kenosis . . ?

[PaulThomson]

Except for the fact that the same powers He gave up, He got back.

Which powers that Paul's old man had had without relying on Christ before his conversion did Paul's new man continue to exercise without depending on Christ after Christ had incarnated in him at his conversion?

 

[PaulThomson]

A certain contemporary scholar put it something like that, in the form of a theophany, God condescended upon man in speaking to them. Philosophically speaking, can it be assumed that the Son 'became' man or would it be more accurate to assume that (M)man 'was/is? in Him" all along? and so His condescension in speaking to man required? (in saying required I mean to imply, rather, that this is a necessity in accommodating man's frailty? to comprehend the entirety of God's glory) that He 'limit' Himself, and thus, not becoming as much as exhibiting the nature of an inherent humility that is a primary characteristic of an entirely terrific? likely no, but) God.

God, in the distinct beginningless Person of the Son, became man would be philosophically better IMHO

 

[oyster67]

the word is Greek, from Philippians 2, quoted below in kjv, with some context --

If there be therefore any consolation in Christ, if any comfort of love, if any fellowship of the Spirit, if any bowels and mercies,​

fulfil ye my joy, that ye be likeminded, having the same love, being of one accord, of one mind.​

Let nothing be done through strife or vainglory; but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves.​

Look not every man on his own things, but every man also on the things of others.​

Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:​

Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:​

but made Himself of no reputation, and took upon Him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:​

and being found in fashion as a man, He humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.​

Wherefore God also hath highly exalted Him, and given Him a name which is above every name:​

that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;​

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

(Philippians 2:1-8)​

​

​

the phrase here "made Himself of no reputation" is literally:

but did empty himself​

(Philippians 2:7 ylt)​

​

the verb "to empty" is in Greek, κενόω, transliterated, kenoo -- the noun form for the state of emptying, kenosis.


it is an important point of contention in Christian theology, but actually a fairly modern debate, dating to the mid 1900's ((per this link: A Brief History Of The Kenosis Theory))

the question that is under contention is what does it mean that Christ "made Himself of no reputation" ?
that He "emptied Himself" -- emptied Himself of what?

basically, it boils down to did Christ cease to be God when He took on the form of man?
i.e. did He empty Himself of deity - or at least, some of the attributes of deity?

is He always God, or is He, while on earth, a mere man without any divine qualities?


it's a topic that in recent weeks i've discerned to be very important to several other topics -- some of your views on this topic have been very evident based on how you treat other topics. it is a fairly fundamental thing to how we understand Who Christ is and how to comprehend what He said as recorded in the gospels.
But i don't remember there being any actual formal topic specifically about this in the BDF... anyway there ain't any recent one, ha!

so here it is.
let's dive in!

for my part, i think there are some clues in the text itself that tell us ((and other things in other passages that confirm it)) -- but i am not trying to proselytize here but engender discussion. i think it's something we all ought to take a close, careful, studied look into.
so i'd like to hear from you all before i just just give my own views as tho i'm a teacher and you're just supposed to nod your head & agree. we all know how that works lol
most of you who know me fairly well can already guess what i think, anyway



as always,
thanks for reading my drivel

Great post!

I think that the context you printed answers most of the questions...

"form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:"
Implies that He did not become a man in every way. He retained inner perfection and purity, without which He could not be the perfect sacrifice.

"became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross."
He 'became killable' in the physical sense.

"Wherefore God also hath highly exalted Him, and given Him a name which is above every name: that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father."
In some ways, this actually elevated Jesus in the eyes of His Father? At any rate, the Father was pleased.

We should not be surprised that this event has become a contentious thing, for it is without precedent in all of time and eternity. It is a unique event and situation without comparability to anything else. Jesus, in His man form, still did things no other man could do.

 

[oyster67]

the phrase here "made Himself of no reputation" is literally:

but did empty himself(Philippians 2:7 ylt)

I think the KJV guys did a great job here.

 

[oyster67]

Isaiah 53:

1Who hath believed our report? and to whom is the arm of the LORD revealed? 2For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him. 3He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not.

 

[Cameron143]

Which powers that Paul's old man had had without relying on Christ before his conversion did Paul's new man continue to exercise without depending on Christ after Christ had incarnated in him at his conversion?

At first, probably many. Over time, very few.

 

[PaulThomson]

Me: Which powers that Paul's old man had had without relying on Christ before his conversion did Paul's new man continue to exercise without depending on Christ after Christ had incarnated in him at his conversion?

At first, probably many. Over time, very few.

The new man walks by faith relying on Christ. The new man cannot sin by using old man traits without Christ ruling in their use. If the old man's traits are being used without reliance on Christ, it is the old man using them, not the new man.

 

[Cameron143]

Me: Which powers that Paul's old man had had without relying on Christ before his conversion did Paul's new man continue to exercise without depending on Christ after Christ had incarnated in him at his conversion?



The new man walks by faith relying on Christ. The new man cannot sin by using old man traits without Christ ruling in their use. If the old man's traits are being used without reliance on Christ, it is the old man using them, not the new man.

I agree. But we have to put on the new man. That doesn't automatically happen. We learn to walk by faith through our experiences. Follow the life of Abraham. He had many failures before he was ready to bring down the knife.

 

[PaulThomson]

I agree. But we have to put on the new man. That doesn't automatically happen. We learn to walk by faith through our experiences. Follow the life of Abraham. He had many failures before he was ready to bring down the knife.

True. Now apply this to the Son's incarnation.

We take on a new nature in Christ. I was a son of man, but I become a son of God. To authentically walk as the new creation and not pollute that activity with our former ungodly attitudes and habits, we need to keep on putting to death, putting off, our pre-regenerate attributes and allow the Holy Spirit to determine our expression of any abilities we may also have had before conversion. I may have been a skilful writer before conversion, and the Holy Spirit may empower and use me to write skilfully after conversion, but the content and temperament of my writing in Christ as a son of God will be limited and enhanced by the Holy Spirit.

The Son of God changed in the other direction. The Son of God became a son of man. To authentically walk in His new nature as a son of man, Jesus needed to keep on putting off his former nature and only express former traits if they are initiated, empowered and guided by the Holy Spirit. Just as my skilled writing done as a son of God is no longer being done in my pre-regenerate son of man strength, but in the power of the Spirit. To be authentically human, the Lord Jesus' miracles could not be done using His own former divine attributes, but they had to be initiated by and done in co=operation with God, using the Holy Spirit's power.

Conversely, I may do some skilful writing after conversion, but I may be operating out of my unrenewed mind and ny pre-regenerate flesh to write in a clever way that dishonours God in its content and temperament. But in that process, I am not being an authentic child of God, led by and walking in the Spirit.

Likewise, the Son may do something requiring omnipotence after becoming Jesus of Nazareth, but if He were operating out of His own pre-incarnate omnipotence, He would not be being authentically human during those activities. He would be operating in His former nature, not His newly acquired nature at that time. To be authentically human after his incarnation, the Son would need to do miracles by the power of the Holy Spirit as other humans in history did. To authentically walk in His new nature as a son of man, Jesus needed to keep putting off his former nature and only express former traits if they are initiated, empowered and guided by the Holy Spirit.
Just as my skilled writing done as a son of God is no longer being done in my pre-regenerate son of man strength, but in the power of the Spirit, so also, to be authentically human, the Lord Jesus' miracles could not be done using His own former divine attributes, but had to be initiated by and done using the Holy Spirit's power. Otherwise Hebrews 2:16-17 would not be true - "For truly he received not upon Himself the nature of angels, but he received upon Himself the seed of Abraham. For which reaaon in all things it was his duty to become like his brothers that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in all things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people,"

 

[Cameron143]

True. Now apply this to the Son's incarnation.

We take on a new nature in Christ. I was a son of man, but I become a son of God. To authentically walk as the new creation and not pollute that activity with our former ungodly attitudes and habits, we need to keep on putting to death, putting off, our pre-regenerate attributes and allow the Holy Spirit to determine our expression of any abilities we may also have had before conversion. I may have been a skilful writer before conversion, and the Holy Spirit may empower and use me to write skilfully after conversion, but the content and temperament of my writing in Christ as a son of God will be limited and enhanced by the Holy Spirit.

The Son of God changed in the other direction. The Son of God became a son of man. To authentically walk in His new nature as a son of man, Jesus needed to keep on putting off his former nature and only express former traits if they are initiated, empowered and guided by the Holy Spirit. Just as my skilled writing done as a son of God is no longer being done in my pre-regenerate son of man strength, but in the power of the Spirit. To be authentically human, the Lord Jesus' miracles could not be done using His own former divine attributes, but they had to be initiated by and done in co=operation with God, using the Holy Spirit's power.

Conversely, I may do some skilful writing after conversion, but I may be operating out of my unrenewed mind and ny pre-regenerate flesh to write in a clever way that dishonours God in its content and temperament. But in that process, I am not being an authentic child of God, led by and walking in the Spirit.

Likewise, the Son may do something requiring omnipotence after becoming Jesus of Nazareth, but if He were operating out of His own pre-incarnate omnipotence, He would not be being authentically human during those activities. He would be operating in His former nature, not His newly acquired nature at that time. To be authentically human after his incarnation, the Son would need to do miracles by the power of the Holy Spirit as other humans in history did. To authentically walk in His new nature as a son of man, Jesus needed to keep putting off his former nature and only express former traits if they are initiated, empowered and guided by the Holy Spirit.
Just as my skilled writing done as a son of God is no longer being done in my pre-regenerate son of man strength, but in the power of the Spirit, so also, to be authentically human, the Lord Jesus' miracles could not be done using His own former divine attributes, but had to be initiated by and done using the Holy Spirit's power. Otherwise Hebrews 2:16-17 would not be true - "For truly he received not upon Himself the nature of angels, but he received upon Himself the seed of Abraham. For which reaaon in all things it was his duty to become like his brothers that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in all things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people,"

I agree with the application to us as Christians, but not as concerning Christ. I don't believe being fully human entails putting off His deity. Further, I don't believe it's possible. How can God not be God and still be God?
So while logically your argument follows, I believe the underlying premise is wrong.

 

[PaulThomson]

I agree with the application to us as Christians, but not as concerning Christ. I don't believe being fully human entails putting off His deity. Further, I don't believe it's possible. How can God not be God and still be God?
So while logically your argument follows, I believe the underlying premise is wrong.

From before the beginning there were three omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent Persons each having a consciousness that was infinite in reach and influence, and together operating in unison as God, first creating and then ruling over creation. If one of the Persons subsequently limited the reach and influence of their consciousness, they would still be the same beginningless Person. What category would we put such a Person into? Only deity can be a beginningless Person. Even if that ever-existing Person has reduced the scope of their knowledge, presence and power, they are still without beginning. So we could put them in the God category. But they now have a human body and a consciousness with the reach of a developing growing human being. So we could also put them in the category of human. while in that divested state. If that Person then keeps His human body but receives back the limitless conscious attributes He had divested, He will still be God, and he would also be human., but with a beginnningless person and with an omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresen consciousness.

Where is the problem?

 

[Nehemiah6]

Where is the problem?

Too many words. the Lord Jesus Christ is FULLY God and FULLY sinless Man at one and the same time. Period. It is for us to simply believe this, not try to figure it all out.

 

[Cameron143]

From before the beginning there were three omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent Persons each having a consciousness that was infinite in reach and influence, and together operating in unison as God, first creating and then ruling over creation. If one of the Persons subsequently limited the reach and influence of their consciousness, they would still be the same beginningless Person. What category would we put such a Person into? Only deity can be a beginningless Person. Even if that ever-existing Person has reduced the scope of their knowledge, presence and power, they are still without beginning. So we could put them in the God category. But they now have a human body and a consciousness with the reach of a developing growing human being. So we could also put them in the category of human. while in that divested state. If that Person then keeps His human body but receives back the limitless conscious attributes He had divested, He will still be God, and he would also be human., but with a beginnningless person and with an omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresen consciousness.

Where is the problem?

I understand what it is to be human because I am one. I have no problem admitting I have a less than full understanding of what it is to be God, both in scope and ability. But there seems to be a huge difference in not making use of an attribute and no longer possessing it. The first simply means operating without all one's faculties. The latter means you no longer possess the attributes, and thus, are no longer that thing. So since I don't believe you are saying Jesus isn't God, you are saying Jesus wasn't operating in the fulness of His deity. How all that works, I don't fully understand. But I believe the Bible teaches that He was both fully man and God simultaneously and fully. So I don't believe, using your terms, He limited the scope of His knowledge, presence, or power, but limited the actual use of them. In other words, to dispossess Himself of them is to no longer be God. And He remained God at all times.
In terms of what I would call this, the terms Son of God and Son of Man will suffice, depending on which aspect of His nature is in view.

 

[PaulThomson]

I understand what it is to be human because I am one. I have no problem admitting I have a less than full understanding of what it is to be God, both in scope and ability. But there seems to be a huge difference in not making use of an attribute and no longer possessing it. The first simply means operating without all one's faculties. The latter means you no longer possess the attributes, and thus, are no longer that thing. So since I don't believe you are saying Jesus isn't God, you are saying Jesus wasn't operating in the fulness of His deity. How all that works, I don't fully understand. But I believe the Bible teaches that He was both fully man and God simultaneously and fully. So I don't believe, using your terms, He limited the scope of His knowledge, presence, or power, but limited the actual use of them. In other words, to dispossess Himself of them is to no longer be God. And He remained God at all times.
In terms of what I would call this, the terms Son of God and Son of Man will suffice, depending on which aspect of His nature is in view.

By what logical argument (If A is true, and if B is true, then C must be true) do you conclude that "to dispossess Himself of [His pre-incarnate omnis] is to no longer be God".

A: If all ever-existing Persons are God, and
B if Jesus of Nazareth was an ever-existing Person, therefore
C. Jesus of Nazareth was and will always be God.

Are A and B true?

How is it possible for an ever-existent Person to be merely human?

 

[PaulThomson]

Too many words. the Lord Jesus Christ is FULLY God and FULLY sinless Man at one and the same time. Period. It is for us to simply believe this, not try to figure it all out.

I agree that Jesus Christ is fully God and fully sinless man. Are you trinitarian? If you are, your Christology was figured out by men.

 

[Cameron143]

By what logical argument (If A is true, and if B is true, then C must be true) do you conclude that "to dispossess Himself of [His pre-incarnate omnis] is to no longer be God".

A: If all ever-existing Persons are God, and
B if Jesus of Nazareth was an ever-existing Person, therefore
C. Jesus of Nazareth was and will always be God.

Are A and B true?

How is it possible for an ever-existent Person to be merely human?

I didn't make that claim. In fact, the opposite is what I am claiming. God cannot dispossess Himself of what constitutes His deity and remain deity.

 

[PaulThomson]

I agree with the application to us as Christians, but not as concerning Christ. I don't believe being fully human entails putting off His deity. Further, I don't believe it's possible. How can God not be God and still be God?
So while logically your argument follows, I believe the underlying premise is wrong.

On what certain basis do you assert that an OMNIPOTENT divine person CANNOT limit the reach of their omni powers. Could you please present your logical syllogism and demonstrate the certainty of your two premises that lead inexorably to your conclusion?

 

[Cameron143]

On what certain basis do you assert that an OMNIPOTENT divine person CANNOT limit the reach of their omni powers. Could you please present your logical syllogism and demonstrate the certainty of your two premises that lead inexorably to your conclusion?

One can exercise their attributes or not. But to be a thing claimed to be, you must possess all that being that thing constitutes. I can say I'm a rabbit. But if I don't possess 2 big front teeth and a cute little tail, I'm not a rabbit, no matter how convinced I may be that I am. And no one is God who doesn't possess all the attributes of God.

 

[PaulThomson]

I didn't make that claim. In fact, the opposite is what I am claiming. God cannot dispossess Himself of what constitutes His deity and remain deity.

No, that was my syllogism.

Yours would be - .

If A: Omnipotent beings can do whatever they want to do.
And B: The Son was an omnipotent being before His incarnation.
Therefore C: The Son could not become less than omnipotent, even if He wanted to.

Conclusion C does not follow from A and B.

A: An omnipotent being cannot divest Himself of his omnipotence even if He wants to.
B: The pre-incarnate Son was omnipotent before incarnating.
C: Therefore, the Son was still omnipotent during His earthly sojourn.

Premise A is self-contradictory, making a claim that an omnipotent God cannot do something He wants to do.

If A: Any Person who is God must be omnipotent at all times.
And B: The child called Jesus of Nazareth was God.
Therefore C: The child called Jesus of Nazareth was omnipotent.

What is your proof for the certainty of premise A.

Now can you deny the truth of either premise, in my syllogism, or show how the conclusion does not follow from them?

A: If all ever-existing Persons are God, and
B if Jesus of Nazareth was an ever-existing Person, therefore
C. Jesus of Nazareth was and will always be God.

Are A and B true?

How is it possible for an ever-existent Person to be merely human?

 

[PaulThomson]

One can exercise their attributes or not. But to be a thing claimed to be, you must possess all that being that thing constitutes. I can say I'm a rabbit. But if I don't possess 2 big front teeth and a cute little tail, I'm not a rabbit, no matter how convinced I may be that I am. And no one is God who doesn't possess all the attributes of God.

So, if I remove a rabbit's teeth and/or tail, it is no longer a rabbit?