THE OLD TESTAMENT IN HEBREWS

With a book entitled Epistle to the Hebrews we would expect it to have a large concentration of references to the Old Testament, and we would not be disappointed. As George Guthrie puts it: “Its astute scholar has crafted what might be called the 'Queen' when it comes to the use of the OT in the NT. No NT book, with perhaps the exception of Revelation, presents a discourse so permeated, so crafted, both at the macro- and microlevels, by various uses to which the older covenant texts are put, and his appropriation of the text is radically different from the book's apocalyptic cousin.” Since the above is true, I will not even attempt to be thorough in the brief review below but instead concentrate on the more obvious references to the OT only.

Hebrews 1 Right off the bat we are confronted with an embarrassment of riches in that this chapter contains a string of no less than seven separate OT passages that are quoted. The opening citation formula in 1:5 states that these are all spoken by God. The passages, in order, are Psalm 2:7-8; II Samuel 7:14; Deuteronomy 32:43; Psalm 104:4; Psalm 45:6-7; Psalm 102:25-27; and Psalm 110:1. That last source is especially important for the author of Hebrews because it is referred to also in Hebrews 8:1; 10:12; and 12:2, all taken as a messianic prophecy. Notice that in choosing these OT passages, the author has covered all three divisions of the OT canon: Pentateuch, Prophets (the OT history books were counted among the Former Prophets), and the Writings.

Hebrews 2:2 This verse may seem to be a strange statement, but the idea that the angels were the intermediaries between God and Moses in giving the Ten Commandments is also found in Acts 7:53 (parenthetically, one of many reasons why I feel that Luke was the author of Hebrews – see post on Hebrews 1-2 for more).

Hebrews 2:6 This quote from Psalm 8:4-6 is introduced in an even stranger manner. It says,"Someone has testified somewhere..."  Does this indicate that the author of Hebrews didn't really know enough about the Scriptures to be able to identify the author or the book it came from? More on this in a bit.

Hebrews 2:11-12 Now we are actually told that Jesus was the one speaking the words in Psalm 22:22 and Isaiah 8:17-18.

Hebrews 2:17 At this point we are introduced to the second major way in which the author alludes to the OT, not in direct quotations but as descriptions of OT characters, events, and rituals. In almost every case, these are shown to be only types of someone greater to come, namely Christ. This verse is the first reference to him as a superior High Priest. The concept is so important to the author that this image will appear again in 3:1; 4:14; 5:3-10; and 6:19-20.

Hebrews 3:2-6 Moses is cited as an example of faithfulness in this quotation from the Septuagint version of Numbers 12:7.

Hebrews 3:7-4:13 This quotation from Psalm 95:7-11 and associated commentary about God's promised rest is introduced by the words “The Holy Spirit says.” But the last verse of this Psalms passage is then repeated in 4:3 where it is introduced by “He (God) said.”

Hebrews 4:4-5 Verse 4 cites Genesis 2:2 using the formula “In one place it says.” However, this is followed by a quotation from Psalm 95:11 where it is introduced by “And again in this place,” as if it appeared in the same book.

Hebrews 4:7 utilizes the citation formula “God says through David” in order to introduce a passage from the Psalms.

Hebrews 4:8 Here we have an allusion to Joshua leading the people into the Promised Land.

Hebrews 5:4 Aaron is used as a type of Christ, who is a superior High Priest.

Hebrews 5:5 This is a passage referring to God the Father, but the author of Hebrews applies it to Christ instead.

Hebrews 5:6 This verse starts out “he [God] says also in another place,” followed by quotation of Psalm 110:4.

Hebrews 6:13-14 quotes from Genesis 22:16-18.

Hebrews 7:1-28 recounts the story of Abraham with Melchizedek, the latter being a type of Christ.

    Verse 17 “It is attested of him”         followed by Psalm 110:4

    Verse 21 “the one[God] said to him    "       "    "    "    "    "

Hebrews 8:5 “Moses was warned” (Exodus 25:40)

Hebrews 8:8 “God says” (Jeremiah 31:31-34)

Hebrews 9:1-10 The tabernacle and its associated rituals are described and treated as a type of what was to come, utilizing Exodus 25-26.

    Verse 8 “the Holy Spirit indicates”

Hebrews 10:1 contains the important principle “the law was only a shadow...not the reality.”

Hebrews 10:5 “Christ said” introduces the Septuagint version of Psalm 40:6-8b. In other words, David is speaking as the Son of David in this passage.

Hebrews 10:12-13 Again Psalm 110:1 is quoted, this time without any introductory citation formula.

Hebrews 10:15-17 paraphrases Jeremiah 31:33-34 and is said to be a testimony of the Holy Spirit.

Hebrews 10:30 This quotation from Deuteronomy 30:35-36 is introduced with “we know the one who said,” referring to God. Between them, verses 29-31 actually mention the three persons of the Trinity.

Hebrews 10:37-38 utilizes no introductory words in from of this first quotation from one of the Minor Prophets – Habakkuk 2:3-4.

Hebrews 11 is the famous faith passage giving the example of persecuted OT heroes from Abel on through the later prophets and even alluding to the martyrs of Hellenistic times.

Hebrews 12:5-6 The “exhortation” here actually comes from Proverbs 3:11-12.

Hebrews 16-21 cites the respective examples of Esau and Moses on Mt. Sinai.

Hebrews 12:26-27 is a quotation from Haggai 2:6 given without any introduction.

Hebrews 13:5-6 in a similar manner provide quotations from Joshua 1:5 and Psalm 118:6.

Hebrews 13:11-13 provide additional references to temple worship as types of Christ.

Conclusion

The several rather sloppy reference by the author to a quote being found “somewhere” or spoken by “someone” seemingly indicate that he was not very well acquainted with the OT writings at all, but nothing could be further from the truth. We need to couple this with the fact that the author only once even identifies who the quotation came from. And in that example (Heb. 4:7), he specifically states that it was God who was speaking through David. Thus, the human authors of the OT Scriptures are really of little importance to the author of Hebrews. Instead, the real authors are given over and over again as either God the Father, Christ, or the Holy Spirit – a very clear proof of the doctrine of the Trinity.

 

LIFE AND TIMES OF ELIJAH AND ELISHA: STUDY LESSON OUTLINE

About 25 years ago, I put together this study outline covering I Kings 17-II Kings 10. To add more interest, I coupled the characters and events in this Old Testament history with those in the New Testament who shared some similarities. You may find it useful for your own individual or group studies.

Elijah and the Widow (I Kings 17)                             Jesus and Martha (John 11:1-44)

Obadiah: Closet Believer (I Kings 18)                       Nicodemus and Joseph

                                                                                    (John 3:19; 19:38-42)

Elijah: Depressed Prophet (I Kings 18-19)                 John the Baptist (Matthew 11:1-6)

King Ahab: Saved Sinner (I Kings 20-21)                 The Sinful Woman (Luke 7:36-50)

Jehosaphat: Mediocre Worldly Believer (I Kings 22) Rich Young Ruler (Matthew 19)

Ahaziah: Enquirer After Baalzebub (II Kings 1)        Simon the Magician (Acts 8)

Elisha Inherits Elijah's Mantle (II Kings 2)                 Jesus and John the Baptist (John 14)

Kings Blessed Due to Jehosaphat (II Kings 3)           Examples of Common Grace Today

Shumenite's Son Revived (II Kings 4)                       Jesus' Healings (Luke 7:1-17)

Naaman's Healing: The Role of Intermediaries         Andrew and Phillip as Intermediaries

(II Kings 5)                                                                 (John 1:35-51)

Joran: Non-belief in the Face of a Miracle (II Kings 6-7) Pharisees and the Blind Man (Jn. 9)

Hazael: Evil Man Accomplishing God's Work (II Kings 8) Judas and Caiphas (Jn. 11)

King Jehu: Religion and the World (II Kings 9-10) Christianity and Politics

 

REVELATION 4:1

It is always interesting for me to compare a number of commentaries and see what they have to say regarding a particular passage in Scripture. I chose this verse at random and found, not surprisingly, that there were a different views concerning just about every phrase in it – and that was just from a cursory search on the internet.

“After this” This phrase appears both in the start and conclusion of verse 1. The first mention is not very controversial except for the fact that some commentators (such as John Wesley) felt it implied that a time interval must have taken place between 3:22 and 4:1 in order for John time to write down all he had been told beforehand. Other scholars (such as Meyer) are quite insistent that no such time elapsed and that John saw one continuous vision. I am not quite sure what the import is no matter which of these two views is taken.

“I looked” Those holding to the opinion that John was still “in the Spirit (or spirit)” (Revelation 1:10), explain that John in his curiosity now looked around and saw the heavenly vision at this point. For example, the Cambridge Bible felt that the phrase implied that he continued to look.

“a door was open” Commentaries, especially those older ones of a devotional nature, tended to make a lot out of this simple statement. Ellicott: “The way into the presence of God lies open (Hebrews 10:19-20); all who have faith may enter.” Sermon Bible: “Sometimes the door is opened that our faith may not fail.” Chuck Smith and John Brown claim that the open door relates to John 10:9 concerning Christ as the door. Brown deduces that therefore John was only granted access to heaven since he was born again. These are nice thoughts but hardly what the author had in mind.

Some writers point to similar times in biblical history when the heavens were opened, such as in Ezekiel 1:1; Matthew 3:16; and Acts 7:56; 10:11. Others, such as Fausset, point out a contrast in that those other passages all describe the actual opening of the heavens while the door is already opened when John looks. Another difference is that Revelation 4:1 is the only one of those occasions when someone actually enters through the door. In the remaining cases, the viewers remain on earth, both physically and spiritually.

Benson follows John Wesley in noting that each time a door is opened in Revelation, John gets a new and more extended perspective.” (see 11:19; 15:5; and 19:11) Interestingly, not one commentator I read noted the correspondence between the open door in Revelation 4:1 and similar language in the previous chapter (Revelation 3:7-8,20).

“And the first voice I had heard speaking like a trumpet” obviously refers back to Revelation 1:20. Concerning that verse, there is also a division of opinion. Some, such as Meyer, feel that the source of the voice is not identified but probably belongs to one of the talking angels that John encounters later in the book. Others such as Ellicott couple John's hearing the voice with his subsequent turning to see Christ to confidently state that the voice in 1:20 must have belonged to Christ also. But that case cannot be clearly proved. One interesting point brought out by some is that in 1:20 hearing precedes seeing whereas the reverse is the case in 4:1. Again, I am not at all sure that it matters either way. Perhaps it is just a literary technique used to bracket the letters in between. If so, it would be a direct parallel to Paul's utilization of the same method to bracket his letters:

    hear...see     letters      see...hear

    grace..peace      letter      peace..grace

There are many other references to trumpets in the Bible, so each commentator picks his favorite passage among them to connect it with Rev. 1:20. Vincent's Word Study, for example, says that the word primarily referred to a war-trumpet, such as in Matthew 24:31 – a reference to the Second Coming of Christ in judgment in which the angels are blowing the trumpets. Benson and Gill, however, both point to the fact that trumpets were blown by the priests as the doors to the temple were opened. This makes sense since opened doors occurred in both and the temple was an earthly type of what existed in heaven. John Brown, on the other hand, points to the trumpet in I Corinthians 15:51-52 signalling the rapture of the saints as the closest parallel. But this is a clear case of circular reasoning since most non-dispensationalist agree that the I Corinthians reference is to the final judgment with the separation of the sheep and goats, not a call for some sort of interim kingdom to begin.

“Come up and I will show you what must happen afterward.” Now we get to the real point of departure between commentators. And the differences are almost exclusively due to the prior commitments these scholars have to various theological views of the end times based mainly on other passages in Scripture besides the Book of Revelation.

First, let's review the major divisions of history that some feel are reflected in Revelation 1:19 and serve as a general outline for that book (By the way, in my post “Book of Revelation: Introduction to the Literary Structure” I present three valid schemes to explain the arrangement of the material in the book, and not one of them is based Rev. 1:19). The older view, still held by some dispensationalists such as Chuck Smith, is that three separate time periods are described here: what was, what is, and what will be. These refer, respectively, to what is in Revelation 1, 2-3, and 4-22.

And, if you happen to see any of the old illustrated dispensationalist charts from the 1800's, you can also notice that this view almost always tries to explain that the seven churches in chs. 2-3 actually outline the whole of Christian church history from the 1^st century to the present time. This is a view that gives rise to ludicrous identifications of both historical church movements and their leaders (who are identified as the “angels” of the churches) with the respective churches in Rev. 2-3. However, some still cling to that basic understanding of Rev. 1:19.

The basic problem with a three-fold division is that the Greek of 1:19 is better understood to say that John is to afterward write everything that he has seen, both present events and future ones. So that leaves us with a two-fold division, if one makes the big, and probably unwarranted, assumption that it is impossible for Revelation to contain a mixture of both throughout (even though the letters to the churches in chs. 2-3 obviously contain a similar mixture). But let us assume that 1:19 does present us with an overall outline of the book, then 4:1 obviously would introduce future events (“things after this”). But even this understanding does not remove all ambiguities.

Thus, both Barnes and Bengel state that 4:1 represents the start of events after the specific churches in chapters 2-3 are no longer (as largely happened during the Ottoman Empire). Fausset and Matthew Poole, on the other hand, take “things after this” to refer to all events subsequent to John's time of writing the Revelation. The Expositor's Bible Commentary similarly notes that Rev. 4-5 still describes the introductory struggles of the church on earth.

Then we come to the dispensational commentators, who are definitely over-represented on the internet and in the popular media. They are all unanimous in stating, going back all the way to Darby and Scoville, that by the time the events introduced by Rev. 41 begin, the true church has been raptured into heaven to leave the rest of humanity, including the “apostate church,” to suffer on the earth. This belief in a pre-tribulation rapture is probably the main doctrine that separates dispensationalists from the much older understanding of the historical pre-millennialists and amillennialists. And it also probably accounts for much of the appeal of the view since the other major schools of thought warn believers that they may not be immune from tribulation.

So what is the evidence for a belief in a pre-tribulation rapture signaled by Rev. 4:1? Most commentators from this school of thought just present it as a self-evident fact without giving any justification for it. However, those who do usually point to the absence of the word “church” after ch. 3, except for one final mention in 22:16 which merely refers back to ch. 1. As even some dispensationalists admit, this is not that powerful an argument since, for one thing, an argument from silence is always a weak one.

Fortunately, even on the internet I located at least one dispensationalist who is intellectually honest enough to actually quote from some of its critics who try to point out some of the deficiencies of their belief concerning Rev. 4:1. His name is Tony Garland and he admits first of all, along with Chuck Smith, that their view connecting the “rapture” with that verse cannot be proved. However, he offers some additional indications for consideration. All together, they indicate, what Gaebelein calls a “symbolic” fulfillment of predictions of future rapture of the church, especially in I Thessalonians 4:15-17. I will take each argument in turn.

1. In both cases, saints will hear a verbal command. (I Thessalonians 4:16)  

I would reply that the parallels between the two events are really not that close. Although the Thessalonian passage does have a loud cry of command, in Revelation it reads more like a mild request. Also, whereas Rev. 4:1 has someone ascending to heaven, in I Thess. 4:16 the movement is in the exact opposite direction.

2. In both cases, the destination of the raptured is heaven (John 14:1-3; I Thessalonians 4:17)

In fact, the destination of the “raptured” in 4:17 is actually the “air,” a word referring to the atmosphere, not heaven. This uncomfortable fact for dispensationalists has caused more academically trained scholars in that camp to evade the point of final destination entirely. For example, Stanley Toussaint stops his comments at the point where the descending Christ meets the saints in the air, and Thomas Constable just states, “ The place where the Christians will be was not as important to Paul as the Person with whom they will be.” (more in my post “I Thessalonians 4:16-17 The Rapture?”) Actually, my comments elsewhere on this passage in Thessalonians make it clear that the final destination of these saints is back on earth (in accordance with an amillennial viewpoint) in the same way that John ends up there after his visions are through.

Appealing to John 14 is a new wrinkle I had not encountered before. But, of course, it only refers to the final destination of the believers, not their intermediate location.

3. The raptured are “in Christ.”

That fact is a rather obvious given, but has no bearing whatsoever on whether John is somehow symbolically enacting a later rapture of believers. And the phrase “in Christ” doesn't even appear in either Rev. 4:1 or I Thess. 4 although John is said to be “in the Spirit.” And what about Paul's comments regarding his own “rapture” into heaven? Wouldn't that mean that he too was predicting a future rapture of the church? But if so, why then did he have to return to earth only to suffer persecution and death unlike the future saints who will supposedly completely escape those hardships?

4. A voice as a trumpet is heard in Revelation just as a voice and a trumpet are heard in Thessalonians.

However, one does not need to go as far as I Thessalonians to find much closer parallels right within Revelation. As mentioned above, there is an exact match in wording and concept in 1:10, and that is the intended reference. But even if one refuses to accept that fact, there are seven trumpets in “heaven” in Rev. 8-10 accompanied by voices that John hears, and in one of these cases (8:13) “a loud voice” is accompanied by the blast from the trumpets. Note that these much closer parallels all happen in the context of judgment, not salvation. Again, this is much more in line with both historical premillennialism and amillennialism, which teach that believers will continue to be around earth during the Tribulation, or at least much of it.

“Come up here” also accompanies the two witnesses rising to heaven. (Revelation 11:12)

At least in this case, Garland appeals to another passage within Revelation. And one must admit that it is an extremely strong parallel to 4:1 with the similar elements “heard,” “voice,” “in/from heaven” and "saying/speaking 'Come up.'” But to invoke this bizarre passage to try and explain a somewhat less opaque one is to turn a basic principle of biblical interpretation on its head. In other words, clear passages should always be used to explain more obscure ones. 

 And whatever Revelation 11 may describe, one thing is obvious; it involves major suffering and persecution of devout believers. I believe that dispensationalist explain that uncomfortable fact away by saying that these are previous unbelievers or those born during the millennial period who were converted to faith by Jewish evangelists. Maybe one will chose to accept that rather convoluted scenario (and it is much much more complicated than that if you read anything by John Walvoord (The Millennial Kingdom) or his many followers rather than accept the more straightforward belief of historical premillennialists and amillennialists which says that the church is obviously still on earth during these tribulations since it never left earth. But even if you chose to agree with Garland, keep in mind that he is trying to draw a dubious parallel between (a) the two devout witnesses (whoever or whatever they may be) being persecuted and killed before going to heaven and (b) the rapture of the church into heaven in order to escape such a fate entirely. At this point, his reasoning escapes me entirely.

 

THE OLD TESTAMENT IN JOHN'S WRITINGS

The Gospel of John

As expected, John's Gospel strikes out in a different direction from the Synoptic writings in a number of ways. One of these is his much less reliance on direct quotations from the Old Testament. John employs about half the number as Mark does and only a fifth of the number that Matthew has. But as Raymond Brown, probably the premier commentator on John's Gospel, explains, mere statistics are very misleading because major OT themes are even more represented by him.

The allusions to the Old Testament start at the beginning of John's Gospel, which is a reworking of the first verses of Genesis 1. In John 1:1-3 we are thus first introduced to a key theme found throughout this Gospel: the identity of Christ with the Father. This is also stressed in the seven “I am” statements in the first half of the book, all alluding back to Moses' encounter with God in the burning bush where He reveals His name as Yahweh, The I Am. Then there is the replacement theme throughout the first half of the book whereby Jesus, in one way or another, brings out the true significance of the various Jewish feasts (see my post on Jewish Festivals in John's Gospel for details).

Certain OT patriarchs are picked out by John for special notice. John 8:31-59 centers around a discussion between Jesus and the Jews in which they brag about being sons of Abraham. This encounter ends in an attempt by them to stone him when he declares, “Amen, I tell you that before Abraham was, I am.” The famous passage John 3:16 can be viewed as an allusion back to the story of Abraham's abortive sacrifice of his beloved son. Only in the case of Jesus, the sacrifice actually takes place. John 4:1-15 takes place at Jacob's well and is a deliberate retelling of the story found in Genesis 29:1-12. In both cases, the male protagonist provides water for the woman involved, only the water that Jesus provides is living water. In each case, Jesus is shown to be superior to the patriarchs.

John's Gospel is also noteworthy in not recording any parables of Jesus. But to compensate for that fact, he provides three examples of extended discourses that are somewhere between parables and allegories. There are definite OT overtones in these three. The first is found in John 6:25-59 where he calls his body the bread of life in comparison to the manna that God provided the Israelites in the wilderness. John 10 is the allegory of the sheep and the shepherd, and it is discussed in some detail in my post on that chapter. The third is John 15:1-11 in which Jesus is pictured as the vine and the Father as the vinegrower. This can be profitably compared with the Old Testament parables utilizing the vine(yard) analogy and found in Isaiah 5:17; Psalm 80:8-16; and Ezekiel 19:10-14. For a further discussion of these those passages, see the post on “Three Vineyard Parables.”

John's Epistles

Definite allusions to the Old Testament in these three letters are few and far between, and certainly no direct citations appear there. One could point to the image of light as representing the holiness of God in I John chapters 1-2. Similar use of this symbol is found in Psalm 4:6; 27:1 and Isaiah 60:1-2. References to the commandment to love one another in 2:7-11 can be traced all the way back to Leviticus 19:18. Next, Perkins notes that references to the antichrist(s) in I John 2:18 appear to combine the characteristics of the mythical chaos monster that God defeats during the creation, Satan, various OT human rulers who embodied evil, and false prophets such as mentioned in Deuteronomy 13:2-6 and 18:20. Finally I John 3:12 utilizes the story of Cain and Abel as an example of one following the way of the evil one.

The Revelation

Although scholars have identified up to 1,000 references to the Old Testament in John's Revelation and whole portions of that book appear to have been structured after OT passages, there is not one direct quotation found there. The pervasive influence of the Old Testament on that book is such a large subject that there is no space here to discuss it in depth. However, I would recommend that you read my post entitled “The Old Testament in the Book of Revelation” if you want to learn more.

 

THE SON'S ETERNAL SUBMISSION TO THE FATHER AND COMPLEMENTARISM

Eternal Submission of the Son

I am usually not very interested in the field of theology. However, one area of systematic theology has come to my attention twice in the last few weeks, so I decided it might be a sign to look into the matter further. There is a doctrine taught by some respected Bible scholars such as Wayne Grudem that is called the Son's eternal submission to the Father. This could be called a newly discovered insight or a blatant heresy, depending on your point of view. Remember in what follows that any insights we are allowed to get from Scripture relating to the mystery of the Godhead are only dim shadows of the reality.

I tend to be very suspicious of new trends in theology and remember the comment of the late Thomas Oden who said that he would like to be remembered as a theologian who made no new breakthroughs in the field of theology. So whenever I encounter a doctrine that I am not quite sure about, I first look to see what scriptural backing its proponents cite for their view. In the case of “eternal submission of the Son” that is easy to do since Grudem, on his website, has conveniently outlined them in the essay entitled “Biblical Evidence for the Eternal Submission of the Son to the Father.” He groups the pertinent passages into several different categories, but there is some overlap between them. Here is what he says, along with my rather uneducated attempts to reply to his arguments.

Father and Son are eternal designations since they also applied to Christ before the Incarnation. (John 3:16; Romans 8:29; Hebrews 1:2; Psalm 2:6-7)

The first thing to point out is that the mere designations “father and son” do not in themselves necessarily indicate any degree of hierarchy between the two, just different functions. Secondly, the NT references above refer to Jesus role during the Incarnation and therefore “son” is an appropriate title to give him during that time on earth.

Then we come to the much quoted verses in Psalms. In them God sets his king on Zion (v. 6) and “said to me, 'You are my son; today I have begotten you.'” Making the logical assumption that the son in v. 7 is the same as the king in v. 6, then it probably refers to King David and by extension the Davidic line culminating in Jesus Christ. But to say that it definitely refers to the pre-incarnate Christ is also to say that this “son” only became God's son at some point in history (“today I have begotten you”), and that would be an admission that there was a time before then when Christ was not the Son. In which case, the designation “Son” is not an eternal one at all.

Lastly we have the witness of the Book of Revelation where we are given the best insight into conditions in heaven itself now and in the future.

The Father's authority and the Son's submission existed prior to creation. (Ephesians 1:3-5,9-11; II Timothy 1:9)

But the contention that these verses demonstrate submission is quite tenuous. Concerning Ephesians 1:3-5, one of the premier commentator on this letter, Harold Hoehner, states that in v. 4 the prepositional phrase “in him” “refers back to 'in Christ' in v. 3 and means that God chose 'us' in connection with Christ.” If that same nuance holds for the references to “in him” or “in Christ” in vv. 9,10, and 11, then it suggests joint actions of Father and Son rather than a hierarchical situation.

Finally, even if it were to be proved that Christ submitted to the Father before his incarnation, that only demonstrates one facet of eternity – the beginning. It remains to be determined whether that is the present and future status of Christ. There are certainly no verses one can point to that state unambiguously that Christ can have no greater status in relation to God the Father now or in the future than he did in his pre-incarnation. As a matter of fact, it is just the opposite case.

The famous hymn in Philippians 2:5-11 has been called a U-shaped comedy, a literary term applying to stories in which a person who possesses some sort of treasured position loses it, but then manages to gain it back in the end. There are several other stories in the Bible which could be described as comedies in the literary sense of the word, but almost all of them are really J-shaped comedies instead. Thus, the highly respected patriarch Job is reduced to a position of utter misery and despair; However, at the end of the story he actually has more than he started with in terms of both material and spiritual blessings. Joseph is another prime example: he was successively: the favored son of his father, a jailbird, and second in charge over the world power Egypt. I would argue that the hymn in Philippians is another J-shaped comedy with Christ having a much higher position than even the one he possessed to start with (see vv. 8-11).

Respective authority and submission are shown in the process of creation. (John 1:2; Hebrews 1:2; I Corinthians 8:6; Colossians 1:16)

Grudem says that the citations above refer to the creation as being through (dia) Christ, not by him. In rebuttal, one can simply point to Hebrews 2:10 where the same preposition dia is used to say that all things exist for and through God the Father. And interestingly, Romans 11:36 states that it was from and through (dia) Christ that all things exist. So Grudem's argument turns on itself and actually demonstrates the complete equality of Father and Son.

Respective authority and submission are shown prior to Christ's earthly ministry. (John 3:16; Galatians 4:4; I John 4:9-10; etc.)

There are other such references to God sending the Son to earth. But these can also be construed as saying that God allowed his Son to come to earth (in other words, it was the Son's initiative, not that of the Father) in light of Philippians 2:6-8 in which he, Christ, emptied himself and humbled himself.

Jesus showed submission to the Father during his earthly ministry.

Even Grudem does not dispute the fact that this says nothing whatsoever concerning Christ's present status relative to that of the Father.

Christ demonstrates submission as a Great High Priest. (Hebrews 7:23-26; Romans 8:34)

Grudem implies that the Hebrews passage, especially v. 25, indicates a continuing role for Christ in heaven in which he brings individual cases to God for His decision. However, as Ellingworth explains regarding both passages cited above: “there is no logical or theological reason why the author should not have linked the one sacrifice [of Christ on the cross] and the constant intercession as naturally as Paul does in Rom. 8:34.” Indeed, the whole context of Hebrews 7:15-8:7 centers around the one-time sacrifice Christ made while on earth, not on any additional ways he may be interceding for us while with the Father. Similarly, Buchanan states, “'Those who approach God through him' are the people whom he represented [note the past tense] when he offered sacrifice for atonement of sins.” F. F. Bruce summarizes it as follows: “His once-completed self-offering is utterly acceptable and efficacious...”

In regard to Romans 8:34 specifically as well as the related John 16:26 and I John 2:1, commentators express much the same as above:

Leon Morris: “We should interpret the intercession passages in light of frequent references to sitting at the right hand of God. His presence at God's right hand in the capacity of one who died for sinners and rose again is itself an intercession.” “There is one basic underlying thought [in the above passages], namely, that our approach to the Father rests firmly on Christ's priestly work for us. That work is itself a perpetual intercession. It does not require to be supplemented by further intervention on our behalf.”

B. F. Westcott: “He pleads, as older writers truly expressed the thought, by His Presence on the Father's throne.”

Martin Luther: “The blood by which He atoned for our sins, the obedience which he rendered, is a continual intercession for us.”

Christ demonstrated submission during the pouring out of the Holy Spirit at Pentacost. (Acts 2:32)

This verse appears to say, at least in Grudem's mind, that Jesus poured out the Holy Spirit only after getting permission from God the Father. But it is just a comment on Acts 2:17 in which in clearly says that it is God the Father who poured out the Holy Spirit. Again, this appears to teach the equality of action between the two.

Christ demonstrated submission when He gave revelation to the church. (Revelation 1:1)

This is an interesting argument and one in which much depends on the literary structure of the verse and the proper referent to the pronoun “him” in the sentence. Here is one possible way to diagram this verse as two parallel clauses:

The revelation of Jesus Christ

    which God

        gave

            to him

                to show his servants

                    things which must happen soon

    He

        sent it

            by his angel

                to his servant John

                    who bore witness of God's word and the testimony of Jesus Christ

                    and of all the things he saw.

According to this scheme, the one God gave the revelation to was not Jesus Christ, but an angel (unless one wishes to take the heretical position that Jesus is an angel). Alternatively, one can diagram the sentence somewhat differently:

The revelation of Jesus Christ

    which God

        gave

            to him

                to show his servants

                    things which must happen soon

    He

        sent it by his angel

            to his servant John

                who bore witness of God's word and

the testimony of Jesus Christ of all the things he saw.

In this case, “him” would refer to John, not Jesus. But by neither reckoning is the revelation given to Jesus by God.

Christ demonstrates submission by sitting at the right hand of God. (Acts 2:32; Ephesians 1:20: Hebrews 1:3)

However, critics remark that in the Book of Revelation only one shared throne for the Father and Son is mentioned (3:21; 12:5; and 22:3). Grudem then makes the case that Revelation 3:21 pictures believers as sitting with Jesus on his throne, and we certainly aren't equal with him. . But Hoekema rightly remarks that those thrones are on earth, not in heaven. It “is a concrete way of expressing the thought that they are reigning with Christ.” One can't push the details of an analogy. And one can also quote Matthew 19:28 in which the twelve apostles have separate thrones, but Christ has another one.

Christ will demonstrate submission in his rule over all the nations. (Revelation 2:26-28)

Even if receiving authority over nations indicates that there is submission involved here (and that is doubtful), it does not say when Christ received it. And in light of the probable allusion to Daniel 7:13-14, it occurred prior to the Incarnation, assuming that reference really is to Christ as the “one like a human being.” That brings up another point of ambiguity since that entity has been variously identified as Michael, Gabriel, Judas Maccabeus, or even Daniel himself. It is obvious that the original context does not identify him with Christ since the OT passage clearly states that the personage in question had to be presented to God.

Christ will demonstrate submission after the Final Judgment and for all eternity. (I Corinthians 15:24-28)

Grudem saves his most powerful argument for the last. But even here, the exact implication of this one verse is somewhat disputed. Look at the following comments:

Paul Marsh: “Their essential equality and unity remain.”

Orr and Walther: “Paul meticulously maintains his Jewish monotheistic tradition: therefore the son himself is finally subjected, a statement that must be read, not from the perspective of a subordinationist christology, but from Paul's position, which is determined to set forth God as the all in all.”

F. W. Grosheide: “The apostle does not imply that the Son will be subjected to the Father. He keeps referring to Christ's work as Mediator (subjected to him that did subject), but He designates Mediator by his highest name. The Bible contains little about the subjection of the Mediator to the Father after the former's work is done. We might put it this way, that the Mediator will lay down his office at the feet of the Father, when he has finished his work as such.”

Gordon D. Fee: “As in 3:22-23 and 11:3, the language of the subordination of the Son to the Father is functional, referring to his 'work' of redemption, not ontological, referring to his being as such. The unity of God lies behind all such language.”

There is one expected final argument that we expect Grudem to make: Father and Son are eternal designations since they will exist forever in the future. The reason for his silence on this point is that the Bible is strangely silent itself in the very place where we obtain the fullest picture in the Bible of the future status of the Son in relation to the Father: the Book of Revelation. Instead, what do we find there? Outside of the first three chapters in the book dealing with the present church on earth, God is only called Father in relation to Christ once: Rev. 14:1. And that verse merely talks about names written on believers at some time in the past.

And correspondingly, outside of chapters 1-3, Christ is only called Son once. In Rev. 14:14, he has the designation “the Son of man,” not the Son of God. So what title is Christ known by in heaven? He is called “The Lamb” no less that 28 times, referring to His one-time sacrifice on the cross on our behalf.

Complementarism

So what does the above have to do with eternal submission? Not much in my mind, but let me first briefly explain that term. There are two basic models for marriage followed by Christians today: complementarism and egalitarianism. Although both ascribe equal value before God to both male and female in this family relationship, complementarians treat Paul's teachings on the submissive role of the wife as still binding today while egalitarians generally feel that they made sense in Paul's day but do not in today's changed situation.

I do not intend to get bogged down in that controversy at all. However, it is of great interest that the above arguments by Grudem concerning the Heavenly Family first appeared in his article entitled “Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth.” By the way, “evangelical feminism” is Grudem's derogatory way of designating egalitarianism. It appears that to justify his existing position on complementarism in marriage, Grudem has basically departed from the historical views of christology. In doing so, Grudem has employed the rabbinical argument from the greater to the lesser. Thus, since the Heavenly Family obviously maintains a definite hierarchy (which he believes he has proved), then earthly families should do the same.

One major problem with Grudem's approach is that in the whole Bible I have yet to find one example of either Jesus or a biblical author utilizing this form of argument. If there is one, it is not very easy to discern. On the other hand, the argument from lesser to greater is found numerous times throughout those writings. The general comparison argument usually takes the form “If..., then how much more...” It appears no less than thirteen times in the NT, always beginning with the lesser or earthly item and using it as the basis for comparison with the more important and harder to grasp, spiritual truth. The same type of argument appears in Jesus' parables and all the OT types of greater things transpiring in Jesus' ministry and life. The Book of Hebrews is filled with additional examples.

Most tellingly, in one of the prime proof texts used by complementarians themselves, Ephesians 5:22-32 we do have a comparison between marriage and a spiritual truth involving Christ. But it is nothing at all like Grudem would hope it to be. In the first place, it is another argument starting with an earthly situation and moving upward to a divine truth, not the reverse. Even more importantly, Paul compares husband and wife, respectively, to Christ and the Church rather than comparing husband and wife to God and Christ. If there was any place in the Bible for Paul to have stated what Grudem wants him to say, this would have been the place.

I hate to conclude on a somewhat sarcastic and sacrilegious note, but Grudem's intended analogy between earthly and divine families only truly works if the Father and Son represent, respectively, the husband and wife instead. But since Jesus Christ quite obviously appeared in male form on earth and God the Father is almost always represented by a male designation, then that would make them a gay couple. So the Holy Spirit who proceeds from the two of them is now their (adopted?) child, and the Son (who is also the wife) is now his mother, or perhaps his father.

 

THE OLD TESTAMENT IN MARK'S GOSPEL

Since almost all of Mark's Gospel is found in either Matthew or Luke, it seemed best to concentrate on only those few unique passages in Mark to see how he utilized the Old Testament writings.

Mark 1:2 At the very beginning of this gospel we see a slight departure from the parallel accounts in Matthew and Luke. If you compare the quotations from the three Synoptic passages, you can see first of all that Mark's version actually starts out differently from the others. It begins with, “As it is written in Isaiah the prophet, 'Behold I send my messenger before your face.'” And then if you go to the trouble to trace back the quoted words, you will get really confused. These opening words actually come from Malachi 3:1. And the rest of the quotation, which is also present in the other Synoptics, is a combination of Exodus 23:20 and Isaiah 40:3.

Scholars feel that such compound citations of OT Scriptures, called testimonia, on similar subjects had been compiled earlier and were usually referred to by the most prominent author in the group (Isaiah in this case). Isaiah also happens to be the only OT prophet that Mark mentions by name (see 7:6). We will see in a future post that Paul also utilized such testimonia in his writings.

C.S. Mann also notes something unusual about Mark's opening words found nowhere else in the NT: “The Greek tense is perfect, with the sense of a past event with continuing results.”

Mark 4:26-29 The quotation here is basically taken from the Greek Septuagint of Joel 3:13. However, as Marcus notes, the context is reversed. In Joel the words refer to God destroying the nations surrounding Israel while Mark seems to show concern for the Gentiles instead, or at least to have a more positive interpretation of the coming kingdom. Anderson agrees and says, “Here the note of judgment is muted...” The word “sprout” in verse 27 may possibly be a reference to Zechariah 3:8; 6:12 where the Messiah is called the sprout of the Davidic line.

Mark 6:34 There is a reference here to sheep without a shepherd. That image actually appears a number of times in the OT, such as in Numbers 27:17; I Kings 22:17; Ezekiel 34:8; and Zechariah 10:2.

Mark 7:4-5 Mark's version of these words of Jesus is a little longer than in the parallel gospels. It includes more detail on what the Pharisees wash in order to be ritually clean. But these details are either not in Leviticus at all or apply to the priesthood only. (See Leviticus 11:32 and 15:12. The options here are that (a) Mark, a possible Gentile, was ignorant concerning the OT law, (b) these added details demonstrate that the Pharisees were going well beyond OT regulations on purity and following an oral law in addition, or (c) Mark has added to this long list as a form of sarcasm (Both Marcus and Lane ascribe to this last explanation).

A final phrase in Mark's version may or may not be found in your particular translation since it only appears in some early manuscripts. It refers to the Pharisees even washing their beds. If these were authentic words of Mark (and Jesus), then it certainly would add to the understanding that sarcasm is intended here.

Mark 7:10 The introductory words to this quotation are “Moses said” in place of “God said” in Matthew's parallel account. One could argue that Mark is attempting to minimize the value of the commandments that follow, but that idea does not hold up at all since both 7:9 and 7:12 make it clear that the law ultimately came from God, not a man.

Mark 8:22-26 This unusual account of the healing of a blind man by Jesus is found only in Mark's Gospel. There are no direct quotations from the OT here, but several possible allusions. The mention of walking trees may refer back to the fable in Judges 9:7-15 which ridicules the concept of kingship (Joel Marcus). But Mark's passage may only criticize the concept of earthly kingship, unlike the type of kingdom that Christ is instituting. Also, the concept of leading by the hand and opening blind eyes is also found in Isaiah 42:16 where it refers to God's actions.

Mark 9:14-29 Mark's version of the healing of the epileptic right after the Transfiguration is much more detailed than the parallel accounts in the other Synoptics. Some of these additional verses refer back to the OT.

Verse 15 The crowd may have been amazed at Jesus' radiant appearance as happened to Moses when he descended from Mt. Sinai. (Exodus 34:29-35) Marcus adds that there is both a comparison and a contrast between the two. “Moses' radiance is terrifying, but Jesus' is both awe inspiring and attractive.”

Verse 19 One could say that Mark's account adheres somewhat closer to the Pentateuch (See Numbers 14:11 and Deuteronomy 32:20)

Verse 22 “Have pity on us and help us” is almost an OT liturgical formula usually addressed to God the Father (Psalm 123:2-3; II Chronicles 14:11; Psalm 79:9; Esther 14:14).

Mark 9:48-50 Leviticus 2:13 says that “every sacrifice will be salted with salt,” referring to an offering that will be burned up. Or this may be an allusion to Genesis 19:24-26 and Deuteronomy 29:23 in which Sodom and Gomorrah are destroyed. Perhaps “the eschatological fire will punish the wicked but refine the righteous (Is 43:21).” (Marcus)

Mark 12:28-34 The first great commandment given here is actually the Shema (Deuteronomy 6:4-5) while the second great commandment comes from Leviticus 19:18b. There are also echoes of I Samuel 15:22; Hosea 6:6; Isaiah 1:11; Deuteronomy 4:35; Exodus 8:10; and Isaiah 45:21.

Mark 13:10 The concept of a mission to the Gentile nations is found throughout Isaiah (42:6; 49:6,12; 52:10; 60:6) and in Psalm 96, but this verse is not a direct quotation from any of them.

Mark 14:18 The other three gospels record this event at the Last Supper, but only Mark through his wording makes it specific that Judas' betrayal is a fulfillment of the prophecy found in Psalm 41:9.

Note that in the above examples, there are a relatively large number of the references to the Minor Prophets compared to Matthew.

PHILIPPIANS 2:10 "THINGS UNDER THE EARTH"

 

As I was looking at the hymn in Philippians 2, my mind was drawn to verse 10 where it states that at the name of Jesus, every knee on heaven, on earth, or under the earth will bow and every tongue confess that Jesus is Lord. I was especially curious about the reference to things “under the earth” and wondered how often that phrase appeared elsewhere in the Bible and what it referred to exactly. So I decided to look at all the similar geographical series throughout the Bible. When I did, a definite progression was seen to take place from two to three to four.

At the very start we see the very familiar coupling of heaven(s) and earth. Sometimes this phrase occurs with heaven in the singular and sometimes in the plural. There may not be any real distinction between the meanings of the two, but the references to heaven(s) in the Bible are somewhat ambiguous. At times the word appears to refer to the atmosphere above the earth while other passages make more sense if the meaning is the realm which God and the angels inhabit. In any case, “heaven(s) and earth” means the totality of God's creation.

The dual creation in Genesis 1 becomes a triad first at Exodus 20:4 when God commands the people not to make images of (and worship) anything in the heaven, the earth, or the water under the earth. But in this case, we need to go to the parallel teachings in Deuteronomy 4:18 and 5:8. Those two verses make it clear that fish and other sea dwellers are what are living in the water “under the earth.”

But in later references to “under the earth,” that metaphor usually applies to Sheol, the realm of the dead. For example, in I Samuel 28:13 a vision of the deceased prophet Samuel comes up from the ground. Thus, he must have been under the earth originally. Another completely different spiritual entity rises out of the earth in Revelation 13:11 – the second beast. And in Ezekiel 26:20; 31:14-16 and 32:18,24 various pagan nations are cursed and predicted to be sent to the underworld, also called the Pit. So we can assume that those mentioned in Philippians 2 as being under the earth are the various spirits, whether of deceased human beings or supernatural ones.

Another seemingly similar phrase is found in Psalm 139:15 in which the Psalmist talks about God forming him in the lowest parts of the earth. But that particular reference has been explained as either (a) an allusion to Adam being formed from the dust of the earth, (b) a metaphor for a deeply concealed place (i.e. the womb), or (c) a reference to the fact that earth is far below heaven.

The closest parallels to the triad in Philippians 2:10 are actually found in the Book of Revelation. In Rev. 5:3, none of the creatures in heaven, on earth, or under the earth are able to open the scroll to read it. Finally, in 5:13 we read that all beings in heaven and on earth and under the earth and in the sea sing a song of praise to the Lamb of God. Notice that this listing incorporates the language found in the Deuteronomy references but now expands it to four locations instead of just three. This is appropriate since the number four in Revelation and elsewhere in the Bible is symbolic of all God's creation.

THE OLD TESTAMENT IN LUKE'S GOSPEL

Although this Gospel was specifically addressed to Theophilus (“lover of God”), a probable pseudonym for a Gentile Godfearer, it is still filled with references to the Old Testament. The actual citations not found in the other Synoptic Gospels form an interesting pattern since they occur predominantly in the beginning four chapters. A.T. Robertson counts some 36 possible OT passages being referred to just in the encounters of the angel with Zacharias and Mary. Ten of these appear within Mary's song called the Magnificat.

One of the most complete citation formulations appears in 3:4 – “as it is written in the book of the words of the prophet Isaiah.”

Continuing through Luke's Gospel and looking only at passages not found in the other gospels, we come next to the summary statement in 2:52 concerning Jesus' maturation. It turns out to be an almost exact quotation of I Samuel 2:26 describing the growth of the boy Samuel. Thus, we have a subtle reminder of Jesus' future role as a prophet also.

All of the Synoptics record the quotation of Isaiah 40:4-5. However, only Luke continues with the last portion of that prophecy which predicts that “all flesh shall see the salvation of God.” These final words are important to Luke's mainly Gentile audience.

The account of Jesus' early teaching in the synagogue is found only in Luke 4:16-31. He starts out by reading from Isaiah 58:6; 61:1-2 and goes on to cite incidents in the lives of Elijah and Elisha in which it was only Gentiles who were miraculously aided. Obviously, this message did not sit well with his Jewish audience.

Outsiders ask Jesus concerning the commandments in Luke 10:25-28 and 18:18-25, and these two occasions would form an interesting pair to be compared and contrasted in your private or group studies.

There are no actual citations from the OT from about chapters 5 to 18, and the first quotation (in 19:46) is actually recorded in Matthew and Mark as well. But these chapters are by no means devoid of references to the Hebrew Bible since there is mention of Jonah, Solomon, Sodom and Gomorrah, Abel, Zachariah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Noah, and Lot in this central portion of Luke.

All three Synoptics record the quotation from the Psalms found in Luke 20:42. However, there is an intriguing difference in the way it is introduced: Both Mark and Luke begin basically the same way with the words “David said in the Holy Spirit” while Luke begins: “David said in the book of Psalms.” I am not sure what to make of that difference.

Luke 21:22-24 has reference to two events that are to be fulfilled: the days of vengeance and the time of the Gentiles. The former is an allusion to the Septuagint version of Hosea 9:7: "the days of vengeance have come." The mention of the time of the Gentiles does not have as exact a match in the OT but according to Pao and Schnadel may reflect passages such as Deuteronomy 28:64; Isaiah 28:3; 41:25; Jeremiah 20:4-6; Ezekiel 26:11; Daniel 8:13-14; and Zechariah 8:12-14; 12:3.

21:28 The phrase “your redemption draws near” may come from Deuteronomy 30:4; Isaiah 27:12-13; or Zechariah 2:6, with the first and last of these showing the closest parallels to Luke in the Greek Septuagint form.

Luke 23:46 is a quotation from Psalm 31:6. “Where the psalmist entrusts himself to God as he is surrounded by enemies, Jesus entrusts himself to God in the face of imminent death, expressing his submission to God's will and his confidence that God will deliver him – that is, bring him back from the dead.” (Pao and Schnadel)

And then as we get to the finale of Luke's account, we see the recurrence of similar events that were found at the beginning of his Gospel. In the first recorded example of Jesus' teaching ministry (in the synagogue at 4:6-31, he taught from the Scriptures. Finally, in his last recorded public teaching (Luke 25-28) he teaches the two men from Emmaus from the same source. The second reference to the OT found at the end is Luke 23:56 in which Jesus' followers are said to have rested on the Sabbath according to the law. This matches up perfectly with the five times in Luke 2:22-39 where people are recorded as having obeyed the law.

 

PHILIPPIANS 2:5-6

I once entered into a conversation with our patent lawyer at work, who attended the same church as I did. We were talking about how we approach the Bible. I said that earlier in my life I somehow got the idea from teachers and preachers at our church that there was just one way to understand each Bible passages. Once you knew what it meant, there was really no need to look into it further. For someone like myself with a research mentality, this really took all the adventure out of it entirely. Not so strangely, my lawyer friend had trouble understanding what I was talking about. For him, the challenge was pinning down each passage once for all, and then going on to another one until he basically had a complete collection of case laws he could rely on.

I am sure that there is something to be said for both approaches. But for those of you who may share a more lawyerly mentality, I thought that as an example I would zero in on just two verses from the well-known hymn in Philippians to show you some of the added insights you might not have considered before.

I always like to begin by seeing how a passage fits into the overall scheme of the book.

Structure of Philippians

I. Introduction (1:1-2)

II. Thanksgiving and Prayer (1:3-11)

III. Paul's situation (1:12-26)

IV. Exhortation (1:27-2:16)

III'. Paul's situation (2:17-3:1a)

IV'. Exhortation (3:1b-21)

II'. Thanksgiving and Prayer (4:1-20)

I'. Conclusion (4:21-23)

The above structure also finds some confirmation from Muller's contention that 2:6-12 and 3:17-4:1

constitute the twin peaks of this epistle and Furnish's statement that 2:6-11 is located “at the theological 

and rhetorical center of Philippians.”

Sections IV and IV': There is a strong feeling that all or part of Philippians 3:4-11 harkens back to the 

hymn of 2:6-11 and may even provide a missing portion of it. Specific verbal parallels between 2:5-8 

and IV include “be of the same mind” (2:5 and 3:15) and the root morphe (2:6 and 3:10,21).

 

Section IV (1:27-2:16)

A look at the recurring themes within this passage shows that they can be grouped in a symmetrical fashion.

A. Stand firm that Paul might hear; opponents of the faith (1:27-30)

B. Have the mind of Christ (2:1-5)

C. Hymn to Christ (2:6-11)

B'. God is at work in you (2:12-13)

A'. Hold fast that Paul might be proud; a perverse generation (2:14-16)

Common language unifying Section IV includes: “oneself” (4x), “one mind” (1:27; 2:2,5), “care/think” 

(2:2,5), “humility” (2:3,8) and the comparative use of 'os (2:7,12,15). The center of this section is the 

glorious hymn rightly praised throughout the ages and also known as the Carmen Christi or Kenosis 

Hymn. Craddock sees in its three movements another example of the past-present-future patterns in the 

book. Thus, the career of Christ is presented through the three designations: God, servant and Lord. 

Most other commentators discern a two-part structure to this hymn with “therefore” in 2:9 signaling 

the start of the second half. Christ's humiliation is the subject of the first part, and his exaltation the 

theme of the second. Thus, in literary terms, it would be called a U-shaped comedy.

Note that the above assumes that the verses in question are a hymn. That assumption will be confirmed 

by almost any modern English translation, which will indent the lines as if it were poetry. And as 

poetry, one thing we need to be reminded of is to expect some of the lines will basically repeat the 

thought of other lines while some might directly contrast one another. Thus, being in the form of God 

(6a) parallels his equality with God (6b); exploiting his status (6c) contrasts with his emptying himself 

(7a); emptying himself (7a) is basically the same as humbling himself (8a); there is no real distinction 

between being in human likeness (7c) and being found in human form (7d); and taking the form of a 

slave (7b) and becoming obedient (8b) are parallel thoughts.

There are a few key words and phrases in this passage that need to be explained before making any 

further comments. Right off the bat we encounter in v. 5 the admonition to be of “the same mind” as 

Jesus. The word for “mind” here is phroneo, and it most prominently appears in Philippians a few 

verses earlier (twice in 2:2) where the Philippians are urged to practice humility and not to consider 

themselves better than others in the church. This therefore is the whole context behind v. 5-8; we are to 

emulate Christ in the humility he endured on our behalf.

Christ Jesus: We are usually tempted to quickly pass over the significance of the various names 

employed for Jesus or God in a biblical book. But often, the author will repeat the same term in even 

multiples of the symbolic numbers 7 (perfection) or 12 (God's chosen people). In the case of 

Philippians, “Jesus” with an added term such as “christos” occurs exactly 21 times; “in Christ” some 

fourteen times; “in the Lord (Jesus);” and theos for God 24 times.

Next to consider is the key word morphe (form, likeness) which only appears in the NT in Philippians 

2:5 and 7, although the root is utilized elsewhere. Since Paul uses this rare word twice in the same 

context, we should consider that whatever it means, it has that same basic meaning in both places. In 

our current usage of the word, “form” can often mean the mere appearance, but not the essence. But 

before hearing what Greek linguistic experts have to say on the subject, there is a lot we can glean even 

 in English translation. Christ being in the form of God (v. 6a) appears to be parallel to the thought of 

being in equality of God (v. 6b). And certainly, being in the form of a slave (v. 7) does not mean that 

Jesus just appeared to others as if he were a slave. In fact, Jesus went way beyond the actual duties of

 a slave in that he not only lived to serve others – he also died to serve others.

To show that we are basically on the right track with this logic, Braumann (New International

Dictionary of New Testament Theology) discusses the different nuances of three different Greek words 

translated as “form.” Schema and eidos refer mainly to the outward appearance or shape of something 

or someone while morphe connotes more the inward identity. Thus, “the essence of the thing is 

indicated by its outward form...Christ is said to have been en morphe theou (in the form of God). The 

word en does not mean that the essential nature of Christ was different from the form, as if that were an 

outer shell or part played by an actor. Rather it means the essential nature of Christ as defined by divine 

nature...existing 'in' divine substance and power.”

 

It should nonetheless be admitted that it is possible, although not very likely, that morphe in v. 5 could 

be understood as meaning “mere likeness.” Thus, the Ebionites in the 2^nd century AD felt that Jesus

 was a mere man – a view held in common with skeptics today. And, of course, the Jehovah Witnesses 

say that Jesus is divine (i.e. a heavenly being such as an angel) but not at all God. How one translates 

the last part of v. 6 is of crucial importance to clarifying this point since “equality with God” is 

mentioned there. Here are some sample translations:

    “thought it not robbery to be equal with God” (KJV)

    “did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped” (RSV, NASB)

    “did not cling to his perogatives as God's equal “ (J.B. Phillips)

    “did not think to snatch at equality with God (or did not prize his equality with God)” (NEB)

    “did not demand and cling to his rights as God” (Living Bible)

    “did not think that by force he should try to become (or remain) equal with God” (TEV)

    “did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage” (NIV)

    “yet he did not cling to his equality with God” (JB)

    “did not regard equality with God as something to be exploited” (NRSV)

    “gave no consideration to a seizure, namely, that he should be equal to God” (New World

Translation)

Notice that only the last Jehovah Witness translation above takes the definite position that Jesus was 

definitely not equal to God. However, both NEB and TEV do mention this as one of two alternative 

understandings of this verse. At this key point, we must consult some experts, keeping in mind that one 

can always claim that they are theologically biased in their opinions.

G. E. Ladd in his Theology of the New Testament explains that key word harpagmos (“seize or cling 

to”), which only appears here in the NT, can either be taken as an active or passive verb since 

Hellenistic Greek tended to blur the distinction between the two. If it is active, then it means the act of 

robbery, which he holds to be highly unlikely in this context. But if it is passive, there are still two 

remaining possible understandings. It can then mean either something seized that one does not possess 

or holding on tightly to something one already possesses. “Between these two it is difficult to decide.”

The deciding factor is the context. Thus, if one looks back to the definition of morphe discussed above,

as Ryrie does, “Paul then reinforces Christ's deity by asserting that coequality with God was not 

something to be grasped simply because He already had it.” Or one can look forward to v. 7 to see the 

contrast between the two and deduce, as R. P. Martin does, that harpagmos “denotes that which Christ 

refused to seize. In particular it denotes the enjoyment and use of equality with God.” In both cases, 

one reaches basically the same conclusion.

There is even another option for interpretation which has been proposed but does not seem to have 

much to recommend it. It goes something like this: Although Christ already had the position as a 

coequal with God, he could have tried (as Satan did unsuccessfully) to usurp God entirely from power 

and grab it all to himself.

The bottom line to this controversy is that even if one chooses not to believe that Philippians 2:5-6 

unambiguously teaches Jesus had full equality with God in his pre-existent state, there are many other 

NT passages clearly stating that he certainly does at the present time. For additional passages 

demonstrating the full Deity of Christ, see my posts on “II Corinthians 3:17-18,” “The Trinity,” and 

“The Deity of Christ in the New Testament.” But we don't have to go very far afield at all to see 

another indication found right at the end of this hymn.

Philippians 2:10-11 describes the present and future state of Christ by saying: “so that at the name of 

Jesus every knee should bow (kampto) in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue 

confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father."

 

Paul only uses kampto three other times in his letters, all in the context of worship. The first is found in 

Romans 11:4 where he alludes to those who had not bowed the knee to Baal. The next two usages are 

especially applicable because they refer to worship of God the Father and contain language very

reminiscent of Philippians 2:10-11 (see underlined phrases). 

 

     Romans 14:11 – “As I live, says the Lord, every knee shall bow to me and every tongue shall give  

praise to God.” (quoting Isaiah 45:23)

    Ephesians 3:14 – “For this reason I bow my knees before the Father from whom every family in

heaven and on earth takes its name.”

 

These similarities also strongly indicate that although Paul in this Philippians passage may be 

quoting from a hymn already in use in the early church, there is every indication that the author of that 

hymn was in fact Paul himself.