When Compared with ‘Things Spiritual’, the Christ-is-God Doctrine Fails

Published in Pasugo Feb 2006

WHAT SETS THE BIBLE apart from other books is the complete absence of error and contradiction among the writings contained therein. Owing to its inerrancy, the Bible alone is the ultimate basis and standard for determining the correctness and validity of any religious doctrine. One can rest assured that the teachings he follows are right and sound if they agree with the Scriptures; he can hence renounce or reject, without fear or worry, any belief that is contrary to even just a single correctly-translated verse of the Bible.

The most controversial religious issue, on which innumerable debates since the days of the Roman Emperor Constantine have been and still are engaged in by people professing to be Christians, is probably the nature of the Lord Jesus Christ: Is He God or man? What never fails to make many an inquisitive observer wonder, though, is the fact that both sides use the same unimpeachable source and basis – the Bible. Certainly, they cannot be both right. It behooves all to query: If the Bible contains no contradictions whatsoever, then how could two opposing sides use it as their common source and basis?

To test whether the use of a certain verse by either side is correct or not, one only has to compare it with the other related verses, for Apostle Paul says, “These things we also speak, not in words which man’s wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual” (I Cor. 2:13, King James Version)

Spiritual things will not contradict with other spiritual things when they are compared with one another. In no way will they manifest disagreement, but only harmony and unity. They go together perfectly well – at all times. With this apostolic method of teaching, nothing is added to or taken away from the Word. Corollarily, when one Bible verse seems to clash in meaning with another verse, the former or the latter is either mistranslated or misinterpreted.

Philippians 2:6
One of the most oft-cited Bible verses relative to the issue under consideration, and which itself has given rise to much deliberations is Philippians 2:6, which says, “Who being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God” (Ibid.). That this verse has been either paraphrased or liberally rendered by some translators who believe that Christ is God is very evident in the following versions:

“Christ was truly God. But he did not try to remain equal with God.” (Contemporary English Version)

“Though he was God, he did not demand and cling to his rights as God. (New Living Translation)

“Who, though he was God, did not demand and cling to his rights as God.” (Living Bible)

The most common explication of the verse by the advocates of the Christ-is God doctrine is that God divested Himself of His divine nature and became man or, as some would put it, that God walked incognito on earth in the person of Jesus Christ.

Even without delving into the Greek language in which Philippians 2:6 was originally written, one cannot but notice immediately the obvious and great discrepancy, incongruence, and absurdity of the three foregoing renderings and the interpretation that is responsible for them. Mere spiritual comparison of this verse with the other related verses plainly shows that such an interpretation, and its concomitant renderings, are wrong.

Two distinct beings
Verse nine, for example, states, “Wherefore God also has highly exalted Him and given Him the name which is above every name” (KJV). The existence here of two distinct beings is undeniable: one is God, who “has highly exalted [Christ] and given Him the name which is above every name,” and the other one is Christ, who has been highly exalted by God. If “Christ was truly God,” as CEV rendered, how could He be “highly exalted … and given … the name which is above every name” by God? How could Christ and the God, who exalted Him, be both “truly God”?

In verse six itself, and using CEV, the mistranslation is quite obvious – “Christ was truly God. But he did not try to remain equal with God.” Again, the existence here of two distinct beings is very evident: one who “was truly God” and another one whom He “did not try to remain equal with.”

User-friendly translations seek to make the Bible more readable and easier to understand, but if a verse is rendered in such a way that its original meaning is lost or twisted in the process, then the verse cannot be relied upon as God’s Word. In view of this, strict accuracy, achieved by faithfulness to the original languages in which a text was written is, therefore, to be immensely preferred to readability.

Form, image: ‘near synonyms’
The KJV renders the verse: “Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God.” The phrases “being in the form of God” (which is written) and “being God” (which is concluded) definitely do not mean the same thing. Just because Christ is “in the form of God,” it does not necessarily mean that Christ “is God.” In fact, not only do they mean two different things – they also are “spiritually incomparable.” They are simply scripturally irreconcilable, considering the meaning of “form” and the fact that “form” and “image” (man, let it not be forgotten, was created in the image of God) are “near synonyms” (Christology in the Making: An Inquiry into the Origins of the Doctrine of the Incarnation, p. 115).

According to The Wycliffe Bible Commentary, “form” (“morphe” in Greek) denotes an expression of “essential attributes” or “essential qualities” of God: “6. Being in the form of God (AV). Better, Though in his pre-incarnate state he possessed the essential qualities of God, he did not consider his status of divine quality a prize to be selfishly hoarded (taking harpagmos passively). Morphe, form, in verses 6 and 7 denotes a permanent expression of essential attributes, while schema, fashion (v.8), refers to outward appearance that is subject to change” (p.1324).

Wycliffe’s commentary is corroborated by a more pronounced explanation by other Bible commentators, who says that “in the form of God” does not refer to the “divine essence” or “divine nature” but to “the external self-manifesting characteristics” of God. “… Who subsisting (or existing, viz., originally: the Greek is not the simple substantive verb, to be) in the form of God (the divine essence is not meant: but the external self-manifesting characteristics of God, the form shining forth from His glorious essence. The divine nature had infinite BEAUTY in itself, even without any creature contemplating that beauty: that beauty was ‘the form of God’; as ‘the form of a servant’ (vs. 7) …” (Practical and Explanatory Commentary on the Whole Bible, p. 1305)

Contrary to the popular understanding that Christ’s “being in the form of God” in Philippians 2:6 means that Christ is God, the use by the Apostle Paul of the word “form” (which is synonymous with “image”) to refer to Christ is in itself an unequivocal proof that Christ is man, for, of all creatures, it is really man who was created in the image of God (Gen. 1:27). “It has long been recognized that…(form) and,,,(image) are near synonyms and that in Hebrew thought the visible ‘form of God’ is his glory …” (Christology in the Making: An Inquiry into the Origins of the Doctrine of the Incarnation, p. 115).

Therefore, Apostle Paul’s reference to Christ as “being in the form of God” in Philippians 2:6 is synonymous – or spiritually comparable – with his allusion to Christ as being “the image of the invisible God” in Colossians 1:15. But Christ’s being “the image of the invisible God” does not make Him God, just as all other men’s being created in the image of God does not make us all Gods. No doubt, Philippians 2:6 and Colossians 1:15 are spiritually comparable; they both underscore Christ’s being a man, and not His allegedly being God.

In righteousness and holiness
Lest Christ’s being the image of God be misconstrued to mean in the visual sense, Apostle Paul, at once, clarifies that God is “invisible” (Col. 1:15; I Tim. 1:17) – a term spiritually comparable with Christ’s statement that “God is Spirit” (John 4:24), which means that God has no flesh and bones (Luke 24:36-39).

In what sense then is Christ the image of the invisible God, a characteristic that not only He, in fact, but all men should possess since all men have been created in God’s image? In righteousness and holiness (Eph. 4:23-24, TEV)

Although God has made mankind upright in keeping with His desire that men be in His image, yet men “have gone in search of many schemes,” thereby failing to live up to his Maker’s design. “This only have I found: God made mankind upright, but men have gone in search of many schemes” (Eccles. 7:29, New International Version).

It is for this reason that all men need the Lord Jesus Christ, for Christ, being the only man who is sinless (I Pet. 2:21-22), is the only one who has lived up to God’s purpose of creating man in His image. Apostle Paul says, “It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God – that is, our righteousness, holiness, and redemption” (I Cor. 1:30, NIV, emphasis ours).

Owing to this, Paul urges the Christians who have truly “heard about [Christ] and were taught in him” that for them to be in “the likeness of God,” they must “put off [their] old nature which belongs to [their] former manner of life and is corrupt through deceitful lusts, and be renewed in the spirit of [their] minds, and put on the new nature, created after likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness” (Eph. 4:20-24, Revised Standard Version, emphasis ours).

And to be able to heed this exhortation, they need to have the mind of Christ – humble and obedient. Paul says, “Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, … And being found in appearance as a man, He humble Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross” (Phil. 2:5, 8, New King James Version).

Christ is in the form or image of God in righteousness and holiness, and His followers should be so, too.

God does not change
The error in the belief that “God became man” lies in the fact that the true God of the Bible – who is neither man nor the son of man (Num. 23:19) – is immutable. God does not change, as He Himself says, “For I the Lord do not change” (Mal. 3:6, RSV). Consistent with this, Apostle James write:

“Every good endowment and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change.” (James 1:17, Ibid.)

Clearly then, the belief that “God became man” is, to say the least, not spiritually comparable with other related verses. We can come up with a host of other related Bible verses with which the Christ-is-God interpretation of Philippians 2:6 simply cannot be spiritually compared. Instead of the verse introducing Christ as God, it actually all the more affirms the doctrine that Christ is man, and not God. Thus, when compared with “spiritual things” (I Cor. 2:13, KJV), the Christ-is-God dogma miserably fails.

References:

Dunn, James D.G. Christology in the Making: An Inquiry into the Origins of the Doctrine of the Incarnation. London: SCM Press Ltd. 1980.

Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown. Practical and Explanatory Commentary on the Whole Bible. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1961.

Pfeiffer, Charles F. and Everett F. Harrison. The Wycliffe Bible Commentary: A Phrase by Phrase Commentary of the Bible. Chicago: The Moody Bible Institute, 1990.