spin

Sorry, it's a false alarm. What has happened in each case is that the verse has been separated so that the part in question is attached to the previous verse.

Please just forget my earlier comments.


spin

Amaleq13

Unless I misunderstand you, this seems an arbitrarily limited definition of a Divine Entity "emptying" himself. The imagery I've found to express what this phrase was intended to convey is of a vessel being turned over and all its contents being dumped out. Shouldn't that suggest that all of what made Christ "equal with God" was what he "emptied" himself of?

If you review the thread, I think you'll find that I've used both. Whether interpreted as "emptied of what made Christ equal with God" or "made himself no reputation", there doesn't seem to be any basis for assuming any power to perform miracles nor even any great wisdom.

It isn't my interpretation, Ted. It is how the King James and Noah Webster translations chose to interpret it. The New Living Translation has "made himself nothing". spin also indicated that he doesn't consider himself an expert in Greek so there doesn't really seem to be any basis for rejecting the alternate wording offered by individuals who, presumably, are experts. For whatever reason, you seem to have gotten it into your head that this is the only translation that supports my argument but I've clearly and repeatedly stated otherwise. They all suggest that Christ divested himself of that which made him equal with God in order to take on the entirely different appearance of the most powerless human. Quibbling about the exact words used to convey this notion does not make it disappear and serves only as a time-wasting tangent. From the commentaries that I've read on this verse, what I'm suggesting is not new (ie the kenotic theory of the incarnation) but it is generally argued against by Christians who find it inconsistent with their beliefs in the deity of Christ. They go so far as to define "empty himself" as meaning adding humanity rather than subtracting any notion of deity. That seems to me to be clearly more the result of faith than any rational consideration so I reject it as ridiculous. You don't put something in a vessel when you turn it upside down.

More importantly, there is nothing in these passages to support the assumption that Jesus was a wise teacher and the notion that he was not certainly seems more consistent with the idea of him "emptying himself" of that which made him equal with God.


Nonsense. To "empty himself" does not suggest anything was left so a more appropriate summary would be: Omniscient God vs an entirely limited human being. There is no basis for the assumption that something more than might be expected of a lowly servant was retained when Christ took on the appearance of humanity.

I've got scholars who are presumably more knowledgeable of Greek than you or I or spin who say that "made himself no reputation" means the same thing as "empty himself". I say that, taken together or taken separately, neither translation supports your assumption that this human appearance would include anything extraordinary and that includes any wisdom that would make him revered as a teacher.

Your focus on the different translations is meaningless because it ignores that all the translations fail to support any assumption that the incarnated Christ was a teacher of wisdom.

Amaleq13

I think that would require its own thread if not an entire book but I think it makes understanding its development and the use of it by Mt/Lk far more difficult.

I would have to see the specific passages that allegedly reflect a lot of Q sayings but it is suggested that the text was originally purely Jewish and only later modified. Who knows how it came to be? I don't see how it is relevant.

That doesn't require or really even suggest that Paul's Jesus was more Q-like than appears nor that the "historical Q Jesus" never said them.

TedM

It is my interpretation that Paul is focusing on Jesus' crucifixion, as usual, and therefore his 'emptying' and his becoming a servant are all part of the continuing focus on Jesus lowering himself willingly to the point of death. I don't think the 'emptying' requires a total loss of all God-like powers or wisdom or ability to teach such wisdom. It is a possible interpretation which some prefer, but the passage IMO doesn't require it and given how the passages directs itself straight to the crucifixion without a mention of Jesus' way of life preceding the crucifixion, I think the most reasonable intepretation is that the passage is silent on the issue of Jesus' earthly life pre-crucifixion.


Nor is there basis for rejecting the alternatives of other experts who don't interprete the passage the same way.

Your depiction of Paul's Jesus is one-sided and relies on passages that can be interpreted in different ways. I would depict Paul's Jesus as more like this:

The Son of God, the Messiah, who came to earth, born of flesh, descended from David. He was sinless, and obedient to God. This ideal man gave his life willingly up to God via crucifixion by the ignorant who didn't know who he was in order to usher in the coming kingdom of God. By his resurrection the curse of the law is overcome and through faith salvation is available to all mankind--man and woman, slave and freedman, Jew and Gentile--who is able to receive God's mystery of the ages now revealed.

While I don't show a mention of a wise teacher or miracle worker here, I don't claim Paul says anywhere that he wasn't.

I'll save it for another thread, but if one doesn't assume various additions, subtractions, etc.. I think we may have a work in James that shows a Q-sayings link in early Christianity without attribution to Jesus. Is it not possible that Christians followed Q sayings but that the sayings didn't originate from their Jesus? Is it not possible that some of the sayings were known sayings that their Jesus simply had repeated to them?

This lack of attribution of discussion of Jesus' earthly life is something in common with Paul..., yet in the case of James the number of sayings is great enough to make the Jesus-Q link more credible than Paul's letters make it. Would an early teacher of Jewish Christians quote some other Jesus' wise sayings in a letter to Christians who followed a different Jesus, without attributing the sayings to the sayings Jesus? Seems unlikely to me. So, is this a later writer? If so, why didn't he attribute them to the Christian Jesus?

I don't really know what to make of them, but it appears that any idea that Q was originally created without Christian influence would be hard to demonstrate.

ted

Amaleq13

You are correct that my recollection was mistaken but the above doesn't appear to be correct, either. You suggested that those who considered Jesus a teacher of wisdom got their idea from Paul but you were unable to support this notion. There is nothing in Paul to inspire such beliefs and certainly not instead of the beliefs Paul preaches. You then suggested that they generated the idea all on their own. I observed that this sounded more like a mythical Jesus than a historical Jesus.

Amaleq13

Then you are now struggling against the very same literal interpretation you were previously embracing! That you don't want to think that turning a vessel upside down requires a total emptying of the contents is irrelevant. That is the clear implication of Paul's words based on imagery obtained from Christian scholars trying to explain the word. If you check a concordance, I believe you will find this word used elsewhere in the Bible with exactly this same meaning.

There is nothing reasonable about such a retreat. It gives every appearance of a deliberate avoidance of the literal meaning of the words used. You were so adamant just a few posts ago about relying on the literal meaning that it is quite surprising to find you trying to avoid it when it doesn't agree with your preconceptions. You can't conduct an honest examination of what Paul says if you do this. This dodge is no more credible than those I've read by Christian commentators who share your apparent dislike for the obvious implication of the literal meaning. They invoke all sorts of prior-held beliefs not supported by the text to argue why it simply could not mean what it appears to mean:

The incarnated Christ emptied himself of that which made him equal with God.

Are you reading my posts? Where have I rejected the "emptying himself" interpretation? Not only have I used both when referring to the passage, I've suggested that they be understood together. I think I made this pretty clear in the recent posts so it is difficult to understand how anyone could be this confused had they actually read them.

If "one-sided" is defined as "sticking to what Paul says and refusing to allow the later Gospel stories to influence interpretation", then I agree and would argue that this is the only reasonable way to obtain an accurate understanding of Paul.

The Son was sinless and obedient, yes.

Where do you get this? The ideal is the sinless Son who took on the appearance of lowly flesh in order to be sacrificed. Where does Paul state that the fleshly appearance was somehow "ideal"?

I agree and the reason they were ignorant was because the Son disguised himself completely as a lowly human by "emptying himself" of that which made him equal with God.

No, you don't. But you do feel free to assume it despite the absence of anything in Paul to support it and comments denigrating the Greek desire for wisdom seeming to argue against it. You go beyond what the text will support.

Sure but both of these seem to be arguing against a historical Jesus who was, at the time he lived, revered for teaching wisdom. That's really fine with me since it seems consistent with Paul. A mythical teaching Jesus just leaves us with Paul's Empty Jesus.

Frankly, this discussion is making me more convinced than before that this is "the historical Jesus". Paul's silence is entirely understandable and Q is either an independent coincidence or a later Christian creation.

spin

I'll take Liddell and Scott over your experts any day. If you look at the way the literal translations give it the text says "empty himself". If you look at modern translations, the ones I've seen say the same thing. You can't play my experts and your experts on this one. NIV trying to make sense of it, ie interpreting the text says "made himself nothing", yup just interpretation. NASB "emptied himself". Italian has "emptied himself", as does the Vulgate. French and Spanish "bared/denuded himself". About the only bible I've found thus far that actually gives this stuff about reputation is the KJV. So, in the end Amaleq13, who are those experts of yours?

--I just noticed you cited the Webster, which is just a rehash of the KJV. Not good.

--Just found a few wanky versions that go for the deep and meaningful interpretations... "he gave up everything"..."he set aside the priviledges of deity"..."He put aside everything that belonged to Him"... yup, just interpretation...


spin

TedM

I"m sure we can find plenty of examples of how 'emptying' might be applied, in the Greek, just as we can in English. The fact is that Paul doesn't explain what he means by the phrase. All we can determine is that he is saying that by becoming 'like' a human being Jesus had emptied himself from his position of equality with God. Are we to assume he had no God-like qualities at that point, when men are considered to be in God's image, and God is described as having human attributes? Are wise teachers equal to God? Can we say that Paul's sinless Jesus had absolutely no God-like qualities? Paul doesnt' specify the degree of emptying, and no amount of comparisons to vessels, etc.. will help us define exactly what paul had in mind other than what he says: Christ went from God-like to human-like. Paul then jumps straight to focusing on Jesus' further humbling on the cross. I just think the degree of clarity one might want cannot be found in a comparison of how the word 'emptying' is sometimes used in connection with vessels. I think at best, all we can say is that he is making a contrast between Jesus before becoming human and Jesus after becoming human, and then he goes back to Jesus reclaiming his former glory in the resurrection. To find a Jesus with no teaching or miracle skills someone in this very vague and short passage is requiring too much of the word 'emptying' and the context. It seems to me that to be able to make the claim that total emptying means Jesus coudln't have been a teacher or miracle worker you must also claim that those who were believed to have been great teachers or miracles workers were 'equal to God'.


Great

SHould I have said 'heavenly man'? By ideal, I just meant 'sinless'.

Obviously, I don't agree as this combines two passages, and neither of them definitively say anything about a disguise or complete emptying.

Re JamesI'd like to continue the James discussion elsewhere. I find the POSSIBLE Q-early Christian connection intriguing, as well as the idea that Paul's Jesus-if real--may have indeed known and approved of the sayings.

Seems to me we've determined almost nothing about Q, and not much more about Paul's Jesus, so far. I am intrigued by the connection between Paul, James and Q, but we havn't dealt with any of them in enough depth to learn much yet.

ted

Amaleq13

Who is taking one "over" the other? I'm not. I have no idea why the translators of the KJV chose the words they did. I'm not an expert. You said you weren't, either, so that didn't seem to help any. As should be obvious, I've got no problem taking "empty himself" over "made himself no reputation" even if I don't know what the difference is supposed to be. The former supports my contention just as well as the latter, if not better.

Can you offer anything substantive that might help in understanding what Paul meant by saying that Christ emptied himself?

Amaleq13

Go for it. Find one that doesn't suggest a vessel with all contents removed.

It sure seems to me like he does right before making the statement. Christ was in the form of God and equal with God but emptied himself. Seems pretty obvious what was dumped out of the vessel though I will happily defer to any linguistic expertise spin might offer.

Of course not but retaining the kind of wisdom eventually gets one treated as the incarnation of God's Wisdom is the opposite of being emptied of that which made one equal to God. That's more like dumping out most but not leaving the vessel empty.

That seems to be what Paul is saying but that doesn't suggest that the Son had to add sin to his nature.

Please. Either a vessel is empty or it is not. I see no indication at spin's link that this was a concept of degrees.

It seems to me that no amount of desparate struggling will get the passage to read the way you would prefer it.

I agree. Being equal with God and being empty of that which makes one equal with God is certainly a contrast.

On the contrary, it is any attempt to read a wise teacher or miracle performer into the text that lacks any support. The passage clearly does not suggest such a conception but a plain reading of it certainly seems more consistent with a denial of any demonstration of superior abilities.

Nonsense. I need only observe that great teachers of wisdom and workers of miraculous wonders were thought to have ultimately obtained those superior abilities from God.

I was questioning applying "ideal" or "sinless" to the fleshly appearance of the Son rather than to the Son, himself. As far as I can tell from Paul, this was only a temporary change in appearance for the Son and none of these remarkable attributes are specific to the fleshly appearance but to the Son.

You've offered nothing substantive to argue otherwise. Empty means what it means and that is a removal of all contents. Paul specifies what those contents are just before saying that Christ emptied himself of them. Elsewhere, he states that the 'archons' would not have executed Christ had they known who he really was. Does it not make sense to you that an intelligent Christ knew this before taking on the appearance of flesh? Does it not make sense to you that an intelligent Christ would ensure that there was no possibility that his true identity would become known to his would-be executioners? Running around spouting inspirational wisdom or performing miracles seems like a pretty stupid way of achieving that goal to me.

I think it has been shown that, other than a common name and possibly a general time frame, there is no apparent connection between the depiction of Jesus in Q and the incarnation of the Son Paul describes.