Kenosis and divine attributes

[percho]

Are the following words of limit or are they by nature absolutes.

It is either empty or it's not. It is either void or it's not. It is either vain or it's not. Get the picture. From BLB concerning G2758 Either it was done or it wasn't.

What did God do?
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. John 1:1 NKJV And the Word was made flesh, 1:14
But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, born[fn] of a woman, born under the law, Gal 4:4 NKJV
“For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.
God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds; Heb 1:1,2 The Word was made flesh.

But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels Heb 2:9 Is that empty relative to God?

From Blb G2758

1. to empty, make empty
   1. of Christ, he laid aside equality with or the form of God
2. to make void
   1. deprive of force, render vain, useless, of no effect
3. to make void
   1. cause a thing to be seen to be empty, hollow, false

 

[HankD]

My view is that He lowered Himself in rank to a man even less than the angels for a little while. He also willfully handed the prerogatives of deity over into the hands of the Father to be used at His permissive will (the Father) and came forth as a human being in the flesh, mortal, subject to death to save sinners.

HankD

 

[Van]

And again, changing the name of divine attributes to prerogatives of deity does not address the problem. Certain people are claiming if the Son laid aside part of His divine attributes, He is not 100% God. We cannot nullify scripture, He emptied Himself, and His knowledge, power and presence were limited in the incarnation. No need to hide behind "its too much of a mystery" in order to support scripture nullification.

The answer is simple and plain, laying aside part of His divine attributes did not make His less than 100% God where all the fullness of the Godhead dwelt in Him.

 

[HankD]

And again, changing the name of divine attributes to prerogatives of deity does not address the problem. Certain people are claiming if the Son laid aside part of His divine attributes, He is not 100% God. We cannot nullify scripture, He emptied Himself, and His knowledge, power and presence were limited in the incarnation. No need to hide behind "its too much of a mystery" in order to support scripture nullification.

The answer is simple and plain, laying aside part of His divine attributes did not make His less than 100% God where all the fullness of the Godhead dwelt in Him.

Prerogatives means - the use of - in this context of Philippians 2.
Though He put them aside, His divine attributes of the Logos divine nature were available to Him at the will of the Father.

HankD

 

[reformed_baptist]

I'm not sure now that you ask but they are human entities ("traits" maybe) that can be put aside in deference to the betterment of another.

HankD

I would say they are sins, that must be put away

 

[reformed_baptist]

Thank you for your exposition

The Father allowed Him to use His divine attributes as He (the Father) saw fit.

NKJVJohn 5:19 Then Jesus answered and said to them, "Most assuredly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of Himself, but what He sees the Father do; for whatever He does, the Son also does in like manner.

Agree.

HankD

Now, there is certainly something in that, that's for sure.

 

[reformed_baptist]

I am sorry to inform you that all things are possible with God.

Really, can God lie? Can he tempt anyone to sin?

 

[reformed_baptist]

No proof or evidence will be forthcoming. It is an unsupported man-made claim.

Plenty of proof has been provided - your rejection of that proof is not the same thing as lack of proof.

But the opposite view, Jesus whose knowledge, power and presence was limited, was 100% God because all the fullness of the Godhead dwelt in Him.

Yes the fullness of God dwelt in him, but that is not the end of the story, he was also fully God himself.

So I have scripture (2000 thousand year old scripture) and those opposing have zip.

What scripture do you have exactly?

No, those presenting what the church has always believed have the scriptures, the creeds, and church history on our side (whilst you seem to be siding with those from the school of higher criticism). IMO what you are actually saying is that those who you disagree with have 'zip' that you are prepared to listen to and meaningfully interact with.

 

[Van]

Prerogatives means - the use of - in this context of Philippians 2.
Though He put them aside, His divine attributes of the Logos divine nature were available to Him at the will of the Father.

HankD

I think you are slicing the text too thin. His knowledge, power and presence were limited in some way. His "divine nature" was not, for all the fullness of the Godhead dwelt in Him. If you look at the theology of God, you will find knowledge, power and presence listed among His attributes. The error is to make the use of His divine attributes equal with Him being God in the flesh. It is a baseless assertion without any support in scripture.

 

[Van]

Really, can God lie? Can he tempt anyone to sin?

Just because God does not fit within your box, does not make Him any less God. You deny He can choose to lay aside and not use His attributes fully and still be God. You have no basis for your assertion.

 

[Van]

Yes the fullness of God dwelt in him, but that is not the end of the story, he was also fully God himself.

Now that is a novel view!!

9 For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form,

Anyone else unable to see that Christ was 100% God.

 

[HankD]

I think you are slicing the text too thin. His knowledge, power and presence were limited in some way.

Van, this is exactly my point. Jesus limitations as a human being were self imposed prior to the incarnation as the Logos. Are you sure you haven't confused me with someone else?
I never said that He was any less than fully God at any time - pre-incarnation, in His flesh or ascended to the right hand of the Father in His pre-incarnation glory..

Philippians 2:
5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:

The above clause in verse 7 uses a reflexive pronoun.
i.e. The Father did not make Him of no reputation,
He made Himself of no reputation which indicates His eternal equality with the Father as indicated in verse 6 "equal with God".,

He then took upon Himself the function of a servant which speaks of His "lowering" (a military term - lowering in rank).

RSV Hebrews 2:7 Thou didst make him for a little while lower (elatto) than the angels, thou hast crowned him with glory and honor,

Louw-Nida Lexicon 02114 elatto To cause to have less status or rank.

As such He willingly put Himself in a status of submission to the will of the Father "for a little while".

An analogy using the military aspect of "lowering" is He put aside His General's rank and uniform and took the rank and uniform of a private - and I would add at this point that HE DID NOT cease to be fully God but was God the Son in willful submission to God the Father for a season.

John 5:30 I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me.

And the incarnation IS a mystery:

1 Timothy 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

HankD

 

[Van]

Hank D, if you did not equate "divine attributes" with "divine nature" then I misunderstood the sentence I quoted. He emptied Himself of some part of His divine attributes, but remained 100% God.

 

[HankD]

Hank D, if you did not equate "divine attributes" with "divine nature" then I misunderstood the sentence I quoted. He emptied Himself of some part of His divine attributes, but remained 100% God.

Agreed, His deity did not diminish after the ekenose (Root kenoo).

Kenoo is used only here in Philippians 2 and does not necessarily mean to "empty" in the English nuance of being completely empty as when we say "the glass is empty". In any event, the glass (deity) remains.

A secondary meaning (and sometimes we should choose the secondary meaning as the KJV translators - no I am no longer KJVO) is to reduce in rank or status ala KJV "no reputation" although they saw it as a total negation of rank/status.

The Friberg lexicon uses the word "prerogatives" - disenfranchised Himself of the prerogatives of deity which does not IMO mean to lay down His deity in any way.

Also used as "divest" and there is perhaps a type parallel in John 13

John 13
3 Jesus, knowing that the Father had given all things into His hands, and that He had come from God and was going to God,
4 rose from supper and laid aside His garments, took a towel and girded Himself.

Whatever the theological details of the kenoo, I agree, it did not diminish His (Jesus Christ the person) deity one iota.

HankD

 

[AresMan]

And again, changing the name of divine attributes to prerogatives of deity does not address the problem.

Again, we're not doing that. We're saying that He never lost the possession of any attribute. He submitted the exercise of certain divine attributes for the purpose of the incarnation m, submitted to the limitations of humanity, and submitted in obedience to the Father. However, the divine being nor the divine nature of the Son did not lose the possession of any attribute.

Certain people are claiming if the Son laid aside part of His divine attributes, He is not 100% God.

Could God "lay aside" all attributes and still be God? Not just ontologically, but categorically? Could the Son "lay aside" some or all of the attributes of love, holiness, or justice and still be God? Why do you get to define what attributes are essential to God and what are not?

We cannot nullify scripture, He emptied Himself,

Yup, but what does that mean? You assume that it means that the divine nature gave up the possession of certain attributes, but you can't prove it other than to go elsewhere out of the original context. What does "emptied" mean? Hint: adverbs modify verbs.

and His knowledge, power and presence were limited in the incarnation.

Yes! In the sense that the Son submitted to the limitations of the human nature. I'm not saying that Jesus was the Son in a human garb putting on a facade of human limitations. Jesus of Nazareth really did experience the limitations of humanity. He had to grow and learn and was ignorant of things. That doesn't mean that the divine nature of the Son lost the possession of any attribute.

No need to hide behind "its too much of a mystery" in order to support scripture nullification.

*sigh* Until you address the words of Phi 2:7 and demonstrate the parts of speech of them and how they relate to each other, I have no basis to take your charge of "Scripture nullification" seriously.

Everyone has to understand that there is a degree of "mystery" to the essence of the Triune God and the incarnation. It is only the rational mind that wants to say "I cannot accept a God that I cannot fully understand." We can know the what, but we don't necessarily have to understand the how.

The answer is simple and plain, laying aside part of His divine attributes did not make His less than 100% God where all the fullness of the Godhead dwelt in Him.

What attributes and how much of them are essential for God to be God categorically?

 

[Yeshua1]

I don't disagree; unfortunately, many want to ignore 2,000 years of the Holy Spirit's working and insist that we moderns alone are able to construct theology. (This is a problem not only with the liberals but also with the fundamentalists and evangelicals.)

The Holy Spirit has enlightened men to different degrees throughout the ages: Chrysostom, Athanasius, Augustine, Wycliffe, Luther, Calvin, Barth — and we ignore them for our own pet "modern" systems. All of them were, as we are, looking into a distorted mirror, but there are flashes of divine revelation we should pay attention to.

Proper Christology is, in my opinion and in the judgment of history, the single most important dogma of Christianity. A faulty Christology is a passport to perdition and irrelevance.

That is why we build our theology upon the giants who came before us, in the historical theology ofChristianity, for do we really believe that Calvin, Augustine, Warfield, Hodge, et all really had nothing to teach us, that their theology would pale before much current ones, such as word of faith, name it claim it and proserity junk?

 

[Yeshua1]

I am sorry to inform you that all things are possible with God.

There are even things God cannot do, as that would involve messing with his divine attributes!

 

[Yeshua1]

And again, changing the name of divine attributes to prerogatives of deity does not address the problem. Certain people are claiming if the Son laid aside part of His divine attributes, He is not 100% God. We cannot nullify scripture, He emptied Himself, and His knowledge, power and presence were limited in the incarnation. No need to hide behind "its too much of a mystery" in order to support scripture nullification.

The answer is simple and plain, laying aside part of His divine attributes did not make His less than 100% God where all the fullness of the Godhead dwelt in Him.

Not in His Deity though!

 

[Yeshua1]

Just because God does not fit within your box, does not make Him any less God. You deny He can choose to lay aside and not use His attributes fully and still be God. You have no basis for your assertion.

He still had all of those attributes while here on earth then, correct?

 

[HankD]

He still had all of those attributes while here on earth then, correct?

They were available to Him but what was the criteria for their use and for whose bidding?

This was part of the temptation in the wilderness.

"If thou be the Son of God..."

HankD