From: Tim.ONeill@english.utas.edu.au (Tim O'Neill)
Subject: Re: Philippians 2:6 and the Deity of Christ  (Re: Morphe: ...)
Organization: University of Tasmania (Australia)
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 05:50:49 GMT

In article <1992Aug17.014624.21662@engage.pko.dec.com>, pub@riscee.pko.dec.com (Publius) writes:

> But had Paul used 'phusis' instead of 'morphe', Phil 2:6-7
> would have implied that Christ emptied out His divine 'phusis'
> (essential nature) in Incarnation, which is not the case.
> Christ had His divine 'phusis' intact even in Incarnation.
> What was involved in Incarnation is His 'morphe', which changed
> from that of God to that of a servant.

Not at all. The passage says that, despite the fact that he was'divine
in form' ('morphe': whatever the hell that means) he took on the 'form of
a slave'. While the passage invites a contrast between these two, my original
point stands: THE PASSAGE IS ENTIRELY AMBIGUOUS AS TO JESUS' METAPHYSICAL
NATURE. This thread began because you were telling people that this passage
made it 'clear' that Jesus was God, but it does nothing of the sort. You say
that Jesus' 'phusis' was divine, but the passage does not say that at all; you
are assuming it. My original point stands: the word 'morphe' is too ambiguous
to make any firm conclusions about the nature of Jesus according to 
Paul. Whatever 'morphe' means here, it doesn't mean 'phusis' and *that's* the 
point. 
  
> Precisely because He
> took the 'morphe' of a servant during His earthly journey, He
> did not claim His divine prerogative until after His Resurrection,
> when He accepted the worship from Thomas (John 20:28).
> 
> 	"Thomas said to him: My Lord and my God"
> 	                                     - John 20:28
We are discussing Philipians here, the opinions of the author of a book
written decades later are entirely irrelevant to what Paul meant.
 
> >The fact that 'morphe' is used to describe both the heavenly form
> >and the earthly 'form of a slave' which Jesus took on Earth is certainly
> >an indication that we are meant to see a stark contrast i.e.
> >heavenly vs earthly.
> 
> But the contrast is not really heavenly vs. earthly per se.  It is
> master vs. slave.  Angelic beings were never considered 'masters' in
> any sense in Hebrew theology.  The only one that can be used in this
> antithesis is 'the posessor of heavens and earth'.

I can see why you say this, but I simply disagree. I still say that the
contrast is between the exhaulted heavenly and the lowly earthly form.
I don't think you can push this so far as to make a profound theological
statement out of it. The passage does not say that Jesus went from the
position of master to slave, you are, IMO, reading that in.

> >  ... If you look
> >at Foerster's article again you will find that this word's root-verb
> >is quite easily and clearly translated as 'to seize as plunder, to
> >take in war'. It requires a lot of twisting to make it mean 'something
> >which has been taken and then later utilised' ...
> 
> Foerster's article in Kittel's TDNT clearly explains why he rejects
> that rendering you prefer, based on the consideration of grammar.
> He also explains with all alternatives considered, he has no choice
> but to render it as 'something which has been taken and then later
> utilized'.  Yes, both Foerster and Behm are Christians.  But, can you
> label their scholarly arguments as "twistings" simply because they
> are Christians?

No, I'm rejecting them because they consider the clear meaning of the
word and then reject it as being 'unsuitable'. For all the claims that
this rejection are on grammatical grounds, they cannot actually deny
that '(h)arpagamos' *can* be construed 'something to be plundered' 
very easily. Their eagerness to explain away this (uncomfortable)
primary meaning and replace it with a far more obscure interpretation
makes me suspect their motives. Despite Foerster's arguments, the
majority of translators do not agree with him. Most of them either
translate the word as 'something to be retained' (incorrectly, IMO)
or they accept the obvious meaning of 'something to be seized/plundered'
and then puzzle about what this can mean. To me, it's all fairly clear.
Would you like to agree to differ, or shall we go a few more rounds?
Tim O'Neill
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc