Bill Johnson

[NorrinRadd]

The problem I have with some modern popular interpretations of the kenosis ("emptying") mentioned by St. Paul in Philippians is that by saying Christ emptied Himself of His divinity is to say Jesus was not fully, wholly, and really divine. That somehow the Incarnation means a lessening of His Godhead, the exclusion of His Divinity in favor of His humanity.

And that's problematic.

Christ did not empty out His divinity, rather in condescending, assuming our weak, mortal humanity the Fully Divine Logos becomes wholly man. God becomes one of the weak ones, the Eternal Divine shares in human fragility. That's the kenosis St. Paul speaks of, not an emptying of the Divinity out from His Person, but this Divine One taking upon Himself our own human weakness, our own human frailty, our--to put it bluntly--own worthlessness. God becomes one of the despised, one of the rejected, one of the weak ones, the hated ones, the loathsome ones. He who is Above all honor takes upon Himself all dishonor.

But it isn't from emptying Himself of His Divinity, but that He is full of His Divinity, taking mankind upon Himself, into Himself. The Divine and the human are joined together, He is never less than Divine, never less than the Most Glorious--and yet in taking humanity upon Himself, becoming what we are, takes our disgracefulness, our weakness, our ignobility. That's the kenosis.

I have not seen anyone quoted in this thread claim that Jesus ceased being divine.

He is Divine, so He can command the very seas to calm.
He is Man, so He bleeds and suffers in anguish.

Moses, Joshua, and Elisha also exercised power over nature. Were they therefore Divine?

He is Divine, so He makes the dead to rise.
He is Man, so He dies.

Peter and Paul also raised the dead. Were they therefore Divine?

 

[ViaCrucis]

I have not seen anyone quoted in this thread claim that Jesus ceased being divine.

Didn't say anyone did claim that. I was pointing out my problem with the way kenosis language is often employed, and that speaking about Jesus emptying His divinity is a wrong understanding of kenosis.

Moses, Joshua, and Elisha also exercised power over nature. Were they therefore Divine?

Peter and Paul also raised the dead. Were they therefore Divine?

Of course the difference being that the Gospels present Jesus as the One with authority to do these things. Jesus isn't a conduit from heaven, but is Heaven come down--and He speaks with Divine authority. Moses had a rod and Elijah a mantle, but Jesus speaks and it is done.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Didn't say anyone did claim that. I was pointing out my problem with the way kenosis language is often employed, and that speaking about Jesus emptying His divinity is a wrong understanding of kenosis.

I've tried to talk about kenosis in terms of the Second Person laying aside the 'contingent' divine attributes, that is, those attributes of God that define his relationship to creation that are not necessarily the only possible relationship God could have elected to have vis-a-vis creation. Thus, omnipresence, omniscience, eternal simultaneity/atemporality (or some other account of God's relationship with time). Instead, the relationship of the Second Person's eternal hypstasis to creation would be principally defined by the attributes of his assumed human nature (in accordance with Chemnitz's definition of the genus maiestaticum).

However, the Second Person, having a divine nature, would retain those divine attributes that are necessary of the divine in all possible worlds (or none), such as omnibenevolence, impeccability, simplicity, immutability, etc. Some of these still cause issues in the incarnation (how do human passivity and divine impassibility cooexist in the same person?), but those are problems whether or not you have a kenotic account of the incarnation.

Anyhow, what do you think of that language/understanding?

 

[Knee V]

It is my understanding that "kenosis" is historically understood as being more akin to "pouring oneself out", utterly denying oneself and completely investing into others.

 

[Frogster]

.

 

[sunlover1]

Thanks for all of the help everyone.

 

[HisSparkPlug]

Before pursuing this further, I would like YOU to comment on a few quotes:

1) "The New Testament irrefutably teaches that Christ did not exercise at least three prime attributes of deity while on the earth prior to His resurrection. These were omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence. Had He done so while a man, He could not have been perfect humanity...

"The miracles of our Lord offer further proof of His limitations as a
man, for He did not hesitate to teach that He personally worked none of them, and that it was the Father who performed the works (John 5:19, 30; John 8:28; 10:37, 38; 10:32; 14:10...

"It can be said on good biblical ground that all of Christ's miracles,
powers, and supernatural information were the result of the Father's
action through Him, thus safeguarding our Lord's identity as a true
man (John 14:10; John 5:30)"

2) "All this to say that an orthodox Biblical Christology almost certainly embrace some sort of a 'kenotic' understanding of the Incarnation, that the One who was truly God also in His Incarnation lived a truly human life in which He grew both in stature and in wisdom and understanding (Luke 2:52), learned obedience through what He suffered (Heb. 5:8), and who as Son of the Father did not know the day or the hour (Mark 13:32)

Could such a one also have gone 'zap' and produced instant hamburger in his hand? That is, could he have turned stones into bread at his own behest, as Satan tested him to do? That remains in the category of the unknown. But to believe that he could have done so would mean that his own powers during his humanity were limitless, as over against his being fully dependent on the Father in the power of the Spirit. The overall evidence of the Gospels seems to imply that he could not, since in contrast to the apocryphal gospels, they offer us no evidence of an Incarnate God who used powers for his own selfish ends."


3)"His was a real victory over real temptations to do evil. But his victory 'did not result from some automatic necessity of his nature, as much as from his moment-by-moment committal of himself to the Father.'"

...
"It will become clearer now in this present chapter that this directing work of the Spirit continued throughout the remaining years of Jesus' life. Furthermore, it will become clear that the Spirit so fully motivated Jesus' speech and actions that the miracles he performed and the words he spoke he spoke and performed, not by virtue of his own power, the power of his own divine personality, but by virtue of the power of the Holy Spirit at work within him and through him."

...

"Thus, in answer to the question of how Jesus differed from other people who depended on the Spirit for the extra in their lives, it is possible to answer that in terms of his humanness, it differed in essentially no way. By this I mean that God the Son, who became flesh in Jesus, became a real human being, and as such he needed the Spirit's power to lift him out of his human restrictions, to carry him beyond his human limitations, and to enable him to do the seeming impossible."

Great material here NorrinRadd, I hope others read it. If Jesus came to us in any other format or accessed His God-power in any way other than in the same manner we ourselves are able to access the Lord, His trek on earth would not have been fair to mankind and henceforth, God could not ask us to walk as Jesus walked.

 

[NorrinRadd]

Didn't say anyone did claim that. I was pointing out my problem with the way kenosis language is often employed, and that speaking about Jesus emptying His divinity is a wrong understanding of kenosis.

Ok. There are a few of these interrelated threads, and in them some people ARE making the claim that the wording equates to Jesus ceasing to be divine. I don't recall ever hearing anyone teach that, even in my days in WoF circles. I often HAVE heard WoF critics CLAIM WoF teaches that.

Of course the difference being that the Gospels present Jesus as the One with authority to do these things. Jesus isn't a conduit from heaven, but is Heaven come down--and He speaks with Divine authority. Moses had a rod and Elijah a mantle, but Jesus speaks and it is done.

And on a notable occasion when Moses was *supposed* to just speak to a rock to produce water, he instead struck the rock with his staff, and got in trouble for it.

Frankly, I think over the centuries people have become way too defensive of the deity of Christ and have neglected His humanity, not so much as our representative in the Atonement, but as our exemplar as children of God with the Spirit upon us.

 

[NorrinRadd]

Great material here NorrinRadd, I hope others read it. If Jesus came to us in any other format or accessed His God-power in any way other than in the same manner we ourselves are able to access the Lord, His trek on earth would not have been fair to mankind and henceforth, God could not ask us to walk as Jesus walked.

FTR, the first is Walter Martin, the second is Gordon Fee, and the third is Gerald Hawthorne.

 

[simonthezealot]

Here's something that may help to explain what I meant, Simon.

Bill Johnson, The Power to Heal
Letting the Father Lead"Jesus only did what the Father was doing and only said what the Father was saying (see John 5:17-18; 8:26). This sets a pretty high standard for how to live.
While Jesus is eternally God, He emptied Himself of His divinity and became a man (see Phil. 2:7). It’s vital to note that He did all His miracles as a man, not as God.
If He did them as God, I would still be impressed. But because He did them as a man yielded to God, I am now unsatisfied with my life, being compelled to follow the example He has given us. Jesus is the only model for us to follow."


And here's the passage.

...who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality \with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself,
taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men.

right but He didn't empty Himself of His divinity, it was the honor and glory of being God almighty that He humbled himself from and laid aside...

 

[simonthezealot]

The problem I have with some modern popular interpretations of the kenosis ("emptying") mentioned by St. Paul in Philippians is that by saying Christ emptied Himself of His divinity is to say Jesus was not fully, wholly, and really divine. That somehow the Incarnation means a lessening of His Godhead, the exclusion of His Divinity in favor of His humanity.

And that's problematic.

Christ did not empty out His divinity, rather in condescending, assuming our weak, mortal humanity the Fully Divine Logos becomes wholly man. God becomes one of the weak ones, the Eternal Divine shares in human fragility. That's the kenosis St. Paul speaks of, not an emptying of the Divinity out from His Person, but this Divine One taking upon Himself our own human weakness, our own human frailty, our--to put it bluntly--own worthlessness. God becomes one of the despised, one of the rejected, one of the weak ones, the hated ones, the loathsome ones. He who is Above all honor takes upon Himself all dishonor.

But it isn't from emptying Himself of His Divinity, but that He is full of His Divinity, taking mankind upon Himself, into Himself. The Divine and the human are joined together, He is never less than Divine, never less than the Most Glorious--and yet in taking humanity upon Himself, becoming what we are, takes our disgracefulness, our weakness, our ignobility. That's the kenosis.

He is Divine, so He can command the very seas to calm.
He is Man, so He bleeds and suffers in anguish.

He is Divine, so He makes the dead to rise.
He is Man, so He dies.

The same Voice that commanded earth and heaven to exist is the Voice that cries out in pain on Calvary's cross.

Fully Divine.
Fully human.
One Jesus.

-CryptoLutheran

Fantactic, well written and spot on...Thanks Crypto!

 

[HisSparkPlug]

right but He didn't empty Himself of His divinity, it was the honor and glory of being God almighty that He humbled himself from and laid aside...

I don't see anywhere on this thread where people are claiming Jesus wasn't still God while on earth. Bill Johnson also states time & again that Jesus was still God while on earth.. so your argument that Bill Johnson is a heretic neo-gnostic continues to fall to the ground.

 

[simonthezealot]

Before pursuing this further, I would like YOU to comment on a few quotes:

1) "The New Testament irrefutably teaches that Christ did not exercise at least three prime attributes of deity while on the earth prior to His resurrection. These were omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence. Had He done so while a man, He could not have been perfect humanity...

You're wrong...
He may have set aside the prerogatives of His deity and the voluntary use of His attributes, but He did not stop being omniscient or omnipresent or omnipotent.
He was omnipotent in that He walked on water (Matthew 14:22-33)
as well as commanded the wind.
He remained omniscient;He knew what was in man (John 2:25).
He was omnipresent, yet not physically present afterall we know He saw Nathaniel under a tree (John 1:45-49).
He didn't give up any of His deity...Just the free exercise of His attributes

 

[simonthezealot]

I don't see anywhere on this thread where people are claiming Jesus wasn't still God while on earth. Bill Johnson also states time & again that Jesus was still God while on earth.. so your argument that Bill Johnson is a heretic neo-gnostic continues to fall to the ground.

No BJ says while eternally God He performed miracles as man NOT as God.

 

[sunlover1]

You're wrong...
He may have set aside the prerogatives of His deity and the voluntary use of His attributes, but He did not stop being omniscient or omnipresent or omnipotent.
He was omnipotent in that He walked on water (Matthew 14:22-33)
as well as commanded the wind.
He remained omniscient;He knew what was in man (John 2:25).
He was omnipresent, yet not physically present afterall we know He saw Nathaniel under a tree (John 1:45-49).
He didn't give up any of His deity...Just the free exercise of His attributes

Right, just the EXERCISE of.
That's how I understand it too.

No BJ says while eternally God He performed miracles as man NOT as God.

Right, He performed miracles as man NOT as God.
Like the example I used in post 47:

"He (Jesus) did miracles etc not AS God,
but as a man filled with the power of the Holy Spirit.
It would be like if I were a choreographer and I wanted to
go to a musical just for enjoyment, I might say that I
was going to see the musical, but not as a choreographer.
Now that doesn't make me any less of a choreographer,
it just explains the context of my night at the musical"

 

[NorrinRadd]

I don't see anywhere on this thread where people are claiming Jesus wasn't still God while on earth. Bill Johnson also states time & again that Jesus was still God while on earth.. so your argument that Bill Johnson is a heretic neo-gnostic continues to fall to the ground.

No BJ says while eternally God He performed miracles as man NOT as God.

In this I and the three scholars I quoted agree with "BJ." Though Jesus was and is I AM, and never ceased to be I AM, while on earth He did not access those aspects of His person, but lived as a perfect man obedient to the Father and empowered by the Spirit.

 

[simonthezealot]

Right, just the EXERCISE of.
That's how I understand it too.


Right, He performed miracles as man NOT as God.
Like the example I used in post 47:

"He (Jesus) did miracles etc not AS God,
but as a man filled with the power of the Holy Spirit.
It would be like if I were a choreographer and I wanted to
go to a musical just for enjoyment, I might say that I
was going to see the musical, but not as a choreographer.
Now that doesn't make me any less of a choreographer,
it just explains the context of my night at the musical"

So The Christ calming the sea's, did it as a man, it was not a show of His divinity??

 

[simonthezealot]

In this I and the three scholars I quoted agree with "BJ." Though Jesus was and is I AM, and never ceased to be I AM, while on earth He did not access those aspects of His person, but lived as a perfect man obedient to the Father and empowered by the Spirit.

Not familiar with those scholars, with the exception of Martin.
Point me to that post please.

 

[simonthezealot]

What about Him and Nathanael under the fig?

 

[sunlover1]

So The Christ calming the sea's, did it as a man, it was not a show of His divinity??

That's what I always thought.
No?

Very truly I tell you, whoever believes in me
will do the works I have been doing...
...because I am going to the Father.


That's why it was important that He leave... I guess.