Please help me understand Philippians 2:6

  • Thread starter Thread starter XianThinker
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
X

XianThinker

Guest
Here is Philippians 2:5-11 (with verse 6 in bold) from the New American Bible:

Have among yourselves the same attitude that is also yours in Christ Jesus,
Who, though he was in the form of God,
did not regard equality with God something to be grasped.
Rather, he emptied himself,
taking the form of a slave,
coming in human likeness;
and found human in appearance,
he humbled himself,
becoming obedient to death,
even death on a cross.
Because of this, God greatly exalted him
and bestowed on him the name that is above every name,
that at the name of Jesus every knee should bend,
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.

My question
I heard that verse 7 is about Jesus emptying himself of his divinity to come to earth. That would mean verse 6 is about Jesus before his incarnation. I read that before Jesus came to earth he was the Word of God, fully God, a co-equal member of the Trinity. If Jesus were equal to God, then why would the verse say Jesus didn’t consider equality with God something to be grasped? Also, what does it mean that Jesus was “in the form of God”? The way I read verse 6 it seems to be teaching Arianism, a belief taught by Jehovah’s Witnesses that says Jesus is an inferior demigod (a mighty God subordinate to the Almighty God) and I know that isn’t true.
 
Unless I’m missing something, I think this verse is simply pointing out that Jesus humbled himself to take the form of a human being.

It’s more interesting to me to investigate why God did this.

Why did God use such a seemingly obscure plan to develop the Old Testament, culminating in the birth of Jesus – God in the flesh?

I think it boils down to selecting a way that people could understand God’s mercy. A way that would deeply impress us how much God loved us, etc. to take human flesh and undergo what everybody for all time and for all places would recognize as an expression of divine love, to sacrifice himself for our salvation.

Sure, like that female witch character that used to be on TV. When she did something “witch-like” she twitched her nose and made it happen. God could have done the logical equivalent to forgive mankind – but I don’t think that would impress too many people to urge them to reform their lives, and to repent of their sins. This is a much more dramatic and personal way to get a message of salvation across to people of free will.

This is a much more persuasive way of showing us the effect of sin on God, and how God would be required to pass judgment on us for failing to reform our lives. But, this is hypothetical. We have, instead, what really happened and how it happened.
 
Crumpy said:
Unless I’m missing something, I think this verse is simply pointing out that Jesus humbled himself to take the form of a human being.
Click to expand...
I don’t see how that would fit the passage. If I interpret it that way wouldn’t it say,

Who, though a human being,
did not regard equality with God something to be grasped.
Rather, he emptied himself,
taking the form of a slave,
coming in human likeness;

Wouldn’t that mean the human Jesus emptied himself of his divinity? It seems like verse 6 has to talk about Jesus before the incarnation. How would you rewrite the verse to fit what you believe?
 
XianThinker said:
Here is Philippians 2:5-11 (with verse 6 in bold) from the New American Bible:

Have among yourselves the same attitude that is also yours in Christ Jesus,
Who, though he was in the form of God,
did not regard equality with God something to be grasped.
Rather, he emptied himself,
taking the form of a slave,
coming in human likeness;
and found human in appearance,
he humbled himself,
becoming obedient to death,
even death on a cross.
Because of this, God greatly exalted him
and bestowed on him the name that is above every name,
that at the name of Jesus every knee should bend,
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.

My question
I heard that verse 7 is about Jesus emptying himself of his divinity to come to earth. That would mean verse 6 is about Jesus before his incarnation. I read that before Jesus came to earth he was the Word of God, fully God, a co-equal member of the Trinity. If Jesus were equal to God, then why would the verse say Jesus didn’t consider equality with God something to be grasped? Also, what does it mean that Jesus was “in the form of God”? The way I read verse 6 it seems to be teaching Arianism, a belief taught by Jehovah’s Witnesses that says Jesus is an inferior demigod (a mighty God subordinate to the Almighty God) and I know that isn’t true.
Click to expand...
It helps to know the context.

the City of Phillipi was a Roman military community, named after Phillip the Great, father of Alexander the Great. The Phillipians were orderly, concerned with honor, courage and duty, and knew how to commit themselves to a goal and share the sacrifice required to attain that goal. Paul loved to visit the Christians in Phillipi because the military culture was Christianized, and the Christians took those virtues of honor, courage and shared sacrifice and Christianized them.

Paul writes to the Phillipians in military language, of obediece, and straining toward the goal without fear, and other similar language. That is what Paul is doing here. He is talking to military men and their wives in language that they can understand. He is talking about humility, and obedience, and being exhalted when you are victorious in the end.

Jesus did not empty himself of his divinity. Over and over and over he tells people, in subtle and not so subtle ways that he is God.

*I say to you, something greater than the temple is here. (Matthew 12:6)

For the Son of Man is Lord of the sabbath. (Matthew 12:8)

and there is something greater than Jonah here. (Matthew 12:41)

there is something greater than Solomon here. (Matthew 12:42)*

Jesus says he is greater than the greatest king in all history, King Solomon. He declares himself greater than the prophet Jonah who converted the mightiest nation and the largest kingdom on earth. The only thing more important that the temple in Jerusalem is God who dwelt in the temple. The sabbath was given to the Jews by God, and Jesus even goes so far as to say that he has authority over the sabbath! It’s Jesus’ way of saying, I am the mightiest prophet, I am the greatest King, and I am God!"

Yet even though Jesus was a mighty prophet, a great King, and truly God, he willingly fulfilled his mission, which was to die on the cross. This is military language used by Paul to describe Jesus’ obedience - the obedience of a slave or a soldier who, even though he was a King, willingly embraced his mission and achieved victory. The result was exhaltation and every knee bending to him.

-Tim-
 
You’re right, it’s confusing.

Here’s the bit I have to add: Paul in Colossians 1:19 says that “God was pleased to have all His fullness dwell in [Christ]”, so the idea of Christ empyting himself, as you point out, is problematic there in that sense, though these are both Pauline epistles.

Then of course, the prologue of the Gospel of John bespeaks a high Christology, that is, the sense that Jesus came from Heaven and went back (Jesus pre-exists, from eternity, his physical existence on earth, and is identified as God, over and over and over), rather than a low Christology, that is, the sense that Jesus was exalted and went up to Heaven, as found in the Synoptics (the other three Gospels, which look at things in a similar fashion, “syn” and “optic”). This is not to say the Synoptic writers didn’t believe Jesus was God, just that the emphasis was different: the others start with birth (Matthew and Luke) or adulthood (Mark, with a quote from Isaiah providing the first sense of Jesus being the Lord), whereas John is the only one talking about what was going on with Jesus before the Incarnation (the point you’re asking about, the verse 6 point in “time”). As John was written later, this makes sense: there had been more time for the theological implications of Jesus’ words and actions to be unpacked.

I have an NIV “The Learning Bible”, which though, imo, has a Protestant slant to it, has a lot of valuable notes. Here it notes that these verses “are probably an early Christian hymn that the Phillipians might have known.” This is why the type is offset in most Bibles: these verses are lyrics. My personal take on that is this: just as today in the Church, songwriters aren’t always the best theologians. Perhaps their Christology is confused here.

Here’s the most helpful point to me: looking in my Greek NT with dictionary, the word used is “harpagmon” which is defined as “something to grasp after, something to hold on to.” In English, “to grasp after” something means we’re trying to snatch it but don’t have it in our hands yet, while “to hold on to”, means we have it already. So perhaps (and i’m not a theologian, I only have a BA, so this is just my un-scholarly opinion), we can see that Jesus viewed His equality with God as something He needed to let go of (that is, cease “holding on to”) in order empty Himself and to fulfill His mission on earth. I’d say it makes sense that He had to let go of many “God” things while here on earth and be like us “everything but sin”, as He was, for those 33 years, enclosed in a human body with limitations, and a human mind with human feelings. The Agony in the Garden, for instance, would show us that He had embraced His humanity in a most uncomfortable fashion, when the more comfortable thing to do would have been to maintain “God-ly” perspective, in which there would have been no agony, much less enough agony to sweat blood. Had He maintained this “God-ly” perspective though, and not been in agony at the prospect of His Crucifixion, it would not have shown so potently His love for us: God going calmly to a death of His own design would not show us how we are redeemed in sacrificial love. But a person as scared as us doing so, submitting to God for us, taking our just punishment, etc etc aspects of the Atonement: there it is then. He had to empty Himself for it to be meaningful.

I think, really, this is always going to be confusing as we continue to think about it, because we’re touching on the mystery of the Trinity, specifically: how is Jesus both God and “the Son of God”? Really, there’s nothing in our experience analogous to it, so we can’t actually understand it. I think it really centers on what God wanted us to understand in the Incarnation, and though it’s said that there’s no greater love than to lay down one’s life for one’s friends, as a parent I would say that to sacrifice one’s child is even greater, and that’s what God/Jesus wanted us to understand: while Abraham was going to sacrifice Isaac to a God who asked him to do so, God gave us His Son voluntarily to redeem us. Jesus is God, but we understand Him as God’s Son so we can reach for some glimpse of the love He has for us.

Hope this helps, thanks for making me think about it more.
 
Sorry, missed your point about “in the form of”:

“morphe” is “nature, form”. We think, in English, of form being like “in the shape of”, but clearly “nature” is about the essence, the substance of something/someone.

It’s used again in verse 7, talking about Jesus taking the “nature, form” of a slave/servant (“doulou”). This would help show that Jesus didn’t just take the shape of a person (like a Roman god disguising himself as a person), but really took on the nature of humanity as well. He is, in nature, both God and man.

Hey, maybe that ancient hymnwriter had a better grasp of theology than I originally gave credit for: this little song, the more I look at it, seems like a good way to get across that Jesus, from eternity, is one with God, emptied Himself, and took on our nature.

What wondrous love indeed. Thank you so much for making me really spend time with this text tonight, after a very difficult day. May God bless you!.
 
From the Haydock Commentary for verses 6-10:

Ver. 6. Who being in the form[1] of God, (that is truly, properly, and essentially God from eternity, as the ancient Fathers here observed against the Arians) taking the form of a servant, (i.e. taking upon him our human nature) became truly a man, and as man the servant of God, but remaining always God as before, thought it not robbery, no injury to his eternal Father, to be equal, to be esteemed, and to declare himself equal to God, to be one thing with him: as on divers occasions he taught the people, as we have observed in the notes on St. John’s gospel, &c. (Witham)

Ver. 7. But debased himself: divested himself of all the marks of greatness, for the love of mankind. The Greek text signifies, he made himself void;[2] on which account Dr. Wells, instead of made himself of no reputation, as in the Protestant translation, has changed it into emptied himself; not but that the true Son of God must always remain truly God, as well as by his incarnation truly man, but that in him as man appeared no marks of his divine power and greatness. — Made to the likeness[3] of men, not only as to an exterior likeness and appearance, but at the same time truly man by uniting his divine person to the nature of man. — In shape[4] (or habit) found as a man: not clothed exteriorly only, as a man is clothed with a garment or coat, but found both as to shape and nature a man; and, as St. Chrysostom says, with the appearance of a sinful man, if we consider him persecuted by the Jews, and nailed to an infamous cross. (Witham)

Ver. 9. God…hath given him a name, &c. The name or word Jesus represents the dignity of him who is signified by the name, and who is exalted even as man, above all creatures in heaven, earth, and hell; all which creatures either piously reverence him, or are made subject to him against their will, that every tongue may confess our Lord Jesus to be now, and to have been always, in the glory of his Father, equal to him in substance and in all perfections. (Witham)

Ver. 10. If we shew respect when the name of our sovereign is mentioned, may we not express our respect also at the name of Jesus; and if to his name, why not to his cross as well as to the throne of the king?
 
TimothyH said:
It helps to know the context.

the City of Phillipi was a Roman military community, named after Phillip the Great, father of Alexander the Great. The Phillipians were orderly, concerned with honor, courage and duty, and knew how to commit themselves to a goal and share the sacrifice required to attain that goal. Paul loved to visit the Christians in Phillipi because the military culture was Christianized, and the Christians took those virtues of honor, courage and shared sacrifice and Christianized them.

Paul writes to the Phillipians in military language, of obediece, and straining toward the goal without fear, and other similar language. That is what Paul is doing here. He is talking to military men and their wives in language that they can understand. He is talking about humility, and obedience, and being exhalted when you are victorious in the end.

Jesus did not empty himself of his divinity. Over and over and over he tells people, in subtle and not so subtle ways that he is God.

I say to you, something greater than the temple is here. (Matthew 12:6)

For the Son of Man is Lord of the sabbath. (Matthew 12:8)

and there is something greater than Jonah here. (Matthew 12:41)

there is something greater than Solomon here. (Matthew 12:42)

Jesus says he is greater than the greatest king in all history, King Solomon. He declares himself greater than the prophet Jonah who converted the mightiest nation and the largest kingdom on earth. The only thing more important that the temple in Jerusalem is God who dwelt in the temple. The sabbath was given to the Jews by God, and Jesus even goes so far as to say that he has authority over the sabbath! It’s Jesus’ way of saying, I am the mightiest prophet, I am the greatest King, and I am God!"

Yet even though Jesus was a mighty prophet, a great King, and truly God, he willingly fulfilled his mission, which was to die on the cross. This is military language used by Paul to describe Jesus’ obedience - the obedience of a slave or a soldier who, even though he was a King, willingly embraced his mission and achieved victory. The result was exhaltation and every knee bending to him.

-Tim-
Click to expand...
Okay, you convinced me that Jesus did not empty himself of his divinity. I heard it a few times when people tried to convince me to believe the Trinity but now I know it doesn’t meant that. So basically Jesus lowered himself to come to earth because he was God and willing to come to earth as a man and die for us.
 
Thank you, Xian Thinker, for highlighting those enigmatic words of Paul. I found verses 8 & 9 intriguing:
And being found in appearance as a man,
He humbled Himself
and became obedient to death -
even death on a cross.
Therfore God exalted Him to the highest place…
I agree: this tends to give credence to Bishop Arius’ heresy.:confused: But that was refuted centuries ago at Nicea. There is another heresy (or the same?) that suggests that because Jesus was God he felt no pain on the cross. I was reflecting on Jesus’ death one good friday, kneeling before the cross in an empty church. In prayer I expressed my awe at the pain and suffering Jesus went through before the release of death. I heard Him say: “You would have done the same, Ian, if the Father asked you.” I spluttered, “no way, Lord, no way: I’m a devout coward. Besides you were Go…” He interrupted with a loud reprimand: “I WAS MAN, IAN!”
 
tijeras said:
You’re right, it’s confusing.

Here’s the most helpful point to me: looking in my Greek NT with dictionary, the word used is “harpagmon” which is defined as “something to grasp after, something to hold on to.” In English, “to grasp after” something means we’re trying to snatch it but don’t have it in our hands yet, while “to hold on to”, means we have it already. So perhaps (and i’m not a theologian, I only have a BA, so this is just my un-scholarly opinion), we can see that Jesus viewed His equality with God as something He needed to let go of (that is, cease “holding on to”) in order empty Himself and to fulfill His mission on earth. I’d say it makes sense that He had to let go of many “God” things while here on earth and be like us “everything but sin”, as He was, for those 33 years, enclosed in a human body with limitations, and a human mind with human feelings. The Agony in the Garden, for instance, would show us that He had embraced His humanity in a most uncomfortable fashion, when the more comfortable thing to do would have been to maintain “God-ly” perspective, in which there would have been no agony, much less enough agony to sweat blood. Had He maintained this “God-ly” perspective though, and not been in agony at the prospect of His Crucifixion, it would not have shown so potently His love for us: God going calmly to a death of His own design would not show us how we are redeemed in sacrificial love. But a person as scared as us doing so, submitting to God for us, taking our just punishment, etc etc aspects of the Atonement: there it is then. He had to empty Himself for it to be meaningful.

I think, really, this is always going to be confusing as we continue to think about it, because we’re touching on the mystery of the Trinity, specifically: how is Jesus both God and “the Son of God”? Really, there’s nothing in our experience analogous to it, so we can’t actually understand it. I think it really centers on what God wanted us to understand in the Incarnation, and though it’s said that there’s no greater love than to lay down one’s life for one’s friends, as a parent I would say that to sacrifice one’s child is even greater, and that’s what God/Jesus wanted us to understand: while Abraham was going to sacrifice Isaac to a God who asked him to do so, God gave us His Son voluntarily to redeem us. Jesus is God, but we understand Him as God’s Son so we can reach for some glimpse of the love He has for us.

Hope this helps, thanks for making me think about it more.
Click to expand...
Okay thanks, that helps. I was taught Christianity by a modalist and have believed in modalism ever since. I recently started trying to understand the Trinity which is the reason I was interested in the passage.
 
I asked about Philippians 2:6 because I’m studying the Trinity (was taught Christianity by a modalist and have been one ever since but now I think the Trinity may be right). I searched the early church fathers and want to ask about this quote from Novatian:

Novatian quoted Phil 2:6 as: “He then, although He was in the form of God, thought it not robbery that He should be equal with God.”

His interpretation: “For although He remembered that He was God from God the Father, He never either compared or associated Himself with God the Father, mindful that He was from His Father, and that He possessed that very thing that He is, because the Father had given it Him. Thence, finally, both before the assumption of the flesh, and moreover after the assumption of the body, besides, after the resurrection itself, He yielded all obedience to the Father, and still yields it as ever. Whence it is proved that He thought that the claim of a certain divinity would be robbery, to wit, that of equaling Himself with God the Father (Novatian, Concerning the Trinity, Ch. 22)”

Novatian’s interpretation seems to explain the verse very well, but is it correct? Does his interpretation agree with the Catholic Church’s teaching? He seems to say that although Jesus is of the same substance as the Father, he is in some way inferior to him.
 
XianThinker said:
I asked about Philippians 2:6 because I’m studying the Trinity (was taught Christianity by a modalist and have been one ever since but now I think the Trinity may be right). I searched the early church fathers and want to ask about this quote from Novatian:

Novatian quoted Phil 2:6 as: “He then, although He was in the form of God, thought it not robbery that He should be equal with God.”

His interpretation: “For although He remembered that He was God from God the Father, He never either compared or associated Himself with God the Father, mindful that He was from His Father, and that He possessed that very thing that He is, because the Father had given it Him. Thence, finally, both before the assumption of the flesh, and moreover after the assumption of the body, besides, after the resurrection itself, He yielded all obedience to the Father, and still yields it as ever. Whence it is proved that He thought that the claim of a certain divinity would be robbery, to wit, that of equaling Himself with God the Father (Novatian, Concerning the Trinity, Ch. 22)”

Novatian’s interpretation seems to explain the verse very well, but is it correct? Does his interpretation agree with the Catholic Church’s teaching? He seems to say that although Jesus is of the same substance as the Father, he is in some way inferior to him.
Click to expand...
My opinion is just that, an opinion. “Something to be grasped” (or seized) reminds me of what Satan actually attempted to do. Satan attempted to seize, or grasp the authority of God the Father as his own. The Son of God came to this earth to humbly fulfill the will of his Father in heaven, being obedient to his Father, even unto death.

God’s peace.

Micah.
 
There are many clues to God’s nature in scripture. A tiny few follow. On Mount Horeb, God said to Moses:

Exodus 3:14-15
Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)
14 God said to Moses: I AM WHO AM. He said: Thus shalt thou say to the children of Israel: HE WHO IS, hath sent me to you. And God said again to Moses: Thus shalt thou say to the children of Israel: The Lord God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me to you: This is my name for ever, and this is my memorial unto all generations.

Jesus said to the Jewish authorities:

John 8:58
Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)
Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say to you, before Abraham was made, I am.

I AM, of course, being the Name that God gave to Moses on Mount Horeb.

Look at the reaction of the armed band that came with Judas to the garden at Gethsemane to arrest Jesus:

John 18:4-6
Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)
Jesus therefore, knowing all things that should come upon him, went forth, and said to them: Whom seek ye? They answered him: Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus saith to them:** I am** he. And Judas also, who betrayed him, stood with them. As soon therefore as he had said to them: I am he; they went backward, and fell to the ground.

They fell to the ground because Jesus used the Name of His Father.

John 8 is a good chapter to read and reflect on as to the nature of our Lord.

There is a clue even in the Apocalypse:

Revelation 4:8
Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)
8 And the four living creatures had each of them six wings; and round about and within they are full of eyes. And they rested not day and night, saying: Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty, who was, and who is, and who is to come.

From the Haydock Commentary: “They repeat the word holy three times, probably in honour of the blessed trinity. And the four and twenty elders prostrate before the throne, in token of their acknowledging all their happiness and pre-eminence to be his gift.”
 
XianThinker said:
Okay, you convinced me that Jesus did not empty himself of his divinity. I heard it a few times when people tried to convince me to believe the Trinity but now I know it doesn’t meant that. So basically Jesus lowered himself to come to earth because he was God and willing to come to earth as a man and die for us.
Click to expand...
Yes, willingly. The creator of the universe humbled himself to become man and die for man, so that we could become divninized and be like him. He humbled himself.

People misunderstand humility. Humility is not humiliation.

Humiliation is loss of dignity. Humility is knowing your correct place in the order of creation. The rocks and trees are lowest, then fish and birds, then the beasts, then man, then the angels and saints, then Mary, then way up there is God.

Jesus was humble. He understood his correct place in creation. Jesus was both fully God and fully man, and he understood this and acted accordingly.

Jesus understood that he was God, and as the Second Person of the Trinity he undersood that he was the redeemer and Lord of all creation, and he acted accordingly. He walked on water. He took authority away from the Pharisees, Chief Priests and scribes - authority which he had given to Moses and Aaron - and gave that power to Peter and the Apostles. He healed. He forgave sins. He assumed His Mother into Heaven to be Queen of Heaven and Earth. He established a Church. He rose from the dead.

Knowing his correct place in creation however, Jesus understood that he was fully human, and he acted accordingly. He obeyed his Mother, and obeyed his earthly father Joseph. He was tempted by Satan. He got hungry, tired, and wept when his friend Lazurus died. He died himself. And Jesus was also humiliated by the roman troops who beat him and mocked him, and by those who spit in his face and nailed him to a tree.

Jesus was humble. He undersood exactly who he was and his correct place in the order of creation. That is what we are to do.

We should understand who we are and our correct place in the order of creation. We know that we are below the angels and saints, below Mary, and way below God. We also know that we are loved by that same God infinitely more than any rock, tree, fish, bird or beast. God loves every single one of us infinitely, and there is great dignity in that, and we should act accordingly.

That’s the beauty of Catholic teaching. Our Church has consistently taught the full union of God and man in Christ Jesus. His humanity and divinity are inseperable, fully divine and fully human. That’s why Paul says that there is “One mediator between God and man.” Jesus is uniquely suited to mediate between God and man because he is God and man.

Remember when you read Paul’s letter to the Phillipians, that Phillipi was a Roman military community, and Paul’s use of military language like “Obedient unto death” and you won’t go wrong.

-Tim-
 
TimothyH said:
Jesus was humble. He undersood exactly who he was and his correct place in the order of creation. That is what we are to do.

We should understand who we are and our correct place in the order of creation. We know that we are below the angels and saints, below Mary, and way below God. We also know that we are loved by that same God infinitely more than any rock, tree, fish, bird or beast. God loves every single one of us infinitely, and there is great dignity in that, and we should act accordingly.

-Tim-
Click to expand...
Again, Paul throws a spanner into the works. In 1 Corinthians 6: 2 -6: “Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if YOU are to judge the world, are YOU not competent to judge trivial cases? Do you not know that WE WILL JUDGE ANGELS?”
Peter tells us (1 Peter 2: 9): “But YOU are a chosen people, a Royal Priesthood”.
Yes, YOU…and me. I praise God in deep humility, knowing full well that He is way, way above me but proud that I can call Him Father! Understanding, too, that Jesus is my BROTHER and that Mary is my MOTHER! That lifts me up in tearful gratitude and love; profoundly moved when He STILL belittles Himself to come sit on the arm of my chair and say companionably, “Now then, Son, tell Me about it! And by the way, call me ABBA!”
No, I am not a super-holy one-off: I am simply, by the Grace of God, Born Again (Jesus words in Jn 3:3 and 3;5, not mine); still a Catholic but living in a Brave New world because I asked and Jesus fulfilled His promise, “WE will make our abode with you”. Another of Jesus’ promises (Luke 11.13: “If you then…know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give the Holy Spirit to those who ask Him!”
 
IanGE said:
Again, Paul throws a spanner into the works.
Click to expand...
It was recognized very early on - even in Paul’s time, that his writing had a sometimes lofty or perhaps peculiar nature to it. Peter addressed the difficulty of understanding Paul’s writings, since it is clear that many were twisting Paul’s writings even at that early date. And, how many resort almost solely to Paul’s writings for their theology today? What is often forgotten is that Paul knew that the Church was greater than himself - thus he consulted with them on the circumcision question and caused the first Church council Acts 15.
 
IanGE said:
Again, Paul throws a spanner into the works. In 1 Corinthians 6: 2 -6: “Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if YOU are to judge the world, are YOU not competent to judge trivial cases? Do you not know that WE WILL JUDGE ANGELS?”
Peter tells us (1 Peter 2: 9): “But YOU are a chosen people, a Royal Priesthood”.
Yes, YOU…and me. I praise God in deep humility, knowing full well that He is way, way above me but proud that I can call Him Father! Understanding, too, that Jesus is my BROTHER and that Mary is my MOTHER! That lifts me up in tearful gratitude and love; profoundly moved when He STILL belittles Himself to come sit on the arm of my chair and say companionably, “Now then, Son, tell Me about it! And by the way, call me ABBA!”
No, I am not a super-holy one-off: I am simply, by the Grace of God, Born Again (Jesus words in Jn 3:3 and 3;5, not mine); still a Catholic but living in a Brave New world because I asked and Jesus fulfilled His promise, “WE will make our abode with you”. Another of Jesus’ promises (Luke 11.13: “If you then…know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give the Holy Spirit to those who ask Him!”
Click to expand...
I don’t disagree with any of this, and consider myself born again when I made my confession of 37 years.

Every time I pray, I start off by placing myself in God’s presence by recognizing that he surrounds me like water surrounds a fish or air surrounds a bird, that he is in heaven listening to my words and my thoughts and knows them before I think them, and that he is inside of me, just as he promised.

***Jesus answered, and said to him: If any one love me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him, and will make our abode with him. *(John 14:23)

I recall that passage every time I pray.

St. Therese of Avila expressed utter amazement at a God who would be so close as to make a home inside of us, and many saints expressed the same sentiment, that one did not have to look up to Heaven to see God, but that God was close, right inside of us.

I don’t disagree with anything you say.

-Tim-
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top