TheologyThoughts

At the following website, on a page entitled "The Trinity Delusion," the following article on the Phil 2:6 is found:

http://www.angelfire.com/space/thegospeltruth/trinity/verses/Php2_6.html

I have seen this article posted to several different internet religion oriented discussion lists. Recently, it was posted to one such list, and I felt it was time for a response. There are many articles on the internet which use poor exegesis and mishandle the original languages – this one is especially insidious because the anonymous writer of the article sounds like he actually knows what he is talking about, but a careful reading shows that his claims and arguments break up against the facts. Below, I have edited out some of the scripture citations from my response to the list, but those can easily be found by reference to the article itself.

Let this mind be in you which [was] also in Christ Jesus, who, subsisting
in the form of God, did not esteem seizing upon equality with God but
emptied himself

Whence this translation? For comparison, the ESV:

Php 2:6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with
God a thing to be grasped...

I see that other translations are included below. Now, as to the
translation provided above, I'll have a few comments at the end of my
response.

The Trinitarian Claim

It is somewhat difficult to specifically state what Trinitarians claim
concerning this passage. A survey of Trinitarian commentaries reveals wide
disagreement concerning the overall interpretation of this verse and/or
concerning certain aspects or details of this verse. The verse also
contains several translation difficulties. However, Trinitarian apologetics
generally insists that this verse identifies Jesus as "God" and also
insists this verse describes the pre-existent Jesus not considering his
ontological reality of deity and divine glory but humbles himself to become
a human being. Along with this interpretation, Trinitarians usually insist
that Jesus also gave up some of his divine perogatives or some similar
idea.

One would be interested in the "Trinitarian commentaries" surveyed by the
writer. But yes, the passage is an incredibly powerful and direct witness
to the deity of Christ and his humiliation on behalf of the Christian's
redemption.

Examination of the Claim

1. Translations

One of the first difficulties with this passage involves the translation
which is reflected in the variations among translations.

(Standard translations omitted)

And his point in citing these translations, other than proving that the
majority of translators, who have actually studied the original languages in
depth, tend to agree on the translation?

2. The Greek Grammar and Structure

oV en morfh qeou uparcwn ouc
who in form of God subsisting not
arpagmon hghsato to einai isa qew
seized thing esteemed that to be equal of God

At this point, the transliteration is hopelessly garbled, but allow me to supply the actual Greek (and I have attempted to supply both Greek and transliteration throughout my response):

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

3. Harpagmos

A key word in this passage is the Greek word harpagmos which the KJV has
translated as "robbery." Such a translation however is ludicrous. First, if
this verse was referring to the co-equal second person of the Trinity, as
Trinitarians claim, what sense would it make for God the Son to think it
might be robbery to be equal with God the Father. Is this a thought that
co-equal God the Father might possibly have toward the son too? Secondly,
this translation suggests that Jesus consider it well and good to be equal
with God when the point of the passage is that Jesus didn't regard such
things but humbled himself and served rather than esteeming his status.

Well, it's not exactly ludicrous if that's what the word means. What do the
standard lexicons say?

Friberg:

(1) literally something seized and held, plunder; (2) figuratively in PH
2.6 of Jesus' equality with God οὐχ ἁρπαγμόν ; (a) possibly, as not
forcefully grasping something one does not have something not to be seized,
not a prize to be seized; (b) probably, as not forcefully retaining
something for one's own advantage something not to be held onto, not a piece
of good fortune

Lowe & Nida:

that which is to be held on to forcibly - `something to hold by force,
something to be forcibly retained.' ὅς ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ ὑπάρχων οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν
ἡγήσατο τὸ εἶναι ἴσα θεῷ `he always had the nature of God and did not
consider that remaining equal with God was something to be held on to
forcibly' Php 2.6 (compare the rendering of ἁρπαγμός a in 57.235). Since
ἁρπαγμός may mean not only `to grasp something forcefully which one does not
have' (57.235) but also `to retain by force what one possesses,' it is
possible to translate Php 2.6 in two quite different ways. This second
interpretation of ἁρπαγμός presumes the position of Jesus prior to the
incarnation and hence his willingness to experience the kenosis or
`emptying' of his divine prerogatives. In any translation of Php 2.6 it is
important that both possible renderings be clearly indicated, one in the
text and the other in the margin.

LSJ

a seizing, booty, a prize

BAGD lists "robbery, prize, good fortune, rapture"

The noun form harpagmos is sometimes translated as "a plunder" in the sense
that a plunder is "a capture" or a "catch," something "caught" or most
specifically something "seized upon." In this way, that which was seized
upon in noun form is a "seizure." The central idea is something "seized
upon" or "grasped" or "snatched." When it is translated as "robbery" that
particular English word over-translates "harpazo" by putting a spin upon it
the Greek word does not convey.

According to the standard lexical references, the Greek word can bear that
meaning, and your source is being less than truthful when it reports that it
*does* not.

It has a much wider field of meaning and is not restricted to doing
something negative like stealing. The verb form simply means "to catch up"
or "to be caught up," "snatch up," "seize upon," "be seized," depending
whether it is active or passive. When one actively snatches or seizes
something he is actively "catching it up" or passively "being caught up"
with respect to himself. Now notice what Paul is talking about here. He is
saying we should have the same "attitude" or "mind" of Christ. What he is
saying is that Christ in his mind or attitude did not selfishly "seize
upon" being equal with God but humbled himself for our sakes in love. He
did not "seize upon" esteeming this equality with God, the form of God. The
idea here is that a son of God is a noble thing in contrast to being a
humble commoner of a man. As the Hebrews writer says, "although he was a
son, he learned obedience from what he suffered. In other words, Jesus did
not focus on his nobility as a son but humbled himself and served others.
He did not come to be served but to serve. Paul's is telling the Philippian
sons of God to do the same thing and not regard their high estate in Christ
but to humble themselves and have the same attitude.

Lexical fallacy. The verb form is one thing -- that does not mean that the
noun form has the same range of meaning, although often there will be
similarity. The writer here at least gets the application the text is
making, even if he doesn't quite seem to understand his lexical semantics.

4. Theos

The word theos in the phrase "form of theos" is anarthrous, that is, it has
no definite article. The word here is qualitative and means "divine" by
essence or nature.

The omission of the article in the oblique cases (genitive, dative,
accusative) is a regular feature of Paul's style. Here the case is
genitive, so this is not a predicate nominative, and the lack of the article
does not imply nature or quality as it might with the PN. It simply here
means "God." Apparently, the writer is not quite as conversant in Greek
grammar as he would lead us to think.

It is to this expression of glory that the words, being in the form of God,
refer. The word God is anarthrous here, referring not to any single person
of the Godhead but to deity as such...

Well, it still means God, God not as specified in any of his persons or
qualities, but God as God. It's not due to the fact that the word is
anarthrous, but due to it's normal sense. There are some who feel that
"God" otherwise unspecified in the NT always refers to the Father (e.g.,
Murray Harris).

essence in the translation comes from the demands of the Greek text here
since theos is anarthrous. The presence of the Greek article identifies,
its absence qualifies. Its absence emphasizes nature, essence.

Wow, sounds good -- too bad it doesn't really mean anything. Again, the
article is omitted most likely for stylistic reasons, and the writer of this
"article" reads something into it that is simply not there. Θεός, theos is also
considered a title or proper name, and so the article is optional as well.
BTW, the Greek word for form, μορφή, MORPHE, is similarly anarthrous. Is it the
nature or quality of the form which is emphasized? I think not (in fact,
the article is optionally omitted with abstract nouns, and here is in the
dative case). Notice that the translation used by the writer above renders
it with the English definite article:

"in the form of God"

Why do you think the translator includes the English definite article when
the Greek definite article is not there? Is that an error? Actually, it's
not, because, as I have pointed out elsewhere, the article and it's lack
does not map directly to the usage of the English definite and indefinite
articles. The author here needs to consider all the facts of Greek syntax
and usage, and especially how the particular author under consideration
handles the language. He apparently has not done so, and so ends up making
a fairly elementary mistake.

In this state of preincarnate being, Paul says that our Lord thought it not
robbery to be equal with God.

What? Above, he argues that you can't translate ἁρπαγμός hARPAGMOS as "robbery" and
then he blithely does so here?

Equality with God here does not mean equality with the other person of the
Godhead, but equality with deity as such. The word God is again anarthrous.
And this equality here is not equality in the possession of the divine
essence but in its expression, as the context indicates. However, the
expression presupposes the possession of that essence. (When Jesus Emptied
Himself, Kenneth Wuest, 1958, emphasis mine)

I'm not sure I even know what this means. It needs more context. Equality
with God here means... equality with God. It's referring either to God the
Father, or, as I suggested above, God in an undifferentiated sense.

What Wuest is saying is that the words in question actually mean, "form of
deity." The idea is not "form of another person called God" but "form of
divine essence" where the word theos is not a reference to "who" but a
reference to "what."

It's both a who and a what. The who is God. That implies the what.

5. Morphe

The Greek word morphe is only used 3 times in the New Testament, twice in
this passage and once in Mark 16:12, where it is translated as "form."
Although, Mark 16:12 is a contested passage, it does represent the manner
in which this word was used by ancient Greek speakers.

After that, He appeared in a different form to two of them while they were
walking along on their way to the country.

Well, it shows one aspect of the semantic range in use at the time the
longer ending was added to the text. For Luke's canonical text, he never
suggests that Jesus had a different form or appearance, simply that the
disciples didn't recognize him. The canonical NT word for "appearance" is
εἶδος, EIDOS (e.g., Luke 9:29).

The word morphe appears four times in the Septuagint (Greek Old Testament):

[Citations omitted)

The LXX and its influence on the choice of vocabulary by the NT authors
should be taken seriously, but:

1) More important is the use of the word at the time the document in
question (in this case Philippians) is being written, and

2) More important still is the use of the word in its local context.

Notice that for the LXX translators the word seems merely to have meant
"appearance," again, only one aspect of its semantic range.

We do also have cognate forms of the word morphe in the New Testament. The
word morphoo is the verb form of Morphe and is normally translated as "to
form." We also have the words symmorphe and symmorphoo which we usually
translate as "conform," or "transform." The latter two words mean "to be
formed together with." The words metamorphos and metamorphoo mean to be
"transformed." Metamorphoo is translated as "transfigured" in Matthew and
Mark.

Again, this is really a form (!) of the etymological fallacy. One does not
determine the meaning of the word based on its etymological relationship to
another word (in this case, the noun to the verb), but based on its usage in
its own contexts (lexical semantics 101, so to speak). In this case, the
word MORPHE is common throughout all periods of Greek literature, and so
there is no need for this comparison -- it's a mistaken methodology. Now,
if a word is a hapax legomenon or rare, then etymology or cognate forms
become important for determining the meaning, but that is not the case at
all with MORPHE. This is actually the case with hAPARGMOS above.

Traditionally, Trinitarians have relied upon the meaning of the Greek word
morphe as it is found in classical Greek. They have taken it to mean a
characteristic nature of being or something which is "intrinsic and
essential to the thing." (Lightfoot). However, the Bible was not written in
classical Greek. It was written in Koine Greek. Today, we have acquired
many Koine manuscripts discovered by archaeologists and dating from the
first century and we know that some terms had acquired new meanings in
later Koine Greek. Thanks to Kenneth Wuest, a Trinitarian, and Professor of
Greek at Moody Bible Institute, we have new information on the meaning of
the word morphe. By the time the New Testament had been written, morphe had
come to mean "a station in life, a position one holds, one's rank. And that
is an approximation of morphe in this context [Philippians 2]" (The
Practical Use of the Greek New Testament, p. 84).

What does the most recent lexigraphical scholarship have to say?

Friberg:

(1) form, external appearance; generally, as can be discerned through the
natural senses (MK 16.12); (2) of the nature of something, used of Christ's
contrasting modes of being in his preexistent and human states form, nature
(PH 2.6, 7)

Louw & Nida:

the nature or character of something, with emphasis upon both the internal
and external form - `nature, character.' ὅς ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ ὑπάρχων `he always
had the very nature of God' Php 2.6; μορφὴν δούλου λαβών `he took on the
nature of a servant' Php 2.7. In view of the lack of a closely corresponding
lexical item such as `nature,' it may be necessary to restructure the form
of Php 2.7 as `he became truly a servant.'

LSJ:

form, shape, Lat. forma, <́ι>σοὶ δ᾽ ἐπὶ μὲν μορφὴ ἐπέων thou hast power to
give shape to words, i. e. to give a colour of truth to lies, Od.;θεὸς
μορφὴν ἔπεσι στέφει God adds a crown of shapeliness to his words, id=Od.
[2.] form, shape, figure, esp. like Lat. forma, a fine or beautiful form,
Pind., Trag. [3.] generally, form, fashion, appearance, Soph., Xen. [4.] a
form, kind, sort, Eur., Plat.

BAGD:

form, outward appearance, shape

Moulton and Milligan, one of the most significant lexigraphical works of the
early 20th century, since it was based specifically in the Koine
non-literary papyri (building on the work of such figures as Deissmann) has
this to say:

"Hence this meaning [the technical metaphysical sense of Greek philosophy]
must not be over-pressed in the NT occurences, though μορφή [MORPHE] 'always
signifies a form which truly and fully expresses the being which underlies
it...'"

They then go on to cite the usage in various papyri.

"Although "form" is a correct translation of morphe, it can give the
impression that the one called Christ merely had the external appearance of
divinity, but did not possess the inner reality of what it means to be
divine. This, however, is not the meaning of the Greek word, as nearly all
commentators indicate. In Greek, morphe refers to "the specific form on
which identity and status depend," and the term might be better rendered as
"nature" or "status." Thus Paul's initial point that Christ was in the form
of God means that he had a divine status. The claim that the one who
possessed this divine status took the morphe of a slave establishes the
basic contrast of the text and confirms what is said above. Christ who had
a divine status now takes on the status of a slave. The reference here is
to real status and position rather than mere outward appearance." (Matera,
Frank J., New Testament Christology, Westminster John Knox Press; 1st
edition (March 1999), p. 128).

Ok, this is right, actually, if understood properly. But think about it -- if Jesus really and
truly had divine status, that makes him God in the fullest sense of the
word.

Thayers Greek Lexicon says:

The form by which a person or thing strikes the vision; the external
appearance: children are said to reflect psuches te kai morphes homoioteta
(of their parents) (418).


Another comtemporary of Paul, Philo, used the term morphe to refer to the
outward appearance of chlidren. (De Legatione, 55). Wannamaker also
indicates that the wisdom of ancient Antiquity perceived children to have
the outward appearance, morphe of their parents.

We now know that the word morphe meant a station in life, a rank, a
position, a status, in Koine Greek. We can know this for certain because
Paul also refers to the morphe of a servant. A particular nature or essence
does not make you a servant. It is a position in life. In the same manner,
if you are a son of God, it means you share that divine position because
you are a sharer in the divine nature as Peter says (2 Peter 1:4), that is,
the Holy Spirit (cf. Heb 6:4). Paul is saying the MAN Jesus, the man of
flesh, even though he was a Son of God, didn't seize upon esteeming this
particular equality with God, that is, the equality of sharing in a divine
status with God. Rather he humbled himself unto death. In the same way, the
Philippians, who were sharers in the divine nature, the Holy Spirit, weree
not to seize upon this equality with God; they were not to seize upon so
esteeming their sharing of the divine nature that they became high minded
about their noble status. They are not to seize upon esteeming this
equality but are to have the mind of a humble servant. To share is such a
divine status in this manner, the divine nature, is to be noble rather than
a humble servant. And this language is quickly seen in this passage in the
Greek language.

We know now the word morphe meant a station in life, a position, a status,
and did not mean "essenbce of a thing" as Trinitarians have always claimed.
Thanks to Greek scholar Kenneth Wuest, himself a Trinitarian. Notice that
Jesus took the morphe of a servant. Should we argue that it is someone's
essence that makes you a servant? Certainly not. To be a servant is a
position, a rank, a status, a station in life.

The logic expressed here is not clear at all. In fact, the parallelism of
the clauses indicates precisely the opposite, that Jesus, who was really
God, became an actual servant. Now, I notice a bit of disengenuousness
here. Does Wuest (whom you will rarely see quoted in scholarly literature,
for good reasons) actually state that MORPHE means "status?" You will
search the lexicons in vain for this usage, because it's unattested. That
makes it extremely unlikely that it has any such sense here. So the "now we
know" really is deceptive. The writer should have stated "In my opinion,
based on these considerations," or some such. The use of deceptive language
does not inspire confidence.

When Paul, says that Jesus was in the morphe of God he is referring to the
same thing Peter says about Christians. We are sharers in the divine nature
(2 Peter 1:4). And just as Christ was a sharer in the divine nature, these
Philippians who are sharers in the divine nature were to have the same
attitude as Jesus. Having this divine nature makes you the same as God in
that respect. Jesus did not seize upon esteeming this equality with God but
humbled himself taking the morphe of a servant. And the Philippians were
not to seize upon esteeming this equality with God but humble themselves.

Highly unlikely, and would require a lot more exegesis to prove, which is
not provided here. Notice that in 2 Pet 1:4 none of the same vocabulary is
used as in Phil 2:6.

And why does this writer so inconsistently keep rendering Phil 2:6? "seize
upon esteeming this equality with God" is not the same as the translation he
provides above, "esteem seizing upon equality with God."

6. Schema

The word schema is only found in one other placein the New Testament. Like
morphos, there are several occurrences in the New Testament of cognates of
schema. It is where we get our English word "scheme" and means: "pattern,"
"fashion," "configuration."

It is, however, a common word throughout Greek literature (like MORPHE) and
would give no trouble to any reader or hearer conversant in Greek.

For the pattern (schema) of this world is passing away. (1 Corinthians
7:31).

I see -- he seems to be stuck on the same mistaken methodology as above with
MORPHE.

(Citations without discussion omitted)

So, is this all? What's his point? I expected a discussion the meaning of
SCHEMA at least as extensive as on MORPHE, but no such luck.

7. Equality

The word translated as "equality" or "equal" means "same as." It means he
currently has a divine nature the "same as" God. The Trinitarian apologist
will usually claim that "equality with deity" means that since he had the
exact same nature as God he therefore IS "God." In both cases, he makes an
unwarranted leap by trying to claim what you are makes you who you are.
Having the nature of Adam does not make us Adam and having the nature of
God does not make anyone God. But Paul does not identify Jesus as "God."
Moreover, being equal with someone does not mean you ARE that person.

This discussion is insufficient. It's an articular infinitive phrase, and
emphasizes the fact or state of the ISA (equal). The neuter plural ISA
suggests to me a comprehensive state (or it could simply be an idiomatic
plural).

The confusion in the statement above is also apparent. It assumes that
Jesus is the same person as the Father. He's not -- he's the Son, and shares
the same nature, making him equal to God the Father and the Spirit, but not
identical to them in every respect.

8. Kenosis

And an even more important word is the verb kenoo. Theologians often refer
to this act of Christ as kenosis, the noun form of kenoo. The word kenoo
means "to empty" "to nullify" or "to make void." At Philippians 2:16, Paul
uses this same word to say he runs so that his labours were not in vain, or
his labors were not null, void, empty. The word plainly means that Christ
emptied himself by unselfishly serving others even unto death. There was
nothing left for him to give. He completely gave everything.

The problem with this interpretation is that it ignores the context, which
clearly refers to the contrast between Christ's pre-incarnate state and his
incarnation. What the writer of the article here suggests is part of the
Christ's humiliation, but only a part. Exegetically, the implications of
KENOW in this context must satisfy or correspond with the previous
statement, and this intepretation does not suffice for that.

Analysis of the Evidence

>1. The Utter Absurdity of the Trinitarian Interpretation

Too many errors and problems in the writer's handling of the evidence to
reach this conclusion.

Trinitarians ultimately interpret this passage to say that Jesus was,
before his incarnation, existing in the form of God and he is therefore
God. At this point there is a divergence in opinion. Some claim that it
means Jesus did not think it robbery to esteem this equality with God so he
kept his form of God when he humbled himself. Others realize this
interpretation is quite absurd since (1) it claims God the Son didn't think
it was robbery to be equal with God the Father, and (2) Jesus considering
it not robbery to be divinely equal with God is completely inconsistent
with the following words, "but he emptied himself." Indeed, how can it make
sense to say "Jesus didn't think it was wrong to be God so he emptied
himself taking the form of a servant." It is ridiculously nonsensical.

Part of this "difference of interpretation" results from the precise
semantical value of hARPAGMOS.

And the divergence continues in their interpretations. At this point, some
say he gave up his "glory." Others say he gave up some of his "divine
perogatives." Yet others say he simply subjected himself to God the Father
for a time. None of these claims comes with any evidence which is why there
is such a wide variety of claims.

Giving up his glory and giving up his divine prerogatives is largely the same
thing. However, I can help the writer understand the wide variety of claims
(if three different claims is considered a wide variety)– it has to do with
the specific theological value each interpreter is attempting to derive from
the text. What these interpreters agree on, however, is that regardless of
the precise nature of the kenosis, Jesus was God before the incarnation and
remained God after the incarnation.

And even further. Paul is telling the Philippians they need to have the
same attitude as Jesus. What kind of ridiculous thing were the Philippians
supposed to imitate here? Since Jesus decided it was not robbery to keep
his divine nature were the Philippians to have a similar attitude and keep
something for themselves? And does this not make Jesus into a hypocrite who
asks others to give up everything when he himself will not? Even further,
with what kind of ridiculous thinking do we suppose the Trinitarian God the
Son would not consider it robbery to be God when he is God? What kind of
nonsense are we supposed to believe here?

And what ridiculous thing is the writer trying to imply here? Paul uses
this theological truth to impress on his readers the necessity for humility
and service. The writer is just playing with words here in a rather
transparent attempt to deny the what the text actually says. Jesus, who was
God, humbled himself as a human being, as a slave (DOULOS). if Jesus, of
all people, was willing to do this, how much more so should we be willing
(argumentum a minore)?

2. The Context: Contrasting the Esteem the High Estate of Nobility with the
Humility of Servanthood

Notice the word "esteem," or "regard," used both here and a few verses
prior with respect to the Philippians themselves. Being children of God
means being children of the divine King and it means nobility. It is hard
to see in English but this is what these Greek words convey. Paul is
instructing the Philippians not to regard, or esteem themselves, above one
another but to have the mind of Christ who did not seize upon existing in
the form of God that he now enjoys in his resurrection glory. The Greek
word translated as "esteem" carries with it a view to nobility. In other
words, Jesus' very nobility was being in the form of God. Paul elsewhere
says that Jesus who was rich became poor for our sakes. Yes, he was a son
of God but he did not seize upon esteeming this reality but instead humbled
himself and served others. To Paul, being poor is servanthood, the form of
a commoner. Since they interpret this verse to mean Jesus humbled himself
in an incarnation, the Trinitarian would have it that this verse means that
Christ did not become poor for us but kept the wealth of his noble nature
when he incarnated while he paraded around in disguise in a humble poor
human body and his humility was having to put up with his common human
nature while also living in his divine nature.

1) How do the Greek words convey the sense of nobility? I don't see that
concept here particularly at all. What I do see is the contrast between
proud behavior and humble behavior, with Christ as the supreme example of
the latter. And no, the Trinitarian does not say this at all. It is clear
that the incarnation means suffering in the human experience, living as the
practical equivalent of a slave, that "the Son of man came not to be served,
but to serve" (Mark 6:45). The incarnation, and the kenosis, are very real,
and serve the purposes of God redeeming his elect.

2) "Esteem" (hEGEOMAI) simply means that he didn't value his status as the
Son of God more than he valued the church.

[Theological reflection omitted]

Conclusion

We have here a passage that not only does not support Trinitarianism, it
militates heavily against it. Jesus Christ did not seize upon esteeming the
equality he had with God by sharing his divine nature of Holy Spirit. And
neither should the Philippians, who Peter says, are sharers in the divine
nature. Rather, he gave up absolutely everything for us and did not seize
upon esteeming the noble estate of being a partaker of the divine nature.
For this great act of unselfish love he is to be praised. And when he rose
again Spirit swallowed up his flesh in victory and Spirit and flesh became
one and his body of flesh was made a new kind of humanity, a glorified
humanity, and as such, he has the nature of deity, the form of God. And the
Apostles tell us that we too will have this nature (Php 3:20-21; 1 Cor
15:45,49; 2 Peter 1:4; 1 Jn 3:2) and like Jesus, we won't be "God" by
identity either.

Again, the writer's mishandling of the Greek and his exegetical fallacies
strongly militate againt this conclusion. A couple more observations:

The Translation of the text:

With several variations (noted above) this appears to be the translation the
writer wants to use:

Let this mind be in you which [was] also in Christ Jesus, who, subsisting
in the form of God, did not esteem seizing upon equality with God but
emptied himself...

Now, this is problematic because the writer (who I assume is providing us
with this translation) hasn't really paid attention to the grammar of the
text. "Seizing upon equality with God" simply cannot work – it's essentially
an impossible rendering.

1) It provides a verbal force for hARPAGMOS as "seizing" and transforms the
articular infinitive phrase τὸ εἶναι ἴσα θεῷ, TO EINAI ISA THEWi as the object of that verbal
action. Now, while nouns can sometimes have verbal force (e.g. a noun like
"love" implies the action involved in loving), they don't take accusative
direct objects. Every single translation rightly sees the articular
infinitive as as the direct object of "esteem" (ἡγήσατο, hHGHSATO) and hARPAGMON in
apposition with it. If the writer is going to claim otherwise, that has to
be argued (and he'll lose the argument, I guarantee it).

2) The Greek would have to be re-written in order to justify the rendering
above. One possible way to do this would be to put the articular infinitive
into the genitive, τοῦ, TOU... While the genitive articular infinitive is often
used of purpose, context would make it clear that it would be an objective
genitive with hARPAGMOS. There are other possible ways of phrasing it to
get the meaning the writer of the article wants. Unfortunately for him,
Paul did not use any of them.

Exegesis

The writer of the article has manage to ignore certain exegetical details
(the fallacy of selective evidence) in presenting his case, including the
parallelism between "form of God" and "form of a slave," and the parallelism
between "likeness of man" and "appearance of man." Now, in fact the writer
did mention these, but didn't really deal with the implications of the
parallelism. The structure of the passage is nearly as important as the
lexical items used, but the writer ignores this. Earlier, I presented some
exegetical notes on the text, which can also be found at my blogsite,
http://my.opera.com/BarryHofstetter/blog/show.dml/134723. Two excellent
exegetical commentaries on the text are Lightoot's and Silva's, Silva being
late 20th century publication. Lightfoot is early 20th century, but is
still quite valuable.

I've been interacting on his blog:

http://cathapol.blogspot.com/2012/02/god-of-calvinism.html

Feel free to chime in if you've a mind to do so.

According to some experts, there are at least 6 different types of classical education models. Perhaps the most familiar to many is the Trivium method. I'd like to suggest in this essay that what is most important is not the particular shape or form of any one model, but certain basic principles that have to be in place for any educational model to work. I'm going to focus specifically on "liberal arts" type stuff, since I am singularly unqualified to talk about math and science, though I believe any decent program needs good stiff doses of both.

1) Kids have to be taught to read. I don't mean simply the mechanics of reading, though of course we start with that, but they have to be taught to read in depth. They have to be taught to understand what they are reading, and reflect on it based on a Christian worldview (remember, these essays are about Christian education). This requires the teacher to read with the students, to encourage them to think about what they are reading, and to guide their interpretation of the text. Will this bias the students? Absolutely. I would argue students can only begin to appreciate other viewpoints if they have a good, solid viewpoint to begin. In my own educational experience, teachers who tried to be broad and open about issues were often as bland as white rice and as nourishing as cardboard. Teachers who really believed something, even if I disagreed, were far more inspiring and informative.

Along with this, what the student reads is key. Looking over the curriculum for 7th and 8th graders when I was teaching a summer English course to those grade levels, I was singularly unimpressed with nearly all the choices recommended by various educational websites. Instead, why not read really good literature? I actually ended up doing "The War of the Worlds" with one group -- not only well written, but seminal science fiction. Many of our modern authors show their debt to previous generations of writers. Why not start our students with the source and foundation, rather than derivative materials?

Let me give one anecdotal example. I had a student who was quite taken with the Warhammer series. Not exactly "great" literature even by modern standards. I asked him about a current book in that series that he was reading. He commented that there was less action in the book than in others of the series, but a lot on the actual composition and politics of the galactic empire. I asked him, "Do you think you would appreciate that piece of it, if it weren't for what you had learned here through studying history and literature?" He replied, "I probably wouldn't like it at all, but you're right -- the galactic empire is really the Roman Empire writ large..." Now, that's a paraphrase of what he actually said, but true to the spirit of it. If he can do that with one novel, he can do it with many more, and not just novels.

Speaking of Classics, a thorough exposure to classical literature itself is essential to grasp the entire Western literary tradition. Now part of this is the biblical tradition -- biblical literacy is extremely important not only in its own right, but also for understanding the majority of literature penned in the Western world since the triumph of Christianity in late antiquity. Of nearly equal importance for the latter is the classical tradition, the actual writings produced in the ancient world. Homer, the Greek and Roman playwrights, Vergil, Cicero. Again, we cannot truly understand or appreciate the development of the Western Tradition apart from these and other authors of that period. How can we grasp the Founding Father's understanding of democracy unless we kow the Greeks and the signficiance of the Battle of Marathon? We cannot fully understand our modern world unless we understand how Augustus reformulated the Republic into the Empire. By analogy, the difference is between reading for surface understanding and reading in depth. Which we do we want the future leaders of our society to have?

Now, someone might object that "What you've said is fine, but isn't it sufficient simply to read these things in translation? Why bother learning Latin and Greek, I mean, that's so, like, 19th century..."

My complete answer will be in the next blog entry. Here, suffice it to say that while reading in translation is good, especially with a good teacher, learning the original languages brings benefits both immediate and long term, or, as the apostle Paul might say, "much in every way."

I plan to write a series of posts on Christian Education, K-12. This is something I have been involved with off and on since 1989, and especially now, teaching at the American Academy, where both my daughters also attend. I'd like to start with this question, and I'd like to invite responses:

Why is Christian education not one of the most important issues facing the church today?

Let me tell you where I'm coming from. My perspective is that of Cornelius Van Til and J. Gresham Machen, who saw the education of our covenant children as one of the most important tasks of the church, and saw just how important it was that this education take place within the covenant community. They saw, and I agree, that to entrust the education of future leaders and members of the church to those outside the covenant community was simply something that was completely wrong.

And yet, very few Christians seem to take this responsibility seriously today. Any number of church members, even pastors and elders, see little or no problem with sending their children to government schools where anything but the gospel truth (literally) is communicated, and a great deal that is virulently opposed to biblical truth. They see nothing wrong with exposing their children 5 or 6 hours a day, 5 days a week for 180 days to teaching that they would never allow in their homes. Not to mention the social influence of the teachers and fellow students, many of whom most certainly do not hold to biblical values.

In conversation with some of these people, we are told that the PCA position paper on Christian Education is pious advice. If it's so pious, one wonders why more people don't take it? I have seen stiff resistance to the idea that government schools are just wrong and that Christian schools and home schooling are superior, both morally and educationally.

So, what do you think? Why are Christians in general so unconcerned with this issue, and so many willing to let their children be educated in the household of Baal? Why is it considered a lifestyle option? Do you agree or disagree, and what can be done about it?

Far too quickly, my daughters are getting older now. My 14 year old is talking about her driver's license and college major. My 12 year old is not far behind. My parents and the older people I knew when I was a child were absolutely right – time starts flying much too fast when you get older! I was looking at some of the toys and other gifts that we have gotten the girls over the brief time that God has entrusted us with them, items in our basement no longer used or perhaps even remembered (unless they do one of their occasional "excavations"). The thought occurred to me:

We didn't get these gifts because we had to, or to make the girls love us, or for any other reason except the fact that we loved them and wanted them to be happy at the time. We weren't trying to make them feel good about us when they were teenagers, or trying to get them to obey us better because they like us somehow – we got them those gifts only because we love them and want them to be happy.

Now, there's a lot more that goes into parenting, discipline, and sometimes making decisions that don't make the child immediately happy – we want our children to grow up good, not just happy, but as I reflected on this, I realized that I suddenly understood, on a much deeper level, God's love for us and why he gives us his gifts of grace, starting with Jesus himself (Eph 1:3-14). It's simply because he loves us, not to get anything out of us, not because we love him, but because he loves us...