God's Nature and the Kenosis

[steveb1]

Paul cites an ancient hymn in Philippians 2:7-8:

6 Who, existing in the form of God, did not consider equality with God something to cling to, 7 but emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in human likeness. 8 And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to death—even death on a cross.…

I myself tend to conceptualize this Pauline Jesus as a pre-existent, archangelic-type of celestial figure - not ontologically God, but rather something more in the line of the heavenly Son of Man, pre-existent Messiah, Logos, and/or the Adam Kadmon. Mainstream Christianity conceptualizes this Jesus as ontological God - the second Person of the Trinity.

In both cases, God is portrayed as "emptying" himself, which is the meaning of the NT Greek term, "kenosis".

In the first case, God involves himself in a process of "giving out of himself" to Jesus. In the second case, Jesus himself, as "God", performs the self-emptying.

What does this capacity for self-emptying say about God's identity and nature? Is it a metaphor, analogy and/or allegory? The idea is not limited to Christianity - even Lurianic Kabbalah postulates that the Ein Sof "retracted" ("tzimtzum") Itself in order to "make room" for Creation.

Can a Being, perfect unto Itself/Himself, literally perform self-emptying? Can He empty himself without losing a portion of his omnipotence and self-identity? If so, how can this process best be conceptualized? How has it, in fact, been conceptualized in christology through the Christian centuries?

Obviously, this question is central to Christianity's understanding of God as One who acts with compassion, and for Jesus, who - whether or not ontological God - emptied himself for humanity's sake. Can this be done as a literal fact - as a literal activity within the Godhead - without any diminution of God's self-perfection?

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 1 by steveb1]

Paul cites an ancient hymn in Philippians 2:7-8:

ancient? I take it you mean merely that Paul cites a hymn contemporary with himself?

The chief problem with this passage is that the West has been dominated by Greek categories of thought since Christianity caught on and spread among Greeks.

But Paul was not Greek, he was Jewish.

A Greek reads this passage and thinks of "ontological nature". So he reads "being in the form of God" as a kind of ousia; and thus, "emptying himself" as a kind of "transformation of one's ousia".

Semitic thought (to which Paul belonged) would read the passage as quite differently. Indeed, the larger context tells us what is in mind: Paul begins the passage by exhorting the Philippians to think of others as more important than oneself: that is, put other's needs before one's own. This exhortation obviously has nothing to do with one's "ousia"; it has to do with one's attitude towards others. He then points to the narrative of Christ as an example.

It follows that the narrative is not about altering one's ontological nature (for that is impossible for Philippians: they are human; they can't strip themselves of humanity) but altering one's attitude towards one another. Christ is the supreme example:

He had all the privileges of God; yet he forsook these for the sake of man. He humbled himself, first by becoming man (that is, he took on an inferior status as a mere creature, in contrast to the Creator) and then even a pitiful man (crucifixion was reserved for the lowest of the low in ancient society): all this for the sake of his creation.

The Philippians were encouraged to follow this example: treat others as first.

[steveb1]

[Replying to post 2 by liamconnor]

Thanks for your thoughtful comments. I would, however, think that Paul must have had some "ousia" in mind inasmuch as he held a concept of Jesus's preexistence. If he held such. Some interpret the text "non-pre-existently" and say that Paul is merely saying that, like Adam, Jesus was the "perfect man", but unlike Adam, Jesus did not grasp at being God's equal. Agreed that if the second alternative represents Paul's thought, then the human Jesus would constitute the perfect example of self-emptying, which Christians, too, could emulate.

[Checkpoint]

[Replying to post 2 by liamconnor]

Thanks for your thoughtful comments. I would, however, think that Paul must have had some "ousia" in mind inasmuch as he held a concept of Jesus's preexistence.

If he held such. Some interpret the text "non-pre-existently" and say that Paul is merely saying that, like Adam, Jesus was the "perfect man", but unlike Adam, Jesus did not grasp at being God's equal.

Agreed that if the second alternative represents Paul's thought, then the human Jesus would constitute the perfect example of self-emptying, which Christians, too, could emulate.

Very interesting.

The second alternative seems far more likely to me, yet on the face of it difficult to read it that way from most translations.


How can it be read non-pre-existently?

[Checkpoint]

[Replying to post 1 by steveb1]

6 Who, existing in the form of God, did not consider equality with God something to cling to, 7 but emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in human likeness.

What would you say "the form of" [God/a servant] actually means, or Paul intends to convey, in this passage?

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 2 by liamconnor]

Thanks for your thoughtful comments. I would, however, think that Paul must have had some "ousia" in mind inasmuch as he held a concept of Jesus's preexistence. If he held such. Some interpret the text "non-pre-existently" and say that Paul is merely saying that, like Adam, Jesus was the "perfect man", but unlike Adam, Jesus did not grasp at being God's equal. Agreed that if the second alternative represents Paul's thought, then the human Jesus would constitute the perfect example of self-emptying, which Christians, too, could emulate.

God "self emptying" to become man? As for Jesus not grasping at being "God's equal" a reading of the Gospel of John would suggest otherwise, woudln't it?

God, being omnipotent, could bi-locate. As in transcendance and immanance. And arguably, at the same time. But could God completely "self-empty"? Even Trinitarianism posits that a part of Him, the Father, remained in Heaven. If He had shifted the entirety of His Being into one incarnate form, wouldn't the Universe itself collapse?

If Jesus was eternally and independently pre-existing, and not a derivative Being, then it seems to me that would be a form of "Tritheism" and a power-sharing situation. So that would indeeed infringe on God's omnipotence.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 2 by liamconnor]

Thanks for your thoughtful comments. I would, however, think that Paul must have had some "ousia" in mind inasmuch as he held a concept of Jesus's preexistence. If he held such. Some interpret the text "non-pre-existently" and say that Paul is merely saying that, like Adam, Jesus was the "perfect man", but unlike Adam, Jesus did not grasp at being God's equal. Agreed that if the second alternative represents Paul's thought, then the human Jesus would constitute the perfect example of self-emptying, which Christians, too, could emulate.

[2timothy316]

[Replying to post 1 by steveb1]

6 Who, existing in the form of God, did not consider equality with God something to cling to, 7 but emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in human likeness.

What would you say "the form of" [God/a servant] actually means, or Paul intends to convey, in this passage?

What is the form of God?
John 4:24 - "God is a spirit".

Where did Jesus come from?
John 6:38- "For I have come down from heaven."

If God is a spirit in Heaven, we can only assume that someone from Heaven would be in God's form. This would mean Jesus was a spirit but not God. If he was a God then the scripture would have said so, but it doesn't. Simple.

(I noticed you added an 'a' in your post. Many translations don't put an 'a' in the scripture.)

Philippians 2:6 is certainly translated many different ways. One can certainly tell the trinity biased translations. Some add words not in the Greek Text at all.
http://biblehub.com/philippians/2-6.htm

[dio9]

[Replying to steveb1]

it makes more sense to me that Jesus the man would empty himself so as to be filled with God. Question for me is, what is it that Jesus the man would empty himself of.

If we say God emptied himself, what did God emptying himself of, God? This couldn't be a complete emptying of God into the man Jesus.

It is only reasonable that Jesus created the empty space within himself making space for God to fill up. And in this way it follows any one of us can theoretically make space for God in us too.

[steveb1]

[Replying to post 4 by Checkpoint]

"How can it be read non-pre-existently?"

...by reading in the present tense, not retrojecting it to a pre-human time of heavenly existence.

E.g., switch the Buddha for Jesus. It could be said that Buddha, unlike egoic beings, did not grasp at ultimate Enlightenment (Mahaparinirvana), but emptied himself by living out his biological life in his suffering earthly body (thus functioning as a Bodhisattva).

Similarly it could be said that the non-preexistent, human Jesus - although he had received the Spirit ("Enlightenment") at his baptism, and existed as "one with the Father" - did not grasp at having been designated "the Son" - did not keep his Sonship to himself alone - and retreat from life, but rather resisted the temptation and continued on in the form of a servant, even unto death.

If Pauline or even general NT "Sonship" means "in the form of God" as a state of divine union, then that union could apply equally to a pre-existent heavenly figure, as to a righteous Jew "adopted" by God.

The commonality in both is that ultimate "state of grace" which is inherent in unimpeded union with God, and it can be applied to a pre-existent Son, and to a human being made Son at baptism. (However, there is something about Philippians 2:7-8 which strongly pushes me in the direction of a pre-existence christology.)