I too think it makes reasonable sense, and there is further biblical precedence of the same grasping of equality in Moses and thus the whole reason he himself missed entering the promise of God…
Num 20:10, 12And Moses and Aaron gathered the assembly together before the rock; and he said to them, “Hear now, you rebels! Must we bring water for you out of this rock?” … Then the Lord spoke to Moses and Aaron, “Because you did not believe Me, to hallow Me in the eyes of the children of Israel, therefore you shall not bring this assembly into the land which I have given them.”
In a moment of weakness and exacerbation Moses puts himself and Aaron on par with God… big mistake — and Moses had the authority to do it because he was God’s appointed mouthpiece — but his words reflected an attitude unworthy of his position.
Yes, I take it you refer to putting it that despite being in the form of God, he did not count equality with God as something to be “exploited” instead of to be “held onto” or grasped. And I’d agree that this wording is designed to favor his own theory and reading. And that thinking of Jesus expressly as God or in trinitarian language developed later than Paul. Indeed, even Wright seems to accept that such a view never occurred to Jesus.
Still, scholars of N.T. Christology like Richard Bauckham and Larry Hurtado emphasize how early Jesus was seen as worthy of worship and confessed as uniquely reverenced as being in a set that God occupies. So while I am tempted toward an adoptionist interpretation of exalting a human Jesus, such arguments allow me to doubt that N.T writers all shared my rather reductionist view.
So, stipulating that Paul did not see Jesus as God, what is your alternative reading of Paul’s view of Jesus’ ontology?
I completely agree that opinions are all over the place, with ‘learned’ folks on all sides. I think Tuggy and others put forth a more compelling case, but I have no particular ego-attachment to the issue. My concern was TW interpreting Paul to mean something in this particular pericope that is not by any means a settled issue, but that does reflect a bias. Perhaps that is unavoidable in making a translation, but I would have expected a footnote rather than him speaking ex cathedra.
I have the Evangelical Parallel New Testament and here are the ways these particular 8 versions handle things:
(one question is btw - when ‘God’ is used - was Paul meaning the Father? Or a 3 person complex?)
“in the Form of God” - NKJV, ESV, HCSB
“very nature of God” - NIV, TNIV
“was like God in everything” - NCV
“had equal status with God” - the Message
Of course why not go the whole way:
“Though he was God” - NLT !!!
I find little support for the use of ‘nature’ as a translation of morphe (there are a couple of lexicons that make that move, but Thayer and Kittle go with 'outward appearance). Same with ‘equal status’, whatever that even means.
“did not consider it robbery to be equal with God” - NKJV
“did not consider equality with God…to be grasped” - ESV, NIV,
“equality…to be used to his own advantage” - HCSB, TNIV, NCV
“did not demand and cling to his rights as God” - NLT
“didn’t think so much of himself that he had to cling…” - the Message
Again I could be wrong, but it seems clear to me that a trinitarian belief is imposed here, not derived from here. Noone reading these translations - which are of course ‘evangelical’ - would have any idea that they could be reading what is essentially one side, and perhaps the weak side, of a substantial debate.
Worth reading: https://www.biblicalunitarian.com/verses/philippians-2-6-8
If any NT writer really thought Christ was God - then they must have either been modalists or trinitarians, right? Because for them God was the Father; if Christ was God, he was the Father, unless they had trinitarians beliefs. But we know they did not; this is historical fact.
Assuming we buy into, a Unitarian viewpoint - of the Bible. How do we address, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit addressing - in the Bible? Should I join the Oneness Pentecostalism, who see the three “labels” - as addressing the one God?
Or should I follow the Monotheism, of either Islam or the Bahia Faith? And view Jesus, as they do?
Or perhaps “reinterpret” Christ and the Holy Spirit, as the Christian Scientists do?
Just study the word and ignore 4th century speculations that were based on politics, and make up your own mind. There are MANY trinitarian ‘theories’, not just one, so if you feel you want to be trin you also have to choose WHAT KIND, right?
Ok, you read the scripture and make up your mind, and don’t judge others who disagree, or refuse fellowship to them, or say that they are less Christian, or that they need the help of the HS to understand the trinity (as nonsensical a statement as anyone could imagine) etc. Don’t condemn them to hell, as does the Athanasian Creed - have you read it? Is that your stand now after all these years?
Unitarian scriptural monotheists have a pretty good focus, not as scattered as your caricature above. The Bible, man!!
Monotheists exist outside the Christian faith. They exist in the Islamic, Bahai Faith, Sikhism, Judaism, and Native American spirituality. And I have friends, in ALL these areas. The key for me is how someone implements their spirituality. Trinity theology is what the Romana Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestant churches buy into…based upon the collective consensus, of the historical creeds. But that doesn’t mean that Christians are necessary - any more or less spiritual - then the other groups/traditions I have mentioned.
In fact, I said ‘scriptural unitarian monotheists’ - I don’t consider as trustworthy other traditions as sources of authority on this issue
The God and Father of the Bible is where I come from on this particular issue. Geez, now I sound like a fundie…
Your use of ‘spiritual’ goes much too far imo, but I’m not gonna fight about it…
Since when do creeds lead us around? Have YOU read the Athanasian creed? Do YOU agree with it?
How of curiosity Dave, do you agree with anything…that this Got Questions article, might say regarding Unitarianism?
Sometimes things are a matter of perspective. Take zombies of Z-Hell (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9) - for instance. You might think, they are horrible and despicable - even the Hollywood version. But what is their perspective, of human beings? Have you ever seen, this Twilight Zone episode?
The article started out fine, then devolved to this asinine statement:
“there were always some aberrant groups who denied the deity of Christ and the Trinity, holding to some form of Unitarian theology.”
Really? It is the trins that are aberrant, from the scripture position, I think.
And the coup de grace:
" In the final analysis, Unitarians reject the specific teaching of Scripture regarding the deity of Christ and the Holy Spirit. Beyond that, they usually reject the Bible as divine revelation in favor of human reason. Horizontal relationships between human beings are considered more important than the vertical relationship between a holy God and sinful man."
A complete and intentional caricature of the position as most christian monotheists understand it. But hey, trins like to think they are all unified in a belief, when in fact they are not.
What did YOU think of the Athanasian creed??
It’s really NOT emphasized, in the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox or Protestant churches - I have attended. They either emphasize the Nicene Creed or the Nicene Constantinopolitan Creed. Since I intent to become, a patched in member…of either the Eastern Orthodox or Eastern Catholic "gangs’…I need to follow the status quo, regarding these creeds.
Ok, they CHOOSE NOT to share one of the founding creeds. Fine. The RYO religion is NOT the province of aberrant universalists. We make our choices and should be able to defend them, and NOT divide the body of Christ according to individual choices we have made. That’s all I’m saying.
The ‘reformed’ churches do the same thing - they preach hell, but very seldom the double predestination that throws the whole concept in chaos. The Athanasian creed is not stressed because it calls for damnation on anyone who does not hold to the so-called trinity theory.
There’s two traditions I follow. One is theology…chiefly as the Eastern Orthodox / Eastern Catholics see it…and the other is the contemplative traditions
These days, I follow the Wisdom, contemplative traditions of
The ultimate purpose is to achieve, what is common to Eastern Catholicism, Roman Catholicism, and Eastern Orthodoxy - Theosis.
So Dave. If you want to be a Unitarian, smoke cigars and join the zombies of Z-Hell (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9)…but stop by my area…I’ll have you join me, in a good 12 year bottle of Scotch.
There are many wells to draw from, and I do myself draw from some of them. Not all the water is pure and refreshing of course, and there is ‘wordly wisdom’ that leads away from the light.
But taken with that old grain of salt thing, I’m with you that there are certain wisdom teachings that do reflect, in a lesser light, the truth about God and men.
It get’s pretty hard to distinguish the dividing points. Take Christian mystics…We have people who are declared saints, in the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches…and some who are both, candidates for Christian sainthood and considered Holy People…Take the Lakota Black Elk, where some American RC bishops - nominated him for sainthood. But he was also considered a medicine man and holy person, among the Lakota people.
When I ask Shaykh Taner about these things he tells me that he does nothing. That things happen by the will of Allah, who has all power to do and not by the will of Shaykh Taner who has no power at all.
I have asked Shaykh why he does not let people know that he can do these things.
His reply is always “I can’t do anything. If Allah wishes for something to happen, then it does. If I think that I can do anything else it is my Nafs talking, and if I say I can do this or do that, then I am saying that “I” have power, which is not true. Only Allah has power, only Allah can"Do”. To think anything else is saying that Allah has a partner."
Perhaps this is the biggest miracle of all.
I mentioned a RC priest, I hung around with. Who “allegedly” has the gift of healing and hearing the voice of God. Well, when he was in Illinois - I attended his healing services. One day, there was a woman speaking. She had terminal brain cancer. But she went to one, of the Catholic sacred sites - and was healed. Well, what does that mean - in terms of science? It means that the medical doctors, conducted all their tests…did all their therapies - brought in all the specialists… Before concluding, nothing more can be done. And it means that the Catholic scientists and medical doctors, reviewed all the tests, doctor reports, treatments, etc. And they also would follow up, with after healing tests (i.e. blood work, MRI scans, etc.).
And one can see miracles…in the Tibetan, Rainbow body practices:
Where a famous, Roman Catholic priest - witnessed one of these.
Yes, learned opinions may vary because of the diverse and ambiguous nature of the texts.
What do you see as a better translation than ESV/NIV of the phrase above?
How does one know that NT writers did not have trinitarian beliefs? Isn’t the assumption of trinitarians that NT writers did have incipient belief in Jesus’ trinitarian deity, even while the language for that remained to be explicated?
Bob I wish you would read Channings defense that I just posted. He draws attention to the fact that IF the early Chrstians or the apostles actually had a trinitarian belief, what the effects would have been.
I think what is needed is a better understanding of what Paul was doing rather than a ‘translation’ that biases the issue out of hand.
With even supposed Trinitarianism being so “incipient” in bare NT ‘hints’ in that direction, I suspect that one of the barriers in persuading devotees to give up Jesus deity, is the lack of a convincingly defined alternative for Jesus’ nature and status. As qaz puts it, are we comfortable worshipping someone who is not God?
Since I, like Channing, am already a non-trinitarian, I wish you’ would respond to my asking what “Paul was doing” by explicating what kind of alternative ontology you see him presenting about Jesus.
