Kenosis Heresy

civic

Well-known member
Phil 2:5-8
In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus:

6 Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;
7 rather, he made himself nothing
by taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
8 And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
by becoming obedient to death—
even death on a cross!
NIV

These translation capture the meaning of the text in its CONTEXT.


New International Version
rather, he made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness.

New Living Translation
Instead, he gave up his divine privileges; he took the humble position of a slave and was born as a human being. When he appeared in human form,

New King James Version
but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men.

King James Bible
But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:


Thayers Greek Lexicon

namely, τοῦ εἶναι ἴσα Θεῷ or τῆς μορφῆς τοῦ Θεοῦ, i. e. he laid aside equality with or the form of God (said of Christ), Philippians 2:7

Strongs Lexicon
From kenos; to make empty, i.e. (figuratively) to abase, neutralize, falsify -- make (of none effect, of no reputation, void), be in vain.

Louw Nida Greek Lexicon
87.70
κενόωb: to completely remove or eliminate elements of high status or rank by eliminating all privileges or prerogatives associated with such status or rank.

What Paul makes very clear in this passage is that in addition to being God, He became man. The Incarnation was not a subtraction of His deity but an addition of humanity to His nature. This passage does not say Jesus gave up His deity but that He laid aside His rights as Deity, assuming the form of a servant in verse 7. The text says He was in the form of God or being in the very nature of God in 2:6. Just as He took upon Himself the "form of a servant" which is a servant by nature, so the "form of God" is God by nature. The word "being" from the phrase: being in the very form of God is a present active participle. This means "continued existence" as God. What Paul is actually saying here is Jesus has always been and still is in the "form of God". If you continue reading the passage Paul really drives this point home so that his readers have no doubt what he is trying to get across to the Philippians. Paul says that every knee will bow and will one day Confess Jesus is LORD. Paul takes the passage in Isaiah 45:23 which clearly refers to Yahweh a name used for God alone and says this of Jesus. The fulfillment of YHWH in Isaiah 45 is none other than Jesus who is God(Yahweh) in the flesh.

He self limited His divine prerogatives via the Incarnation as per Phil 2. In other words did not use them to His advantage but was in submission to the Father for 33 years to accomplish our salvation. All the FULLNESS of DEITY dwells in bodily form. Col 1:19;2:9. Jesus was and is fully God lacking nothing in His Deity.

Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men.

Even through Christ existed in the form of God He did not regard equality with God something that He needed to reach for or grasp. Why because it was already His and never gave that up for a millisecond.

Paul is using syllogisms from the text in Philippians 2.

Just as the term “form of God” in verse six does not mean “less than God” because of the phrase “equality with God" in the prior passage.

It goes to reason in the same way with the 2 phrases in the “form of a servant” and in the “likeness of man” in verse seven do not mean that Jesus was any “less than human,” but instead means He was the same or “equal with all humans.”

That is how the passage reads and how it is to be understood in its " CONTEXT ".

In Colossians 1:19 and Colossians 2:9 the Apostle Paul said, For in HIM (CHRIST) ALL of the “ fullness of deity dwells bodily. “Did Paul use the word fullness there to mean partially? NO as Jesus did not empty Himself of His Deity. Jesus Divinity is FULL, complete lacking in nothing. The ENTIRE Fullness of Deity dwells (is present) bodily in Jesus.

This is how one exegetes the passage rather than using eisegesis- reading ones own thoughts and ideas into the text.

hope this helps !!!
 

101G

Well-known member
Addressing the OP,

thanks, for it is all about POWER, the G1411 dunamis, and the G1849 exousia., and NOT his DEITY, or "NATURE", SPIRIT, for his NATURE, is the "SHARED" spirit, Philippians 2:6 "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:"

FORM: G3444 μορφή morphe (mor-fee') n.
1. form.
2. (intrinsically) fundamental nature.
[perhaps from the base of G3313 (through the idea of adjustment of parts)]
KJV: form
Root(s): G3313

and G3313 is where Our ANSWER of his equality lay, which is in the TERM as said,
G3313 μέρος meros (me'-ros) n.
1. a portion (i.e. an amount allotted, a part of something).

and another word for "portion" is "SHARE", there is that equality. and the Greeks explain this equality in the term G243 ANOTHER, which is the ECHAD expressed numerically. "Allos expresses a numerical difference and denotes another of the same sort". BINGO, a numerical difference is the "FIRST", and the "LAST", supportive scripture, Isaiah 41:4 "Who hath wrought and done it, calling the generations from the beginning? I the LORD, the first, and with the last; I am he." meaning the WITH is the SAME SORT, or PERSON as Phil 2:6 b states, " to be equal with God".
well that equality is the SAME ONE PERSON, Isaiah 48:12 "Hearken unto me, O Jacob and Israel, my called; I am he; I am the first, I also am the last."

the First is the LAST, not two person, but the same ONE person.

so the OP is Correct in that the Lord Jesus is GOD almighty in Flesh. which is answered by the UNDERSTANDING of "TOOK PERT", and but not being a "PARTAKER" of flesh and blood.

PICJAG, 101G.
 

101G

Well-known member
I would like to thak the OP in the Name of the Lord Jesus for this Topic, because it put an END to the nonesense that Jesus is not GOD.

if the OP, don't mind, I would like to lay the basis for what I teach, in which the OP did a good Job of exegetes the passage.

UNDERSTAND, I been using the terms "ANOTHER", which is G243 Allos, and the Term "ONE" the H259 אֶחָד 'echad. well lets PUT them together and see the Lord Jesus deity.

the definition, G243 "Allos expresses a numerical difference and denotes another of the same sort;"

G243 Allos, states a NUMERICAL DIFFERENCE, right, which is a NUMBER designation... right..... but what kind of number designation? answer, an ORDINAL NUMBER designation. BINGO... First, Last.

that's where again I say the Scholars, and Teachers got it wrong at Deuteronomy 6:4 "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:"

One here is in ORDINAL as the definition states.
ONE: H259 אֶחָד 'echad (ech-awd') adj.
1. (properly) united, i.e. one.
2. (as an ordinal) first.
[a numeral from H258]
KJV: a, alike, alone, altogether, and, any(-thing), apiece, a certain, (dai-)ly, each (one), + eleven, every, few, first, + highway, a man, once, one, only, other, some, together.
Root(s): H258

the NUMERICAL DIFFERENCE of G243 "ANOTHER" is Cardinal in NUMBER. FIRST listen, Isaiah 41:4 "Who hath wrought and done it, calling the generations from the beginning? I the LORD, the first, and with the last; I am he."

NOTICE the "LORD" all caps as in Deuteronomy 6:4 is the "FIRST"same here in Isaiah 41:4 so the definition of H259 אֶחָד 'echad in Deuteronomy 6:4 is confirmed in Isaiah 41:4 .

now lets see the deity and equality of the Son as stated in Phil 2:6. Isaiah 48:12 "Hearken unto me, O Jacob and Israel, my called; I am he; I am the first, I also am the last." so the Lord is the LORD shared in Flesh.

so the designation of the Father/LORD, is the same designation of the Son/Lord. and G243 ALLOS, states this NUMERICAL designation of FIRST/LORD/FATHER, and LAST/Lord/SON.

for the scriptures are clear, John 3:13 "And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven."

the Father, (Spirit), the Ordinal FIRST, (Spirit), in Heaven, his Son, (his Body, his own ARM in flesh), on Earth, the Ordinal Last is the NUMERICAL DIFFERENCE of G243 "ANOTHER" in the Cardinal in NUMBER.

PICJAG. 101G.
 

Yahchristian

Well-known member
What Paul makes very clear in this passage is that in addition to being God, He became man. The Incarnation was not a subtraction of His deity but an addition of humanity to His nature.

In order for me to comment on your OP, could you clarify your terms.

In your view...

Does the humanity of Jesus have deity?

I think you might say "No. Jesus is one Person with two natures. His divine nature has deity, but his human nature does not."

But I would ask you to confirm your answer.
 

civic

Well-known member
In order for me to comment on your OP, could you clarify your terms.

In your view...

Does the humanity of Jesus have deity?

I think you might say "No. Jesus is one Person with two natures. His divine nature has deity, but his human nature does not."

But I would ask you to confirm your answer.
Read the Chalcedon Creed.
 

Yahchristian

Well-known member
Does the humanity of Jesus have deity?

I think you might say "No. Jesus is one Person with two natures. His divine nature has deity, but his human nature does not."

But I would ask you to confirm your answer.
Read the Chalcedon Creed.

The Chalcedonian Creed declares "the distinction of natures" and "the property of each nature being preserved".

In other words, the humanity of Jesus is NOT deity.

So when you say this...

This passage does not say Jesus gave up His deity but that He laid aside His rights as Deity, assuming the form of a servant in verse 7.

Which nature of Jesus "laid aside His rights as Deity"?
 

Yahweh will increase

Well-known member
He self limited His divine prerogatives via the Incarnation as per Phil 2. In other words did not use them to His advantage but was in submission to the Father for 33 years to accomplish our salvation. All the FULLNESS of DEITY dwells in bodily form. Col 1:19;2:9. Jesus was and is fully God lacking nothing in His Deity.
Where and when do we see examples of this given in the scriptures by the narratives about Jesus Civic?

For instance, did he limit his so called "Divine Prerogatives" when he healed people or did he do it when he turned the water into wine or did he do it when he stilled the raging wind and sea after the disciples cried out to him to save them?

Don't you trins always insist that Jesus was doing all of this by his own so called "Divine Prerogatives" as being God himself Civic?


Or did he only limit himself in his so called "Divine Prerogatives" when he didn't know the day or hour of his own return and the end of the age?

What did he say about his works in John 14:10 "Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me, the words that I speak I speak not of myself, it is the Father who dwells within me, he is doing the works".

What did Peter say about Jesus in regards to the miracles that the people witnessed from him?


:Acts 2:22, NIV: "Fellow Israelites, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know." ..

Peter very clearly reveals Jesus as a man and also a separate entity from God and also very clearly reveals that the miracles that were done, were actually done by God through Jesus and not by Jesus himself ever.


NOW THEN, I HAVE SHOWN YOU TWO WITNESSES FROM THE SCRIPTURES THAT THE MIRACLES WERE DONE BY GOD THROUGH JESUS.

SO HOW ABOUT YOU SHOW US WHERE THE BIBLE EVER TELLS US THAT JESUS HIMSELF WAS DOING ANY OF THOSE MIRACLES BY HIS OWN POWER AS GOD?
 

civic

Well-known member
Where and when do we see examples of this given in the scriptures by the narratives about Jesus Civic?

For instance, did he limit his so called "Divine Prerogatives" when he healed people or did he do it when he turned the water into wine or did he do it when he stilled the raging wind and sea after the disciples cried out to him to save them?

Don't you trins always insist that Jesus was doing all of this by his own so called "Divine Prerogatives" as being God himself Civic?


Or did he only limit himself in his so called "Divine Prerogatives" when he didn't know the day or hour of his own return and the end of the age?

What did he say about his works in John 14:10 "Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me, the words that I speak I speak not of myself, it is the Father who dwells within me, he is doing the works".

What did Peter say about Jesus in regards to the miracles that the people witnessed from him?


:Acts 2:22, NIV: "Fellow Israelites, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know." ..

Peter very clearly reveals Jesus as a man and also a separate entity from God and also very clearly reveals that the miracles that were done, were actually done by God through Jesus and not by Jesus himself ever.


NOW THEN, I HAVE SHOWN YOU TWO WITNESSES FROM THE SCRIPTURES THAT THE MIRACLES WERE DONE BY GOD THROUGH JESUS.

SO HOW ABOUT YOU SHOW US WHERE THE BIBLE EVER TELLS US THAT JESUS HIMSELF WAS DOING ANY OF THOSE MIRACLES BY HIS OWN POWER AS GOD?
Try sticking to Phil 2 in the OP. I’m not interested in your rabbit trails as I’ve addressed your same questions hundreds of times ad nauseam over the years.

If you are incapable of exegeting Phil 2 then just say so. I’m only interacting with the text in the OP with you .

next……
 

101G

Well-known member
NOW THAT WE HAVE AN UNDERSTANDING OF THE first AND THE Last, (IN NATURE), lets see the kenosis of what was, or the of emptying of WHAT as the Ordinal Last.

scripture, Philippians 2:7 "But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:"

Hebrews 2:9 "But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man."

Hebrews 2:16 "For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham."

in each scripture, his NATURE never changed, only he, by his will, rendered his "powers" neutralize ... WHILE in NATURAL FLESH. so the Nature is the SAME... EQUAL "with" God, meaning he is the same one person, only "Diversified", or EQUALLY Shared in the ECHAD, which is the G243 Allos in Ordinal numerrical difference.

PICJAG, 101G.
 
Last edited:

Yahweh will increase

Well-known member
Try sticking to Phil 2 in the OP. I’m not interested in your rabbit trails as I’ve addressed your same questions hundreds of times ad nauseam over the years.

If you are incapable of exegeting Phil 2 then just say so. I’m only interacting with the text in the OP with you .

next……
In other words, you are not interested in showing any proof for what you are saying because you know good and well that you can't Civic.

So then back to Philippians 2, where does Paul ever say that it is Jesus' so called "Divine Prerogatives" that Jesus emptied himself of and as far as that goes, why if Paul were truly communicating that Jesus pre existed as God and then became a man, would he ever use words like "huparchon" or "isa" or "morphe" as in "the morphe of God", to do so.

Why wouldn't he being led by the genius of God instead just say something like this below.

Who existing "eimi" as God, did not consider his being God something to hold so tightly unto but he humbled himself and became a man and through which he made himself a servant.

Notice, no extra unnecessary words that actually would contradict this like "huparchon" and "morphe" and "isa".

By the way, if one is said to be equal unto another, the one who is said to be equal unto the other is never thought of as the same single being as the other, for the word "isa" is never used this way and neither is the English word "equal" either.


For instance, if the husband is equal unto his wife, does that make him the same single being as his wife Civic?

It never does when someone is said to be equal to another and notice the word Father is not used but rather "he took no thought of a robbery to exist equal unto God" instead, so this isn't about persons but rather the being of Jesus not taking a thought of robbery to exist as equal unto the being of God.
 

civic

Well-known member
In other words, you are not interested in showing any proof for what you are saying because you know good and well that you can't Civic.

So then back to Philippians 2, where does Paul ever say that it is Jesus' so called "Divine Prerogatives" that Jesus emptied himself of and as far as that goes, why if Paul were truly communicating that Jesus pre existed as God and then became a man, would he ever use words like "huparchon" or "isa" or "morphe" as in "the morphe of God", to do so.

Why wouldn't he being led by the genius of God instead just say something like this below.

Who existing "eimi" as God, did not consider his being God something to hold so tightly unto but he humbled himself and became a man and through which he made himself a servant.

Notice, no extra unnecessary words that actually would contradict this like "huparchon" and "morphe" and "isa".

By the way, if one is said to be equal unto another, the one who is said to be equal unto the other is never thought of as the same single being as the other, for the word "isa" is never used this way and neither is the English word "equal" either.


For instance, if the husband is equal unto his wife, does that make him the same single being as his wife Civic?

It never does when someone is said to be equal to another and notice the word Father is not used but rather "he took no thought of a robbery to exist equal unto God" instead, so this isn't about persons but the being of Jesus taking a thought of robbery to exist as equal unto the being of God.
Start your own thread snd I’ll participate but I’m not going off topic with the OP text and have the thread hijacked.

hope this helps !!!
 

Yahchristian

Well-known member
Try sticking to Phil 2 in the OP. I’m not interested in your rabbit trails as I’ve addressed your same questions hundreds of times ad nauseam over the years.

Ok, here are the verses from the OP...

Phil 2:5-8
In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus:

6 Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;
7 rather, he made himself nothing
by taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
8 And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
by becoming obedient to death—
even death on a cross!

Which nature of Jesus "made himself nothing"?

I believe Jesus was GOD manifest as a human with a glorious body and "made himself nothing" by exchanging his glorious body for a mortal body. Here is an overview of what I believe...

(Note: I agree with the view of Melito, Bishop of Sardis around AD 160-180. The following is how I word it.)
For this creation, GOD (the only one who transcends all creations) determined to create a universe with a kingdom of redeemed humans for his glory where he would reign as a human himself. The Scriptures describe how GOD would accomplish his plan. In an instant, eternal GOD (called God the Father) created the supernatural and spacetime of this universe and also became immanent in the universe as spirit (called the Spirit of God) and as a human with a glorious body (called the Son of God). God the Father then created all things within the universe by the power of the Spirit of God commanded by the Son of God (whose name is Jesus). But whereas GOD created a spirit and soul for each of us, GOD himself became the spirit and soul of Jesus. At his conception, Jesus' glorious body was changed to a mortal body to be made like us so he could make reconciliation for our sins. At his resurrection, Jesus' mortal body was changed back to a glorious body and he will also give each of his elect a glorious body when he returns to reign in his kingdom forever.
 

Yahweh will increase

Well-known member
Start your own thread snd I’ll participate but I’m not going off topic with the OP text and have the thread hijacked.

hope this helps !!!
You know good and well that what I am posting is not off topic, for I asked you for proof from Paul's words where he tells you that he is speaking of Jesus' so called "Divine Prerogatives" and also examples in the narratives about Jesus where this can be witnessed other than your favorite in Matthew 24:36 where Jesus very clearly reveals that "ONLY THE FATHER KNOWS THE DAY AND HOUR OF HIS RETURN".
 

101G

Well-known member
So then back to Philippians 2, where does Paul ever say that it is Jesus' so called "Divine Prerogatives"
right in Verse 6.... EQUAL, which the OP has already said, listen to be "EQUAL" with God is to have the same rights and privilege as he do, which is implied, because no one is Equal "WITH", notice we said, "WITH", not "TO", but EQUAL "with" God. so the "Divine Prerogatives" is there in the term "EQUAL, for the "Divine Prerogatives" means "a right or privilege exclusive to a particular individual or class"..

well the POWER of God is a RIGHT or a privilege, listen, POWER, Noun,G1411, dunamis the ABILITY, MIGHT, to do something

POWER:, Noun,G1849, exousia, denotes "freedom of action, right to act;" and freedom is a privilege.

so it's RIGHT there in the 6th verse in the term "EQUAL"

PICJAG, 101G.
 

Yahweh will increase

Well-known member
right in Verse 6.... EQUAL, which the OP has already said, listen to be "EQUAL" with God is to have the same rights and privilege as he do, which is implied, because no one is Equal "WITH", notice we said, "WITH", not "TO", but EQUAL "with" God. so the "Divine Prerogatives" is there in the term "EQUAL, for the "Divine Prerogatives" means "a right or privilege exclusive to a particular individual or class"..

well the POWER of God is a RIGHT or a privilege, listen, POWER, Noun,G1411, dunamis the ABILITY, MIGHT, to do something

POWER:, Noun,G1849, exousia, denotes "freedom of action, right to act;" and freedom is a privilege.

so it's RIGHT there in the 6th verse in the term "EQUAL"

PICJAG, 101G.
ROFLOL, if Paul was speaking of Jesus as being God, he wouldn't even have used the word "isa" or "equal" because he who is equal is not the same being as the one who he is equal unto, for that isn't what the word means and it would then be like saying that Jesus was equal to himself and which is quite redundant.

But those who love ignorance should remain ignorant by all means and they will also.
 

101G

Well-known member
ROFLOL, if Paul was speaking of Jesus as being God, he wouldn't even have used the word "isa" or "equal" because he who is equal is not the same being as the one who he is equal unto, for that isn't what the word means and it would then be like saying that Jesus was equal to himself and which is quite redundant.

But those who love ignorance should remain ignorant by all means and they will also.
if Paul, if Paul, if Paul .... IF .... LOL, well he didn't .. IF, he was sure of what he wrote, it's you who is the "IF". the ECHAD is the "EQUAL", because he's G243 Allos of himself.... that's your failing.... NOW LISTEN UP, keep these two verse below in your mind,

A. Isaiah 41:4 "Who hath wrought and done it, calling the generations from the beginning? I the LORD, the first, and with the last; I am he."

B. Isaiah 48:12 "Hearken unto me, O Jacob and Israel, my called; I am he; I am the first, I also am the last."

the Ordinal, the Ordinal, the Ordinal.

and this DEFINITION from this verse, Deuteronomy 6:4 "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:"

ONE: H259 אֶחָד 'echad (ech-awd') adj.
1. (properly) united, i.e. one.
2. (as an ordinal) first.
[a numeral from H258]
KJV: a, alike, alone, altogether, and, any(-thing), apiece, a certain, (dai-)ly, each (one), + eleven, every, few, first, + highway, a man, once, one, only, other, some, together.
Root(s): H258

the Ordinal, the Ordinal, the Ordinal. keep on saying it, and you will get, or understand.

the Ordinal "FIRST", there it is "I AM" is the FIRST and ... "ALSO" the "LAST". the bible is full circle, it interpertet itself, no neew for any man wisdon, it's not needed. GET THE HOLY GHOST. the TEACHER, the Holy Spirit, God himself.

Isaiah 28:9 "Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts."
Isaiah 28:10 "For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:"
Isaiah 28:11 "For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people."

Man Oh man this is just too east not to understand.

PICJAG, 101G.
 

johnny guitar

Well-known member
In other words, you are not interested in showing any proof for what you are saying because you know good and well that you can't Civic.

So then back to Philippians 2, where does Paul ever say that it is Jesus' so called "Divine Prerogatives" that Jesus emptied himself of and as far as that goes, why if Paul were truly communicating that Jesus pre existed as God and then became a man, would he ever use words like "huparchon" or "isa" or "morphe" as in "the morphe of God", to do so.

Why wouldn't he being led by the genius of God instead just say something like this below.

Who existing "eimi" as God, did not consider his being God something to hold so tightly unto but he humbled himself and became a man and through which he made himself a servant.

Notice, no extra unnecessary words that actually would contradict this like "huparchon" and "morphe" and "isa".

By the way, if one is said to be equal unto another, the one who is said to be equal unto the other is never thought of as the same single being as the other, for the word "isa" is never used this way and neither is the English word "equal" either.


For instance, if the husband is equal unto his wife, does that make him the same single being as his wife Civic?

It never does when someone is said to be equal to another and notice the word Father is not used but rather "he took no thought of a robbery to exist equal unto God" instead, so this isn't about persons but rather the being of Jesus not taking a thought of robbery to exist as equal unto the being of God.
Did NOT consider EQUALITY with God something to cling to.
 

eternomade

Well-known member
The Divine nature of course.
When you make this claim, it seems you are saying "Jesus laid aside His divinity and was just a man". I believe this is the heresy of kenosis.

The Kenosis is NOT that Jesus laid aside His Divinity but rather took on a human nature.

Do you believe Jesus was eternally subordinate to the Father?
 

aeg4971

Active member
Phil 2:5-8
In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus:

6 Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;
7 rather, he made himself nothing
by taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
8 And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
by becoming obedient to death—
even death on a cross!
NIV

These translation capture the meaning of the text in its CONTEXT.


New International Version
rather, he made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness.

New Living Translation
Instead, he gave up his divine privileges; he took the humble position of a slave and was born as a human being. When he appeared in human form,

New King James Version
but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men.

King James Bible
But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:


Thayers Greek Lexicon
namely, τοῦ εἶναι ἴσα Θεῷ or τῆς μορφῆς τοῦ Θεοῦ, i. e. he laid aside equality with or the form of God (said of Christ), Philippians 2:7

Strongs Lexicon
From kenos; to make empty, i.e. (figuratively) to abase, neutralize, falsify -- make (of none effect, of no reputation, void), be in vain.

Louw Nida Greek Lexicon
87.70
κενόωb: to completely remove or eliminate elements of high status or rank by eliminating all privileges or prerogatives associated with such status or rank.

What Paul makes very clear in this passage is that in addition to being God, He became man. The Incarnation was not a subtraction of His deity but an addition of humanity to His nature. This passage does not say Jesus gave up His deity but that He laid aside His rights as Deity, assuming the form of a servant in verse 7. The text says He was in the form of God or being in the very nature of God in 2:6. Just as He took upon Himself the "form of a servant" which is a servant by nature, so the "form of God" is God by nature. The word "being" from the phrase: being in the very form of God is a present active participle. This means "continued existence" as God. What Paul is actually saying here is Jesus has always been and still is in the "form of God". If you continue reading the passage Paul really drives this point home so that his readers have no doubt what he is trying to get across to the Philippians. Paul says that every knee will bow and will one day Confess Jesus is LORD. Paul takes the passage in Isaiah 45:23 which clearly refers to Yahweh a name used for God alone and says this of Jesus. The fulfillment of YHWH in Isaiah 45 is none other than Jesus who is God(Yahweh) in the flesh.

He self limited His divine prerogatives via the Incarnation as per Phil 2. In other words did not use them to His advantage but was in submission to the Father for 33 years to accomplish our salvation. All the FULLNESS of DEITY dwells in bodily form. Col 1:19;2:9. Jesus was and is fully God lacking nothing in His Deity.

Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men.

Even through Christ existed in the form of God He did not regard equality with God something that He needed to reach for or grasp. Why because it was already His and never gave that up for a millisecond.

Paul is using syllogisms from the text in Philippians 2.

Just as the term “form of God” in verse six does not mean “less than God” because of the phrase “equality with God" in the prior passage.

It goes to reason in the same way with the 2 phrases in the “form of a servant” and in the “likeness of man” in verse seven do not mean that Jesus was any “less than human,” but instead means He was the same or “equal with all humans.”

That is how the passage reads and how it is to be understood in its " CONTEXT ".

In Colossians 1:19 and Colossians 2:9 the Apostle Paul said, For in HIM (CHRIST) ALL of the “ fullness of deity dwells bodily. “Did Paul use the word fullness there to mean partially? NO as Jesus did not empty Himself of His Deity. Jesus Divinity is FULL, complete lacking in nothing. The ENTIRE Fullness of Deity dwells (is present) bodily in Jesus.

This is how one exegetes the passage rather than using eisegesis- reading ones own thoughts and ideas into the text.

hope this helps !!!
Thank you Civic because if one just had to use this word Kenosis , your post is how any orthodox post Apostolic theologian would express it, otherwise one might as we be teaching semi Arianism of the fully indwelling spirit.

.......Alan
 
Top