Prior Book | Prior Chapter | Prior Verse | Next Verse | Next Chapter | Next Book | Viewing NASB and Amplified 2015 | |
NASB | Philippians 2:7 but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. |
AMPLIFIED 2015 | Philippians 2:7 but emptied Himself [without renouncing or diminishing His deity, but only temporarily giving up the outward expression of divine equality and His rightful dignity] by assuming the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men [He became completely human but was without sin, being fully God and fully man]. |
Bible Question:
Is His divine and eternal glory not an attribute of His nature? I have not given it careful thought and study, but upon first reflection it seems to me that it is. And if it is, how is it that it is ok to say that He can "surrender" His glory without it affecting His full and complete diety, but not any of His other attributes of divine nature? (BTW, I think the word "surrender" would convey something different than "set aside" [the phrase I used in my post from several years ago] or "veiled" or "laid aside" [both used elsewhere in the article you quoted].) I hope I made it very clear in my original post and in the follow-up discussion that I am firmly convinced of the diety of Jesus: that He was, is, and always will be fully divine. The thought that I was trying to put forward for discussion was that He had "set aside (not used) most if not all of His" attributes of divine 'nature' (to be distinguished from 'character'). In making that suggestion, I would not for one second wish to imply that such action would somehow diminish our view of who Jesus really is. I am suggesting that Jesus set aside the use of the attributes of His divine nature (not character!) and made Himself wholly dependant upon the Holy Spirit from the time of His conception until the resurrection. I am further suggesting that His action of setting aside the use of those attributes does not mean that He was anything less than fully divine. So, to sum up, I suppose I am struggling most with this statement from the article you quoted: "To say that Jesus surrendered even one divine attribute is to say that Jesus is less than God, and therefore not God at all! See, if God is deprived of even one attribute, then He is not fully deity." If 'surrendered' and 'deprived' mean that these attributes were no longer in His possession, then I would agree with that statement. However, if that is what those words mean, this statement would not be fairly representing (or responding to) what I am suggesting. My suggestion is that Jesus *set aside* the use or function of those attributes (and this is what this verse is talking about by saying that He emptied Himself), not that these attributes were not His to be used had He at any moment chosen to do so. |
Bible Answer: Dear RWC, If I may have permission to respond: The quote that Brother Kalos brought us does not state that Christ divested Himself of glory, but that His glory was veiled. You are correct in thinking of glory as an attribute of God. However, there are many uses of this word. I do not believe that this passage is speaking of the divine attribute of glory. Imagine a king who lives in a palace, seated on a throne, surrounded by his subjects. He lives in the full glory of his kingship. What if he takes off his crown, replaces the kingly robes for a peasants garb, and goes out into the marketplace? Now he looks just like one of his own subjects. He has divested himself of the glory of his office. However, this does not divest himself of all the authority, right, privilege, and power of his rank. He is still the king. I hope this analogy helps a bit. In Him, Doc |