Loading...I’ve been talking about the Christ poem in Philippians 2:6-10, and given some keys to it’s interpretation. If you are new to the discussion, here is the poem itself, about “Jesus Christ….
Who, although he was in the form of God
Did not regard being equal with God
Something to be grasped after.
But he emptied himself
Taking on the form of a slave,
And coming in the likeness of humans.
And being found in appearance as a human
He humbled himself
Becoming obedient unto death – even death on a cross.
Therefore God highly exalted him
And bestowed on him the name
That is above every name.
That at the name of Jesus
Every knee should bow
Of those 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.
I’ve said some things about it’s interpretation, but here I want to give a fuller explication of its meaning. I’ve drawn this from my book How Jesus Became God (so that there will be a bit of overlap with some of my earlier comments; but hey, just think how much better you’ll remember them now!)
*********************************************
The Christ Poem and Incarnational Christology
There are in fact lots of things that could be said about this amazing passage. Among scholars it is one of the most discussed, argued over, and commented upon passages in the entire New Testament. If the majority of scholars are correct in their opinion that it embodies an incarnational Christology, then the basic perspective on Christ it paints is at any rate clear: Christ was a pre-existent being who chose to come in the “likeness” of human flesh, who because he humbled himself to the point of death was elevated to an even higher status than he had before, and was made the Lord of all. This view of Christ makes sense if we think of him as existing before his birth as an angelic being who abandoned his heavenly existence to come to earth to fulfill God’s will by dying for others.
I want to stress that Christ appears to be portrayed here, in his pre-existent state, as …
Wanna see what comes next in the post? Join the blog. Dead easy. Cheap. Valuable. And provides funds for charity. Every penny you pay. And it’s not many pennies. So why not?
A beautiful exposition, and, among other things, we can see now how very, very, far modern Christianity has traveled from the original Christology. I think I like the original a lot better. Also, the early Judaic view of how the supernatural world is ordered makes vastly more sense (if one can make sense of the “supernatural” at all) than the later constructions of theologians with too much time on their hands. If only one could solve the problem of human suffering, and fit it into this framework! The result might be something worth believing, if one needs to believe in something.
So in Philippians Jesus is co-equal to YHWH but not the same, whereas in John they are indeed the same being (John 10:30)?
No they are definitely not the same in John. They are equal. (Otherwise Jesus, when he prays, would be talking to himself.)
There actually is such an instance in the Talmud, where the rabbis speculate about whether God prays. One rabbis says that God prays “May it be My will that My mercy overcome My anger. . . .” (Ber. 7a)
But why does he use the “I AM” and “I and the father are one,” Are these not original to the text or is there something else going on?
The Angel of the Lord is sometimes identified as the Lord himself in the Old Testament (read the passage about MOses and the Burning Bush in Exodus 3 carefully, and you’ll see). So too with Jesus. The Angel was a separate being, but was so closely identified with the Lord that he could in a sense be fully representative of teh Lord. Just as if the king sends you a messentger, the messenger *is* the king to you.
In John 14:28, doesn’t Jesus say the Father is greater than him? So how are they equal?
Yup. It is not logically consistent.
I bet the New Testament authors would have chosen their words more carefully if they knew individual words they used were going to be dissected for thousands of years after, what with Jesus not actually returning and all.
Bart, in 5:18 of John’s gospel it says Jesus “said that God was His Father, making Himself equal with God.” In what sense (do you think) did the writer of this gospel understand Jesus to be “equal with God”? Thank you.
He had the same divine status and so was equally worthy of worship,
At the bottom of this fantasy is the idea that a finite divine being can become an infinite divine being (exaltation). This, of course, is just an example of magic thinking by an ancient people that has at best only a tenuous grasp of the concept of infinity. Bridging the gap between the finite and the infinite is a logical impossibility since one idea contradicts the other. If something is finite, it’s not infinite. And the infinite is by definition not finite. It’s like believing that there can be a married bachelor–a contradiction in terms. This error in logic leads Christian thinking eventually into the logical and conceptual quagmire that is the fantasy of the Trinity. And, of course, Christian theology teaches that its God is infinitely powerful, but His thinking cannot be illogical.
That poem in Philippians is interesting, but it’s a logical mess.
Brilliant post Dr Ehrman. Very insightful.
Do you think this poem is intentionally contrasting Jesus with Satan, who came to be thought of as an angel who DID grasp for being equal to God?
Interesting idea! But, my sense is that the idea of Satan falling because he wanted to be like God is a later development
Has the scholarly community been receptive to this view that Jesus was an angel who later was exalted into being God or have you encountered a lot of opposition to this view?
Not so much. I’d have hurt feelings, if it had been my own idea. 🙂
Dr. Ehrman,
From where do you think Paul (or whoever helped give Paul this idea) got the idea that Jesus was not just a man who had lived, become the son of God, died, and been resurrected (in some order), but rather that he was first a pre-existing, angelic being prior to his physical life in which he lived, died, was resurrected, etc.?
Thanks in advance.
I deal with the transition in my book How Jesus Became God. Basic story: as Jesus gets increasingly exalted in Christain thought and worship, the heightened views led to higher Christologies.
Dr. Ehrman,
You mentioned the similarity of the end of the Christ Poem with Isaiah 45:22-23. Is there any speculation as to which language (Hebrew, Greek, other) the “original” Christ Poem that Paul “quotes” in Greek and the Philippians possibly knew might have been in?
It was almost certainly Greek
What do other scholars think of the idea of Jesus’s preexistence as an angel? The late Larry Hurtado was very negative, and I seem to recall that he implied it was a minority – or even a fringe – view.
The best exposition is by Susan Garrett, No Ordinary Angel. My friend Larry generally didn’t like and minimized views he hadn’t been raised on. 🙂
Just to add a little zest, off topic or maybe related, King Melchizedek, is sometimes viewed as the incarnated Jesus of the New Testament, being perfected in his order. Melchizedek, was the King of righteousness and of peace, had no beginning or end and eternal. Moreover, from little we know of him, we don’t know if he had a mother and father. He was not from the Levitical genealogy (Aaron) and apparently he was the perfect priesthood. Abraham paid him a tenth (tithe) even though the law declared you pay the line of Levi only. Psalm 110 and Hebrews 7; 11-15 has some inclination towards Melchizedek being a great priest/god. What is your view Dr. Ehrman on this intriguing figure we know so little but is so powerful, could he have been Chris/God himself ?
Do you mean historically? No. He’s not presented that way in Genesis (the one account we have of him) He came to be a figure of Christ within Christain thinking because of the interesting parallels with the legends about him and the theologies developing about Jesus.
Still a very strong possibility that incarnation Christianity began with Paul, who had his vision on the road to Damascus sometime around 31-36–before this poem is likely to have been written. And once he started telling others of his experience, and his interpretation of it, the idea would spread. Like a virus. First imperceptible, then suddenly widespread. (Hmmm, how did that metaphor occur to me?)
True, there’s nothing in what we’re told of Paul’s vision where Jesus identifies himself as a pre-existent spirit. But Paul insisted he had no sources for his own ideas, other than his own experience. Which didn’t include even a brief acquaintance with Jesus. To him, Jesus literally was just a spirit. The man Jesus wasn’t real to him. Only the voice that spoke to him, inside his head.
So I’m skeptical this poem was any influence on him, and it seems entirely possible he was an influence on whoever wrote it. (Assuming he didn’t–I’ll leave that to the experts.) However, the same idea can occur to different people independently. And Paul might not have been the only person to hear about Jesus from those who had known him, and then had visions about him.
I don’t think Paul sees him as a high angelic being – he’s the son of God.
He has the form of God because he is his son and takes on the form of a servant by being born of a woman.
As the son of God, equality with God and Lordship of the cosmos is his birthright. However he doesn’t want to simply grasp what is his by right but wants to earn it. He humbles and sacrifices himself for humanity, as any righteous lord should do, so God raises him to the highest place giving him the titles Lord and Yahweh.
The poem is telling us he earned these titles even though they were always his as a birthright and could be grasped at any time.
In the OT, angels are called “sons of God.”
But none are described as “His own Son, whom He did not spare but gave up for all of us.”
None as the “firstborn” or “heir”.
Has it ever been doubted that the poem was original to the letter?
Not seriously. It’s too intrinsic to the argument and there’s no hint that it’s an interpolation in any of our manuscripts.
Prof Ehrman,
I wanted to point out a rather curious passage in the synoptic gospels (for instance in Luke 20:41) rarely mentioned by scholarship, where Jesus is arguing against the scribes for a non-Davidic messiah; ¨David calls him lord, so how can he be his son¨? And this is someone, Jesus claims, ¨sitting at the right hand of the father, who will make the [messiah´s] enemies into footstools¨.”
So, my questions:
1. how do the gospel writers and later interpretations reconcile this view with the passages (in Paul as well I think) that claim a Davidic descent, especially since two of them go to great lengths to show the genealogical connections?
2) Is Jesus talking about himself as the (non-Davidic ) messiah or does he regard this a more pre-existent being, like the Son of Man (since how can David pray to him 900 years earlier? )
3) because of its odd standalone nature, would the criterion of dissimilarity be helpful here in pointing to something the historical Jesus likely said?
Otherwise, what is Jesus getting at here?
Thanks! Very interesting series of posts lately.
As it turns out, scholars have devoted a good deal of attention to the verse, part because it is not at all clear whether Jesus is claiing not to be descended from David OR if he’s posing a conundrum that his opponents cannot answer but he can. (How is it possible for him to call him his son? Because of … this!). As you kjnow the Gospels themselves aer quite clear about Jesus’ davidic descent as well.
True, which is why it’s hard to figure out what is motivating this passage, besides Jesus arguing with or even mocking the traditional Davidic view of the messiah. Is this evidence that Jesus himself may have had a different view? Or are the gospel writers reimagining (using the protagonist himself as a mouthpiece) the messianic role, its roots and therefore its destiny – that despite what the expectations were at the time (a victorious king) things wouldn’t turn out that way., and they had to make it all look foreordained. But then why would the gospels try so hard to cement a Davidic interpretation? How do you personally weigh the evidence? Also, what has been written on the subject that you can recommend? Thanks much.
I personally have sometiems thought that Jesus is posing a question they can’t answer that he can. The Son of David can be DAvid’s Lord if he descended from him as a human but was a pre-existent being who was superior to him. That would mean, of course, that it would not ahve been spoken by Jesus himself. If Jesus did say it, it may have been because he did not think of himself as descended from David. (Not having read the genealogies later found in Matthew and Luke!)
Very interesting, because it turns out that of the hundreds of OT scriptures quoted in the NT, this part of Psalm 110 is quoted most often. (This and Daniel 7:13). Some scholars feel this demonstrates its central place in the earliest community. Morton Smith (1971) suggested it goes back to Jesus himself. Perhaps Jesus was speaking in parables again.
An interesting change between the RSV and the NRSV for 2:6 –
“who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped…” (RSV)
“who, though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God as something to be exploited…” (NRSV)
You’ve commented about assisting Prof Metzger while he was on the translation committee for the NRSV. Were you privy to any of the discussions (or arguments) behind the change?
thanks
Not to those particular conversations, but I know what was behind the change. They wanted to emphasize a particular meaning of the difficult Greek verb, and inserted their interpreation into the translation (so it means: Hold on to what he already had, rather htan grasp for something that was desireable but that he did not yet have)
If the poem/hymn predates Paul and Paul was already rather early in Christian thought, and had access to probably a few of Jesus’ earthly followers, is it really likely that Jesus said nothing of his own divinity? I’ve read your view on this, that Jesus probably didn’t regard himself as divine and i’m inclined to agree, but how then would it be possible for Paul and even earlier Christians to think this? Wouldn’t Jesus’ own brother have cast doubt on the view if Jesus earthly message didn’t have anything at all to do with his divinity?
Isn’t it more likely that Jesus did, in some way, claim to be a divine being sent by God?
I would say that a poem that originated years after Jesus’ death, by someone who didn’t know him, that does not mention his own view of himself, and is not presented as anything he himself said, would hot have any bearing on his view of himself.
I have to ask how the last line of the Christ poem fits in with your argument (I’m also looking at your book as I write this), since Paul says that confessing and bending to Jesus is “to the glory of God the Father.” That is, this could be interpreted to mean that Paul does not expect Jesus to be worshiped for himself, but as an intermediary between the people and God. Even though Isaiah’s God specifically does say to worship only him directly and none other, this would hardly be the first instance in which Paul and the others bent Scriptural passages to fit their own needs and notions. In other words, just because Isaiah meant it that way, does it follow that Paul also did?
And please permit me to bring up Fredriksen again (Paul, The Pagans’ Apostle), because I am trying to reconcile her argument with yours. She suggests (139) that the ending verses don’t apply to Jesus at the time of the resurrection but in the future, at the time of the parousia. Do you think that is a reasonable construction?
I agree with it. Every knee *shall* bow — it’s future from the time of Paul’s writing.
Bart: It seems to me that your explanation helps reconcile a couple of things:
1) As the Old Testament repeatedly avows, there is only one God. If Christ is an angel rather than a member of the Trinity, his identity does not contradict OT teaching;
2) There is no Trinity. The very concept of the Trinity is something that has confounded me and that I believe is a logical impossibility. If Christ is understood to be an exalted angel rather than God, the trinitarian problem no longer exists.
Do you agree?
I agree those are the views of Paul, yes.
Prof. Ehrman,
You have emphasised that Arius’ view of Jesus is often misrepresented in terms of Jesus being portrayed as a “mere” human being, whereas Arius believed him to be “a god” or divine, though not in the same way as Yahweh. Would it be fair to say that the Christ Poem in Philippians could be seen as supporting Arius’ view?
Thanks in advance!
All sides quoted the poem, and lots of other Scripture, to support their views. The reality is that teh NT authors were not dealing with the kind of nuanced sophistication the later theologians were, so technically speaking didn’t agree with *any* of them.
In “How Jesus Became God” you make the case that the Angel of the Lord was depicted as God Almighty himself in several passages in the Hebrew Bible. You mention Genesis 16, 18, 19 and Exodus 3 (beginning in p. 55 of the paperback ed.), which are great examples.
A few more examples:
Joshua’s encounter with the Angel of the Lord is basically the same as Moses in Ex. 3: “Remove the sandals from your feet, for the place where you stand is holy.” Jacbo seems to refer to them interchangeably in Gen. 48:16: “The God before whom my ancestors Abraham and Isaac walked, the God who has been my shepherd all my life to this day, the angel who redeemed me from all harm, bless the boys.” Gideon seems close to thinking that the Angel and God are equivalent (at least in some sense): “Then Gideon perceived that it was the angel of the LORD; and Gideon said, “Help me, Lord God! For I have seen the angel of the LORD face to face.” (Judges 6:22) Also, Manoah after seeing the Angel of Lord (who accepts an offering made to Yahweh), “We shall surely die, for we have seen God.” (Judges 13:21-22)
Perhaps most notably, “On that day the LORD will shield the inhabitants of Jerusalem so that the feeblest among them on that day shall be like David, and the house of David shall be like God, like the angel of the LORD, at their head.” (Zechariah 12:8)
If Paul believed that Jesus was the Angel of the Lord, and was exalted to be equal with Yahweh, given Yahweh’s status, honor, and glory, how was this, in effect, different from that of what the Angel of Lord is shown to be in the Hebrew Bible? There he is already spoken of as Yahweh, feared as Yahweh, worshiped as Yahweh, etc. The idea of Paul believing that the pre-existent Son of God was the Angel of Lord fits better with Trinitarianism or something similar. However, if the lexical history indicates that the Greek word for ‘’grasped’’ means “. . .to refer to something a person doesn’t have but grasps for . . .” wouldn’t that imply that the type of divine being that Paul had in mind in the Philippians hymn was probably an angel of a lower rank than the Angel of the Lord?
I think the idea is that te Angel of the LORD in the Hebrew Bible remains an angel. Christ as the highest angel is promoted to yet a higher state in the Philippians poem. Unlike the ANgel of the LORD, he will be worshiped by all creation. The Angel of the LORD in the HB reprsented God, and so was treated like him. Christ actually is ealted to his level, and is fully equal with him.
The entire topic reveals how very hard it was to do away with polytheism. If Jesus is an angel, however exalted that being might be it is NOT God– THE god. The ONE god. And yet, Paul has no problem with the idea of worshipping that angel. If you have a supernatural cosmos populated with divine beings, for all practical purposes, it seems to me, you’ve got a variation of the old pagan polytheistic world. And if you can worship one divine being why not worship two. or three, or as many as you like? The problem is a practical one of not knowing their names, it seems. We know the name GOD and we know the name JESUS, If we knew some more names (Gabriel? Michael? Mary? St. Swithins?) we would have a nice little pagan world again. And if we can petition a divine being, like gimme this and gimme that, you have something that smacks of magic and incantation, calling on supernatural entities to gimme this and gimme that and do this to that person and do that to this person. No matter how hard the theologians squirm, it’s the same old superstition, with a new terminology.
Professor Ehrman, this thread about Paul’s resonance with the Philippian poem, and thus of a sect of the earliest Jesus movement that resonated with the “later” Gospel of John, is remarkable.
It seems to challenge generations of scholarship on the Apostle Paul, which has tended to regard Paul as closer to the Pharisee theology than any other.
In my reading, the 20th century scholar who most closely anticipates a Philippians poem theology in earliest Christianity was Morton Smith. Smith suggested that first century (and BC) Judaism was far more diverse than scholars typically care to explore.
For one thing, he wrote (1971), the farther we descend into the lower classes, the more we should expect to find pagan influences, including Zohar angelology, Sethian Gnosticism and even magic spells.
It may be that growing up in Tarsus and attending a Greek school of rhetoric as a child, Paul of Tarsus rubbed shoulders with many Gentile school chums. He possibly learned more about pagan religions than most young Pharisees of his generation. According to his Epistles (and also according to ACTS) we often find Paul resonating more with Gentiles than with his fellow Jews.
Persecuting Christians was high on Paul’s agenda before his conversion to Christ — and perhaps this an overcompensation.
In any case, the Philippians poem seems to sing of a typically *Gentile* view of a Divine Human. Did Christianity possibly begin as a radically diverse sect of Judaism — even earlier than Paul?
Yes indeed: as soon as Jesus’ followers said a crucified man was the messiah and been made divine — that was radically different from anything in Judaism
Thank you. A Divine Human who escaped Hades and ascended to heaven was old hat in pagan mythology. The first Christians were, after all, recruited from among the lower classes of Judea — tax collectors and what have you. Were they less observant Jewish citizens? I’ve often wondered why the Gospels wash the hands of Pontius Pilate.
To extend my question — how could we seek any possible roots of Christianity in Greco-Roman culture? Are there books on this?
I”m having a bit of trouble understanding your first paragraph. Are you saying that lower class Galileans were more likely influenced by pagan views? Pilate washes his hands as a symbolic statement to show that he has “no blood on his hands.” It’s found only in Matthew, which emphasizes the “Jewish guilt” in Jesus’ death. And yes, the idea that much Christian thought comes from Greek and Roman culture has been a common view for a very long time among scholars. A good resourse is the book by David Cartlidge and David Dungan, Sourcebook for the Study of the Gospels
I think that part of the footnote which is [2] here and [12] in the book should have been part of the main text. In particular: “It is important to note, however, that Jesus is still differentiated from God the Father, since all this is to happen to the Father’s “glory.””
I think this is important because I detect a difference between the knee bowing “at” the name of Jesus but “to” the glory of God. The relationship between knee and Jesus seems to be subtly different from the relationship between knee and God. How that difference is to be understood is less important than acknowledging that the original formulators of the creed surely perceived there to be one.
The word “equal” is a very crude one for describing the relationship between father and son here or even in later Christianity, and its recurrence bothers me a bit.
I’ve seen a Biblical scholar who says the NT doesn’t say Jesus is God, but rather just conflates Jesus with the divine title of God. Similar to the “Angel Of The Lord” in Exodus who identifies as God and carries his name along with his power, but the angel is not *actually* God. He says the same logic is applied to Jesus in Philippians 2 where God The Father just gives Jesus his name. He isn’t God. Thoughts?
I”d say different authors of the NT have different views about Jesus’ divinity. As you probably know, that’s the topic of my book How Jesus Became God.
I see. From what I’ve seen, The Book Of John (and possibly Revelations) may see Jesus *as* God.
The others (while differing in the views) don’t see Jesus *as* God, but a divine being who had the authority of God. An example would be Paul’s letters.
WHY IS THIS CHRIST POEM NOT CONSIDERED AS A LATER INTERPOLATION BY THE SCHOOL OF IRENEAUS, THE AUTHOR OF IGNATIUS? THIS POETIC VIEW OF JESUS CERTAINLY IS NOT A GRASSROOTS SEMITIC VIEW IN THE NEAR EAST OF THE EARLY CENTURIES.
I’m not sure what you mean by Irenaeus the author of Ignatius? Ignatius’s letters were written by Ignatius of Antioch about 70 years before Irenaeus; and the composition of the poem is indeed Greek, not Aramaic, but Paul himself wrote in Greek, not Aramaic.
Scholarship elsewhere (not in North Carolina) has already established that Ignatius is a fictional figure invented in the second century, complete with the earliest version of the future Orthodox-Greek dogma. Letters of Ignatius are complete forgeries with an absurd cover story, plus they could not be from Trajan’s reign. Bishop Ireneaus and the School of Smyrna is the most likely candidate for Ignatius. Christ Poem sounds post-Pauline by its christology. Brilliant Marcion revived Christianity by spurring everyone to action against him.
Not sure where you’re getting that. I believe I’ve read all the major scholarship on Ignatius and his letters, and I don’t think it’s a common view. As you probably know, Among other things, Irenaeus was not connected wiht Smyrna. He was the bishop of Lyons. Which scholars are you thinking of who aregue the view you are suggesting?
I think that you understand this text to argue for Jesus’ ontological pre-existence is spot on, however I think you go too far in the language of the hymn to dictate ontology.Verses 4-6 seem to be using functional/status based terms in morphe and isa(Hellerman, Fabricatore).I find Vollenweider’s argument specious given the context of the hymn and its function prosopologically in accordance with Jewish interpretive methods at the time.Though words can have many uses, context is the key determining factor for identifying a particular meaning within its semantic range.As you affirmed,Isaiah’s passage is thoroughly solitarily Yahwistic in its view of eschatological glory and adoration.That Jesus is included as Kurios in this passage in connection to that verse is unmistakably an assertion with Jesus as ontologically YHWH.If the term harpazo means “to-attain”,there are many options than to disconnect the rhetorical thread that climaxes at the confession of Jesus as actually being YHWH.What became known as subordinationism may have been in view in this passage,as Augustine cites people who interpreted this passage as support for the Father’s superiority in DeTrinitate 1.14 and they did not deny Jesus as being ontologically YHWH.
Hellerman JH.Reconstructing Honor in Roman Philippi.2005
Fabricatore, Daniel .Form of God,Form of a Servant.2010
I don’t kknow of any early Christian who said Christ WAS YHWH. YHWH may have made him equal with himself, but equality is not identity.
I think it is pretty evident that Kurios here is being used as circumlocution of YHWH, because of the prosopological exegesis on Isaiah 45:23. The fact that the Father is described as God and not Kurios here is also significant since it obviously would not mean Paul wasn’t regarding God as Kurios apophatically, but in the inverse way he was positively affirming Jesus as YHWH. It would have been incorrect to call Jesus Theos here and the Father because it would make them the same person. I don’t think there is any more clear way to call Jesus YHWH than what Paul said here. What is the significance of calling Jesus “Adon” (not Adonai/YHWH) when many people could consider someone a Lord and there would be no controversy over recognizing the Messiah as just a Lord? It stands to reason that the original purpose of the confession in Isaiah (for the nations to recognize YHWH as the true God) is being extended with the same terms, not different terms which would mean Paul is saying Jesus will be recognized by the nations as YHWH the one true God. This is much more of a controversial claim and fits in well with the subversion of the encomium going on here which would normally describe the ascent of a lower person to elite, but here shows the “descent” of the elite to a pauper but then restores his glory as YHWH ala inclusio.
It also is the same sentiment of the author of Mark in the opening which frames Jesus as YHWH prosopologically interpreting Isaiah 40:3.
Since you affirm this as a text about Jesus’ pre-existence, how then do you respond to James Dunn’s Adam Christology which sees morphe and isa in connection with Adam being the image of God yet trying to become equal to God as the serpent says and shows Jesus as the better Adam?
I first came across it while writing my first serious term paper on the topic as a master’s student roughly 45 years ago. I considered it for a long time, but concluded that it’s just not right. I still think that. It certainly has alluring ideas, but if it the passage was meant as anm allusion to Adam it doesn’t make sense the the author (whoever it was) speaks of Christ in the MORPHE TOU THEOU (instead of EIDOS), or that he “became/was born” in the likeness of humans only after deciding not to grasp for equality. I know others disagree. Tabor still holds to the Adamic interpretation. The incarnational view also makes better sense of 2 cor. 8:9 (it’s not talking about his leaving his penthouse in Narazreth!)
I absolutely agree, I was just asking for your thoughts on that specific argument. Thanks!
I think Tabor puts too much emphasis on the image connection in Genesis so that it obscures the immediate context of the community that created the hymn.
Yeah I definitely agree that 2 Cor 8:9 is also incarnational