4

Based upon comments to this question on Christianity SE and, looking at the text of Philippians 2:5-8:

Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in 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, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.

Does this text indicate a 'time frame' for when Christ Jesus was in the form of God? More specifically, is it exegetically correct to understand Jesus' 'consideration' of equality with God as chronologically preceding his emptying himself by taking the form of a servant?

** Note- from the comments and answers I am concerned that my use of the terms "time frame" and "chronology" are distracting. Given the understanding that God exists outside of time it is difficult to find terms that represent one thing preceding another. The verse seems to indicate that Christ considered, and then emptied himself, and then took the form of a servant by being born, and then humbled himself. Please try not to get hung up on temporal versus eternal terminology (it's not easy).

1
2

It is not exegetically correct to understand Jesus' 'consideration' of equality with God as chronologically preceding his emptying himself by taking the form of a servant. Jesus did not consider equality with God at any time. The verse cited tells us that Paul encouraged the Philippian believers to cultivate a humble attitude like that of Jesus. Considering that Paul wanted the Philippian believers to emulate Christ, if Philippians 2:6 is taken to mean that Jesus was equal to the God that he serves, had Paul urged the Phillippian believers to consider it "not robbery" but their right, "to be equal with God" ?. That concept does not agree with the context. Only someone who does not posses equality with God, like Satan, Adam and Eve would desire to grasp it. It the subject is about two equal persons, there is no relevance to refer to one "robbing" the other of equality. Even in the case of two persons that are not equal, how can one deprive the other of equality by robbery. To rob is not only to seize one's own, but to remove what rightfully belongs to the other person. If Jesus is God, the question of achieving equality does not make sense. If on the other hand, Jesus is not equal to God, how would it be meaningful to speak of "robbery" "seize" in regard to his acquiring equality to God?

Notice that the verse does not say that Jesus is God. Jesus did not grasp at equality with God, but himself plainly said that the Father is greater than him, John 14:28 and that the Father is the only true God, John 17:3. If we infer that Jesus and God are equal using Philippians 2:6, we are imposing on him what he has rejected. The Expositor’s Greek Testament says: “We cannot find any passage where [har·paʹzo] or any of its derivatives [including har·pag·monʹ] has the sense of ‘holding in possession,’ ‘retaining’. It seems invariably to mean ‘seize,’ ‘snatch violently’. Thus it is not permissible to glide from the true sense ‘grasp at’ into one which is totally different, ‘hold fast.’”—(Grand Rapids, Mich.; 1967), edited by W. Robertson Nicoll, Vol. III, pp. 436, 437.

If there are two other true Gods. that is like saying that the Father has misled us. In Isaiah 40:25 ASV we read, To whom then will ye liken me, that I should be equal to him? saith the Holy One. Isaiah 45:5-6 ASV says I am Jehovah, and there is none else; besides me there is no God. I will gird thee, though thou hast not known me, that they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none besides me: I am Jehovah, and there is none else. In these verses, God proclaims that there is only one God. In Isaiah 45:19 says Jehovah speaks the truth, I have not spoken in secret, in a place of the land of darkness; I said not unto the seed of Jacob, Seek ye me in vain: I, Jehovah, speak righteousness, I declare things that are right. The Father says He speaks what is true. Are we going to make him a liar by saying there are one or two other persons that are equal to Him?

Jesus never contradicted the only true God of the Bible that he himself worshipped, and prayed to. He declared the Father as the only true God. John 17:3. His God is greater than him John 14:28.The people to whom Jesus spoke to where not trinitarian apologists and were mostly people that speak the language that Jesus spoke. They know their own language. Jesus and his followers never gave new meaning to the word "one JHVH" in the shema quoted in Mark 12 29 Jesus answered, The first is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God, the Lord is one: quoted from Deuteronomy 6:4, it reads Hear, O Israel: Jehovah our God is one Jehovah. Philippians 2:6 does not say that Jesus is God.

17
  • The noun αρπαγμος (harpagmos), which denotes the nature or legal category of the general effect of the parent verb. This curious and very rare noun occurs in the New Testament in Philippians 2:6 only, where Christ, in the form of God, did not consider equality with God to be a violation of property rights, social codes or personal autonomy. It is not a case of taking what was not his (being in the form of God denotes an existing condition) rather, it is a case that equality with God was not inappropriate...it was not ill-gotten equality (as the serpent tempted) but equality by nature. Oct 1 at 12:21
  • Saw this late last night but thought I would wait until this morning to read, it being that tricky subject matter recently talked about between us. Didn't think you were going to take this on but here we are. Your exegesis here IMO is right on. I'm fairly sure that I could not have tackled this subject as well as you now have. You do us "non-trinitarians" proud. It's a definite upvote from me. Oct 1 at 14:20
  • @Olde English. Thank you. Oct 1 at 21:00
  • @Mike Borden. Do you have a lexicon to prove your comment about harpagmos. Oct 1 at 21:08
0

Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus

Christ's humility (Matthew 11:29, 23:12; Luke 14:11, 18:14).

he was in the form of God

As Adam and Eve in paradise, before the fall, since man (John 19:5) was initially made in God's image (Genesis 1:26-27, 5:1; Wisdom 2:23); see also Last Adam and Adam Kadmon.

Typologically, the untilled ground from which Adam was taken (Genesis 2:4-7) parallels the untouched womb from which Christ was born (Matthew 1:18-25, Luke 1:26-36); notice also the Spirit's life-giving role and presence in both passages, as well as both being called sons of God (Luke 3:38).

did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped

Unlike the primordial couple, whose hearts were poisoned by the venom of the snake, before grasping or reaching for the fruit of the tree of knowledge, in their perverted desire to become godlike (Genesis 3:1-6), in a manner befitting fallen angels (Isaiah 14:12-14).

emptied himself

Of man's ancestral pride and selfishness (Matthew 16:24, Mark 8:34, Luke 9:23).

by taking the form of a servant

As opposed to that of a master (Matthew 20:25-27, 23:11; Mark 10:42-44; Luke 22:25-27) or earthly king (Matthew 21:5, John 12:15), contrary to preconceived Jewish expectations of how the Messiah was supposed to be(have).

being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form

Fallen humanity, when contrasted to its initial paradisiacal state, alluded to earlier (Psalm 82:6-7, Hebrews 4:15).

he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross

The crucifixion, seen as a harrowing self-sacrifice, in light of Christ's complete obedience (Matthew 6:10, 26:42; Luke 11:2, 22:42).

9
  • "In form of man" = 100% man, and since the "in form of God" precedes with the same semantics, it means, simply a grammatical necessity, unless you want at caprice turn a blind eye to this necessity, means 100% God. This is the clear theological antithesis and contraposition Paul creates here, not to see it is I do not know what, but a blatantly wrong thing for sure. Sep 28 at 9:00
  • @LevanGigineishvili: Part 1: Romanians and Georgians share the same Orthodox faith; as such, you are preaching to the choir; furthermore, I did not come here to engage in either apologetics or propaganda for my specific religious denomination; also, I find it detrimental to begin by directly stating what amounts to a conclusion, preferring instead to start of from the most basic and undisputed of premises (since all sides, be they Jewish, pagan, or Christian, agree that Jesus was, at the very least, a man), and then work my way up from there, as is both commonly and properly done ...
    – Lucian
    Sep 28 at 9:33
  • @LevanGigineishvili: Part 2: ... in the field of mathematics, for instance; after all, the incarnation's main or primary purpose was that of redeeming fallen humanity, not extolling the grandeur or omnipotence of deity, since the latter was not doubted by anyone among the ancients, agnosticism and atheism being mostly (by)products of the post-Enlightenment era, and therefore not particularly weighing on the evangelist's mind whilst composing the gospel. Bottom line, if in Adam humanity was created, in Christ it is recreated, or shaped anew ...
    – Lucian
    Sep 28 at 9:46
  • Thanks for the response. No propaganda! As Orthodox you know of course that the statutes of the Orthodox faith have not flown readily from the sky being outcome of most sincere, meticulous grammatical-dialectical discussions at Church councils and all of them are fundamentally based on the Holy Scripture. Here I deal with a simple grammar: even if, say, completely religiously unbiased and unengaged philologist reads this sentence of Paul, he will be necessitated to conclude that since "in form of man"=100% man, then, given the parallel structure, "in form of God" necessarily=100% God. Sep 28 at 9:57
  • Take analogy: "Peter O'Toole was in role of Hamlet an year ago, and now he is found in role of Romeo": this sentence cannot be, grammatically, interpreted in any other way than that since P. O'Toole is found 100% in role of Romeo now (while playing this role of course), therefore, out of grammatical necessity, he was 100% Hamlet an year ago (while playing Hamlet). Nothing personal or theologically-biased, just grammar. Sep 28 at 10:06
0

The problem is the word chronological which implies a linear ordering in the dimension of time. God exists before time was created or introduced, John 17:

5 And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began.

Does this text indicate a 'time frame' for when Christ Jesus was in the form of God?

No, Jesus was with God before the world or time began.

More specifically, is it exegetically correct to understand Jesus' 'consideration' of equality with God as chronologically preceding his emptying himself by taking the form of a servant?

Equality with God cannot be compared to emptying himself in terms of chronology because the two concepts exist on different dimensions They are not linearly comparable.

Would you conclude that "in the form of God" and "emptying himself" are concurrent?

No.

Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God

This exists in the eternal time-independent reality.

did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.

This happened in space-time reality over 2000 years ago.

One existence is time-independent; the other time-dependent. They can't be concurrent. Concurrency has to do with events happening within the time dimension.

OP: Would you conclude that, since Christ Jesus "considered" while in the form of God and this is not concurrent with His birth, He pre-existed his birth?

I assumed that the act of consideration was done in the eternal reality while in the form of God. This eternal act pre-exists the space-time event of the virgin birth.

Is this act of consideration concurrent or not concurrent with the event of the virgin birth?

Neither, they are simply not comparable. They exist in different incomparable realities.

1<2? True
1>2? False

apple > 1? apple does not belong to the set of real numbers. The two are not comparable.

apple < 1? apple is not a real number. The two are not comparable.

This notion of comparability is formalized in the concept of the partially ordered set.

OP: So, even though the temporal exists within the eternal

I see temporal and eternal as separate realities, different axes of dimensions.

OP: and the eternal likely is concurrent with every temporal point (so that God is omnipresent, omniscient, etc.)

I don't think so. They don't intersect except occasionally on singularities when a miracle happens. These are rare events.

OP: Christ considered prior to entering the temporal?

Right. Entering the temporal on a singularity point. It was a miracle when eternal intersects with space-time.

6
  • 1
    Would you conclude that "in the form of God" and "emptying himself" are concurrent? Sep 28 at 12:39
  • Good question. I added :)
    – Tony Chan
    Sep 28 at 13:42
  • 1
    Would you conclude that, since Christ Jesus "considered" while in the form of God and this is not concurrent with His birth, He pre-existed his birth? Sep 28 at 19:10
  • Good question. Again I added :)
    – Tony Chan
    Sep 28 at 20:01
  • 1
    So, even though the temporal exists within the eternal and the eternal likely is concurrent with every temporal point (so that God is omnipresent, omniscient, etc.) Christ considered prior to entering the temporal? Sep 28 at 23:02
-1

First of all it should be seen clearly that when He was manifested "in form of man", it means that He became 100% man, and therefore, out of necessity of the parallel structure (unless we wish to twist the text at whim) the "in form of God" means that He is regarded by Paul as 100% God, and exactly this 100% is expressed by the term "equal to God".

Take analogy: "Peter O'Toole was in the role of Hamlet a year ago, and now he is found in the role of Romeo": this sentence cannot be, grammatically, interpreted in any other way than that since P. O'Toole is found 100% in role of Romeo now (while playing this role of course), therefore, out of grammatical necessity, he was 100% in the role of Hamlet a year ago (while playing Hamlet). Even not yet theology, but a simple grammar, which heretics have a special knack to mercilessly trample.

Now, to be equal to God means to completely share the same eternal uncreated perfect infinite being with God co-unbeginedly, for without this complete and unbegan sharing the "equal to God" will be impossible; for if it is stupid to say that a savage who does not even know what tennis racket is, is equal tennis-player with Roger Federer, incomparably stupider will be to say that anything existence of what has a beginning is equal to that, existence of what has no beginning. Thus Both the Father and the Son are necessarily συνανάρχοι i.e. likewise unoriginated for Paul and for any sound-minded exegete and theologian.

This established, we can see, what is this eternal existence: is or can it be measured by time or any temporal succession? Unless one is a time-idolater as Oscar Cullmann in his famous "Christ and Time" (I admit this book has some undeniable merits also), no sound-minded theologian will hazard such a blasphemy and idiocy as to say that divine existence of the Father and the Son could be measured by any one-dimensional linear succession or any time in Newtonian sense, for time does not exist in and does not and cannot in principle apply to eternity of divine existence.

Therefore, when the Lord became man it is a miracle of the Infinite and Atemporal adopting temporality of a created existence, and Uncircumscribable Existence the existence that is circumscribable in body.

Thus, there is a succession, for God was not man and became man. Yet this succession is not of a temporal character in one dimension of an absolute Newtonian time, for such time does not apply to eternity of divine existence which the Father and the Son have identical.

3
  • @Down-voter Hey, down-voter, my anonymous my! Any reasonable objections to the arguments in my post? If not, then your down-voting, you have to agree, is not a thing of which your best teacher at school would be proud of you. In any case, be healthy and have a good day! Sep 27 at 21:21
  • @Down-voter#2: Please, read my note dedicated to your colleague @Down-voter #1 above :) Sep 28 at 5:58
  • @Down-voter#3 Please, o you, my courageous anonymous guru and instructor, read the above remarks to your other colleagues, @Down-voter#2 and @Down-voter#1 :) Sep 28 at 7:47
-1

Good question! A trinitarian or binitarian would use this text to claim Jesus must have existed in the "form of God" prior to his "days in the flesh" and its associated "emptying" to become a servant. So he was in God's form before he was in the form of a servant, with his birth somewhere in the middle. This must be read into the text as there is no indication of such a timeline. Allegedly, Jesus is God, and had a pre-existence and this 'proof-text' verse proves it!

Paul is the source of this passage and many others that on the matter of Jesus and his human nature. Let's note some significant facts before proceeding;

  • If Paul had any idea (or inspiration) that Jesus was God, he had plenty of opportunity to say so. There was no need to vaguely infer such a thing as many think he did. He doesn't say Jesus is God anywhere.
  • Apparently the incarnation is the moment when Jesus 'discarded' the form of God and became a man, a servant. This incarnation thing is also without a mention anywhere in the NT.
  • Jesus is never outright said to be God, and God is never said to be flesh, so there's that.
  • Paul is the one who started almost every letter by drawing a distinction between God and Jesus. They are never the same, Jesus is never God. Paul is the one who stated, "there is but one God, the Father", "and one Lord, Jesus Christ" 1Cor 8:6. He was quite firm in his understanding and clear in his delivery.
  • There will always be those who claim, 'the logos became flesh' and the logos was God, so Jesus must be God! This primitive reckoning is without merit and has been addressed elsewhere. Suffice to say, John 1:1-3 speaks of logos, not Jesus. Jesus wasn't born yet and he could not have been 'in the beginning'.
  • There is no mention of a "God the Son" anywhere in the whole bible.
  • Paul confirms his concrete stance on God and Jesus with 1 Cor 8:6 and firmly distinguishes God from Jesus in each of his letters. According to Paul (like all other NT writers), Jesus simply cannot be God.
  • Even in Revelations, it is perfectly clear, the exalted, now immortal Jesus, the Lamb is not God and God is not the Lamb.

there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we exist. And there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ.

Let's now establish from the bible the origin of Jesus. This part is important - we have 4 different gospel accounts that together provide a sound understanding in need of no interpretation.

…it seemed fitting to me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in an orderly sequence, most excellent Theophilus; 4 so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught Luke 1:3

the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favour with God. 31 And behold, you will conceive in your womb and give birth to a son, and you shall name him Jesus Luke 1:30

He will be very great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his ancestor David. v32

The record of the genealogy of Jesus the Messiah, the son of David, the son of Abraham: Matt 1:1

Now the birth of Jesus the Messiah was as follows: when his mother Mary… v18

We have the beginning of ‘Jesus’, the Christ. A descendant of David and Abraham. No one is talking about Jesus being God, no one speaks of his pre-existence as an eternal being – an ‘exact truth’, we’re told or ‘perfectly’, ‘diligently’, ‘accurately’. A baby boy born of Mary, named Jesus, the son of God.

Gal 4:4 But when the fullness of the time came, God sent His son, born of a woman, born under the Law.

From this consistently expressed humble beginning we have the rest of the NT which expands on the life of this Jesus, who grew to be a man, who lived an extraordinary life without sin and died as foretold in numerous prophecies, was raised back to life and exalted to the right hand of God!

Did David have God as his descendant, did Mary birth God?? Well, no one writes about this at all – nothing. Just a normal baby, born holy with a predestined future involving some hideous suffering and trial – not because he deserved it, but because God had arranged for him to pay for all sin with his perfect life. A model of sacrifice not needed to be done often as the Jews/Israelites were used to, but once only and for all creation/mankind.

This is the simple truth - no incarnation, no pre-existence, no God becoming a man. All these things, sadly, are made up to present another gospel about another Jesus who is not described in the bible at all - save a few 'proof-texts' that can be forced to infer something accommodating a traditional theology.

What does the NT say about Jesus' relative to God, his Father.

  • He is the radiance of the glory of God Heb 1:3
  • He is the image of the invisible God Col 1:15
  • seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. 2Cor 4:4
  • being in the form of God.

Further, in Jesus' own words,

Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? John 14:9 And whoever sees me sees the One who sent me. 12:45

'Form', μορφῇ morphē is readily understood as something we see, an outward appearance, a shape, as presented in lexicons and dictionaries. Just as Paul and Hebrews point out in unison - Jesus represents God by his appearance. Mark 16:12, 2 Tim 3:5, and others are about the appearance or what is observed. Jesus transfiguration is a similar word, metamorphoomai) Matt 17:2, Mark 9:2.

While God is invisible, Jesus is not - he is just like one of us in every way (Heb 2:17) Jesus showed what God was like. When they saw him - this included everything he did, said, his emotions and responses, his behaviour and attitude. Jesus was filled with God through the spirit God supplied, enabling Jesus to do all he needed to accomplish up to the final testing of the cross and his final agonised but triumphant breath, "It is finished!"

Of course, seeing God in Jesus is not about the eyes but the mind. We get to know, to see God by seeing and knowing Jesus.

And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent. John 17:3

If you had known me, you would have known my Father also; from now on you know Him, and have seen Him. John 14:7

Jesus is always in the form of God - always the image of God, always the vision of God's glory to the eyes of men. While he is holy and without sin, he represents his Father in all things. He could only accomplish this by subjecting himself and his own will to obediently serve God's purposes.

Jesus didn't empty himself of being God - that would be silly and impossible if he was God. He willingly, humbly denied himself the luxuries, the benefits, the privilege of being the son of the King, the son of God - but he remained as the form of God at all times. Hanging on the cross, his most humiliating and shameful moment, he was still the righteous and holy man who carried the love of God to the grave.

In an attempt to maintain a degree of authenticity of Jesus being God and yet be tempted and able to die, men have invented a two-natured Jesus. Ultimately, when it comes to explain the complex details of this construct, they pull the mystery card and claim it cannot really be fully understood - we have to believe by faith! Jesus did not come to present a mystery but a grand revelation!

No, we have all the details we need in the bible, the gospels, the epistles are more than sufficient to explain who Jesus is and how it is that he has a God - the same God we all do - whether we know Him or not. Jesus, a man of few words but perfectly suitable and precise words - inspired and provided by his God said this.

But as it is, you are seeking to kill me, a man who has told you the truth, which I heard from God John 8:40

Do we believe his truth - that he heard from God? Do we accept the "accurate" gospel accounts of the prophesied baby Jesus born to Mary without reservation or adjustment? Do we need to read in bizarre and incongruent new details beyond that which God has abundantly supplied? The manmade construct of Jesus or a GodSon pre-existing his conception is not a biblical truth. The Jesus, who is man and also God, does not fit the truth of the bible.

Jesus was the form of God and of the servant simultaneously and cannot be separated. That was the whole point of his coming. When Jesus was born, what are we told? The holy one is already having the form of God.

the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore also the holy one being born will be called the Son of God Luke 1:35

And the word became flesh and dwelt among us. And we beheld his glory, a glory as of an only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth. John 1:14

There is no more "form of God" than these descriptors.

What God requires, he provides.

God requires holiness, righteousness and designed man to be in His image. This was never going to come to fruition on its own. Before He created, He designed in a Saviour - a perfect sacrifice to cover all sin that was about to wreak havoc on His new creation.

God provides the perfect sacrifice in Jesus - fully perfect and holy, without blemish, but willing in absolute trust, love and humility, to offer himself for all others. No self-centred man could possible do this, only a holy man in the form of God, the son of God, who by choice, set aside his divine privileges in the form of a servant, to honour his God and his brothers.

Philippians 2:5-8 does not indicate chronological progression from one form to the other - in Jesus, they are inseparable and concurrent.

Let's finish with a quick survey of the immediate Phil 2 passage.

He humbled himself, having become obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Therefore God also highly exalted him, and granted to him the name above every name v8-9

IF Jesus was God, why is God exalting him above everything and everyone else? Why is he not simply resuming his heavenly pre-existence? Because Jesus is a man only, and has qualified to rule with God - sitting at God's right hand. Could it be any clearer?

every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. v11

Jesus is Lord only, he is not God. He is the glory of God and God glorifies him.

Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus v1

Have the humble trusting attitude Jesus exhibited - even though he had the form of God - being holy and perfect, he chose to serve the purposes of his God and not serve his own interests. Escaping the onerous death on the cross would be something to avoid - no, he took that up as God's servant, obedient to God's will over his.

having become obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

Therefore let all the house of Israel know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Christ—this Jesus whom you crucified. Acts 2:36

The idea of Jesus being somehow equal with God is covered here.

8
  • I don't know how to respond to this answer. The first paragraph gives me the impression that you understand the question and then most of the rest reads like a diatribe circumventing the issue at hand. Jesus, while in the form of God, reckoned the equality with God that he had not inappropriate but emptied himself and took the form of a servant. Concurrence is very difficult to read into this since but represents antithesis or reconsideration. Sep 28 at 22:41
  • 1
    I have provided a logical progression of scripture to show such a supposition as yours is totally without merit. As opposed to the other answers which tout opinion more than anything - obviously, you prefer one over the other as one is affirming a reading in approach, the other not.
    – steveowen
    Sep 28 at 23:23
  • 1
    The scriptures address Jesus humanness soundly - logic isn't the primary reason for understanding - reading the word of God with a humble heart will suffice. Remember, here we are not disputing God's word, we are disputing fabrications of tradition that have no basis in the word.
    – steveowen
    Sep 30 at 12:12
  • 1
    When we read Heb 2:14,17 - we either believe what it says, or we fudge it with our own additional extra bits that don't fit and render it of no value as truth. If you take away a dozen favourite 'proof-texts' that get trotted out all the time here, the trinity would cease to exist. It is only that they are persistently mis-read that they have any value to tradition.
    – steveowen
    Sep 30 at 12:12
  • 1
    You are a man (I assume). Would you say that you took part of flesh and blood (as Jesus did in Hebrews 2:14) or were made a partaker of flesh and blood by your creator? Took is active and the subject (Jesus) performs the action. He took on flesh...actively. Oct 1 at 12:31

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.