Chapter III – The Character of Christ
Part II – The Character of Christ
Paul’s answer to the question, “Did Christ exist prior to His birth?” is
found for us in Philippians 2:1-11. When we study this passage, we will read
Paul’s definitive resolution to the problems presented by man’s
corrupted theology.
But First…
First: a bit of background and context. Philippians is the second of
Paul’s three “prison” letters, wedged between Ephesians and Colossians. These
three letters are the zenith of divine revelation, and are the three
letters for the modern-day believer, in what we may call the “Present Secret
Administration” (Eph. 3:8-9, Col. 3:1-3.) Together, they provide us with the
most intimate facts concerning the character of Christ, contextualizing
the plan and purpose of God.
Ephesians 1-3 is our modern-day doctrinal base. This is our ground
zero, according to God (per the citations of the previous article.) No
prior verse comes into conflict with these verses in a properly
translated light; they are all contextualized by the information
presented here, in the second half of the letter, and in the other two letters.
There is reference to Christ’s existence before His birth in this portion of Ephesians,
but it is indirect without the expansions of the two following corrective letters.
It is thus speculative until we hear direct words of affirmation. This
portion of Ephesians concerns us with the plan and purpose of God.
Ephesians 4-6 is the presentation of our conduct. There is reference to
Christ’s existence before His birth here as well, but this too is insufficient
without the complementary claims made in Philippians, which expounds further
upon the modern day believer’s conduct. Colossians further expounds upon
the doctrine presented in Ephesians 1-3, making the complementary claims
which will properly modify Ephesians. This further enables us to recognize the
indirect statements of chapters 3 and 4 as fact concerning His life before the
eons.
This structure is a complex reversion, looping around on itself
for us to easily grasp:
- Ephesians: doctrine, deportment
- Philippians: corrective deportment
- Colossians: corrective doctrine
Through this scheme, we see Paul’s opportunity to answer our questions. In
Ephesians, Paul told us his goal, and his two schools of thought to achieve it:
we are to be made into mature men, by “Attaining to the unity of the
faith,” and in “realization of the Son of God.” Philippians’ primary focus is conduct
in the present era, making the character of Christ (and the character
of Paul) paramount in the center of the epistle. And Colossians’ primary
focus is doctrine for the present day, prioritizing also the plan
and purpose of God.
You’ve Outlined the Administration, Good For
You. What Now?
It is no surprise, then, that Paul’s exhortation launches in Philippians
chapter 2 with a call to a proper disposition (for what is right conduct
apart from love?) What follows is a presentation of the conduct of
our Lord, to demonstrate the power of loving conduct under humiliating
circumstances. The conduct of the saints is firmly demonstrated by the
disposition of the saints’ Head, Christ. Paul begins chapter 2 of Philippians
by saying,
If, then, there is any consolation in Christ, if any comfort of love,
if any communion of spirit, if any compassion and pity, fill my joy full, that
you may be mutually disposed, having mutual love, joined in soul, being
disposed to one thing -- nothing according with faction, nor yet according with
vainglory -- but with humility, deeming one another superior to one's self, not
each noting that which is his own, but each that of others also.
The goal is to contrast the world’s disposition – strife and
empty esteem – with the true quality of leadership: humility. The
Greek word is tapeinophrosune, and its elements are
“MAKE-LOW-TOGETHERness.” The practical meaning, to make low, is best
demonstrated in relation to an inanimate object, making its use in Luke 3:5
very instructive. Here it is said that every hill will be “made low,” or
“humbled,” idiomatically. In relation to the human spirit, it is consoling
and comforting in Christ to make yourself low. It becomes communal,
compassionate, and mutual when enacted together.
This is a willful act, one which must consciously be effected by
an individual. It is an action which man is entreated to effect numerous
times across both evangels (Matt. 23:12, Luke 14:11, 18:14.) It does not always
carry a moral connotation, but can refer to a physical or sociological lowly
disposition (Ph. 2:3, 4:12.) It is, of course, most often correlated with a
selfless, other-oriented mindset (Luke 1:46-48, 1 Pet. 3:8.)
Yeah, But Who asked?
Here is where the agenda of the Philippians letter – proper
deportment in the current economy – services Paul’s goal to reveal the supreme character
of the Christ in His self-abasement.
See, the “conduct” side of scripture is the one we all like to
face the least. It’s the scary part: the part we strive to live up to.
It makes us… scrutinize ourselves. Study our own actions – observe our own
faults, our failure to attain to the worthiness of such a calling,
and see how the self can improve.
Our brains, upon hearing grace and conciliation, like to take a load off.
We have glimpsed God’s absolute perspective. As such, our relative views
on life are generally set aside; many of us even neglect further growth,
clinging to the fact of our salvation, but disregarding the processes
God set about through His Son to get us there (more on this in the “Col.
1:15-17” section.)
In short, we “give up.” We attempt to “manifest” that God wills all by stagnating
our growth. Believers use His authority to justify a passive, or lax attitude
toward the text (whereas God claims, with that authority, that we
should endeavor to present ourselves qualified workers.) Scripture study
is typically perceived as a taxing, mind-bending, difficult, slow, analytical
process. And indeed, some of this is true, where theology has marred the
page. Yet scripture is hardly regarded anymore as the words of our Father,
telling us a beautiful story, weaving us in to Paul’s evangel, for our growth.
In truth, the purpose for our growth in conduct is stated many
times. We are told that if we are blatantly displaying sin – whether
in fallacious reasoning, false teaching, or poor conduct – while having died to sin, then we are
attempting to serve an old master – and highlights the incongruous nature of
such a thought (6:12-23.) It is not that you would be “punished” (for, where sin
increases, grace superexceeds,) but that you must be corrected (1
Cor. 11:30-33,) as this course is senseless. It is counter-intuitive
to realize salvation, whilst refusing to acknowledge how God is using
salvation to impart revealed truth. He specifically distinguishes
between these two (1 Tim. 2:4.)
Moreover, God specifically interweaves the purpose of conduct
throughout the doctrinal portions. We, for example, are being conformed to
the image of God’s Son (Rom. 8:29.) We are said to be debtors to the
spirit (Rom. 8:12-14.) These are purposes and obligations for
serving the new as opposed to the old.
As Philippians concerns
us with the conduct, it follows that its middle two chapters must
expound upon the character of Christ, whereby our actions have
spiritual value. We should become moved by Who our Lord is on an
intimate level, to thus appreciate the One through Whom our conduct shines.
So when Paul begins this
chapter saying, “Hey gang! Be mutually disposed to one another in love with
humility, deeming one another superior to one’s self!” the average human would
fumble around and fail repeatedly to take these words to heart. We find the
practical examples of this failure to be, heartbreakingly, most found in
those who have forcefully changed many of these Greek words in order to fit
a new view. These are found in any of the three narratives from Chapter 1. It
is a type of dramatic irony; by changing the text to fit a pre-supposed
narrative, the sectarian dogmas of man put themselves above the text. This
only makes sense, for, without the following example by Christ, the exhortation
rings hollow.
What’s more is
that our past studies in the word of God have led us to realize that
words that we employ today do not have their same meaning or
usage as they did back then. The issue is further compounded when we consider
that the usage of words in the 30s, during the compilation of the Concordant
Version which we are using now, now contains words which vary in meaning
today. There are layers of confusion apart from word studies within the
original language of inspiration.)
Understanding the value of conduct, per Paul’s “immature”
revelations in prior letters, paves the way for the completed thought in
the present secret economy. In Ephesians 2:10, Paul does complete
the thought:
For [God’s] achievement are we, being created in Christ Jesus for good
works, which God makes ready beforehand, that we should be walking in them.
The purpose for our conduct is firmly stated – that we were created
in Christ Jesus for good works (Rom. 6:3-14, 2 Cor. 5:14-17.) That God makes
these good works ready beforehand does not negate that we are to
be actively walking in these acts (and yes, sometimes relaxing or taking
it easy or just enjoying your hobbies or favorite people is as good a work as
heralding the truth – both are measured by love.) With this reason provided in
the doctrinal portion of Ephesians, with the security of the
absolute One pre-determining your good works, the conduct portion of
Ephesians reveals itself far more inviting. You will find yourself enabled to
enact these, with the permanent grace (charis, ‘JOY’) and peace
enjoined to you.
You are meant to have these basic truths from Paul by the time
you reach this portion of Philippians (for it is a book we read from left to
right,) from the perspective of the modern reader.
Okay, but How Do we Know that this Speaks of a
Prior Existence For Christ?
The passage which directly concerns us with this startling reality is
presented in Phil. 2:5-8. We will be presenting each clause of this sentence,
piece by piece, and contrast them with the trinity of christologies. We will
find that not one of the three schools of thought, nor do various
logistical objections, fully align with the truth found within.
Now, it may sound as though, at the outset, we are “pre-supposing” that
this is what the verse says. We will stress, then, that this is the claim, not
the evidence. A logical argument submits a claim, and then examines
the evidence to support it.
We will thus press on through Philippians, paying careful attention to
each word, its inflection, and, when necessary, conduct a word
study in order to help us apprehend the meaning of an individual word
(even if, on its surface, said term may seem simple and clear.) Since we have
the conduct in mind, as well as the characteristic in play (being
“humility,” to “make low,”) we may now see the grandeur of our
Lord’s humility, and read Paul’s explanation of this quality. Though, of
course, our research has impressed upon us the truth of Paul’s statement, we
will proceed through the passage as if we have not read any passage following
Philippians 2:4, and are carefully reading Phil. 2:5-8 for the first
time.
On That Note…
It’s time for us to begin our study of the Greek passage.
For let this disposition be in you, which is in Christ Jesus also,
Who, being inherently in the form of God, deems it not pillaging to be equal
with God, nevertheless empties Himself, taking the form of a slave, coming to
be in the likeness of humanity, and, being found in fashion as a human, He
humbles Himself, becoming obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
This is the entirety of the passage in the CLV. This is a very
accurate translation of the passage (as good as we’ll get, we think,) but
it is not perfect. Thus will take it a step further and consider each
corresponding Greek term from which the English version is inspired.
For let this disposition be in you…
touto (THIS) gar (FOR) phroneite (YE-BE-BEING-DISPOSED) en (IN)
humin (YE)…
The term “for,” gar, is
a preposition which, in Paul’s writings, directs us toward his intended
conclusion, or point. Sometimes this point concludes an argument (Rom.
11:34,) but oftentimes it continues elaborating a previous point (Rom.
1:16-18 uses gar four times alone, and this in preparation for
his evangel two chapters later!)
Of course, the latter situation
is the case, here. The disposition in question can only be humility, for
it is the only disposition mentioned in the first three verses in a positive
light. Indeed, this term “humility” will be found again at the conclusion of
Paul’s argument between 2:5-8, in verb form (the complete act of
Christ’s humility in question, as we will observe.) This humility is Paul’s
goal, per the previously-stated long term goal of God, to “conform us to
the image of His Son” (Rom. 8:28-30,) that He may use us to complete His
goal: to be All in all (Eph. 1:9-11, 22-23 – see chapter 16.)
“Disposition” read in
English is perceived as a noun. However, in Greek it is a verb, as
in, “be disposed to this.” The term, with inflection, is phroneite, with
the elements “YE-BE-BEING-DISPOSED.” Since it is a verb, yet the CLV translates
this passively “Let this be…” you may reasonably cry “Foul!” on
Knoch, here, with merit. If the verb were passive (as is claimed through
the Byzantine manuscript on the Blue Letter Bible,) this may be a fairer
translation. But the verb is in the active voice, it is imperative (as
in, expressing a willful command toward another,) and in the second person
– that is, directed at you.
All of this aligns with
the scope of the Philippian letter – to perfect the saint in the
sight of the Lord.
But seriously – why does
this matter?
Well, there are a few
brothers (and unbelievers) who proclaim that, if God is in control of all, then
it is not our obligation or duty to attempt right conduct in
Christ (though we are indeed directly entreated to act – Rom. 6:12-14, 8:12-14,
12:1-15:7, Eph. 4-6, etc. etc.) The claim is typically that God will place
the humility there when He’s good and ready, and He is to blame if that
humility is not yet manifest.
While, of course, neither
me or Seth will argue against the fact that God gives us life and
breath and all (Acts 17:25,) when such a claim is used to counter
or shun right conduct, we submit that God’s authority is being
falsely used as a smokescreen to excuse correction. The problem is with the mis-application
of God’s sovereignty, for one to evade reckoning themselves dead to Sin
(Rom. 6:14,) and excuse poor conduct instead of learning from its
senseless outcomes (as the Corinthians learned – 2 Cor. 7.) This is called a
“special pleading” fallacy, when someone invokes a “special” case for
themselves that exempts them from critical criteria – in this case, invoking God’s
authority to exempt one from humbling themselves. This is, unfortunately,
exactly what the Pharisees did (Mark 15:1-9, Mark 7:6-9 – these guys aren’t
exactly the role models of the eon.)
(Note: No opponent
named within this study will be presumed to adhere to this point of view, and we
do not believe any do, personally. We are simply pulling all of the skeletons
out of the closet, as it is important to bar false avenues of thought which
pervade in our ignorance and impose upon our logical divine service.)
What this would mean is
that the answer Paul gives is, in some cases, demeaned or lessened
in light of the “absolute” perspective. Yet this is not Paul’s
conclusion to the revealed truth of God’s sovereignty, nor is it warranted. It
is the philosophy of “fatalism,” plain and simple, and should be stamped out in
the heart of any saint. God’s sovereignty is proof that we should act
rightly, not proof that acting rightly would not matter.
The “Present” Tense in Philippians 2:5
So far, we have no true
complaint from the “Trinitarian” crowd; many would not take issue with
the considerations thus far. The same is true of the Arians. But it is at this
point where the Socinian sect highlights the present tense found
in the term phroneite.
Well, of course this
disposition, in you (*note the second person) would require a
present tense, by nature of the second person! If it were past tense, it would
be out of line with the thought God uses (and indeed, that the Byzantine
manuscript changes this word into the third person, while leaving “you,”
humin, in the second person, highlights its fallibility.)
The thought is present
tense because Paul is presently speaking to the saints in Philippi. “Have
this disposition, you guys.” The incomplete form of the verb is finely
appropriate for this thought! But does an incomplete form mean that the example
Paul provides regarding the experience of Another is itself restricted
to the present day?
Such an idea is confusing
to us, and foreign to intelligent reading. The grammatical person of phroneite
does not magically establish the temporal reference for every following remark.
Even the most diehard Socinians must realize that events in the past are
clearly discussed in verses 7 and 8.
It is further argued by
Socinian theology, per the later term “being inherently,” (2:6) written in the
present tense, that Paul is beginning his argument in the present day.
This is what is argued by one Andre Piet, one teacher of Paul’s foundational truths.
In his article, “Crown Witness to Christ’s Pre-Existence?” Andre writes,
“If Paul had wanted to say that Christ Jesus had ever (before His
incarnation) been in God’s form, he would have been speaking in the past tense.
Instead, he uses the incomplete form (present time): ‘Christ Jesus being
inherently in the form of God.’ By this Paul is referring to Christ
Jesus’ present position! ‘Being inherently in the form of God’
parallels the phrase that Christ Jesus is ‘equal with God’ or like God. Both
types testify of him as the present ‘image of the invisible God’ (Col.1:15).”
It is indeed true
that Christ is inherently in the form of God in the present era,
currently being allotted all. Yet Christ is presently alive. It
is normal to speak of one this way while they are living. He is not past
tense.
What we see from Andre is
a compositional fallacy. He takes one characteristic within one part
of this passage and applies it to the whole passage. Again, phroneite
is necessarily present, since Paul is actively speaking to his audience. But
the fact that the exhortation itself is incomplete does not require the following
example to also be present in time. The incomplete form establishes
the timing of Paul’s exhortation. It does not establish the
setting of any event or condition introduced as the basis for the
exhortation.
There are many simple
examples of this fallacy which can be expressed. Consider the absurdity: If I
say, “Remember that Caesar crossed the Rubicon and marched on Rome,” the present
tense to you does not make Caesar’s crossing of the Rubicon a
present ordeal. Yet with Andre’s ‘logic,’ “Because the sentence uses present
tense, this must be happening right now.”
And again, if I say “You
understand that if you break the contract, you pay the penalty,” the present “understand”
does not actually make the penalty a present reality. Yet Andre’s ‘logic’
would say, “The present tense is used, so the penalty is now in effect.”
In truth, the
following verbs in the sentence are not “present tense,” but in the aorist
tense, which is the Greek Indefinite. It is employed without regard
to time, considering the entirety of an action. Any who study up to
verse 8 in the Greek will be able to note that Christ’s terrestrial sojourn (which
is undeniably past) is clearly discussed. The present tense
is not picked up again until verse 12 – well after events both past (v.
8) and future (v. 9-11) have been considered. To presume that we must
relegate ourselves to present time simply because Paul refers to someone
and their qualities at present inadvertently butchers the text,
and forces us into a shortsighted position, refusing to take the aorist into
account.
It is at this point
that we can begin to dismantle the Socinian viewpoint, highlighting its
sectarian nature. While Andre Piet ignores the aorist tense here (which
very much does enable us to consider the entirety of an action,
irrespective of its timing, in relation to our Lord in the present,)
there are other teachers (such as Peter Meye, of ReVago Channel,) who will
acknowledge the aorist actions that were completed long ago. We will cover the
alternate stance in a future chapter. This inconsistency reveals a lack of
a pattern of sound words, which is unbecoming of teachers in Christ (2 Tim.
1:13.)
Is Paul Asking us To Empty Ourselves and
Become Man?
This is another question
from the (very feisty) Socinian camp. The argument is presented thus:
“[Christ] did not display this [humility] in heaven, prior to
His birth. If this were the case, how can we possibly share the same
mindset as Christ? We could not share the disposition and imitate a non-human
entity who shed His celestial body to transform Himself into a man.”
– Liam, Jesus Christ Did
NOT Pre-Exist Part 6 - Incarnation of Christ
There are many, many
issues with this misrepresentation of Paul’s words. First, there’s a category
error here on Liam’s part, that assumes that, if Christ existed prior to His
physical birth, that humility is never expressed or possible. It restricts
humility to a human only virtue, which is the first example of robbing
Christ of His character.
There is further a false dilemma,
which forcefully presents the argument as though “If Christ was not human
at the time, then we could not imitate Him.” It ignores that we
are not being entreated to follow Christ’s action, but His disposition.
Paul speaks of “imitation” mimetes, one time in this
secret economy: imitate God (in relation to proper conduct, in Eph. 5.)
Indeed, God is not a man – yet we are able to imitate Him. A variation
of the term, summimetes, “TOGETHER-IMITATOR,” is found once in
the entire New Testament, found in Phil. 3:17 – to imitate Paul. If Paul
had asked us to imitate Christ’s actions in Phil. 2:5, then of course
this would be an impossible and confusing task! Thankfully, Paul speaks
only of the disposition, which can be apprehended and emulated by anyone,
and uses Christ’s example to show its incomparable sincerity.
It is apparent that this
objection must be swiftly dealt with first, for it has been wielded,
many times, as a strawman to disavow many good teachers in Christ, claiming
that we believe Paul is requesting a replication of the exact action of
our Lord (being the “emptying Himself” in dispute, per 2:7,) which completes
His humility (2:8.) Yet this objection fails to note that, in the same
vein, Paul speaks of Christ dying the death of the cross. If we are to take
the above dismissal from Liam seriously, as if we are being entreated to “empty
ourselves” exactly as Christ does, then we must ask: what of this death of
the cross? Are we to die this wretched death as well?
This question is not designed
for him or anyone to answer (please, do not try.) It is rhetorical, designed
to highlight the poor aim which this objection takes. We are not entreated to
imitate action, but the underlying disposition of One Who had everything,
and gave it all up for the lowest of the low.
This disposition of
humility (“MAKE-LOW”) is (and has been) demonstrable apart from the
events Paul is about to describe (as he makes clear in following chapters.) The
point is not to highlight a person’s humility, but highlight the Son
of God’s humility – which, for all intents and purposes, can and should be
demonstrated in great fashion, by the largest scale possible within the universal
scope of Paul’s letters. If Christ has humility, show us its depth!
The notion that one
cannot be moved to conform to humility by being educated on the greatest act
of humility is, ironically, disrespectful toward the very act of
humility on display.
It is His relinquishing
of the status of the form of God that grounds His imitable disposition. At
the end of the day, this makes Liam’s claims here a non-sequitur. He does
not confront any real position we have taken, neither with any logic. Since
Christ is a Mediator of God and of man (1 Tim. 2:5,) it follows
that He is bridging these previously-uncrossable gaps. Before this,
neither ourselves or our Just Maker could properly communicate. If Christ’s
humility only pertained to His death at Golgotha (as brother Clyde
Pilkington later supposes,) then the passage must read,
For let this disposition be in you, which is in Christ
Jesus also, Who, taking the form of a slave, humbles Himself, becoming obedient
unto the death of the cross.
But this is not
what the text says. Instead, Paul follows His statement that “humility” is in
Christ Jesus with the statement that He is inherently in the form of God,
and then describes His progressive “lower”-ing. To deny this movement is to
deny this straightforward progression of the passage.
The argument presented
here, then, is not only illogical, but conflicts with the revelation of the
text, contradicts the principle of “logical divine service,” and ultimately
requires the distortion of God’s Word to sustain itself. No believer, either, should
have trouble spotting these illogicities. No view which forcefully alters Holy
Writ for its intended conclusion need be considered beyond amusement.
(It is wrong to change
the word of God.)
If we must change the
entreaty from one of “conform to this mindset” to “conform to this action”
in order to support or demonstrate our position, then we simply do not believe
the text.
If we are further ignoring
the administrational boundaries by which we should be measuring and weighing a
passage, then we simply do not believe the text.
By definition of the term
“pre-supposition,” one must suppose beforehand that the following
verses are only on earth. Yet this supposition is unnecessary, and the
grammar (and present administration) demands otherwise.
There is an argument by
the Socinian-based sect among us which proclaims that, since the word “heaven”
is not mentioned at all in the passage, that a celestial existence for any of
these actions is not in view in this passage. However, by this logic, the word
“earth” is not mentioned at all in the passage, which would proclaim, by the
same [lack of] logic, that a terrestrial existence for these actions is
not in view in this passage.
The sensible resolution,
then, is to study the verse itself, and consider these actions in their
progressive relation to each other. As we will see, this progression denies
the idea that we can read this in any other way than Christ descending,
so that He may return to where He was formerly (Eph. 4:9-10, John
6:62.)
This
Disposition is In Christ NOw
For let this disposition be in you, which is in Christ Jesus also…
o (WHICH) kai (AND) en (IN) christo (ANOINTED)
iesou (JESUS)
We don’t have too much to add on this front; virtually all who have read
the four accounts will agree that Jesus is humble. We note that Paul’s
signature “Christ Jesus” is written here, reversing the order of
the other writers. This is supposed to stand out to first-time readers,
that one asks, why is Paul talking like that? To quote George Rogers, in
Unsearchable Riches, Vol. 25, p.240–
“Jesus is the name of our Lord as a single human individual,
while Christ Jesus adds His official title, indicating His relationship
to those whom He saves. The personal name emphasizes the historic fact of the
rousing of the dead of the Man, which fact is the supreme manifestation of the
power and glory of the Father. But Jesus was also the Christ, the
anointed second Man, the Head of the body and the King, Who stands in such
relation to men that what is done to Him shall be done in them.”
Paul talks like this because we stand in unique relation
to our Lord, becoming enjoyers of His allotment (Rom. 8:17.) This is
unique to the body of Christ alone, of which no other beings in
existence partake. This title is reflective of Christ’s transcendent nature
to us – demonstrating His (our) position first, and His personal
name second. No other individuals can perceive Him so closely.
Paul speaks of Christ Jesus, as Christ is alive and well.
This disposition of His has not changed – regardless of
the sphere He is in. Celestial? Humble. Terrestrial? Humble. The
primary rebuttal from the body of Christ’s “Non-Existence Task Force,” is that we
cannot know humility if the passage regards Christ’s existence prior to His
birth. This is because, as Liam theorized, Jesus would not have been human. Yet
this claim is simply left wanting when there are so many logical errors
to make the argument – none of which actually confront our position!
Moreover, there is no argument against the points from the Greek which
validate our position!
The stage has been set. Paul’s goal is to show us the humility of
Christ Jesus, with the thrust that we should be being disposed to
such humility. How will Paul convey this humility to us? Will he
highlight something about Christ Jesus’ current state? Will he share a
prior experience from Him? Or, perhaps He will speak of the greatest glories
yet to come?
We will find the answer for ourselves in the next verse. It is, indeed, one of the most heavily debated verses of all time.
- GerudoKing, Seth Fahlenkamp, Jordan White
Comments
Post a Comment