Confusion regarding Philippians 2

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...

The exact nature of the union of Christ's human and Divine natures is a mystery we are not given much information about in Scripture. What little information we are given, such as this passage in Philippians, often raises as many questions as it answers. In the end, I do not need to understand the exact nature of Christ, I only need to place my faith in Him. The Bible does not give us all the information we would desire, but it does give us all the information we need in order to be saved.

By all means, think on these things, even speculate if you so desire, but understand that we really don't know (historic Creeds are often helpful for clarifying things, but, as I believe Chalcedon makes abundantly clear, they are not inspired in the same sense as the Bible). Sorry, I know this isn't the answer you were hoping for, but, in all honesty, it is the only answer I can give.

God bless;
Michael

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...

Jesus came to serve others. His emptiness may have been a reference to his austerity. He had not filled houses with treasures at the expense of his flock. During his ministry Jesus was quoted as saying: "The foxes have holes, and the birds of the sky have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head." Matthew 8:20 (WEB)

Jesus ate and drank with tax collectors and sinners. He was also capable of foraging for unripe figs to feed himself (Matthew 11:12:14).

During the night of his arrest, Jesus was out of doors in the Garden of Gethsemane. According to the Talmud, some Jews camped out during the Passover festival. Since attendance by all able bodied male Jews in Israel was required by Jewish law, there were few rooms available.

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 I wrestle with one of my children and don’t use all of my strength have I changed anything about myself? Blessings

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...

You just eloquently explained why and how Jesus wasn't the second person of an indivisible, unified, triune deity. Jesus always referred to himself as a subordinate Son, even a subordinate deity. He was and still is both human and divine forever more. Human was added to his experiential nature.

Heavy thread.

Rev 13:8
And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

(The him is the beast)

In the beginning was The Word (Logos) - and in some way even the Crucifixion is a fact from the beginning.

"The Word became flesh and dwelt among us" - at that point Jesus was truly man as well as truly God, and He did not cease being truly man afterwards, even in a glorified body, which some say is flesh and bone but not flesh and blood.

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.

Click to expand...

Perhaps or perhaps not. Who are we to say or declare or decree what God can or cannot do? You have to admit your conclusion has to be deemed merely human natural reasoning. As I say we're not God to even know for an absolute what God can do along this line. Here is one scripture which is interesting....

"And Jesus grew in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man." Luke 2:52

How is it possible that God that is Jesus grew in wisdom?.....If we claim that there's no way Jesus could have grown in wisdom (which really means while on earth he wasn't walking in in omniscient attribute) are we going to claim then he wasn't God? I don't think I would ever claim that. I have to believe that he was God manifest in the flesh but he did lay aside his attributes. How did Jesus know things supernaturally?...Jesus said the Father in me...he doeth the works. Just like prophets in the Old Testament received revelation, knowing things etc so did Jesus. There were times that Jesus didn't know things as well. In Mark 9:21 Jesus asked the Father of a demon possessed boy..."How long has he been this way?" Another example of Jesus not walking in omniscience. After Jesus was raised from the dead he took back upon himself all the attributes as being God.

Before there were Gospels, there were Paul's letter's, and before these letters, there were pre-Pauline hymns that express the earliest and original Christology. That observation prepares the way for the following observations:

The OP should be commended for drawing attention to an all-important mystery. Two nuances of the relevant Greek terms need clarification. When the Johannine hymn )(John 1:1-18_ confesses Jesus as the Word (Logos), Logos, used philosophically, means "the rational Self-expression of God as opposed to God in His unknowability. This is a more helpful view of Christ's divinity than the Nicene Creed not because that creed is wrong, but because its language is burdened by outdated Latin philosophical terminology such as "persona," which is more accurately translated as "mask" than "person."

When the Philippian hymn (2:6-11) uses the Greek expression "morphe theou" to describe the preexistent Christ, "morphe," used philosophically, means not "the form of God," but "the same essential substance as God." The verb "Kenoo" is most naturally translated "empty" and hence the hymn teaches that the preexistent Christ "emptied Himself."
So the unavoidable question is "emptied Himself" of what."

The 2 most natural options, as I've stated, are "emptied Himself" of either His divinity or His divine prerogatives. The Gospels imply that Jesus was limited in His knowledge, His wisdom, and His power and, that He only gradually "grew in favor with God." What we don't know is just how iimited the earthly Jesus was. For example, did He embrace al the ancient superstitions about cosmology, believing that the earth was flat and that the sun is not the center of our solar system. In my view, He was as ignorant of that and most of our modern scientific breakthroughs as His contemporaries.

In invoking other texts to critique this view (e. g. Colossians 1:15-20), posters confuse the restored resurrected Christ with the far more limited earthly Jesus who emptied Himself. These insights are not controversial among Bible scholars with doctorates. What remains controversial is the question of how the earthly Jesus can be considered "fully God" as opposed to preexisting as God and restored to His full divinity by His resurrection and exaltation. To me, it seems an abuse of language to affirm the earthly Jesus' limitations in knowledge, wisdom, and power, and yet, to deny the inevitable conclusion that He was still "fully God" in His human estate. It is more true to the biblical testimony to say that His Self-emptying meant that He surrendered the ways in which He was "fully God" to incarnate as a weak and limited human who could be "tested in every way just as we are, yet without sin." He was restored to His fully divinity only by His resurrection and exaltation.

If anyone was detailed biblical documentation for these claims, just ask and I will provide a blizzard of supporting prooftexts.

Do we actually believe that baby Jesus got 24 of His genes from the heavenly Father? and 24 from Mary?

albein said:

Yes, but the person of Jesus has a divine nature. A divine nature, by definition, cannot die. So if the person Jesus dies and he has a divine nature, then this not only tells us that the person Jesus can die but also that his divine nature can die. In my view, this creates too many issues. A divine nature, by necessity, cannot cease to exist (else it is something other than divine).


I simply cannot see how a divine nature can allow for death. That makes a divine nature mutable (i.e., it can move from existing to not existing). It is contradictory to say that god died, as his nature demands his existence. Therefore, it is an impossibility for a divine nature to die (I am using "a" on purpose so as to allow for you to define an alternative to my understanding of "divine nature").


You seem to be aware that god, by his nature, cannot die. So, would the next logical step be to say that god did not die? Perhaps traditional Christian theology has it wrong.


I am aware that many Christians believe that the second person of the trinity still has a human body (i.e., a human nature), but I find this to be untenable. The union between the divine and human natures while on earth at the very least necessitated a potentialization (is that even a word?) of what was previously actual (e.g., omnipresence). So, for both natures to still be in union would mean that Jesus still does not have a fully actualized divine nature.

Click to expand...

Only the mortal tabernacle died on the cross, he raised himself from the dead as he said he would. The Son of God did not die obviously. Our problem in the material realm is due to vast limitations of our understanding. The mortal body of the Son returned to the elements, it didn't resurrect from the dead. Jesus returned in a new form, the form that man will have in the afterlife. He suddenly appears and disappears in locked rooms and such. That's a different form but how were the apostles to know, they saw him with their own eyes. Were they to go out in the world proclaiming they saw a ghost??? But the fact is he did return as promised, he did appear to raise himself from the dead.

Greg Merrill said:

... John 10:30 are the words of Jesus saying "I and the Father are one."…

Click to expand...

Bible says that also disciples of Jesus should be one with God.

I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, keep them through your name which you have given me, that they may be one, even as we are.
John 17:11

that they may all be one; even as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be one in us; that the world may believe that you sent me.
John 17:21

Greg Merrill said:

…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…

Click to expand...

Bible says also that Jesus is the image of God. If you have seen image of something, you have seen the source.

in whom we have our redemption, the forgiveness of our sins; who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation….
Colossians 1:14

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...

God can do what He wants. Since God is essentially good, He could not be evil. The Incarnation, the birth, death, and resurrection of our Lord, are all miraculous from a human prospective. Giving up His omniscience is a small part of the overall miracle.

Yeah, well, sometimes we limit God by our understanding of Him. A friend of ours says Jesus can't be God because "God can't die." Well maybe. But in my theological universe, our not understanding all the things God does does not mean that He cannot do them. We can't even understand how our own brains work. Why would we expect to understand how God works? God even created the devil. How do we explain that one? It doesn't seem very loving to me, but I do not have God's perspective.

Christie insb said:

Yeah, well, sometimes we limit God by our understanding of Him. A friend of ours says Jesus can't be God because "God can't die." Well maybe. But in my theological universe, our not understanding all the things God does does not mean that He cannot do them. We can't even understand how our own brains work. Why would we expect to understand how God works? God even created the devil. How do we explain that one? It doesn't seem very loving to me, but I do not have God's perspective.

Click to expand...

I do not mean that it is in any way negative to try to understand God. It iis the highest use of our intellect and imagination. I just mean that creating tautologies and trying to fit God into them is not likely to be successful.

Greg Merrill said:

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.

Click to expand...

It is an absolute shame that people are still arguing the Divine Nature of Christ. I will quote this gentlemen because he gives a clear answer that closes this argument.

It reads to me that Jesus gave up His divinity & became a man. It doesn’t say he was fully God and fully man, like some teach.

Those that were there to hear what Jesus said personally had no problem in understanding that Jesus communicated that he was God. John 10:33.