Created in their image.

[gdemoss]

I have been meditating on the fact that 'man' is created in the image of God as it is written, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: I have come to the conclusion that my view of man has been very skewed and in need of adjustment. I have spent time in discussion regarding the 'trinity' doctrine as well as discussions concerning man having 3 parts consisting of spirit, body and soul. I was led to meditate on the Genesis account of man being created in the image of God. I have come to some satisfying conclusions that explain much of what has been lacking in the doctrine of the trinity that was once explained to me as something that is a mystery that we cannot understand about God.

God is spirit. Man is physical temporal. One is crafted after the other. We must be careful not to craft the God after the man but the man after the God.

I was taught and believed that man consisted of three parts:

1. body
   
2. spirit
   
3. soul
   

As well as God was three parts:

1. Father
   
2. Son
   
3. Holy Spirit
   

These two lists by no means satisfies my questions about man being made in the image of God. Looking at the makeup of God again as each part has a specific function.

1. Father - Soul
   
2. Son - Word
   
3. Holy Spirit - Spirit
   

The difference in the lists has to do with the Son and the body. Although we understand that the Son was manifest and became the physical body in the temporal realm that God through the spirit preformed his work here, but that doesn't account for the 'body' of God in pre incarnate state.

Thinking in terms of trinity and three persons then one has to see man as one of two things:

1. Created in 3 parts, each part a representation of a member of the trinity
   
2. Created in the likeness of a person as each person of the trinity is a person
   

We know that Jesus and the Father had fellowship together before the foundation of the world. We know that they discussed things such as the making of man. We know that the spirit of God has always been present and working in all aspects of creation. We now that the heaven of heavens cannot contain God. We know that we live and move and have our being inside his being.

We were created in his 'image' but not in his 'form'. Jesus was in the form of God but left that estate to be changed into the form of a man. So our form and Gods form are different. This has to do with our body and not our makeup of person. Angels have a form too and Jesus took not on him the form of angels.

We also know that we were not made completely after the likeness of God in that we originally could not decide for ourselves what was good or evil but were dependent upon God for that. We were not faced with making moral judgments until after eating from the tree.

We know that although we were made in the image of God we do not possess the knowledge, understanding, wisdom or power of God, though we do possess knowledge, understanding, wisdom and power.

One thing that makes us seriously different from God is that we are bound inside of a body. He is not, except for the short period of time that Jesus, the Word of God, was here upon the earth and then only he was bound in a body and not God the Father nor the Holy Spirit. Since we are inside God then Jesus being placed in a body was basically the equivalent of God putting his word in a small confined area within his own being for 33 years only to release him from his prison to rule over all but the Father.

As I pondered these things within myself I began to see the mystery. Our flesh is not part of the equation of 3 to be considered in the creation of us in the image of God. Although man has a spirit and a soul in a body he is not his body. Man was created in the image of the invisible that has no body and is not bound, that does not end. Man was created inside of boundaries in a representation of that which has no boundaries. I present my understanding to be change to man having 3 parts:

1. Soul of man
   
2. Word of man
   
3. Spirit of man
   

People have often been considered crazy because they talk to themselves and even answer back yet the very God we were created after does this. Man can comfort himself through both word and thought. Man can beat himself up. Man can interact with himself and others through his word. A mans word lacks the power of Gods word. If a man is in the dark and says let there be light, nothing happens, but with God, those things that are not are then called into existence. Which brings us to our next point. The spirit which is the workhorse of the trio.

The Holy Spirit of God hovered over the waters during creation. Jesus breathed on the disciples and said receive the Holy Spirit. A mighty rushing wind came when the Holy Spirit was poured out on Pentecost. The word spirit comes from the word pnema meaning breath or air. Satan is known as the prince of the power of the air. I suggest that although our atmosphere is not made up completely of spirits, they are in fact a part of it. The wind blows where it will and you hear the sound thereof.

Scripture tells us that no man speaking by the Holy Spirit can call Jesus accursed. That holy men of old were moved as they spake by the Holy Spirit. That some spirits have been lying tongues in the mouths of prophets. That the spirits of the prophets are subject unto the prophets. That the Holy Spirit gives men utterance. We have our own spirit that goes back to God when we expire. That devils answered Jesus from within the ones they possessed when he talked to them.

We are created in the image of God. We are soul, word and spirit. Our body is our binding that holds us together. We were corrupted when our word was influenced by Satan and our spirits became evil. Salvation is knowing God the Father and Jesus Christ whom he has sent because the knowledge of them is our hope of being like them and having the ability to fellowship and be one with them through the Word of God and the Spirit of God that can be inside of us. We eat the word of God and drink in his spirit.

So next time you are talking to yourself and someone says your crazy, just tell them you are just as crazy as the one who created you that not only talks to himself but has the power to cause his Word to actually become flesh and talk to us. Coincidentally, this makes more sense of the Pharisee who prayed unto himself or even Jesus praying unto the Father. Really no difference between the two.

Sometimes I feel like three persons in one. Sometimes they have been completely divided amongst themselves and other times united. I would say 'a part of me thinks this' and 'a part of me thinks that'. I have argued with myself.

This explanation gives reason for verses where Jesus has said that the Son of man is in heaven while he was yet standing here as well as those that say that we have been made to sit in heavenly places in Christ. To me it makes sense why one being, God, would seem to have 3 independently functioning parts but still be together as one. If we live and move inside of his being, then the Holy Spirit and Jesus are always inside of God as well.

In secular society psychology has come up with many explanations for things and one that I see in this that I have discussed here is the theory of the inner child. Our word who is our own personal son as the Father to the Son. There is nothing new under the sun.

Now for a good test. I will hit the post new topic button and let my words be analyzed by other souls for truth and see what questions or comments come of them. Let us each 'reason' within our selves...with who?

Food for thought.

Gary

[gdemoss]

Hi, Gary,

Are you "over-thinking" it?

Scripture tells us that the image of God included righteousness, holiness and knowledge of him (Eph 4:24; Col 3:10).

This is what was ruined in the Fall, and to what we are restored as a new creation in Christ (2Co 5:17).

Cordially,

Eleanor

Eleanor,

Thank you for you inquiry. To ask whether I be 'over-thinking' it is to imply that it is much simpler than I am seeking to understand? This is how I perceive what you have said. I completely understand and agree with your thoughts here concerning the loss of righteousness and holiness as being a part of the 'image' of God that we suffered loss of in the fall. That is about us in dealing with the 'image' of God as a moral agent. I was proposing the 'image' of us in make up. How it is that we are like God. What he has revealed to us about him through us as Romans 1 speaks of when it says, "Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them." What I have been seeing is more of a 'how' we work thing and what I have seen so far has really helped me to understanding what is necessary to restoring the complete image of God in me. My understanding of what separates man from God is that man became 'like' God in being able to make moral judgments and when mans judgment conflicts with Gods righteous moral judgment then man is pitted against God instead of aligned with him in perfect fellowship. With knowledge of this I seek to know God and his righteous moral standard that I may indeed be one with him in this aspect of my being. I consider knowledge of how 'humans' work in light of what the scriptures teach an important tool in the battle against the works of darkness.

There are many things that I don't know that it is entirely possible that God may reveal unto me as I grow in my walk with him as my Father, Jesus as my Lord and the Spirit of Holiness as my guide. Most of which will be foolishness to those he does not reveal things too. One cannot have true understanding of anything outside of God the Father sending the spirit of understanding upon a man to reveal that which he wants him to know for his own purpose. The same with knowledge, wisdom, fear of the Lord, power and counsel. To me this is why fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge. A mighty respect for who we are dealing with is a catalyst unto holiness.

In Christ,

Gary

[gdemoss]

Hi, Gary,

Are you "over-thinking" it?

Scripture tells us that the image of God included righteousness, holiness and knowledge of him (Eph 4:24; Col 3:10).

This is what was ruined in the Fall, and to what we are restored as a new creation in Christ (2Co 5:17).

Cordially,

Eleanor

Eleanor,

Thank you for you inquiry. To ask whether I be 'over-thinking' it is to imply that it is much simpler than I am seeking to understand? This is how I perceive what you have said. I completely understand and agree with your thoughts here concerning the loss of righteousness and holiness as being a part of the 'image' of God that we suffered loss of in the fall. That is about us in dealing with the 'image' of God as a moral agent. I was proposing the 'image' of us in make up. How it is that we are like God. What he has revealed to us about him through us as Romans 1 speaks of when it says, "Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them." What I have been seeing is more of a 'how' we work thing and what I have seen so far has really helped me to understanding what is necessary to restoring the complete image of God in me. My understanding of what separates man from God is that man became 'like' God in being able to make moral judgments and when mans judgment conflicts with Gods righteous moral judgment then man is pitted against God instead of aligned with him in perfect fellowship. With knowledge of this I seek to know God and his righteous moral standard that I may indeed be one with him in this aspect of my being. I consider knowledge of how 'humans' work in light of what the scriptures teach an important tool in the battle against the works of darkness.

There are many things that I don't know that it is entirely possible that God may reveal unto me as I grow in my walk with him as my Father, Jesus as my Lord and the Spirit of Holiness as my guide. Most of which will be foolishness to those he does not reveal things too. One cannot have true understanding of anything outside of God the Father sending the spirit of understanding upon a man to reveal that which he wants him to know for his own purpose. The same with knowledge, wisdom, fear of the Lord, power and counsel. To me this is why fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge. A mighty respect for who we are dealing with is a catalyst unto holiness.

In Christ,

Gary

Well, I try to make things easy on myself.

I've finally gotten the number of my brain cells down to a manageable size.

If Scripture doesn't speak to it, I don't "worry my pretty little head about it."

Only our spiritual image of God is dealt with in Scripture.

And for me, where Scripture makes an end to teaching, I must make an end to learning.

Because to pass muster with me, revelation and interpretation must be authoritative.

In the faith,

Eleanor

Only our spiritual image of God is dealt with in scripture. Absolutely. God doesn't have a physical image so to speak. He is invisible. Our problem tends to be that we can't get away from thinking of things in a carnal sense to see that which is truly spiritual. Man has to completely divorce himself from his physical tabernacle if there be any hope of understanding what he is.

Absolutely. Revelation and interpretation must be authoritative. And all revelation and interpretations authority is rooted in the inner witness of the Holy Spirit correct? Since the bible clearly says things which are opposite each other the only clear understanding of the truth presented must come from God through his Holy Spirit, right? Once, before I had any dealings with the Holy Spirit directly I was taught solely of man, who may or may not have been led of the Spirit, but a day came when I began to hear the Spirit speak within me and begin to correct my understanding of the scriptures via revelation. My authority rests in the foundation of what is presented in scripture and expounded upon by that which indwells me. Whether I am correct in my conclusions is based upon my ability to be able to hear and understand him who is within me. And he has clearly explained to me that I do not always do so and encourages me to dialog with others that he might use such conversations to guide me toward the definite reality of truth. He has brought me into direct contact with those who are in different forms of error and taught me the underlying principles of their error that I might better understand truth. This spirit has never led me to commit any sin and only seeks to conform me into the image of Christ as he is revealed to me in truth. My source of authority began as the bible alone and my understanding of it. Today it is the bible as the Word of God to be understood as the Spirit reveals the truth of it.

Thanks for your reply and revelation of yourself to me.

Gary

[Reformed-cross]

Hi, Gary,

Are you "over-thinking" it?

Scripture tells us that the image of God included righteousness, holiness and knowledge of him (Eph 4:24; Col 3:10).

This is what was ruined in the Fall, and to what we are restored as a new creation in Christ (2Co 5:17).

Cordially,

Eleanor

Eleanor,

Thank you for you inquiry. To ask whether I be 'over-thinking' it is to imply that it is much simpler than I am seeking to understand? This is how I perceive what you have said. I completely understand and agree with your thoughts here concerning the loss of righteousness and holiness as being a part of the 'image' of God that we suffered loss of in the fall. That is about us in dealing with the 'image' of God as a moral agent. I was proposing the 'image' of us in make up. How it is that we are like God. What he has revealed to us about him through us as Romans 1 speaks of when it says, "Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them." What I have been seeing is more of a 'how' we work thing and what I have seen so far has really helped me to understanding what is necessary to restoring the complete image of God in me. My understanding of what separates man from God is that man became 'like' God in being able to make moral judgments and when mans judgment conflicts with Gods righteous moral judgment then man is pitted against God instead of aligned with him in perfect fellowship. With knowledge of this I seek to know God and his righteous moral standard that I may indeed be one with him in this aspect of my being. I consider knowledge of how 'humans' work in light of what the scriptures teach an important tool in the battle against the works of darkness.

There are many things that I don't know that it is entirely possible that God may reveal unto me as I grow in my walk with him as my Father, Jesus as my Lord and the Spirit of Holiness as my guide. Most of which will be foolishness to those he does not reveal things too. One cannot have true understanding of anything outside of God the Father sending the spirit of understanding upon a man to reveal that which he wants him to know for his own purpose. The same with knowledge, wisdom, fear of the Lord, power and counsel. To me this is why fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge. A mighty respect for who we are dealing with is a catalyst unto holiness.

In Christ,

Gary

Well, I try to make things easy on myself.

I've finally gotten the number of my brain cells down to a manageable size.

If Scripture doesn't speak to it, I don't "worry my pretty little head about it."

Only our spiritual image of God is dealt with in Scripture.

And for me, where Scripture makes an end to teaching, I must make an end to learning.

Because to pass muster with me, revelation and interpretation must be authoritative.

In the faith,

Eleanor

Only our spiritual image of God is dealt with in scripture. Absolutely. God doesn't have a physical image so to speak. He is invisible. Our problem tends to be that we can't get away from thinking of things in a carnal sense to see that which is truly spiritual. Man has to completely divorce himself from his physical tabernacle if there be any hope of understanding what he is.

Absolutely. Revelation and interpretation must be authoritative. And all revelation and interpretations authority is rooted in the inner witness of the Holy Spirit correct? Since the bible clearly says things which are opposite each other the only clear understanding of the truth presented must come from God through his Holy Spirit, right? Once, before I had any dealings with the Holy Spirit directly I was taught solely of man, who may or may not have been led of the Spirit, but a day came when I began to hear the Spirit speak within me and begin to correct my understanding of the scriptures via revelation. My authority rests in the foundation of what is presented in scripture and expounded upon by that which indwells me. Whether I am correct in my conclusions is based upon my ability to be able to hear and understand him who is within me. And he has clearly explained to me that I do not always do so and encourages me to dialog with others that he might use such conversations to guide me toward the definite reality of truth. He has brought me into direct contact with those who are in different forms of error and taught me the underlying principles of their error that I might better understand truth. This spirit has never led me to commit any sin and only seeks to conform me into the image of Christ as he is revealed to me in truth. My source of authority began as the bible alone and my understanding of it. Today it is the bible as the Word of God to be understood as the Spirit reveals the truth of it.

Thanks for your reply and revelation of yourself to me.

Gary

Hello gdemoss:

Fun questions and good for the heart and mind to think and ponder.

A couple of things.

In regards to "form" and"image". The greek text speaks about Christ's condescension in the term of 'morphe' where he is in the morphe tou theou 'form of God' to the morphen doulou 'form of a servant'. In regards to understanding Christ in his two natures, when Christ empties himself (kenosis) it is not a divesting himself of either Godhood or manhood, but it appears to be more in terms of condescension such as when a king would dress as a commoner; though the clothing depicts a low rank in society his person is nevertheless unchanged from any appearance of 'ourward form'.

You make a differentiation between form and image, which are two different greek words. 1 morphe =form used in Philip 2:6; 2 charakter = image used in Hebrews 1:3. Though you make a differentiation, which I agree with in part, when consulting the hebrew word for image=tselem is much closer to form than character. But I believe the sacred authors are intending to say contexually two different things. Paul is speaking about condescension and therefore reveals the 'morph-ing' Christ from God to servant; the writer of Hebrews speaks of Christ as an 'exact stamping' or an exact carving in terms of the person of God the Son representing God the Father; which by the way is a mind-blowing revelation of the person of the Father.

So in regards to man being made in the 'image of God' Ill quote John Gill

Genesis 1:27 So God created man in his own image,.... Which consisted both in the form of his body, and the erect stature of it, different from all other creatures; in agreement with the idea of that body, prepared in covenant for the Son of God, and which it was therein agreed he should assume in the fulness of time; and in the immortality of his soul, and in his intellectual powers, and in that purity, holiness, and righteousness in which he was created; as well as in his dominion, power, and authority over the creatures, in which he was as God's viceregent, and resembled him.

I believe the above quote captures what I believe to be a very concise explanation and exactly what I believe. Our creation in the image of God represent both form in body (because Christ will be future incarnate) and in spirit because our character is to represent God on the earth spiritually, morally, ethically.

In regards to the Trinity and the trichotomy of man it may be that you are on the right track and maybe not. I havent thought what youve said through enough to yea or nay it.

Here's what I do understand.

The Trinity can be looked at analogously by looking at various things that are created ( and this is where we run into deep trouble) to arrive at a simlitude or a representation of God from them.

Such as water=steam, water, ice or the egg=yoke,white,shell and other such things. They loosely show that 3 can be one. But all created things fail if pressed to far.

Why? Because God is uncreated, without beginning person. He is qualitatively infinitely beyond us as well as quantitatively infinitely beyond us. Because of the nature of God and the nature of man, analogies when pressed to hard always fail to pass the test.

Paul in his most concise explanation of the indwelling Godhead says... Gr. (hoti en autōi katoikei pān to plērōma tēs theotētos sōmatikōs).

Please allow Robertson from Robertsons word pictures bring this explanation.

Colossians 2:9

For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily (hoti en autōi katoikei pān to plērōma tēs theotētos sōmatikōs). In this sentence, given as the reason (hoti, because) for the preceding claim for Christ as the measure of human knowledge Paul states the heart of his message about the Person of Christ. There dwells (at home) in Christ not one or more aspects of the Godhead (the very essence of God, from theos, deitas) and not to be confused with theiotes in Rom_1:20 (from theios, the quality of God, divinitas), here only in N.T. as theiotēs only in Rom_1:20. The distinction is observed in Lucian and Plutarch. Theiotēs occurs in the papyri and inscriptions. Paul here asserts that “all the plērōma of the Godhead,” not just certain aspects, dwells in Christ and in bodily form (sōmatikōs, late and rare adverb, in Plutarch, inscription, here only in N.T.), dwells now in Christ in his glorified humanity (Phi_2:9-11), “the body of his glory” (tōi sōmati tēs doxēs). The fulness of the God-head was in Christ before the Incarnation (Joh_1:1, Joh_1:18; Phi_2:6), during the Incarnation (Joh_1:14, Joh_1:18; 1Jo_1:1-3). It was the Son of God who came in the likeness of men (Phi_2:7). Paul here disposes of the Docetic theory that Jesus had no human body as well as the Cerinthian separation between the man Jesus and the aeon Christ. He asserts plainly the deity and the humanity of Jesus Christ in corporeal form.

What interested me was the statement "not just one or more aspects of the Godhead" but the "fullness"=pleroma of God dwelt in Christ bodily.

In effect the greatest manifestation of the Trinity is Christ (when rightly understood) and not as has been done from the other Christological errors.

Lastly, not all believe in a trichotomy of man, many believe in a dichotomy (soul and body), the spirit being a part of the soul. But thats another thread.

I think its tremendous to open up things like this to scrutiny, examination, thinking and questions. Bare dismissal of 'deep things' will leave the deep things for the ungodly and the cultists to twist and deform for their own ungodly and corrupt agenda.

Bravo Gary.

R.E.

Edited March 21, 2012 by Reformed Evangelist

[jasoncran]

ok. let me chime in since i saw something on this when i did channukah and what the menorah means to the jews of today and then as the sages talked alot on this idea. the menorah symbolises both man and the messiah. the menorah has seven attributes to it that men are represented . it also represents the messiah and man in one person.

[gdemoss]

In regards to "form" and"image". The greek text speaks about Christ's condescension in the term of 'morphe' where he is in the morphe tou theou 'form of God' to the morphen doulou 'form of a servant'. In regards to understanding Christ in his two natures, when Christ empties himself (kenosis) it is not a divesting himself of either Godhood or manhood, but it appears to be more in terms of condescension such as when a king would dress as a commoner; though the clothing depicts a low rank in society his person is nevertheless unchanged from any appearance of 'ourward form'.

Your response was rather elaborate, thank you. This portion is all I have had time to go back to study.

morphe when used 3 times in the new testament and several more in the LXX seem to reference change in the visual appearance of something but context appears to make it something more in Philippians due to the rest of the verse in question "thought it not robbery to be equal with God". There is much debate as to the meaning of this text. And it is nonsensical to say that it is affirming that he was equal with God due to the use of the terms 'thought it not robbery'. I cannot see it as anything other than his lack of desire to attain unto the fathers place or position. Which is supported by other scriptures that speak to the subordination of Jesus to the Father.

The real key to this passage is found in the ἐκένωσεν or emptying. You say that it is not a divesting himself of Godhood, which I understand to mean an emptying of his divine power. But I look at the use of the term as it is applied else where and must disagree.

Rom 4:14 For if they which are of the law [be] heirs, faith is made void2758 , and the promise made of none effect :

Faith made void -

1Cr 1:17 For Christ sent me not to baptize , but to preach the gospel : not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect2758 .

The cross being made of none effect

1Cr 9:15 But I have used none of these things: neither have I written these things, that it should be so done unto me: for [it were] better for me to die , than that any man should make2758 my glorying void2758 .

make Pauls glorying void.

2Cr 9:3 Yet have I sent the brethren, lest our boasting of you should be in vain2758 in this behalf; that, as I said , ye may be ready :

boasting having been in vain

Phl 2:7 But made2758 himself of no reputation2758 , and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:

Twice it was used in the LXX in Jeremiah for אָמַל which speaks of weakness, exhaustion or to grow feeble.

But here we wish to say it only means he took off his kingly robe and put on sack cloth and ashes? I can't see that in this. His divestment left him void of his godly divine power and ability that he had when he was in the form of God.

The use of the term demands the emphasis of vanity or emptiness and when applied to the idea that Jesus the Son of God only acquired a human body but remained a powerful God if fails to do so.

Moreover, it is impossible for someone who has all divine power to receive yet more power. Jesus received power upon his baptism of the Holy Spirit according to the book of acts. As well as he never displayed any act of power before then. The scripture declares openly that Jesus grew in wisdom. This is something that God cannot do unless there was a divesting of wisdom to say the least as he was only wise.

Although your explanations sound good, they are wanting against the evidence that is contrary to Jesus maintaining his divine powers through the incarnation. Rather it suggests that after 30 years of perfect living as a mere man, God the Father openly declared him as his Son, gave him the Holy Spirit and power, and from that time forth unto the cross he was indwelt by the fullness of the Godhead or divinity bodily. Which would leave room for explanation of his crying out to God the Father for forsaking him upon the tree as it is entirely possible and plausible that the Holy Spirit left him to die alone there as a mere man. God cannot die.

Some thoughts as I meditate on what has been said,

Gary

[other one]

Did not John see God and the son at his right hand during Christs Revelation to him.

[He giveth more grace]

Did not John see God and the son at his right hand during Christs Revelation to him.

That was Stephen, 'other one'.

I am interested in this topic, though I am uneducated in this realm. just something that keeps going through my mind, "Let us make...". I do believe that in the likeness of the triparteness of God is how we are, Spirit, Soul, and body, in that order of significance. I am sorry that my limited learning and understanding disqualifies me from really becoming a active participant in this thread.

[gdemoss]

Did not John see God and the son at his right hand during Christs Revelation to him.

Yes. As well as Revelation saying that both God the Father and Jesus his Son are to be manifest present in the new earth.

Amazing huh?

Gary

[Reformed-cross]

In regards to "form" and"image". The greek text speaks about Christ's condescension in the term of 'morphe' where he is in the morphe tou theou 'form of God' to the morphen doulou 'form of a servant'. In regards to understanding Christ in his two natures, when Christ empties himself (kenosis) it is not a divesting himself of either Godhood or manhood, but it appears to be more in terms of condescension such as when a king would dress as a commoner; though the clothing depicts a low rank in society his person is nevertheless unchanged from any appearance of 'ourward form'.

Your response was rather elaborate, thank you. This portion is all I have had time to go back to study.

morphe when used 3 times in the new testament and several more in the LXX seem to reference change in the visual appearance of something but context appears to make it something more in Philippians due to the rest of the verse in question "thought it not robbery to be equal with God". There is much debate as to the meaning of this text. And it is nonsensical to say that it is affirming that he was equal with God due to the use of the terms 'thought it not robbery'. I cannot see it as anything other than his lack of desire to attain unto the fathers place or position. Which is supported by other scriptures that speak to the subordination of Jesus to the Father.

The real key to this passage is found in the ἐκένωσεν or emptying. You say that it is not a divesting himself of Godhood, which I understand to mean an emptying of his divine power. But I look at the use of the term as it is applied else where and must disagree.

Rom 4:14 For if they which are of the law [be] heirs, faith is made void2758 , and the promise made of none effect :

Faith made void -

1Cr 1:17 For Christ sent me not to baptize , but to preach the gospel : not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect2758 .

The cross being made of none effect

1Cr 9:15 But I have used none of these things: neither have I written these things, that it should be so done unto me: for [it were] better for me to die , than that any man should make2758 my glorying void2758 .

make Pauls glorying void.

2Cr 9:3 Yet have I sent the brethren, lest our boasting of you should be in vain2758 in this behalf; that, as I said , ye may be ready :

boasting having been in vain

Phl 2:7 But made2758 himself of no reputation2758 , and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:

Twice it was used in the LXX in Jeremiah for אָמַל which speaks of weakness, exhaustion or to grow feeble.

But here we wish to say it only means he took off his kingly robe and put on sack cloth and ashes? I can't see that in this. His divestment left him void of his godly divine power and ability that he had when he was in the form of God.

The use of the term demands the emphasis of vanity or emptiness and when applied to the idea that Jesus the Son of God only acquired a human body but remained a powerful God if fails to do so.

Moreover, it is impossible for someone who has all divine power to receive yet more power. Jesus received power upon his baptism of the Holy Spirit according to the book of acts. As well as he never displayed any act of power before then. The scripture declares openly that Jesus grew in wisdom. This is something that God cannot do unless there was a divesting of wisdom to say the least as he was only wise.

Although your explanations sound good, they are wanting against the evidence that is contrary to Jesus maintaining his divine powers through the incarnation. Rather it suggests that after 30 years of perfect living as a mere man, God the Father openly declared him as his Son, gave him the Holy Spirit and power, and from that time forth unto the cross he was indwelt by the fullness of the Godhead or divinity bodily. Which would leave room for explanation of his crying out to God the Father for forsaking him upon the tree as it is entirely possible and plausible that the Holy Spirit left him to die alone there as a mere man. God cannot die.

Some thoughts as I meditate on what has been said,

Gary

Hello: I said earlier to you in another post that I believe in the hypstatic union without the kenosis theory.

The reason is because you have to interpret the scripture as telling you that God "changed" to a lesser being. To divest himself or to empty himself cannot mean that God is now only 70% God or something lesser. God is unchangeable and you can concordance that if you want. Therefore in light of clear texts, we interpret more vague texts with that boundry.

Secondly, being filled with the Sprit is in regards to his humanity not his divinity. If Christ 'received' a filling of the Holy Spirit and yet "has the fullness of the Godhead bodily" we must modify our interpretation from how sinful, non-divine men understand it to improve them. Meaning that in respect to his humanity Jesus was filled with the Sprit, but in regards to his divinity, he need not be filled with the Spirit since Christ has the Spirit without measure. In short, Kenosis works only if you do not believe in the orthodox hypostatic union, or if you do not understand that to divest Christ of any measure of divinity ( even if its with sophisticated argument) you do not have a Christ of scripture but a kind of demi-god.

Its because of those clear texts that declare his unchangeableness as God, Pauls use of emptying into a form of 'lesser' God-ness will not stand the test of critical analysis. As I said, to believe contrary to the hypostatic union as I gave you in the chalcedon creed puts you into difficulties with other scripture texts, then of course you must also modify those and so goes the downward movement towards error.

The Philippians text is telling us that Christ didnt have to 'grab on to equality with God' as though he was stealing a prize. In fact just the opposite, its because he is fully divine and unchangeable that his emptying himself reveals a condescension to our level in the form of his humanity, not the lessening of his divinity. When interpreted this way, it eliminates the error of kenosis theory and I believe rightly explains what emptying was meant to convey. Christ is and will always be entirely human and is and will always be perfectly God.

If you think for a moment, you will find this paradox in numerous places through out the scripture and its wonderful to see. But, if you tamper with the greek text and morph it into a proof of something that Christ is not or did not do, in the end you lose all the other wonderful examples of condescension and paradox.

R.E.