Jesus Christ has a God that he worships

[onewithhim]

Jesus said that we all must love Jehovah our God and worship only Him. He stated clearly that his Father was the only true God (John 17:3); he didn't say that we are the only true God. In many places in the Scriptures he calls the Father "my God."

"And this is life eternal, that they might know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent." (John 17:3, KJV)

"Jesus saith unto her [Mary], Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father, but go to my brethren and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father and your Father, and to my God and your God. (John 20:17, KJV)

"At the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? which is, being interpreted: My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" (Mark 15:34, KJV)

"Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall no more go out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is New Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name." (Revelation 3:12, KJV)

I think Jesus wants us to recognize that his Father, Jehovah, is God, and he is God's Son. (John 10:36) What do you make of this?

[JehovahsWitness]

...even if I were to grant you -- for the sake of argument -- this idea that Satan is attempting a kind of coup-d'etat, the usurper in a coup-d'etat is not attempting to "seize equality" with the king...

That depends on what is meant by "equality with the king". One can be equal but different

To illustrate (and mix my metaphors) In todays world men and women are considered equal but they are far from identical. When women were said to be fighting for "equality with men " it was understood they were not seeking to be 6 foot 4 and have male reproductive organs. In short the expression "equality with men" and "equality with the king" does not have to be understood to be in the absolute ie of being identical Rather the expression can mean to be EQUAL in one or more specific aspects ie equal in rights, freedom and/ or influence

Permit me to refer you back to my post #248.

Paul was not saying Jesus refrained from doing the impossible. He did not specify what aspect of "eqality" he was alluding to. To conclude Paul was speaking about absolute eqality in every sense is premature. Paul did not say Jesus refrained, for example from seeking equal power with the Almighty...

We do have at least an indication of what Paul was alluding to in verses 8 and 9, since he contrasts what Jesus did not do with what he did do. In verse 8 he speaks about humbly taking a slaves form (a position of servitude) and in verse 9 Paul explains that paradoxically , the reward for accepting to be lowered was that "God exalted him to a superior position" He at no point speaks about a use or misude of power, rather of submitting to a changes in position.

So it seems the issue up for grabs (pun intended) was not eqaliity with the kings inanate POWER , not equality of God's AGE and MIGHT and ACCOMPLISHMENTS. In short, not absolute equality with God in every concevable aspect, but equality of position. Saying for all intents and purposes "I want to to be ... YOU" [as in the supreme ruler of the universe ]" .

Jesus (as The Word), inferior to God , could have coveted "equality" as in being in God's position as supreme ruler. Something, Paul noted Jesus never did, a merit to his (Jesus) character because such a desire is certainly possible and evidently at (least in theory ) even achievable.

Right, this is the thrust of Paul's argument. Jesus was in a superior position, but gave it up to take on an inferior position. ...

Correct. The only point of contention is, was Jesus original "superior position" equal to the Father ? A reading that it was not and that He (Jesus) never sought otherwise, arguably better harmonizes with the themes of humility and position that Paul is dealing with.




JW

[historia]

One can be equal but different.

To illustrate (and mix my metaphors) In todays world men and women are considered equal but they are far from identical. When women were said to be fighting for "equality with men " it was understood they were not seeking to be 6 foot 4 and have male reproductive organs. In short the expression "equality with men" and "equality with the king" does not have to be understood to be in the absolute ie of being identical Rather the expression can mean to be EQUAL in one or more specific aspects ie equal in rights, freedom and/ or influence

I do appreciate good analogies, and this one helps illustrate the point I was making.

Gender equality entails granting women the same opportunities and privileges as men -- so that women can now vote in elections, own a business, attend university, and so on. But, in all of those cases, women are not taking away those privileges from men. Men can still vote, still own a business, still attend university, etc. That's equality.

The same is not true in the case of a coup d'etat. In a successful coup d'etat, the usurper is actually taking away from the current ruler the unique privileges that he possesses in order to aggregate those to himself. Once the usurper has assumed power, he can now change the laws, levy taxes, decide matters of state, and so on. The former king (probably now in prison or exile) no longer has those privileges. In that way, the usurper is not making himself equal to the king, he is making himself superior to the king, pushing the prior ruler into an inferior position.

I appreciate the point you're making here -- that equality in one aspect doesn't necessarily entail equality in all aspects. But the specific aspect you've put forward where you think someone could "seize equality" with God -- i.e., seizing God's position -- would not actually entail making oneself equal to God, but rather superior to God. If someone seized the ultimate position of authority from God, then God would now be in an inferior position. That is not equality.

The only point of contention is, was Jesus original "superior position" equal to the Father ?

One caveat, if I may: While we can (rightly) talk about the contrast here as one of "position," the text itself doesn't describe Jesus' former and subsequent states principally in those terms. Rather, the Carmen Christi describes Jesus existing in the "morphe of God" and then subsequently taking the "morphe of a slave."

(These are peculiar expressions, and it seems to me, as I mentioned in post #260, that the hymn takes care to briefly describe what each means. On your interpretation, we never get a description for the "morphe of God.")

But I want to make a different point here:

I'm sure you would agree with me that the text isn't simply describing a change in title, rank, or position. The change in "position" follows directly from Jesus taking on this new morphe, this new "form." Jesus wasn't previously in the likeness or appearance of a human, and it's taking on those attributes that now puts him in this inferior position.

It seems to me the same is true of God's position. It's not like God just happens to be in the ultimate position of authority. God's supreme position follows directly from God being the Supreme Being.

In other words, we can't easily separate position and nature in the way you are suggesting, since the position follows from the nature. That's why your interpretation creates all kinds of questions and difficulties around how someone could seize the position of an all-powerful and all-knowing God. Your analogies all ultimately break down, too, because they entail contrasting individuals who share the same (human) nature, whereas God's nature is radically different from anyone else's.

[JehovahsWitness]

I appreciate the point you're making here -- that equality in one aspect doesn't necessarily entail equality in all aspects. But the specific aspect you've put forward where you think someone could "seize equality" with God -- i.e., seizing God's position -- would not actually entail making oneself equal to God, but rather superior to God.

That would depend on what is meant by "equal to God" means. Of course all metaphors are limited and mine is no exception , but the point you recognise is the central point I am making, that the expression "equality with God" can be understood to be equality with one aspect of that One (in this case, the desire to be the god that occupies the unique position of supreme ruler). Obviously by definition there can be only one supreme ruler, so to seek "equality with God" is to seek to become the next "Supreme-ruler-God", would by definition entail the latter voljntarily submitting to the successful challenger.

If Paul's "equality with God" is understood in that way (ie to become the only person with nobody above them in rank) rather than to "share" a position or have all the innate qualities of the Almighty, then such a desire is entirely possible, and that Jesus made no such consideration to such an idea, to his (Jesus) merit.

As for the point that for the Almighty position is inseperable from his nature, unless you have an alternative definition for omnipotent, the two can be seperated if He deems such a thing necessary. The fact that Satan is currently the God of this world illustrates that an Almighty God can and has relenquished power/souvereignty /rulership over that which he could have controlled had he chosen to.

[historia]

the point you recognise is the central point I am making, that the expression "equality with God" can be understood to be equality with one aspect of that One

Oh, if the overarching point you want to make here is simply that it's possible to read this passage differently, then you don't need to do much to convince me of that fact. It's nearly always possible to read passages of the Bible in different ways depending on what assumptions we bring to the text.

Obviously by definition there can be only one supreme ruler, so to seek "equality with God" is to seek to become the next "Supreme-ruler-God", would by definition entail the latter voljntarily submitting to the successful challenger.

If Paul's "equality with God" is understood in that way (ie to become the only person with nobody above them in rank)

At the risk of repeating myself, let me just note, again, that if God is in a lower position than you -- because you alone occupy the supreme position -- then you aren't "equal" to God, you are superior to God.

The issue here is not whether we can define "equality" in such a way that it could even encompass a case where someone is actually in a superior position, or can define "seize" in such a way that it could even encompass a case where someone allows you to take something -- we can always bend words in this way -- rather, the issue here is that, if the author of this hymn was trying to describe a scenario where someone usurped God's position, it seems unlikely they would have used this particular terminology.

To illustrate that, do a search for "seize equality" (or similar phrase, in quotes) in Google and see what comes back. Most of the results actually concern this passage. But, if you skip past all of those, you will find a few other examples where someone has used this expression in a political context.

And, as far as I can tell, it's always an example of some civil rights group trying to forcefully press for gender or racial equality. In other words, it's equality in the sense that we saw in your prior women's rights example, where everyone shares the same status and privileges. I have yet to see a single example of someone using this or a similar expression to describe something like a coup d'etat. It's just not the way one would naturally describe that kind of action, whether in ancient Greek or modern English.

And so it seems to me, then, your interpretation, while better than onewithhim's, is I think not as likely as some other interpretations, which seem to make better sense of this passage, including other interpretations that would not conflict with your Christology.

[onewithhim]

the point you recognise is the central point I am making, that the expression "equality with God" can be understood to be equality with one aspect of that One

Oh, if the overarching point you want to make here is simply that it's possible to read this passage differently, then you don't need to do much to convince me of that fact. It's nearly always possible to read passages of the Bible in different ways depending on what assumptions we bring to the text.

Obviously by definition there can be only one supreme ruler, so to seek "equality with God" is to seek to become the next "Supreme-ruler-God", would by definition entail the latter voljntarily submitting to the successful challenger.

If Paul's "equality with God" is understood in that way (ie to become the only person with nobody above them in rank)

At the risk of repeating myself, let me just note, again, that if God is in a lower position than you -- because you alone occupy the supreme position -- then you aren't "equal" to God, you are superior to God.

The issue here is not whether we can define "equality" in such a way that it could even encompass a case where someone is actually in a superior position, or can define "seize" in such a way that it could even encompass a case where someone allows you to take something -- we can always bend words in this way -- rather, the issue here is that, if the author of this hymn was trying to describe a scenario where someone usurped God's position, it seems unlikely they would have used this particular terminology.

To illustrate that, do a search for "seize equality" (or similar phrase, in quotes) in Google and see what comes back. Most of the results actually concern this passage. But, if you skip past all of those, you will find a few other examples where someone has used this expression in a political context.

And, as far as I can tell, it's always an example of some civil rights group trying to forcefully press for gender or racial equality. In other words, it's equality in the sense that we saw in your prior women's rights example, where everyone shares the same status and privileges. I have yet to see a single example of someone using this or a similar expression to describe something like a coup d'etat. It's just not the way one would naturally describe that kind of action, whether in ancient Greek or modern English.

And so it seems to me, then, your interpretation, while better than onewithhim's, is I think not as likely as some other interpretations, which seem to make better sense of this passage, including other interpretations that would not conflict with your Christology.

Historia, what are your opinions on the OP? All those scriptures indicate a submission to the authority and control of God Almighty. There is no equality there in any of those scriptures. Jesus is subordinate to God.

Check out also the thread "Jesus is not God."

[JehovahsWitness]

the point you recognise is the central point I am making, that the expression "equality with God" can be understood to be equality with one aspect of that One

Oh, if the overarching point you want to make here is simply that it's possible to read this passage differently, then you don't need to do much to convince me of that fact. It's nearly always possible to read passages of the Bible in different ways depending on what assumptions we bring to the text.

Obviously by definition there can be only one supreme ruler, so to seek "equality with God" is to seek to become the next "Supreme-ruler-God", would by definition entail the latter voluntarily submitting to the successful challenger.

If Paul's "equality with God" is understood in that way (ie to become the only person with nobody above them in rank) rather than to "share" a position or have all the innate qualities of the Almighty, then such a desire is entirely possible, and that Jesus made no such consideration to such an idea, to his (Jesus) merit.

At the risk of repeating myself, let me just note, again, that if God is in a lower position than you -- because you alone occupy the supreme position -- then you aren't "equal" to God, you are superior to God.

At the risk of repeating myself, your point is based on your own understanding of what you think Paul's "equal to God" expression meant.

You say it means A-B-C and if the conditions you feel are not met, then the individual would not be "equal to God" . I say the conditions you have stipulated do not have to be met to be "equal to God" in the way Paul meant.

With one breath you recognise alternative readings are always possible and with the other you conclude that because mine does not match the conditions of yours, it cannot be correct. Do you see a contradiction here? This is like saying because you don't find my wife attractive *I* can' t be married to her.

God placing himself voluntarily in a inferior position and a contender occupying his vacated position as supreme ruler of the universe ** is** what Paul meant by "equal with God". Paul's "with" was idiomatic of "occupying a position formerly held by..." similar to all the successive artists in a "Hall of fame" have obtained the same pinnacle , although not simulateously or cojointly

You are welcome to a more literal reading, but your literal take cannot be the basis upon which my non-literal one is discredited. (That would be circular, in effect saying : "since ..."equal with" means what I say it does, your "equal with" cannot be correct because it would not be "equal with God" in the sense I say).

Circles aside , we simply disagree with what Paul was thinking when he wrote what he did.

... I think not as likely as some other interpretations...

With all due respect, don't care! It makes the most sense to me.

JW

[historia]

With one breath you recognise alternative readings are always possible and with the other you conclude that because mine does not match the conditions of yours, it cannot be correct. Do you see a contradiction here?

I would, if that was my argument. The point I'm making above, however, is that, while lots of different interpretations of this (or nearly any other) passage of the Bible are broadly possible, some interpretations are more probable than others.

You argued earlier:

A reading that it was not and that He (Jesus) never sought otherwise, arguably better harmonizes with the themes of humility and position that Paul is dealing with.

That is an argument about what is the most probable (or likely) meaning of this text.

But in your more recent posts, including this last one, you retreated to arguing about what the text can mean, which is an argument regarding possibility.

I think you would have to agree with me that, in any debate about how the Bible should be interpreted, what we are seeking to do is establish the best or most likely or most probable reading of the text, not simply putting forward alternative readings that meet the exceedingly low threshold of being merely possible.

I'm trying to shift us back to talking about this particular passage in terms of what it most likely means, as you were before, not simply what it can or cannot mean.

Paul's "with" was idiomatic of "occupying a position formerly held by..." similar to all the successive artists in a "Hall of fame" have obtained the same pinnacle , although not simulateously or cojointly

Again, I do enjoy your analogies.

Much like the earlier women's rights example, this one illustrates the point I've been making: The various artists who are inducted into, for example, the Rock N' Roll Hall of Fame do jointly hold that status.

It's not as if, when a new artist is inducted, all of the previous artists are stripped of their membership, or that the new artist is somehow a better or superior member to the previous ones. They share the same status as equal members of the Hall of Fame, and do so simultaneously.

If this is what you think the expression "equality with . . ." entails, then it seems to me you need a different conception of what that would mean in the case of Jesus and God, since the idea that this means Jesus usurping God's supreme position, thereby pushing God into an inferior position, is different in nearly every respect to this Hall of Fame analogy.

You are welcome to a more literal reading, but your literal take cannot be the basis upon which my non-literal one is discredited.

I would never argue that a more literal reading is ipso facto better simply because it is more literal. That's why I've staked my argument on other grounds.

But, all things being equal (no pun intended), it seems to me that we should probably assume authors are using terms in their typical sense, instead of some ad hoc definition, unless we have strong evidence to the contrary.

Circles aside , we simply disagree with what Paul was thinking when he wrote what he did.

. . .

It makes the most sense to me.

Sure, I'm not trying to convince you to change your mind. For me, the goal of any debate is to convince the audience -- in this case, other readers of the thread -- that my position better explains the available data. You can believe whatever you like.

[JehovahsWitness]

But, all things being equal (no pun intended), it seems to me that we should probably assume authors are using terms in their typical sense, instead of some ad hoc definition, unless we have strong evidence to the contrary.

There is nothing ad hoc about a reading that respects the grammar and the immediate and general context of the expression.

If Paul was refering idiomatically to a succession of position (position - rather than abuseof power - being theme that he repeatedly returns to in his commentary) with an expression which can indeed be taken to be non-literal, that is in my opinion more in line with the context than to conclude he introduced the idea of refraining from abuse of a power already held, to illustrate Jesus humility.

JW


RELATED POSTS

In what sense did Jesus not seek equality with God?
viewtopic.php?p=1152475#p1152475

[onewithhim]

[Replying to historia in post #267]

I really am lost as to what the problem is. The Greek word for "grasp" is to selfishly snatch what was not yours to begin with. Jesus never even gave it a thought. That's simple. And this idea corresponds with what is being said around the verse, that Jesus is a humble person. To lend any other meaning to the whole passage is counterproductive.

[historia]

I really am lost as to what the problem is.

Perhaps I can help, then.

The Greek word for "grasp" is to selfishly snatch what was not yours to begin with.

The word used here in Phil. 2:6, harpagmos, is a noun, not a verb, and can either mean (a) a thing taken from someone else, or (b) a thing to be held onto.

Moreover, as I've noted in an earlier thread, the expression "consider X a thing to be grasped" is an idiom. It means "something to seize upon, to take advantage of," and, again, can either mean (a) something you seize from someone else for your advantage, or (b) something that you already possess that you seize upon for advantage ('exploit').

We have examples in koine Greek where it is used in that latter sense of something you already posses that you exploit for your own advantage. So we simply cannot assert, as you seem to be suggesting here, that it only means snatching something that's not yours. That is mistaken.

Jesus never even gave it a thought.

The text doesn't say that either. It says he "didn't consider equality with God a thing to be grasped." When you say someone "didn't consider X to be Y" that typically means they have given it thought and concluded "X isn't Y."

That's simple.

But too simple by half.

And this idea corresponds with what is being said around the verse, that Jesus is a humble person.

That's true of both interpretations. Jesus' humbleness -- the aspect of this hymn that Paul wants to emphasize -- comes from Jesus giving up the higher state he was previously in and taking on a lower state.

The question we are debating concerns what, exactly, that higher state entailed. The context of Paul's letter doesn't help us resolve that point, because that's not his concern when quoting this hymn.