Keep sharing good news without ads.
No description available
Comments are turned off for this media
You ascribe a lot to Jesus and enough that you think would have made him as it were rejected in the eyes of those early of those Jews and Pharisees but but you don't ascribe to him pre-existence. You don't put it on that level that he was pre-existent with God because obviously there there are passages which I'm sure James and others would would know that Philippians one is perhaps a classic.
You know that Jesus being in very nature God did not consider equality with God.
Something to be grasped. Well first of all let me tell you that Luther for example does not find pre-existence in Philippians 2. Secondly a reading of the NIV there is pushing the language. It doesn't say anything about being in very nature God being in the form of God.
There's a vast literature contradicting the idea that any pre-existence is there including of course James Dunn Colin Brown. And a huge literature as I discovered doesn't make it right by the way and it's a minority literature.
But I simply don't think that Paul is talking about a pre-existing son. There he's like he's saying look at the man Messiah Jesus and copy him. And it's a bit vague to say well imagine being you know billions of years old or from eternity and now decide to become a man.
Now you do that. Much better say look at the historical Messiah and copy his lifestyle. Luther.
Didn't see this and Lutherans to this day apply this to the ministry of Jesus but exegetically that what Paul is doing here is he's saying to the Christians after it versus one through four saying that they have to view one another with humility of mind.
To Panis a fruit a is what he uses. Humility of mind. What does that mean. Having certain rights laying them aside in service to others. Don't always be looking to your own things. Look to the service of other people.
That's the key to peace in the local church. Then he says have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus eternally existing in the very morphe to say you the form of God. He's going to be made later.
It's going to talk about having the form of a bondservant. That's his true nature and that's why the NIV renders it in that way. If you exist eternally in the very form of God but did not consider that position that that's that equality you had with God.
Something to be held on to at all costs. First of all a powerful in.
Greek does not mean existing in eternity. Adam was also a powerful man is also a powerful. That that's pushing the language. And being in the nature of God in the form of God is obviously difficult for all of us.
But it's compared with being in the form of a slave something like the status of God and he he has that I would argue there with modern exegetes who take this view of Philippians 2 that Jesus was equal with God.
He was equal with God. That he didn't use that equality not really says if you've seen me you've seen God I am as God. I like Murray Harris's title Jesus as God. He has that equality with God. He doesn't use it for his own exploitation.
He washes the dishes. That's a marvelous exercise in humility. But the subject of discourse there is the man Messiah Jesus. That's what Paul called Christ Jesus. After all 550 times in the New Testament he's the Messiah.
It's an awful stretch for me to imagine that the Messiah the Lord's anointed is actually the Lord granted. Of course that the name the authority of Yahweh is placed on him. But in Philippians 2 this is all done to the glory of God.
And that wonderful word of they are 1300 times in the New Testament is clearly the father of Jesus. So it all winds up to the glory of God. But yes Jesus has been given absolute authority under that one God Yahweh.
What we're discussing if we can put in its most core sense is the nature of pre-existence. We're differing only on this. I say that the Son of God did not pre-exist as God the Son. The word pre-existed.
And what's so interesting is that even Walter Martin of fame recent famous of an anti-cult person and others. Warfield I believe in the two Hodges who are the stalwart pillars of Trinitarianism were shaken by the notion of the eternal generation of the Sun.
And I wanted to get to that too. And so this undermining of the eternal generation suggests that they believed in the Word of God pre-existing. And Dakes Bible and so on Barnes and so on. There been many Adam Clark who have objected to the notion of the Sun being prior to his begetting his coming into existence.
So that's that's one point for me. The Bible becomes very clear when you've got one God and one mediator between God and man the man Messiah Jesus. I think that should be the end of the argument first Timothy 2 5.
But on the pastoral point what I'm finding is that folk have always been troubled by this. And when you put this to them this doesn't make it right. Of course it simply clarifies a lot of things. And the greater point would be this that and millions of Jews are no longer standing aghast at the notion that we can talk about more than one person being Yahweh.