|
|
Post by civic on Jul 12, 2023 6:21:36 GMT -8
Philippians 2:5-8 In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus: 6 Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage; 7 rather, he made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. 8 And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to death— even death on a cross! NIV These translation capture the meaning of the text in its CONTEXT. New International Version rather, he made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. New Living Translation Instead, he gave up his divine privileges; he took the humble position of a slave and was born as a human being. When he appeared in human form, New King James Version but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men. King James Bible But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: Thayers Greek Lexicon namely, τοῦ εἶναι ἴσα Θεῷ or τῆς μορφῆς τοῦ Θεοῦ, i. e. he laid aside equality with or the form of God (said of Christ), Philippians 2:7 Strongs Lexicon From kenos; to make empty, i.e. (figuratively) to abase, neutralize, falsify -- make (of none effect, of no reputation, void), be in vain. Louw Nida Greek Lexicon 87.70 κενόωb: to completely remove or eliminate elements of high status or rank by eliminating all privileges or prerogatives associated with such status or rank. What Paul makes very clear in this passage is that in addition to being God, He became man. The Incarnation was not a subtraction of His deity but an addition of humanity to His nature. This passage does not say Jesus gave up His deity but that He laid aside His rights as Deity, assuming the form of a servant in verse 7. The text says He was in the form of God or being in the very nature of God in 2:6. Just as He took upon Himself the "form of a servant" which is a servant by nature, so the "form of God" is God by nature. The word "being" from the phrase: being in the very form of God is a present active participle. This means "continued existence" as God. What Paul is actually saying here is Jesus has always been and still is in the "form of God". If you continue reading the passage Paul really drives this point home so that his readers have no doubt what he is trying to get across to the Philippians. Paul says that every knee will bow and will one day Confess Jesus is LORD. Paul takes the passage in Isaiah 45:23 which clearly refers to Yahweh a name used for God alone and says this of Jesus. The fulfillment of YHWH in Isaiah 45 is none other than Jesus who is God(Yahweh) in the flesh. He self limited His divine prerogatives via the Incarnation as per Phil 2. In other words did not use them to His advantage but was in submission to the Father for 33 years to accomplish our salvation. All the FULLNESS of DEITY dwells in bodily form. Col 1:19;2:9. Jesus was and is fully God lacking nothing in His Deity. Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. Even through Christ existed in the form of God He did not regard equality with God something that He needed to reach for or grasp. Why because it was already His and never gave that up for a millisecond. Paul is using syllogisms from the text in Philippians 2. Just as the term “form of God” in verse six does not mean “less than God” because of the phrase “equality with God" in the prior passage. It goes to reason in the same way with the 2 phrases in the “form of a servant” and in the “likeness of man” in verse seven do not mean that Jesus was any “less than human,” but instead means He was the same or “equal with all humans.” That is how the passage reads and how it is to be understood in its " CONTEXT ". In Colossians 1:19 and Colossians 2:9 the Apostle Paul said, For in HIM (CHRIST) ALL of the “ fullness of deity dwells bodily. “Did Paul use the word fullness there to mean partially? NO as Jesus did not empty Himself of His Deity. Jesus Divinity is FULL, complete lacking in nothing. The ENTIRE Fullness of Deity dwells (is present) bodily in Jesus. conclusion:When Jesus came to earth He laid aside or emptied Himself of something. There are many misconceptions at to what He set aside. It was not His Deity. Jesus could not empty Himself of His Deity - He could not stop being God. He was always God the Son. He could not exchange His Deity for His humanity. Neither did He set aside only some of His divine attributes and keep others. In addition, Jesus always knew He was God and possessed these divine attributes - He was not ignorant of who He was or what He could do. Moreover Jesus allowed the people to know that He had such powers. Neither did Jesus set aside the use of His relative attributes such as being all-powerful, all-knowing, and everywhere present. Those powers were always present with Him.When Jesus became a human being He divested Himself of certain rights as God the Son. This can be seen in three ways. First He restricted Himself to a human body with all its limitations. He gave up His position when He became a human being. Second He veiled or hid His glory from the people. Finally, He exercised His relative attributes only by the will of God the Father - never on His own initiative.
hope this helps !!! |
|
|
|
Post by civic on Jul 12, 2023 6:31:16 GMT -8
Jesus Christ did not empty Himself of any of His attributes as God. Nor did Jesus Christ empty Himself of His divinity. But what some do not understand is the fact that "omnipotence, omnipresence and omniscience" ARE His attributes. What Jesus Christ did do because He is God (now pay attention) was render or make void the prerogatives of His attributes which He has always had.
Look at Philippians 2:6 closely. "who, (meaning Jesus Christ) ALTHOUGH (or in spite of the fact) that He existed in the form of God, ended up taking the form of a servant, by being made in the likeness of men." He was God all along but suspended the use of His attributes by taking the form of a servant/man.
This is also why the Apostle Paul at Philippians 2:1-4 explains to the Philippians not to be selfish, conceited and put others first before yourself just like Jesus Christ did when Paul says at vs 5 to have the same attitude as Jesus Christ. Now do you get it, I hope? And PS: Can you please give me a list of Gods attributes?
• Deity cannot be gained, lost, laid down, or set aside. It either is or it isn’t.
• Deity is defined as: non-contingent eternal existence.
Christ emptied himself (i.e., poured himself) into the form of a servant. Whether Greek grammar requires, or even permits, this interpretation, it is clear that the context emphasizes the change of form, not the change of content, of the Divine Being. He did not give up deity, but he gained humanity. There was no attribution of the divine nature in the incarnation; his life incarnate, containing the fullness of the Godhead bodily, was offered for man's redemption.ward
Heresy Error Adoptionism Denied true deity
Docetism Denied true humanity
Arianism Denied full deity
Apollinarianism Denied full humanity
Nestorianism Divided Christ’s natures (two persons)
Monophysitism Confused Christ’s natures (tertium quid)
The Chalcedonian Definition In October of 451, 520 bishops gathered in the town of Chalcedon to settle these various Christological disputes. And it was there that the church, following the teaching of Scripture, formulated the doctrine of the hypostatic union—that the incarnate Christ is one divine person who subsists in two distinct yet united natures, divine and human. riccardi
The Chalcedonian Creed is the definition of orthodox Christology, and states:
“We, then, following the holy Fathers, all with one consent, teach men to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood; truly God and truly man, of a reasonable [or rational] soul and body; consubstantial with the Father according to the Godhead, and consubstantial with us according to the Manhood; in all things like unto us, without sin; begotten before all ages of the Father according to the Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, according to the Manhood; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation; the distinction of nature’s being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person and one Subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten, God the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ, as the prophets from the beginning [have declared] concerning him, and the Lord Jesus Christ himself has taught us, and the Creed of the holy Fathers has handed down to us.”8
Scripture records Jesus exercising the divine prerogatives that kenoticism claims were incompatible with His humanity. He is the Lord of salvation in the same manner as the Father: “For just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, even so the Son also gives life to whom He wishes” (John 5:21; cf. 11:25). He heals the paralytic by announcing, “Friend, your sins are forgiven you,” and the Pharisees once again accuse Him of blasphemy, thinking to themselves, “Who can forgive sins, but God alone?” Jesus does not correct them, but only affirms that the Son of Man rightly exercises the divine prerogative to forgive sins (Luke 5:18–26). Only God can forgive sins, and the incarnate Christ forgives sins. Jesus is not only the Lord of salvation but also the Lord of revelation. He delivers revelation to God’s people, not as the prophets who spoke from the derived authority of God and declared, “Thus saith the Lord.” No, Jesus proclaims revelation from His own authority, declaring, “I say to you” (Matt. 5:22, 28, 32, 34, 39, 44).
Gregory of Nazianzus wrote of this text, “We are to understand the ignorance in the most reverent sense, by attributing it to the manhood, and not to the Godhead.”33 We ought to say that the person of Christ did know the hour of His return according to His divine nature; otherwise He could not be God. But the one and the same Son did not know the hour of His return according to His human nature. He always had access to His divine consciousness, but He never exploited that privilege for Himself. He only accessed that knowledge when it was in accordance with the mission His Father had given Him.riccardi
Now, “form” does not mean that Jesus only seemed to be like God. The Greek term μορφή does not connote merely the outward appearance of something, as we think of in English. The word is notoriously difficult to translate. One scholar writes, “‘Form’ is an inadequate rendering of μορφή, but our language affords no better word.”37 Rather than a single, one-to-one word equivalent, we have to explain what the term means. In the next verse, it describes the genuine humanity that Christ assumed to Himself in the incarnation. Christ took the μορφή δούλου, the form of a slave. He did not merely appear human or merely have the external features of humanity; that is the very docetic heresy the rejection of which the apostle John makes the test of orthodoxy (1 John 4:2–3). Instead, the μορφή δούλου refers to the fact that Christ was fully and truly human—that He possesses a genuine human nature. In the same way, then, the μορφή θεοῦ refers to the fact that Christ was fully and truly God—that He possesses the genuine divine nature. Yet μορφή is not just a synonym for οὐσία or φύσις, the other words that refer to one’s substance, essence, or nature. μορφή is used nowhere else in the New Testament (except in the long ending of Mark, the authenticity of which is disputed), but in the Septuagint it speaks clearly of one’s appearance.38 Besides this, a cognate form of μορφή is used to describe Jesus’ transfiguration: He was μετεμορφώθη—changed in μορφή (Matt. 17:2).
But Christ’s immutable divine essence was not changed at the transfiguration. Rather, the outward expression of the glory of Christ’s divine nature had been veiled, and for a moment He was removing the veil and once again letting His glory shine forth. Taking that all together, we ought to conclude that μορφή refers to the outward manifestation that corresponds to the inward essence—to the external form that represents what is intrinsic and essential.39 It is “a form which truly and fully expresses the being which underlies it.”40 In other words, μορφή is not the essence, but no one can appear or exist in view of others in the form of God, manifesting all the perfections of God, unless that person is in fact God.41 Christ was existing in the μορφή of God precisely because in His very essence and His being He is God from all eternity. The context of Philippians 2 makes that clear. In verse 6, Paul says that Christ did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped. “Equality” is rendered from the Greek word ἴσος, from which we get the word isomers, which describe chemical compounds that have the same number of the same elements but have different structural formulas. They are distinct compounds, but on a chemical level, they are equal to each other. To switch from chemistry to geometry, an isoscelestriangle is a triangle that has two equal sides. Jesus is ἴσα θεῷ, equal to God. When one considers such statements as Isaiah 46:9, in which God says, “For I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is no one like Me,”
the conclusion is inescapable. If Veiled in Flesh the Godhead See can be equal to God but God Himself, and (b) Christ is equal to God, then (c) Christ Himself must be fully God. “The form of God” refers to the dignity of the Son’s essence, while “equality with God” refers to the dignity of the Son’s station, or position. If μορφή refers to the outward manifestation of the inner essence and nature, what is the outward manifestation of the inner essence and nature of God? Answer: glory. Throughout the Old Testament, when God’s presence is represented as dwelling with His people, there is always a manifestation of that shekinah glory—the pillar of cloud, the pillar of fire, the bright light that filled the Tabernacle and the Temple. But the Son is the very radiance of the glory of God (Heb. 1:3), the image of God in whose face the glory of God shines in fullness (2 Cor. 4:4, 6). He is the exalted Lord seated on the throne of heaven, the train of whose robe fills the heavenly temple, of whom the angels declare, “The whole earth is full of His glory” (Isa. 6:1–8; cf. John 12:37–41). Before the world was, the Word that became flesh and dwelt among us was eternally existing in the very nature, essence, and glory of God.
But of what did Christ empty Himself? The kenoticists have answered, “He emptied Himself of His deity,” or “of His ‘relative’ divine attributes,” or “of His divine consciousness,” or “of His divine prerogatives.” Yet we have observed why those answers fall short of biblical fidelity and theological soundness. Of what, then, did the divine Son empty Himself? Even asking the question demonstrates a misunderstanding of the language. Though κενόω literally means “to empty,” everywhere it is used in Scripture it is used in a figurative sense.43 According to New Testament usage, κενόω doesn’t mean “to pour out,” as if Jesus was pouring His deity, attributes, or prerogatives out of Himself. If that were Paul’s intent he would have used ἐκχέω, which he employs elsewhere to speak of pouring something out of something else.
But everywhere κενόω appears in Scripture, it means “to make void,” “to nullify,” “to make of no effect.” Paul uses it that way in Romans 4:14, where he says, “For if those who are of the Law are heirs, faith is made void (κεκένωται) and the promise is nullified.” Yet no one thinks to ask, “Of what has faith been made empty?” The idea is that faith would be nullified—it would come to naught—if righteousness could come by the Law.45 The text teaches, then, not that Christ emptied Himself of something, but that He emptied Himself. He nullified Himself; He made Himself of no effect. The Son Himself is the object of this emptying. He did not empty the form of God, nor the divine attributes, nor His divine prerogatives, but Himself.
The King James Version captures this well by translating verse 7 thus: “[He] made himself of no reputation.” The NIV’s rendering is also helpful: “[He] made himself nothing.” Then, the very next phrase explains the manner in which the Son made Himself nothing: “[He] emptied Himself, taking the form of a slave, and being made in the likeness of men.” Christ made Himself of no effect by taking on human nature in His incarnation. He nullified Himself not by subtracting from His deity, but by adding His humanity. This is an emptying by addition!
John Murray writes,
“It is sometimes thought that, when the Son of God became man and humbled himself, he thereby ceased to be what he was and, in some way, divested himself of the attributes and prerogatives of deity, that he changed the form of God for the form of man. He became poor, it is said, by emptying himself of divine properties, became poor by subtraction, by divestiture, by depotentiation. The Scripture does not support any such notion. . . . Even in his incarnate state, in him dwelt all the fullness of Godhood (Col 2:9). When the Son of man became poor, it was not by giving up his Godhood nor any of the attributes and prerogatives inseparable from Godhood. When he became man, he did not cease to be rich in his divine being, relations, and possession. He did not become poor by ceasing to be what he was, but he became poor by becoming what he was not. He became poor by addition, not by subtraction.”
Christ remained what He was, even when He became what He was not. He did not exchange His deity for His humanity. Nor did He become a human person. Veiled in Flesh the Godhead See divine person, He assumed a human nature. The divine, second Person of the Trinity, who was eternally existing in the form of God, nullified Himself by taking the form of a slave and being born in the likeness of man. In the majesty of Heaven, to look on Him would have been to look on the epitome of all beauty. But being found in appearance as a man (Phil. 2:8), He had “no stately form or majesty that we should look upon Him, nor appearance that we should be attracted to Him. He was despised and forsaken of men . . . and like one from whom men hide their face He was despised, and we did not esteem Him” (Isa. 53:2–3). The rich became poor (cf. 2 Cor. 8:9). The worshiped became the despised. The blessed One became the man of sorrows. The Master became the slave. As John Calvin wrote: “Christ, indeed, could not divest himself of godhead, but he kept it concealed for a time, that it might not be seen, under the weakness of the flesh. Hence he laid aside his glory in the view of men, not by lessening it, but by concealing it.”
Bavinck adds, “He laid aside the divine majesty and glory . . . in which he existed before the incarnation, or rather concealed it behind the form of a servant in which he went about on earth.”49 We ought then to understand that a significant aspect of the kenosis was a krypsis—that is, a concealment or a veiling of the glory that is the external manifestation of His nature.50 Christ fully possessed His divine nature, attributes, and prerogatives, but for the sake of becoming truly human, He did not always fully express the glories of His majesty. When He is tempted by Satan in the wilderness to exercise His divine omnipotence to turn the stones into bread or to throw Himself from the top of the temple and manifest His divine glory by being rescued by angels, He refuses (Matt. 4:1–11). When Jesus is betrayed in Gethsemane, He is the divine Son who has twelve legions of angels at His disposal (Matt. 26:53), but He refuses to dispatch them to His service. Whenever any exercise of His divine power or any manifestation of His divine glory would have functioned to benefit only Himself, or to ease the limitations of a truly human existence, and would not be for the benefit of those He came to serve in accordance with His messianic mission, He refused to exercise those prerogatives.
The Humility of the Incarnate Christ (v. 8)
And yet the Son’s humility did not stop at taking on a human nature. We go on to observe the humility of the incarnate Christ: “Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross” (Phil. 2:8). The divine Son became not just a man, but an obedient man. From all eternity, the Son was equal to the Father in glory, majesty, and authority. In His incarnation, however, He began to relate to the Father in terms of authority and submission (e.g., John 5:30; 6:38). The Master had become the slave. The Lord who rightfully issues commands subjected Himself to obeying commands. And that is not all. He was not only obedient, but obedient to the point of death. The Author of Life humbly submitted to death. The One without sin humbly submitted to sin’s curse. The One who has life within Himself (John 1:4; 5:26)—who gives life to whomever He wishes (John 5:21)—humbly released His grip on His own human life in submission to the Father and in love for those whom His Father has given Him. Here is humility shining like the sun in its full strength.
We rightly sing, “Amazing love! How can it be, that Thou, My God, shouldst die for me?” And yet there are greater depths to plumb before the humiliation of the Son of God reaches rock bottom. He was not just man, not just obedient, and not just obedient unto death. The holy Son of God, the Lord of glory, “humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.” The horrors of the cross scarcely need describing. One commentator said, “The cross displayed the lowest depths of human depravity and cruelty. It exhibited the most brutal form of sadistic torture and execution ever invented by malicious human minds.”51 In crucifixion, metal spikes were driven through the victim’s wrists and feet, and he was left to hang naked and exposed, sometimes for days. Because the body would be pulled down by gravity, the weight of a victim’s own body would press against his lungs, and the hyperextension of the lungs and chest muscles made it difficult to breathe. Victims would gasp for air by pulling themselves up, but when they would do that the wounds in their wrists and feet would tear at the stakes that pierced them, and the flesh of their backs—usually torn open from flogging—would grate against the jagged wood.
This was the purpose for the kenosis. Man had sinned against God, and so man was required to make atonement for sin, but he was absolutely powerless to do so. Only God can atone for sin, and yet only man’s sacrifice would be accepted on behalf of man. So, in the marvelous wisdom of God, God became man to reconcile man to God: “Therefore, since the children share in flesh and blood, He Himself likewise also partook of the same, that through death He might render powerless him who had the power of death, that is, the devil, and might free those who through fear of death were subject to slavery all their lives. . . . Therefore, He had to be made like His brethren in all things, so that He might become a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining.riccardi
hope this helps !!!
|
|
|
|
Post by civic on Jul 12, 2023 6:47:24 GMT -8
A Biblical and Theological Bible.org
Answer to the False Doctrine of Kenosis
Introduction
An increasingly prevalent teaching in evangelical circles, particularly in charismatic circles, is the doctrine of Kenosis. This false teaching is drawn from impure wells, it is dangerous because of the other false doctrines it leads to, and it flies in the face of the heart of Christian teaching. What is it? The doctrine teaches that the Messiah, in order to assume the form of a servant and become incarnate (into human flesh), had to give up some, several, or even all the powers and attributes of God and "live as a mere man." The advocates of this heresy, in an effort to assume an orthodox posture, try to say that the Son somehow "remains God," though He has given up all parts of that being. This teaching, which denies so much of the heart of the orthodox faith, comes from the misinterpretation and misconstruction of one Greek word.
This word, and the doctrine it describes, refer to the deep, mysterious, but vitally important passage of Philippians 2:5-8, and especially in verse 7, where it says Christ "made himself of no reputation," or "emptied himself." The word in the original is ekenosen, from the root wordkenoo, which can mean "to empty." The other references to the word are Romans 4:14, where the meaning is "made void," 1 Corinthians 1:17, where it means "of none effect," 1 Corinthians 9:15, where it means "make void," and 2 Corinthians 9:3, where it means "to be in vain." These references all refer to abstract principles, such as faith, preaching, or boasting--none of them refer to a person, or even to an object. Therefore, the use of the word as it is used inPhilippians 2:7 is unique. The question, which shall be repeated later is "of what did Christ empty Himself?" The teachers of Kenosis say that what Christ did was to "empty Himself of all power."
The doctrinal area in which we are dealing is not academic, it involves the very heart and center of our faith. It is also not just a matter for scholars, but is for all of us. Kenotic teaching has become prominent in charismatic circles, and is the basis for much of what they promulgate. Indeed, much of the weird theology that surrounds the so-called "faith" movement is based on a Kenotic understanding of the incarnation, combined with a new-age-like leap of logic that says that since Jesus left His powers and attributes behind and lived as a mere man, we born-again believers are ". . . just as much an Incarnation of God as Jesus was" (Kenneth Copeland)
In another leap of logic, these teachers move then to the Mormon-like doctrine of apotheosis (we are little Gods). This trend so concerned Walter Martin that the last thing he wrote before going home to be with the Lord was a contribution to a book refuting these theological trends among TV evangelists.1 This paper on Kenosis is not a detailed analysis, but is instead an expanded outline with footnotes, covering these major areas:
o The Doctrine of Kenosis This part of the paper includes reference material that traces this view to the 19th-century German liberal theologians that first promulgated the Kenotic teaching, and compares it with modern Kenotic teaching.
o The orthodox position on Christ's humiliation. Includes quotations from noted Evangelical Scholars on the subject.
o A Critical Refutation of the Kenosis doctrine.
o An alternative method of handling the "problem verses" without deviating from orthodox Christology.
I. The Doctrine of Kenosis
A. Classic Kenotic Teaching
(1) "About the middle of the nineteenth century a new form of Christology made its appearance in the Kenotic theories."2 This is how Berkhof introduces the subject. He then delineates three forms of Kenotic teaching--the first, and least offensive, seems to fit the general view: "Thomasius distinguishes between the absolute and essential attributes of God . . . and His relative attributes, which are not essential to the Godhead, such as omnipotence, omnipresence, and omniscience; and maintains that the Logos while retaining His divine self-consciousness, laid the latter aside, in order to take unto Himself veritable human nature."3
(2) "The essence of the original kenotic view is stated clearly by J. M. Creed. 'The Divine Logos by His Incarnation divested Himself of His divine attributes of omniscience and omnipotence, so that in His incarnate life the divine Person is revealed and solely revealed through a human consciousness.'"4
(3) Charles Hodge classes this view under Modern Forms of the Doctrine [Christology], and includes it under a class of doctrines called Theistical Christology taught by various German theological liberals of that era.5 One form of the view is as follows. "...that the Eternal Logos, by a process of self-limitation, divested Himself of all his divine attributes. He ceased to be omnipresent, omniscient, and omnipotent. He reduced Himself, so to speak, to the dimensions of a man."6
B. Comparison with the view of Kenneth Copeland (as a representative of the "Faith Message" school of thought).
This seems to be the general view of the entire "faith message" school of thought, and it is becoming prominent in other charismatic circles as well.
(1) "Jesus hadn't come to earth as God; He'd come as a man. He'd laid aside His divine power and had taken on the form of a human being--with all its limitations."7
(2) "They [orthodox Christians] mistakenly believe that Jesus was able to work wonders, to perform miracles, and to live above sin because He had divine power that we don't have...They don't realize that when Jesus came to earth, He voluntarily gave up that advantage [deity] living His life here not as God, but as a man. He had no innate supernatural powers. He had no ability to perform miracles until after He was anointed by the Holy Spirit... He ministered as a man anointed by the Holy Spirit."8
C. General Comment
The writer of this paper has encountered this teaching in other theological circles, and in at least one other prominent tele-evangelist who is not from the "faith message" camp.
II. A Positive Affirmation, from Scripture, of the Orthodox Position on Christ's Humiliation in Relation to Philippians 2:5-11.
Includes quotations from noted Evangelical Scholars on the subject.
A. The self-emptying of Christ was mainly an emptying of the external trappings and Glory of Deity.
The context of Phil. 2:5-11 is that Christ emptied Himself by taking on the form of a servant. Indeed, the overall issue, from 2:1 through the end of verse 15, is on various forms of outward expression, Christ being the example for the life of the saints in Philippi.
(1) Paul was stressing to the Philippians that they should be self-sacrificing, and should not have personal glory in mind as they live their life. Then, he used the Incarnation as an example. (2:1-5)
(2) Christ, says Paul, was in the form (morphe, an outward expression of an inward reality) of God, and did not consider this Glory, this expression of equality with the Father something to be grasped, or held on to (see John 17:1-5, 24).
(3) Most modern translations say in verse 7 "emptied Himself", but the King James and the New King James read, "made Himself of no reputation." About this difference, one evangelical scholar wrote "The A.V., while not an exact translation, goes far to express the act of the Lord."9 ( In this quote, A.V. stands for Authorized Version, or King James). Then it says, "taking the form of a servant." As we have been talking about outward expressions, vainglory, outward form, etc., and as that is the subject from here through verse 15, the plain sense of scripture here is that Christ's self-emptying was of the outward glory and majesty of Godhood, and that He accomplished that action by taking the form of a servant. This, of course, is what Paul is asking the Philippians to do. Context is vital here--Paul is not telling the Philippians to lay aside, discard, or disregard their natural abilities and talents, (attributes and powers), he is telling them to submit them to the will of God and the good of the whole church.
a. Possibly because of the negative theological background for it, B.B. Warfield went so far as to call the literal translation of kenoo as "emptied Himself" a "mistranslation."10
b. "Nothing in this passage teaches that the Eternal Word (John 1.1) emptied Himself of either His divine nature or His attributes, but only the outward and visible manifestation of the Godhead."11
c. "He emptied, stripped Himself if the insignia of Majesty"12 (Emphasis added)
d. "When occasion demanded, He exercised His divine attributes."13
(4) Verses 8-11 continue the thought--Christ is "...found in appearance as a man...", and continued His voluntary humiliation through to the Cross, then is exalted by the Father (as He discussed with the Father in John 17).
(5) Other Scriptural references that establish the same principal:
a. John 1:1-14. After laying out His perfections, [(1) "The Word was God"--Deity; (2) "He was in the beginning with God," Eternity; (3) "All things were made through Him..." Creator; (4) "In Him was life..." Self Existence;] John says "and the Word became flesh." It is not that God the Son gave up anything, but that He added something--He took humanity to Himself.
b. 2 Cor 8:9 "For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though He was rich, yet for your sakes He became poor, that you through His poverty might become rich." He gave up the external glories of His riches, but did He really give up ownership? No--in His earthly ministry, He claimed to be Lord of the Sabbath, and exercised dominion over natural phenomena, disease and demonic forces, and even demonstrated His possession of the power of life and death. His poverty did not consist as much in what He gave up (for He still retained title to it) as in what He took on--our nature.
c. 2 Cor 5:21 "For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him." In His act of atonement, did He give up His own essential Holiness? No, again, it was not that He gave up anything, it was that He added something--He took our sins upon Himself.
B. Do the Scriptures bear out that He possessed the attributes and powers of deity while on earth?
The first, and most obvious reference is His personal conversation with the Father in John 17--He asks (in a "man to man, equal to equal" way) for the return of His Glory. He never mentions the return of His power or attributes--because He still retained them!
(1) Omniscience--John 11:11-14 ("...when Jesus was fifty miles away...")14 John 2:24-25, 6:64, 70-71. As for the instances when He seems to be claiming ignorance, they have to do with Him speaking from His humanity, and taking our place, and involve a complete understanding of the orthodox teaching concerning the relationship between the Divine and Human in Christ, which will be discussed in section IV.
(2) Omnipotence: (demonstrated most vividly in the power over life and death) John 10:17-18, 5:21-23, Luke 7:14, John 11:43-44, Mat 28:18-20, John 18:5-6.
(3) Omnipresence: Matt 18:20, John 1:48 (Ps 139, Gen 16:13), John 3:13 (MAJ . . . Text)
(4) Providence: Heb 1:1-3--Note that "upholding all things" was predicated of Him in the context of His earthly ministry of declaring God's truth, and before His atonement, resurrection, and exaltation. Col. 1:17--"In Him all things consist [hold together]" The universe is upheld by His word of power--He holds it together--that is an essential part of who He is. There is no intimation anywhere in scripture that He gave up this function upon Incarnation.
(5) Sovereignty: Mk 2:28, Mat 11:27, John 17:2. John 3:35
C. Having looked at the issue piecemeal, we can now conclude it with the powerful testimony of the book of Colossians.
(1) Paul says that in Christ ". . .are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge," (2:3) and ". . . Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ. For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily." (2:8-9, emphasis added)
(2) The argument might be (and has been) made that those verses apply to Christ in His exaltation, and not in His humiliation. First, that logic leans to the Gnostic idea of "progression," that the Logos after His exaltation was materially and essentially different (and improved) as a person from what He was during His humiliation. This is the very idea that Paul was fighting in the book of Colossians! The clincher, however, lies in the earlier verses in chapter 1: ". . . It pleased the Father that in Him all the fullness should dwell, and by Him to reconcile all things to Himself...through the blood of His cross." (1:19-20) All the fullness of God dwelt in Him bodily during His earthly ministry!
III. A Critical Refutation, from Scripture and from Evangelical Scholars,of the things implied and taught by the Kenosis Doctrine.
The theologians who crafted Kenotic doctrine were trying to deal with two problems. The first problem was in how to deal with those texts of scripture (as used by the cults) which seem to indicate that Christ was less than fully God, yet do justice to the obvious Biblical teaching that He was "Very God of Very God." The second problem was posed by their understanding that He lived His life in submission to the will of the Father, and largely as a man with a full indwelling of the Holy Spirit. They could not reconcile that in their minds with His full deity. The problem with these teachers was that they were theological liberals--they did not accept the verbal, plenary, inspiration of the Bible. Because of this, they crafted an erroneous philosophical theological answer, and ignored the fact that the problems were already solved by scripture, and had been fully worked out by the teachers and leaders of the early church during the period from A.D. 250-451. In their effort to improve on the Council of Chalcedon, they created many more problems than those they sought to solve--and did not really solve what they had originally perceived to be problems in the orthodox faith.
A. The philosophical and theological bases for the Doctrine of Kenosis are highly suspect.
The thought process began with an incorrect concept of God as the Absolute and Almighty God.
(1) Thomasius of Erlangen, one of the first and leading proponents, ". . . distinguishes between the absolute and essential attributes of God," and taught that omniscience, omnipresence, and omnipotence ". . . are not essential to the Godhead..."15
This is patently ridiculous, and there is absolutely no Biblical basis for classing the three "omni" attributes as non-essential for Deity. Philosophical theologians may find a way to make this add up, but in the words of one of this century's great Bible teachers, ". . .There is no other possible alternative between an absolutely supreme God, and no God at all."16 It is impossible to conceive of any being worthy of the title of I AM who does not possess the essential attributes continually posited to God by the Bible. The Bible never mentions God as anything but absolute. The three attributes in question, absolute Knowledge, Potency, and Presence, are foundational to who Jehovah is. The sarcastic charges made by Jehovah against false "gods" usually center in their ignorance, impotence, and immobility (Deut 4:28, Is 45:20,Jer. 10:5, 15). In comparison to idols, Jeremiah says "He who is the Portion of Jacob is not like these, for He is the Maker of all things...the LORD Almighty is His name." (10:16) Indeed, if one reads the awesome passages like Is 40, Job 38:1-42:6, Ps 90, Rom 11:33-36, etc., as well as the countless other verses and passages that extol and marvel at the greatness of the Almighty Jehovah, there can be no other conclusion but that God is Absolute. There is no Biblical way that the Son could give up his divine knowledge, potency, and presence, and remain "in essence" God. The distinction is strictly one of human philosophy. Concerning Kenosis, Charles Hodge, the leading American evangelical scholar of the last century, wrote
"The theory in question is inconsistent with the clear doctrine both of revealed and natural religion concerning the nature of God. He is a Spirit, infinite, eternal, and immutable. any theory, therefore, which assumes that God lays aside His omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence, and becomes as feeble, ignorant, and circumscribed as an infant, contradicts the first principle of all religion..."17
It must be pointed out here that Hodge fully accepted the doctrine of the incarnation, that God came in the flesh, as an infant and a man. However, he saw it in the light of historic Christology, as discussed in section IV, that while all of that was true, Christ was not confined to that form of a servant, and was not limited by it, except that He willingly gave up the exercise of His Glory, and sometimes chose not to use His other powers, though He retained them fully.
Berkhof shines more light on the philosophical antecedents of Kenosis when he writes: "The theory is based on the pantheistic conception that God and man are not so absolutely different but that the one can be transformed into the other. The Hegelian idea of becoming is applied to God, and the absolute line of demarcation is obliterated."18 The theologians who concocted this heresy were German scholars steeped in the insidious philosophy of Hegel, the forerunner of both communism and fascism.
B. The vital doctrine of Immutability is completely destroyed by Kenotic teaching.
(Cf. Malachi 3:6; James 1:17; Hebrews 13:8)
(1) Biblically, there was no essential change of the nature of the Second Person of the Trinity in His Incarnation, because He did not lose the essential attributes of deity, He took on human flesh and a human nature. In His own essence, He did not change (Heb 13:8).
(2) Beyond its effect on the immutability of the Son, it would destroy the integrity of the Triune God if He ceased to be fully and totally the Absolute God during His Incarnation, . "It means a virtual destruction of the Trinity, and therefore takes away our very God. The humanized Son, self-emptied of His divine attributes, could no longer be a divine subsistence in the Trinitarian life."19
C. If the God-Man who died on the cross was not both fully God and fully Man, then the integrity of the atonement is destroyed.
The Blood that redeemed the Church was the "Blood of God." Acts 20:28 If He was any less than God, then His blood sacrifice was not infinitely powerful and able to redeem all who believe in every age.
IV. An alternative method of handling the "problem verses" without deviating from orthodox Christology.
There are three Biblical concepts which are at the heart of this method: (A) Understanding the biblical doctrine of the two natures of Christ. (B) Understanding His role as our Kinsman-Redeemer and substitute, and (C) Understanding and admitting the existence of the Biblical concept of "mystery"--the fact that there are some things which must be just believed, because there is no way to understand them.
A. Understanding the biblical doctrine of the two natures of Christ.
The Trinitarian Controversy (A.D. 320-381) led directly into a great controversy over the Nature of Christ's Person. Understanding the doctrinal dimensions of this fight, and understanding the conclusions reached by the church are vital to understanding how to combat the cults in this area, since the cults of today are merely the heresies of yesterday refried. During this period of Church History, there were many evil things done in the name of one doctrine or another, yet miraculously, truth triumphed.
(1) As the early church wrestled with understanding the Biblical teaching about Christ, there were three views that became most prominent. I will try to illustrate these views by assigning different ways of writing the term , "God-Man" to each view.
a. The Monophysites taught that Christ was the God-man, that is, He was not fully God and Fully man, but a third entity which was a fusion of the two natures (The Kenotic teaching is closest to this among the early heresies.) This heresy was basically a leftover of the Origenistic tendencies of Arianism, and grew strongest in the areas that had been strongest for the Arian view. The battle cry of this party was that Mary was theTheotokos, or Mother of God. The Monophysites carried this erroneous teaching (which survived, though without the Christological conclusions attached) to extremes, and made of Christ a new category of being, with one nature, will, and personality, each a fusion of God and Man.20
b. The Nestorians taught that Christ was the God, Man with two natures so separate as to be a split personality. This teaching developed because of the objections of the church and theological school of Antioch to the growing cult of Mary among monophysite believers.21
c. The orthodox view, which was approved by the Council of Chalcedon in 451, and which has been accepted and proven to be fully Biblical by evangelical Christians since the Reformation, was that Christ was the God-Man, fully God and fully Man, one person with two unmixed natures.22
(1) The important key concept in the orthodox doctrine is whatever Christ did, He did as a whole person. For instance, when His human body was beaten, tortured, and died, He suffered as a whole person, so that though God cannot be killed, it can be said that God Died for Our Sins.23
(2) Because of the Truth of the two natures, we can Biblically say:24
a. Christ is infinite OR Christ is finite. He existed from all eternity OR He was born in Bethlehem
b. He was omniscient OR He was limited in knowledge
c. He is David's Lord YET David's son
d. He is the Ancient of Days YET He was born as an infant
e. He is God over all YET He is the son of Mary
f. He upholds all things YET He is weary with His journey
g. Without Him was nothing made that was made YET He can do nothing without the Father
h. His natural form is the form of God YET He takes on Him the form of a servant
i. He is the same yesterday, today, and forever, YET He increases in stature
j. He Knows the Father perfectly YET He increases in wisdom
k. In His own name, he gives a new and more perfect law and proclaims Himself Lord of the Sabbath and greater than the temple, YET He is born under the law and is subject to the law
l. He is the Prince of Peace YET His souls is troubled
m. He is King of Kings and Lord of Lords, YET He goes to death at the order of a Roman governor
n. He is with us always unto the end of the world, YET The disciples saw Him being received into heaven out of their sight.
B. Understanding His role as our Kinsman-Redeemer and substitute.
Why was is necessary for the Redeemer to be the God-Man? Why is the doctrine of the two natures of Christ so important? The answers lie in God's law of the goel, or Kinsman-Redeemer, (Lev 25) illustrated beautifully by the historical story of Ruth.
Scofield summarizes the principle concisely in his note on Is 59:20.25
(1) The kinsman redemption was of persons, and an inheritance (Lev 25:48, 25:25; Gal 4:5;Eph 1:7, 11, 14.).
(2) The Redeemer must be a kinsman (Lev 25:48-49; Ruth 3:12-13; Gal 4:4, Heb 2:14-15).
(3) The Redeemer must be able to redeem (Ruth 4:4-6; Jer. 50:34; John 10:11, 18).
(4) Redemption is effected by the goel (Kinsman-Redeemer) paying the just demand in full (Lev 25:27; 1 Pet 1:18-19; Gal 3:13).
(5) Therefore, what we see as Christ's humiliation was done as our goel, our redeemer, our substitute. When He was living, acting, speaking, suffering, denying full knowledge of events, claiming total dependence on the Spirit, etc. as a man, he was doing these things out of His human nature, and in our place. Yet, because He was also God, He could pay the whole price--he lived, acted, spoke, and suffered as no other man ever had or ever could.
C. Understanding and admitting the existence of the Biblical concept of "mystery."
There are some things which must be just believed, because there is no way to understand them.
(1) God is unsearchable (Eccl. 3:11, Is 40:28, Rom 11:33-36, Job 5:9, Job 11:7)
(2) There are many mysteries in the gospel (1 Tim 3:16, Eph 5:25, 1 Cor 15:51)
(3) Christ Himself is a mystery (Rom 16:25, 1 Cor 2:7, Eph 1:9, 3:4, 3:9, Col. 1:27)
D. The three core concepts related above should help us understand how Christ lived His life on earth.
He lived in appearance as a man (Isaiah 53:3, Phil. 2:8), and submitted His will to the Father, and lived His life as a man anointed by the Spirit (Luke 4:16-21). Yet, He retained all His powers, and demonstrated His abilities often as a vindication of His messiahship and proof of His authority (Mk 2:1-12). In the mysterious verse John 5:17, ". . . My Father has been working until now, and I have been working," we are given a clue that He did many of His works "in His own right," though they were always in accordance with the will of the Father. On one occasion, He even lifted the veil of His flesh, took off His servant nature, so His three closest disciples could see Him as He really was (Mat 17:2). On another occasion, He "lifted the hem of His veil a bit"--when they came to arrest Him, He said "I AM," and they all fell down (John 18:4-6).
If we were to make an illustration of Jesus as if He were a policeman going under cover in a bad neighborhood, the Kenosis doctrine has the policeman leaving his weapons at home, along with his badge and other symbols of authority. He can call on headquarters for help, but he himself is helpless and defenseless. The orthodox teaching has the policeman himself as a "lethal weapon", he is a martial arts expert who can kill with a blow--he is skilled on the level that he can reach within a man's chest and pull out his still-beating heart--he can defeat multiple opponents. He can leave His I.D. , badge, uniform, etc., behind just like cop number one, but he cannot cease to be the walking weapon that he is. He looks normal, he appears as helpless as the first policeman, but he has the ability within himself to defend himself. He might choose to call for help; he might even choose to allow himself to be shackled, hurt or killed for the good of the mission--but he has the ability within himself to defeat his enemies. Raise that illustration, and the powers of the second policeman to infinity, and the illustration shows the difference in the two doctrines.
E. It is from applying the core concepts above that we can construct meaningful and orthodox answers to the questions of those who refuse to believe in the God of the Bible.
The answer is not to deviate from Truth ourselves through less-than-precise theology--it is to present the whole Truth unvarnished and uncut.
J.I. Packer, the dean of living evangelical theologians, completely rejects the doctrine of Kenosis, as illustrated in his book Knowing God. He says plainly, "The Kenosis theory will not stand."26 I encourage the reader, to see what this Christian leader says about the subject. I hope that my study will be of help, and if you have been infected with this false doctrine I pray you will seriously consider modifying your views in this vital area.
________________________________________
1 Walter Martin's last published writing was a refutation of apotheosis in the book The Agony of Deceit , (Moody Press, 1990). Included in that same book is an article by Dr. Rod Rosenbladt entitled Who Do TV Preachers Say That I Am?, which refutes, among other things, the teaching of Kenosis.
2 L. Berkhof, Systematic Theology, (Wm B Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1940) pg 327.
3 Ibid.
4 Ralph P. Martin, Kenosis, The New Bible Dictionary (Wm B Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1973), pg 6.89
5 Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology vol. II/III, (Reprint by Wm B Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1977) pp 428-440.
6 Dr. Rod Rosenbladt, Who Do TV Preachers Say That I Am? The Agony of Deceit, (Moody Press, 1990) pp 114-115.
7 Ibid.
8 Ibid.
9 W. E. Vine, (Edited by F. F. Bruce) Vine's Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words (Fleming H. Revell Company, 1981) N. T. Vol. 2, pg 25.
10 Berkhof, op. cit. pg 328.
11 C. I. Scofied, The Scofield Reference Bible (Oxford University Press, 1917), pg 1258.
12 Lightfoot, cited by Scofield, ibid.
13 Moorehead, cited by Scofield, ibid.
14 Scofield, op. cit. pg 1145.
15 Berkhof, op. cit. 327.
16 A. W. Pink, The Attributes of God (Baker Book House, 1975) pg 29.
17 Hodge, op cit, pg 439.
18 Berkhof, op. cit. pg 328.
19 Ibid. 329
20 Phillip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Vol. III (Wm B Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1977) p705-783.
21 Ibid
22 Loraine Boettner, Studies in Theology, (The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1973) pp 195-203.
23 Hodge, op. cit.
24 Boettner, op. cit. 197.
25 Scofield, op. cit. pg 765.
26 J. I. Packer, Knowing God, (InterVarsity Press, 1973) pg. 52.
Related Topics: Christology, Theology Proper (God)
|
|
