This is the second blog in a series where I will prove that the trinitarian interpretation of Philippians 2:5-8,in light of correlating texts,is easily proven not only difficult,but downright impossible.In this blog,we'll explore Philippians 2:5-8 in light of it's correlation with Matthew 20:28.
Scripture # 2:
Matthew 20:28 just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many."
I think "Son of man" correlates with "form of God" in Philippians.Because,clearly,Christ was born as a man with God as his father.Christ was the Son of God AS a man.Children are the images of their father. Also, "came to serve"(from Matthew) correlates with "made himself nothing and took the form of a servant"(from Philippians).In addition,"gave his life as a ransom for many" from Matthew correlates with "humbled himself to the point of death" from Philippians.If I am right that Matthew 20:28 correlates with Philippians 2,then this proves that Christ as a man was the "form of God",simply enough.And that the humiliation in view from Philippians happened as a rich man who deserved only to BE served becoming poor for us by "serving",as a sinless man who didn't deserve to die choosing to die for us.As opposed to a pre-existing deity becoming a man for us.
Would you agree that "serve and give his life" from Matthew would easily correlate with " taking the form of a servant" and "humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death" from Philippians?Hmm..sounds exactly the same.Would this not then prove that Christ was the "form of God" in fact AS the "Son of man" since Matthew says that it is that MAN,as opposed to a pre-existing God in heaven,who "served and gave his life" as the REAL humiliation in view in Matthew and Philippians?Wouldn't this all go back to Christ being rich and sinless AS A HUMAN BEING who was king and Lord,yet serving and dying for others as if he weren't Lord of them,as if he weren't even sinless?(since it is only sin that leads to death!)Wouldn't all this seem to suggest rather explicitly that Christ as a man was the Son of God,as opposed to Christ as a man was a only a nature that God took on? As opposed to Christ as Son of God actually BEING God?Again,if I'm right about Matthew 20:28 correlating with Philippians 2,then it is proven with zero doubt that Christ was in the form of God as a man and not as the second person of a trinity.And also NOT as Michael the archangel or the Angel of the Lord..that has to be imported INTO all the texts in question.If you choose to argue that Christ is called "son of man" in Matthew 20:28 only AFTER his humiliation in Philippians,then how could you possibly prove this when the humiliation and abasement is precisely communicated as a rich sinless man serving and humbling himself unto death as if he were poor,as if he were criminal,as if he inherited sin like other men?If what I just proposed is the humiliation in view,then why must another be imposed?
Christ was in the "form of God" AS the "Son of man" who was very rich as heir,king and Lord.Yahushua CHOSE to serve and die for others,and that is the only humiliation communicated anywhere.He was a rich man who became poor for us.Not a rich God who became man for us.God or Archangel becoming man for us has to be imported and imposed.The humbling and absement from Philippians is defined as his taking on sin,serving,and suffering in correlating texts.He did this from the starting point of a rich man who knew zero sin,who didn't deserve to serve,suffer,or die.He deserved to be served,to never have to die,and zero suffering as the kind of man he really was(rich,sinless,perfect,Lord).Simple as that.