He emptied himself

In the second chapter of Philippians, Paul urged his readers to be more like Christ and describes what in Christ they should be imitating. The result is that the passage covered by vv6-8 has become another important set-piece text on the Incarnation, with a wording that is challenged by sceptics.

In the first four verses, he tells them that they should be acting in humility rather than in selfishness or conceit. They should be acting in the interests of others rather than their own interests. And Christ Jesus is to be their model, so that tells us what Christ Jesus was doing.

Sceptics challenge the exact meaning of two words in v6, but the context in the following verses helps to explain them.

MORPHE
This is the word being used when Paul says that Christ was “in the form” of God. So Colossians ch1 v 15 said that he was in the “image of God”, and both are understood to mean that he had God’s nature, the “fullness of God” mentioned in Colossians ch1 v19.

The alternative view is that he was only “in the form” of God. An imitation, not the real thing.

The answer is to look down to v7 and notice that he then took “the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men”. That is, human nature, the counterpart of divine nature.

Surely we have to assume that MORPHE, whatever it means, means the same in both verses. If it means “imitation”, then it means “imitation” in both cases. If it means “reality”, then it means “reality” in both cases. The question is, then, whether we believe that Jesus was truly human in v7. If the answer is “Yes”, as it should be, then MORPHE is talking about “true nature” in that verse, which means that MORPHE is talking about “true nature” in v6 as well. The combination means that Christ had the true nature of God and took on the true nature of humanity. Or, as John ch1 says, he “was God” and then “became flesh and dwelt among us”.

HARPAGMOS
Christ Jesus refused to regard “equality with God” as one of these, whatever it is. The alternatives are understood to be “something to be clung on to and kept” or “something to be snatched at and grasped”. In other words, he either had or did not have equality with God.

A common argument in commentaries is that the second is more likely according to the rules of Greek grammar. But this kind of argument always begs the question of whether Paul was actually writing accurate Greek.

The problem with the second interpretation is that the passage is supposed to be about the self-sacrificial attitude of Christ. There is nothing self-sacrificial about refusing to grasp something which is not your property. That’s just a matter of duty. Being unselfish and self-sacrificial involves giving up something already in your possession, which takes us back to the first interpretation.

V7 supports this argument by giving us “he emptied himself”. You cannot empty yourself unless you have been filled with something first. “Emptied himself” has to be about giving something up. Christ Jesus did not think that equality with God was “something to be kept”, so he did not keep it.

But what does “equality with God” mean? On this present reading of the passage, I notice that the counterpart of “equality with God” is “the form of a servant”, so I now think that it’s about authority. In fact it looks like the equivalent of the statement in Hebrews that the Son “learned obedience” (Hebrews ch5 v8). As I have argued before, “learned obedience” does not mean that his previous status was disobedience. It means that his previous status was authority. Christ in his human form gave up his own divine authority, addressed people rather with the delegated authority given him by the Father, and served in humility as recommended at the beginning of the chapter.

And for exactly that reason, the Father gave the resurrected Christ full authority over mankind, giving him “the name that is above every name”. That is, “Lord”. He is Lord now, but currently unrecognised by the world. Only when he “returns” or “is revealed” (the New Testament puts it both ways) will it become true that “every knee in heaven and on earth and under the earth” will bow and every tongue recognise him as Lord.

It is appropriate to remember this at this time, observing the fact that being born on earth and occupying the body which had been prepared for him was his first act of obedience.

a reply to: DISRAELI2

The kenosis of Christ ...

I think that "scholars" overthink stuff. Like, way overthink. And maybe compartmentalize when they should not. I hold that the kenosis is much simpler than most scholars want to make it out to be.

Matthew 20:28 and Mark 10:45 give substance to this passage, I think:

For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.

The washing of the disciples feet in John 13:1-17 further fleshes it out in a very physical way.

Matthew 26:52-54 underscores the practical reality of what you say:

Then Jesus said to him, “Put your sword back into its place. For all who take the sword will perish by the sword. Do you think that I cannot appeal to my Father, and he will at once send me more than twelve legions of angels? But how then should the Scriptures be fulfilled, that it must be so?” (Emphasis added, obviously.)

I think that Jesus, as God incarnate, had the full authority and power of the godhead at his disposal. He says as much here when his companions tried to defend him. He acknowledges that if he had called on the Father there would have been "more than twelve legions of angels" at his disposal.He says that he actually could have done it, but he didn't do it. Why? Because he knew what the ultimate plan was and he was obedient to it - having "learned obedience" - "to the point of death, even death on a cross." He didn't have to be obedient. He had options. He said so. Why? Because as God, he had that kind of authority inherent in his being. The angels would have heeded his call to action.

But he chose obedience to the perfect divine will over using his authority to his own benefit, in order to give his life as a ransom for many.

Perhaps the whole idea of "not count[ing] equality with God a thing to be grasped, but empti[ng] himself, by taking the form of a servant," means that even in his incarnate state he still had the full divine potential accessible but refused - "by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross" - to make use of that potential. After all, what real obedience would there have been in his incarnate state if he were actually incapable of grasping equality with God. The act of obedience requires the presence of choice, choosing between at least two possible routes but taking the one that is usually more difficult and self-sacrificial.

If he had made full use of that divine potential in the garden by calling on those twelve or more legions of angels, "... how then should the Scriptures be fulfilled, that it must be so?” Perhaps his "learning obedience" had to do not so much with leaving behind the potential to make himself equal with God or not actually being equal with God, but with "not count[ing] equality with God a thing to be grasped" while having the full potential to do so but refusing to do it so that "the Scriptures be fulfilled, that it must be so."

If he was 100% God, he was 100% God through and through. He just didn't throw it around. That is where humility and obedience meet the highway, my friend.

ETA: (I'm convinced that most biblical scholars have a vested interest in making theological issues seem much more complicated than they need to be. It's a form of ensuring job security. Keep all the "lay people" thinking that this theology stuff is only for the folks who have letters behind their names and they maintain their preeminence in the ecclesiastical realm. I consider it largely a scam. Not altogether, mind, but largely.)

:

a reply to: DISRAELI2

I think that verse 5 speaks to this, as well:

Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus,

NIV:

In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus:

NASB:

Have this attitude ]in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus,

If Paul is speaking here of Christ's kenosis, and then he's telling us to have the same mind as had Christ, he is speaking of a divestment of our own potentiality. I can be selfish I can put myself first, I can make me the most important person in the room. But I should choose not to, as did Christ.

Here's an analogy. I often work in analogies, and I admit that most analogies break down pretty quickly when trying to analogize divine realities with worldly comparisons. This one is no different, but I'll give it a shot.

There's a thread right now about some 50 year-old pervert who declared himself a ilttle girl and was allowed to compete in a girls' swimming competition, to the point of being allowed to undress in the locker room with the little girls.

Now, if I were the father of a young girl at that competition, I'd not permit it. Honestly, my first reaction would be to simply beat the pervert to a pulp and leave him as a quivering mass of blood and mush. However, that would probably end up with me in prison and not being there for my daughter for the next several years. Not an optimum outcome.

So, I'd have to look for another alternative that would be just as - if not more - effective in achieving my desired end of getting this pervert out of my daughter's locker room.

My strongest urge, that which would express my nature as a protector of my family and a man who wants to see wrongs put to right, would be to pummel the life out of this creep. But, I'd have to divert myself of that urge.

This wouild be - at the risk of sounding like I'm being somewhat sacreligious, which I am not - kind an emptying myself of myself - a minor personal kenosis. I'd have to lay down my primary and primal nature and choose to do something that would be more in line with what is right in the long run. I would not stop being what I am, but would have to redirect, in obedience to what is a better route,

I told you it was in imperfect analogy.

I don't see that Jesus completely divested himself of his deity in the incarnation; rather he submitted that divine nature to the need at hand so that "the Scriptures be fulfilled, that it must be so." Granted, there was likely some kind of evolution of his own understanding of his own nature and being. That's way beyond our paygrade. But I hold that being 100% God means being 100% God.

:

I am really sorry to just pop my head in and say that when I read the title I thought this was about Biden having a loose bladder in public. Not kidding either.

No offense meant, getting my coat and leaving you to it.
Cheerio.

Paul's "Romans", 7111 words in the original Greek and about 9,400 words in modern English, would have been the longest and most expensive "letter" ever written in the ancient world. 1 Corinthians, at just shy of seven thousand words, is second only to Romans as the longest of the epistles and is highly unlikely to have been a genuine letter. The epistles of Seneca, for comparison, average about a thousand words, and those of Pliny are of a similar length.

In comparison, the longest letter of Cicero (xv, to P. Lentulus Spinther in Cilicia, written in Rome, 54 BC) has 5200 words. And yet Cicero was a wealthy Roman aristocrat, a consul of Rome, who was more than able to afford secretaries and scribes. In contrast Paul was supposedly a peripatetic missionary, often in dire straits ("poor, yet making many rich" - 2 Corinthians 6.10). Could Paul – or his fledgling "churches" – really have afforded his verbose and truculent letters – and would they have regarded them as an appropriate use of their money?

Whilst so much ancient writing is fragmentary, in the Pauline epistles we have a comprehensive corpus of doctrine, meeting all the needs of a functioning Church. Though many curious and suspicious gaps obscure the life of the evangelist himself, his theology is complete and entire.

That letters were forged in the name of Paul, and over an extensive period of time, is beyond doubt. 3 Corinthians, for example – part of the New Testament apocrypha – is an anti-gnostic forgery penned by Catholics in the late 2nd century. So, too, are purportedly Pauline letters to the Laodiceans and Alexandrians. The witness for this is no hostile critic of Christianity but the earliest list of "orthodox" texts, named for its 18th century Italian discoverer Muratori. This document includes the comment:

"Moreover there is in circulation an epistle to the Laodiceans, and another to the Alexandrians, forged under the name of Paul."