For everyone's convenience, I've summarized my synthesis into a short number of postulates. Please tell me which of my propositions are provably false and therefore Biblically inadmissible.
The Godhead is a heavenly trio of three living persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit (Matthew 28:19, 3:13-17, 2 Corinthians 13:14, Ephesians 4:4-6, 1 Peter 1:2 and Revelation 1:4,5).
- The Father is all the fullness of the Godhead bodily, and is invisible to mortal sight.
- The Son is all the fullness of the Godhead manifested (Colossians 2:9 cf. John 1:1). He is the express image of His Father (Hebrews 1:3 cf. Colossians 1:15).
- The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of the Father and the Son (Romans 8:9). This is an enlightening and sanctifying power. It is a distinct Person, a free, working, independent agency (John 14:16-17, 15:26, 16:13-15). The Comforter that Christ promised to send after He ascended to heaven, is the Spirit in all the fullness of the Godhead.
The Scriptures teach that there is but one God, the Father (1 Corinthians 8:6-7).
In Scripture, the word God is always a reference to a singular being and never means the Trinity.
Individually, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are of infinite rank. Mathematically, infinities come in different sizes.
In Scripture, the Father is preeminent (1 Corinthians 15:24, 1 Timothy 1:17). There are a huge number of Bible verses that say that the Father is God. (Consider the challenge of reading my short list). There are a few verses that say that Jesus is God and there are very few verses that say that the Spirit is God.
Please consider all the evidence for my synthesis. Philippians 2:6 is a wonderful confirmation.
The NASB offers this translation:
who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped
The NIV is similar. A very literal translation is:
who, being in the form of God, thought not robbery to be equal to God
The meaning of Philippians 2:6 depends on understanding two things: the phrase "the form of God" and the Greek word harpagmos (translated, robbery).
The word form is morphe (pronounced mor-fay'). In this instance, Scripture gives us the definition. (I'm presupposing that the meaning of words and usage according to Scripture, in context, determines doctrine and that our own doctrine and interpretation does not decree the meaning of words).
The word rendered form \~morfh\~ morphe, occurs only in three places in the New Testament, and in each place is rendered form, Mark 16:12; Philippians 2:6,7. In Mark it is applied to the form which Jesus assumed after his resurrection, and in which he appeared to two of his disciples on his way to Emmaus. "After that he appeared in another form unto two of them." This "form" was so unlike his usual appearance, that they did not know him. The word properly means 1. the form by which a person or thing strikes the vision; 2. external appearance. You agree with this for Mark 16:12 and Philippians 2:7. The word form does not suggest that the appearance is the true revelation of the object itself. The form merely participates in the reality.
Consider my thesis again. A divine and infinite Being can have the form of God and have all the essential qualities of Deity and yet not be God. The Septuagint makes use of the term morphe in such passages as Judges 8:18, where it describes Gideon's brothers as having the "form" of princes. Or in Isaiah 44:13 where the craftsman is described as making idols in the "form" of a man. Clearly, an idol in the "form" of a man is not equally great as a man. True exegesis reaches this irrefutable conclusion: "The form of something" refers to appearance, likeness and similarity. It is never a reference to exact equality.
Now consider harpagmos. The basic idea of the word ([Greek: harpagmos] in Philp. 2:6) is that of seizing what one does not possess. ?F. F. Bruce, Answers to Questions, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1972, p. 109.
The New English Bible makes use of both of these impressive summations in their translation of Philippians 2:6.
"For the divine nature was his from the first; yet he did not think to snatch at equality with God" (Philippians 2:6, NEB).
I offer an even better translation. "Christ, who was nearly God, did not think of grasping at equality with God."
If you think about it, every Trinitarian translation of this verse that attempts to be literal is empty of content. See KJV and NKJV. It is nonsense to translate Philippians 2:6 to mean God didn't think it robbery to be equal to Himself.