Gods paradoxical deeper truths.
- Thread starter Watchman22
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
I never consider any called out one ignorant.
At least not until they prove different.
You can't see being 100% God and 100% human being at the same time all the time, two opposite things happening simultaneously, that does not fit into our framework of understanding.?
Second paradox Jesus taught.
2) The first shall be last, and the last shall be first.
Again, looking into the Greek, it tells us this is two opposite things happening simultaneously.
Both 1 and 2 lend credence to the true understanding of faith and faithing, " a personal surrender to Him and a life inspired by such surrender. "
You don't become first by trying to be last. You become first and last at the same time, by Him accepting a continually surrendered life.
Another paradox Jesus taught.
Mt. 20:27
3) "And whoever will be chef among you, let Him be a servant."
The Greek specifies we are Chief and servant at the same time, simultaneously.
The paradoxes Jesus taught.
4) No man has forsaken, with persecution, what he will receive many times in this life and the life to come.
Two opposite things happening simultaneously.
your claim that Jesus’ paradoxes prove that pisteuō = personal surrender + a life inspired by such surrender is the hinge of your entire system. You’re now grounding your definition of pisteuō not only in Vine’s but in Jesus’ paradoxes. So I will show you—from the Greek text itself—why the paradoxes do not teach what you think they teach, and why your definition of pisteuō cannot be sustained by the syntax, grammar, or discourse structure of Jesus’ sayings.
You said,
“The first shall be last, and the last shall be first. In Greek this means two opposite things happening simultaneously.”
That is not what the Greek says.
The Greek is: hoi prōtoi esontai eschatoi kai hoi eschatoi prōtoi.
There is no grammatical marker of simultaneity. There is no dual‑action participle. There is no paradoxical tense construction. There is no reciprocal middle voice. There is no syntactic indicator of “two opposite things happening at the same time.”
It is a reversal formula, not a simultaneity formula.
It means:
those who exalt themselves will be humbled
those who humble themselves will be exalted
This is eschatological reversal, not dual‑state simultaneity.
Your reading is theological, not grammatical.
You said, “Both paradoxes lend credence to the true understanding of faith and faithing.
I reject this because:
Jesus’ paradoxes are about
They address:pride
ambition
self‑exaltation
humility
service
kingdom ranking
They do not define pisteuō.
They do not describe the mechanics of salvation.
You said, “You don’t become first by trying to be last. You become first and last at the same time by Him accepting a continually surrendered life.”
This is your theological system, not Jesus’ teaching.
Jesus says, “Whoever humbles himself will be exalted.” “Whoever exalts himself will be humbled.”
This is sequential, not simultaneous.
It is cause → effect, not dual‑state.
It is humility → exaltation, not humility = exaltation.
Your system collapses the sequence into a single state (“continual surrender”), but Jesus does not.
They do not describe the covenantal entry point.
They do not describe the internal act of faith.
They describe kingdom ethics, not soteriology.
You are importing a soteriological definition into an ethical discourse.
Your definition of pisteuō cannot be derived from paradoxes.
You are using paradoxes to support your definition: pisteuō = personal surrender + life inspired by surrender
But paradoxes are:
ethical
relational
eschatological
communal
behavioral
They are not lexical.
They cannot define a verb.
They cannot override usage.
They cannot override grammar.
They cannot override discourse context.
You are using paradoxes to justify a definition that the Greek text does not support.
Your definition of pisteuō contradicts Jesus’ own usage of the verb.
Here are three places where Jesus uses pisteuō in ways your definition cannot fit:
John 6:29 “This is the work of God: that you pisteuō in Him whom He has sent.”
Jesus is speaking of direction, not lifestyle.John 7:38 “He who pisteuō in Me, out of his belly will flow rivers of living water.”
The Spirit comes after faith, not because of surrender.John 8:24 “If you do not pisteuō, you will die in your sins.”
This is punctiliar, not durative. It is entry, not lifestyle.Your definition cannot fit Jesus’ own usage.
Your definition reverses the biblical order of salvation.
You say, “He accepts a continually surrendered life.”
But Scripture says:
**He accepts the sinner first.
He produces surrender second.**This is the order:
Regeneration
Faith
Union with Christ
Indwelling Spirit
Fruit (including surrender)
Your system reverses it:
Surrender
Faith
Acceptance
Fruit
That is not the biblical order.
I stand firmly on this!
Jesus’ paradoxes do not define pisteuō.**
They define:
humility
service
kingdom greatness
reversal of human pride
eschatological reward
They do not define:
faith
covenant entry
regeneration
justification
union with Christ
Your system is reading sanctification into faith, and reading paradox into lexicon.
The Greek text does not support that!
the line you’re drawing from Jesus’ words—“whoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant”—is beautiful, but the Greek does not teach that we are “chief and servant simultaneously.” I acknowledge that Jesus is overturning human ideas of greatness, but I confess that His words describe a condition for exaltation, not an ontological dual‑state. The Greek future middle ἔσται (“shall be”) shows a sequence: the one who desires to be great must take the role of a servant, and then God will exalt him in His timing; it is humility first, exaltation second, not both at once. So I reject the idea that Jesus is teaching simultaneous status; He is teaching that kingdom greatness comes only through voluntary lowliness. And I stand firmly on this: the path to being chief is servanthood, but the two are not simultaneous—God exalts the one who humbles himself, just as He humbled Himself and was exalted.
“No man has forsaken… who will not receive many times more in this life and in the life to come”—is powerful, but the Greek does not teach “two opposite things happening simultaneously.” I acknowledge that Jesus is describing a paradox of loss now / gain later, but I confess that the grammar is sequential, not simultaneous: the aorist participle ἀφείς (“having forsaken”) describes a completed act of surrender, and the future λήμψεται (“he will receive”) describes the promised reward that follows; it is cause → effect, not dual‑state at once. So I reject the idea that Jesus is teaching simultaneous loss and gain; He is teaching that the one who surrenders now will be repaid by God both now and in the age to come. And I stand firmly on this: the forsaking and the receiving are not simultaneous realities but sequential graces—surrender first, reward second, as the Lord Himself orders the paradox of discipleship.
Another paradox Jesus taught.
5) Mt.23:12, " and whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humbles himself shall be exalted.
Exalted and abused simultaneously. Up and down at the same time.
This happens by faith and faithing. The continually surrendered life. As the result, we are in this paradoxical state our Lord taught us about.
“Exalted and abased simultaneously. Up and down at the same time”—does not match what Jesus actually says in Matthew 23:12.
I acknowledge the paradox Jesus is teaching, but I confess that the Greek grammar is sequential, not simultaneous: ὁ δὲ ταπεινῶν ἑαυτὸν ὑψωθήσεται (“the one who humbles himself will be exalted”) uses a present participle for the humbling and a future passive for the exaltation, meaning humbling now, exaltation later; likewise, ὁ δὲ ὑψῶν ἑαυτὸν ταπεινωθήσεται (“the one who exalts himself will be humbled”) is future, not simultaneous.
So I reject the idea that Jesus teaches “up and down at the same time”; He teaches that God reverses human self‑exaltation and raises the humble in His timing. And I stand firmly on this: the paradox is real, but it is a reversal, not a dual‑state—God humbles the proud and later exalts the lowly, exactly as He Himself was humbled and then exalted.
In the word there are many analogies for Christianity. A race, warfare, pilgrimage, citizenship, a university.
Surely He is saying that the person who exalts himself will be abased by God, not that a person can be exalted and abased at the same time. There are plenty of examples of this in Scripture. For example, of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, we read:
NKJV Dan 4:28 All this came upon King Nebuchadnezzar.
Dan 4:29 At the end of the twelve months he was walking about the royal palace of Babylon.
Dan 4:30 The king spoke, saying, "Is not this great Babylon, that I have built for a royal dwelling by my mighty power and for the honor of my majesty?"
Dan 4:31 While the word was still in the king's mouth, a voice fell from heaven: "King Nebuchadnezzar, to you it is spoken: the kingdom has departed from you!
Dan 4:32 And they shall drive you from men, and your dwelling shall be with the beasts of the field. They shall make you eat grass like oxen; and seven times shall pass over you, until you know that the Most High rules in the kingdom of men, and gives it to whomever He chooses."
Dan 4:33 That very hour the word was fulfilled concerning Nebuchadnezzar; he was driven from men and ate grass like oxen; his body was wet with the dew of heaven till his hair had grown like eagles' feathers and his nails like birds' claws.
It wasn't simultaneous. He exalted himself, then God humbled him.
The same sort of thing happened to Saul/Paul. There he was, proudly on his way to Damascus to persecute Christians, thinking hew was doing good in God's sight, until Jesus met him and humbled him, so that he said, "Lord, what will you have me do?" Again, the self-exaltation and the humbling were not happening concurrently.
Also, in neither Paul nor Nebuchadnezzar did the change come about by "faith and faithing" or "the continually surrendered life." God humbled them both.
I recognise the first four, but where in the Bible is Christianity pictured as a university? (Just asking, not arguing).
2:6 ὃς (who) ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ (in a form of a god / in a divine form) ὑπάρχων (while being actually), οὐχ (not) ἁρπαγμὸν (a seizure, a possessive clasp) ἡγήσατο (considered) τὸ εἶναι (to keep on being) ἴσα (equal) θεῷ (to a god)
2:7 ἀλλ᾽ (but) ἑαυτὸν (himself) ἐκένωσεν (emptied) μορφὴν δούλου (a form of a servant) λαβών (after receiving) ἐν ὁμοιώματι ἀνθρώπων (in a likeness of men) γενόμενος (after becoming)·
2:8 καί (and) σχήματι (in fashion) εὑρεθείς (after being found) ὥς (as) ἄνθρωπος (a man) ἐταπείνωσεν (he humbled) ἑαυτὸν (himself) γενόμενος (after becoming) ὑπήκοος (obedient) μέχρι (until) θανάτου (death) θανάτου (death) δὲ (even) σταυροῦ (of a cross)
who, while being actually in divine form, did not consider a tight grip to keep on being equal to God, but emptied himself after receiving the form of a servant after becoming in human likeness.
And after being found / after finding Himself in fashion as a man and becoming obedient, He humbled Himself, until death, even until a crucifixion.
The present participle indicates an action that happens at the same time as the main verb it depends on.
The present infinitive expresses the action as progressive, so IMO “to keep on being”.
So IMO, at the same time as the Son was actually in divine form, He did not consider clinging to that divine form in order to keep on being equal with God. That implies to me that he actually let go of that divine form and that equality with God.
The aorist participle indicates an action that happens before the main verb it depends on. It does not express manner, i.e. how the main action was achieved.
So, IMO, the text does not say that he emptied Himself BY taking the form of a servant, but that He emptied Himself AFTER receiving the form of a servant. And He received the form of a servant AFTER becoming in human likeness, which IMO would be when He became conceived in Mary’s womb.
So the order temporally, based on the verbs and participles is -
1. The Son is actually in divine form and while in this form the Godhead nominates Him to become the Messiah and at that time does not consider keeping a tight grip on His equality with God, but immediately agrees to surrender that equality to become a human being and a servant to both God and humankind.
2. He becomes in human likeness through incarnation into Mary's womb.
3. After he has been born and has reached an age where He is able to begin serving, He receives word from God to become a servant to those around Him and He accepts that form of a servant .
4. He has now found Himself fashioned in human form and obedient to the call to servanthood, and from there He begins to humble Himself daily until the point of an ignominious death by crucifixion.
2
2.
Mt. 28:19-20, Lk. 6:40.
The word university isn't used by itself.
My gifted teacher saw the university aspect throughout the scriptures. Even calling his church University network and the physical building, University Cathedral. He was also a University professor.
So maybe a little a leeway could be granted on that one.
As long as church membership doesn't thus become limited to the more academically gifted, as universities are.
As long as church membership doesn't thus become limited to the more academically gifted, as universities are.
I don't think even gifted teachers are perfect and right on everything. I had disagreements on some of the choices he made to direct his flock.
I had no access to him to air my disagreements. I lived 2000 miles away from him and the church building.
Im just glad I was able to see past the those disagreements and absorb the teaching.
The grammar does not support the theological conclusion you’re drawing.
Here is the core issue: Your temporal sequence is built on English logic,
not on how Greek participles actually function in Philippians 2:6–8.
μορφῇ θεοῦ (morphē theou) does not mean “divine form that He let go of”
Morphē in Greek does not mean “external shape” or “form” in the sense of something one can discard. It means the essential nature expressed — the outward manifestation of inward reality.
So when Paul says Christ was ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ, he is saying:
Christ existed in the full, essential nature of God
Christ possessed the full status and glory of God
Christ was truly and actually divine
This is not something He “let go of.”
It is something He is.
ἁρπαγμός does not mean “tight grip to keep on being equal”
Your translation treats ἁρπαγμός as “clinging tightly,” but the scholarly consensus — lexical, syntactical, and contextual — is that ἁρπαγμός means:
“something to be exploited”
“something to be used for advantage”
“something to seize for personal gain”
So Paul is saying: “Although He existed in the full nature of God,
He did not treat equality with God as something to exploit for Himself.”
This is humility, not surrender of deity.
The present infinitive τὸ εἶναι ἴσα θεῷ does not imply “keeping on being equal”
The present infinitive expresses state, not duration. It means:
“the state of being equal with God”
“the condition of equality with God”
It does not imply that He stopped being equal.
It simply describes His eternal status.
The aorist participles do NOT create the temporal sequence you propose
You’re treating the aorist participles as if they create a timeline:
emptied Himself after receiving
received after becoming
humbled Himself after being found
But Greek aorist participles do not automatically indicate temporal sequence.
They indicate simple action, often expressing means, manner, or attendant circumstance.
In this passage, the aorist participles are modal, not temporal.
Meaning: He emptied Himself by taking the form of a servant.
Not: He emptied Himself after taking the form of a servant.
This is why every major Greek grammar — Wallace, Porter, Robertson, Moulton — treats these participles as expressing means, not chronology.
The text does NOT say He surrendered equality with God
Your interpretation requires the text to say:
He let go of divine form
He surrendered equality with God
He ceased being in divine status
He emptied Himself before incarnation
But the text says none of these.
Instead, it says:
He existed in divine nature
He did not exploit His divine status
He emptied Himself by taking human nature
He humbled Himself as a man
He became obedient unto death
The emptying is incarnational, not ontological.
He did not empty Himself of deity.
He emptied Himself into humanity.
Your proposed timeline contradicts Paul’s argument
Your timeline:
Christ lets go of equality with God
Christ becomes human
Christ receives servanthood
Christ humbles Himself
Paul’s timeline:
Christ exists in divine nature
Christ does not exploit divine status
Christ empties Himself by becoming human
Christ humbles Himself as a man
Christ obeys unto death
Your sequence requires Christ to stop being equal with God before incarnation.
Paul’s sequence requires Christ to remain equal with God during incarnation.
The theological consequence of your reading is impossible
If Christ surrendered equality with God:
He would cease to be God
The incarnation would be the transformation of God into a non‑God
The Trinity would be ruptured
The Son would no longer be eternal
The cross would be the death of a non‑divine person
Salvation would collapse
Paul’s entire argument depends on Christ being:
fully God
fully man
simultaneously
without subtraction
without loss
without surrender of deity
Your reading unintentionally creates a kenotic heresy — the idea that Christ divested Himself of deity.
I cannot accept the temporal sequence you propose because the Greek grammar does not support it, the syntax contradicts it, and Paul’s argument collapses under it.
Christ did not surrender equality with God; He did not let go of divine form; He did not empty Himself before incarnation.
He remained fully divine, and He emptied Himself by taking human nature, not by abandoning divine nature.
The humility of Christ is not the loss of deity but the addition of humanity.