Last night I made a comment about the two natures of Christ (i.e. deity & humanity) and someone claimed that the Bible nowhere says that Jesus had two natures. I was shocked at such a statement as this is an essential and fundamental doctrine of the faith. I referred them to Philippians 2:5-7 which states that Jesus exists in the form (morphe) of God and took upon himself the form (morphe) of a servant (i.e. human). After reading the passage this person told me that it didn't mean what I said it meant and I asked them to study the word morphe and then tell me that.
In any event, to help them along I took my time, went through my reference material, and put together a nice little email with various comments from Greek scholars on this particular word. If anyone want to view the email then let me know--it included treatments from Kenneth Wuest, Marvin Vincent, A.T. Robertson, W.E. Vine, Spiros Zodhiates, as well as reference to the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament's commentary on the word.
In any event, to help them along I took my time, went through my reference material, and put together a nice little email with various comments from Greek scholars on this particular word. If anyone want to view the email then let me know--it included treatments from Kenneth Wuest, Marvin Vincent, A.T. Robertson, W.E. Vine, Spiros Zodhiates, as well as reference to the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament's commentary on the word.
But to my surprise, this was the email I received in return:
1) the form by which a person or thing strikes the vision.
2) external appearance
For Synonyms see entry 5865
morphe {mor-fay'}
Nick. Thank you for the information. I mean no disrespect to you but i find your e mail and the information in it to be very biased toward supporting a view. To me, you and the authors of what you sent are trying very hard to make a doctrine of something that is just not there. A dual nature is just not talked about or intended to be expressed by the passage in Phl 2.
What Paul is saying is very clear and consistent with what is said elsewhere in scripture.
To the vision of Paul and all those who encountered Jesus He appeared as the form of God. What may be known of God is revealed to us thru Jesus. He strikes our vision as having the personality and attributes of God. This is what John was talking about when he said Jesus is the word of God. Gods means of expressing His thoughts and intent to man. The word WAS God. Those same thoughts and intent that was expressed thru Jesus was God. Because the witness of Jesus which was not of Himself was true. Jesus expressed the Father. God.
Verse 7. Same thing apply's. Taking upon him the form of a servant. What he appeared to them to be. What they saw.
The intent of the text is not teaching about the Nature or "Stuff" as you put it the other night. Its simply telling us how Jesus was viewed by them. And also how we are to view Jesus.
I can't believe that he actually accused these scholars of bias and then attempted to trump their work with a definition from Strong's! Well, my question is if Christ was not Divine or Human then what was he? If he wasn't either of these things, then how could he appear to be either of these things to those that saw him? My ultimate question is how can people be so self-deceived? How can people completely disregard all scholarship just to hold to some strange belief? I guess I'll never know...
Ridiculous, simply ridiculous!
1) the form by which a person or thing strikes the vision.
2) external appearance
For Synonyms see entry 5865
morphe {mor-fay'}
Nick. Thank you for the information. I mean no disrespect to you but i find your e mail and the information in it to be very biased toward supporting a view. To me, you and the authors of what you sent are trying very hard to make a doctrine of something that is just not there. A dual nature is just not talked about or intended to be expressed by the passage in Phl 2.
What Paul is saying is very clear and consistent with what is said elsewhere in scripture.
To the vision of Paul and all those who encountered Jesus He appeared as the form of God. What may be known of God is revealed to us thru Jesus. He strikes our vision as having the personality and attributes of God. This is what John was talking about when he said Jesus is the word of God. Gods means of expressing His thoughts and intent to man. The word WAS God. Those same thoughts and intent that was expressed thru Jesus was God. Because the witness of Jesus which was not of Himself was true. Jesus expressed the Father. God.
Verse 7. Same thing apply's. Taking upon him the form of a servant. What he appeared to them to be. What they saw.
The intent of the text is not teaching about the Nature or "Stuff" as you put it the other night. Its simply telling us how Jesus was viewed by them. And also how we are to view Jesus.
I can't believe that he actually accused these scholars of bias and then attempted to trump their work with a definition from Strong's! Well, my question is if Christ was not Divine or Human then what was he? If he wasn't either of these things, then how could he appear to be either of these things to those that saw him? My ultimate question is how can people be so self-deceived? How can people completely disregard all scholarship just to hold to some strange belief? I guess I'll never know...
Ridiculous, simply ridiculous!
