John 1, and Philippians 2:5-7.

[Geert van den Bos]

Philippians 2:5 Let the same mind be in you that was in Christ Jesus,
6 who, though he was in the form of God,
did not regard equality with God
as something to be exploited,

etc.

I swear by Schillebeeckx, "Gerechtigheid en Liefde", p.153:


He says: Being equal to God is not a "res rapta" but a "res rapienda", from which Jesus abstained. He didn't live to become equal to God.

Schillebeeckx also discerns between "protological pre-existence" (i.e the divinity of Christ) and "eschatological pre-existence" (i.e. only through the cross, ultimate humiliation, he became Christ.)

[John Reece]

Now, this is interesting. If οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγήσατο really does idiomatically refer to something already present and at one's disposal, I'll have to alter my view on this passage, somewhat. I'll see if I can find Hoover's article, and I'll try to research the phrase, myself.

I was wondering how objective you might be when considering exegesis with which you have not heretofore been familiar.

Let me offer one more such to consider, which is that of the climax of the poetic text of Philippians 2:5-11.

Philippians 2:5 Let the same mind be in you that was in Christ Jesus,
6 who, though he was in the form of God,
did not regard equality with God
as something to be exploited,
7 but emptied himself,
taking the form of a slave,
being born in human likeness.
And being found in human form,
8 he humbled himself
and became obedient to the point of death—
even death on a cross.

Phil. 2:9 Therefore God also highly exalted him
and gave him the name
that is above every name,
10 so that at the name of Jesus
every knee should bend,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
11 and every tongue should confess
that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father.

(NA27) Phil. 2:5 Τοῦτο φρονεῖτε ἐν ὑμῖν ὃ καὶ ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ, 6 ὃς ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ ὑπάρχων οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγήσατο τὸ εἶναι ἴσα θεῷ, 7 ἀλλὰ ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσεν μορφὴν δούλου λαβών, ἐν ὁμοιώματι ἀνθρώπων γενόμενος· καὶ σχήματι εὑρεθεὶς ὡς ἄνθρωπος 8 ἐταπείνωσεν ἑαυτὸν γενόμενος ὑπήκοος μέχρι θανάτου, θανάτου δὲ σταυροῦ. 9 διὸ καὶ ὁ θεὸς αὐτὸν ὑπερύψωσεν καὶ ἐχαρίσατο αὐτῷ τὸ ὄνομα τὸ ὑπὲρ πᾶν ὄνομα, 10 ἵνα ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι Ἰησοῦ πᾶν γόνυ κάμψῃ ἐπουρανίων καὶ ἐπιγείων καὶ καταχθονίων 11 καὶ πᾶσα γλῶσσα ἐξομολογήσηται ὅτι κύριος Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς εἰς δόξαν θεοῦ πατρός.

From The Letter to the Philippians (Pillar New Testament Commentary: Eerdmans, 2009), by G. Walter Hansen (via Accordance).

The universal acclamation that Jesus Christ is Lord is the climax of the hymn. By placing Lord first in this acclamation, the Greek text puts the emphasis on that name. That name was dramatically withheld until every tongue of the whole creation reveals that name. The hymn announced that God exalted the crucified one and gave him a name that is above every name, but the hymn did not immediately reveal that name. Then the hymn portrayed the supreme sovereignty of the name given to Jesus in the scene of every knee bowed before Jesus because he bears that name. But still the hymn did not reveal that name. The hymn elaborately described the absolute authority of the one who bears that name over all three realms of creation: in heaven and on earth and under the earth. But still that name remains unspoken. Finally, the almost unbearable suspense is broken when the hymn summons all creation to acknowledge in one voice that name that is above every name: Lord Jesus Christ!

The lines that so dramatically lead up to the revelation of the name Lord invest that name with three dimensions of meaning: sovereignty, identity, and destiny. First, God’s exaltation of the crucified servant to the highest position of absolute authority over all creation invests the name Lord with the meaning of divine sovereignty. The way that the hymn expands the allusion to Isaiah 45:23 (“to me every knee shall bow, every tongue swear”) by adding the phrase encompassing all three realms of creation (every knee shall bow, in heaven, and on earth, and under the earth) emphasizes that the sovereignty of Jesus is a divine sovereignty that surpasses all human and angelic sovereignty. As Bauckham observes, “For Jewish monotheism sovereignty over all things was definitive of who God is. It could not be seen as delegated to a being other than God. Angels might carry out God’s will, as servants subject to his command in limited areas of his rule, but God’s universal sovereignty itself was intrinsic to the unique divine identity as sole Creator and Ruler of all.” When every knee bows in heaven and on earth and under the earth at the name of Jesus, all creation is thereby acknowledging that divine sovereignty belongs to Jesus who has been given the name that is above every name, the name Lord. The second commandment in the Decalogue explicitly prohibits bowing down before anything in the heaven above or on the earth below or in the waters under the earth because the Lord God is a jealous God (Exodus 20:4-5; Deut. 5:8-9). Only the Lord God exercises universal sovereignty over all of creation; only to the Sovereign Creator will every knee bow (Isaiah 45:23). By giving Jesus the name Lord, God gave Jesus divine sovereignty over all creation so that every knee in all of creation would bow to him.

Second, by giving Jesus the name Lord, God declared the divine identity of Jesus. Some scholars, observing the parallels between the Christ hymn and Hellenistic myths of the descent and ascent of gods in the Greek religion, have asserted that the enthronement of Jesus as Lord is similar to the coronation of a deity in the context of Hellenistic polytheism. But the use of language from Isaiah 45:23 demonstrates that Jewish monotheism is the background for this hymn. Hence, an understanding of the Jewish context of the name Lord is needed to appreciate the significance of that name. In the Jewish religion, the name Lord (κύριος) is actually a substitute name for the Hebrew divine name YHWH (יהוה). Whenever Jews saw the divine name YHWH (יהוה) in their Hebrew text, they would not pronounce it for fear of blaspheming or taking in vain the unique divine name of God. Instead they would say a substitute name, the Hebrew name ʾādôn (אדונ), meaning Lord, for the unpronounceable divine name YHWH (יהוה). As a result, when the Jews translated their Hebrew scriptures into Greek in the third century BC (that translation is called the Septuagint or LXX), they used the Greek name κύριος (Lord), at least 6,156 times, for the unique divine name YHWH (יהוה). Since YHWH (יהוה) was the unique proper name for God, that was the name that was above every name (Phil 2:9). The Jewish prophets proclaimed God’s exclusive claim to his own unique name: “I am the Lord, and there is no other; apart from me there is no God” (Isaiah 45:5-6, 18, 21). Jesus was given the name that belonged to God alone. By bearing the name Lord, Jesus was not identified as one of many lords in the pantheon of Hellenistic gods and lords nor as merely a political rival of Lord Caesar. The name Lord identified Jesus with the one and only God of Jewish monotheism, the Creator and Sovereign of all.

Snip three paragraphs.

The hymn has come full circle from the first line about the one existing in the form of God expressing the glory of God to the last line about the exalted Jesus bringing glory to God the Father. The whole hymn is a totally God-centered, God-glorifying hymn. In the downward journey to the death of Jesus on the cross and in the upward journey to the universal acclamation of Jesus as Lord, the very nature of God is revealed. “The meaning of the word ‘God’ includes not only Jesus, but specifically, the crucified Jesus.” The worship of God includes the worship of Jesus who died as a slave on the Roman cross and now sits on the highest throne as Lord of all creation.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

Second, an extensive and persuasive discussion by Roy W. Hoover (1971) has demonstrated the mistake of focusing on the word harpagmos itself rather than on the combination of that word (and comparable nouns) with hēgeomai (and comparable verbs). Building on the research of W. W. Jaeger (who however stressed the idea of “windfall”), Hoover states that in all instances examined, the “idiomatic expression refers to something already present and at one’s disposal.” His translation of the Phil. 2:6 passage is: Christ “did not regard being equal with God as … something to use for his own advantage” (Hoover 1971: 118). This essay, which reflects thoroughness and a clear-headed method, must be regarded as having settled this particular question.

Now, this is interesting. If οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγήσατο really does idiomatically refer to something already present and at one's disposal, I'll have to alter my view on this passage, somewhat. I'll see if I can find Hoover's article, and I'll try to research the phrase, myself.

[Geert van den Bos]

You might assume that Mark 9:2-8 was written after Philippians 2:6-11.

Philippians 2:6-11 being seen as a very old Christ-hymn adopted by Paul, "who saw in it a model of what he asks from his Christians: "tapeinophrosunè". " (Schillebeeckx).

The "metamorphosis" described by Mark being about Jesus' clothing:
And after six days Jesus took with him Peter and James and John, and led them up a high mountain by themselves. And he was transfigured before them, and his clothes became radiant, intensely white, as no one on earth could bleach them

Which makes think of the wordplay with Hebrew "or" (written "alef-vav-resh") = light and "or" (written "ayin-vav-resh") = skin

to Genesis 3:21,
And the Lord God made for Adam and for his wife shirts of skin, and He dressed them.

Adam first being closed in a garment of light.

The transfiguration-story being not about Jesus transforming into God, or God transforming into Jesus.

[John Reece]

There is more, that is more to your point...

Continued from posts #73 and 76:

.... The ambiguous phrase in verse 6, οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγήσατο (ouch harpagmon hēgēsato), has created a literature far more extensive than it probably deserves. In particular, one is impressed by the futility of trying to reach a decision regarding Jesus’s preexistence and deity on the basis of whether harpagmon here has an active or a passive meaning. The subsequent choices then become rather confusing: if one opts for the passive idea, is the nuance positive (“windfall,” advantage”) or negative (“booty, prize”)? Further, if it carries a negative nuance, we must decide whether it speaks of (a) a thing already possessed, which one is tempted to hold on to (res rapta), or (b) a thing not possessed, which one may be tempted to snatch (res rapienda). In the last instance, the inference is drawn that the Christ-hymn speaks of the human (not preexistent) Christ, who was tempted to snatch the status of lordship but instead chose the path of obedience (vv. 9–11). We may outline these options thus:

I. Active (or abstract: the act of snatching, robbery, usurpation): “Precisely because he was in the form of God, he reckoned equality with God not as a matter of getting but of giving.”
II. Passive (or concrete: the thing possessed or to be snatched):
A. Positive (windfall, piece of good luck): “Jesus did not regard equality with God as a gain to be utilized.
B. Negative (booty, prize)
1. Res rapta: “He, though existing before the worlds in the form of God, did not treat his equality with God as a prize, a treasure to be greedily clutched and ostentatiously displayed.”
2. Res rapienda: “He did not regard the being on an equality with God as a thing to be seized, violently snatched.”

This very diversity of interpretations should warn us not to move from the ambiguous word to the meaning of the passage as a whole, but vice versa. Now the context provides two important clues. First, the phrase in question is contrasted with ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσεν (heauton ekenōsen, he emptied himself, v. 7) and ἐταπείνωσεν ἑαυτόν (etapeinōsen heauton, he humbled himself, v. 8). One could argue, on that ground alone, that verse 6 is simply concerned to state negatively what the main verbs in verses 7–8 state positively: Jesus refused to make a selfish choice with respect to his divinity. If so, any other questions regarding the phrase should probably remain quite subordinate. In the second place, it is certainly no accident that the verb hēgeomai is also used in verse 3, and this fact alerts us to the parallel expressions, “each of you must regard one another as more important than himself” and “looking out … for the interests of others.” These clauses in turn are contrasted with eritheia, “selfishness.” Third, a more distant—but as we have already noted very important—parallel is Rom. 15:1–7; in verse 3 of that passage we are told that “Christ did not please himself.” These three pieces of contextual data leave no doubt about the force of verse 6b–c: Christ refused to act selfishly.

Whether Christ’s unselfishness expressed itself in a decision not to aspire for something greater than he already had (res rapienda) or in a decision not to use selfishly what he already had (res rapta) can be decided on the basis of three factors. First, the presence of the article in to einai isa theō suggests strongly the definiteness that in English is more commonly expressed with the possessive pronoun (cf. Smyth 1956: §1121), “his equality with God”; at the very least it points back to en morphē theou hyparchōn (so Hawthorne).

Second, an extensive and persuasive discussion by Roy W. Hoover (1971) has demonstrated the mistake of focusing on the word harpagmos itself rather than on the combination of that word (and comparable nouns) with hēgeomai (and comparable verbs). Building on the research of W. W. Jaeger (who however stressed the idea of “windfall”), Hoover states that in all instances examined, the “idiomatic expression refers to something already present and at one’s disposal.” His translation of the Phil. 2:6 passage is: Christ “did not regard being equal with God as … something to use for his own advantage” (Hoover 1971: 118). This essay, which reflects thoroughness and a clear-headed method, must be regarded as having settled this particular question.

[John Reece]

I'll have to disagree with Silva and Kasemann, here. Paul seems to directly contrast μορφῇ θεοῦ with ἴσα θεῷ, in the passage, rather than equating the two concepts. Jesus was "in divine form," but did not grasp after "equality with deity," and thus he emptied himself to take on the form of a slave in human likeness.

I can see why you disagree with Silva and Käsemann; however, Silva has more to say in support of his comment in the two paragraphs to which you have responded, though I doubt anything he might say will convince you. For instance, just a snippet from his rather lengthy commentary:

Käsemann (1968: 59–60) emphatically rejects the classical background on the basis of parallels in the literature of the Hellenistic religions, since “the conceptual language of the hellenistic period moves within an ideological framework quite different from that … of the classical Greek era.” According to this new language, morphē “no longer means the individual entity as a formed whole, but a mode of being [Daseinsweise] in a specific direction, such as, for example, being in divine substance and power.” In his discussion, Käsemann overstresses the significance of the prepositional construction. Moreover, his dependence on the gnostic “heavenly man” myth fails to take seriously the substantial differences between it and the Philippians passage. Although this solution therefore cannot be regarded as acceptable, it would nevertheless be a grave mistake to ignore Käsemann’s point that in the literature of the Hellenistic religions morphē theou and isotheos physis “are parallel and even become synonymous.”

Dissatisfaction with approaches that rely heavily on either the classical philosophical usage (Lightfoot) or the usage in Hellenistic religions (Käsemann) has led many scholars to reconsider the Jewish background, especially the LXX material, as the most promising source for arriving at a solution. Unfortunately, the LXX evidence is meager and ambiguous, so that interpreters have come up with a wide range of ideas: from the rather vague notion of “visible appearance,” to the very specific equation of morphē with doxa, “glory” (so Meyer and many after him), and on to the elaboration of an Adam-Christology based on the relation between morphē theou and eikōn tou theou, “image of God” (Col. 1:15). The discussion of LXX backgrounds is often complicated by fuzzy linguistic arguments and by the implication that the various theses proposed are mutually exclusive.

There is more, that is more to you point; however, I am having difficulty locating the text within the massive amount of commentary on the subject ― because it's in Accordance, rather than a book, and I have difficulty navigating computer versions of books. Also, I am currently being challenged by a physical need, but I'll come back to the search when I have tended to the need.

[Geert van den Bos]

From Philippians (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament: Baker Academic, 2008), by Moisés Silva

In view of the great variety of contexts in which morphē may be used, Hawthorne makes a significant point in admitting that the word’s “precise meaning is elusive” (...). To put it differently, morphē is characterized by semantic extension; it covers a broad range of meanings and therefore we are heavily dependent on the immediate context to discover its specific nuance. (...)And it moreover follows that the Philippians passage, although not written for the purpose of presenting an ontological description of Christ, is very much consonant with the trinitarian formulas of the fourth–century church.

"morphē" doesn't occur in NT, except for (2x) here and in Mark 16:12 (in the later added "longer ending of Mark")

But it is also in "metamorphoomai" -- be changed in form, be transformed;
occurring in Matthew 17:2 = Mark 9:2 ("The transfiguration of Jesus" on a high mountain )

and in Romans 12:2,
καὶ μὴ συσχηματίζεσθε τῷ αἰῶνι τούτῳ, ἀλλὰ μεταμορφοῦσθε τῇ ἀνακαινώσει τοῦ νοός, εἰς τὸ δοκιμάζειν ὑμᾶς τί τὸ θέλημα τοῦ θεοῦ, τὸ ἀγαθὸν καὶ εὐάρεστον καὶ τέλειον
ESV Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.


Interesting of course that συσχηματίζεσθε has in it the same σχημα that Paul used in Philippians 2:7, καὶ σχήματι εὑρεθεὶς ὡς ἄνθρωπος; a word that besides here just occurs in 1Corinthians 7:31, καὶ οἱ χρώμενοι τὸν κόσμον ὡς μὴ καταχρώμενοι: παράγει γὰρ τὸ σχῆμα τοῦ κόσμου τούτου ESV and those who deal with the world as though they had no dealings with it. For the present form of this world is passing away.


"metamorphoomai" still also in 2 Corinthians 3:18,
ἡμεῖς δὲ πάντες ἀνακεκαλυμμένῳ προσώπῳ τὴν δόξαν κυρίου κατοπτριζόμενοι τὴν αὐτὴν εἰκόνα μεταμορφούμεθα ἀπὸ δόξης εἰς δόξαν, καθάπερ ἀπὸ κυρίου πνεύματος.
ESV:And we all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from one degree of glory to another. For this comes from the Lord who is the Spirit.
.


It being things hard to grasp / translate, but to me it seems rather clear that Paul wasn't a Trinitarian avant la lettre.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

Let's go back to the OP and get a second opinion by another scholar (the first is here).

From Philippians (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament: Baker Academic, 2008), by Moisés Silva

In view of the great variety of contexts in which morphē may be used, Hawthorne makes a significant point in admitting that the word’s “precise meaning is elusive” (...). To put it differently, morphē is characterized by semantic extension; it covers a broad range of meanings and therefore we are heavily dependent on the immediate context to discover its specific nuance. Here in Phil. 2:6 we are greatly helped by two factors. In the first place, we have the correspondence of morphē theou with isa theō. Käsemann, as we have noticed, was absolutely right in emphasizing that being “in the form of God” is equivalent to being “equal with God.” To go beyond this equivalence and inquire whether morphē tells us precisely in what respects Jesus is equal with God (in essence? attributes? attitude? appearance?) is asking too much from one word.

In the second place, and most important, morphē theou is set in antithetical parallelism to μορφὴν δούλου (morphēn doulou, form of a servant), an expression further defined by the phrase ἐν ὁμοιώματι ἀνθρώ-πων (en homoiōmati anthrōpōn, in the likeness of men). It is possible to cite parallels in which morphē is used to designate what is distinctively divine in contrast to what is distinctively human (cf. BDAG 659, s.v. μορφή). It appears then that Lightfoot (1868: 133), although misguided in seeing here a more or less philosophical meaning of “essence,” was not off the track in detecting a contrast between “the true divine nature of our Lord” and “true human nature.” And it moreover follows that the Philippians passage, although not written for the purpose of presenting an ontological description of Christ, is very much consonant with the trinitarian formulas of the fourth–century church.

I'll have to disagree with Silva and Kasemann, here. Paul seems to directly contrast μορφῇ θεοῦ with ἴσα θεῷ, in the passage, rather than equating the two concepts. Jesus was "in divine form," but did not grasp after "equality with deity," and thus he emptied himself to take on the form of a slave in human likeness.

[John Reece]

Let's go back to the OP and get a second opinion by another scholar (the first is here).

From Philippians (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament: Baker Academic, 2008), by Moisés Silva (via Accordance):

In view of the great variety of contexts in which morphē may be used, Hawthorne makes a significant point in admitting that the word’s “precise meaning is elusive” (...). To put it differently, morphē is characterized by semantic extension; it covers a broad range of meanings and therefore we are heavily dependent on the immediate context to discover its specific nuance. Here in Phil. 2:6 we are greatly helped by two factors. In the first place, we have the correspondence of morphē theou with isa theō. Käsemann, as we have noticed, was absolutely right in emphasizing that being “in the form of God” is equivalent to being “equal with God.” To go beyond this equivalence and inquire whether morphē tells us precisely in what respects Jesus is equal with God (in essence? attributes? attitude? appearance?) is asking too much from one word.

In the second place, and most important, morphē theou is set in antithetical parallelism to μορφὴν δούλου (morphēn doulou, form of a servant), an expression further defined by the phrase ἐν ὁμοιώματι ἀνθρώ-πων (en homoiōmati anthrōpōn, in the likeness of men). It is possible to cite parallels in which morphē is used to designate what is distinctively divine in contrast to what is distinctively human (cf. BDAG 659, s.v. μορφή). It appears then that Lightfoot (1868: 133), although misguided in seeing here a more or less philosophical meaning of “essence,” was not off the track in detecting a contrast between “the true divine nature of our Lord” and “true human nature.” And it moreover follows that the Philippians passage, although not written for the purpose of presenting an ontological description of Christ, is very much consonant with the trinitarian formulas of the fourth–century church.

[John Reece]

Not so by Paul (Romans 9:11, Galatians 4:23.24.29)and also not by Matthew (2:1.4; 19:12) ; and etc. Look after here:
http://biblehub.com/greek/strongs_1080.htm

not true.

I stand corrected; 'should have done more research.

ETA: This demonstrates why I am so often tempted to give up and cease participation in TWeb communications any more: my mind does not think clearly; if my brain functioned normally, I would not have been so stupid as to overlook the fact that although lexical definitions of γεννάω are active/transitive, that does not preclude passive forms of the verb that are prolific in the scriptures.

However, I will soldier on. What's a little embarrassment compared to the joy of dealing with biblical languages?

[Geert van den Bos]

The verb γεννάω was normally used in a transitive or active sense; i.e., to become the parent of, beget, or to give birth to, bear, or to cause something to happen, bring forth, produce, cause = the three definitions of γεννάω in BDAG.

Not so by Paul (Romans 9:11, Galatians 4:23.24.29)and also not by Matthew (2:1.4; 19:12) ; and etc. Look after here:
http://biblehub.com/greek/strongs_1080.htm

Paul did not use γεννάω in Galatians 4:4, Romans 1:3, or Philippians 2:7 because none of those senses of γεννάω were appropriate or fitting in any of the three texts in question

not true.

[John Reece]

Yes, but Paul had another word to his disposal: γεννάω, which he did not use here (Like also not in Galatians 4:4 and Romans 1:3)

The verb γεννάω was normally used in a transitive or active sense; i.e., to become the parent of, beget, or to give birth to, bear, or to cause something to happen, bring forth, produce, cause = the three definitions of γεννάω in BDAG.

Paul did not use γεννάω in Galatians 4:4, Romans 1:3, or Philippians 2:7 because none of those senses of γεννάω were appropriate or fitting in any of the three texts in question; rather, the sense called for in the respective contexts was that of the intransitive or passive sense expressed by γίνομαι, the sense of which is to come into being through process of birth or natural production, be born, be produced = the first/primary definition of the word in BDAG and other Greek lexica.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

Sorry, I looked John Reece's reference to Romans 1:3 over the head. But it surely doesn't have the meaning of "born" - like most translations also don't have:
http://biblehub.com/romans/1-3.htm ESV concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh

In what world is "descended according to the flesh" not a reference to birth?

How then would you translate 1 Corinthians 15:37? Not one here has "born" http://biblehub.com/1_corinthians/15-37.htm
And Matthew 21:9?

The word has a denotation of biological generation. So, 1 Corinthians 15:37 could certainly be translated:
"And as for what you sow, you do not sow the body that is to be birthed, but a bare seed, perhaps of wheat or of some other grain."

Matthew 21:9 would be legitimately translated with:
"Then he said to it, 'May no fruit ever be born from you again!'"

1) I don't have those texts 2) we are discussing the bible, and especially Philippians 2:7.

Most are freely available, in the original Greek, online. The easiest place to find most of them is the Perseus Digital Library, which also has the Liddell-Scott-Jones lexicon with entries fully linked to its hosted texts. http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/

It's just strong indication that Galatians 4:4 doesn't want to say "born".

No, it really isn't. If I were to say, "I ran a marathon," and then later said, "I sprinted to the finish," that is not an indication that "to run" cannot mean "to quickly traverse a distance by locomotion of the legs." You would not be justified in claiming that when I said, "I ran a marathon," I really meant that I organized and officiated an event in which other people engaged in a marathon, even though "to run" can also have such a meaning.

You only come "under the law" through circumcision. Besides that it was exactly the clue of Paul's letter tot the Galatians.

No, Gentiles only come under the law through circumcision. Paul's letter to the Galatians makes it quite clear that Jews were born into a heredity which was bound by the law. This is especially evident in verses like Galatians 2:15, 4:1-3, and the Allegory of Hagar and Sarah in 4:21-26.

"genomenos" is repeated to build it up: as servant he was obedient unto death.

No, it's meant to be a parallel. He emptied himself, and was born/"became in human likeness." He humbled himself, and became obedient. It's a poetic play-on-words meant to indicate this parallel. This is a fairly common tool in poetry of that era and people.

How could he be in the form of God before born?

Or do you mean that as fetus he was in the form of God?

Once again, Paul believed that prior to his human birth, Jesus had existed as a being "in divine form." That does not mean that Paul believed this pre-existent being was God.

[Geert van den Bos]

Here is the beginning of the Bible Hub page to which you provide the above link.

Original Word: γίνομαι
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: ginomai
Phonetic Spelling: (ghin'-om-ahee)
Short Definition: I come into being, am born
Definition: I come into being, am born, become, come about, happen.

And here what follows it:

1096 gínomai – properly, to emerge, become, transitioning from one point (realm, condition) to another. 1096 (gínomai) fundamentally means "become" (becoming, became) so it is not an exact equivalent to the ordinary equative verb "to be" (is, was, will be) as with 1510 /eimí (1511 /eínai, 2258 /ēn).

1096 (ginomai) means "to become, and signifies a change of condition, state or place" (Vine, Unger, White, NT, 109).

M. Vincent, "1096 (gínomai) means to come into being/manifestation implying motion, movement, or growth" (at 2 Pet 1:4). Thus it is used for God's actions as emerging from eternity and becoming (showing themselves) in time (physical space).

A good writer may use a synonym rather than over using a single word in given context.

That's a very weak argument.

"Born under the law" is just a way of saying "born a Jew".

1) It is not "born" under the law 2) as stated above: you only come under the law through circumcision.

There is nothing remarkable about that; γίνομαι (lexical form of the inflection γενόμενος) has a broad semantic range.

Yes, but Paul had another word to his disposal: γεννάω, which he did not use here (Like also not in Galatians 4:4 and Romans 1:3)

There we have it: your presuppositional motivation for making weak arguments ― such as resorting to a loose paraphrase of an Aramaic translation of the Greek text in question, wherein the verb γίνομαι is rendered by the preposition "from".

It is about the question wether Paul does present Jesus as being God, or not. I say not.

[John Reece]

There are 671 occurrences of the verb γίνομαι in NT scripture:

http://biblehub.com/greek/1096.htm

Here is the beginning of the Bible Hub page to which you provide the above link.

Original Word: γίνομαι
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: ginomai
Phonetic Spelling: (ghin'-om-ahee)
Short Definition: I come into being, am born
Definition: I come into being, am born, become, come about, happen.

As for Galatians 4:4 we have already seen that Paul in the same chapter uses another verb for being born, γεννάω.

A good writer may use a synonym rather than over using a single word in given context.

"Born of a woman" might make sense, but "born under the law"? -- the letter to the Galatians being about that through circumcision one comes under the law; Galatians 5:3, I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law.
-- so translation "born under the law" is against the spirit of the letter.

"Born under the law" is just a way of saying "born a Jew".

And for Phillippians 2:7 we saw that the same γενόμενος is repeated in v.8 where it certainly doesn't carry the meaning of "being born".

There is nothing remarkable about that; γίνομαι (lexical form of the inflection γενόμενος) has a broad semantic range.

And it was all about the γενόμενος in Philiipians 2:7, that if you translate "born" it implies that the earthly Jesus was God who had taken the form of a servant. Which seems to be rather unlikely and not in concordance with Paul's view (Paul never said that Jesus was God in human form)

There we have it: your presuppositional motivation for making weak arguments ― such as resorting to a loose paraphrase of an Aramaic translation of the Greek text in question, wherein the verb γίνομαι is rendered by the preposition "from".