Hebrews 5:8 and Philippians 2:5:rightly dividing the word of truth

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Matthew 20:28 & Philippians 2:5-8:Rightly dividing the Word of truth

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?

Conclusion:
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.

2 Corinthians 8:9 & Phil. 2:5-8:Rightly dividing the word of truth

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?

Philippians 2:5-11 and 2 Corinthians 8:9

Because I already wrote sort of an extensive blog on these Philippians scriptures,I will make this one brief.It will not be nearly as thorough as the other so I recommend reading the other one in addition to this one to address any further concerns or questions that you may have.You can find it here:

Does Philippians 2:4-11 prove that God became a man?


Philippians 2:5 Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, 6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. 9 Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name

The point I desire to make in this blog is these texts' explicit correlation with 2 Corinthians 8:9.This will simplify and make very concise,easy,and clear the intent of the Philippians passages.So let's examine:

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.

Even trinitarians understand how this correlates with and sheds light upon Philippians 2:5-11.Yet amazingly enough,they still think Christ's "richness" was his "divine identity as the second person of a triune God."Notice this text,however,says that *we too* become rich.Howso?

Ephesians 1:6 to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved. 7 In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace, 8 which he lavished upon us, in all wisdom and insight

So being "rich" means being in God's grace and favor,through Christ.My guess would be that this would be as our being his son or daughter,close to him and full of his spirit.As heirs and recipients of an unimaginable imperishable glory,possessing an invaluable relationship with the creator of the universe.Is that not what Yahushua had as the Last Adam before he humbled himself at the cross?So basically there's no reason to read into Christ's "richness" deity equal to his own God's as the second person of three in some mysterious "essence."To do so would be eisegesis.Now that I've covered what Christ's "richness" *really* was(the same kind we can obtain),let's also let scripture define what his grace and poverty was.

Romans 5:15 But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man's trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many.

and verse 17: For if, because of one man's trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ.

From Christ's humbling himself like a good for nothing criminal/slave at the cross for the life and salvation of faithful mankind,we are able to experience the "grace of our Lord Jesus Christ."It is the "poverty" he experienced by his humiliation at the cross as opposed to the "poverty" he experienced supposedly gaining a "man nature"(according to trinitarians) that is clearly in view,that makes our own "richness" possible!Take note that the texts don't say anything about God humbling himself unto death(That's impossible.Nor is it possible for a "nature" or a "body" devoid of a person to die.),but rather a "man" doing so."Godman" has to be read INTO the texts as an ultimately unwarranted inference.

To make all this even more clear,examine:

Galatians 2:20 I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. 21 I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness were through the law, then Christ died for no purpose.

So the grace of God WAS Christ's "poverty", defined here as Christ's "giving himself for me" and "dying."Notice,once again,that Christ's "poverty"(which correlates explicitly with his humiliation communicated in Philippians 2) is not defined as God becoming a man.But rather as the Last Adam,the sinless and blemishless image of God,being treated as if he deserved utter humiliation,an ignominious fate,a grotesque painful death at the cross.He clearly did NOT deserve this.Yes,his being found in the likeness of men simply meant that he had to die like sinful men though that is not what he was.He was a rich and sinless man,full of his father's spirit,grace,and love.However,despite this,"God made him(Yahushua) who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God."(2 Corinthians 5:21)This is how Yahushua humbled himself to be like (sinful)men even though he was the sinless Last Adam.Though Phil 2:7 in the ESV bible says "born in the likeness of men",it could just as well read "being made like men",which reiterates the previous point in the same verse in my opinion,which was that he "made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant."Howso,again?By becoming sin for us and humbling himself so graciously.Men inherited sin from Adam which leads to death.Yahushua had no sin yet became sin for us.Even the first Adam had God's image,so should it be any wonder the Last faithful and true one had the "form of God?"(Phil. 2:6)Form is synonymous with image.(Genesis 1.27; 5.3,2 Corinthians 4.4; Col 1.15)

In summary,the humiliation in view in Philippians should be seen not as God becoming a man to die at the cross but as a very rich man becoming poor for our sake.A sinless heir and king becoming sin for us.

Does Philippians 2:4-11 prove that God became a man?

*Brief disclaimer*Please don't take my word for anything!If your spirit doesn't bear witness with God's that something you read is true,don't accept it.Prayerfully consider what seems rational and question EVERYONE.Question your teachers and preachers as much as you question me!Question your traditions and trust the spirit to guide you.The youtubes are below.

The historical context is that the Philippian church had within it “selfish ambition” (1:15; 2:3) and “vain conceit” (2:3), arguing and lack of consideration for others (2:4 and 14), and a need for humility, purity and blamelessness (2:3 and 15). (scriptures I gathered from a website.)These are the human tendencies we sometimes have to be disciplined for thanks to the Adamic fall and our tainted flesh.So Paul here in Philippians is exhorting them to imitate Christ in how he humbled himself,not to conceive we're *Gods who become men* but men who put others first,not seeking our own interests but those of others.We are told to have the same mind as Christ so if that mind was one of God who became a man then these scriptures aren't helpful to anyone.Let's examine them.

Philippians 2:4 Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others.

Verse 4 establishes a context of self sacrifice and humility.Though we are free future kings in Christ,a holy priesthood being built up,gifted and privileged to know God and be in his love,a special inheritance(1 Pet. 2:5)..we are to be willing to sacrifice anything for others and even give our own lives for the sake of Christ and the good news if need be!Christ knew he must accept the horrendous fate of a degrading humiliating death to ensure the fulfillment of God's word and purposes for mankind!Would we be willing to do the same,knowing our exaltation is imminent,for God's love?The "dual nature" doctrine robs Christians from actually being able to imitate Christ because he wasn't ever a true man,only God with an "added nature."He never ultimately emptied anything,but rather "gained something" that limited him whenever a trinitarian so tells you that is the case to fit their mold. These texts are rather about being faithful by putting others before our own interests and desires and being willing to suffer anything for Yah and the kingdom and others like Christ was.to:

Phil 2:5 Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus

Is the mind we're asked to have here one of a True God or preexistent heavenly spirit creature willing to empty ourselves of that glory to become a Godman(fully God with only a "man nature") or a man?OR is the mind we're asked to have one of self sacrifice,again,being willing to suffer anything for the sake of the kingdom?The answer to that question should give you the key to the true understanding of these verses and the KIND of humbling in view that Christ suffered for his ultimate glory.In other words, NOT a preexistent creature falling to earth to live among men but of a king with a privileged inheritance and relationship with God being willing to suffer like a good for nothing criminal/slave.

Here's a quote from:http://www.biblecenter.de/bibliothek/baixeras/philippians2.html


"In reality these verses are very simple. They are very practical verses written to the Philippians on how they are to conduct themselves in this world. How are we to conduct ourselves? Not by imitating Adam who lost everything by his attempted grab for power (his own desires), but by imitating Christ who through his humility and obedience to God (God’s will) gained it all."--
Juan Baixeras

Moving on..

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

Morphe(*form* in Greek) is synonymous,interchangeable even,with eikon(the word for image).Even the FIRST Adam had the image of God.And the first one(Jesus is called the Last Adam),being in the image of God,gifted and made to live forever to fulfill the will of God by caring for the earth in perfect peace and bliss,DID count equality with God "a thing to be grasped" when he partook of the fruit that Satan told him would ensure his "being like God."Jesus is being contrasted here from the first Adam in these texts' historical context.You might occasionally(or often depending upon your studies) encounter trinitarian sophistry where a theologian will claim something like James White does when he says "form" in Philippians 2:6 means "the outward display of the inner reality of substance"(people are ACTUALLY buying this)which is HIGHLY improbable given the use of the word in other texts where it has nothing to do with an inner substance.(Mark 16:12,2 Timothy 3:1-5,Dan. 3:19,Is. 44:13).Put simply,in the first Adam/Last Adam contrast that Paul is establishing in these verses,the Last One(our extolled Lord and king)did not try to seize equality with God like the first one did by defying his creator when he partook of temptation thinking he could "be like God",again.Christ rather,unlike Adam,didn't want or try to seize or snatch violently(what the Greek word for *grasp* means) equality with God which can ONLY mean he didn't possess equality with God in the first place.Because no way can you steal or try to snatch violently from someone something you already possess.Somehow trinitarians have ventured from the true meaning of "grasped" to a fictional idea of "holding fast" (in that they say Christ could try to rob what he already has?!)It makes moot of the true sense of the verse.

The Expositor's Greek Testament says: “We cannot find any passage where [har·pa´zo] or any of its derivatives [including har·pag·mon´] has the sense of ‘holding in possession,' ‘retaining'. It seems invariably to mean ‘seize,' ‘snatch violently'. Thus it is not permissible to glide from the true sense ‘grasp at' into one which is totally different, ‘hold fast.'”—(Grand Rapids, Mich.; 1967), edited by W. Robertson Nicoll, Vol. III, pp. 436, 437.

I believe Jesus was God's image and form the same way Christians conform to the image of Christ,by imitating him and demonstrating the same character.By speaking as he would and doing what he would as he works through us.Same goes with God and Christ.God was IN CHRIST reconciling a world unto himself.(2 Cor. 5:19)Which means he wasn't Christ.Unless we're Christ because Christ is in us.God was pleased to dwell in and work through Christ just like Christ will hopefully be pleased to dwell in and work through us by means of an operation of God's spirit that God has given to Christ "without measure" to dispense to us,he being mediator after all.(John 3:34,1 Tim. 2:5)This is how God and Christ are one and we are one with God and Christ.It all has to do with God's spirit bearing testimony to us that we are his children in Christ even as Christ is in us and God is in Christ.(Jn. 17:21)

Moving on,

Phil. 2:7 says: but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.

The reference to Christ taking the form of a slave pertains to his suffering unto death(the MAN Christ's humiliation is in view) as opposed to his emptying a preexistent glory.What's in view was a willingness of his to accept utter degradation and an ignominious fate when it was certainly undeserved..for he was sinless king,created for inimitable exaltation by his own God for the glory of God,himself,and obedient mankind.Despite that(& his unmatchable rights as one who could call for legions of angels if he so desired!Matt. 26:53),he was willing to suffer unimaginable humiliation,atrocities, and horrors on our behalf to save mankind from the first Adam's inherited corruption.And this is HOW he "made himself nothing" and appeared as a servant(when he was REALLY the Lord who serves not because he has to but because he wants to in willful submission.)

"This hymn is best understood within the framework of Adam Christology (James Dunn, Christology in the Making pg. 114-115). Though the hymn is obviously about Christ, it defines him against the background of Adam’s failure. The hymn presupposes Adam’s fateful choice, his desire to "be like God," (Gen. 3:5), his failure, and his downfall. Jesus is the second Adam. Where the first Adam failed, the second Adam is victorious. Where the first Adam sought his own interests, the second Adam remained obedient to the point of death.This Adam Christology is a feature of Paul’s writings (Rom.5:12 – 21, 1Cor. 15: 20 – 28) and of early Christianity. For example, the temptation stories in Matthew and Luke have in their background the temptation of Adam in Genesis."--Juan Baixeras (from website linked above)

This is a fantastic summary:

"the great antithesis in this hymn:
Adam the audacious man -
Christ the man who humbled himself;
Adam the one who was humbled forcibly by God -
Christ the man who voluntarily humbled himself before God;
Adam the rebellious man -
Christ the man who was utterly obedient;
Adam the one who was ultimately cursed -
Christ the one who was ultimately exalted;
Adam who wanted to be like God - and in the end became dust;
Christ, who was in the dust and indeed went to the cross - and is in the end the Lord over the cosmos"--Karl-Josef Kuschel "BORN BEFORE ALL TIME?: The Dispute over Christ's Origin " pp. 251-252


"His(Christ's) life proved him to be in form as man.Notice,not "as a man",but AS MAN--that is,as representative man,as one with fallen man,as Adam."-James Dunn "Christology in the Making" p. 118

I know a lot of trinitarians will scratch their heads wondering why I don't recognize that Jesus wasn't *just* the Last Adam but also the very Son of God!The title "Son of God" doesn't advocate the conception of a trinity. Jesus was the Son of God not because he WAS the same God(whose Son he was) who caused his birth but because God was his father:

Luke 1:35 And the angel answered her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; THEREFORE the child to be born will be called holy—the Son of God."

You will not find a description here of any preexistent glorious being transmigrating through Mary's womb.He found himself as MAN because God willed him to be the specially born Last Adam to reverse Adam's curses when the "full limit of the time" (Gal. 4:4)had arrived for his word to come to fruition in Christ's flesh,God's bread from heaven..(Jn. 6:51)The first Adam was also a special son of God while being fully man without ever being "fully God."So it is with the Last One.How apropos!

These Philippians verses call to mind:

2 Corinthians 8:9 For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, yet for your sake he became poor, so that you by his poverty might become rich.

This text speaks of "grace" which is always connected with Christ's death and resurrection (Rom. 5:15,21;Gal. 2:20;Eph. 1:6) as opposed to a preexistent being(God or archangel or any other) becoming a man.Again,this truth should help us understand Paul's intended purpose for Philippians in relation to HOW Christ became poor.Because we have an obvious correlation here with other texts that describe what that grace was exactly.Christ the man humbling himself unto death on the cross as opposed to God becoming man,again.

"Paul would not think of creatureliness as poverty over against the riches of deity.But he could readily think of Adam's fallenness as poverty over against the riches of his fellowship with God,just as the reverse antithesis,becoming rich(despite our poverty),presumably denotes a coming into fellowship with God(Rom. 11:12,1 Cor. 6:10;9:11;and the not so very different profit and loss imagery of Phil 3:7).Though he could have enjoyed the riches of uninterrupted communion with God,Jesus freely chose to embrace the poverty of Adam's distance from God,particularly in his death,in order that we might enter into the full inheritance intended for Adam in the first place."James Dunn "Christology in the Making" p. 123

Moving along..

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

Why has God "highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name?"We need only go back to verse 8.It was because "he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death."Hebrews 1:9 expounds further that it was because he "loved righteousness and hated wickedness" that he was "anointed with the oil of gladness beyond his companions."So what we DON'T have is an "ontological right" as the second person of a Greek triune consubstantial substance because Christ was also the true God he called his father the only one of(John 17:3) but rather a deserved and gifted exaltation of a beloved Son by a proud and kind father who epitomizes love precisely because that Son was faithful and true,a humble and extraordinary servant.A servant as a man and not in some "subordinate" preexistent glory.In my opinion,it should go without saying(which is the language Paul uses in 1 Corinthians 15:27 & 28) that the "name above every name" isn't a name above Yahweh's name.Because even though Christ is Lord of all with all things subjected to him,as Paul makes clear there are certain things that should go without saying.And one of those would be that even though Christ has been exalted to the second most high position in the entire universe,there is still one who is his God(Rev. 3:12,1 Cor. 11:3) above him,the one who subjected all things TO him.Let us never forget that we don't worship any other unless God commands or allows it to his own glory,oft being relative worship of an exalted king.(1 Chron. 29:20)Sometimes God commands people(even angels in the case of Jesus!) to venerate those he adores because he loves them.(Revelation 3:9)This does not make them "people" of his "own being."

To summarize, in conclusion:

"Adam was already in the image of God(Gen. 1:26) and was created for immortality.But he chose to grasp at the opportunity to be (completely) like God himself-Gen. 3:5,22).Snatching at the opportunity to enhance the status he already had,he both lost the degree of equality with God which he already enjoyed and was corrupted by that which he coveted(Rom. 1:21-23,7:9-11)Not content with being like God,what God had intended,he became like men,what men now are.The contrast in other words is between what Adam was and what he became,and it is this Adam language which is used of Christ."James Dunn "Christology in the Making" p.116

It is the remarkable power and authority (as the anointed Messiah that God fully performed through and lived within by spirit) that Jesus sacrificed in his horrible death and humiliation at the cross.He willingly accepted what he certainly did not deserve!And this is the humbling in view in Philippians.He appeared as a powerless *everyman*(falsely deemed criminal even!) in the face of his mockers and killers and accusers.Christ's sinlessness,perfection,and special relationship with God as savior of the world and as the Messiah ,who didn't need to be reconciled to God at all like the rest of fallen mankind does,entitled him to NOT have to suffer unto a torturous death because he wasn't a sinner who grasped at equality with God like the first Adam. Despite this, he didn't "toot his own horn." He wasn't haughty & proud for who he was,he exceptionally being the Great Amen and fulfillment of all God's purposes from the beginning to the end of time,but he rather suffered the worst humiliation and degradation anyone could ever imagine because he was love like his father,loved BY his father,and determined to fulfill his father's will and make sure we're kept in his love all the way to the kingdom.Now that's a man we can imitate in whatever we might have to suffer,whatever humiliation we might have to endure as we carry OUR cross.What we cannot imitate,the mind we cannot have,is that of God willing to become a man.

"His(Christ's) whole life constituted his willing acceptance of the sinner's lot(2 Cor. 5:21).In other words,Phil. 2:6-8 is probably intended to affirm that Christ's earthly life was an embodiment of grace from beginning to end,of giving away in contrast to the selfish grasping of Adam's sin,that every choice of any consequence made by Christ was the antithesis of Adam's,that every stage of Christ's life and ministry had the character of a fallen lot freely embraced...Phil. 2:6-11 depicts its character in terms of Adam typology in language drawn from Gen. 1-3."--James Dunn p.121

I agree with Dunn when he says "the question of preexistence is rather more an irrelevance and distraction than a help to interpretation."(p. 19) and that there's no evidence anywhere that Christ was "contemporaneous with Adam" but Adam was rather a "type of him who was to come."(Rom. 5:14)Christ came AFTER Adam as the Last Adam.The only way he preceded Adam was in that he was "slain before the foundation of the world"(Rev. 13:8) in God's forethought and plans for a kingdom realized in & through his Lamb and beloved Son.Purposed before the world was made to save it from the fall because of Adam's sin that God foreknew.He intended from the beginning to save us in Christ who was his will for mankind's salvation and redemption,his word and wisdom and gift to the world,to appear in the flesh when the time came for all to be fulfilled.

"Christ by his life,death and resurrection has so completely reversed the catastrophe of Adam,has done so by the acceptance of death by choice rather than as punishment and has thus completed the role of dominion over all things originally intended for Adam"--James Dunn "Christology in the Making"p. 19

And thanks to that he has ensured his brothers and sisters who have his *same mind* of humble service that we may also share in that role of dominion over the upcoming restored new earth,even as we look to him as Lord and savior and as the forerunner to our own exaltation for all time!Yes,we shall all confess that Jesus is Lord to God's glory!Now and forevermore.Like Jesus,we can receive unimaginable gifts by God's grace and love.We don't have to have an "ontology" that's worthy.Simply a mind like Christ's and faith in him!Why?Because God's beloved Son made it possible for US too to be beloved children!Every perfect gift comes from God and his greatest gift was Christ and the eternal life he offers us in Christ.