The most likely candidate for θεός is qualitative. This is true both grammatically (for the largest proportion of pre-verbal anarthrous predicate nominatives fall into this category) and theologically (both the theology of the Fourth Gospel and of the NT as a whole). There is a balance between the Word’s deity, which was already present in the beginning (ἐν ἀρχῇ . . . θεὸς ἦν [1:1], and his humanity, which was added later (σὰρξ ἐγένετο [1:14]). The grammatical structure of these two statements mirrors each other; both emphasize the nature of the Word, rather than his identity. But θεός was his nature from eternity (hence, εἰμί is used), while σάρξ was added at the incarnation (hence, γίνομαι is used).

Such an option does not at all impugn the deity of Christ. Rather, it stresses that, although the person of Christ is not the person of the Father, their essence is identical. Possible translations are as follows: “What God was, the Word was” (NEB), or “the Word was divine” (a modified Moffatt). In this second translation, “divine” is acceptable only if it is a term that can be applied only to true deity. However, in modern English, we use it with reference to angels, theologians, even a meal! Thus “divine” could be misleading in an English translation. The idea of a qualitative θεός here is that the Word had all the attributes and qualities that “the God” (of 1:1b) had. In other words, he shared the essence of the Father, though they differed in person. The construction the evangelist chose to express this idea was the most concise way he could have stated that the Word was God and yet was distinct from the Father.My selective quotation wasn't meant as an attempt to obscure or misrepresent Wallace. My copy of GGBB is packed away, and I was going off some of my notes rather than attempting to dig it out.

I actually agree with Wallace, for the most part, here. I think that it's a bit of an anachronistic stretch to maintain that the author specifically intended to differentiate the persons of God-the-Father and the Word; however, I completely agree that the author of John was attempting to ascribe the actual attributes and qualities of God to the Word. This is absolutely the sense I mean when I say that the phrase should be translated "and the Word was divine." I don't think one can say that the author necessarily thought that the Word was ὁμοούσιος with God-the-Father, but it seems fairly clear that the author was linking the Word with God's divinity.

John Reece
11-05-2014, 07:56 PM
In terms of Philippians 5:6, looking at the Liddell-Scott-Jones and the Autenrieth lexica, it seems that "form," "shape," or "outward appearance" are what is intended by use of the word μορφῇ. In fact, I can find no instance of μορφῇ in Greek literature in which the word refers to "nature" or the underlying essence, as opposed to the common denotation of outward appearance.

From BDAG via Accordance:


μορφή, ῆς, ἡ (Hom.+) form, outward appearance, shape gener. of bodily form 1 Cl 39:3; ApcPt 4:13 (Job 4:16; ApcEsdr 4:14 p. 28, 16 Tdf.; SJCh 78, 13). Of the shape or form of statues (Jos., Vi. 65; Iren. 1, 8, 1 [Harv. I 67, 11]) Dg 2:3. Of appearances in visions, etc., similar to persons (Callisthenes : 124 fgm. 13 p. 644, 32 Jac. [in Athen. 10, 75, 452b] Λιμὸς ἔχων γυναικὸς μορφήν; Diod. S. 3, 31, 4 ἐν μορφαῖς ἀνθρώπων; TestAbr A 16 p. 97, 11 [Stone p. 42] ἀρχαγγέλου μορφὴν περικείμενος; Jos., Ant. 5, 213 a messenger fr. heaven νεανίσκου μορφῇ): of God’s assembly, the church Hv 3, 10, 2; 9; 3, 11, 1; 3, 13, 1; s 9, 1, 1; of the angel of repentance ἡ μ. αὐτοῦ ἠλλοιώθη his appearance had changed m 12, 4, 1. Of Christ (ἐν μ. ἀνθρώπου TestBenj 10:7; Just., D. 61, 1; Tat. 2, 1; Hippol., Ref. 5, 16, 10. Cp. Did., Gen. 56, 18; of deities ἐν ἀνθρωπίνῃ μορφῇ: Iambl., Vi. Pyth. 6, 30; cp. Philo, Abr. 118) μορφὴν δούλου λαβών he took on the form of a slave=expression of servility Phil 2:7 (w. σχῆμα as Aristot., Cat. 10a, 11f, PA 640b, 30–36). This is in contrast to expression of divinity in the preëxistent Christ: ἐν μ. θεοῦ ὑπάρχων although he was in the form of God (cp. OGI 383, 40f: Antiochus’ body is the framework for his μορφή or [i]essential identity as a descendant of divinities; similarly human fragility [Phil 2:7] becomes the supporting framework for Christ’s servility and therefore of his κένωσις [on the appearance one projects cp. the epitaph EpigrAnat 17, ’91, 156, no. 3, 5–8][/b]; on μορφὴ θεοῦ cp. Orig., C. Cels. 7, 66, 21; Pla., Rep. 2, 380d; 381bc; X., Mem. 4, 3, 13; Diog. L. 1, 10 the Egyptians say μὴ εἰδέναι τοῦ θεοῦ μορφήν; Philo, Leg. ad Gai. 80; 110; Jos., C. Ap. 2, 190; Just., A I, 9, 1; PGM 7, 563; 13, 272; 584.—Rtzst., Mysterienrel.3 357f) Phil 2:6. The risen Christ ἐφανερώθη ἐν ἑτέρᾳ μορφῇ appeared in a different form Mk 16:12 (of the transfiguration of Jesus: ἔδειξεν ἡμῖν τὴν ἔνδοξον μορφὴν ἑαυτοῦ Orig., C. Cels. 6, 68, 23). For lit. s. on ἁρπαγμός and κενόω 1b; RMartin, ET 70, ’59, 183f.—DSteenberg, The Case against the Synonymity of μορφή and εἰκών: JSNT 34, ’88, 77–86; GStroumsa, HTR 76, ’83, 269–88 (Semitic background).—DELG. Schmidt, Syn. IV 345–60. M-M. EDNT. TW. Spicq. Sv.

Boxing Pythagoras
11-06-2014, 04:00 AM
From BDAG via Accordance:


μορφή, ῆς, ἡ (Hom.+) form, outward appearance, shape gener. of bodily form 1 Cl 39:3; ApcPt 4:13 (Job 4:16; ApcEsdr 4:14 p. 28, 16 Tdf.; SJCh 78, 13). Of the shape or form of statues (Jos., Vi. 65; Iren. 1, 8, 1 [Harv. I 67, 11]) Dg 2:3. Of appearances in visions, etc., similar to persons (Callisthenes : 124 fgm. 13 p. 644, 32 Jac. [in Athen. 10, 75, 452b] Λιμὸς ἔχων γυναικὸς μορφήν; Diod. S. 3, 31, 4 ἐν μορφαῖς ἀνθρώπων; TestAbr A 16 p. 97, 11 [Stone p. 42] ἀρχαγγέλου μορφὴν περικείμενος; Jos., Ant. 5, 213 a messenger fr. heaven νεανίσκου μορφῇ): of God’s assembly, the church Hv 3, 10, 2; 9; 3, 11, 1; 3, 13, 1; s 9, 1, 1; of the angel of repentance ἡ μ. αὐτοῦ ἠλλοιώθη his appearance had changed m 12, 4, 1. Of Christ (ἐν μ. ἀνθρώπου TestBenj 10:7; Just., D. 61, 1; Tat. 2, 1; Hippol., Ref. 5, 16, 10. Cp. Did., Gen. 56, 18; of deities ἐν ἀνθρωπίνῃ μορφῇ: Iambl., Vi. Pyth. 6, 30; cp. Philo, Abr. 118) μορφὴν δούλου λαβών he took on the form of a slave=expression of servility Phil 2:7 (w. σχῆμα as Aristot., Cat. 10a, 11f, PA 640b, 30–36). This is in contrast to expression of divinity in the preëxistent Christ: ἐν μ. θεοῦ ὑπάρχων although he was in the form of God (cp. OGI 383, 40f: Antiochus’ body is the framework for his μορφή or [i]essential identity as a descendant of divinities; similarly human fragility [Phil 2:7] becomes the supporting framework for Christ’s servility and therefore of his κένωσις [on the appearance one projects cp. the epitaph EpigrAnat 17, ’91, 156, no. 3, 5–8][/b]; on μορφὴ θεοῦ cp. Orig., C. Cels. 7, 66, 21; Pla., Rep. 2, 380d; 381bc; X., Mem. 4, 3, 13; Diog. L. 1, 10 the Egyptians say μὴ εἰδέναι τοῦ θεοῦ μορφήν; Philo, Leg. ad Gai. 80; 110; Jos., C. Ap. 2, 190; Just., A I, 9, 1; PGM 7, 563; 13, 272; 584.—Rtzst., Mysterienrel.3 357f) Phil 2:6. The risen Christ ἐφανερώθη ἐν ἑτέρᾳ μορφῇ appeared in a different form Mk 16:12 (of the transfiguration of Jesus: ἔδειξεν ἡμῖν τὴν ἔνδοξον μορφὴν ἑαυτοῦ Orig., C. Cels. 6, 68, 23). For lit. s. on ἁρπαγμός and κενόω 1b; RMartin, ET 70, ’59, 183f.—DSteenberg, The Case against the Synonymity of μορφή and εἰκών: JSNT 34, ’88, 77–86; GStroumsa, HTR 76, ’83, 269–88 (Semitic background).—DELG. Schmidt, Syn. IV 345–60. M-M. EDNT. TW. Spicq. Sv.

This lexicon entry would seem to agree with me. It explicitly notes that Phil 2:6-7 contrasts being in the form of God with taking on the form of a slave. Again, every single usage of μορφή which I have been able to find supports a translation of "form" or "shape" over against the NIV's "nature." The word "nature" inherently implies an invisible quality, while μορφή clearly denotes something visible.

John Reece
11-06-2014, 07:48 AM
This lexicon entry would seem to agree with me. It explicitly notes that Phil 2:6-7 contrasts being in the form of God with taking on the form of a slave. Again, every single usage of μορφή which I have been able to find supports a translation of "form" or "shape" over against the NIV's "nature." The word "nature" inherently implies an invisible quality, while μορφή clearly denotes something visible.

In truth, the meaning of μορφή in the context of Philippians 2 is not that wooden.

My original posting of the BDAG entry was at the very end of my day (last night) when I was even less alert than usual, so I will post it again to include what I failed to emphasize before.

From BDAG via Accordance:


μορφή, ῆς, ἡ (Hom.+) form, outward appearance, shape gener. of bodily form 1 Cl 39:3; ApcPt 4:13 (Job 4:16; ApcEsdr 4:14 p. 28, 16 Tdf.; SJCh 78, 13). Of the shape or form of statues (Jos., Vi. 65; Iren. 1, 8, 1 [Harv. I 67, 11]) Dg 2:3. Of appearances in visions, etc., similar to persons (Callisthenes [IV BC]: 124 fgm. 13 p. 644, 32 Jac. [in Athen. 10, 75, 452b] Λιμὸς ἔχων γυναικὸς μορφήν; Diod. S. 3, 31, 4 ἐν μορφαῖς ἀνθρώπων; TestAbr A 16 p. 97, 11 [Stone p. 42] ἀρχαγγέλου μορφὴν περικείμενος; Jos., Ant. 5, 213 a messenger fr. heaven νεανίσκου μορφῇ): of God’s assembly, the church Hv 3, 10, 2; 9; 3, 11, 1; 3, 13, 1; s 9, 1, 1; of the angel of repentance ἡ μ. αὐτοῦ ἠλλοιώθη his appearance had changed m 12, 4, 1. Of Christ (ἐν μ. ἀνθρώπου TestBenj 10:7; Just., D. 61, 1; Tat. 2, 1; Hippol., Ref. 5, 16, 10. Cp. Did., Gen. 56, 18; of deities ἐν ἀνθρωπίνῃ μορφῇ: Iambl., Vi. Pyth. 6, 30; cp. Philo, Abr. 118) μορφὴν δούλου λαβών he took on the form of a slave=expression of servility Phil 2:7 (w. σχῆμα as Aristot., Cat. 10a, 11f, PA 640b, 30–36). This is in contrast to expression of divinity in the preëxistent Christ: ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ ὑπάρχων although he was in the form of God (cp. OGI 383, 40f: Antiochus’ body is the framework for his μορφή or essential identity as a descendant of divinities; similarly human fragility [Phil 2:7] becomes the supporting framework for Christ’s servility and therefore of his κένωσις [on the appearance one projects cp. the epitaph EpigrAnat 17, ’91, 156, no. 3, 5–8][/b]; on μορφὴ θεοῦ cp. Orig., C. Cels. 7, 66, 21; Pla., Rep. 2, 380d; 381bc; X., Mem. 4, 3, 13; Diog. L. 1, 10 the Egyptians say μὴ εἰδέναι τοῦ θεοῦ μορφήν; Philo, Leg. ad Gai. 80; 110; Jos., C. Ap. 2, 190; Just., A I, 9, 1; PGM 7, 563; 13, 272; 584.—Rtzst., Mysterienrel.3 357f) Phil 2:6. The risen Christ ἐφανερώθη ἐν ἑτέρᾳ μορφῇ appeared in a different form Mk 16:12 (of the transfiguration of Jesus: ἔδειξεν ἡμῖν τὴν ἔνδοξον μορφὴν ἑαυτοῦ Orig., C. Cels. 6, 68, 23). For lit. s. on ἁρπαγμός and κενόω 1b; RMartin, ET 70, ’59, 183f.—DSteenberg, The Case against the Synonymity of μορφή and εἰκών: JSNT 34, ’88, 77–86; GStroumsa, HTR 76, ’83, 269–88 (Semitic background).—DELG. Schmidt, Syn. IV 345–60. M-M. EDNT. TW. Spicq. Sv.

What is "the form or shape" of God? Can you draw a picture of it?

The semantic range of μορφή in the context of Philippians 2 is indeed broad enough to include the NIV rendering ("nature"), as noted by Peter O'Brien (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?4194-John-1-and-Philippians-2-5-7&p=116445&viewfull=1#post116445).

The semantic range of μορφή in the BDAG entry includes not only "form or shape" but also "expression", "essential identity".

From the BDAG entry:

"the form of a slave=expression of servility Phil 2:7"
"his μορφή or essential identity as a descendant of divinities; similarly human fragility [Phil 2:7] becomes the supporting framework for Christ’s servility"

What is the difference in "form or shape" between a human being who is a slave and a human being who is an emperor?

What is the "form or shape" of Christ's servility and how does that "form or shape" differ from the "form or shape" of King Herod's arrogance?

Boxing Pythagoras
11-06-2014, 08:47 AM
In truth, the meaning of μορφή in the context of Philippians 2 is not that wooden.

My original posting of the BDAG entry was at the very end of my day (last night) when I was even less alert than usual, so I will post it again to include what I failed to emphasize before.

From BDAG via Accordance:


μορφή, ῆς, ἡ (Hom.+) form, outward appearance, shape gener. of bodily form 1 Cl 39:3; ApcPt 4:13 (Job 4:16; ApcEsdr 4:14 p. 28, 16 Tdf.; SJCh 78, 13). Of the shape or form of statues (Jos., Vi. 65; Iren. 1, 8, 1 [Harv. I 67, 11]) Dg 2:3. Of appearances in visions, etc., similar to persons (Callisthenes [IV BC]: 124 fgm. 13 p. 644, 32 Jac. [in Athen. 10, 75, 452b] Λιμὸς ἔχων γυναικὸς μορφήν; Diod. S. 3, 31, 4 ἐν μορφαῖς ἀνθρώπων; TestAbr A 16 p. 97, 11 [Stone p. 42] ἀρχαγγέλου μορφὴν περικείμενος; Jos., Ant. 5, 213 a messenger fr. heaven νεανίσκου μορφῇ): of God’s assembly, the church Hv 3, 10, 2; 9; 3, 11, 1; 3, 13, 1; s 9, 1, 1; of the angel of repentance ἡ μ. αὐτοῦ ἠλλοιώθη his appearance had changed m 12, 4, 1. Of Christ (ἐν μ. ἀνθρώπου TestBenj 10:7; Just., D. 61, 1; Tat. 2, 1; Hippol., Ref. 5, 16, 10. Cp. Did., Gen. 56, 18; of deities ἐν ἀνθρωπίνῃ μορφῇ: Iambl., Vi. Pyth. 6, 30; cp. Philo, Abr. 118) μορφὴν δούλου λαβών he took on the form of a slave=expression of servility Phil 2:7 (w. σχῆμα as Aristot., Cat. 10a, 11f, PA 640b, 30–36). This is in contrast to expression of divinity in the preëxistent Christ: ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ ὑπάρχων although he was in the form of God (cp. OGI 383, 40f: Antiochus’ body is the framework for his μορφή or essential identity as a descendant of divinities; similarly human fragility [Phil 2:7] becomes the supporting framework for Christ’s servility and therefore of his κένωσις [on the appearance one projects cp. the epitaph EpigrAnat 17, ’91, 156, no. 3, 5–8][/b]; on μορφὴ θεοῦ cp. Orig., C. Cels. 7, 66, 21; Pla., Rep. 2, 380d; 381bc; X., Mem. 4, 3, 13; Diog. L. 1, 10 the Egyptians say μὴ εἰδέναι τοῦ θεοῦ μορφήν; Philo, Leg. ad Gai. 80; 110; Jos., C. Ap. 2, 190; Just., A I, 9, 1; PGM 7, 563; 13, 272; 584.—Rtzst., Mysterienrel.3 357f) Phil 2:6. The risen Christ ἐφανερώθη ἐν ἑτέρᾳ μορφῇ appeared in a different form Mk 16:12 (of the transfiguration of Jesus: ἔδειξεν ἡμῖν τὴν ἔνδοξον μορφὴν ἑαυτοῦ Orig., C. Cels. 6, 68, 23). For lit. s. on ἁρπαγμός and κενόω 1b; RMartin, ET 70, ’59, 183f.—DSteenberg, The Case against the Synonymity of μορφή and εἰκών: JSNT 34, ’88, 77–86; GStroumsa, HTR 76, ’83, 269–88 (Semitic background).—DELG. Schmidt, Syn. IV 345–60. M-M. EDNT. TW. Spicq. Sv.

What is "the form or shape" of God? Can you draw a picture of it?

The semantic range of μορφή in the context of Philippians 2 is indeed broad enough to include the NIV rendering ("nature"), as noted by Peter O'Brien (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?4194-John-1-and-Philippians-2-5-7&p=116445&viewfull=1#post116445).

The semantic range of μορφή in the BDAG entry includes not only "form or shape" but also "expression", "essential identity".

From the BDAG entry:

"the form of a slave=expression of servility Phil 2:7"
"his μορφή or essential identity as a descendant of divinities; similarly human fragility [Phil 2:7] becomes the supporting framework for Christ’s servility"

What is the difference in "form or shape" between a human being who is a slave and a human being who is an emperor?

What is the "form or shape" of Christ's servility and how does that "form or shape" differ from the "form or shape" of King Herod's arrogance?I agree with the BDAG entry when it links μορφή with "expression" or "essential identity," but I would contend that these are both still best understood as the outward presentation of that which is being described, rather than as an invisible nature which belies the outward appearance.

Again, every single other usage of μορφή in Greek literature denotes this sort of outward presentation of attributes, in stark contrast to the idea of an invisible or hidden nature.

Honestly, I don't think this is at all problematic for orthodox theology. The pre-existent Word of John's prologue was in the form of God. When the Word was incarnated, it took on the form of a slave. This says nothing at all about the nature or personhood of Christ, and one is still free to justify orthodox doctrines of the Trinity and the Hypostatic Union.

John Reece
11-08-2014, 10:47 AM
I agree with the BDAG entry when it links μορφή with "expression" or "essential identity," but I would contend that these are both still best understood as the outward presentation of that which is being described, rather than as an invisible nature which belies the outward appearance.

Again, every single other usage of μορφή in Greek literature denotes this sort of outward presentation of attributes, in stark contrast to the idea of an invisible or hidden nature.


NRSV: 2:5 Let the same mind be in you that was in Christ Jesus,
6 who, though he was in the form [μορφή] of God,
did not regard equality with God
as something to be exploited,
7 but emptied himself,
taking the form [μορφή] of a slave,
being born in human likeness.
And being found in human form,
8 he humbled himself
and became obedient to the point of death—
even death on a cross.

What is the "outward presentation"/"outward appearance" ― i.e., your interpretation of μορφή ― of God in the context of Philippians 2?

What is "the outward presentation of the attributes" ― i.e., your interpretation of μορφή ― of God in the context of Philippians 2?

What is "the form [μορφή] of a slave" in the context of Philippians 2? How does that "form" differ from the "form" of a free person?


.... Again, every single usage of μορφή which I have been able to find supports a translation of "form" or "shape" over against the NIV's "nature." The word "nature" inherently implies an invisible quality, while μορφή clearly denotes something visible.


TNIV: Phil. 2:5 In your relationships with one another, have the same attitude of mind Christ Jesus had:
Phil. 2:6 Who, being in very nature [μορφή] God,
did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;
7 rather, he made himself nothing
by taking the very nature [μορφή] of a servant,
being made in human likeness.

Phil. 2:8 And being found in appearance as a human being,
he humbled himself
by becoming obedient to death—
even death on a cross!

In Philippians 2, is the μορφή of God visible or invisible? If it is visible, can you draw a picture of it? If not, why not?

In the context of Philippians 2, is the μορφή of a slave visible or invisible? If it is visible, how does it differ from the μορφή of a free person? Can you draw a picture of the respective persons ― i.e., a picture of a slave and a picture of a free person ― to illustrate the difference in the visible appearance of one compared to the other?

Boxing Pythagoras
11-08-2014, 12:18 PM
NRSV: 2:5 Let the same mind be in you that was in Christ Jesus,
6 who, though he was in the form [μορφή] of God,
did not regard equality with God
as something to be exploited,
7 but emptied himself,
taking the form [μορφή] of a slave,
being born in human likeness.
And being found in human form,
8 he humbled himself
and became obedient to the point of death—
even death on a cross.

What is the "outward presentation"/"outward appearance" ― i.e., your interpretation of μορφή ― of God in the context of Philippians 2?

What is "the outward presentation of the attributes" ― i.e., your interpretation of μορφή ― of God in the context of Philippians 2?

What is "the form [μορφή] of a slave" in the context of Philippians 2? How does that "form" differ from the "form" of a free person?




TNIV: Phil. 2:5 In your relationships with one another, have the same attitude of mind Christ Jesus had:
Phil. 2:6 Who, being in very nature [μορφή] God,
did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;
7 rather, he made himself nothing
by taking the very nature [μορφή] of a servant,
being made in human likeness.

Phil. 2:8 And being found in appearance as a human being,
he humbled himself
by becoming obedient to death—
even death on a cross!

In Philippians 2, is the μορφή of God visible or invisible? If it is visible, can you draw a picture of it? If not, why not?

In the context of Philippians 2, is the μορφή of a slave visible or invisible? If it is visible, how does it differ from the μορφή of a free person? Can you draw a picture of the respective persons ― i.e., a picture of a slave and a picture of a free person ― to illustrate the difference in the visible appearance of one compared to the other?The outward presentation, or form, of God would be a reference to the glory and righteousness of God, but not necessarily a reference to the person of God (in the theological sense of the word).

Insofar as how the μορφή of God differs from the μορφή of a slave, I'll leave that to theologians to discuss. However, proper exegesis-- I'm sure you'll agree-- should make the theology fit the meaning of the words, and not vice versa. The fact that the passage is difficult doesn't give us license to simply pretend that the words used held a different meaning for Paul than for every other Greek writer. The word μορφή does not refer to the underlying nature of an entity. The Philippians 2 hymn is contrasting the μορφή of the pre-existent Jesus with the μορφή of the incarnated Jesus.

Though he had been in the form (μορφή) of God, he emptied himself to take on the form (μορφή) of a slave, born in the form (ὁμοίωμα) of a human. And being found in the form (σχῆμα) of a man, he humbled himself.

I don't know what Paul (or, possibly, the pre-Pauline originators of this hymn) specifically meant by ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ; however, I do believe that the words were chosen intentionally. And all three of these Greek words (μορφή, ὁμοίωμα, σχῆμα) refer to the form, the outward expression, of that which was being described.

John Reece
11-08-2014, 01:05 PM
The outward presentation, or form, of God would be a reference to the glory and righteousness of God...

Glory and righteousness = the "form" of God?

Christ Jesus divested himself of righteousness when he became a human being?

Geert van den Bos
11-11-2014, 07:18 AM
Christ Jesus divested himself of righteousness when he became a human being?


Nowhere is it written that "he became a human being", not in John 1:14 and also not in Philippians 2:7,

7ἀλλὰ ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσεν μορφὴν δούλου λαβών, ἐν ὁμοιώματι ἀνθρώπων γενόμενος: καὶ σχήματι εὑρεθεὶς ὡς ἄνθρωπος

But he emptied himself taking the form of a slave, becoming in the likeness of men; and he was found in the appearance as of man.

John Reece
11-11-2014, 07:44 AM
Nowhere is it written that "he became a human being", not in John 1:14 and also not in Philippians 2:7,

7ἀλλὰ ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσεν μορφὴν δούλου λαβών, ἐν ὁμοιώματι ἀνθρώπων γενόμενος: καὶ σχήματι εὑρεθεὶς ὡς ἄνθρωπος

But he emptied himself taking the form of a slave, becoming in the likeness of men; and he was found in the appearance as of man.

Are you saying that Christ Jesus was not a human being?

Geert van den Bos
11-11-2014, 07:58 AM
Glory and righteousness = the "form" of God?

Christ Jesus divested himself of righteousness when he became a human being?


Are you saying that Christ Jesus was not a human being?


Always a human being; not first God and later becoming man.

John Reece
11-11-2014, 08:54 AM
Always a human being; not first God and later becoming man.

Then who is it that is referred to in this scripture?


Phil. 2:4 μὴ τὰ ἑαυτῶν ἕκαστος σκοποῦντες ἀλλὰ [καὶ] τὰ ἑτέρων ἕκαστοι.
Phil. 2:5 Τοῦτο φρονεῖτε ἐν ὑμῖν ὃ καὶ ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ, 6 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

NRSV: Phil. 2:4 Let each of you look not to your own interests, but to the interests of others. 5 Let the same mind be in you that was in Christ Jesus,
6 who, though he was in the form of God,
did not regard equality with God
as something to be exploited,
7 but emptied himself,
taking the form of a slave,
being born in human likeness.
And being found in human form,

TNIV: Phil. 2:4 not looking to your own interests but each of you to the interests of the others.
Phil. 2:5 In your relationships with one another, have the same attitude of mind Christ Jesus had:
Phil. 2:6 Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;
7 rather, he made himself nothing
by taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.

Who is it that was "in the form [or nature] of God" and subsequently was "born [or made] in human likeness?"

Geert van den Bos
11-11-2014, 09:37 AM
Who is it that was "in the form [or nature] of God" a human being


and subsequently was "born [or made] in human likeness?" it reads:
καὶ σχήματι εὑρεθεὶς ὡς ἄνθρωπος

ie. in appearance found as man.






it being rather obscure reasoning.

I think Paul has with μορφή some same thing in mind as Rashi with "d'yukan".

Rashi on Genessis 1:27,
in the image of God He created him: It explains to you that the image that was prepared for him was the image of the likeness of his Creator. — [from B.B. 58a]

image of the likeness of his Creator = צלם דיוקן יצורו, "tzelem d'yukan yotsro".

Before Rashi did already state:

And God created man in his image: In the form that was made for him, for everything [else] was created with a command, whereas he [man] was created with the hands (of God), as it is written (Ps. 139:5): “and You placed Your hand upon me.” Man was made with a seal, like a coin, which is made by means of a die


Elsewhere Jesus was called "image of the inviisble God" ,εἰκὼν τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ ἀοράτου, (Colossians 1:15) which might denote the same.

Boxing Pythagoras
11-11-2014, 10:14 AM
it reads:
καὶ σχήματι εὑρεθεὶς ὡς ἄνθρωπος

ie. in appearance found as man.To be fair, it does also read:

ἐν ὁμοιώματι ἀνθρώπων γενόμενος

in {form, likeness} of man was he born

John Reece
11-11-2014, 10:27 AM
Then who is it that is referred to in this scripture?


a human being

My question was not "what is referred to in this scripture (Philippians 2:4-7)?"

My question was "who is referred to in this scripture (Philippians 2:4-7)?"

Why is your answer evasive?

Geert van den Bos
11-11-2014, 10:52 AM
To be fair, it does also read:

ἐν ὁμοιώματι ἀνθρώπων γενόμενος

in {form, likeness} of man was he born

γενόμενος is not "born" -
It is a form of γίνομαι = to become, happen.

Geert van den Bos
11-11-2014, 10:57 AM
My question was not "what is referred to in this scripture (Philippians 2:4-7)?"

My question was "who is referred to in this scripture (Philippians 2:4-7)?"

About Jesus Christ, a human being, not about God (the Father).

Boxing Pythagoras
11-11-2014, 10:59 AM
γενόμενος is not "born" -
It is a form of γίνομαι = to become, happen.True, but γίνομαι in the context of humans is generally synonymous with birth.

Geert van den Bos
11-11-2014, 11:39 AM
True, but γίνομαι in the context of humans is generally synonymous with birth. In biased translations.

John Reece
11-11-2014, 11:45 AM
About Jesus Christ, a human being, not about God (the Father).

What was the difference between the nature/form of Jesus Christ when he was in the nature/form of God (ὃς ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ ὑπάρχων) ― as the text specifically states, on the one hand; and, on the other hand ― as the text specifically states, the nature/form of Jesus Christ after he had "emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, being born in human likeness. And being found in human form (NRSV)" [ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσεν μορφὴν δούλου λαβών, ἐν ὁμοιώματι ἀνθρώπων γενόμενος· καὶ σχήματι εὑρεθεὶς ὡς ἄνθρωπος]?

Boxing Pythagoras
11-11-2014, 12:22 PM
In biased translations.I'm talking about general Greek literature, not just in translations of Philippians.
1. of persons, to be born, νέον γεγαώς new born, Od.19.400; ὑπὸ Τμώλῳ γεγαῶτας born (and so living) under Tmolus, Il.2.866; “ἢ πρόσθε θανεῖν ἢ ἔπειτα γ.” Hes.Op.175; γιγνομέναισι λάχη τάδ᾽ . . ἐκράνθη at our birth, A.Eu.347; “γ. ἔκ τινος” Il.5.548, Hdt.7.11; “πατρὸς ἐκ ταὐτοῦ” E.IA406, cf. Isoc.5.136; “σέθεν . . ἐξ αἵματος” A.Th. 142; less freq. “ἀπό τινος” Hdt.8.22, etc.; “ἐσθλῶν” E.Hec.380, etc.; γεγονέναι κακῶς, καλῶς, Ar.Eq.218, Isoc.7.37, etc.; κάλλιον, εὖ, Hdt. 1.146, 3.69; τὸ μὴ γενέσθαι not to have been born, A.Fr.401: freq. with Numerals, “ἔτεα τρία καὶ δέκα γεγονώς” Hdt.1.119; “ἀμφὶ τὰ πέντε ἢ ἑκκαίδεκα ἔτη γενόμενος” X.Cyr.1.4.16; “γεγονὼς ἔτη περὶ πεντήκοντα” D. 21.154; οἱ ὑπὲρ τὰ στρατεύσιμα ἔτη γεγονότες those of an age beyond . . , X.Cyr.1.2.4: c. gen., “γεγονὼς πλειόνων ἐτῶν ἢ πεντήκοντα” Pl.Lg. 951c, etc.: rarely with ordinals, “ὀγδοηκοστὸν ἔτος γεγονώς” Luc.Macr. 22, cf. Plu.Phil.18.
Are you saying these are all "biased" translations of γίγνομαι?

Geert van den Bos
11-11-2014, 12:30 PM
What was the difference between the nature/form of Jesus Christ when he was in the nature/form of God (ὃς ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ ὑπάρχων) ― as the text specifically states, on the one hand; and, on the other hand ― as the text specifically states, the nature/form of Jesus Christ after he had "emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, being born in human likeness. And being found in human form (NRSV)" [ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσεν μορφὴν δούλου λαβών, ἐν ὁμοιώματι ἀνθρώπων γενόμενος· καὶ σχήματι εὑρεθεὶς ὡς ἄνθρωπος]?



I thought it was about man created in the image of God, of which Rashi said that man was made by means of a seal, like a coin that is made by means of a stamp.

So the image of God with which he made man is like a seal, which shows God's portrait.

The same idea is expressed by Mark in his question about paying taxes to Caesar. "Whose image and whose inscription" is on the coin? "Inscription" was also on the cross. -- so that you might know who was crucified: Man created in (by means of) the image of God.

You also might think that the inscription showed up the number 666. Revelation 13:18 indeed seeming to be about a coin (no one could sell or buy without it).

"The seal of God" being nothing else than his own name, with which he sealed the bible and creation in the initial letters of "yom hashishi vay'chulu hashamayim", at the completion of creation (Genesis 1:31-2:1).
Where the letter "hey"of "hashishi" is left out, you are left with just "yom shishi" of which gematria is 666.

Geert van den Bos
11-11-2014, 12:36 PM
I'm talking about general Greek literature, not just in translations of Philippians.
[cite=LSJ Lexicon entry for γίγνομαι]
Are you saying these are all "biased" translations of γίγνομαι?

It was about γίνομαι, not γίγνομαι

But I found:

http://www.textkit.com/greek-latin-forum/viewtopic.php?t=1404


gignomai is a deponent. ginomai is an other form with exactly the same meaning. Ginomai is mostly found in later Greek and also in the Koine (New Testament Greek, ...).

John Reece
11-11-2014, 12:59 PM
I thought it was about man created in the image of God, of which Rashi said that man was made by means of a seal, like a coin that is made by means of a stamp.

So the image of God with which he made man is like a seal, which shows God's portrait.

The same idea is expressed by Mark in his question about paying taxes to Caesar. "Whose image and whose inscription" is on the coin? "Inscription" was also on the cross. -- so that you might know who was crucified: Man created in (by means of) the image of God.

You also might think that the inscription showed up the number 666. Revelation 13:18 indeed seeming to be about a coin (no one could sell or buy without it).

"The seal of God" being nothing else than his own name, with which he sealed the bible and creation in the initial letters of "yom hashishi vay'chulu hashamayim", at the completion of creation (Genesis 1:31-2:1).
Where the letter "hey"of "hashishi" is left out, you are left with just "yom shishi" of which gematria is 666.

Why are you avoiding and refusing to answer my question?

Is it that you cannot answer my question that you instead keep going off onto rabbit trails of cabalistic irrelevancies?

Geert van den Bos
11-11-2014, 01:11 PM
Why are you avoiding and refusing to answer my question?



I did answer.

John Reece
11-11-2014, 02:35 PM
I did answer.

Geert,

You have reminded me of why I requested that you and all other cabalists be banned from posting in any of my threads.

I made an exception in the OP of the last thread that I started; however, your response above has prompted me to reverse that exception and to renew my request that you not be permitted to post in that thread (the last thread I started) or in any other thread that I may start.

Boxing Pythagoras
11-11-2014, 02:45 PM
It was about γίνομαι, not γίγνομαι

But I found:

http://www.textkit.com/greek-latin-forum/viewtopic.php?t=1404Yep, γίνομαι is the later vernacular, but it's the same word as γίγνομαι. The point is that it is completely appropriate to translate γίνομαι as "to be born" when it references a human person, as in Philippians 2.

Geert van den Bos
11-12-2014, 12:04 AM
Yep, γίνομαι is the later vernacular, but it's the same word as γίγνομαι. The point is that it is completely appropriate to translate γίνομαι as "to be born" when it references a human person, as in Philippians 2.

Yet it is not the right translation. Behind your translation lies the misconception of Jesus being God, or even God-Creator.

You might say the verse is rather hard to translate, like shown by the many different ways in which it was translated:

http://biblehub.com/philippians/2-7.htm

This might be due to the fact that the idea behind it is rather hard to express, since it is "mystery" and not "history".


Same γίνομαι is found in John 1:14, and also in John 8:58.

In both cases it is used in combination with "einai" = to be.

John 1:1 , "In the beginning was the word; John 1:14 "And the word became flesh"

John 8:58, "Before Abraham became I am"

Abraham first was called Abram. Only after he got an extra letter ( the letter "hey" with value 5) added to his name he became Abraham, "father of a multitude of nations", or "father of all who do believe".

Strange thing about "lech l'cha" (= " go for yourself", Genesis 12:1) is it's outer value being 100 (50 + 50) and it's full value 348, the inner value being 248, which is the outer value of Abraham.

Which you might explain as: before he got the extra letter added to his name he was already Abraham in his inner being.

Psalms 110 being about Abraham: "Saying of the Lord ("hashem") to my master (= Abraham)".

The place of the Lord being in the initial letters of "yom hashishi vay'chulu hashamayim" (Genesis 1:31 -2:1),where to "shishi" the same letter "hey" was added, as the one that was added to Abram.

Rashi:
the sixth day: Scripture added a “hey” on the sixth [day], at the completion of the Creation, etc.



"To be" and "to become":

"To be" = eternal
"to become" = timely process.

The resurrected one lives eternal. He being the same Adam as the Adam who did not sin.

So in my opinion Phillippians 2:5-7 tries to say that Adam sinned deliberately.

Like also John's "prologue" tries to say the same.

In the word that became flesh was the life that was the light of men.

Which is about the light of the first day, the light that God saw to be good.

Good = Hebrew "tov", of which gematria is 17.

153 being triangular 17.

153 the number of large fish that Peter drew ashore after having thrown the net to the right side of the ship.

The third "tov" in Genesis, Genesis 1:12, being the 153rd word from the beginning.

Which would not have been the case when the earth had brought forth "ets pri oseh pri" (fruit tree making fruit), like God had asked (v.11), instead of "ets oseh pri" (tree making fruit).

"ets pri oseh pri" being already a fruit; while "ets oseh pri" is not yet a fruit.

Rashi:
fruit trees: That the taste of the tree should be like the taste of the fruit. It [the earth] did not do so, however, but“the earth gave forth, etc., trees producing fruit,” but the trees themselves were not fruit. Therefore, when man was cursed because of his iniquity, it [the earth] too was punished for its iniquity (and was cursed-not in all editions). - [from Gen. Rabbah 5:9]


IOW it is about "being" versus "becoming", about "einai" versus "ginomai".

Boxing Pythagoras
11-12-2014, 03:54 AM
Yet it is not the right translation. Behind your translation lies the misconception of Jesus being God, or even God-Creator.Actually, it's not. I'm not sure if you knew, but I'm not a Christian. I'm not even a theist. I'm looking at this translation from a completely secular point of view. I am not starting with some theological preconception, and translating to fit that notion. I'm starting with my translation in order to figure out what the author intended by his words. Incidentally, I actually agree that the Philippians 2 hymn is not saying that Jesus is God (in fact, I would argue that it pretty explicitly states the opposite). Translating γίνομαι as "to be born" doesn't imply that the one being born is God.


Same γίνομαι is found in John 1:14, and also in John 8:58.

In both cases it is used in combination with "einai" = to be.

John 1:1 , "In the beginning was the word; John 1:14 "And the word became flesh"

John 8:58, "Before Abraham became I am"I would argue that "born" is certainly an appropriate translation, in both of these cases. In the Hellenistic view, flesh "became" by being born.


Strange thing about "lech l'cha" (= " go for yourself", Genesis 12:1) is it's outer value being 100 (50 + 50) and it's full value 348, the inner value being 248, which is the outer value of Abraham.

Which you might explain as: before he got the extra letter added to his name he was already Abraham in his inner being.

Psalms 110 being about Abraham: "Saying of the Lord ("hashem") to my master (= Abraham)".

The place of the Lord being in the initial letters of "yom hashishi vay'chulu hashamayim" (Genesis 1:31 -2:1),where to "shishi" the same letter "hey" was added, as the one that was added to Abram.I honestly think that Hebrew gematria and exegesis is fairly irrelevant to Pauline hermeneutics.


So in my opinion Phillippians 2:5-7 tries to say that Adam sinned deliberately.That seems to be clearly eisegetical and quite untenable. There is no indication in the passage, at all, that Paul is discussing Adam or sin. The Philippians 2 hymn is quite explicitly talking about Jesus' pre-existence, incarnation, and exaltation.

Paprika
11-12-2014, 04:24 AM
Incidentally, I actually agree that the Philippians 2 hymn is not saying that Jesus is God (in fact, I would argue that it pretty explicitly states the opposite).
καὶ πᾶσα γλῶσσα ἐξομολογήσηται ὅτι κύριος Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς

Boxing Pythagoras
11-12-2014, 04:39 AM
καὶ πᾶσα γλῶσσα ἐξομολογήσηται ὅτι κύριος Ἰησοῦς ΧριστὸςYes. And Paul quite clearly lays out the reason for this, in verse 9:

διὸ καὶ ὁ θεὸς αὐτὸν ὑπερύψωσεν
καὶ ἐχαρίσατο αὐτῷ τὸ ὄνομα
τὸ ὑπὲρ πᾶν ὄνομα

And therefore God exalted him [to the highest]
and gave to him the authority
[which is] above all authority

If Paul was saying that Jesus is God, it wouldn't make very much sense for God to exalt Jesus and to give him authority. You can't exalt that which is already exalted to the highest, and you can't give the highest authority to that which already has the highest authority.

Paprika
11-12-2014, 05:04 AM
If Paul was saying that Jesus is God, it wouldn't make very much sense for God to exalt Jesus and to give him authority. You can't exalt that which is already exalted to the highest, and you can't give the highest authority to that which already has the highest authority.
Yes you can, to someone who has humbled and emptied himself.

Boxing Pythagoras
11-12-2014, 05:13 AM
Yes you can, to someone who has humbled and emptied himself.Still doesn't make sense. If God emptied and humbled himself, he would no longer have the power to exalt himself nor to give himself authority. It's fairly clear that Paul is saying that God and Jesus are two different persons (and I use that word intentionally) in this passage.

Geert van den Bos
11-12-2014, 05:15 AM
Actually, it's not. I'm not sure if you knew, but I'm not a Christian. I'm not even a theist. I'm looking at this translation from a completely secular point of view. I am not starting with some theological preconception, and translating to fit that notion. I'm starting with my translation in order to figure out what the author intended by his words. Incidentally, I actually agree that the Philippians 2 hymn is not saying that Jesus is God (in fact, I would argue that it pretty explicitly states the opposite). Translating γίνομαι as "to be born" doesn't imply that the one being born is God.
I thought it usually is interpreted that way ( by John Reece f.e.)


I would argue that "born" is certainly an appropriate translation, in both of these cases. In the Hellenistic view, flesh "became" by being born.

Ain't an unborn child already "flesh" then?

Which makes think of the Jewish Golem, man of clay; "golem" means embryo.

cf Rashi on Genesis 2:24,


one flesh: The fetus is formed by them both, and there [in the child] their flesh becomes one. — [from Sanh. 58a]




I honestly think that Hebrew gematria and exegesis is fairly irrelevant to Pauline hermeneutics. Paul knows about "the indivisible moment" (1 Corinthians 15:51-52) even as "mystery" - which can be seen as a hint to the "mystical knowledge" he speaks from. Indivisivble moment = Hebrew "rega" with gematria 273, a number that occurs in Numbers 3:46.


That seems to be clearly eisegetical and quite untenable. There is no indication in the passage, at all, that Paul is discussing Adam or sin. The Philippians 2 hymn is quite explicitly talking about Jesus' pre-existence, incarnation, and exaltation. Paul knows about "the first Adam" and "the second Adam" (1 Corinthians 15).

Paprika
11-12-2014, 05:18 AM
Still doesn't make sense. If God emptied and humbled himself, he would no longer have the power to exalt himself nor to give himself authority. It's fairly clear that Paul is saying that God and Jesus are two different persons (and I use that word intentionally) in this passage.
The Father and Jesus are two, yes, but both κύριος.

Boxing Pythagoras
11-12-2014, 05:39 AM
I thought it usually is interpreted that way ( by John Reece f.e.)Perhaps by Evangelicals or conservative Christian readers, but I'm not sure the same could be said of scholarship, in general. As I said, I'm tackling the text from a completely secular point of view, and I do not see γίνομαι as having any implication that Jesus is God.


Ain't an unborn child already "flesh" then?

Which makes think of the Jewish Golem, man of clay; "golem" means embryo.This would seem a fairly anachronistic view to apply to Paul.


Paul knows about "the indivisible moment" (1 Corinthians 15:51-52) even as "mystery" - which can be seen as a hint to the "mystical knowledge" he speaks from.
Paul knows about "the first Adam" and "the second Adam" (1 Corinthians 15).I'm not sure what you think that this implies. The fact that Paul talks of such things in 1 Cor 15 does not mean he's talking about them in Philippians 2. Nothing in Philippians 2 discusses Adam or the fall or the original sin.


Indivisivble moment = Hebrew "rega" with gematria 273, a number that occurs in Numbers 3:46.Once again, Hebrew gematria is fairly irrelevant to Pauline exegesis.


The Father and Jesus are two, yes, but both κύριος.I agree that this is what Paul is saying. In fact, it seems to be the whole point of the Philippians 2 hymn: God raised up Jesus to be κύριος, imparting to Jesus the highest possible authority.

Geert van den Bos
11-12-2014, 08:06 AM
Perhaps by Evangelicals or conservative Christian readers, but I'm not sure the same could be said of scholarship, in general. As I said, I'm tackling the text from a completely secular point of view, and I do not see γίνομαι as having any implication that Jesus is God. but your translation does.


This would seem a fairly anachronistic view to apply to Paul. I didn't apply it to Paul, but to your " In the Hellenistic view, flesh "became" by being born.
"


.

The fact that Paul talks of such things in 1 Cor 15 does not mean he's talking about them in Philippians 2. Nothing in Philippians 2 discusses Adam or the fall or the original sin.

The first Adam (existing in the form of God) emptied himself taking the form of a servant (= the second Adam), etc.



Once again, Hebrew gematria is fairly irrelevant to Pauline exegesis. you say so.



I agree that this is what Paul is saying. In fact, it seems to be the whole point of the Philippians 2 hymn: God raised up Jesus to be κύριος, imparting to Jesus the highest possible authority.

The use of κύριος, for God is to avoid mentioning his name. It is after Hebrew "adonai".

The use of κύριος for Jesus is not to avoid mentioning the Tetragrammaton.

κύριος meaning lord or master.

Boxing Pythagoras
11-12-2014, 08:21 AM
but your translation does.No, it doesn't. My translation indicates that Christ Jesus was born. It does not indicate that Christ Jesus was God.


I didn't apply it to Paul, but to your " In the Hellenistic view, flesh "became" by being born."Please allow me to clarify and expand, then: viewing the unborn as having already been made in flesh is anachronistic when applied to the Hellenistic view.


The first Adam (existing in the form of God) emptied himself taking the form of a servant (= the second Adam), etc.Except that the Philippians 2 passage says nothing of the sort. It very clearly and explicitly states that it was Christ Jesus who emptied himself and took the form of a slave. Paul's discussion of the "first Adam" in 1 Cor 15 is explicitly in contrast to Jesus. There is absolutely no way to justify a claim that Paul thought the first Adam was the one who emptied himself, nor that Adam was in the form of God.


you say so.I do. There doesn't seem to be any indication that Paul considered any gematria, whether it be Greek or Hebrew, in his theology.


The use of κύριος, for God is to avoid mentioning his name. It is after Hebrew "adonai".

The use of κύριος for Jesus is not to avoid mentioning the Tetragrammaton.

κύριος meaning lord or master.Here, you and I are actually in agreement.

Geert van den Bos
11-14-2014, 01:11 AM
No, it doesn't. My translation indicates that Christ Jesus was born. It does not indicate that Christ Jesus was God.

It is about a certain state of mind all Christians should have:

1 If there is therefore any exhortation in Christ, if any consolation of love, if any fellowship of the Spirit, if any tender mercies and compassions,

2 make full my joy, that ye be of the same mind, having the same love, being of one accord, of one mind;

3 doing nothing through faction or through vainglory, but in lowliness of mind each counting other better than himself;

4 not looking each of you to his own things, but each of you also to the things of others.

5 Have this mind in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:

Verb used φρονέω = think, have in mind

lowliness of mind = ταπεινοφροσύνη

cf Matthew 11:

28Δεῦτε πρός με πάντες οἱ κοπιῶντες καὶ πεφορτισμένοι, κἀγὼ ἀναπαύσω ὑμᾶς. 29ἄρατε τὸν ζυγόν μου ἐφ' ὑμᾶς καὶ μάθετε ἀπ' ἐμοῦ, ὅτι πραΰς εἰμι καὶ ταπεινὸς τῇ καρδίᾳ, καὶ εὑρήσετε ἀνάπαυσιν ταῖς ψυχαῖς ὑμῶν: 30ὁ γὰρ ζυγός μου χρηστὸς καὶ τὸ φορτίον μου ἐλαφρόν ἐστιν.
28 Come unto me, all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.29 Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls.30 For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.

And also Mark 10:
42καὶ προσκαλεσάμενος αὐτοὺς ὁ Ἰησοῦς λέγει αὐτοῖς, Οἴδατε ὅτι οἱ δοκοῦντες ἄρχειν τῶν ἐθνῶν κατακυριεύουσιν αὐτῶν καὶ οἱ μεγάλοι αὐτῶν κατεξουσιάζουσιν αὐτῶν. 43οὐχ οὕτως δέ ἐστιν ἐν ὑμῖν: ἀλλ' ὃς ἂν θέλῃ μέγας γενέσθαι ἐν ὑμῖν, ἔσται ὑμῶν διάκονος, 44καὶ ὃς ἂν θέλῃ ἐν ὑμῖν εἶναι πρῶτος, ἔσται πάντων δοῦλος: 45καὶ γὰρ ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου οὐκ ἦλθεν διακονηθῆναι ἀλλὰ διακονῆσαι καὶ δοῦναι τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ λύτρον ἀντὶ πολλῶν.
42And Jesus called them to him, and saith unto them, Ye know that they who are accounted to rule over the Gentiles lord it over them; and their great ones exercise authority over them.43 But it is not so among you: but whosoever would become great among you, shall be your minister; 44 and whosoever would be first among you, shall be servant of all.45 For the Son of man also came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.

Rule over = κατακυριεύω -- in which κύριος, ruler, lord, master.

servant = δοῦλος

servant of all πάντων δοῦλος

Same mentioned in Phillippians 2:7, ἀλλὰ ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσεν μορφὴν δούλου λαβών





Please allow me to clarify and expand, then: viewing the unborn as having already been made in flesh is anachronistic when applied to the Hellenistic view. But it is not "Hellenistic".
And furthermore I don't think you are right with that in Hellenistic view "to become flesh" is equal to "to be born".


Except that the Philippians 2 passage says nothing of the sort. It very clearly and explicitly states that it was Christ Jesus who emptied himself and took the form of a slave. Paul's discussion of the "first Adam" in 1 Cor 15 is explicitly in contrast to Jesus. There is absolutely no way to justify a claim that Paul thought the first Adam was the one who emptied himself, nor that Adam was in the form of God. Who else than Adam was "made in the form of God"?



I do. There doesn't seem to be any indication that Paul considered any gematria, whether it be Greek or Hebrew, in his theology.

The NT is based on the presence of God in the initial letters of "yom hashishi vay'chulu hashamayim" (Genesis 1:31-2:1) -- i.e. Immanuel= "God is with us" - Jesus being crucified on the sixth day and laid in the grave exactly at the beginning of the seventh, which, after the synoptici was the beginning of the counting of the omer , counting until the sixth day of Sivan = Pentecost (50th day).

"yom hashishi" (the sixthg day) representing the "y-h"-part of the name of God.

Name that is also present in the 26 generations from Adam to Moses (= revelation at mount Sinai on the sixth day of Sivan)

After 15 generations the "haflagah" (= Babylonian dispersion of languages) occurred,at the moment Peleg died. Peleg had a "little" brother, Joktan -- name having the same meaning as Latin Paulus = little one.

So I bet Paul named himself thus after Joktan .

Genesis 10:25,
And to Eber were born two sons: one was named Peleg, because in his days the earth was divided, and the name of his brother was Joktan.

Rashi:

Joktan: Because he was humble and considered himself small (קָטָן). Therefore, he merited to raise all these families. — [from Gen. Rabbah 37:7]

Boxing Pythagoras
11-14-2014, 04:04 AM
It is about a certain state of mind all Christians should haveWhat does any of that have to do with whether γίνομαι is translated as "to be born?"


But it is not "Hellenistic".
And furthermore I don't think you are right with that in Hellenistic view "to become flesh" is equal to "to be born".Paul's view, here, was certainly Hellenistic. He was a Hellenized Jew; he was highly educated in Greek language and rhetoric; he was quite likely from Tarsus, which was an extremely Hellenized city; he was likely a Roman citizen; and he spent most of his life and ministry outside of Jerusalem preaching to Hellenistic gentiles.

As far as whether the Hellenistic view held that being "born" was equated with "becoming flesh," I'll direct you to my previous reference to the Liddell-Scott-Jones lexicon. I'll also try to scour over some of the medical work of the time for more support, and I'll post that when I find it.


Who else than Adam was "made in the form of God"?Philippians 2 never says that anyone was "made in the form of God." It says that Christ Jesus had been in the form of God, but emptied himself in order to take the form of a slave and to be born in human likeness.


The NT is based on the presence of God in the initial letters of "yom hashishi vay'chulu hashamayim" (Genesis 1:31-2:1) -- i.e. Immanuel= "God is with us" - Jesus being crucified on the sixth day and laid in the grave exactly at the beginning of the seventh, which, after the synoptici was the beginning of the counting of the omer , counting until the sixth day of Sivan = Pentecost (50th day).

"yom hashishi" (the sixthg day) representing the "y-h"-part of the name of God.

Name that is also present in the 26 generations from Adam to Moses (= revelation at mount Sinai on the sixth day of Sivan)

After 15 generations the "haflagah" (= Babylonian dispersion of languages) occurred,at the moment Peleg died. Peleg had a "little" brother, Joktan -- name having the same meaning as Latin Paulus = little one.

So I bet Paul named himself thus after Joktan .

Genesis 10:25,
And to Eber were born two sons: one was named Peleg, because in his days the earth was divided, and the name of his brother was Joktan.

Rashi:Merely spouting more gematria at me is not evidence that Paul had any understanding of or care for gematria. For example, if I wanted to show that John of Patmos had an understanding of gematria, and considered it during the writing of his apocalypse, I could point to Revelation 13:18 which provides some fairly strong evidence for such a claim.

I know of no such evidence for Paul, and unless you can provide some, I will continue to simply dismiss your analysis of gematria as being completely unfounded pareidolia.

Geert van den Bos
11-14-2014, 04:48 AM
What does any of that have to do with whether γίνομαι is translated as "to be born?" Your translation would imply that before he was born he was in the form of God.


Paul's view, here, was certainly Hellenistic. But "And the word became flesh" was written by John.





Philippians 2 never says that anyone was "made in the form of God." It says that Christ Jesus had been in the form of God, but emptied himself in order to take the form of a slave and to be born in human likeness. There you have it, you say it yourself , that "Jesus is God".



Merely spouting more gematria at me is not evidence that Paul had any understanding of or care for gematria. The word has different "layers" -- an outside meaning and an inside, inner meaning, which is called "mystery", a word more often used by Paul.



For example, if I wanted to show that John of Patmos had an understanding of gematria, and considered it during the writing of his apocalypse, I could point to Revelation 13:18 which provides some fairly strong evidence for such a claim. -- he might be the same one as the author of John, who has the nuber 153 (and also 38).


I know of no such evidence for Paul, and unless you can provide some, I will continue to simply dismiss your analysis of gematria as being completely unfounded pareidolia.

Ever do what you like.

Boxing Pythagoras
11-14-2014, 05:06 AM
Your translation would imply that before he was born he was in the form of God.Yes. That is precisely what the passage is saying, in the Greek.


But "And the word became flesh" was written by John.And I similarly believe that the author of the fourth gospel would have held a Hellenistic view.


There you have it, you say it yourself , that "Jesus is God".No. I said that Jesus was in the form of God. Equivalent translations for ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ would be "in divine form" or "in the form of deity." Being in the form of God is not the same as being God.


The word has different "layers" -- an outside meaning and an inside, inner meaning, which is called "mystery", a word more often used by Paul.The fact that Paul refers to "mysteries" does not at all imply that the mysteries he's referencing include gematria. In fact, not a single one of Paul's uses of that word shows any implication of gematria being either understood or utilized-- even if you include the disputed Pauline epistles and the Pastoral Epistles.


-- he might be the same one as the author of John, who has the nuber 153 (and also 38).It is extremely unlikely that John of Patmos was the same person who authored the fourth gospel. The two documents are extremely distinct linguistically, rhetorically, and theologically.

Geert van den Bos
11-14-2014, 05:53 AM
Yes. That is precisely what the passage is saying, in the Greek. Except for that it has "genomenos", the translation of which was in dispute.


And I similarly believe that the author of the fourth gospel would have held a Hellenistic view. What discerns the Hellesnistic view from the Jewish?


No. I said that Jesus was in the form of God. , yes but "before he was born". Were you also in that form before you was born?


The fact that Paul refers to "mysteries" does not at all imply that the mysteries he's referencing include gematria. Paul knows about "the indivisible moment", which is a statement about time not being something that just runs away, and also about eternity, that it is not endless running time.

In fact, not a single one of Paul's uses of that word shows any implication of gematria being either understood or utilized-- His name "Paulus" was. How do you think Paul came to his conviction that Jesus is the Christ?



It is extremely unlikely that John of Patmos was the same person who authored the fourth gospel. The two documents are extremely distinct linguistically, rhetorically, and theologically.

Yet the one has the number 666 and the other the number 153, two numbers that are related to each other, 666 to be found in Genesis 1:31, when the letter "hey"of "hashishi" would have been left out; 153 in Genesis 1:12, "tov" , good, being the 153rd word from the beginning (which would not have been the case wehn the earth had brought forth "ets pri oseh pri", i.e. a tree that was already fruit (= edible = flesh, Herew "basar").
"hashishi" being 434th word from the begining, 434 being gematria of "delet"= door. You need a key to open, "key of knowledge".

Boxing Pythagoras
11-14-2014, 06:42 AM
Except for that it has "genomenos", the translation of which was in dispute.That's fairly irrelevant. Regardless, the passage still says that Christ Jesus was in the form of God before he was γενόμενος in the likeness of man.


What discerns the Hellesnistic view from the Jewish?Honestly, I'm not very familiar with Hebrew. It's fully possible that the Hebrew language contains a similar idiom for birth with which I am unfamiliar. However, we're talking about a Greek idiom, which means that we need to consider Hellenistic understanding of language.


, yes but "before he was born". Were you also in that form before you was born?That's irrelevant. The question isn't "how can I twist Paul's words to conform to a preconceived theology?" The question is "what do the words which Paul wrote actually mean?" The words Paul wrote very clearly state that Christ Jesus was in the form of God before he came to be in human likeness and before he took the form of a slave.


Paul knows about "the indivisible moment", which is a statement about time not being something that just runs away, and also about eternity, that it is not endless running time....which, even if I grant, still has nothing to do with gematria.


His name "Paulus" was. How do you think Paul came to his conviction that Jesus is the Christ?There is no indication in Paul's writing that he ascribed any importance to gematria associated with his name, nor does his conversion experience as related in Acts bear any indication that gematria is being considered.


Yet the one has the number 666 and the other the number 153, two numbers that are related to each other, 666 to be found in Genesis 1:31, when the letter "hey"of "hashishi" would have been left out; 153 in Genesis 1:12, "tov" , good, being the 153rd word from the beginning (which would not have been the case wehn the earth had brought forth "ets pri oseh pri", i.e. a tree that was already fruit (= edible = flesh, Herew "basar").
"hashishi" being 434th word from the begining, 434 being gematria of "delet"= door. You need a key to open, "key of knowledge".Like I said: pareidolia. I can pick out any random word from any New Testament book, find its numeric value, and draw completely speculative and untenable conclusions from it. For example, I could point out that the name Ιουνιαν, from Romans 16:7, has a value of 591, and the phrase כל ישראל also has a value of 591, and therefore claim that Paul was saying that he had been in prison with the entire nation of Israel. This is, of course, preposterous.

Geert van den Bos
11-14-2014, 07:30 AM
That's fairly irrelevant. Regardless, the passage still says that Christ Jesus was in the form of God before he was γενόμενος in the likeness of man. the word "before" doens't occur either.


Honestly, I'm not very familiar with Hebrew. It's fully possible that the Hebrew language contains a similar idiom for birth with which I am unfamiliar. However, we're talking about a Greek idiom, which means that we need to consider Hellenistic understanding of language. Yet it is also not clear that in Hellenistic understanding "genomenos" should mean "born".

"Born" in NT:

Matthew 1:16, Ἰακὼβ δὲ ἐγέννησεν τὸν Ἰωσὴφ τὸν ἄνδρα Μαρίας, ἐξ ἧς ἐγεννήθη Ἰησοῦς ὁ λεγόμενος Χριστός. [I][I]Jacob fathered Jospeh teh husband of Mary out of whom was born Jesus who was called Christ.

Verb used γεννάω

Same in Matthew 2:1.2.4; 11:11; 19:12; 26:24; Luke 1:35; 2:11; John 1:13; 3:3; 3:4.5.6.7.8; 8:41; 9:2; 9:19.20.34; 16:21; 18:37; Acts 2:8; 22:28; Romans 9:11; Galatians 4:23.29 Hebrews 11:12; 1 John 2:29; 3:9; 4:7; 5:1.4.18.

γίνομαι never occurs in the sense of "be born", except in those cases where certain kind of Christians want to read such, viz. John 1:14; John 8:58; Philippians 2:7.





That's irrelevant. The question isn't "how can I twist Paul's words to conform to a preconceived theology?" The question is "what do the words which Paul wrote actually mean?" The words Paul wrote very clearly state that Christ Jesus was in the form of God before he came to be in human likeness and before he took the form of a slave. That's also what those certain kind of Chriatians say: Jesus = God.




There is no indication in Paul's writing that he ascribed any importance to gematria associated with his name, nor does his conversion experience as related in Acts bear any indication that gematria is being considered.

But how could he come to the notion that Jesus is Messiah? ("Damascus" might be well symbolic name; it occurs also in Genesis 14:15 (which is about "the mother of all wars" ) and 15:2 , which says that Eliezer is from Damascus, Eliezer of which gematria 318 coincides the number of trained servants -- with whom Abraham gained victory over the four kings in favor of the five (Genesis 14:14). Damascus seen as acrostic. Rashi:
And in our Talmud (Yoma 28b), it (the word דַּמֶּשֶׂק) is interpreted as a notarikon [acrostic for דּוֹלֶה וּמַשְׁקֶה]: he drew and gave to drink from his master’s teachings to others.

Boxing Pythagoras
11-14-2014, 08:14 AM
the word "before" doens't occur either.The chronology is extremely clear from the phrasing. He was in the form of God, he emptied himself, and then he took on the form of a slave γένομενος in human likeness.


Yet it is also not clear that in Hellenistic understanding "genomenos" should mean "born".

"Born" in NT:

Matthew 1:16, Ἰακὼβ δὲ ἐγέννησεν τὸν Ἰωσὴφ τὸν ἄνδρα Μαρίας, ἐξ ἧς ἐγεννήθη Ἰησοῦς ὁ λεγόμενος Χριστός. [I][I]Jacob fathered Jospeh teh husband of Mary out of whom was born Jesus who was called Christ.

Verb used γεννάω

Same in Matthew 2:1.2.4; 11:11; 19:12; 26:24; Luke 1:35; 2:11; John 1:13; 3:3; 3:4.5.6.7.8; 8:41; 9:2; 9:19.20.34; 16:21; 18:37; Acts 2:8; 22:28; Romans 9:11; Galatians 4:23.29 Hebrews 11:12; 1 John 2:29; 3:9; 4:7; 5:1.4.18.

γίνομαι never occurs in the sense of "be born", except in those cases where certain kind of Christians want to read such, viz. John 1:14; John 8:58; Philippians 2:7.Of course, you have managed to exclude every single one of the extra-Biblical Greek sources which I listed earlier, which very clearly gloss γίνομαι with "to be born." So, here are a number of them, again:

νέον γεγαώς, Od.19.400
ὑπὸ Τμώλῳ γεγαῶτας, Il.2.866
“ἢ πρόσθε θανεῖν ἢ ἔπειτα γίγνομαι” Hes.Op.175
γιγνομέναισι λάχη τάδ᾽ . . ἐκράνθη, A.Eu.347
“γίγνομαι ἔκ τινος” Il.5.548, Hdt.7.11
γεγονέναι κακῶς, καλῶς, Ar.Eq.218, Isoc.7.37


That's also what those certain kind of Chriatians say: Jesus = God.Not only did I explicitly denote that "Jesus was in the form of God" doesn't equate Jesus to God, but Paul explicitly denotes this, as well, in the very next clause of the sentence: [Jesus] did not regard being equal with God as something to be grasped after.


But how could he come to the notion that Jesus is Messiah?That is entirely irrelevant to the word γίνομαι.


("Damascus" might be well symbolic name; it occurs also in Genesis 14:15 (which is about "the mother of all wars" ) and 15:2 , which says that Eliezer is from Damascus, Eliezer of which gematria 318 coincides the number of trained servants -- with whom Abraham gained victory over the four kings in favor of the five (Genesis 14:14). Damascus seen as acrostic. Rashi:More pareidolic claptrap.

Geert van den Bos
11-14-2014, 10:05 AM
The chronology is extremely clear from the phrasing. He was in the form of God, he emptied himself, and then he took on the form of a slave γένομενος in human likeness. It happens (becomes) in Paul's "indivisible moment", 1Corinthians 15:52, ἐν ἀτόμῳ, ἐν ῥιπῇ ὀφθαλμοῦ


Of course, you have managed to exclude every single one of the extra-Biblical Greek sources which I listed earlier, which very clearly gloss γίνομαι with "to be born." So, here are a number of them, again:

νέον γεγαώς, Od.19.400
ὑπὸ Τμώλῳ γεγαῶτας, Il.2.866
“ἢ πρόσθε θανεῖν ἢ ἔπειτα γίγνομαι” Hes.Op.175
γιγνομέναισι λάχη τάδ᾽ . . ἐκράνθη, A.Eu.347
“γίγνομαι ἔκ τινος” Il.5.548, Hdt.7.11
γεγονέναι κακῶς, καλῶς, Ar.Eq.218, Isoc.7.37 -- they don't say a thing being ripped out of context from extra-biblical sources.


Not only did I explicitly denote that "Jesus was in the form of God" doesn't equate Jesus to God, but Paul explicitly denotes this, as well, in the very next clause of the sentence: [Jesus] did not regard being equal with God as something to be grasped after. but you cling to your translation "born".


That is entirely irrelevant to the word γίνομαι.

More pareidolic claptrap.

Paul mentions the 430 years of Exodus 12:40 in Galatians 3:17, This is what I mean: the law, which came 430 years afterward, does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to make the promise void.

The exodus occurring 400 years after the birth of Isaac, i.e. 500 years after the birth of Abraham. So the "promise" must have been made when Abraham was 70 years old. But Abraham was 75 years when leaving Charan (Genesis 12:4), while between Genesis 12 and Genesis 15 (about the "covenant between the pieces") many things did happen, that you might think "the covenant ratified by God" must have taken place when Abraham was at least 80.

Paul must have known this, if not then he is not a very reliable source.

I seems to be a play with numbers , ie. gematrial. The number of missing five years coinciding the value of the letter "hey" that was added to the name Abram? I would think so.

430 is gematria of "nefesh" = soul, the soul Jesus was ready to give away as a ransom for many (Mark 10:45), i.e. the wine of which he said: "this is my blood of the covenant"

In Egypt the soul was trapped like a bird in a cage.

Boxing Pythagoras
11-14-2014, 10:44 AM
It happens (becomes) in Paul's "indivisible moment", 1Corinthians 15:52, ἐν ἀτόμῳ, ἐν ῥιπῇ ὀφθαλμοῦThis phrase in 1 Cor 15:52 is not describing the Incarnation, at all. Paul is talking about the general resurrection, in that passage. It's completely eisegetical to attempt to shoehorn Philippians 2:5-7 into Paul's ἄτομος.


-- they don't say a thing being ripped out of context from extra-biblical sources.The first time I provided them, they came straight from the LSJ Lexicon. Both times, I included the references, so that you could check the context for yourself, if you doubted the gloss. However, here's yet another one which comes from a Biblical source:

You may also acquire them from among the aliens residing with you, and from their families that are with you, who have been born in your land; and they may be your property.The Hebrew word, here, is ילד which most certainly means "to be born." The translators of the Septuagint obviously thought that γίνομαι means "to be born" because that is the word which they used to translate ילד.

καὶ ἀπὸ τῶν υἱῶν τῶν παροίκων τῶν ὄντων ἐν ὑμῖν ἀπὸ τούτων κτήσεσθε καὶ ἀπὸ τῶν συγγενῶν αὐτῶν ὅσοι ἂν γένωνται ἐν τῇ γῇ ὑμῶν ἔστωσαν ὑμῖν εἰς κατάσχεσιν


but you cling to your translation "born".Yes, because that is clearly Paul's intention.


Paul mentions the 430 years of Exodus 12:40 in Galatians 3:17, This is what I mean: the law, which came 430 years afterward, does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to make the promise void.

The exodus occurring 400 years after the birth of Isaac, i.e. 500 years after the birth of Abraham. So the "promise" must have been made when Abraham was 70 years old. But Abraham was 75 years when leaving Charan (Genesis 12:4), while between Genesis 12 and Genesis 15 (about the "covenant between the pieces") many things did happen, that you might think "the covenant ratified by God" must have taken place when Abraham was at least 80.

Paul must have known this, if not then he is not a very reliable source.

I seems to be a play with numbers , ie. gematrial. The number of missing five years coinciding the value of the letter "hey" that was added to the name Abram? I would think so.

430 is gematria of "nefesh" = soul, the soul Jesus was ready to give away as a ransom for many (Mark 10:45), i.e. the wine of which he said: "this is my blood of the covenant"

In Egypt the soul was trapped like a bird in a cage.You're still just grasping at straws, here. The fact that Paul mentions a number is not evidence that Paul subscribed to numerological views.

Geert van den Bos
11-14-2014, 11:15 AM
This phrase in 1 Cor 15:52 is not describing the Incarnation, at all. Paul is talking about the general resurrection, in that passage. It's completely eisegetical to attempt to shoehorn Philippians 2:5-7 into Paul's ἄτομος. it describes Paul's notion of time and eternity, things happening "immediately" with no "before" or "after"


The first time I provided them, they came straight from the LSJ Lexicon. Both times, I included the references, so that you could check the context for yourself, if you doubted the gloss. However, here's yet another one which comes from a Biblical source:

You may also acquire them from among the aliens residing with you, and from their families that are with you, who have been born in your land; and they may be your property.The Hebrew word, here, is ילד which most certainly means "to be born." The translators of the Septuagint obviously thought that γίνομαι means "to be born" because that is the word which they used to translate ילד.

Just that Hebrew has "holid" = to beget; give birth.



Paul's ἄτομος.[/quote] it describes Paul's notion of time and eternity, things happening "immediately" with no "before" or "after"


Yes, because that is clearly Paul's intention. why and how is that clear?



You're still just grasping at straws, here. The fact that Paul mentions a number is not evidence that Paul subscribed to numerological views.

Paul tries to explain here how Jesus is Abraham's promised seed.

Boxing Pythagoras
11-14-2014, 11:56 AM
it describes Paul's notion of time and eternity, things happening "immediately" with no "before" or "after"This is quite obviously false. The ἄτομος which Paul mentions in 1 Cor 15:52 quite explicitly does have time before it, since it occurs "at the last trumpet" (ἐν τῇ ἐσχάτῃ σάλπιγγι) and since Paul is talking about the future, in this passage ("we will not all die, but we will all be changed;" πάντες οὐ κοιμηθησόμεθα, πάντες δὲ ἀλλαγησόμεθα).


Just that Hebrew has "holid" = to beget; give birth.Apologies. As I mentioned, my Hebrew is quite poor. The form ילד is the stem, while the word in Lev 25:45 is הוֹלִ֖ידוּ, which is the word in Hiphil form, perfect tense, 3rd person plural. So, while ילד is "to beget" or "to bear [children]," the word הוֹלִ֖ידוּ translates to something like "have been born/begotten." So, again, the translators of the Septuagint obviously associated γίνομαι with birth.


why and how is that clear?Because that is what γίνομαι means when applied to humans.


Paul tries to explain here how Jesus is Abraham's promised seed.Yes, in Galatians 3, Paul is claiming that Jesus is Abraham's seed. That says nothing at all about whether Paul utilized gematria in forming or practicing his theology.

Geert van den Bos
11-14-2014, 12:47 PM
This is quite obviously false. The ἄτομος which Paul mentions in 1 Cor 15:52 quite explicitly does have time before it, since it occurs "at the last trumpet" (ἐν τῇ ἐσχάτῃ σάλπιγγι) and since Paul is talking about the future, in this passage ("we will not all die, but we will all be changed;" πάντες οὐ κοιμηθησόμεθα, πάντες δὲ ἀλλαγησόμεθα). "the last trumpet" occurs within "the indivisible moment" -- like everything else too, since "the indivisible moment" is eternal. Hebrew "rega" occurs in Exodus 33:5, if I go up into your midst for one moment, I will destroy you i.e. when out of the chain of "(indivisible) moments of time" one moment is taken away, all is away.

"Second" being a rather meaningful word. That after this moment comes a second moment in fact is a miracle, the miracle of time.


Apologies. As I mentioned, my Hebrew is quite poor. The form ילד is the stem, while the word in Lev 25:45 is הוֹלִ֖ידוּ, which is the word in Hiphil form, perfect tense, 3rd person plural. So, while ילד is "to beget" or "to bear [children]," the word הוֹלִ֖ידוּ translates to something like "have been born/begotten." So, again, the translators of the Septuagint obviously associated γίνομαι with birth.

Job 3:3 LXX . ἀπόλοιτο ἡ ἡμέρα ἐν ᾗ ἐγεννήθην καὶ ἡ νύξ ἐν ᾗ εἶπαν ἰδοὺ ἄρσεν

There is also another word for "born"- τίκτω, Luke 2:11, ὅτι ἐτέχθη ὑμῖν σήμερον σωτὴρ ὅς ἐστιν Χριστὸς κύριος ἐν πόλει Δαυίδ -

It seeming to be more or less after Psalms 2:7 (because of σήμερον)
κύριος εἶπεν πρός με υἱός μου εἶ σύ ἐγὼ σήμερον γεγέννηκά σε.

I saw τίκτω is also used in LXX;
so they apparently knew difference in meaning between "gi(g)nomai", "tikto" and "gennao".





Because that is what γίνομαι means when applied to humans. Not true.

Mark 1:4, ἐγένετο Ἰωάννης [ὁ] βαπτίζων ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ καὶ κηρύσσων βάπτισμα μετανοίας εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν.


Yes, in Galatians 3, Paul is claiming that Jesus is Abraham's seed. That says nothing at all about whether Paul utilized gematria in forming or practicing his theology.

He came up with the 430 years;

That this number is used in Exodus 12 also already was an hint of the numerical world behind the written Torah (like also the number of 318 trained servants in Gnesis 14:14).

Boxing Pythagoras
11-14-2014, 01:13 PM
"the last trumpet" occurs within "the indivisible moment" -- like everything else too, since "the indivisible moment" is eternal. Hebrew "rega" occurs in Exodus 33:5, if I go up into your midst for one moment, I will destroy you i.e. when out of the chain of "(indivisible) moments of time" one moment is taken away, all is away.

"Second" being a rather meaningful word. That after this moment comes a second moment in fact is a miracle, the miracle of time.I'm not seeing how you can possibly justify the idea that ἄτομος implies that there was neither time before nor after. "Indivisible" does not mean "sole" or "only."


Job 3:3 LXX . ἀπόλοιτο ἡ ἡμέρα ἐν ᾗ ἐγεννήθην καὶ ἡ νύξ ἐν ᾗ εἶπαν ἰδοὺ ἄρσεν

There is also another word for "born"- τίκτω, Luke 2:11, ὅτι ἐτέχθη ὑμῖν σήμερον σωτὴρ ὅς ἐστιν Χριστὸς κύριος ἐν πόλει Δαυίδ -

It seeming to be more or less after Psalms 2:7 (because of σήμερον)
κύριος εἶπεν πρός με υἱός μου εἶ σύ ἐγὼ σήμερον γεγέννηκά σε.

I saw τίκτω is also used in LXX;
so they apparently knew difference in meaning between "gi(g)nomai", "tikto" and "gennao".The fact that there were other words which also meant "born" doesn't alter the fact that γίνομαι meant "to be born." All three words are used to refer to birth.


Not true.

Mark 1:4, ἐγένετο Ἰωάννης [ὁ] βαπτίζων ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ καὶ κηρύσσων βάπτισμα μετανοίας εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν.Yes, the word could also be used in other contexts. That doesn't change the fact that it also refers to birth. And when something "becomes in human likeness," as in Philippians 2, that's a fairly obvious case where it refers to birth.


He came up with the 430 years;

That this number is used in Exodus 12 also already was an hint of the numerical world behind the written Torah (like also the number of 318 trained servants in Gnesis 14:14).Once again, numbers do not imply numerology. The vast majority of documents throughout history which contain numbers have nothing to do with numerology. If you want to assert that Paul was influenced by numerology, you're going to need stronger evidence than the fact that he sometimes writes numbers in his texts.

Geert van den Bos
11-15-2014, 01:06 AM
I'm not seeing how you can possibly justify the idea that ἄτομος implies that there was neither time before nor after. "Indivisible" does not mean "sole" or "only." "indivisible" means that time cannot be endlessly split up in ever more fractions of a second; that there is a hard core in time that is eternal, even like a kernel or a seed.
And Paul says it is "mystery" -- i.e. not subject to scientific research; not a statement that can be proved or disproved.

You can compare it to the two trees mentioned in Genesis 1:11-12, God asked for "ets pri oseh pri" ( a tree that is a fruit and makes a fruit [in which is seed ]) and the earth brought forth "ets oseh pri" (a tree that itself is not a fruit but makes a fruit [in which is seed])

Above I stated already tht this is about "to be" and "to become", i.e. Greek "einai" versus "ginomai".

God asked for something that both is and becomes, while the earth brought forth something that still has to become (fruit in which is seed).

It is the mystery of the bible.




The fact that there were other words which also meant "born" doesn't alter the fact that γίνομαι meant "to be born." All three words are used to refer to birth.

It was about
ἀλλὰ ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσεν μορφὴν δούλου λαβών, ἐν ὁμοιώματι ἀνθρώπων γενόμενος: καὶ σχήματι εὑρεθεὶς ὡς ἄνθρωπος

[I]But he emptied himself taking the form of a servant, in likeness of men "having become"; and in outward form (he was) found as a man.

It being about a certain state of mind (like already said above), a certain attitude.

People use to overrule you. It being not so with you. Like Jesus you should be πάντων δοῦλος, servant of all (Mark 10:44)




Once again, numbers do not imply numerology. The number of 430 years is a weird number and draws attention.

Rashi on Exodus 12:40,
was four hundred and thirty years: Altogether, from the time that Isaac was born, until now, were 400 years. From the time that Abraham had seed [i.e., had a child, the prophecy] “that your seed will be strangers” (Gen. 15:13) was fulfilled; and there were another 30 years from the decree “between the parts” (Gen 15:10) until Isaac was born. It is impossible, however, to say that [they spent 400 years] in Egypt alone, because Kehath [the grandfather of Moses] was [one] of those who came with Jacob. Go and figure all his years, all the years of his son Amram, and Moses’ 80 years; you will not find them [to be] that many, and perforce, Kehath lived many of his years before he descended to Egypt, and many of Amram’s years are included in the years of Kehath, and many of Moses’ years are included in Amram’s years. Hence, you will not find 400 years counting from their arrival in Egypt. You are compelled, perforce, to say that the other dwellings [which the Patriarchs settled] were also called being “sojournings” and even in Hebron, as it is said: “where Abraham and Isaac sojourned (גָּרוּ) ” (Gen. 35:27), and [Scripture] states also “the land of their sojournings in which they sojourned” (Exod. 6:4). Therefore, you must say that [the prophecy] “your seed will be strangers” [commences] when he [Abraham] had offspring. And only when you count 400 years from the time that Isaac was born, you will find 210 years from their entry into Egypt. This is one of the things that [the Sages] changed for King Ptolemy. — [from Mechilta, Meg. 9a]



The vast majority of documents throughout history which contain numbers have nothing to do with numerology. If you want to assert that Paul was influenced by numerology, you're going to need stronger evidence than the fact that he sometimes writes numbers in his texts.

Growth is a matter of time.

Genesis 2:5 says: "nothing had yet grown" -- i.e. there was no time yet.
Next v. 6 "a mist went up from the earth, etc." -- This "mist" being the source of time (even as living water) LXX has πηγὴ δὲ ἀνέβαινεν ἐκ τῆς γῆς;
same πηγὴ found in both John and Revelation (indication that they are from the same author).

John 4:14, ὃς δ' ἂν πίῃ ἐκ τοῦ ὕδατος οὗ ἐγὼ δώσω αὐτῷ, οὐ μὴ διψήσει εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα, ἀλλὰ τὸ ὕδωρ ὃ δώσω αὐτῷ γενήσεται ἐν αὐτῷ πηγὴ ὕδατος ἁλλομένου εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον

Before John had written, John 1:4, ἐν αὐτῷ ζωὴ ἦν, καὶ ἡ ζωὴ ἦν τὸ φῶς τῶν ἀνθρώπων: in it (the word) was life and the life was the light of men.

So this is about the word "mist", i.e. Hebrew "ed", which has gematrial clue.

Rabbi Ginsburgh: http://www.inner.org/string/string.htm

Four Forces from One

The ratio 1:4 (“one to four” or “one becoming four”) is one of the pillars of creation as revealed in the beginning of the Torah. We will here observe four phenomena from Genesis based upon the ratio 1:4.

The two letters alef (= 1) and dalet (= 4) form together the word for “vapor.” In the beginning of creation, the “vapor” rose from the earth to moisten the earth for the sake of the creation of man.

One river flows from Eden to the garden, which thereafter, leaving the garden, divides into the four great rivers of the earth.

“The Tree of Life” (etz ha’chaim) = 233. “The Tree of Knowledge of good and evil” (etz hada’at tov v’rah) = 932. 932 = 4 times 233. Thus the ratio of the two trees is “one to four” (the “one” being the Tree of Life and the resulting “four” being the Tree of Knowledge of good and evil).

The word “good” (tov, the positive force of the Tree of Knowledge of good and evil) = 17. The word “life” (chaim, of the Tree of Life) = 68. 17:68 = 1:4. The word for “life” possesses four letters. The average value of each of its letters is “good.” Thus we see that the fundamental force of “life” (of the Tree of Life) is in fact the positive force of “good” (inherent in the Tree of Knowledge of good and evil). The two trees thus create an infinite cycle of Divine energy.

To conclude, the most obvious phenomenon in the Torah related to the four forces of nature deriving from one, is that God’s essential Name Havayah is composed of four letters. “God is One.” In the future it will become revealed that “God is One and His Name is One.” “His Name” refers to the four letters of Havayah. This is the ultimate revelation of the Divine “unified field theory.”



"One river flows from Eden to the garden, which thereafter, leaving the garden, divides into the four great rivers of the earth."

"which thereafter, leaving the garden " -- That's not in the bibletext -- IMO it shows that Rabbi Ginsburgh didn't "get it", viz. that it is about "the indivisible moment", i.e. eternity in time.

And it is hard to get. I just do try my best.

Geert van den Bos
11-15-2014, 03:14 AM
Hey that's great, all the 26 occurrences of γενόμενος in NT:

http://biblehub.com/greek/genomenos_1096.htm

I no case: "was born".

It occurs 3 times in Philippians:


Philippians 2:7 V-APM-NMS
GRK: ὁμοιώματι ἀνθρώπων γενόμενος
NAS: of a bond-servant, [and] being made in the likeness
KJV: of a servant, and was made in
INT: [the] likeness of men having become

Philippians 2:8 V-APM-NMS
GRK: ἐταπείνωσεν ἑαυτὸν γενόμενος ὑπήκοος μέχρι
NAS: Himself by becoming obedient
KJV: himself, and became obedient
INT: he humbled himself having become obedient unto

Philippians 3:6 V-APM-NMS
GRK: ἐν νόμῳ γενόμενος ἄμεμπτος
NAS: which is in the Law, found blameless.
KJV: is in the law, blameless.
INT: in [the] law having become blameless

So it is also in the next verse Philippians 2:8 -- and we didn't that into account :blush:

7ἀλλὰ ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσεν μορφὴν δούλου λαβών, ἐν ὁμοιώματι ἀνθρώπων γενόμενος: καὶ σχήματι εὑρεθεὶς ὡς ἄνθρωπος 8ἐταπείνωσεν ἑαυτὸν γενόμενος ὑπήκοος μέχρι θανάτου, θανάτου δὲ σταυροῦ.

Boxing Pythagoras
11-15-2014, 04:22 AM
"indivisible" means that time cannot be endlessly split up in ever more fractions of a second; that there is a hard core in time that is eternal, even like a kernel or a seed.Actually, no, that's not what "indivisible" means, and it's not what ἄτομος meant in the ancient world. An indivisible is, itself, a unit which cannot be divided. But the ancients would not have thought that it was eternal, nor that there weren't other ἄτομοι before and after that particular one. Those who believed in the existence of indivisibles thought that they composed the continuum, despite the fact that the continuum itself can be infinitely divided.


And Paul says it is "mystery" -- i.e. not subject to scientific research; not a statement that can be proved or disproved.This is completely anachronistic. Paul had no conception of "scientific research."


You can compare it to the two trees mentioned in Genesis 1:11-12, God asked for "ets pri oseh pri" ( a tree that is a fruit and makes a fruit [in which is seed ]) and the earth brought forth "ets oseh pri" (a tree that itself is not a fruit but makes a fruit [in which is seed])

Above I stated already tht this is about "to be" and "to become", i.e. Greek "einai" versus "ginomai".

God asked for something that both is and becomes, while the earth brought forth something that still has to become (fruit in which is seed).

It is the mystery of the bible.Pareidolic eisegesis.


It was about
ἀλλὰ ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσεν μορφὴν δούλου λαβών, ἐν ὁμοιώματι ἀνθρώπων γενόμενος: καὶ σχήματι εὑρεθεὶς ὡς ἄνθρωπος

[I]But he emptied himself taking the form of a servant, in likeness of men "having become"; and in outward form (he was) found as a man.

It being about a certain state of mind (like already said above), a certain attitude.Absolutely nothing in this passage indicates that it was about attitude or a state of mind. The words μορφή and ὀμοιματι are references to appearance and physical form.


The number of 430 years is a weird number and draws attention.Even if that is true, it doesn't grant you license to apply speculative numerology without any good basis for believing the author utilized such numerology.


Growth is a matter of time.

Genesis 2:5 says: "nothing had yet grown" -- i.e. there was no time yet.
Next v. 6 "a mist went up from the earth, etc." -- This "mist" being the source of time (even as living water) LXX has πηγὴ δὲ ἀνέβαινεν ἐκ τῆς γῆς;
same πηγὴ found in both John and Revelation (indication that they are from the same author).

John 4:14, ὃς δ' ἂν πίῃ ἐκ τοῦ ὕδατος οὗ ἐγὼ δώσω αὐτῷ, οὐ μὴ διψήσει εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα, ἀλλὰ τὸ ὕδωρ ὃ δώσω αὐτῷ γενήσεται ἐν αὐτῷ πηγὴ ὕδατος ἁλλομένου εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον

Before John had written, John 1:4, ἐν αὐτῷ ζωὴ ἦν, καὶ ἡ ζωὴ ἦν τὸ φῶς τῶν ἀνθρώπων: in it (the word) was life and the life was the light of men.

So this is about the word "mist", i.e. Hebrew "ed", which has gematrial clue.

Rabbi Ginsburgh: http://www.inner.org/string/string.htm


"One river flows from Eden to the garden, which thereafter, leaving the garden, divides into the four great rivers of the earth."

"which thereafter, leaving the garden " -- That's not in the bibletext -- IMO it shows that Rabbi Ginsburgh didn't "get it", viz. that it is about "the indivisible moment", i.e. eternity in time.

And it is hard to get. I just do try my best.I ask for evidence that Paul utilized gematria, and instead you simply analyze random gematria from non-Pauline sources. What evidence is there that Paul understood or utilized gematria? I am not asking what numerological significance you can manufacture out of random passages, or which others before you have manufactured. I am asking for evidence from Paul's work that shows Paul believed that the numeric value of words had theological importance.

Geert van den Bos
11-15-2014, 04:32 AM
Actually, no, that's not what "indivisible" means, and it's not what ἄτομος meant in the ancient world. An indivisible is, itself, a unit which cannot be divided. But the ancients would not have thought that it was eternal, nor that there weren't other ἄτομοι before and after that particular one. Those who believed in the existence of indivisibles thought that they composed the continuum, despite the fact that the continuum itself can be infinitely divided. it is about time -- the indivisible moment is the smallest unit of time.


This is completely anachronistic. Paul had no conception of "scientific research." I didn't say that.




Absolutely nothing in this passage indicates that it was about attitude or a state of mind. the beforegoing verses said so. See above.



Even if that is true, it doesn't grant you license to apply speculative numerology without any good basis for believing the author utilized such numerology. There are five missing years, since Abraham left Charan when 75 years old.


I ask for evidence that Paul utilized gematria, and instead you simply analyze random gematria from non-Pauline sources. which were about time and eternity.


What evidence is there that Paul understood or utilized gematria? even his mentioning of the indivisible moment.

John Reece
11-15-2014, 06:03 AM
Hey that's great, all the 26 occurrences of γενόμενος in NT:

http://biblehub.com/greek/genomenos_1096.htm

I no case: "was born".

It occurs 3 times in Philippians:



So it is also in the next verse Philippians 2:8 -- and we didn't that into account :blush:

7ἀλλὰ ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσεν μορφὴν δούλου λαβών, ἐν ὁμοιώματι ἀνθρώπων γενόμενος: καὶ σχήματι εὑρεθεὶς ὡς ἄνθρωπος 8ἐταπείνωσεν ἑαυτὸν γενόμενος ὑπήκοος μέχρι θανάτου, θανάτου δὲ σταυροῦ.

The first/primary definition of γινομαι in BDAG is this:


1. to come into being through process of birth or natural production, be born, be produced ....

Paul clearly used γινομαι in that sense in Galatians 4:4.


Galatians 4:4 (NRSV) But when the fullness of time had come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law...

Galatians 4:4 (NA27) ὅτε δὲ ἦλθεν τὸ πλήρωμα τοῦ χρόνου, ἐξαπέστειλεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ, γενόμενον ἐκ γυναικός, γενόμενον ὑπὸ νόμον

Geert van den Bos
11-15-2014, 10:56 AM
The first/primary definition of γινομαι in BDAG is this:


1. to come into being through process of birth or natural production, be born, be produced ....

Paul clearly used γινομαι in that sense in Galatians 4:4.


Galatians 4:4 (NRSV) But when the fullness of time had come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law...

Galatians 4:4 (NA27) ὅτε δὲ ἦλθεν τὸ πλήρωμα τοῦ χρόνου, ἐξαπέστειλεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ, γενόμενον ἐκ γυναικός, γενόμενον ὑπὸ νόμον

But in the same Galatians 4, in v.23 and v.29, γεννάω is used.

v. 23 ἀλλ' ὁ μὲν ἐκ τῆς παιδίσκης κατὰ σάρκα γεγέννηται, ὁ δὲ ἐκ τῆς ἐλευθέρας δι' ἐπαγγελίας
ESV But the son of the slave was born according to the flesh, while the son of the free woman was born through promise

v. 29 ἀλλ' ὥσπερ τότε ὁ κατὰ σάρκα γεννηθεὶς ἐδίωκεν τὸν κατὰ πνεῦμα, οὕτως καὶ νῦν.
ESV But just as at that time he who was born according to the flesh persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, so also it is now

So the γενόμενον in v.4 must denote something else, like ( Aramaic Bible in Plain English): But when the end of time arrived, God sent his Son and he was from a woman and was under The Written Law,


Vulgata has:
v.4, at ubi venit plenitudo temporis misit Deus Filium suum factum ex muliere factum sub lege

v.23, sed qui de ancilla secundum carnem natus est qui autem de libera per repromissionem

v.29, sed quomodo tunc qui secundum carnem natus fuerat persequebatur eum qui secundum spiritum ita et nunc

John Reece
11-15-2014, 12:23 PM
But in the same Galatians 4, in v.23 and v.29, γεννάω is used.

v. 23 ἀλλ' ὁ μὲν ἐκ τῆς παιδίσκης κατὰ σάρκα γεγέννηται, ὁ δὲ ἐκ τῆς ἐλευθέρας δι' ἐπαγγελίας
ESV But the son of the slave was born according to the flesh, while the son of the free woman was born through promise

v. 29 ἀλλ' ὥσπερ τότε ὁ κατὰ σάρκα γεννηθεὶς ἐδίωκεν τὸν κατὰ πνεῦμα, οὕτως καὶ νῦν.
ESV But just as at that time he who was born according to the flesh persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, so also it is now

So the γενόμενον in v.4 must denote something else, like ( Aramaic Bible in Plain English): But when the end of time arrived, God sent his Son and he was from a woman and was under The Written Law,

The verbs γεννάω and γίνομαι have overlapping semantic fields; their usage is not mutually exclusive.

The verb γίνομαι has a wide range of nuances, one of which is definitely to be born; as demonstrated above (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?4194-John-1-and-Philippians-2-5-7&p=121054&viewfull=1#post121054), it is the primary meaning of the word in the history of its usage.

So, it is not true that in Galatians 4:4 γίνομαι must denote something other than born.

The meaning of words is determined by usage in context. In the context of Galatians 4:4, the sense is plainly that rendered in the NRSV: "But when the fullness of time had come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law..."

The paraphrase of γίνομαι in the Aramaic Bible in Plain English has γίνομαι rendered by the preposition "from"; such a loose paraphrase as that cannot be taken seriously as evidence that Paul could not have been using γίνομαι simply as a synonym for γεννάω in Galatians 4.

The brilliant linguist and author of A Grammatical Analysis of the Greek New Testament, Max Zerwick has this for γενόμενον at Galatians 4:4: aorist participle of γίνομαι be born.

The English speaking world standard Greek-English Lexicon of The New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (BDAG) has this entry for γίνομαι in Galatians 4:4:


1. to come into being through process of birth or natural production, be born, be produced (SIG 1168, 6; Epict. 2, 17, 8; Wsd 7:3; Sir 44:9; Just., A I, 13, 3; Tat. 26, 2) J 8:58; w. ἔκ τινος foll. (Diod. S. 3, 64, 1; Appian, Basil. 5 §1; Parthenius 1, 4; Athen. 13, 37 p. 576c ἐξ ἑταίρας; PPetr III, 2, 20; PFlor 382, 38 ὁ ἐξ ἐμοῦ γενόμενος υἱός; 1 Esdr 4:16; Tob 8:6; Jos., Ant. 2, 216) Romans 1:3; Galatians 4:4 (cp. 1QS 11:21). Also of plants 1 Cor 15:37. Of fruits ἔκ τινος be produced by a tree Mt 21:19 (cp. X., Mem. 3, 6, 13 ὁ ἐκ τ. χώρας γιγνόμενος σῖτος). W. ἀπό τινος foll. Ox 1081 (SJCh), 11 γε̣[ινόμε]νον, 14 γέγ[ονος], 14f γε[ι]νομεν[ον], 19 γέγονος.

Geert van den Bos
11-16-2014, 12:51 AM
The verbs γεννάω and γίνομαι have overlapping semantic fields; their usage is not mutually exclusive.

The verb γίνομαι has a wide range of nuances, one of which is definitely to be born; as demonstrated above (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?4194-John-1-and-Philippians-2-5-7&p=121054&viewfull=1#post121054), it is the primary meaning of the word in the history of its usage.

So, it is not true that in Galatians 4:4 γίνομαι must denote something other than born.

The meaning of words is determined by usage in context. In the context of Galatians 4:4, the sense is plainly that rendered in the NRSV: "But when the fullness of time had come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law..."

The paraphrase of γίνομαι in the Aramaic Bible in Plain English has γίνομαι rendered by the preposition "from"; such a loose paraphrase as that cannot be taken seriously as evidence that Paul could not have been using γίνομαι simply as a synonym for γεννάω in Galatians 4.

The brilliant linguist and author of A Grammatical Analysis of the Greek New Testament, Max Zerwick has this for γενόμενον at Galatians 4:4: aorist participle of γίνομαι be born.

The English speaking world standard Greek-English Lexicon of The New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (BDAG) has this entry for γίνομαι in Galatians 4:4:


1. to come into being through process of birth or natural production, be born, be produced (SIG 1168, 6; Epict. 2, 17, 8; Wsd 7:3; Sir 44:9; Just., A I, 13, 3; Tat. 26, 2) J 8:58; w. ἔκ τινος foll. (Diod. S. 3, 64, 1; Appian, Basil. 5 §1; Parthenius 1, 4; Athen. 13, 37 p. 576c ἐξ ἑταίρας; PPetr III, 2, 20; PFlor 382, 38 ὁ ἐξ ἐμοῦ γενόμενος υἱός; 1 Esdr 4:16; Tob 8:6; Jos., Ant. 2, 216) Romans 1:3; Galatians 4:4 (cp. 1QS 11:21). Also of plants 1 Cor 15:37. Of fruits ἔκ τινος be produced by a tree Mt 21:19 (cp. X., Mem. 3, 6, 13 ὁ ἐκ τ. χώρας γιγνόμενος σῖτος). W. ἀπό τινος foll. Ox 1081 (SJCh), 11 γε̣[ινόμε]νον, 14 γέγ[ονος], 14f γε[ι]νομεν[ον], 19 γέγονος.


There are 671 occurrences of the verb γίνομαι in NT scripture:

http://biblehub.com/greek/1096.htm

So at least in 668 occurrences it doesn't denote "birth" (except for if you take "being born" in a wider sense: everything that happens has been given birth)

Three occurrences, 2 x in Galatians 4:4 and 1 x in Philippians2:7, remaining under dispute.

As for Galatians 4:4 we have already seen that Paul in the same chapter uses another verb for being born, γεννάω.

"Born of a woman" might make sense, but "born under the law"? -- the letter to the Galatians being about that through circumcision one comes under the law; Galatians 5:3, I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law.
-- so translation "born under the law" is against the spirit of the letter.

And for Phillippians 2:7 we saw that the same γενόμενος is repeated in v.8 where it certainly doesn't carry the meaning of "being born".

And it was all about the γενόμενος in Philiipians 2:7, that if you translate "born" it implies that the earthly Jesus was God who had taken the form of a servant. Which seems to be rather unlikely and not in concordance with Paul's view (Paul never said that Jesus was God in human form)

Boxing Pythagoras
11-16-2014, 04:54 AM
There are 671 occurrences of the verb γίνομαι in NT scripture:

http://biblehub.com/greek/1096.htm

So at least in 668 occurrences it doesn't denote "birth" (except for if you take "being born" in a wider sense: everything that happens has been given birth)

Three occurrences, 2 x in Galatians 4:4 and 1 x in Philippians2:7, remaining under dispute.John and I each provided Lexical glosses for γίνομαι which show the word being used in the sense of birth. Apparently, you haven't even tried to look at any of the sources listed. John Reece even highlighted Romans 1:3, which very clearly uses γίνομαι in the sense of birth: περὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ τοῦ γενομένου ἐκ σπέρματος Δαυὶδ κατὰ σάρκα.

From the BDAG, we also have these Biblical uses:
1 Esdras 4:16, καὶ ἐξ αὐτῶν ἐγένοντο καὶ αὗται ἐξέθρεψαν αὐτοὺς τοὺς φυτεύοντας τοὺς ἀμπελῶνας ἐξ ὧν ὁ οἶνος γίνεται
Tobit 8:6, σὺ ἐποίησας Αδαμ καὶ ἔδωκας αὐτῷ βοηθὸν Ευαν στήριγμα τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ ἐκ τούτων ἐγενήθη τὸ ἀνθρώπων σπέρμα σὺ εἶπας Οὐ καλὸν εἶναι τὸν ἄνθρωπον μόνον ποιήσωμεν αὐτῷ βοηθὸν ὅμοιον αὐτῷ
1 Corinthians 15:37, καὶ ὃ σπείρεις, οὐ τὸ σῶμα τὸ γενησόμενον σπείρεις ἀλλὰ γυμνὸν κόκκον εἰ τύχοι σίτου ἤ τινος τῶν λοιπῶν
Matthew 21:19, καὶ ἰδὼν συκῆν μίαν ἐπὶ τῆς ὁδοῦ ἦλθεν ἐπʼ αὐτὴν καὶ οὐδὲν εὗρεν ἐν αὐτῇ εἰ μὴ φύλλα μόνον, καὶ λέγει αὐτῇ · μηκέτι ἐκ σοῦ καρπὸς γένηται εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα. καὶ ἐξηράνθη παραχρῆμα ἡ συκῆ

...to say nothing of the very many extra-Biblical sources for translating γίνομαι as "born" which I provided and you have simply ignored.


As for Galatians 4:4 we have already seen that Paul in the same chapter uses another verb for being born, γεννάω.What's your point? Using two words with similar meanings doesn't invalidate the meaning of one or the other. You see, there are these things called "synonyms" in grammar...


"Born of a woman" might make sense, but "born under the law"? -- the letter to the Galatians being about that through circumcision one comes under the law; Galatians 5:3, I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law.
-- so translation "born under the law" is against the spirit of the letter.How do you figure? I'm fairly certain that Paul would have thought that Jesus, being Jewish, had been born under the law and therefore obligated to keep the whole law.


And for Phillippians 2:7 we saw that the same γενόμενος is repeated in v.8 where it certainly doesn't carry the meaning of "being born".Yes, because the Philippians 2 hymn is poetry. And, as is fairly common in poetry from that era (and, indeed, poetry from before that era and after, even into modern times) the poem uses a word with different meanings to mean different things at different points in the poem. Using the same word in different ways links two disparate ideas, and makes memorization of an oral tradition easier.


And it was all about the γενόμενος in Philiipians 2:7, that if you translate "born" it implies that the earthly Jesus was God who had taken the form of a servant. Which seems to be rather unlikely and not in concordance with Paul's view (Paul never said that Jesus was God in human form)Once again, saying that Jesus was born does not imply that Jesus was God who had taken the form of a servant. Being "in the form of God" is not necessarily the same thing as being God.

Geert van den Bos
11-16-2014, 05:48 AM
John and I each provided Lexical glosses for γίνομαι which show the word being used in the sense of birth. Apparently, you haven't even tried to look at any of the sources listed. John Reece even highlighted Romans 1:3, which very clearly uses γίνομαι in the sense of birth: περὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ τοῦ γενομένου ἐκ σπέρματος Δαυὶδ κατὰ σάρκα.

Sorry, I looked John Reece's reference to Romans 1:3 over the head. But it surely doesn't have the meaning of "born" - like most translations also don't have:
http://biblehub.com/romans/1-3.htm ESV concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh







From the BDAG, we also have these Biblical uses:
1 Esdras 4:16, καὶ ἐξ αὐτῶν ἐγένοντο καὶ αὗται ἐξέθρεψαν αὐτοὺς τοὺς φυτεύοντας τοὺς ἀμπελῶνας ἐξ ὧν ὁ οἶνος γίνεται
Tobit 8:6, σὺ ἐποίησας Αδαμ καὶ ἔδωκας αὐτῷ βοηθὸν Ευαν στήριγμα τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ ἐκ τούτων ἐγενήθη τὸ ἀνθρώπων σπέρμα σὺ εἶπας Οὐ καλὸν εἶναι τὸν ἄνθρωπον μόνον ποιήσωμεν αὐτῷ βοηθὸν ὅμοιον αὐτῷ
1 Corinthians 15:37, καὶ ὃ σπείρεις, οὐ τὸ σῶμα τὸ γενησόμενον σπείρεις ἀλλὰ γυμνὸν κόκκον εἰ τύχοι σίτου ἤ τινος τῶν λοιπῶν
Matthew 21:19, καὶ ἰδὼν συκῆν μίαν ἐπὶ τῆς ὁδοῦ ἦλθεν ἐπʼ αὐτὴν καὶ οὐδὲν εὗρεν ἐν αὐτῇ εἰ μὴ φύλλα μόνον, καὶ λέγει αὐτῇ · μηκέτι ἐκ σοῦ καρπὸς γένηται εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα. καὶ ἐξηράνθη παραχρῆμα ἡ συκῆ

How then would you translate 1 Corinthians 15:37? Not one here has "born" http://biblehub.com/1_corinthians/15-37.htm
And Matthew 21:9?



...to say nothing of the very many extra-Biblical sources for translating γίνομαι as "born" which I provided and you have simply ignored. 1) I don't have those texts 2) we are discussing the bible, and especially Philippians 2:7.


What's your point? Using two words with similar meanings doesn't invalidate the meaning of one or the other. You see, there are these things called "synonyms" in grammar... It's just strong indication that Galatians 4:4 doesn't want to say "born".


How do you figure? I'm fairly certain that Paul would have thought that Jesus, being Jewish, had been born under the law and therefore obligated to keep the whole law. You only come "under the law" through circumcision. Besides that it was exactly the clue of Paul's letter tot the Galatians.


Yes, because the Philippians 2 hymn is poetry. And, as is fairly common in poetry from that era (and, indeed, poetry from before that era and after, even into modern times) the poem uses a word with different meanings to mean different things at different points in the poem. Using the same word in different ways links two disparate ideas, and makes memorization of an oral tradition easier. "genomenos" is repeated to build it up: as servant he was obedient unto death.


Once again, saying that Jesus was born does not imply that Jesus was God who had taken the form of a servant. Being "in the form of God" is not necessarily the same thing as being God.

How could he be in the form of God before born?

Or do you mean that as fetus he was in the form of God?

John Reece
11-16-2014, 06:02 AM
There are 671 occurrences of the verb γίνομαι in NT scripture:

http://biblehub.com/greek/1096.htm

:smile:

Here is the beginning of the Bible Hub page to which you provide the above link.

Original Word: γίνομαι
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: ginomai
Phonetic Spelling: (ghin'-om-ahee)
Short Definition: I come into being, am born
Definition: I come into being, am born, become, come about, happen.


As for Galatians 4:4 we have already seen that Paul in the same chapter uses another verb for being born, γεννάω.

A good writer may use a synonym (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/synonym) rather than over using a single word in given context.


"Born of a woman" might make sense, but "born under the law"? -- the letter to the Galatians being about that through circumcision one comes under the law; Galatians 5:3, I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law.
-- so translation "born under the law" is against the spirit of the letter.

"Born under the law" is just a way of saying "born a Jew".


And for Phillippians 2:7 we saw that the same γενόμενος is repeated in v.8 where it certainly doesn't carry the meaning of "being born".

There is nothing remarkable about that; γίνομαι (lexical form of the inflection γενόμενος) has a broad semantic range.


And it was all about the γενόμενος in Philiipians 2:7, that if you translate "born" it implies that the earthly Jesus was God who had taken the form of a servant. Which seems to be rather unlikely and not in concordance with Paul's view (Paul never said that Jesus was God in human form)

There we have it: your presuppositional motivation for making weak arguments ― such as resorting to a loose paraphrase of an Aramaic translation of the Greek text in question, wherein the verb γίνομαι is rendered by the preposition "from".

Geert van den Bos
11-16-2014, 06:40 AM
:smile:

Here is the beginning of the Bible Hub page to which you provide the above link.

Original Word: γίνομαι
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: ginomai
Phonetic Spelling: (ghin'-om-ahee)
Short Definition: I come into being, am born
Definition: I come into being, am born, become, come about, happen.

And here what follows it:

1096 gínomai – properly, to emerge, become, transitioning from one point (realm, condition) to another. 1096 (gínomai) fundamentally means "become" (becoming, became) so it is not an exact equivalent to the ordinary equative verb "to be" (is, was, will be) as with 1510 /eimí (1511 /eínai, 2258 /ēn).

1096 (ginomai) means "to become, and signifies a change of condition, state or place" (Vine, Unger, White, NT, 109).

M. Vincent, "1096 (gínomai) means to come into being/manifestation implying motion, movement, or growth" (at 2 Pet 1:4). Thus it is used for God's actions as emerging from eternity and becoming (showing themselves) in time (physical space).




A good writer may use a synonym (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/synonym) rather than over using a single word in given context. That's a very weak argument.




"Born under the law" is just a way of saying "born a Jew". 1) It is not "born" under the law 2) as stated above: you only come under the law through circumcision.





There is nothing remarkable about that; γίνομαι (lexical form of the inflection γενόμενος) has a broad semantic range. Yes, but Paul had another word to his disposal: γεννάω, which he did not use here (Like also not in Galatians 4:4 and Romans 1:3)




There we have it: your presuppositional motivation for making weak arguments ― such as resorting to a loose paraphrase of an Aramaic translation of the Greek text in question, wherein the verb γίνομαι is rendered by the preposition "from".

It is about the question wether Paul does present Jesus as being God, or not. I say not.

Boxing Pythagoras
11-16-2014, 07:24 AM
Sorry, I looked John Reece's reference to Romans 1:3 over the head. But it surely doesn't have the meaning of "born" - like most translations also don't have:
http://biblehub.com/romans/1-3.htm ESV concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh
In what world is "descended according to the flesh" not a reference to birth?


How then would you translate 1 Corinthians 15:37? Not one here has "born" http://biblehub.com/1_corinthians/15-37.htm
And Matthew 21:9?The word has a denotation of biological generation. So, 1 Corinthians 15:37 could certainly be translated:
"And as for what you sow, you do not sow the body that is to be birthed, but a bare seed, perhaps of wheat or of some other grain."

Matthew 21:9 would be legitimately translated with:
"Then he said to it, 'May no fruit ever be born from you again!'"


1) I don't have those texts 2) we are discussing the bible, and especially Philippians 2:7.Most are freely available, in the original Greek, online. The easiest place to find most of them is the Perseus Digital Library, which also has the Liddell-Scott-Jones lexicon with entries fully linked to its hosted texts. http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/


It's just strong indication that Galatians 4:4 doesn't want to say "born".No, it really isn't. If I were to say, "I ran a marathon," and then later said, "I sprinted to the finish," that is not an indication that "to run" cannot mean "to quickly traverse a distance by locomotion of the legs." You would not be justified in claiming that when I said, "I ran a marathon," I really meant that I organized and officiated an event in which other people engaged in a marathon, even though "to run" can also have such a meaning.


You only come "under the law" through circumcision. Besides that it was exactly the clue of Paul's letter tot the Galatians.No, Gentiles only come under the law through circumcision. Paul's letter to the Galatians makes it quite clear that Jews were born into a heredity which was bound by the law. This is especially evident in verses like Galatians 2:15, 4:1-3, and the Allegory of Hagar and Sarah in 4:21-26.


"genomenos" is repeated to build it up: as servant he was obedient unto death.No, it's meant to be a parallel. He emptied himself, and was born/"became in human likeness." He humbled himself, and became obedient. It's a poetic play-on-words meant to indicate this parallel. This is a fairly common tool in poetry of that era and people.


How could he be in the form of God before born?

Or do you mean that as fetus he was in the form of God?Once again, Paul believed that prior to his human birth, Jesus had existed as a being "in divine form." That does not mean that Paul believed this pre-existent being was God.

John Reece
11-16-2014, 11:07 AM
Yes, but Paul had another word to his disposal: γεννάω, which he did not use here (Like also not in Galatians 4:4 and Romans 1:3)

The verb γεννάω was normally used in a transitive or active sense; i.e., to become the parent of, beget, or to give birth to, bear, or to cause something to happen, bring forth, produce, cause = the three definitions of γεννάω in BDAG.

Paul did not use γεννάω in Galatians 4:4, Romans 1:3, or Philippians 2:7 because none of those senses of γεννάω were appropriate or fitting in any of the three texts in question; rather, the sense called for in the respective contexts was that of the intransitive or passive sense expressed by γίνομαι, the sense of which is to come into being through process of birth or natural production, be born, be produced = the first/primary definition of the word in BDAG and other Greek lexica.

Geert van den Bos
11-16-2014, 12:11 PM
The verb γεννάω was normally used in a transitive or active sense; i.e., to become the parent of, beget, or to give birth to, bear, or to cause something to happen, bring forth, produce, cause = the three definitions of γεννάω in BDAG. Not so by Paul (Romans 9:11, Galatians 4:23.24.29)and also not by Matthew (2:1.4; 19:12) ; and etc. Look after here:
http://biblehub.com/greek/strongs_1080.htm





Paul did not use γεννάω in Galatians 4:4, Romans 1:3, or Philippians 2:7 because none of those senses of γεννάω were appropriate or fitting in any of the three texts in question not true.

John Reece
11-16-2014, 12:19 PM
Not so by Paul (Romans 9:11, Galatians 4:23.24.29)and also not by Matthew (2:1.4; 19:12) ; and etc. Look after here:
http://biblehub.com/greek/strongs_1080.htm

not true.

I stand corrected; 'should have done more research. :blush:

ETA: This demonstrates why I am so often tempted to give up and cease participation in TWeb communications any more: my mind does not think clearly; if my brain functioned normally, I would not have been so stupid as to overlook the fact that although lexical definitions of γεννάω are active/transitive, that does not preclude passive forms of the verb that are prolific in the scriptures.

However, I will soldier on. What's a little embarrassment compared to the joy of dealing with biblical languages?

John Reece
11-17-2014, 12:13 PM
Let's go back to the OP (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?4194-John-1-and-Philippians-2-5-7&p=116351&viewfull=1#post116351) and get a second opinion by another scholar (the first is here (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?4194-John-1-and-Philippians-2-5-7&p=116445&viewfull=1#post116445)).

From Philippians (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament: Baker Academic, 2008), by Moisés Silva (via Accordance):


In view of the great variety of contexts in which morphē may be used, Hawthorne makes a significant point in admitting that the word’s “precise meaning is elusive” (...). To put it differently, morphē is characterized by semantic extension; it covers a broad range of meanings and therefore we are heavily dependent on the immediate context to discover its specific nuance. Here in Phil. 2:6 we are greatly helped by two factors. In the first place, we have the correspondence of morphē theou with isa theō. Käsemann, as we have noticed, was absolutely right in emphasizing that being “in the form of God” is equivalent to being “equal with God.” To go beyond this equivalence and inquire whether morphē tells us precisely in what respects Jesus is equal with God (in essence? attributes? attitude? appearance?) is asking too much from one word.

In the second place, and most important, morphē theou is set in antithetical parallelism to μορφὴν δούλου (morphēn doulou, form of a servant), an expression further defined by the phrase ἐν ὁμοιώματι ἀνθρώ-πων (en homoiōmati anthrōpōn, in the likeness of men). It is possible to cite parallels in which morphē is used to designate what is distinctively divine in contrast to what is distinctively human (cf. BDAG 659, s.v. μορφή). It appears then that Lightfoot (1868: 133), although misguided in seeing here a more or less philosophical meaning of “essence,” was not off the track in detecting a contrast between “the true divine nature of our Lord” and “true human nature.” And it moreover follows that the Philippians passage, although not written for the purpose of presenting an ontological description of Christ, is very much consonant with the trinitarian formulas of the fourth–century church.

Boxing Pythagoras
11-17-2014, 01:12 PM
Let's go back to the OP (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?4194-John-1-and-Philippians-2-5-7&p=116351&viewfull=1#post116351) and get a second opinion by another scholar (the first is here (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?4194-John-1-and-Philippians-2-5-7&p=116445&viewfull=1#post116445)).

From Philippians (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament: Baker Academic, 2008), by Moisés Silva


In view of the great variety of contexts in which morphē may be used, Hawthorne makes a significant point in admitting that the word’s “precise meaning is elusive” (...). To put it differently, morphē is characterized by semantic extension; it covers a broad range of meanings and therefore we are heavily dependent on the immediate context to discover its specific nuance. Here in Phil. 2:6 we are greatly helped by two factors. In the first place, we have the correspondence of morphē theou with isa theō. Käsemann, as we have noticed, was absolutely right in emphasizing that being “in the form of God” is equivalent to being “equal with God.” To go beyond this equivalence and inquire whether morphē tells us precisely in what respects Jesus is equal with God (in essence? attributes? attitude? appearance?) is asking too much from one word.

In the second place, and most important, morphē theou is set in antithetical parallelism to μορφὴν δούλου (morphēn doulou, form of a servant), an expression further defined by the phrase ἐν ὁμοιώματι ἀνθρώ-πων (en homoiōmati anthrōpōn, in the likeness of men). It is possible to cite parallels in which morphē is used to designate what is distinctively divine in contrast to what is distinctively human (cf. BDAG 659, s.v. μορφή). It appears then that Lightfoot (1868: 133), although misguided in seeing here a more or less philosophical meaning of “essence,” was not off the track in detecting a contrast between “the true divine nature of our Lord” and “true human nature.” And it moreover follows that the Philippians passage, although not written for the purpose of presenting an ontological description of Christ, is very much consonant with the trinitarian formulas of the fourth–century church.I'll have to disagree with Silva and Kasemann, here. Paul seems to directly contrast μορφῇ θεοῦ with ἴσα θεῷ, in the passage, rather than equating the two concepts. Jesus was "in divine form," but did not grasp after "equality with deity," and thus he emptied himself to take on the form of a slave in human likeness.

Geert van den Bos
11-17-2014, 01:40 PM
From Philippians (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament: Baker Academic, 2008), by Moisés Silva


In view of the great variety of contexts in which morphē may be used, Hawthorne makes a significant point in admitting that the word’s “precise meaning is elusive” (...). To put it differently, morphē is characterized by semantic extension; it covers a broad range of meanings and therefore we are heavily dependent on the immediate context to discover its specific nuance. (...)And it moreover follows that the Philippians passage, although not written for the purpose of presenting an ontological description of Christ, is very much consonant with the trinitarian formulas of the fourth–century church.
"morphē" doesn't occur in NT, except for (2x) here and in Mark 16:12 (in the later added "longer ending of Mark")

But it is also in "metamorphoomai" -- be changed in form, be transformed;
occurring in Matthew 17:2 = Mark 9:2 ("The transfiguration of Jesus" on a high mountain )

and in Romans 12:2,
καὶ μὴ συσχηματίζεσθε τῷ αἰῶνι τούτῳ, ἀλλὰ μεταμορφοῦσθε τῇ ἀνακαινώσει τοῦ νοός, εἰς τὸ δοκιμάζειν ὑμᾶς τί τὸ θέλημα τοῦ θεοῦ, τὸ ἀγαθὸν καὶ εὐάρεστον καὶ τέλειον
ESV Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.


Interesting of course that συσχηματίζεσθε has in it the same σχημα that Paul used in Philippians 2:7, καὶ σχήματι εὑρεθεὶς ὡς ἄνθρωπος; a word that besides here just occurs in 1Corinthians 7:31, καὶ οἱ χρώμενοι τὸν κόσμον ὡς μὴ καταχρώμενοι: παράγει γὰρ τὸ σχῆμα τοῦ κόσμου τούτου ESV and those who deal with the world as though they had no dealings with it. For the present form of this world is passing away.


"metamorphoomai" still also in 2 Corinthians 3:18,
ἡμεῖς δὲ πάντες ἀνακεκαλυμμένῳ προσώπῳ τὴν δόξαν κυρίου κατοπτριζόμενοι τὴν αὐτὴν εἰκόνα μεταμορφούμεθα ἀπὸ δόξης εἰς δόξαν, καθάπερ ἀπὸ κυρίου πνεύματος.
ESV:And we all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from one degree of glory to another. For this comes from the Lord who is the Spirit.
.


It being things hard to grasp / translate, but to me it seems rather clear that Paul wasn't a Trinitarian avant la lettre.

John Reece
11-17-2014, 01:53 PM
I'll have to disagree with Silva and Kasemann, here. Paul seems to directly contrast μορφῇ θεοῦ with ἴσα θεῷ, in the passage, rather than equating the two concepts. Jesus was "in divine form," but did not grasp after "equality with deity," and thus he emptied himself to take on the form of a slave in human likeness.

I can see why you disagree with Silva and Käsemann; however, Silva has more to say in support of his comment in the two paragraphs to which you have responded, though I doubt anything he might say will convince you. For instance, just a snippet from his rather lengthy commentary:


Käsemann (1968: 59–60) emphatically rejects the classical background on the basis of parallels in the literature of the Hellenistic religions, since “the conceptual language of the hellenistic period moves within an ideological framework quite different from that … of the classical Greek era.” According to this new language, morphē “no longer means the individual entity as a formed whole, but a mode of being [Daseinsweise] in a specific direction, such as, for example, being in divine substance and power.” In his discussion, Käsemann overstresses the significance of the prepositional construction. Moreover, his dependence on the gnostic “heavenly man” myth fails to take seriously the substantial differences between it and the Philippians passage. Although this solution therefore cannot be regarded as acceptable, it would nevertheless be a grave mistake to ignore Käsemann’s point that in the literature of the Hellenistic religions morphē theou and isotheos physis “are parallel and even become synonymous.”

Dissatisfaction with approaches that rely heavily on either the classical philosophical usage (Lightfoot) or the usage in Hellenistic religions (Käsemann) has led many scholars to reconsider the Jewish background, especially the LXX material, as the most promising source for arriving at a solution. Unfortunately, the LXX evidence is meager and ambiguous, so that interpreters have come up with a wide range of ideas: from the rather vague notion of “visible appearance,” to the very specific equation of morphē with doxa, “glory” (so Meyer and many after him), and on to the elaboration of an Adam-Christology based on the relation between morphē theou and eikōn tou theou, “image of God” (Col. 1:15). The discussion of LXX backgrounds is often complicated by fuzzy linguistic arguments and by the implication that the various theses proposed are mutually exclusive.

There is more, that is more to you point; however, I am having difficulty locating the text within the massive amount of commentary on the subject ― because it's in Accordance, rather than a book, and I have difficulty navigating computer versions of books. Also, I am currently being challenged by a physical need, but I'll come back to the search when I have tended to the need.

John Reece
11-17-2014, 03:22 PM
There is more, that is more to your point...

Continued from posts #73 (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?4194-John-1-and-Philippians-2-5-7&p=121989&viewfull=1#post121989) and 76 (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?4194-John-1-and-Philippians-2-5-7&p=122091&viewfull=1#post122091):


.... The ambiguous phrase in verse 6, οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγήσατο (ouch harpagmon hēgēsato), has created a literature far more extensive than it probably deserves. In particular, one is impressed by the futility of trying to reach a decision regarding Jesus’s preexistence and deity on the basis of whether harpagmon here has an active or a passive meaning. The subsequent choices then become rather confusing: if one opts for the passive idea, is the nuance positive (“windfall,” advantage”) or negative (“booty, prize”)? Further, if it carries a negative nuance, we must decide whether it speaks of (a) a thing already possessed, which one is tempted to hold on to (res rapta), or (b) a thing not possessed, which one may be tempted to snatch (res rapienda). In the last instance, the inference is drawn that the Christ-hymn speaks of the human (not preexistent) Christ, who was tempted to snatch the status of lordship but instead chose the path of obedience (vv. 9–11). We may outline these options thus:

I. Active (or abstract: the act of snatching, robbery, usurpation): “Precisely because he was in the form of God, he reckoned equality with God not as a matter of getting but of giving.”
II. Passive (or concrete: the thing possessed or to be snatched):
A. Positive (windfall, piece of good luck): “Jesus did not regard equality with God as a gain to be utilized.
B. Negative (booty, prize)
1. Res rapta: “He, though existing before the worlds in the form of God, did not treat his equality with God as a prize, a treasure to be greedily clutched and ostentatiously displayed.”
2. Res rapienda: “He did not regard the being on an equality with God as a thing to be seized, violently snatched.”

This very diversity of interpretations should warn us not to move from the ambiguous word to the meaning of the passage as a whole, but vice versa. Now the context provides two important clues. First, the phrase in question is contrasted with ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσεν (heauton ekenōsen, he emptied himself, v. 7) and ἐταπείνωσεν ἑαυτόν (etapeinōsen heauton, he humbled himself, v. 8). One could argue, on that ground alone, that verse 6 is simply concerned to state negatively what the main verbs in verses 7–8 state positively: Jesus refused to make a selfish choice with respect to his divinity. If so, any other questions regarding the phrase should probably remain quite subordinate. In the second place, it is certainly no accident that the verb hēgeomai is also used in verse 3, and this fact alerts us to the parallel expressions, “each of you must regard one another as more important than himself” and “looking out … for the interests of others.” These clauses in turn are contrasted with eritheia, “selfishness.” Third, a more distant—but as we have already noted very important—parallel is Rom. 15:1–7; in verse 3 of that passage we are told that “Christ did not please himself.” These three pieces of contextual data leave no doubt about the force of verse 6b–c: Christ refused to act selfishly.

Whether Christ’s unselfishness expressed itself in a decision not to aspire for something greater than he already had (res rapienda) or in a decision not to use selfishly what he already had (res rapta) can be decided on the basis of three factors. First, the presence of the article in to einai isa theō suggests strongly the definiteness that in English is more commonly expressed with the possessive pronoun (cf. Smyth 1956: §1121), “his equality with God”; at the very least it points back to en morphē theou hyparchōn (so Hawthorne).

Second, an extensive and persuasive discussion by Roy W. Hoover (1971) has demonstrated the mistake of focusing on the word harpagmos itself rather than on the combination of that word (and comparable nouns) with hēgeomai (and comparable verbs). Building on the research of W. W. Jaeger (who however stressed the idea of “windfall”), Hoover states that in all instances examined, the “idiomatic expression refers to something already present and at one’s disposal.” His translation of the Phil. 2:6 passage is: Christ “did not regard being equal with God as … something to use for his own advantage” (Hoover 1971: 118). This essay, which reflects thoroughness and a clear-headed method, must be regarded as having settled this particular question.

Geert van den Bos
11-18-2014, 02:10 AM
You might assume that Mark 9:2-8 was written after Philippians 2:6-11.

Philippians 2:6-11 being seen as a very old Christ-hymn adopted by Paul, "who saw in it a model of what he asks from his Christians: "tapeinophrosunè". " (Schillebeeckx).

The "metamorphosis" described by Mark being about Jesus' clothing:
And after six days Jesus took with him Peter and James and John, and led them up a high mountain by themselves. And he was transfigured before them, and his clothes became radiant, intensely white, as no one on earth could bleach them

Which makes think of the wordplay with Hebrew "or" (written "alef-vav-resh") = light and "or" (written "ayin-vav-resh") = skin

to Genesis 3:21,
And the Lord God made for Adam and for his wife shirts of skin, and He dressed them.

Adam first being closed in a garment of light.

The transfiguration-story being not about Jesus transforming into God, or God transforming into Jesus.

Boxing Pythagoras
11-18-2014, 03:45 AM
Second, an extensive and persuasive discussion by Roy W. Hoover (1971) has demonstrated the mistake of focusing on the word harpagmos itself rather than on the combination of that word (and comparable nouns) with hēgeomai (and comparable verbs). Building on the research of W. W. Jaeger (who however stressed the idea of “windfall”), Hoover states that in all instances examined, the “idiomatic expression refers to something already present and at one’s disposal.” His translation of the Phil. 2:6 passage is: Christ “did not regard being equal with God as … something to use for his own advantage” (Hoover 1971: 118). This essay, which reflects thoroughness and a clear-headed method, must be regarded as having settled this particular question.
Now, this is interesting. If οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγήσατο really does idiomatically refer to something already present and at one's disposal, I'll have to alter my view on this passage, somewhat. I'll see if I can find Hoover's article, and I'll try to research the phrase, myself.

John Reece
11-18-2014, 05:07 AM
Now, this is interesting. If οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγήσατο really does idiomatically refer to something already present and at one's disposal, I'll have to alter my view on this passage, somewhat. I'll see if I can find Hoover's article, and I'll try to research the phrase, myself.

I was wondering how objective you might be when considering exegesis with which you have not heretofore been familiar.

Let me offer one more such to consider, which is that of the climax of the poetic text of Philippians 2:5-11.


Philippians 2:5 Let the same mind be in you that was in Christ Jesus,
6 who, though he was in the form of God,
did not regard equality with God
as something to be exploited,
7 but emptied himself,
taking the form of a slave,
being born in human likeness.
And being found in human form,
8 he humbled himself
and became obedient to the point of death—
even death on a cross.

Phil. 2:9 Therefore God also highly exalted him
and gave him the name
that is above every name,
10 so that at the name of Jesus
every knee should bend,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
11 and every tongue should confess
that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father.

(NA27) Phil. 2:5 Τοῦτο φρονεῖτε ἐν ὑμῖν ὃ καὶ ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ, 6 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 8 ἐταπείνωσεν ἑαυτὸν γενόμενος ὑπήκοος μέχρι θανάτου, θανάτου δὲ σταυροῦ. 9 διὸ καὶ ὁ θεὸς αὐτὸν ὑπερύψωσεν καὶ ἐχαρίσατο αὐτῷ τὸ ὄνομα τὸ ὑπὲρ πᾶν ὄνομα, 10 ἵνα ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι Ἰησοῦ πᾶν γόνυ κάμψῃ ἐπουρανίων καὶ ἐπιγείων καὶ καταχθονίων 11 καὶ πᾶσα γλῶσσα ἐξομολογήσηται ὅτι κύριος Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς εἰς δόξαν θεοῦ πατρός.

From The Letter to the Philippians (Pillar New Testament Commentary: Eerdmans, 2009), by G. Walter Hansen (via Accordance).


The universal acclamation that Jesus Christ is Lord is the climax of the hymn. By placing Lord first in this acclamation, the Greek text puts the emphasis on that name. That name was dramatically withheld until every tongue of the whole creation reveals that name. The hymn announced that God exalted the crucified one and gave him a name that is above every name, but the hymn did not immediately reveal that name. Then the hymn portrayed the supreme sovereignty of the name given to Jesus in the scene of every knee bowed before Jesus because he bears that name. But still the hymn did not reveal that name. The hymn elaborately described the absolute authority of the one who bears that name over all three realms of creation: in heaven and on earth and under the earth. But still that name remains unspoken. Finally, the almost unbearable suspense is broken when the hymn summons all creation to acknowledge in one voice that name that is above every name: Lord Jesus Christ!

The lines that so dramatically lead up to the revelation of the name Lord invest that name with three dimensions of meaning: sovereignty, identity, and destiny. First, God’s exaltation of the crucified servant to the highest position of absolute authority over all creation invests the name Lord with the meaning of divine sovereignty. The way that the hymn expands the allusion to Isaiah 45:23 (“to me every knee shall bow, every tongue swear”) by adding the phrase encompassing all three realms of creation (every knee shall bow, in heaven, and on earth, and under the earth) emphasizes that the sovereignty of Jesus is a divine sovereignty that surpasses all human and angelic sovereignty. As Bauckham observes, “For Jewish monotheism sovereignty over all things was definitive of who God is. It could not be seen as delegated to a being other than God. Angels might carry out God’s will, as servants subject to his command in limited areas of his rule, but God’s universal sovereignty itself was intrinsic to the unique divine identity as sole Creator and Ruler of all.” When every knee bows in heaven and on earth and under the earth at the name of Jesus, all creation is thereby acknowledging that divine sovereignty belongs to Jesus who has been given the name that is above every name, the name Lord. The second commandment in the Decalogue explicitly prohibits bowing down before anything in the heaven above or on the earth below or in the waters under the earth because the Lord God is a jealous God (Exodus 20:4-5; Deut. 5:8-9). Only the Lord God exercises universal sovereignty over all of creation; only to the Sovereign Creator will every knee bow (Isaiah 45:23). By giving Jesus the name Lord, God gave Jesus divine sovereignty over all creation so that every knee in all of creation would bow to him.

Second, by giving Jesus the name Lord, God declared the divine identity of Jesus. Some scholars, observing the parallels between the Christ hymn and Hellenistic myths of the descent and ascent of gods in the Greek religion, have asserted that the enthronement of Jesus as Lord is similar to the coronation of a deity in the context of Hellenistic polytheism. But the use of language from Isaiah 45:23 demonstrates that Jewish monotheism is the background for this hymn. Hence, an understanding of the Jewish context of the name Lord is needed to appreciate the significance of that name. In the Jewish religion, the name Lord (κύριος) is actually a substitute name for the Hebrew divine name YHWH (יהוה). Whenever Jews saw the divine name YHWH (יהוה‎) in their Hebrew text, they would not pronounce it for fear of blaspheming or taking in vain the unique divine name of God. Instead they would say a substitute name, the Hebrew name ʾādôn (‏אדונ), meaning Lord, for the unpronounceable divine name YHWH (יהוה‎). As a result, when the Jews translated their Hebrew scriptures into Greek in the third century BC (that translation is called the Septuagint or LXX), they used the Greek name κύριος (Lord), at least 6,156 times, for the unique divine name YHWH (‏יהוה). Since YHWH (יהוה) was the unique proper name for God, that was the name that was above every name (Phil 2:9). The Jewish prophets proclaimed God’s exclusive claim to his own unique name: “I am the Lord, and there is no other; apart from me there is no God” (Isaiah 45:5-6, 18, 21). Jesus was given the name that belonged to God alone. By bearing the name Lord, Jesus was not identified as one of many lords in the pantheon of Hellenistic gods and lords nor as merely a political rival of Lord Caesar. The name Lord identified Jesus with the one and only God of Jewish monotheism, the Creator and Sovereign of all.

Snip three paragraphs.


The hymn has come full circle from the first line about the one existing in the form of God expressing the glory of God to the last line about the exalted Jesus bringing glory to God the Father. The whole hymn is a totally God-centered, God-glorifying hymn. In the downward journey to the death of Jesus on the cross and in the upward journey to the universal acclamation of Jesus as Lord, the very nature of God is revealed. “The meaning of the word ‘God’ includes not only Jesus, but specifically, the crucified Jesus.” The worship of God includes the worship of Jesus who died as a slave on the Roman cross and now sits on the highest throne as Lord of all creation.

Geert van den Bos
11-18-2014, 05:39 AM
Philippians 2:5 Let the same mind be in you that was in Christ Jesus,
6 who, though he was in the form of God,
did not regard equality with God
as something to be exploited,

etc.


I swear by Schillebeeckx, "Gerechtigheid en Liefde", p.153:

http://i138.photobucket.com/albums/q262/suivlys/IMG_2427.jpg (http://s138.photobucket.com/user/suivlys/media/IMG_2427.jpg.html)
He says: Being equal to God is not a "res rapta" but a "res rapienda", from which Jesus abstained. He didn't live to become equal to God.

Schillebeeckx also discerns between "protological pre-existence" (i.e the divinity of Christ) and "eschatological pre-existence" (i.e. only through the cross, ultimate humiliation, he became Christ.)

John Reece
11-18-2014, 09:12 AM
Do not miss this (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?4194-John-1-and-Philippians-2-5-7&p=122310&viewfull=1#post122310), which is now hidden on a prior page.

Geert van den Bos
11-18-2014, 09:55 AM
Do not miss this (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?4194-John-1-and-Philippians-2-5-7&p=122310&viewfull=1#post122310), which is now hidden on a prior page.

In Philippians 2:6-11 κύριος forms a pair with δοῦλος:

He acquired lordship, ratified by God, by taking the form of a servant.

κύριος is never used to say that Jesus is God, not here, and also not in other NT-places.

John Reece
11-18-2014, 01:03 PM
In Philippians 2:6-11 κύριος forms a pair with δοῦλος:

He acquired lordship, ratified by God, by taking the form of a servant.

κύριος is never used to say that Jesus is God, not here, and also not in other NT-places.

The truth of Scripture is ascertained by sound exegesis, not by mere assertion.

Here (at Philippians 2:11) the text says κύριος Ἰησοῦς Χριστός.

The text of Philippians 2:11, per the margin of NA27, alludes to the LXX text of Isaiah 45:23(24 in English versions); "the use of language from Isaiah 45:23 demonstrates that Jewish monotheism is the background for this hymn" (see here (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?4194-John-1-and-Philippians-2-5-7&p=122310&viewfull=1#post122310)).

In the LXX, κύριος is used at least 6,156 times as the Greek rendering of the divine proper name YHWH (‏יהוה) = the proper name of the God of Israel.

Philippians 2:9-11 declares that the proper name (not merely a noun paired with the noun δοῦλος) of the God of Israel has been given to Jesus (ἐχαρίσατο αὐτῷ τὸ ὄνομα τὸ ὑπὲρ πᾶν ὄνομα), so that every tongue should confess that Jesus is κύριος ― i.e., YHWH (‏יהוה) ― the proper name of God in the original Bible of the Christian Church, i.e., the LXX).

Geert van den Bos
11-19-2014, 01:40 AM
The truth of Scripture is ascertained by sound exegesis, not by mere assertion.

Here (at Philippians 2:11) the text says κύριος Ἰησοῦς Χριστός. aren't there other texts as well that say such? I just pick one: Ephesians 6:23, Εἰρήνη τοῖς ἀδελφοῖς καὶ ἀγάπη μετὰ πίστεως ἀπὸ θεοῦ πατρὸς καὶ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ.


The text of Philippians 2:11, per the margin of NA27, alludes to the LXX text of Isaiah 45:23(24 in English versions); "the use of language from Isaiah 45:23 demonstrates that Jewish monotheism is the background for this hymn" (see here (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?4194-John-1-and-Philippians-2-5-7&p=122310&viewfull=1#post122310)).
LXX Isaiah 45:23, κατ' ἐμαυτοῦ ὀμνύω ἦ μὴν ἐξελεύσεται ἐκ τοῦ στόματός μου δικαιοσύνη οἱ λόγοι μου οὐκ ἀποστραφήσονται ὅτι ἐμοὶ κάμψει πᾶν γόνυ καὶ ἐξομολογήσεται πᾶσα γλῶςα τῷ θεῷ



In the LXX, κύριος is used at least 6,156 times as the Greek rendering of the divine proper name YHWH (‏יהוה) = the proper name of the God of Israel.
Name that only was made known at mount Sinai on the day of Pentecost: "I am Hashem your (singular) God, etc."

It being not "a noun that denotes a particular thing" (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/proper+name).

By saying " the divine proper name YHWH" you're making an idol out of it. (like also the Jehovah-witnesses do).
(The name actually being hidden in the initial letters of "yom hashishi vay'chulu hashamayim" --( Rashi: "Scripture added a “hey” on the sixth [day](...)They [the works of creation] were all suspended until the “sixth day,” referring to the sixth day of Sivan")




Philippians 2:9-11 declares that the proper name (not merely a noun paired with the noun δοῦλος) of the God of Israel has been given to Jesus (ἐχαρίσατο αὐτῷ τὸ ὄνομα τὸ ὑπὲρ πᾶν ὄνομα), so that every tongue should confess that Jesus is κύριος ― i.e., YHWH (‏יהוה) ― the proper name of God in the original Bible of the Christian Church, i.e., the LXX).

χαρίζομαι is not just "to give" but "to favor", after Hebrew "chanan" - root of the name John ("y'hochanan")

And "the name that is above every name" seems to be the name of Jesus (and not of God) since the next verse says: " so that in the name of Jesus every knee should bow".

So: Jesus found favor by emptying himself of all worldly aspiration (to be the best, the first, the smartest, the most charitable, to be the one who is right after all, etc.)

Geert van den Bos
11-19-2014, 02:31 AM
But now my thought, my vision:

Geert van den Bos
11-19-2014, 04:23 AM
But now my thought, my vision:

Might Philippians 2:9-11 want to say "In Jesus God has become a face"?

In fact we didn't know whom to pray to, or what to say.
We feared God to be kind of a beast, a ruthless ruler / tiran.
But now, at the end of time, he turned out to be humankind, kind of a human, even favoring you ..

John Reece
11-19-2014, 05:49 AM
Might Philippians 2:9-11 want to say "In Jesus God has become a face"?

In fact we didn't know whom to pray to, or what to say.
We feared God to be kind of a beast, a ruthless ruler / tiran.
But now, at the end of time, he turned out to be humankind, kind of a human, even favoring you ..

Sounds like you have come around to entertaining the possibility that in Philippians 2:9-11 Jesus is God :smile: .

In A Grammatical Analysis of the Greek New Testament (Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1981), by Max Zerwick and Mary Grosvenor, the entry for τὸ ὄνομα τὸ ὑπὲρ πᾶν ὄνομα (the name that is above every name) at Philippians 2:9 is this:


τὸ ὄνομα τὸ ὑπὲρ πᾶν ὄνομα : i.e. his own name: the LORD of OT (Jahweh), κύριος.

Geert van den Bos
11-19-2014, 06:11 AM
Sounds like you have come around to entertaining the possibility that in Philippians 2:9-11 Jesus is God :smile: . How you can "know" God? Through Jesus.


In A Grammatical Analysis of the Greek New Testament (Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1981), by Max Zerwick and Mary Grosvenor, the entry for τὸ ὄνομα τὸ ὑπὲρ πᾶν ὄνομα (the name that is above every name) at Philippians 2:9 is this:


τὸ ὄνομα τὸ ὑπὲρ πᾶν ὄνομα : i.e. his own name: the LORD of OT (Jahweh), κύριος.

Which would imply that there is a distinction between God and his name.

Like I am called "Geert", but my parents could as well have called met "Hans", which wouldn't have effected my inner being.

John Reece
11-19-2014, 06:45 AM
How you can "know" God? Through Jesus.

Which would imply that there is a distinction between God and his name.

Like I am called "Geert", but my parents could as well have called met "Hans", which wouldn't have effected my inner being.

The "God" whose name is κύριος / יהוה is Jesus Christ ― κύριος Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς.

There is indeed a distinction between God the Father and God the Son; however, Scripture identifies both as God.

Geert van den Bos
11-19-2014, 07:14 AM
The "God" whose name is κύριος / [size=5]יהוה is Jesus Christ ― κύριος Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς.

So in fact Jews should pray: "Hear Israel Jesus Christ is our God, Jesus Christ is one"?


[font=times new roman]There is indeed a distinction between God the Father and God the Son; however, Scripture identifies both as God. Where it does so?

Geert van den Bos
11-19-2014, 07:34 AM
The "God" whose name is κύριος / יהוה is Jesus Christ ― κύριος Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς.

There is indeed a distinction between God the Father and God the Son; however, Scripture identifies both as God.

So God the Father is just God, while God the Son is his name?

John Reece
11-19-2014, 08:55 AM
So God the Father is just God, while God the Son is his name?

Silly.

Geert van den Bos
11-19-2014, 11:15 AM
Silly.
" The truth of Scripture is ascertained by sound exegesis, not by mere assertion. "

My "Neuer sprachlicher Schlüssel zum Griechischen Neuen Testament" by Haubeck and Von Siebenthal says: " "onoma"- hier wohl Würde, Titel (nämlich "Herr")" -

"Jesus = YHVH" is silly.

John Reece
11-19-2014, 11:47 AM
"Jesus = YHVH" is silly.

NA27: Philippians 2:11: καὶ πᾶσα γλῶσσα ἐξομολογήσηται ὅτι κύριος Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς εἰς δόξαν θεοῦ πατρός.

NRSV: Philippians 2:11: and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord [יהוה], to the glory of God the Father.

Geert van den Bos
11-19-2014, 12:24 PM
NA27: Philippians 2:11: καὶ πᾶσα γλῶσσα ἐξομολογήσηται ὅτι κύριος Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς εἰς δόξαν θεοῦ πατρός.

NRSV: Philippians 2:11: and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord [יהוה], to the glory of God the Father.


The Tetragrammaton is not a name like any other name.


Genesis 2:20 And man named all the cattle and the fowl of the heavens and all the beasts of the field.

But he did not not name God, nor did he name himself Adam.

The Tetragrammaton consisting of the initial letters of the last two words of Genesis 1:31 and the first two words of Genesis 2:1, exactly where creation is completed and there is rest.

The name Adam can be read is "ani domeh" = I am like (= I am [made] in the form of God).