Confusion regarding Philippians 2

The Second Person of the Trinity, eternally past and present the Son of God, equal with the Father and the Holy Spirit, all three being the one true God. The Second person took on human flesh after the Holy Spirit caused Mary to become pregnant.
For a time, He set aside His omniscience, omnipotence, etc, to become a baby, still God, but a baby that needed to grow, learn, and experience life as the human baby He now was. Still God, still sinless, but a human baby as well. As a man, Jesus still was not omniscient during those 33 or so years on earth, Mark 13:32. When Jesus was glorified, after rising from the dead that Sunday morning, He would come to say before His ascension back to Heaven some 40 days later "All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth." Matthew 28:18. He was no longer a baby. It was finished, John 19:30. His work was done. He speaks in John 17:5 and other verses in that chapter of the glory He had with the Father before and after his earthly ministry. Philippians 2 speaks of that earthly time when He when from operating in the power of God to operating in the power of the perfect God/man while in His earthly ministry.
He is now what He was before His birth, but with the addition of a perfect, glorified, human body.

albein said:

I have been trying to wrap my head around the two natures of Christ (human and divine) and believe that Philippians 2 may be key to helping me understand. For convenience, I will post the relevant text here (emphasis mine):

[5] Let the same mind be in you that was in Christ Jesus,
[6] who, though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God as something to be exploited,
[7] but emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, being born in human likeness. And being found in human form,

I can gather a few things from this passage:

1. It is talking about the man Jesus as seen on earth (and not the second person of the trinity in an unfamiliar form).
2. The man Jesus was at one point in the form of God (presumably "form" means "nature"?).
3. The man Jesus, while in "the form of God" was equal with God the Father, however, he [Jesus] chose not to exploit this for his own gain.
4. The Son went from being in "the form of God" to being in "the form of a slave," which is revealed to be the "human form."

This may seem like a lot of information though a key piece of the Scripture remains mysterious to me. What does the expression, as rendered in the NRSV, "emptied himself" mean? I looked up a Greek lexicon (Neste-Aland 26) and found that the actual Greek term rendered as "emptied" is ἐκένωσεν (ekenōsen). According to Thayer's Greek Lexicon, the term can mean any of the following [emphasis mine]:

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

That first definition is the one that they [the publisher of Thayer's Greek Lexicon] apply to Philippians 2:7. However, I am alarmed by the part that says "laid aside." How can The Son, the second person of the trinity, lay aside "equality with or the form of God"? It is quite obvious to me that God cannot lay aside his own nature. But he also cannot make himself void of it in the sense of definitions two and three. From what I understand about orthodox Christology, both natures (the "form" of god and the "form" of a slave) are maintained fully during the incarnation.

So how is this passage supposed to be interpreted?

Click to expand...

He is not using the full power He has as God.

albein said:

I have been trying to wrap my head around the two natures of Christ (human and divine) and believe that Philippians 2 may be key to helping me understand. For convenience, I will post the relevant text here (emphasis mine):

[5] Let the same mind be in you that was in Christ Jesus,
[6] who, though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God as something to be exploited,
[7] but emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, being born in human likeness. And being found in human form,

I can gather a few things from this passage:

1. It is talking about the man Jesus as seen on earth (and not the second person of the trinity in an unfamiliar form).
2. The man Jesus was at one point in the form of God (presumably "form" means "nature"?).
3. The man Jesus, while in "the form of God" was equal with God the Father, however, he [Jesus] chose not to exploit this for his own gain.
4. The Son went from being in "the form of God" to being in "the form of a slave," which is revealed to be the "human form."

This may seem like a lot of information though a key piece of the Scripture remains mysterious to me. What does the expression, as rendered in the NRSV, "emptied himself" mean? I looked up a Greek lexicon (Neste-Aland 26) and found that the actual Greek term rendered as "emptied" is ἐκένωσεν (ekenōsen). According to Thayer's Greek Lexicon, the term can mean any of the following [emphasis mine]:

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

That first definition is the one that they [the publisher of Thayer's Greek Lexicon] apply to Philippians 2:7. However, I am alarmed by the part that says "laid aside." How can The Son, the second person of the trinity, lay aside "equality with or the form of God"? It is quite obvious to me that God cannot lay aside his own nature. But he also cannot make himself void of it in the sense of definitions two and three. From what I understand about orthodox Christology, both natures (the "form" of god and the "form" of a slave) are maintained fully during the incarnation.

So how is this passage supposed to be interpreted?

Click to expand...

Take a look at The Council of Chalcedon 451

albein said:

So how is this passage supposed to be interpreted?

Click to expand...

Since I use the King James Bible, I will respond accordingly:

...in Christ Jesus = in the God Man (Messiah and Savior)

Who, being in the form of God... = who is God in every way

...thought it not robbery to be equal with God = the Son is God just as the Father is God

But made himself of no reputation... = came to earth in humiliation, not as the King eternal, and laid aside His majesty and divine prerogatives [Note: "emptied Himself" misrepresents Christ, who was always fully God and fully Man]

...and took upon him the form of a servant = became the Servant of Jehovah and mankind

...and was made in the likeness of men...And being found in fashion as a man = was fully sinless Man (the Son of Man)

...he humbled himself = to the point of washing His disciples' feet

...and became obedient unto death = He said not my will but thine to the Father

...even the death of the cross = as the Lamb of God

albein said:

I have been trying to wrap my head around the two natures of Christ (human and divine) and believe that Philippians 2 may be key to helping me understand. For convenience, I will post the relevant text here (emphasis mine):

[5] Let the same mind be in you that was in Christ Jesus,
[6] who, though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God as something to be exploited,
[7] but emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, being born in human likeness. And being found in human form,

I can gather a few things from this passage:

1. It is talking about the man Jesus as seen on earth (and not the second person of the trinity in an unfamiliar form).
2. The man Jesus was at one point in the form of God (presumably "form" means "nature"?).
3. The man Jesus, while in "the form of God" was equal with God the Father, however, he [Jesus] chose not to exploit this for his own gain.
4. The Son went from being in "the form of God" to being in "the form of a slave," which is revealed to be the "human form."

Click to expand...

In address to these four points:

1) There is no difference between the man Jesus and the Second Person of the Trinity. Jesus is the Second Person of the Trinity; that is, Jesus is the Logos, the Logos is Jesus. Jesus is one Person of two natures, God and man. Which means that God, the Logos, the only-begotten Son, became human; uniting our human nature to Himself. The Person who was born of Mary is the same Person who is mentioned in John 1:1, as the Word who was in the beginning with God and is God. Same Person.

2) Not at one point, Jesus is and always has been God. He is the Logos--the Word--made flesh. The One born of Mary is Himself truly and actually God. That means God was conceived in Mary's womb, was born, grew up "in wisdom before man and God" (Luke 2:52), suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, buried, and dead. Jesus Christ, when He walked along the shores of the Sea of Galilee, was the Eternal and Uncreated God. He never ceased to be God, He was God in the beginning, was God on earth, and remains God even now at the right hand of the Father; and He will continue to be God forever and ever.

3) Jesus, because He is the Logos, the very Son of the Father begotten in eternity, is God even as the Father is God. Jesus has equality with the Father because He is the only-begotten Son of the Father. There are three Divine Persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Fully God, the one and only God because the Son and the Spirit receive from the Father the Father's own Divine Nature and Being. The Nicene Creed therefore saying of the Son He is, "God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, of one Being with the Father." The Son is fully God, that is why He has equality with God [the Father].

4) He never stopped being "in the form of God", He remained fully God, the very fullness of God (Colossians 2:9). But in addition to being God He became man, taking on the form of a slave. In the Incarnation Christ emptied Himself, not of His divinity, but of glory--He willingly, and in love, humbled Himself. It is the humility and humiliation of our own mortal, fragile humanity that constitutes the "emptying", He was thus made "a little lower than the angels" (Psalm 8:5, Hebrews 2:7) as a man--though He remained being true and very God, the Almighty Lord of all creation. It was a humility He bore willingly, in love, and did so in perfect obedience to His Father even to the point of the shameful and ugly suffering and death of the cross.

This may seem like a lot of information though a key piece of the Scripture remains mysterious to me. What does the expression, as rendered in the NRSV, "emptied himself" mean? I looked up a Greek lexicon (Neste-Aland 26) and found that the actual Greek term rendered as "emptied" is ἐκένωσεν (ekenōsen). According to Thayer's Greek Lexicon, the term can mean any of the following [emphasis mine]:

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

That first definition is the one that they [the publisher of Thayer's Greek Lexicon] apply to Philippians 2:7. However, I am alarmed by the part that says "laid aside." How can The Son, the second person of the trinity, lay aside "equality with or the form of God"? It is quite obvious to me that God cannot lay aside his own nature. But he also cannot make himself void of it in the sense of definitions two and three. From what I understand about orthodox Christology, both natures (the "form" of god and the "form" of a slave) are maintained fully during the incarnation.

So how is this passage supposed to be interpreted?

Click to expand...

A common misunderstanding of this passage is that the Kenosis (emptying) of Christ means He set aside His divinity when He became human; such a position is heretical. Though it continues to be espoused in some places. The Kenosis is not Christ emptying Himself of His Deity, or setting aside His Divinity; it is the act of willing humility and humiliation in taking on our mortal and fragile humanity and becoming a servant (the Greek word here is more graphic and explicit, literally "slave") and in humility being obedient, even to death on the cross. The doctrine here isn't that Christ stopped being God, but that God became man and willingly suffered for us; the Kenosis reveals to us something about who God is. God comes to meet us even in our ugliness and sin, out of love, and throws Himself away in love--even to the most wretched ugliness of the cross--in order to rescue and save us.

-CryptoLutheran

albein said:

The man Jesus, while in "the form of God" was equal with God the Father, however, he [Jesus] chose not to exploit this for his own gain.

Click to expand...

Jesus could change stones into bread but He didnt exploit His Godliness.
Matt 4:2 And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungred.
3 And when the tempter came to him, he said, If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread.
4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

Jesus could call millions of angels to protect Him but He didnt exploit this for His own gain.
Matt 26:53 Are you not aware that I can call on My Father, and He will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels?

albein said:

Can god contradict his nature by setting aside certain attributes such as omniscience and omnipotence? I don't see how he could as I would argue that god, by his nature, necessarily has those attributes. Without those attributes then he is not god.

Let's entertain the idea that god can set aside certain essential attributes at will. If that is the case then god can theoretically set aside perfect love in exchange for evil. He can set aside perfect justice in exchange for injustice. If he is not bound by his nature then he is not god. He is something radically different.

Click to expand...

"Setting aside" is not contradicting. While Jesus is not omnipotent as a baby, the Father still is and is ruling. "god, by his nature, necessarily has those attributes. Without those attributes then he is not god." This is human reasoning, not God's way...Isaiah 55:8-9. Man could not set aside certain attributes and still be man possibly, but God is greater than man, and can do what we would think is impossible. You may not see it or understand it, but that doesn't dictate that it is not true. "Without those attributes then he is not god." Man might say and believe this, but not God, Isa 55:8-9 again.
"Let's entertain the idea that god can set aside certain essential attributes at will. If that is the case then god can theoretically set aside perfect love in exchange for evil. He can set aside perfect justice in exchange for injustice." No, because the former (certain attributes... omnipotence & omniscience) was needed and didn't compromise His moral integrity or Written Word. The latter would.

The key question is this: "Emptied Himself" of what? There are 2 obvious choices: emptied Himself of His divinity or emptied Himself of all His divine prerogatives. Emptied "Himself of His divinity" would mean that Jesus is what God would be like if God were merely human and not divine. It would explain, for example, why Jesus clearly distinguishes Himself from God and even implies that He is not good (Mark 10:17-18). "Emptied Himself of His divine prerogatives" is the more standard view and means that the human Jesus is limited in wisdom, knowledge, and power and can be fully tempted in every way that we are. Bible scholars agree that all this is true. But on this view there are unanswered questions. Just how limited was Jesus in these regards? Just how limited and flowed was His wisdom, knowledge, and power? Tp what extent and in what ways did Jesus grow and expand His self-understanding and sense of mission throughout His life? Why does Luke say that "He grew in favor with God?" That statement implies that he was previously in less favor with God! If you immerse yourself in the mysteries behind these questions, you are transcending the theological level of you local pastor or priest and entering the secret world of academic Bible scholars and theology professors (of which I have been one) and are ready to grasp how limiting and therefore flawed the pverly simplistic classic creeds, confessions, and statements of faith truly are.

Deadworm said:

The key question is this: "Emptied Himself" of what? There are 2 obvious choices: emptied Himself of His divinity or emptied Himself of all His divine prerogatives. Emptied "Himself of His divinity" would mean that Jesus is what God would be like if God were merely human and not divine. It would explain, for example, why Jesus clearly distinguishes Himself from God and even implies that He is not good (Mark 10:17-18). "Emptied Himself of His divine prerogatives" is the more standard view and means that the human Jesus is limited in wisdom, knowledge, and power and can be fully tempted in every way that we are. Bible scholars agree that all this is true. But on this view there are unanswered questions. Just how limited was Jesus in these regards? Just how limited and flowed was His wisdom, knowledge, and power? Tp what extent and in what ways did Jesus grow and expand His self-understanding and sense of mission throughout His life? Why does Luke say that "He grew in favor with God?" That statement implies that he was previously in less favor with God! If you immerse yourself in the mysteries behind these questions, you are transcending the theological level of you local pastor or priest and entering the secret world of academic Bible scholars and theology professors (of which I have been one) and are ready to grasp how limiting and therefore flawed the pverly simplistic classic creeds, confessions, and statements of faith truly are.

Click to expand...

Jesus grew in favor with God. Jesus earthly life moved from innocence to obedience each time He responded to what He saw the Father doing, and the Father was well pleased, and declared it. We tend to think in terms of favor or disfavor because of our sin nature (fruit of the tree of knowledge of good & evil), but there is also the Tree of Life, which is about Glory to More Glory to God as each experience magnifies God's will.

The unity of the God head is complete and the individual persons are also complete. God created the heavens and the earth. Jesus created all thing, col 1: 15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. 17 And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist. 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 may have the preeminence.

You see the infinite God made finite creatures in His image. This is us with an eternal soul and God has also created realms of reality in heaven and earth and perhaps other dimensions for experiences to be real and roll out in another creation called time. The manifestations of God inside His own built framework is a mystery that we cannot comprehend. I see in Zech 14 a great passages showing the 2nd coming of Jesus and declaring teh unity of God. it mentions the LORD many times and describes the LORD coming with His saints,

Then the LORD will go forth
And fight against those nations,
As He fights in the day of battle.
4 And in that day His feet will stand on the Mount of Olives,
Which faces Jerusalem on the east.
And the Mount of Olives shall be split in two,
From east to west,

t shall come to pass in that day
That there will be no light;
The lights will diminish.
7 It shall be one day
Which is known to the LORD—
Neither day nor night.
But at evening time it shall happen
That it will be light.

Thus the LORD my God will come,
And all the saints with You.[fn]
8 And in that day it shall be
That living waters shall flow from Jerusalem,
Half of them toward the eastern sea
And half of them toward the western sea;
In both summer and winter it shall occur.

And the LORD shall be King over all the earth.
In that day it shall be—

“The LORD is one,"

And His name one.
And this shall be the plague with which the LORD will strike all the people who fought against Jerusalem:
Their flesh shall dissolve while they stand on their feet,
Their eyes shall dissolve in their sockets,
And their tongues shall dissolve in their mouths.
13 It shall come to pass in that day
That a great panic from the LORD will be among them.

16 And it shall come to pass that everyone who is left of all the nations which came against Jerusalem shall go up from year to year to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, and to keep the Feast of Tabernacles. 17 And it shall be that whichever of the families of the earth do not come up to Jerusalem to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, on them there will be no rain. 18 If the family of Egypt will not come up and enter in, they shall have no rain; they shall receive the plague with which the LORD strikes the nations who do not come up to keep the Feast of Tabernacles.

This entire passage the term for LORD is Yĕhovah. This is Jesus coming and establishing the kingdom on earth. The central verse underlined in bold is Yehova is now king and they are proclaiming the LORD is one. This is Jesus being recognized as one with Yehova. The unity is perfect and so is the distinction of the roles.

Col 1 shows Jesus fulfilling the grand purpose statement that all things were created through him and for him that in all things he would have the preeminence. This kingdom on earth is for 1000 years. Satan will be bound and one last rebellion is purposed then comes the end of this age and the new Jerusalem coming down and the great white throne. The author controls the plot of the book and the plot of the incarnation of the creator of all who rightly had all authority and dominion and power to become a savior on the cross demonstrates a love that is perfect and a righteousness without hypocrisy. When we see Jesus we will know him and the father and call on the LORD who is one and I dont think we will ever understand the trinity or really are supposed to . We are able to know God and experience him.

Deadworm said:

The key question is this: "Emptied Himself" of what? There are 2 obvious choices: emptied Himself of His divinity or emptied Himself of all His divine prerogatives.

Click to expand...

There is a third option which is to reject "emptied Himself" and maintain "made Himself of no reputation". As stated in Thayer's Greek Lexicon "...he laid aside equality with or the form of God (said of Christ)".

In other words, Christ did not present Himself as God (other than when He said He was the "I AM") but generally called Himself "the Son of Man", and was always subject to the Father's will. Even so the Jews would have known that Son of Man also meant "Son of God", and "Son of God" also meant God.

albein said:

Can god contradict his nature by setting aside certain attributes such as omniscience and omnipotence? I don't see how he could as I would argue that god, by his nature, necessarily has those attributes. Without those attributes then he is not god.

Let's entertain the idea that god can set aside certain essential attributes at will. If that is the case then god can theoretically set aside perfect love in exchange for evil. He can set aside perfect justice in exchange for injustice. If he is not bound by his nature then he is not god. He is something radically different.

Click to expand...

If God were to set aside love, (which Jesus did not do) then He would be sinning. Which is something God cannot do.
Whether He is not able to sin or He doesn't sin because He said He wouldn't to me makes no difference.
God gave His Word, and when He gives His Word it is reliable.

Micah: "Christ did not present Himself as God...but generally called Himself "the Son of Man", and was always subject to the Father's will. Even so the Jews would have known that Son of Man also meant "Son of God", and "Son of God" also meant God."

Actually the Jews knew that "Son of Man" as a Christological title is actually a higher title than "Son of God." For them, "Son of God" means a totally human messianic descendant of David based on 2 Samuel 7:14. "Son of Man" refers to a preexistent heavenly Judge based on Daniel 7:13-14. The issue of tricky because "son of man" in Jewish idiom has 2 other meanings: it can be a circumlocution for "I" or can simply mean "man." The key to determining when Jesus is using it as a messianic title is whether the Gospels mention symbolic clouds (as in the Son of Man text in Daniel 7:13-14) and whether Jesus is functioning as heavenly judge in the saying.

The issue is yet more complicated than I described and is an eye-opening marker of the difference between a seminary perspective and an ordinary Bible study perspective. For that very reason, many very thick books have been written on the unexpected nuances of the titles "Son of God" and "Son of Man" in Jesus' day.

albein said:

I am aware that Jesus the man is the human expression of the second person of the trinity. I said "not the second person of the trinity in an unfamiliar form" to clarify that the passage did not mean the pre-human Jesus. However, I do not understand what you mean by "uniting our human nature to Himself." In what way does this occur? The Son surely did not unite the human nature to the divine nature, as that would be a fundamental change to both natures. Even more problematic would be that a change to the divine nature would contradict its essential immutability.

Click to expand...

The Person of the Son united human nature to Himself, so that He was (and is still) both God and man in perfect union.

To quote the Definition of Chalcedon (the formula of faith put forward at the Council of Chalcedon in 451 AD),

"...we all with one voice teach and confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ: completely Divine and completely human, truly God and truly man, of a rational soul and body; consubstantial with the Father as regards His divinity, and the same consubstantial with us regards His humanity; like us in all ways except for sin. Begotten in eternity from the Father as regards His divinity, and in these last days who for us and our salvation was born from Mary, the virgin God-bearer as regards his humanity; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, only-begotten, acknowledged in two natures without confusion, change, division, or separation; at no point is the difference between the natures taken away through the union, but rather the property of both natures is preserved and comes together in a single Person and Hypostasis. He is not divided or parted into two persons, but is one and the same only-begotten Son, God, Word, Lord Jesus Christ,"

Jesus is a Person who is the Son of God (and thus God) who became man, that is, took upon Himself our own human nature, becoming a member of the human race--like us in all ways but without sin. Thus He is truly God and truly human, without change, without separation, without confusion. He never ceased to be what He always was (God), the two natures are not separated (they are united as one Person), and without confusion (Deity remains Deity and humanity remains humanity, distinct).

I am not committed to saying that this is not possible, but would you say that Mary gave birth to both the divine and human natures? And if so, in what sense was the divine nature of the Son birthed?

Click to expand...

Because Mary didn't give birth to a nature, she gave birth to a Person: Jesus. And Jesus is both God and man. The Person Mary conceived and bore is Himself God, which is what makes her the mother and bearer of God. She is not the mother of a nature, but a Person. That Person is both God and man.

I should have said the following: The man Jesus was at one point only in the form of God (presumably "form" means "nature"?).

Click to expand...

The language Paul uses is not precise theological language like one finds later on in Christian history; as Paul wasn't having to deal with the numerous theological controversies that propped up only much later after he was long and gone. Paul uses the phrase: ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ (en morphe theou), in the form ("shape") of God; meaning He is God. Christ never ceased to be "en morphe theou", but in addition to being "en morphe theou" μορφὴν δούλου λαβών ἐν ὁμοιώματι ἀνθρώπων γενόμενος (morphen doulou labon en homoiomati anthropon genomenos) "took on the form of a slave, became in human similitude."

Paul's meaning is that Jesus, though God, did not cling to His Divine nature and dignity as something to be exploited, but humbled Himself, becoming a slave, a human slave.

I have a suspicion that this section of your post answers my previous question, but I still want to make absolute certainty of it. What exactly can we know from the fact that the divine nature of the Son was birthed by Mary? Do we gain any insight about the divine nature from the event? As well, would you say that both the human nature and the divine nature of the Son died on the cross?

Click to expand...

I would, like earlier, state that a nature did not die on the cross, a Person did. Jesus died on the cross, and Jesus is both God and man, thus both God and man died on the cross; not as "natures" but in/as the Person of Jesus.

The Incarnation teaches us that God is love, that God so loved the world that He gave His only-begotten Son, that Christ came to save sinners, that God demonstrates His love in that while we were yet still sinners Christ died for us (etc). That God does not hold Himself back, but gives Himself freely in love--even in the humiliating shame of death on a cross.

No disagreements.


So you believe that the phrase "form of god" as it is used in Philippians 2 really means "glory of god"? And presumably "form of a slave" means "glory of a slave"?

Click to expand...

No, I believe it is Paul's way to say that Jesus is God. Paul does not say that Christ stopped being "in the form of God", but says that though being in the form of God (that is, even though Jesus is God) He did not exploit this in some way, but willingly and humbly became man for our sakes.

I am not sure if you are familiar with William Lane Craig (I am barely familiar with his work myself) but what do you think of Neo-Apollinarianism as described by Craig? Here is an excerpt from one of his books:

"We suggest what William James called the 'subliminal self,' is the primary locus of the superhuman elements in the consciousness of the incarnate Logos. Thus Jesus possessed a normal human consciousness, but it was underlain, as it were, by a divine consciousness. This understanding of Christ's personal experience draws on the insight of depth psychology that there is vastly more to a person than waking conscious. The project of psychoanalysis is based on the conviction that some of our behaviors have deep springs of action of which are only dimly aware, if at all.... Similarly, the incarnation, at least during his state of humiliation, the Logos allowed only those facets of his person to be part of his waking consciousness which were compatible with the typical human experience, while the bulk his knowledge and other cognitive perfections, like an iceberg beneath the water's surface, lay submerged in his subconscious. On the model we propose, Christ is thus one person, but in that person, conscious and subconscious elements are differentiated in a theologically significant way"
(Philosophical Foundations For A Christian Worldview; pp. 610-11).

We suggest what William James called the 'subliminal self,' is the primary locus of the superhuman elements in the consciousness of the incarnate Logos. Thus Jesus possessed a normal human consciousness, but it was underlain, as it were, by a divine consciousness. This understanding of Christ's personal experience draws on the insight of depth psychology that there is vastly more to a person than waking conscious. The project of psychoanalysis is based on the conviction that some of our behaviors have deep springs of action of which are only dimly aware, if at all.... Similarly, the incarnation, at least during his state of humiliation, the Logos allowed only those facets of his person to be part of his waking consciousness which were compatible with the typical human experience, while the bulk his knowledge and other cognitive perfections, like an iceberg beneath the water's surface, lay submerged in his subconscious. On the model we propose, Christ is thus one person, but in that person, conscious and subconscious elements are differentiated in a theologically significant way"
(Philosophical Foundations For A Christian Worldview; pp. 610-11).

Click to expand...

Well, on the one hand, calling it Neo-Apollinarianism is a red flag, seeing as Apollinarianism is heretical in teaching that Jesus lacked a human soul but was instead a human being inhabited by the Divine Logos. And on the other hand what I'm reading above sounds like an attempt to understand what is, at its heart, a deep and unfathomable mystery and seems to go against orthodox doctrine.

Would this fit within orthodoxy? And would this better account for "emptying"?

Click to expand...

I don't think the Mystery of the Incarnation can be understood through psychoanalysis, even by analogy. In truth the Incarnation involves turning our reason on its head: Jesus, though God, grew in wisdom before God and men, did not know the timing of His own return; and yet also knew the hearts of men and knew their thoughts, forgave sin, healed the blind, raised the dead, and commanded even wind and waves to cease by His own voice.

There are aspects of the Incarnation that are inherently paradoxical. God, who cannot die, died. God, who cannot suffer, suffered.

What orthodoxy does teach is that Jesus is a single, united, indivisible Person who is at once both God and human, as a human being He has a "rational soul and body" by which is meant that He has a human soul and a human body (though, now, glorified by His resurrection). Jesus also has two wills, divine and human, but which are nevertheless in perfect unison and harmony. That Jesus has a human will is made plain when He prays in the garden, "If it be at all possible, remove this cup from Me, but nevertheless not My will but Your will be done" We also see here that it is in perfect harmony and unison with His divine will, which as Paul said in Phillippians 2 was not to exploit His being God, but in being an obedient servant even to the point of death.

-CryptoLutheran

Greg Merrill said:

The Second Person of the Trinity, eternally past and present the Son of God, equal with the Father ...

Click to expand...

How can you say Jesus is equal with God, when Bible says otherwise?

…the Father is greater than I.
John 14:28

For, "He put all things in subjection under his feet." But when he says, "All things are put in subjection," it is evident that he is excepted who subjected all things to him. When all things have been subjected to him, then the Son will also himself be subjected to him who subjected all things to him, that God may be all in all.
1 Cor. 15:27-28

1213 said:

How can you say Jesus is equal with God, when Bible says otherwise?

Click to expand...

If we keep in mind that we are discussing the Mystery of God, everything will fall into place. The Bible teaches both these truths at the same time.

1. Jesus is God (1 Tim 3:16; Heb 1:8,9)

2. The Head (Authority) of Christ is God the Father (1 Cor 11:3)

3. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are three Divine Persons, yet one God (Mt 28:19).

1213 said:

How can you say Jesus is equal with God, when Bible says otherwise?

…the Father is greater than I.
John 14:28

For, "He put all things in subjection under his feet." But when he says, "All things are put in subjection," it is evident that he is excepted who subjected all things to him. When all things have been subjected to him, then the Son will also himself be subjected to him who subjected all things to him, that God may be all in all.
1 Cor. 15:27-28

Click to expand...

After knowing God for 59 years, reading the Bible through countless times, pastoring a church for 16 years, I can say Jesus is equal with God because I know that he is. At the time Jesus said "the Father is greater than I", Jesus had submitted himself to be born into this world as a human, to live a human life, and to die for our sins. Micah 5:2 reminds us that he has been from everlasting, and only God is everlasting from eternity past to eternity future. John 10:30 are the words of Jesus saying "I and the Father are one." In John 10:38 Jesus says the Father is in Him and He is in the Father. He told the disciples if they had seen Him they had seen the Father, John 14:9. It may be hard for some to understand but Jesus is as much God as the Father is God or the Holy Spirit is God, 1 John 5:7. Holy, Holy, Holy, LORD God Almighty. Amen and Amen. See John 5:22; Matthew 28:20; 1 Timothy 3:16 (KJV says "God" was manifest in the flesh!" That is Jesus!) and John 20:28 to begin with. He was to be called Immanuel, "God with us", though His name was Jesus. Matthew 1:23.