Corrie

This is just shocking to read.

“Pay off”???? What?

Also, why would Jesus have to go after something he already possessed?

“Burk thus renders the sense of the verse as, “Although Jesus existed in the form of God, he did not consider equality with God as something he should go after also” (139). The payoff, then, of Burk’s careful grammatical investigation is that Philippians 2:6 affirms the ontological equality of Father and Son while maintaining the functional subordination of the Son, even in his pre-existent state (cf. 139–40 n. 46).”

If you already have something you do not have to go after it! That is just a silly statement to make and I am appalled that noted theologians have not taken him to task for such a statement.

He IS equal with God, therefore Burk’s statement about Jesus viewing the reality that He IS God and therefore EQUAL to God since He IS God “something he should go after also” makes no sense.

Why would the Creator of the Universe have to “go after” something when all things are His? This is a frightful example of bad theology.

Jesus being God, came to the earth and set aside what was already His [equality with God] until His work on this earth was accomplished. Because equality with God was already His, He laid it aside. Laying something aside [temporarily] is hugely different than not going after something.

“After all as I discussed with Mr. Ware – that if women are subordinated to men this doesn’t mean that Jesus is eternally subordinated to the Father. In other words, Jesus can be completely equal with the Father in every way and this doesn’t mean that women cannot also be subordinated to men. Each issue should be dealt with separately and it is such a shame that subordinationists cannot seem to leave the two as separate.”

Exactly, Cheryl! I do not see how the two are connected and I totally see that Jesus being completely equal with the Father in no way affects the comp argument that a WIFE is subject to her husband. All I see is fear coming from the complementarian camp when it comes to making their arguments. When we have to stoop to make God subordinate because He is self-described as “ezer” instead of admitting that the word “ezer” does not imply subordination, we have surely lost.