Folks, the opponents of the straightforward understanding of the text are now just making stuff up, stuff that cannot be supported from scripture. They say God could not lay aside any part of His divine attributes of knowledge, power and presence and still be God. Scripture says otherwise. So in Him all the fullness of deity dwells in bodily form. Yet, His knowledge was limited, His power was limited and His presence was limited.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Kenosis and divine attributes
- Thread starter AresMan
- Start date
- Status
Normally I don't "take a stand" unless of an essential.
I stand with Van in his view that Jesus Christ in His earthly ministry from conception to ascension/glorification was, is and will always be, almighty God come in the flesh.
That the babe asleep in the manger as well as the Savior crucified on the cross was fully God without compromise of divinity.
And the proof text Van has given says it all:
Colossians 2:9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.
HankD
I stand with Van in his view that Jesus Christ in His earthly ministry from conception to ascension/glorification was, is and will always be, almighty God come in the flesh.
That the babe asleep in the manger as well as the Savior crucified on the cross was fully God without compromise of divinity.
And the proof text Van has given says it all:
Colossians 2:9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.
HankD
The same could be said about you - except I wouldn't choose to use such pejorative language. The truth is the Bible 'puts God in box' and it is our responsibility to make sure we present him (and understand him) in that 'box' rather then try to go beyond the 'box' and enter into the realms of philosophy.
Make you mind up, is it 'lay aside' or is it 'not use' - you can't have it both ways!
Now, if we look at what you are saying it seems to me you want to allow the Son of God to give up those things that are difinitional to the nature of God, yet for him still to be God - that is what you keep asserting - but at no time (that I can see) have you explained how that works.
Now this is a statement worth analyzing a little, lets consider some of what has gone before:
You wrote:
To which the response was given:
Did you respond to that? In a similar vein I am still waiting for a response in regards to my comments about John 1:48 which clearly states that Jesus 'saw' Nathanael. I find it very interesting that it seems to be the case that your conveniently overlook (or simply dismiss) those things that don't line up with what you want to be true.
I wonder if you could also point me to where you have addressed this question please:
In your opinion I have no basis for my view, but yet you don't seem willing to tackle much of what I have presented
Now, there is a limit to how many times one can say the same thing (I think we are all agreed on that) but the charge that I have no basis for my assertion is absurd - I have every basis to assert exactly what I am asserting in regards to Phil 2:7 - here is the evidence again in the briefest form possible:
1) "No recognized teacher in the first 1,800 years of church history, including those who were native speakers of Greek, thought that “emptied himself “in Philippians 2:7 meant that the Son of God gave up some of his divine attributes" (Grudem, W. A. (2004). Systematic theology: an introduction to biblical doctrine (p. 550). Leicester, England; Grand Rapids, MI: Inter-Varsity Press; Zondervan Pub. House.)
2) The text does not say that Christ Jesus "emptied himself of some of his powers' or that he 'emptied himself of his divine attributes - it says, ἀλλὰ ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσεν μορφὴν δούλου λαβών, ἐν ὁμοιώματι ἀνθρώπων γενόμενος· καὶ σχήματι εὑρεθεὶς ὡς ἄνθρωπος and I note that even among those bible translations that choose to go with 'emptied' as a translation of ἐκένωσεν they tend towards saying 'but emptied himself by taking on the form of a slave,12 by looking like other men,13 and by sharing in human nature' - none has to be careful one does not read something into a text that simply isn't there.
3) The text itself does however explain what Jesus did you in relation to emptying himself. Two ideas modify the verb “ἐκένωσεν” They are: 'taking the very nature of a servant' and 'being made in human likeness.' These statements explain both how this took place and what it means.
Interestingly being “made nothing” means adding humanity to deity rather than subtracting deity from his person. The language has a vagueness to it; that vagueness allows for theology which cannot be expressed easily, a theology of the relationships between the divine and human in Christ.
4) A cursory look at lexicons reveals that κενόω is often used to speak about the elimination of privileges and prerogatives that come along with rank (see for example Louw-Nida). One might also wish to look up some of the other places this word is found in scripture (Rom 4:14; 1 Cor 1:17; 9:15; 2 Cor 9:3) - does it have the sense in any of those usages that suggest it mean 'emptied himself of his divine attributes'?
5) Rather, I would argue that, that this sense of making something into nothing, is exactly fitting with Paul's use of Christ Jesus as an example of humbly putting another persons needs ahead of your own rights. Jesus Christ is not been presented as an example of onw who divested himself of his divine attributes (as if we could follow that example) - rather he is being given as a example of one who gave up his privileges and prerogatives that came with his rank and instead made himself of no reputation, became a slave, came in the likeness of men, and became obedient even to the death of the cross.
6) The “kenosis” view of Philippians 2:7 must be rejected because of 'the larger context of the teaching of the New Testament and the doctrinal teaching of the entire Bible. If it were true that such a momentous event as this happened, that the eternal Son of God ceased for a time to have all the attributes of God—ceased, for a time, to be omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent, for example—then we would expect that such an incredible event would be taught clearly and repeatedly in the New Testament, not found in the very doubtful interpretation of one word in one epistle. But we find the opposite of that: we do not find it stated anywhere else that the Son of God ceased to have some of the attributes of God that he had possessed from eternity. In fact, if the kenosis theory were true (and this is a foundational objection against it), then we could no longer affirm Jesus was fully God while he was here on earth. The kenosis theory ultimately denies the full deity of Jesus Christ and makes him something less than fully God. S.M. Smith admits, “All forms of classical orthodoxy either explicitly reject or reject in principle kenotic theology.”' (Grudem, W. A. (2004). Systematic theology: an introduction to biblical doctrine (p. 551). Leicester, England; Grand Rapids, MI: Inter-Varsity Press; Zondervan Pub. House.)
Does my understanding cross all the 't's and dot all the 'i's - certainly not! But then I wouldn't expect it to. Jesus Christ was fully men and fully God - and with my finite and sinful understanding how can I hope to get my head around all of the 'ins and outs' of that - by it very nature, the incarnation is a mysterious thing - how Jesus could be omniscient but at the same time not know the time of his second coming is a mystery - yet that is what the bible asserts.
Very well done!The same could be said about you - except I wouldn't choose to use such pejorative language. The truth is the Bible 'puts God in box' and it is our responsibility to make sure we present him (and understand him) in that 'box' rather then try to go beyond the 'box' and enter into the realms of philosophy.
Make you mind up, is it 'lay aside' or is it 'not use' - you can't have it both ways!
Now, if we look at what you are saying it seems to me you want to allow the Son of God to give up those things that are difinitional to the nature of God, yet for him still to be God - that is what you keep asserting - but at no time (that I can see) have you explained how that works.
Now this is a statement worth analyzing a little, lets consider some of what has gone before:
You wrote:
To which the response was given:
Did you respond to that? In a similar vein I am still waiting for a response in regards to my comments about John 1:48 which clearly states that Jesus 'saw' Nathanael. I find it very interesting that it seems to be the case that your conveniently overlook (or simply dismiss) those things that don't line up with what you want to be true.
I wonder if you could also point me to where you have addressed this question please:
In your opinion I have no basis for my view, but yet you don't seem willing to tackle much of what I have presented
Now, there is a limit to how many times one can say the same thing (I think we are all agreed on that) but the charge that I have no basis for my assertion is absurd - I have every basis to assert exactly what I am asserting in regards to Phil 2:7 - here is the evidence again in the briefest form possible:
1) "No recognized teacher in the first 1,800 years of church history, including those who were native speakers of Greek, thought that “emptied himself “in Philippians 2:7 meant that the Son of God gave up some of his divine attributes" (Grudem, W. A. (2004). Systematic theology: an introduction to biblical doctrine (p. 550). Leicester, England; Grand Rapids, MI: Inter-Varsity Press; Zondervan Pub. House.)
2) The text does not say that Christ Jesus "emptied himself of some of his powers' or that he 'emptied himself of his divine attributes - it says, ἀλλὰ ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσεν μορφὴν δούλου λαβών, ἐν ὁμοιώματι ἀνθρώπων γενόμενος· καὶ σχήματι εὑρεθεὶς ὡς ἄνθρωπος and I note that even among those bible translations that choose to go with 'emptied' as a translation of ἐκένωσεν they tend towards saying 'but emptied himself by taking on the form of a slave,12 by looking like other men,13 and by sharing in human nature' - none has to be careful one does not read something into a text that simply isn't there.
3) The text itself does however explain what Jesus did you in relation to emptying himself. Two ideas modify the verb “ἐκένωσεν” They are: 'taking the very nature of a servant' and 'being made in human likeness.' These statements explain both how this took place and what it means.
Interestingly being “made nothing” means adding humanity to deity rather than subtracting deity from his person. The language has a vagueness to it; that vagueness allows for theology which cannot be expressed easily, a theology of the relationships between the divine and human in Christ.
4) A cursory look at lexicons reveals that κενόω is often used to speak about the elimination of privileges and prerogatives that come along with rank (see for example Louw-Nida). One might also wish to look up some of the other places this word is found in scripture (Rom 4:14; 1 Cor 1:17; 9:15; 2 Cor 9:3) - does it have the sense in any of those usages that suggest it mean 'emptied himself of his divine attributes'?
5) Rather, I would argue that, that this sense of making something into nothing, is exactly fitting with Paul's use of Christ Jesus as an example of humbly putting another persons needs ahead of your own rights. Jesus Christ is not been presented as an example of onw who divested himself of his divine attributes (as if we could follow that example) - rather he is being given as a example of one who gave up his privileges and prerogatives that came with his rank and instead made himself of no reputation, became a slave, came in the likeness of men, and became obedient even to the death of the cross.
6) The “kenosis” view of Philippians 2:7 must be rejected because of 'the larger context of the teaching of the New Testament and the doctrinal teaching of the entire Bible. If it were true that such a momentous event as this happened, that the eternal Son of God ceased for a time to have all the attributes of God—ceased, for a time, to be omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent, for example—then we would expect that such an incredible event would be taught clearly and repeatedly in the New Testament, not found in the very doubtful interpretation of one word in one epistle. But we find the opposite of that: we do not find it stated anywhere else that the Son of God ceased to have some of the attributes of God that he had possessed from eternity. In fact, if the kenosis theory were true (and this is a foundational objection against it), then we could no longer affirm Jesus was fully God while he was here on earth. The kenosis theory ultimately denies the full deity of Jesus Christ and makes him something less than fully God. S.M. Smith admits, “All forms of classical orthodoxy either explicitly reject or reject in principle kenotic theology.”' (Grudem, W. A. (2004). Systematic theology: an introduction to biblical doctrine (p. 551). Leicester, England; Grand Rapids, MI: Inter-Varsity Press; Zondervan Pub. House.)
Does my understanding cross all the 't's and dot all the 'i's - certainly not! But then I wouldn't expect it to. Jesus Christ was fully men and fully God - and with my finite and sinful understanding how can I hope to get my head around all of the 'ins and outs' of that - by it very nature, the incarnation is a mysterious thing - how Jesus could be omniscient but at the same time not know the time of his second coming is a mystery - yet that is what the bible asserts.
Except that van seems to be stating that Jesus gave up not the using of His God factors, but actually gave them up while here!
Does the text (Philippians 2:7) say He emptied Himself by taking on human form? Nope, the "by" is an interpretive addition. OTOH, not wanting to grasp equality with God He emptied Himself. So setting aside part of His divine attributes does not mean was was not 100% God, because He was.
So what we have here is an effort to nullify scripture, either to say He did not empty Himself or that after taking on the form of man, He remained 100% God. And other scriptures teach us His knowledge was limited, His power was limited and His presence was limited.
Stick to scripture folks, and reject the nullifiers.
So what we have here is an effort to nullify scripture, either to say He did not empty Himself or that after taking on the form of man, He remained 100% God. And other scriptures teach us His knowledge was limited, His power was limited and His presence was limited.
Stick to scripture folks, and reject the nullifiers.
My view is that if He did give them up, he gave them up into the hands of the Father's permissive will.
He walked on water, even if this was by faith it was by faith in the Father's will being best for Him being here in the flesh on planet earth to teach His apostles of His authority.
The rhetorical question:
Mark 4:41 And they feared exceedingly, and said one to another, What manner of man is this, that even the wind and the sea obey him?
Answer: God come in the flesh.
HankD
And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS. Matt 1:25
Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh; Rom 1:3
So also Christ glorified not himself
Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared; Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered; From Hebrews 5:5,7,8 KJV
And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was. John 17:5
Does that describe the, "kenosis," of the Word made flesh?
Gal 1:1 Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead;
Rom 1:4 And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:
Rom 8:11 But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.
Col 1:18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.
1 Peter 1:21 Who by him do believe in God, that raised him up from the dead, and gave him glory; that your faith and hope might be in God.
Col 2:9,10 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power:
Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh; Rom 1:3
So also Christ glorified not himself
Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared; Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered; From Hebrews 5:5,7,8 KJV
And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was. John 17:5
Does that describe the, "kenosis," of the Word made flesh?
Gal 1:1 Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead;
Rom 1:4 And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:
Rom 8:11 But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.
Col 1:18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.
1 Peter 1:21 Who by him do believe in God, that raised him up from the dead, and gave him glory; that your faith and hope might be in God.
Col 2:9,10 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power:
We see it all over. For instance, regarding omnipotence, Jesus clearly stated several times that He did not have the power to do anything except what the Father has led Him to do (John 5:19-21, 30; John 8:28-29). Regarding omniscience, Jesus did not know the day or the hour of His return (Mark 13:32; Matthew 24:36).
Says who? Philosophers? Theologians? Where is that assertion in the scripture?
Seems to me that the only essential attribute of deity is to have life in Oneself - that is, to be self-sustaining. Jesus has always possessed that (John 5:26-27).
Jesus ministered in tandem with the Father and the Spirit and things were revealed to Him. Furthermore, Jesus was not omnipresent. He was specifically tied to His human body.
Can God chose to set aside abilities? Sure.
Have you considered that your "definition" is wrong?
Can God cease to be all knowing/powerful etc and still be God though
Again, Jesus as to His Humanity assumed limitations from being now in form of a man, but as to his deity, that changed NOTHING
Yes! That's the scandal of the Incarnation.
God FIRST created, THEN purposed in mankind to HEAR and OBEY. <--- for the most part mankind failed.
God THEN, purposed in HIMSELF, to be an EXAMPLE, for mankind to HEAR "and" SEE.
Mankind CAN NOT SEE GOD, and continue existence.
A dilemma? No.
God has repeatedly REVEALED His presence TO mankind, "under cover". Trees, veils, clouds, mists, appearing as an angel, a man, and in the last days, appeared AS A MAN, with a NAME and TITLES.
In the last days ~ Gods appearance AS A MAN ~ is revealed to us in scripture. Much about that MAN, is revealed, for us to NOT BE FOOLED of WHO that particular MAN is.
When a man trusts scripture revealed, and believes WHO that MAN is, and submits in faithfulness TO that MAN; the man submitting, IS submitting and standing WITH God, according to Gods Way and Order.
You say kenosis ~ revealing an emptying of the Sons self.
Scripture says; God purposed in Himself. God declared He would send. God declared to call whom He sends; JESUS ~ the Word of God ~ the ONLY begotten Son of God ~ God prepared a body for His Word ~ That BODY would be given for the life of the world ~ His Word would teach and example HOW FOR mankind TO stand with God ~ His Word would come to earth, humbled, serving and WITHOUT "reputation" ~ His "reputation" was "revealed" while He was ON the earth ~ His TRUE "title" revealed ~ ie The CHRIST. His TRUE "self" revealed ON earth ~ ie the Father, the Light, the Power, the Authority, the Holy Spirit, the Truth, the Way, the Life, the Quickener of things (giving LIFE to creations).
The KNOWLEDGE is revealed IN Scripture ~
A man can hear and read the knowledge and TRUST to believe it OR NOT.
A man WHO trusts to believe what IS revealed, and submits unto the Lord, he trusts, it is thereafter "revealed" to that man, THAT their election to believe is sound, Because God Himself WILL tell such man, that JESUS is the CHRIST, God Himself.
Did JESUS "empty" Himself? No.
Jesus came to earth in a body prepared of God, the very same "covering" or "outside" that mankind can see of anyone they call a man.
Did JESUS' INSIDES change? No. He was not EMPTY of Himself. His Soul was pure and in tact. His Spirit was pure and in tact. His form was pure and in tact. However His "form" was "covered" in a body prepared of God, SO THAT mankind could SEE HIM and ONLY that body could be "sacrificed"
Heb.10
- [5] Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:
- [51] I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.
[10] By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
Eph.1
- [9] Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself:
[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:
[8] And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
Matt 16
[16] And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
[17] And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
John.1
[1] In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
1Cor.15
- [45] And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.
[7] If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him.
1Cor.1
- [24] But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.
- [7] Why doth this man thus speak blasphemies? who can forgive sins but God only?
[48] And he said unto her, Thy sins are forgiven.
Matt 9
[2] And, behold, they brought to him a man sick of the palsy, lying on a bed: and Jesus seeing their faith said unto the sick of the palsy; Son, be of good cheer; thy sins be forgiven thee.
No. Many people do "good and righteous deeds", without being humble. Meaning they do good things, but yet, they let it be known, WHY. (ie, I'm wealthy, I'm a leader, I'm powerful, I'm smarter, I'm blah, blah.)
(and scripture teaches to cheerfully do and give without regard to "position" / "standing" and "bragging").
Humility is a behavior of doing something WITHOUT "reputation". Jesus came to earth "without" revealing His "reputation". He did not "reveal" His POWER, His AUTHORITY, His ALL KNOWING, His KINGSHIP, etc.
Jesus came to earth, AS a man, who could be seen of any man and talk to any man; rich, poor, believing, unbelieving, with authority, without authority, society accepted or not .....
I don't think ANYONE here has claimed that Jesus was/is not deity in His incarnation. I don't know why you keep hammering against a claim that no one is making.
Last edited:
Agreed.
I agree, as long as you are claiming that Jesus was actually and legitimately a man, not just One Who "appeared" to be human.
Agreed.
Agreed.
No. Jesus was fully God and fully man, not God on the inside and man on the outside. It is a co-mingling of divinity and humanity in a unique way.
When He was crucified ("sacrificed"), all of Him was crucified - not just a human shell.
- Status