Jesus Christ is the very personification of God. He is the express image of God with intelligence and power far beyond any mortal man. He could have called upon his thousands of angels and followers to overthrow Pontius Pilate, Herod and the wicked religious system around him. He could have conquered the entire Roman Empire and set himself up as King of Kings and Lord of Lords. But instead, he chose the Cross. Why?
Hebrews 2:9-10 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels [elohim; God, Psalm 8:5] for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man. For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings.
Though he was made a little lower than God, Jesus humbled himself before God, choosing the death of the Cross rather than disobediance. In doing this, God exalted Jesus and made him the Captain of many brothers and sisters who would accompany him into glory.
Jesus could have made himself god and king of the ages, with his leadership ability, his intelligence, his command of the natural and supernatural environments, but he did not think equality with God was a thing to be grabbed. There are many, however, who say that Jesus is equal to God; they say he is not only equal to but also IS God--as part of a Trinity.
You can't defend the indefensible, no matter how many people agree with you.
Folks, Jesus is not part of a Trinity. If he was, Jesus would have at least mentioned it once in the Gospels. He didn't. Some folks think he did. They, then, interpret cryptic verses (verses that were not clearly translated or verses that God intended to be cryptic) in that Trinitarian slant. But, friends, I can take those same cryptic verses and interpret them in a non-trinitarian fashion, with better logic and lucidity. Not that I'm so marvelous, but it's easier to declare truth than to defend error.
I've seen instances where teachers of tradition use their ancient Greek texts to fortify their position in very deceitful ways. They say, "I believe this (the Trinity, for instance)," then they say, "well, because I understand all the technical things about this ancient language then my position must be right and your position must be wrong". The Pharisees did the same thing with the Law; composing the Talmud to explain all the nuances of the scriptures so the "little people" could understand. I tell the theologians of today (who trust in the false doctrine of Trinity) the same thing Jesus told the Pharisees of his time:
Ye blind guides, that strain out the gnat, and swallow the camel! (the camel being Trinitarianism)!
The Trinity is not discussed once in the Old Testament.
Neither did Paul expound the Trinity.
Since the Trinity is so important to most Christians you would think there would be a solid doctrinal discussion by Paul (or any of the holy men of God) concerning the topic. He didn't discuss the Trinity; but there are cryptic passages and intentional forgeries in some translations of his writings and the gospels that advocates of Trinitarianism use to support their positions. One of these is Philippeans 2:6, which is said by many to be the most solid proof that Jesus is God. The verse, however, says the exact opposite!
Here is one of the most beautiful passages in the whole KJV Bible:
Philippeans 2:5-11 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
Unfortunately, there is an erroneous translation in verse 6, where it says, Jesus thought it not robbery to be equal to God. The American Standard Version, New International Version, the Revised English Bible and many other versions, corrects this error by translating it in this manner:
(ASV) Philippeans 2:5-11 Have this mind in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: who, existing in the form of God, counted not the being on an equality with God a thing to be grasped,
In the American Standard Version, it says Jesus thought equality with God was not a thing to be grasped!
The KJV and the ASV are two of the most highly respected translations of the Bible. But they say the exact opposite thing concerning Christ's desire to become equal to God.
1. The KJV says Jesus thought it not robbery to be equal with God.
2. The ASV says Jesus thought that equality with God was not a thing to be grasped.
Which translation, if any, is correct?
Firstly, why would Paul discuss whether Jesus thought it was a good or bad thing to be equal with God? Because, from the beginning of time, the big question was, "who do I worship God or something else (namely myself)." It is the nature of carnal man to worship everything but God. The book of Romans tells us that the corrupt man (without Christ) will ultimately start worshipping himself, through homosexuality, etc.
Man, in his most reprobate state, thinks it not robbery to be equal to God.
It definitely is not a good idea for man to desire being equal with God. Remember, this desire caused Adam's fall in the Garden of Eden. Notice how Lucifer, as the serpent, tempts the woman:
Genesis 3:5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
Why would man seek to become God, rather than seeking God? Delusion! my friends, from Satan himself!
Jesus, as our example, did not think being equal with God was a thing to be grasped. This is the point of Philippeans 2:6!
Satan, in Isaiah 14:12-13, is depicted as the original rebel. He did think being equal to God was a thing to grasp:
How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.
Satan did not think it robbery to be equal to God! And he thought nothing of having Jesus worship him instead of the one true God.
Luke 4:6-7 And the devil said unto him, All this power will I give thee, and the glory of them: for that is delivered unto me; and to whomsoever I will I give it. If thou therefore wilt worship me, all shall be thine.
That's why Paul has this discussion in Philippeans. He shows that Jesus, even though he is the express image of God with the brightness of his glory, refused to even consider being equal to the most High, but humbled himself and let God exalt him above all.
When Lucifer tried to exalt himself, he was cast down. When Jesus humbled himself, even to the death of the Cross, God exalted him above all things. Everything Lucifer tried to grab for himself, Jesus obtained through humility. What a great example to us!
The great parable about seating at a feast, illustrates this concept:
Luke 14:7-11 And he put forth a parable to those which were bidden, when he marked how they chose out the chief rooms; saying unto them, When thou art bidden of any man to a wedding, sit not down in the highest room; lest a more honourable man than thou be bidden of him; And he that bade thee and him come and say to thee, Give this man place; and thou begin with shame to take the lowest room. But when thou art bidden, go and sit down in the lowest room; that when he that bade thee cometh, he may say unto thee, Friend, go up higher: then shalt thou have worship in the presence of them that sit at meat with thee. For whosoever exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.
In Philippeans 2:6 it says, [Jesus] existing in the form of God, counted not the being on an equality with God a thing to be grasped. What does it mean to exist in the form of God? Throughout the Bible, Jesus is called the Word of God, the Image of God, the manifestation of God, God with us, the Son of God etc. There is no argument, Jesus is the absolute and perfect representative of God in manifestation. To say he existed in the form of God (or as the KJV puts it, being in the form of God) is simply agreeing with the truths of the Bible. See below how some take the word "being" from verse 6, and produce "amazing theology" around that single word, trying to convince his readers that Jesus is not only the Image of God, but is God himself:
Vines, (op. cit., p. 60), states:
["huparchon" from the verb] "HUPARCHO"......denotes to be, to be in existence, involving an existence or condition both previous to the circumstances mentioned and continuing after it."
This word "huparchon" = subsisting, existing was selected instead of the Greek word "eimi" which means to be, or a status of being. The word "huparchon" is in the present tense participle form which refers to the ongoing continual status of Jesus Christ in the present. And it is in the active voice meaning that our Lord chose to retain this state of subsistence. The participle form is used here as a statement of truth. It implies much more than just being, it indicates a continuous existence - one which in the context is a continuous existence of Deity, therefore it is an eternal existence. Note that since God is immutable, then having and losing an existence as God is out of the question. Finally, "huparchon" indicates that our Lord existed as God when He became a Man and continued to exist as God while He now also exists as a Man. So here is what this verse is saying: 'Jesus Christ had a continuous state of existence in the form of Almighty God in eternity past before He took on the form of a human body. And He continues to exist as God while He exists as a human being.'
This is not only silly, it's dishonest theology! Do we really need a theologian to tell us what the word "being" means? Especially one that takes us into an unchartered galaxy. How is it possible that either a rational man or a man guided by the spirit of God could come up with such a conclusion about a simple word that is used other times in the Bible without such great fanfare. It is wise neither to swallow a gnat or a camel. Don't swallow any error, but especially the camel, Trinity; You'll see your Lord Jesus in a much better light.
