Christ 'emptied Himself'..... He did?

I believe Charles Wesley here was alluding to Christ leaving the abode of glory and majesty He shared with His Father before the world began, only to come to wicked earth and take on the lowly form of man with all his limitations (i.e. hunger, thirst, pain, fatique). He took off His robes of unapproachable, eternal light and dressed himself in stinky earthen fabrics and sandals of an ancient Palestinian custom and condescended to take the form of a sorrowful servant - obedient even unto the death of a cross. What He retained, however, throughout all this emptying was one thing: His Heavenly, divine love. I believe this was the one thing He permitted Himself to take from the realms of glory to the fallen sons and daughters of Adam.

Never had the world seen true agape love manifest, until that which was shown through Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

My understanding would be that he is referring to the scripture in Philippians 2: 5-7

Christ did not consider it 'robbery' to be equal with God. The word 'robbery' in the original denotes 'something to be held onto'. But He made himself of no reputation (lit: 'emptied himself of His privilages'), taking the form of a bond servant and coming in the likeness of men.

So although Jesus Christ was God in the flesh, He willingly emptied or let go of His deity in all practical ways of living and lived as a man, submitted to God the Father.

This is a great truth. Christ had to come as the last Adam (second man) in order to redeem man from the curse. Jesus walk as the perfect man dependent upon the holy Spirit and the word of His Father every day.

My wife and I were discussing this just last night as we were reading Galatians 6 about walking in the Spirit. I believe that Jesus was the only one who walked perfectly and continuously in the Spirit while he was on earth. We are called as beleivers to also walk in the Spirit and Jesus is our example of how we can do this. He spent time in prayer alone with His Father God. He only said and did what His Father told Him. He did not yeild to the pressure to be diplomatic or politically correct etc, etc... there is so much more I'm sure.

I think I'm concerned by the implication that Christ was less than wholly God, when He died.

Technically, we could say he was Holy Spirit "empty" until after His baptism in the Jordan, when the Holy Spirit manifested and descended upon Him like a Dove. Note, here I am using "empty" in a poetic sense; also, when His Father forsook Him literally on the cross it could be said He was [i]empty of the Father[/i] at this juncture in time - empty of all but love - just as heaven was "emptied" of Him when he left the Hosts above to come to earth. In this respect, there are lots of ways to interpret poetically what Wesley is conveying in this particular hymn.

But as to Christ actually "emptying" Himself of His deity - I'm sure is not what is being implied contextually nor theologically, although I'll bet a Jehovah's Witness or some other Arianist could easily twist it to mean such! :)

Php 2:5-11
(5) Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
(6) Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
(7) But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
(8) And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
(9) Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:
(10) That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;
(11) And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

I like the way George Ricker Berry translates the word harpagmos. He uses the word rapine. This agrees more closely with Strongs definition as well. Robbery, Rape, Rapine, are terms that are indicative of taking something that does not rightfully belong to you. Jesus did not esteem it taking something that was not already his to be equal with God, but emptied Himself of it. He knew full well that He was equal with God. He often stated the fact unabashedly as a simple fact. But He emptied Himself of all divine ability and became as we are.

Jesus own commentary on this...

John 5:19: Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.

John 14:10: Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.

Jesus operated on earth as a man filled with the Holy Spirit and all that He did He did by the power of the Holy Spirit, not by the inherent power as God that He had rightful claim to. He had emptied Himself of that.

Acts 10:37-38 That word, I say, ye know, which was published throughout all Judaea, and began from Galilee, after the baptism which John preached; (38) How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him.

That is why Jesus could make this statement recorded by John:

John 14:12-14 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.
(13) And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. (14) If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it.

Jesus became man for the suffering of death. He poured out the same Holy Spirit of God on us.

Travis

Alive-to-God wrote:

I do know Paul uses the word 'emptied', but I don't think the context means that Christ was any less God, or that His humility was a merely human characteristic. I think that is the whole of Paul's point: that Christ, being God, was genuinely humble, and we should understand therefore we are to BE humble, like Him. (See Phil 2:1, 2, 3, 4, 5.)

Hey Linn: I don't think the context means that Christ was any less than God either. He did not think it taking what was not His to be equal with God. He was absolutely God incarnate. However, I don't believe His miracles etc. were done as "God in an earth suit", but as man operating in the anointing of the Holy Spirit, and intentionally so.

Allow an example. God is omniscient. The woman with the issue of blood touched the hem of Christ's garment and He was aware that virtue had gone out of Him, but did not know who had touched Him. His question, "Who touched me?" was not rhetorical, but rather an honest human question. Peter experienced a similar thing in His ministry as His shadow passing over people affected healing in their body through their faith and the power of the Holy Spirit resident in him.

I am not saying that Jesus gave up His rightful claim to divinity. He emptied Himself of the supernatural ability that divinity carried while on earth as a man. Had He done any less He could not have served as my substitute.

For example, Jesus was in all ways tempted like as to me, yet without sin. However we read in scripture also that God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth He any man. First of all this is an obvious contradiction unless we understand the extent to which Christ emptied Himself. Second, if He retains His divine ability, His temptation and ability to succour us in Hebrews 8 and Hebrews 2 now become empty and meaningless. If it is impossible for me to be tempted, how can I understand and help you when you are tempted? Third, the sacrifice of Christ was effectual partly because it was in kind. Hebrews 2:14-16.

That humility is a God quality is true, but I don't think that is what Christ emptying Himself was all about.

Anyway, I appreciate the kind response brother. Berry's interlinear Bible was my first Bible of that kind, and I really like it. Not always so easy to sit down and read, but a wonderful study tool.

Travis

Hey Linn, I appreciate your comments. Let me try to clarify what I am saying. I am not totally sure we are not in agreement on some points, but using different language. There may be some other areas that I am not sure I can agree with you in how I see it.

So, to my question: how can these two statements be compatible? Quote: He emptied Himself of the supernatural ability that divinity carried while on earth as a man. and Quote: He was absolutely God incarnate. I know you wrote these in the reverse order, but, both cannot be true, can they?

Sure. I don't see any reason they cannot both be true. Jesus did not give up His divinity. He merely emptied Himself of divine ability and relied on the Holy Spirit just as you and I must.

I believe your example brings out that as a Man, Christ was limited to the extent of what His Father had or had not revealed to Him (as any other prophet was, and even as He was 'the Prophet'). eg 2 Kings 4:27b '... And the man of God said, Let her alone; for her soul [is] vexed within her: and the LORD hath hid [it] from me, and hath not told me.'

I thought about what you said here carefully. I would have to say yes, that is what I am saying, because that is what Jesus said. See John 5:19.

What Christ experienced, therefore, was the tug to His flesh, to sin. But, He did not lust to sin, so He could not be enticed. Therefore, He did no sin. That's the big difference between His humanity and ours.

There are three all encompassing areas of temptation that Christ endured that we all endure as well. They are the lust of the flesh, lust of the eyes, and the pride of life. 1 John 2:16. All three were embodied in the wilderness temptation. Lust of the flesh - stones to bread. Lust of the eyes - look at what you can have if you bow to me. Pride of life - look man, you are indestructable; God will take care of you, go ahead and throw yourself down. (prideful presumption).

Jesus was truly tempted by all three. Two embody lust (something of the mind as well as the flesh). But, in His spirit, He was perfect. I think you are absolutely right when you say He did not have the "lust to sin", because this desire to live in sin or to commit sin is not resident in Christ, nor is it resident in the born again spirit of any born again believer. We are, however, susceptible to the lust of the flesh, lust of the eyes, and the pride of life. It is when we learn to live and walk in the spirit that we have victory. Jesus walked in the spirit perfectly and had total victory.

I am not implying for a moment that Christ was not fully God and fully man at the same time. I am saying that, while incarnate, fully God was positional and still who He was in spirit, fully man was practical and necessary for true atonement to take place. He emptied Himself of divine ability and took on Him the form of man.

Actually, I don't think a person could come up to a born again anointed saint, and touch their clothes, and expect to receive healing from them. This is not spoken of in the New Testament as the way for healing to be delivered either to saints or unbelievers. I believe she was healed because He was fully God. The account of His human consciousness catching up, does not alter that fact, I believe.

I have read of many instances of this happening, even in recent years. It is not that the person is some kind of "supernatural spiritual superman" with innate abilities, and it is not that the person being healed is putting faith in a man. But, when a man walks very close to God and is in a condition of continually being baptized in the Holy Ghost and fire, that man can carry on Him such a presence of God, such a power of the Holy Spirit that people recognize, "This man has been with Jesus" and reach out putting faith in God that they will be healed. I cannot heal. God working through me can, will, and does. I am simply the instrument through which God works. Hence the doctrine of laying on of hands applies in the work of healing as well as in ordination, etc. And...It happened to John, a man filled with the Holy Spirit.

Travis.

Quote: I cannot heal I think this is a false humility.

Deepthinker: No humility or false humility implied. It is not in my own inherent power that healing takes place. It is Christ in me and through me that affects healing. I can lay hands on the sick and they recover. Absolutely. I have seen it happen a number of times. I was just making the point that in my own self it cannot happen, but it is the Holy Spirit in me and through me.

I absolutely believe that we can, will, and should do greater things than Christ because we are operating in the power of the Holy Spirit. Jesus did not tell us to pray that God heal the sick. He told us to heal the sick. We do it through His power.

Travis.

Again I say, that to me, this statement does not make sense. Jesus was divine. His dead body was divine! If we do not receive the death of Christ, we cannot be raised with Him to walk in newness of life by the Holy Spirit. I do not believe He emptied Himself of any 'divine ability', and I have no idea how you can support that from scripture.

Linn:

God is inherently supernatural. He is divinely creative. He speaks, and things come into being. This ability is inherent. It is resident with Him because He is God. He relies on no one to give Him that ability. He is omniscient and omnipotent. The same was true with Christ before He came as a man, and the same is true of Him now, after He rose glorified.

Jesus did not rely on His own inherent and resident ability to do the miracles He did. He relied on the power of the Holy Spirit that He received at His baptism by John the Baptist.

He layed aside his own inherent and resident ability to work miracles, etc. and instead humbled Himself as a man and relied on His Father's power through the Holy Spirit to do everything He did.

I think that is the most simple and direct statement of what I am saying that I can come up with.

Does that help?

We may still not see it the same way. That is OK. From your reply I was still not sure you were understanding exactly what I was trying to say.

Travis.

Deepthinker:

Ahhh brother! I think I see what you were saying now. :lol:

You are not thwarting the thread. We are all just sitting around the table discussing the Word of God.

Travis.

This Topic is by no means saying that Jesus was NOT God while on Earth, but only concentrating on His humanity.

Jesus was God while here on Earth, however, He did not use any of His Godness (if you will) to overcome the world.
God defeated Sin, Death and Satan in Satan's own turf (this world), stripping Himself of His divine authority and taking on the form of a servant, a mere mortal man. God exposed Himself to all the elements, poverty, hunger and sufferings of this world.

Jesus beat Satan with both hands tied behind His back.
Jesus did not have any advantage over sin any more than we have right now.
Jesus did not use any of His "God powers" to overcome sin and the world; He only made use of His volition as all mankind has to not sin; He did not remain sinless by any slightest difference than any other man, He was the EXACT same as we are to day.

[b]Hebrews 2:16[/b] [color=660000]For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the nature of Abraham.
[b]:17[/b] Therefore in all things he had to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.
[b]:18[/b] For in that he himself has suffered being tempted, he is able to help them that are tempted.[/color]

What is the nature of Abraham?
Human, made of weak, dying flesh.
In [b]ALL[/b] things he had to be made like us as we are now.
If Jesus had any advantage over sin and the world any more than we have now, Jesus would not have been a perfect priest.

[b]Hebrews 4:15[/b] [color=660000]For we have not a high priest who cannot be touched with the feeling of our weaknesses; but was in all points tempted like we are, yet without sin.[/color]

The "[color=660000]yet without sin[/color]" does not mean that He was "born with out sin", but that He always chose not to sin as we should.

Jesus remained sinless not because He is God, but by loving His Father; which is exactly how we may not sin.

Jesus is our Standard.
Standards must be reachable/attainable in order for the standard to be fair & just.
IF remained sinless precisely because he was/is God, then that would be an unjust standard for us to be held to, because we are not god to not sin.

Jesus is our perfect example. Examples are to be imitated.
IF remained sinless precisely because he was/is God, then we can not imitate Him; for we aren't God.
Since we are not god to not sin, how are we supposed to imitate Him?

Alive-to-God wrote:

IF remained sinless precisely because he was/is God, then that would be an unjust standard for us to be held to, because we are not god to not sin.

You are forced to reason this way, to make sense of the scriptures you actually quote. But you do not admit [u]all[/u] scripture to your thinking, nor do you seem to understand that [b]God doesn't expect fallen man to be able to stop sinning[/b].

Furthermore, to justly command anything, there must be an ability to perform the command.

We call those who command impossibilities "unreasonable & unjust task masters" as Pharaoh was when He commanded the Children of Israel to make more bricks with out straw (Exodus 5).

Since we are not god to not sin, how are we supposed to imitate Him?

I realise I may not 'win' this argument, but I am far more comfortable attributing the full spectrum of qualities to God who made us also to experience those qualities, than entertaining the thought that to become Man, the Son of God lost some divine qualities in translation, or, had to lose some to be able to execute His mission successfully.

Linn: I don't think "winning" an argument is what it is about anyway. I appreciate your point of view and the discussion. Question to ponder: What if what we find in the Word makes us a little uncomfortable? Anyway, God bless you brother.

Travis

Alive-to-God wrote:
Hi Logic,
I explained that the cross and our part in it, makes all the difference to being able to not sin.

If we could not sin, we would not be guilty for sinning.

Our obligation which we have is to never sin.
Not sinning is our responcibility.
The fact that we were always able to not sin (but still chose to anyway) makes us all the more guilty before God.

God does expect all mankind to be able to stop sinning, because He commands all men every where to repent (Act 17:30).

I agree. But this (Acts) was written after the cross, when the terms of salvation had changed drastically, from those terms before the cross.

What difference does repentance make, under the New Covenant, which was impossible under the Old Covenant?

(Or, what does the cross have to do, with the power not to sin?)

If we were not forgiven, our not sinnning would be worth nothing to us nor to God because we would still be hell bound.

Alive-to-God wrote:

Not sinning was always possible, even in the old statement.

But, there was a great difference in the way God dealt with sin in the Old Testament, and the people who are justified by faith in the Old Testament were still looking ahead to the cross. Heb 11:39, 40.

However, The way God deals with Sin with His own people in the Old compared to the New Testament is that [color=660000]at many times and in various manners spoke in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, has in these last days spoken unto us by his Son[/color] (Heb 1:1-2)

Why?

All men are only condemned or justified by God in the New Testament for their rejection or accepting of Christ.
In the Old Testament They were only condemned or justified by God for their unbelief and disobedience or belief and obedience to HIM. (See Romans 1:18-20, 2:14, 15)
[b]Galatians 3:6[/b] [color=660000]Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.[/color]

And also for the non-Jews
[b]Jonah 3:5[/b] [color=660000]So the people of Nineveh believed God, and proclaimed a fast, and put on sackcloth, from the greatest of them even to the least of them.[/color]
Their fast was the proof of obedience. They neither looked ahead to the cross when they repented.

Before the flood they all believed in God for HE was evident to all since Adam would have been alive with them, or Adam would have been known for his fame of being the first man ever created.

The only way that the cross gives us so called "power" not to sin is that we know our continued obedience (responsibility) is worth something because we know that we are forgiven and our past sins do not cancel our obedience out.

This is not the message of the book of Hebrews (which presupposes a fair grasp of the Mosaic Law).

The Letter of Hebrews nor does the Mosaic Law does not tell us anything accordingly, nor does the Mosaic Law.

DeepThinker wrote:

Logic said:
How did Job not sin? There was no cross then.

I can understand where Alive is come from with this, I think.

When you look at how Davids sin with Bathsheba and how Uriah was murdered, one cannot help but wonder that grace was certainly bestowed upon this man and the woman. According to the law they were both to be stoned. But Nathan the prophet told David that the LORD had put away his sin, [b]where was the sacrifice?[/b]

[b]Psalm 51:17[/b] [color=660000]The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart, O God, you will not despise.[/color] Psalm 34:18, Isa 57:15, 66:2

Alive-to-God wrote:
Hello again brother Logic,

I do realize that because you deny original sin, the prophecies that Satan would be destroyed, which were fulfilled in Christ's victory over him on the cross, are of no interest to you.

Jesus made a way for us to be free from that bondage. Jesus destroyed the works of the devil (1 John 3:8), which means that they who choose to obey the Gospel (2 Thes 1:8, 1 Peter 4:17) are no longer in the devil's ranks to do his works.

As a result, you cannot begin to believe - let alone enjoy - the kind of victory over sin which Christ won for us.

Now that I am free from the bondage from sin that I sold myself into (because of repentance), and now because of the victory over sin which Christ won for us, I am free to serve Christ in the newness of spirit (Rom 6:4, 67:6)

Our 'obedience' without the cleansing of our souls from sin is worthless works,

The only way He could [i]forgive[/i] sin, was by looking ahead (in terms of 'time') to Calvary, which He had been doing since 'before' the foundation of the world.

Alive-to-God:
God doesn't expect fallen man [b]to be [u]able[/u] to stop sinning[/b].

You must prove that mankind was never [b]able[/b] to stop sinning.
Furthermore, you must prove the culpability of sin if sin is impossible to avoid.

Hi Travis, Quote: What if what we find in the Word makes us a little uncomfortable? Please do share the passages you have in mind.

Hey Linn!

I did not have particular passages in mind. I guess I was just thinking about what our reaction is to the word of God when we find ourselves pulled a little outside of our comfort zone by what God shows us.

John 6:48-67. Jesus said some things that were not understood totally by both the religious Jews and by a good number of His disciples. They called these things "hard" sayings and many disciples turned away from following Him as a result. I find it interesting that He never apologized for offending them and never said, "Hey wait, you misunderstood." Instead He turns to the remainder, His core followers, and says, "What about you? What is your reaction to these things going to be? Are you going to be offended as well?"

Just something to consider.

All mankind are able to stop sinning, but unless they are forgiven of their past, what is the benefit of repentance from sin since repentance with out forgiveness is vain? You must prove that mankind was never able to stop sinning. Furthermore, you must prove the culpability of sin if sin is impossible to avoid.

Good evening Logic:

I have read many posts in which you were discussing this topic and have been thinking about the discussion a little bit.

1 John 2:1 says, "My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:"

Truly it is not God's will that we sin. I think we all agree on that. The "these things write I unto you" follows a discussion of the definite sinful condition of all men before they were born again and the promise of God to forgive and cleanse from all unrighteousness. Yes, it is God's will that we sin not. I don't think anyone will disagree with you on that.

I don't think anyone would argue with the fact that, through the power of the indwelling Holy Spirit, we are given power and victory over sin.

It seems to me, as it probably does to most others, that you are saying that once we are born again, we can somehow reach a state of sinlessness. It seems that you are saying that this is achievable through great effort and exertion on our own part and that a Christian is able to reach a place in their walk with God where they never again commit any sin.

When I use the term fish, it can be either a noun or a verb, and can have variety of meaning as either. Noun, verb, and definition are contextual. Sin is a similar word. There are times when the term sin is used to refer to us missing the mark in one way or another. Other times it refers to the state of a lost man (dead in trespasses and sin).

Every one of us has been through some stuff. We have all grown by process. I one time battled with a sense of insecurity, and made a statement that I had never remembered a time when I really accepted myself and liked myself. A very Godly woman made this statement to me. "Until you recognize that thing as sin, confess it as such, and repent, you will not gain victory over it." What sin had I committed? I was speaking out of my mouth something contrary to the Word of God. God tells me in His word who I am. I was in direct contradiction to the word. It was not of faith. It was sin.

You see, most people would not perceive that thing as sin. They would say, " Brother, you just need healing from that thing." But that was not true. Until I received revelation, I was sinning. I was aware that my thoughts about who I was were not right, but God had to reveal to me that it was sin. I was a man of God, filled with the Holy Spirit, walking in a measure of the power and anointing of the same Holy Spirit. I had cast out demons and prayed for sick that were healed. I was being used as a teacher in the body. But, there were still areas in my life that were sin.

God is going to do that sort of thing in your life from now until you go home or Jesus returns. That is why we must rely on the grace of God. In Galatians Paul says, "As you have therefore received Christ, so walk ye in Him" How did you receive Christ? By grace, through faith. How are you going to continue your walk? By grace, through faith.

That is the point that I think most people are trying to make. No one is trying to say that Christians are hopelessly trapped in lives of sin and don't want to have a way out. They are trying to say that we will never reach a state of perfection where God no longer reveals areas in our life that are sin and deals with them. They are also saying what 1 John 2:1 says. If we miss the mark we have an advocate who Himself is the propitiation for that sin. No one is looking for excuses to miss it. We just recognize that we will occasionally either miss it, or have it revealed to us that we are missing it.

I once "proved" to a class of students that 1=2 through a clever algebraic proof. There was only one problem with the proof. It contained a one faulty operation masked by the use of variables in place of numerals. There have been denominations that taught a state of total sanctification of a christian that was evidenced by a state of sinless perfection. I know people who have been taught this. They used much the same scriptures and arguments that you use. I have seen the result of this teaching vary from self-righteous pride to spiritual impotency. The first came from those who though they had arrived. The second from those who believed the doctrine, but despaired of ever attaining.

I am not saying you fit one of these categories. I am just telling you what I have seen and experienced.

Have you ever spent some time studying and listening to anyone who really emphasizes and focuses their ministry on the grace of God? It seems to me that you are seeing only one side of a two sided coin.

Anyway, just some of my observations and some things to think about.

God bless you brother.

In Christ
Travis.

Now, gently rest your fingers on your keyboard and with careful attention remember that the person that you are posting to is not a "handle", but a live loving believer such as yourself, whom, if you met face to face would probably get along nicely.

How true brother, how true.