Featured Is The Eternal Sonship of Jesus Christ Biblical? Part 3

The term denotes “Special Privilege”, “Pre-eminence” , “Special Relationship”. This can be seen in Psalm 89, where God says of David: “Also I will make him My firstborn, The highest of the kings of the earth” (27). And of Israel as a nation, “Thus says the Lord: “Israel is My son, My firstborn” (Exodus 4:22).

 

some people think that God's Knowledge is "progressive"!

 

"Christ Jesus,who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped,but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant" (Philippians 2:5-7)

The Greek for "form" is "μορφή", which here denotes the "essential nature", and not simply the "outward form". Here we see that Jesus IS from all eternity, "in the very nature of God", and after His Incarnation, "took upon Him the very nature of man", sin excepted.

 

you are confusing "first-born", with "begotten", two completely different words, meanings and uses!

 

because the Greek usage in the NT says so, regardless of the definitions given by Dr Thayer in his Greek lexicon. I have done a study on this word and its use in the 3 NT passages for myself

 

The use of “morphe”, in Mark’s Gospel, will clearly show that the common meaning of the word was not used, but its philosophical use was employed in all three places used in the New Testament. Mark’s account of the post Resurrection events of Jesus Christ (which Luke’s Gospel has a more fuller account), tells us that Jesus “was manifested en hetera morphe (in another form)”, to the two disciples who were on the way to Emmaus (Luke 24:13).

This is the only other place, in the entire New Testament, where the Greek noun, morphe is used, apart from its use twice in Philippians 2:6,7. In each place, the King James Version, as with most of the other versions, renders the Greek, by our English form. The New International Version has it form, in Mark’s use; and, very nature (footnote, in the form of, the form), in the passage of Philippians. It seems that the translator’s of the NIV saw a difference in the meaning of morphe, when it is used in Mark’s Gospel, and when Paul uses it in Philippians. As we shall see, there is no difference in the three uses of morphe, and that its use in Mark 16:12, gives us the real meaning of the word. I have chosen the use of morphe in Mark, as the starting point of showing what Paul, who had Mark as his companion, had in mind when he himself makes use of this noun in his Epistle to the Philippians.

The noun morphe, can be traced back to the Greek poet, Homer, who used is simply when referring to the outward form. This is the common use of the noun, as it is so used in the Greek Version of the Old Testament, known as the Septuagint. The Greek-English Lexicon by Dr Joseph Thayer, has it defined, “the form by which a person or thing strikes the vision; the external appearance, (page. 418) which he gives as the meaning for all three uses. The reader will find that is meaning of morphe, is accepted in the majority of works written on the passage in Philippians. The use in Mark’s Gospel is hardly noticed. In the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, we read, “Mk.16:12…not in the transfigured corporeality of the risen Lord as one might naturally suppose, nor in the form of a gardener, in which He appeared to Mary Magdalene, but in the form of a traveller” (G Kittle, Vol.II, p.702). Dr Joseph Lightfoot, in his masterful work on the Greek of the passage in Philippians, has this to say of morphe, as used by Mark. “though morphe here has no peculiar force, yet schema would perhaps be avoided instinctively, as it might imply an illusion or an imposture” (Commentary on Philippians, page 131).

Dr Lightfoot makes a very important point in Mark’s use of morphe, rather than the Greek word, schema. However, as we shall see, Mark’s use of morphe, is not in its common use. From Kittle’s it is clear that the external appearance, is what is meant, by Mark’s language. This conclusion is quite wrong, and the example of Jesus appearing to Mary, and to the two disciples, in Kittle, is a misunderstanding of the use of the force of the noun morphe. The account of Jesus appearing to Mary, is found in John’s Gospel, of one of Jesus’ post Resurrection appearances. We read that when Jesus began to speak with Mary, that she did not know (or recognise) that it was Jesus, at first (John 20:14). It is quite obvious, that this meeting took place very early in the morning, “while it was still dark”, as verse one informs us. We are not even told how far from Mary Jesus was standing, which would have made it difficult to know who she was speaking with. Add to this the fact, that the clothes that Jesus would have been wearing at this early in the morning, would have included a shawl wrapped around His head. This would have been the same as the account in the next chapter of John, when Jesus appears to some of the disciples who were fishing, which again, would have been very early in the morning, before day break. Which would explain why these disciples also could not recognise Jesus, "But when the morning had now come, Jesus stood on the shore; yet the disciples did not know that it was Jesus (21:4). It should be noted, that the phrase, when the morning had now come, in the Greek, literally means, "dawn coming on and still dark" But, to assume that Jesus kept changing His external appearance, after His Resurrection, to those whom He appeared to, is without any warrant. If it might be said, that what I am saying here is only conjecture, then Luke’s account of the two disciples on the road to Emmaus, will indeed satisfy any doubters.

We must first of all return to the language of Mark 16:12, where we are told, that Jesus “appeared in another form”. For another, Mark uses the Greek, heteros, which has the meaning, to express, “a qualitative difference and denotes another of a different sort” ( W E Vine, Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, p.60). Mark does not use the Greek allos, which also is used for another, but where its meaning is distinct. “Allos expresses a numerical difference and denotes another of the same sort” (Vine, ibid). Allos, would have been the word used by Mark, had he simply wished to show that it was Jesus’ external appearance, that had changed. By using heteros, he clearly intended so show that the difference was more than “meets the eye”.

Luke’s detailed account of Jesus’ meeting with the two disciples, is very important to our further understanding Mark’s use of morphe. In the twenty-fourth chapter of his Gospel, we have the account of a post Resurrection appearance of Jesus, to two of His disciples, who were on their way to the town of Emmaus. We take up the even from verse 13, where Jesus joins them. We here have a very interesting record as given by Luke, where he says, “But their eyes were restrained, so that they did not know Him” (v.16). Here we read, that these disciple’s eyes were “restrained”, by the Holy Spirit, so that they could not “recoginse” that it was Jesus Who was speaking with them. In verse 31 we read, “Then their eyes were opened and they knew Him”. This account very clearly shows, that the external appearance of Jesus had not changed, except for the imprints of the nails on His hands and feet, and the opening in His side, where the spear had been thrust. If it was His external appearance that had been changed, to what it usually was, then there would be no reason for the Holy Spirit to have prevented these two disciples from recognising Jesus in the first place. It is also very clear from this account in Luke, that Mark’s use of morphe, could only be referring to a change in the essential character of Jesus’ body. It is only after Jesus’ Resurrection, that we read that “He vanished from their sight” (Luke 24:31), that is, He became invisible to them, as the Greek has it. Thus, we also read in John chapter 20, “Then, the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in the midst, and said to them, “Peace be with you” (v.19). It says that the door of the room where the disciples where gathered, was shut, and yet Jesus came in through the shut door. “And after eight days His disciples were again inside, and Thomas with them. Jesus came, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, “Peace to you!”” (v.26). These instances clearly show that Jesus’ body, not His physical appearance, had changed after His Resurrection.