Tuesday, May 02, 2006

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 mans 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 Gods 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).
Wycliffes 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 Christs 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 Pauls 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 Christs being the image of the invisible God does not
make Him God, just as all other mens 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 Christs being a man, and not His allegedly being God.
In righteousness and holiness
Lest Christs 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 Christs 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 Gods 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 Makers 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 Gods 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-isGod 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.