The "emptying" of Christ (Phil 2)

Status
Not open for further replies.
O

OrthodoxBerean

Guest
Is there an official stance on the nature of the “emptying” of Christ in Phillipians 2:5-8

“For let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men, and in habit found as a man. He humbled himself, becoming obedient unto death, even to the death of the cross.”

Is the nature of the emptying of Christ that he decided that when he took on a human nature to not utilize certain or all of his divine attributes or does it simply mean that Christ emptied himself by simply adding a human nature to his person yet while still utilizing all of his divine attributes simutaneously? Or is it something else?
 
40.png
DominvsVobiscvm:
I think its both.
Hmmm, it would be impossible to be both. Since one is a universal and the other is a negation of the universal.

Maybe I should try to clarify it a bit more.

The first option suggest that while the divine person was incarnate he did not completly function as God, even the he ontologically remained God. While it is not said that his divinity was taken away it is suggested that he did not utilize his divine attributes in some sense either completely or partially.

The second option says that this view above is not accurate and that Christ continued to utilize his divine attribues while at the same time lived under the confines of the human nature and the this “emptying” simply speaks to the fact that he added to his person a human nature.
 
Oh, okay.

In that case, I would say the second.

Even as a human, Jesus still remained in posession of all his divine gifts and perrogatives. Sometimes, though, he did not use them. For example, he could have rained rie adn brimstone on the cities that dissed him, but he didn’t. He could have smmoned thousands of leagues of angels to come to his aid, but he didn’t.

On the other hand, his human nature did not actually impede him from doing anythiing. For example, when Jesus says “Of that Hour no man knows, not even the Son of Man . . .” the Fathers and Doctors of the Church tell us that he did, in fact, know the Hour, but was not commisioned to tell it. His ignorance was economic, not actual.

Make any sense???
 
40.png
DominvsVobiscvm:
Oh, okay.

In that case, I would say the second.

Even as a human, Jesus still remained in posession of all his divine gifts and perrogatives. Sometimes, though, he did not use them. For example, he could have rained rie adn brimstone on the cities that dissed him, but he didn’t. He could have smmoned thousands of leagues of angels to come to his aid, but he didn’t.

On the other hand, his human nature did not actually impede him from doing anythiing. For example, when Jesus says “Of that Hour no man knows, not even the Son of Man . . .” the Fathers and Doctors of the Church tell us that he did, in fact, know the Hour, but was not commisioned to tell it. His ignorance was economic, not actual.

Make any sense???
Yes, and thanks for the response.

There are some divine attributes that are essential, such as, omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresense, ect. Do you believe that while he was on earth he utilized these as well simultaneously? For example, do you believe that while he was walking on earth utilizing his human nature that at the same time he could have been thousands of miles away since he is omnipresent? This would be a case in which he would be utilizing both natures simultaneously. Is this how it was or did Jesus give up “the right” to be omnipresent while on earth making him only present where he would presently would have been at any given time? It seems from your last paragraph that you believe that he could. Is that a correct assesment?
 
There are some divine attributes that are essential, such as, omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresense, ect. Do you believe that while he was on earth he utilized these as well simultaneously? For example, do you believe that while he was walking on earth utilizing his human nature that at the same time he could have been thousands of miles away since he is omnipresent? This would be a case in which he would be utilizing both natures simultaneously. Is this how it was or did Jesus give up “the right” to be omnipresent while on earth making him only present where he would presently would have been at any given time? It seems from your last paragraph that you believe that he could. Is that a correct assesment?
Yes.

I recall attending a Byzantine Catholic liturgy some time ago, and hearing the priest chant a prayer, which mentioned the fact that, while Christ was incarnate upon this world, he was still sitting at the right hand of the Father in heaven.

The vast majority of the Church’s Fathers, Doctors, and Theologians believe that Christ has the Beatific vision while he was on earth. SO I suppose he was, in some sense, still Omniscient.
 
Ok, that is what I figured, but I was not sure. Thanks
 
I’ve changed my strategy of reviews forums (Miscellanous is my favorite) and I’m working on the oldest posts, as a change.

I like this thread. I think there’s something very important going on in Christ “emptying” Himself.

Jesus is always God and man, but as a man, He took on Himself 1) the sins of the world and 2) the wrath of God for those sins.

He suffered and died in our stead to atone for our sins. As Heb 12:2 puts it: For the sake of the joy that lay before him he endured the cross, despising its shame.

He took on our sins and our shame. I think that’s how He emptied Himself.
 
since God is all knowing and there are indications in the gospels of things Jesus did not know or will not know like, who touched me? or when the second coming will be. It is clear that he limited his divine attributes.
 
This is something to think about a good deal.
Perhaps it isn’t a matter of Christ exercising his divine attributes. Perhaps it was a matter of his becoming our servant, which is quite the opposite of God’s role in creation. That would be why Christ washed the feet of the apostles, which as he said in John 13 he meant as a lesson for them.
And just by becoming a man too he took the form of a servant, that is, as a man. That seems to be what Saint Paul meant when he said that Christ took the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men. This seems to rely on the idea that men are meant to serve and glorify God, and just as he did the Father rather than himself. But these are only my incomplete thoughts, and I am sure that they can be put much better.
 
I think it is important, when considering this passage, to first read the passage in a fuller context. Paul wasn’t writing a Christology as his primary goal He was writing a letter to this Church and extoling them to live lives of humble service to each other and in doing this living according to the Will of God the Father. Christ Jesus is our example to follow because Christ Jesus as God Incarnate and having a full human nature live His life in obedience to the Will of the Father.

So again, this passage is more important as a guide for ourselves than as a Christological treaties.
 
Official Church Teachings on the “kenosis” are abundant: cf. the writings of the Fathers, Doctors, Popes and Councils in the Christological controversies of the 4th and 5th centuries (q.v. esp. the Tome of Leo).

Distilled simply: In the Incarnation, God the Son, the Second Person of the Trinity, emptied Himself, not of His Divinity, nor of any of the instrinsic attributes thereof, but merely of the extrinsic glory proper to the Divinity.
 
The Catechism of the Catholic Church mentions the self-emptying of Christ in paragraphs 472, 932, 1224, and 2103, dealing with His human knowledge, His submission to baptism, and His poverty, chastity, and obedience.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top