Chapter V – The Character of Christ: Equal With God

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…

ouch (NOT) harpagmon (SNATCHing) hegesato (DEEMS) to (THE) einai (TO-BE) isa (EQUAL-things)

The Truth of the Matter

As we covered in the last chapter, Christ has evidently taken on many forms throughout His existence. His inherent form, however – the form in which He belongs – is that of God. Christ has, at this point in our study, not been said to be “existing before His birth.” However, it would be radically incongruent for God to take issue with man “changing the glory of the incorruptible God into the likeness of an image of a corruptible man” (Rom. 1:23,) and then turn around and say that His inherent form is the likeness of an image of a corruptible man.

With this in mind, we begin to realize that the form of God cannot truly be the likeness of sin’s flesh (Rom. 8:3,) but something more fit to display God, a righteous One. It is the Image of God that is made first – not man. God is not once said to imitate mankind, in order to reveal Himself. Man is said to be formed after an image of God (Gen. 1:27.) An Image is, in every sense of the word, an exact representation of the Original. We can point at the Lincoln Memorial and say, “This is Lincoln!” Is this literally Lincoln? No. Of course not. But when we see this statue of Lincoln, we see Lincoln.

Christ is above this. He is not a dying or dead Representative. He is the Representative. When we see Christ, we see the Father. “The only-begotten God, in the bosom of the Father; He unfolds Him” (John 1:18.) “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one is coming to the Father except through Me. If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also. Are you not believing that I am in the Father and the Father is in Me? The declarations which I am speaking to you, I am not speaking from Myself. Now the Father remaining in Me, He is doing the works” (John 14:6-10.)

We receive many practical demonstrations of this truth. This close, impenetrable unity between the Two is so minutely close, that, for the duration of the eons, there are hardly any differences to speak of. When the Father loves, it is shown, fully, in His Son (John 13:1-10, 2 Cor. 1:3, Col. 1:19.) The Son’s humility, the disposition we are learning, represents the Father’s humility. The work the Son does on earth is, in truth, effected by the Father (John 5:19,) just as Paul speaks of our works, in truth, being effected by our Father (Phil. 2:13.) Every action the Father takes is in service of His children’s ultimate benefit (Rom. 8:28,) which benefits all (Col. 1:20.) If one were acquainted with the Son, then they could say they were acquainted with the Father (John 8:19.)

If God has another form beside Christ, then there is another living image that we may look toward apart from Christ, in order to apprehend God. Such a theory runs counter to Paul’s revelations, which stresses, solely, that Christ is the only Image of God (Col. 1:15, 19, 2:10.) Any other image or representation apart from Christ will dishonor Him. The fact that man prefers another image at present is the reason for His indignation (Rom. 1:18-25.) The effects (pride and ignorance – 1:26-32) are painfully apparent. While one or two attributes of God may be apparent in, say, mainstream Christianity, it would be a complete falsification to proclaim that the plastic Jesus of this religion (who did not really die and cannot actually save all,) is a proper idol for us to realize and appreciate. Only Christ as revealed in Holy Writ serves as theliving Image which enlightens us as to God’s dealings with man. By recognizing Christ as the form of God, there is no declaration that He is God, but that He is “playing” God in the story that the Supreme is telling.

As we scrutinize the circumcision writings, this concept will become more apparent to us. For now, however, in our present secret economy, we can learn this very concept in this clause from our allocated apostle. The faithful Jews are not given this information directly until the beginning of Hebrews. Christ is able to deem it not pillaging to be equal with God.

A Continued Education on the Greek: “Deems,” the First Aorist

In English, the next word that we come across is “deems,” hegeomai. This word’s element is “LEAD,” and is often translated thus (its first use, in the CLNT, is translated “Ruler,” under different inflection, in Matt. 2:6.) Though the English rules would be broken, you could assert that “leads” is the proper term, here. This is a practical demonstration of Christ leading us into this disposition that we are to carry, for we, too, are being seated at the right hand of God (Eph. 2:6-7.)

It is, thus, no longer pillaging for us to be able to employ the names or titles of God – for we are ambassadors in His name’s sake, becoming His righteousness in Christ (2 Cor. 5:20-21.)

How, pray tell, are we to be ambassadors in His name, if our Lord does not lead us into this disposition? Indeed, we are to be led into this same place (as is our allotted destination – 1 Cor. 3:21-23, Eph. 2:5-6.)

Let us consider the first use of the aorist in this tense. The aorist tense can be aptly referred to as the “Greek indefinite,” and correlates with the “present” tense of the English. It is a statement of fact, without regards to time or state. This is not to say that the Greek aorist is itself “present,” for there is already an incomplete tense apart from the aorist used to regard the “present.” It is imperative to distinguish between the names of these tenses, since “present” tense in Greek is actually limited to the present tense in regards to time and state. It is, instead, to say that the “present” tense of the English is misnamed, and may be aptly termed “The English Aorist.” To quote A.E. Knoch, in his article, “The English and Greek Indefinite,” p. 16,

“Consider the scope of the simple statement, I-LOVE. It may include any or all the other states and tenses! If I-WAS-LOVING, I-AM-LOVING, I-SHALL-BE-LOVING, I-LOVED, I SHALL-LOVE, I-HAD-LOVED, I-HAVE-LOVED, or I-SHALL-HAVE-LOVED, then I-LOVE. It is at home in any condition at any date. It ignores both time and state. Test this conclusion (which is, generally speaking, quite as true in the Greek forms as in the English) with other words, such as ‘work’ or ‘believe.’ I-WORK at printing though, at the present moment I-AM-WORKING on an article dealing with the aorist. I-HAVE-WORKED at printing for nearly forty years. I-SHALL-WORK at it in the future. The one word I-WORK covers all the ground. So, I-BELIEVE God, that is, I-HAVE-BELIEVED, I-AM-BELIEVING, and I-SHALL-BE-BELIEVING—until faith vanishes in sight.”

A clearer explanation of the tense could not be demonstrated. When we read this term, we are reading truth – not a relative statement of something being true for a moment, but an absolute truth which will never be erased. It is true – not outside of time, or solely in accord with the present, but true regardless.

This means – literally – that the aorist is a clean tense employed by God as a giant visual indicator that the concept you are considering is the whole truth of the act.

Before we apply this aorist to Philippians, we may demonstrate this best by considering a use of the aorist which no one would deny takes place in the past, based on its immediate context, and yet nevertheless remains in the aorist, “presently” true.

Let’s take a brief look at the first sixteen verses of Matthew 1–

The scroll of the lineage of Jesus Christ, the Son of David, the Son of Abraham.

Abraham begets Isaac; now Isaac begets Jacob; now Jacob begets Judah and his brothers. Now Judah begets Pharez and Zarah of Thamar. Now Pharez begets Hesron; now Hesron begets Aram; now Aram begets Amminadab; now Amminadab begets Nahshon; now Nahshon begets Salmon; now Salmon begets Boaz of Rahab; now Boaz begets Obed of Ruth; now Obed begets Jesse; now Jesse begets David the king.

Now David begets Solomon of the wife of Uriah; now Solomon begets Rehoboam; now Rehoboam begets Abiah; now Abiah begets Asaph; now Asaph begets Joshaphat; now Joshaphat begets Jehoram; now Jehoram begets Uzziah; now Uzziah begets Jotham; now Jotham begets Ahaz; now Ahaz begets Hezekiah; now Hezekiah begets Manasseh; now Manasseh begets Amos; now Amos begets Josiah; now Josiah begets Jeconiah and his brothers at the Babylonian exile.

Now after the Babylonian exile Jeconiah begets Shalthiel; now Shalthiel begets Zerubbabel; now Zerubbabel begets Abihud; now Abihud begets Eliakim; now Eliakim begets Azor; now Azor begets Zadok; now Zadok begets Achim; now Achim begets Eliud; now Eliud begets Eleazar; now Eleazar begets Matthan; now Matthan begets Jacob; now Jacob begets Joseph, the husband of Mary of whom was born Jesus, Who is termed “Christ.”

As we can see, we obtain forty different examples of the “aorist” tense in this passage, underlined for your reading pleasure. As we see from verse one, this introduction to Matthew covers the lineage of Christ, tracing His ancestry back to Abraham. From this demonstration, we have a clear indicator, at the very start of the New Testament, that the “aorist” can be employed of an event occurring in the past. Yet it considers this action as truth – indefinitely. Simply, the aorist does not prove that an action can or cannot take place at a fixed point prior to the present, or in the future. Such a claim is derived from the context, and other inflections made on the term. The aorist tense is not a grammatical indicator to force a sentence into the present.

We may now return to Christ’s action, recognizing that this term “deems” does not need to be present tense, for this statement, that Jesus deems (leads, for our learning) it not pillaging to be equal with God, is truth, complete fact, directly stemming from His being in the form of God.

Consider the scope of this simple statement, JESUS DEEMS. It may include any or all of the other states and tenses! If JESUS WAS-DEEMING, IS-DEEMING, SHALL-BE-DEEMING, DEEMED, SHALL-DEEM, HAD-DEEMED, HAVE-DEEMED, OR SHALL-HAVE-DEEMED, then JESUS DEEMS.

This, in relation to His being in the form of God, does not limit us to an earthly, terrestrial sojourn. We know that the form of God is not the likeness of sin’s flesh (Rom. 1:23, 8:3,) lest we continue to claim idolatrous ignorance to God’s proclaimed Channel. While we will not receive direct affirmation until verse 7 that we are specially speaking of the truth of Christ’s descent, we can rest in the fact that each use of the aorist in this passage will not deny, and will in fact complement the truth of Christ’s existence before to His birth. We know now that the aorist does not debar historical facts from being historical, but treats them as presently true, as the act would have completely occurred.

This explanation of the aorist is incredibly important for this verb, as well as future verbs, and I’m not going to repeat it, and I’m going to presume that you’ve got the information!

Okay? Okay.

(Not) – Yes, Seriously, Not

Yes, seriously – not.

The Greek carries two negatives – a “conditional,” me, and “unconditional,” ou. These are differentiated as often as possible in the printed Concordant Literal New Testament, yet it is nearly impossible to express the difference between the two in English without the bold/light face type method in the printed editions.

In Philippians 2:6, we find the unconditional use of the negative. It is, literally, grammatically, spiritually, unconditionally true that it is not “pillaging” for Christ “to be equal with God,” being “in the form of God.” When we discard the faulty “synonym” argument and rest in the truth, we find ourselves face to face with a startling statement:

It is Not Pillaging for Christ to Be Equal With God

What?

It Is Not Pillaging For Christ to be Equal With God

Right, but saying it again doesn’t magically make that easy to hear – especially if you’ve been spending your time standing in the world’s philosophy (which is, alas, subject to sin.) What does this statement mean?

Well… what it says. It is not pillaging for Christ to be equal with God. This is a clear, direct statement acknowledging Christ as God’s equal under the aforementioned circumstances. It is heavily debated by scholars and critics alike, and a consensus is only reached in this text. God silences all human opinion with this claim.

Yes, human opinion, which is all over the place, cannot agree for one darned second as to what is being said here. Is Christ actually being considered God’s equal? If so, does this make Him a rivalrous God? Yet if Christ is not God’s equal, then how can He be the Image of God? Maybe it’s just that He has the ability to become God’s equal, but didn’t, like, try to achieve such a position?

Well, fear no more, folks, for today, we may observe the Greek language, which clarifies the terms for us quite well, negating our assumptions and resolving our questions.

This translation, “pillaging,” is unique to the Concordant Version. The KJV phrases it, “thought it not robbery to be equal with God.” In order to grasp the meaning of the noun, harpagmos, we may observe the noun’s word family, which appears in four different forms:

-       harpazo, SNATCH, verb

-       harpax, SNATCHer, noun

-       harpage, SNATCHing, noun

-       harpagmos, SNATCHing, noun (different form)

The KJV fails to translate the term uniformly. Harpagmos is “robbery,” while harpazo, which appears 13 times, is given seven unique translations. In the Concordant Version, this discrepancy does not exist. All 13 uses of the word are concordantly translated “snatch” (in a few different forms, to account for the inflection of the verb.)

Harpax is a tad more complicated, but not much. It is translated in two different ways by the concordant gang, as “rapacious” and “extortioner.” It is translated “rapacious” when the ending is changed to consider it an adjective, and “extortioner” in its three uses in 1 Corinthians.

And finally, harpage is translated “extortion” (Matt. 23:25,) “ravening” (Luke 11:39,) and “spoiling” (Heb. 10:34.) This leaves for us a few different thoughts, but no set pattern of sound words to rely on. How do we crack this egg?

Well, we may begin with the easiest usage, in Hebrews 10:34 – the spoiling of one’s goods can only refer to a pillage – not the act of pillaging (it is not a verb,) but its concept. As such, the CLV translates the term pillage one time, in the accusative case (meaning it is a direct object,) and rapacity twice more when in the genitive case (meaning it qualifies the previous noun.)

This is indeed in line with the other translations of the term, and prepares us to acknowledge its use in Philippians 2:6. The accusative used by Paul, here, as well as the ending mos, which conveys an idea of action – and as such, the CLV translates the term pillaging, adding “ing” to account for the different ending in the Greek.

Now that we’ve got the technical jargon out of the way, what does it mean?

Christ cannot de-spoil, or be pillaging, His Father by being in His form. It is, definitively, not extortion on Christ’s end to be equal with God. He never forcefully imposed Himself upon God’s allotment, God’s accomplishments, God’s blessings, God’s story, or God’s purpose by being in the form of God.

This wholly resolves any influx of issues. The passage does not proclaim that Christ is God, of course. If He were, “extortion” would not even be a rational issue to raise; moreover, the idea of “equality” would not need to be considered either. It is because extortion is brought up in the negative, and equality brought up in the positive, that this verse faces such backlash. Almost every group you talk to (any, freaking, group,) will proclaim that acknowledging the fact as it is somehow concedes twenty logistical errors (give or take.)

Now, I ask you: do the factional opinions of man’s schools of theology outweigh the word of God? Or is God correct, first and foremost? The One Who inspires the writing we are considering explicitly proclaims that it is not pillaging for Christ to be equal with Him. When Christ acted, He acted as God’s equal. In all outward appearance, He was perceived as God. Both of these facts places Him in equality with God when in His inherent form.

Okay, Let’s Work Backwards

Knowing what our apostle says on this matter, we may now meditate on the previous passages of Holy Writ with this realization in mind (as we should with any major revelation from Paul.) We may observe Jesus’ declarations in John 14 in a proper light, for example. Here are the first ten verses of John 14–

“Let not your heart be disturbed. Believe in God, and believe in Me. In My Father's house are many abodes; yet if not I would have told you, for I am going to make ready a place for you. And if I should be going and making ready a place for you, I am coming again and I will be taking you along to Myself, that where I am, you also may be. And where I am going you are aware, and of the way you are aware.”

Thomas is saying to Him, “Lord, we are not aware whither Thou art going, and how can we be aware of the way?”

Jesus is saying to him, “I am the Way and the Truth and the Life. No one is coming to the Father except through Me. If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also. And henceforth you know Him and have seen Him.”

Philip is saying to Him, “Lord, show us the Father, and it is sufficing us.”

Jesus is saying to him, “So much time I am with you, and you do not know Me, Philip! He who has seen Me has seen the Father, and how are you saying, ‘Show us the Father’? Are you not believing that I am in the Father and the Father is in Me? The declarations which I am speaking to you I am not speaking from Myself. Now the Father, remaining in Me, He is doing His works…”

From this, it is apparent that, for the purposes of studying the observable universe, there is hardly a distinction between the Father and the Son. Their unity is so intimate that the Son does not even try to lay claim to the actions He is used to effect (hence why His actions are never said to be a kind of extortion against God.) Every action Christ takes is an action directly effected by the Father. The Son is God’s Channel, so much so that Jesus tells the unbelieving Jews in John 8:19–

If you were acquainted with Me, you should be acquainted with My Father also.

This is the only way that any of us are able to perceive God. Not once is God said to have another form, another image, some other channel by which He effects His methods. He does not “lay everything out like a blueprint” and then drop Jesus into the mix somewhere in the middle. Nowhere is this claim made. To claim that God does have another image somewhere is to begin endorsing the very disrespect that God takes issue with at the beginning of Romans. Rom. 1:22-23–

Alleging themselves to be wise, they are made stupid, and they change the glory of the incorruptible God into the likeness of an image of a corruptible human being and flying creatures and quadrupeds and reptiles.

To proclaim that the form of God is nothing more than the likeness of sin’s flesh is, indeed, idolatry. Any saint who clings to this ideal should discard such blasphemy as soon as possible, putting away the former, vain reasonings of the world and accepting the true Representation of God. Christ is the Truth and the Life – no other one or thing can accurately portray these characteristics of God without falling short.

Jewish Principle of Who Asked?

No one did! We have no scriptural reason to care what the nation of Israel believes, or has believed. Why would we? They don’t know anything! They murmured constantly! We’re talking about a group of the most stubborn folk on the planet (Ex. 19:8.) At most, I would say that their disposition served as a good contrast to Jesus while on earth, but considering the topic, that’s kind of a backhanded compliment (Rom. 3:1-2, 11:15.) God loves them, yes – yet nowhere does He [unironically] inquire of them for information.

We read the text to learn what God thinks, not what man thinks. It has been argued that, since the circumcision writings are to Israel, that we must interpret them the way that Israel does. Yet this ideal juxtaposes the very nature of Paul’s writings, which are designed to enable us to approach God apart from Israel’s mediation!

As covered in Part I, the scriptures are an unfolding revelation, not a big puzzle or cryptogram that invites the exercise of our ingenuity. Its statements are simple and informative, not confused and elusive. We are asked to believe the text, not solve it. We have found that the only reason our writings ever grow to such lengths is because of the unbelief of our peers!

Understanding the unfolding nature of the text should clarify for us the differing scope of the circumcision and uncircumcision evangels. Israel is promised a terrestrial kingdom to be subject in, and a select few are given jurisdiction to rule in that kingdom (Abraham, the twelve sons of Jacob, the disciples, etc.) However, none of these men come close to the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, Who, like any monarchy, rules the entire kingdom Himself. Yet not only so, but He rules the entire celestial realm as well!

The Old Testament (and the vast majority of the New) hardly covers His celestial reign, but focuses on His terrestrial reign. Even when we do reach Paul’s letters, we don’t receive any legitimate confirmation of His celestial allotment until Ephesians, where we read of Him seated at the right hand of God, to have all in both the heavens and the earth headed up in Him (Eph. 1:9-10, 17.)

In contrast, it is not Israel’s allotment to rule, but hers to be ruled. Even when she is in a position of authority, she is beneath her Lord, her Messiah. It is hers to know the gift of the kingdom, but it is not hers to recognize these celestial secrets revealed by Paul (cf. 2 Pet. 3:15-16.) In Ephesians, our apostle tells us that we are the complement of the One completing the all in all (Eph. 1:23.) This means it is necessary for God to reveal the secret of His will to us, as well as many other secrets which will prepare us for this rule with our Brother. Those of the circumcision, however, were not given these secrets, and this is exemplified in 2 Pet. 3:15-16, where Peter hardly had a clue toward any of the things Paul taught.

This Intimate Relationship is Explained in Hebrews

As such, we do not narratively read of the depth of the relationship between Father and Son in circumcision writings until after Paul’s letters, in Hebrews. Acts leaves us hanging on a mystery – what is to become of Israel? Surely God will deliver her promised kingdom! How could Acts end with the withdrawal of the kingdom? What about the final seven years of the eon prophesied in Daniel concerning the unveiling of the man of lawlessness (Dan. 9:25-27?) These are surely on the way, yes? What, most of all, are the faithful few to make of all of this? Those who already do understand these matters, and were patiently awaiting their Messiah cannot be left wanting!

Hence, the letter to the Hebrews is presented after Paul’s letter to Philemon, and the narrative picks up with affirmations toward the faithful Israelites by first presenting Christ’s glorious relationship to His Father in the first four verses of chapter 1–

By many portions and many modes, of old, God, speaking to the fathers in the prophets, in the last of these days speaks to us in a Son

-       Whom He appoints enjoyer of the allotment of all

-       through Whom He also makes the eons

-       Who, being the Effulgence of His glory,

-       and Emblem of His assumption,

-       besides carrying on all by His powerful declaration,

-       making a cleansing of sins,

-       is seated at the right hand of the Majesty in the heights; becoming so much better than the messengers as He enjoys the allotment of a more excellent name than they.

The arguments for these verses and their refutations will be provided in greater detail in Part VI. Essentially, we note that Christ is the Effulgence of His glory, and the Emblem of His assumption. The term “Effulgence,” apaugasma, has the elements “FROM-RADIANCE,” denoting a brightness of His esteem. And, of course, an “emblem” is a carving, the “assumption” being God’s belief/stance (hupostasis, elements “STANDING-UNDER,” cf. Heb. 11:1.)

The “assumption” especially is an affirmation to these Hebrew believers that it is the Son that brings the different characters of Deity to our perceptions. God “assumes” a variety of characters to reveal Himself; the Son unfolds these (John 1:18.) Even this truth could not be demonstrated until Christ’s earthly sojourn, for God cannot rationally expect sinful, vain creatures to accept characteristics about Him without a visual demonstration of His love. This is shown most tragically in Genesis 4, where the descendants of Cain, knowing full well God’s mercy on their predecessor, stood in open opposition to God unprovoked (Gen. 4:23-24.) Such was the antediluvian disposition of man.

It may also be practically seen in our body’s response to sudden bright light. When you step outside your cool home into a hot summer day, your eyes cannot soak in all the light at once. And, of course, to look directly at the sun for prolonged periods of time will lead to blindness. But a little bit of light at a time will lead to a proper and fruitful adjustment to the environment, decreasing the potential for macular degeneration in your eyesight! Similarly, if God had thrust Himself upon creation in the fullness of His glory back in the Old Testament, Israel would have been blinded (Ex. 33:20.) God had to gradually reveal Himself to His own.

This is also shown in the four accounts. Christ is seen as a King in Matthew (which is why we see such heavy discussion of the “kingdom of the heavens,” the “evangel of the kingdom,” the “keys of the kingdom,” and more,) a Servant in Mark, a Man in Luke (hence the account of His birth and growth,) and the Son of God in John (hence “a God was the word” and abundant mention of His descent from heaven.) Together, these four accounts intentionally provide/withhold certain information to convey different aspects of the same One, that Christ’s whole come to be appreciated.

And again, the purpose is for Christ to unfold the Father (John 1:18.) Christ truly exemplifies the invisible attributes of Deity, and Christ makes them apparent in a definitive Image of God.

Still Working Backwards

Thus, when we read the Hebrew scriptures, let us not concern ourselves with the petty or arbitrary arguments of this eon. We need not question Paul on the matter; if it is not pillaging for Christ to be equal with God, then let it be so. A primary argument from the Non-Existence Sect within Christ has been, “If Christ is the visible Representative of Deity in the Old Testament, then Christ is detracting from the glory of God, as well as His own faith, and you are conceding the Trinitarian/Binitarian claim that He is God.” Yet this statement from Paul resolves the issue. God has spoken! There is no reason for us to deny Him or change what He said to fit a poor narrative. If it is not detracting from the glory of God for Christ to be equal with God, then we can safely say that Christ is used as the visual of the Deity in God’s creation without somehow “corrupting” or “misplacing” Christ. And, of course, for someone to be the visual Representative of Another does not at all concede that the two are literally the same person.

With this in mind, we in the body of Christ may put to rest many of the arguments and interpretations made in reasoning about the names and titles of God throughout the Old Testament. It is completely okay for Christ to use the names and titles of God – from Adonai, to Elohim, to El, to Lord, to Yahweh, to Eloah, and more. These names do not concede “Trinitarian” viewpoints, nor do they contribute to a “Socinian” ideology. These names and titles are used by God for our growth and understanding of Him. We can only understand Him through Christ, by His own admission (John 14:6, 2 Cor. 4:4.) These names are interchangeably used between Christ and God.

There are many simple examples of this which are very instructive. For instance, here’s 1 Tim. 4:10–

…we rely on the living God, Who is the Saviour of all mankind…

Here, also, is Is. 43:11–

I, I am Yahweh, and there is no Saviour apart from Me.

And again, Is. 33:22–

For Yahweh is our Judge; Yahweh is our Statute-Maker; Yahweh is our King; He Himself shall save us.

In these passages alone, we see four distinct titles concerning God. We see Him called:

-       The Saviour

-       The Judge

-       The King

-       Statute-Maker

I suspect that you know where I’m going with this. Observe John 1:29–

On the morrow, [John] is observing Jesus coming toward him, and is saying, “Lo! the Lamb of God Which is taking away the sin of the world!”

So now, Jesus is the Saviour, per John 1:33. But, I’m sure that’s not that serious, right? He’s not explicitly called Saviour, here, so–

We have gazed upon [Christ,] and are testifying that the Father has dispatched the Son, the Saviour of the world.

Oh. Yeah.

So clearly, Christ is allowed to borrow these titles from God. Does Christ being called the “Saviour” detract from the fact that nothing can be done of the Son except if it be the Father’s will?

Of course not.

Philippians clarified this much:

[Christ,] being inherently in the form of God, deems it not pillaging to be equal with God…

This isn’t the only time that God says “He Himself” is attested to something, and then Christ is also attributed these same dignities, as His Image. Gen. 18:25, Ecc. 3:17, and Ps. 75:7 also calls God, the Supreme, the One Judge over all. Yet Jesus clarifies that He, indeed, is judging all, giving His account in judging the nations in Matt. 25, the appeal the religious zealots of the world will be making to Him in Matt. 7:21-23, and our apostle, in 2 Tim. 4:1, says:

I am conjuring you in the sight of God and Christ Jesus, Who is about to be judging the living and the dead, in accord with His advent and His kingdom…

(Does “living” and “dead” cover everyone…?)

So, the things that are directly attributed to God are also attributed to Christ. We see Christ called the King, when God was called “King” in the aforementioned verse. Pilate aptly recognizes His kingship (John 18:37,) He is called the King of kings in Revelation 17:14, 19:13, 1 Tim. 6:15, and the kingdom is His, all authority being given to Him (Dan. 7:13-14, John 13:3, 18:36, Eph. 1:21-22.)

We further see this prominently in God’s title, “Creator,” which Christ is allowed to employ without it being considered robbery or pillage against God. Observe Is. 44:24–

Thus says Yahweh, your Redeemer, And your Former from the belly: I am Yahweh, Maker of all, stretching out the heavens by Myself, stamping out the earth, and who was with Me?

This statement, as is the case with Yahweh being the Judge, the King, and the Saviour, does not exclude Christ from the picture. The idea that this verse, say, denies or “reshapes” this one from a literal declaration:

[Christ] is the Image of the invisible God, firstborn of every creature, for in Him is all created… all is created through Him and for Him, and He is before all, and all has its cohesion in Him. (Col. 1:15-17)

into a figurative one is false and inconclusive, on the grounds that it would fundamentally mean that we must discard Christ as the Saviour, Judge, and King as well. We can see it again in Is. 45:12 –

I (Yahweh) Myself made the earth and created humanity on it; I, My hands stretched out the heavens, and all their hosts I instructed.

Compare it with John 1:10–

In the world [Christ] was, and the world came into being through Him…

We see, in God’s perfect verbiage, that Christ is always considered the subject of their dynamic, as opposed to the Subjector. Christ is continually referred to as a channel for creation (Col. 1:16 – “is created in,” demonstrating Christ’s passivity, and John 1:3 – “came into being through the Word.” We may observe 1 Cor. 8:6, as well, “through Christ all is.”

We will dwell on Colossians, 1 Corinthians, and John later in this study, but it may be thoroughly demonstrated at this point that there is far more merit to a literal reading of their claims. These statements do not deny, but complement each other; they are in perfect accord with other Scriptures. We should never pit two factual statements in scripture against each other, so as to reason away one of them. Such practice is a disservice to the Author.

An Analogy

It is argued that, if “God Himself” made the heavens and earth (Is. 44:24,) then Christ could not be present. Not only does Paul demonstrate that Christ is the exception that proves the rule (Phil. 2:6,) but the simple logic of Christ’s passivity demands our attention. If I (Stephen) build a house, and use a hammer to create the house, that doesn’t suddenly make my creation of the house an indirect action.

Your life is a direct result of God.

Christ is a direct result of God.

The physical world around us is a direct result of God.

The universe is a direct result of God.

We cannot safely infer from this that God is somehow subject to His Channel, any more than I would be subject to my hammer. Such a claim is a “strawman” of the position, making those who would proclaim it liars, not honest scripture students. And if those who argue thus do not understand the fallibility of their own claim, this is even worse.

God is revealing His method of creation, in John and Colossians. In reality He is directing His creation, through His created Image, His Just Representative. This is not impossible to understand, and does not make God a liar. Moreover, the passage in Isaiah is literally revealing that God is the Cause of all, directing all creative action, all life, all breath. All. Certainly an acknowledgement of God being the sole Cause of all doesn’t deny Christ’s existence beforehand, for if Christ exists beforehand, and is the One through Whom God operates, then such design is, indeed, solely God’s decision and action.

In brief summary, the reason that “Isaiah proves Christ’s nonexistence” argument is ineffective is that its method of argumentation follows that of all opposers to God’s word. For example, Atheists and Christians alike, when trying to disprove the Bible, will put on the nerdiest glasses they can find and go, “Well, look, one account in Matthew says this, but the account in Luke says this.” And they take that surface level commentary and attempt to rip the text to shreds, ignoring that, if Matthew says one thing, and Luke another, it doesn’t mean that the text cannot possibly align, but that there is a different scope in view in each book. Isaiah’s revelations are not as matured as Paul’s. Sorry, but this is the fact (Eph. 1-3.) Bluntly, to dismiss this is not the problem of the faithful student. There’s a reason the uncircumcision’s blessings are considered to be far greater than that of the circumcision; the circumcision revelations are limited in their scope, and do not provide the far-seeing statements that Paul gives (Rom. 11:7-12, 2 Cor. 11:5-6, 15:8-9.)

It is, furthermore, speculative. The Isaiah verses cited to “show” Christ’s nonexistence do not say, “Christ does not yet exist.” One is adding to the verse the slant which they have already pre-supposed. It has no bearing if there is no other verse which claims “Christ did not exist until X.” Of course, the Socinian supposes that Matt. 1:20 and Lu. 1:35 do this. We will face this kind of reasoning, and the arguments which use these verses, in Chapters XX-XXII.

Meanwhile, the objection does not really confront our position in the slightest. Whereas our position does accord with the text, the position this objection claims to confront is nowhere argued, in this paper or elsewhere. Hence it is a non-sequitur, and we need hardly consider it further.

Last Little Bit, Here

Much of this chapter may be called an “appetizer.” We are introducing some of the verses which have served as “battle grounds” for this fierce debate. We are introducing our methodology, showing how we will understand these passages in light of Paul’s revelations. John 14, Hebrews 1, and a large handful of Old Testament passages validate Paul’s revelation in our present passage. Those which supposedly “dismiss” a literal rendering of the passages will be considered later in Parts V-VII of this book.

For now, we believe the point has been clearly demonstrated – not only from us, but Paul’s plain declaration, properly translated. Christ, while having the outward appearance of God, does not detract from God in any capacity. It is, in fact, completely okay for these two to be considered equals when Christ is in the form of God, for the duration of the eons. Though, of course, the fact of God’s supremacy is always paramount (John 14:28,) Christ is nevertheless a proper representation of God in His form. If He were not considered God’s equal during the eons, then we would be able to claim that God’s form is an imperfect representation of Him. Yet even the most primitive revelations would deny such a thought (Deut. 32:4.)

The One Who says He places Christ in His own form, and places Christ into equality with Him, is The Placer. That is, the ultimate Placer, the One Elohim. This One is not a man (Num. 23:19,) and He never once says that His image is man’s (rather, that man is first created in His likeness and image.) Moreover, as we discussed, this One evidently – explicitly – expresses that it is idolatry to proclaim that His likeness is composed of our corruptible flesh (Rom. 1:22-25.) It is senseless to consider a fleshy body to remotely reflect the form of God.

To all appearances, then, we may safely correlate the form of God seen in the Old Testament with Christ Himself. When creatures finally recognized Who Christ was, they would refer to Him with the same names and titles which otherwise belonged solely to God (John 20:28.)

This, of course, is not saying that Christ is God, but acts as God’s Representative in the story. We have not made Christ’s identity the same as God’s identity. We are sticking to the text, which claims that the form of God is equal with God, not Christ just “being equal under any circumstance, at any time, and in any shape.” Such a falsification of our view can only be made by intellectually challenged individuals, who must strawman for whatever impenetrable reason. An equal sign requires two objects – one on each side of the equal sign.  As this point has been firmly explained and the concept fully allowed by our apostle in the clause in this portion of the article, we will consider the matter demonstrated. Any who would put these words in our mouths to be scornful and slanderous, intentionally ignorant of the argument at hand.

This literal reading of Phil. 2:6 has been thoroughly ignored and neglected in almost every conversation. Yet it is the very statement which resolves all conflict on this matter! That it is not pillaging detracts from the oft-proclaimed objection, that “Christ literally being in the form of God would detract from His faith, as well as God’s supremacy.” God denies such a conclusion. Whether man likes it or not, this is His perspective, of which we witness, not add.

Christ, being the Emblem of God’s assumption, and the Radiance of His glory (Heb. 1:2-3,) did assume the Image of God without detracting from Him. This is why He is called the Saviour, as well as God – God is, of course, the Supreme, but both can be called the Saviour of the world without it being considered an unjust encroachment. As the only Mediator of God (1 Tim. 2:5,) if Christ fails to assume the role of God perfectly and properly, then He concedes the “Mediator” title, failing to present God in His form.

Of course, this is not a permanent equality. No one said this – certainly not myself, nor did Paul. The “equality,” as stated before, is in reference to Christ in the form of God. It is a relative statement, for, as we know from our studies of the eons and God’s purpose for the eons, Christ Himself will eventually give up subjected creation to His God and Father, that God may be All in all (1 Cor. 15:22-28.) It is only in the form of God in which Christ could appear to be equal to God Himself, for a just Image will accurately portray its object effectively.

- GerudoKing, Seth Fahlenkamp, Jordan White