This is the first of a few blogs that will be exploring how other texts in the bible interpret Philippians 2:5-8 FOR us,making it simple to understand that a "hypostatic union" is not only improbable,but imo,impossible if I am right that the texts I will be using positively correlate with Philippians 2.This first blog(with an attached video)in the series deals with 2 Corinthians 8:9 in relation to Philippians.I already have a blog on this particular correlation if you'd like to read it here:
1st blog on 2 Cor. 8:9 in relation to Phil. 2
I wanted to simplify it as much as I could for a video.First,let us just look at the texts.
Philippians 2:5 In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus:6 Who, being in very nature God,(in the form of God would be a better interpretation,sorry)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.
8 And being found in appearance as a man,he humbled himself by becoming obedient to death—even death on a cross!
2 Corinthians 8:9 For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, so that you through his poverty might become rich.
Now you will usually be able to get trinitarians and Arians to admit this correlates explicitly with Philippians 2.However,that would cause a real problem for them.Because they would then have to admit,according to their own interpretation of Philippians,that Christ's "richness" entailed his "pre-existent deity as the second person of a triune God" or as "pre-existing spirit creature."However,2 Corinthians here says that WE,through Christ's poverty "might become rich."To say "well Christ's richness meant as deity,but ours means as children of God" would be positively absurd.Yes,our "richness" within this text is compared to Christ's.So question is..what was the richness in Corinthians,which correlates with "form of God" in Philippians?If it's something we can have,apparently it is that we are "children of God,fellow heirs with Christ" destined for glory.(Rom. 8:16,17)Is that not what Christ also was?Could that not define Christ's "richness?"A child and heir of God,born of God, destined for glory.Absolutely.
As for the "poverty" of Christ in Corinthians,this would correlate with "making himself nothing, taking the form of a servant" from Philippians.How was this accomplished?Well,we've already established that "richness",if it does in fact correlate with "form of God" in Philippians,CANNOT be Christ as true God because we too can have the same richness.So working from that starting point,"taking the form of a servant" and "poverty" would be,not that deity took on human form but that the Son of God as a rich man who was heir to a kingdom,who deserved nothing less than to be served as well as a remarkable exaltation,instead humbled himself all the way to an ignominious,gut-wrenching fate on a cross!He served others humbly ,even dying for them,even though he was king and Lord of them.Yes,though he was rich,he became poor for us!
As James Dunn notes in "Christology in the Making"
"When Paul elsewhere speaks of "grace"(gracious gift,or gracious act)in connection with what Christ has done he was always thinking of his death and resurrection.(see esp. Rom. 5:15,21;Gal. 2:20;Eph. 1:6).Nowhere else does he talk of Christ's "gracious act" as his becoming man."p. 121
In review:
If Christ's "richness" was as "pre-existent deity",then *why and how* are we said to be rich within the same,I repeat same, passage?If you insist on interpreting "richness" differently for Christ than for us,essentially,then on what logical exegetical basis would this make sense within the very same passage?Do you believe(or not) that Christ's "richness" in 2 Corinthians 8:9 correlates with his being in the "form of God" in Philippians?If so,then when scripture is allowed to interpret itself,*how* is "richness" defined if we too can have it?Rich as true God?Or rich as children of God/heirs/future kings?Was Christ a child of God?Was he heir and king?Would it not then make sense that he was rich THAT way,as opposed to "rich" as the "2nd person of a triune essence in heaven"?Within 2 Corinthians 8:9,the "grace of Christ" was his "becoming poor",which would explicitly correlate with "made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being found in the likeness of men" from Philippians 2.Agreed? Wouldn't this suggest that, in correlation with 2 Corinthians 8:9, that Philippians 2:5-8 would then be that Christ as a *rich man who was a child of God*(as opposed to a rich pre-existing "true God")humbling himself even to death at the cross,as opposed to God becoming a man?Since the bible always,I repeat always, defines the grace of Christ as his death and resurrection,and never as God becoming a man?
No comments:
Post a Comment