Lesson 7
QUALITIES OF A CHURCH
Rev. Stanley L. Derickson Ph.D.
COPYRIGHT 2004
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a
retrieval system or transmitted in any form by any means, electronic,
mechanical, photocopy, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of
the author, except as provided by U.S.A. copyright laws.
EFFACED
(Phil.2:3-11)
3 Let nothing be done through strife or vainglory; but in lowliness of mind let
each esteem other better than themselves.
4 Look not every man on his own things, but every man also on the things of
others.
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.
3 [Let] nothing [be done] through strife or vainglory; but in lowliness of mind
let each esteem other better than themselves.
Okay, nothing resulting from neither strife nor anything resulting from
vainglory is to be done - I take it, by individuals nor the church.
Strife is used by Aristotle to denote one that is seeking office through self
seeking and unfair means. Now, we wouldn't have anything like this going on in
the church would we?
The church is full of self serving people that seek their own gain - mark my
words lest you be surprised. Many of these probably aren't actually believers.
Recently I read an article that was saying preachers should not be preaching
expositorially, but evangelistically. The premise was that most in the church
are unsaved and that the sooner we get the membership saved the better.
Vainglory relates to self esteem or false pride. A vain opinion of one's self
might relate. People that think they are all that and a whole lot more!
Lowness of mind has the idea of humbleness or a deep sense of one's littleness.
Now, just how many believers do you know fit that description? We all think we
are pretty important to God and His overall plan, but here Paul encourages the
church to operate knowing its littleness - its smallness in the grand scheme of
things.
"Each" relates to the individual, but has the connected thought of mutually -
cooperation in the work.
In short we are to treat others as more important than ourselves. With this
thought in mind how can we in a business meeting demean another’s idea, how can
we speak against the dictates of the Word?
With this thought in mind how can we in a personal relationships be upset with
another for the way they are treating us?
BUT in lowliness of mind esteem others better than themselves. What would our
business meetings be like in our churches, what would our fellowship times, what
would our marriages be like if we applied this principle?
Intimidation is not a rule of order in business meetings, yet often leaders will
stoop to it to gain what they want. Some will twist what others have said to
suggest their thoughts are less worthy than they are. Some will use the
repetition of their point with increasing forcefulness and volume to achieve
what they desire in spite of growing opposition.
These are practices of the world, not of the church. If these practices are
observed in the church people should mark that position being pushed as
something to be suspicious of and something to be avoided. Not to speak of the
one that is using such tactics.
The 2006 presidential elections in Mexico might be set forth as an example. The
voters had cast their ballots, and the looser refused to concede and in fact
tried everything to disrupt the acceptance of the duly elected candidate. When
it came time for the swearing in of the winner, the failed candidate and his
followers tried to disrupt the proceedings and to keep the man from his office.
Certainly not the actions of an honorable man, but the actions of one that would
be king due to his heightened view of his own importance to his country.
"Vainglory" is derived from false, vain or empty and doxa, the word for glory in
the Bible. We sing the doxology in praise of God, yet this person sings his/her
own praises before man, and usually for his own gain.
There are times in our lives that if we don't sing our own praises, no one else
will either. It is rather natural to want to be admired, to be respected and to
be looked up to, however the key seems to be humility and let all that other
stuff acquire to the world, and allow your value to be in God's eyes. It is His
opinion that we need to worry about in the long haul, not our fellow man's.
Let a quote from Barnes close the thought of this verse in a very powerful
manner. "Let nothing be done through strife. With a spirit of contention. This
command forbids us to do anything, or attempt anything, as the mere result of
strife. This is not the principle from which we are to act, or by which we are
to be governed. We are to form no plan, and aim at no object, which is to be
secured in this way. The command prohibits all attempts to secure anything over
others by mere physical strength, or by superiority of intellect or numbers, or
as the result of dark schemes and plans formed by rivalry, or by the indulgence
of angry passions, or with the spirit of ambition. We are not to attempt to do
anything merely by outstripping others, or by showing that we have more talent,
courage, or zeal. What we do is to be by principle, and with a desire to
maintain the truth, and to glorify God. And yet how often is this rule violated!
How often do Christian denominations attempt to outstrip each other, and to see
which shall be the greatest! How often do ministers preach with no better aim!
“How often do we attempt to outdo others in dress, and in the splendour of
furniture and equipage! How often, even in plans of benevolence, and in the
cause of virtue and religion, is the secret aim to outdo others. This is all
wrong. There is no holiness in such efforts. Never once did the Redeemer act
from such a motive, and never once should this motive be allowed to influence
us. The conduct of others may be allowed to show us what we can do, and ought to
do; but it should not be our sole aim to outstrip them."
Rom. 12.3 relates to this discussion quite well also. "For I say, through the
grace given unto me, to every man that is among you, not to think of himself
more highly than he ought to think; but to think soberly, according as God hath
dealt to every man the measure of faith."
4 Look not every man on his own things, but every man also on the things of
others.
I was told once that this was the life verse of a burglar. I don't think the
verse speaks to material things in particular, but all things in general.
Don't consider your own life/things when you consider a relationship, consider
the life/things of the other person - so in the church situation - consider the
life/things of others before your own.
“Look” relates to more than the casual look of seeing a person's living room for
the first time, but would go to the gaze of one that is coming toward envy or
jealousy - one that is taken with the item to dwell upon it.
The term “things” relates to a person more than an item - Darby translated it
own "qualities" rather than the idea of things - physical.
Might we say, don't consider yourself, but consider others. Can you think of any
principles that Christ taught that might relate to this thought?
Love one another to the giving of your life for others might relate. We are to
put others first in all that we do, we are to put others first in all we say,
and we are to put others first in all that we possibly can. Our purpose in life
is to put others first.
Now, if all goes according to this passage, if we do our part and all others do
their part, then would not others put us first, and thus we all end up serving
others in the church? Well, that is certainly the principle, but hardly the
practice in most churches.
This is a great area to work on in your church. Put others first and hope the
practice is catching like the flu, but don't hold your breath. The practice is
incumbent on you now that you understand it, and it is not your place to worry
about the other person. If you are a pastor or teacher put this one into action
in your life, then begin to teach the principle to others.
For pastors and teachers that want to disciple others, this is one of the
principles you need to put in your curriculum. This is probably one of the
basics of any good disciple. Add humility from the previous verses and you have
two powerful traits that should be a part of your disciple’s life.
5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
Now that is a hard one to follow though no matter how hard it is Paul stated
this and expected the folks to abide by his comment.
We are to have the mind of Christ when it relates to humility and how to live.
The term mind relates to opinion of one's self, but has a slight twist that fits
well when applied to Christ. It relates to having an opinion of one's self that
is modest even though a higher truth may apply - in short Christ could have had
the mind that He was God which most likely would not have related well in
modesty to a man. He had the mind that he was much less than He truly was - God.
He related to mankind as if he were a man. In short even though you have ten
degrees, you should have the mind that you are much less. It matters little what
education you have when you are teaching another believer the basics of the
Christian life. Even the deep things of the Word can be communicated without the
upper crust attitude that many give forth today.
This would assist in how big name preachers come across to the public. Many
preachers push themselves as if they thought they were important - maybe they
are, but they should not be the ones to say so. Indeed, if they apply this verse
and have the mind of Christ they will never push themselves as being anything
but a normal person.
Now, I wouldn't want to push this subject any further but in your mind how do
the preachers and church leaders you know measure up to this verse? Be sure you
do.
Years ago I was approached by a pastor with the possibility of becoming his
assistant with the future possibility of taking his position as pastor in a
large church. I was invited to teach one of the adult Sunday school classes. I
was winding up the lesson after a great response from the class when the pastor
walked into the room. All eyes became fixed on him as he stood in the back of
the room. The class was gone, they might as well have walked out of the room. I
finished the lesson, but there was no further response from the class and their
attention was definitely on the pastor's response to me.
That sort of respect and attention might be admirable in the world system, but
it seems pretty much misplaced in the Christian world. Honor and respect are not
bad, but this man was near god status before his people. Later I found that they
had his mother's Bible that she had read to their beloved pastor on her knee -
it was in a glass case as if a shrine of sorts.
It was obvious to this person that there was no one on earth that would replace
this man and have any sort of ministry to the people. Possibly fill in till
someone else came along that they would relate to, but that first man would
always be compared to the perfect mark and always come up short.
The man was a great preacher and good pastor, but had allowed others to elevate
him much too high.
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:
These two verses illustrate the proof of Paul's statement and how it has been
applied.
8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient
unto death, even the death of the cross.
I will refer the reader to the end of the study for a detailed look at verse
seven and eight and all that men have implied from it in the past.
9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is
above every name:
This verse seems straight forward but at the same time there is a question -
when did this happen?
"Wherefore" refers back to the previous context, thus one might suspect that the
basis of the giving of the name was the time of the Kenosis - when Christ took
upon Himself the form of man.
If you think about it, The Son had no real identity or reality to mankind before
the incarnation. No one knew that there was a Son unless they realized some of
the Old Testament passages were to be taken literally.
Passages like Isa. 9.6 "For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and
the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called
Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of
Peace." Psa. 2.7 "I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou
[art] my Son; this day have I begotten thee." Prov. 30.4 "Who hath ascended up
into heaven, or descended? who hath gathered the wind in his fists? who hath
bound the waters in a garment? who hath established all the ends of the earth?
what [is] his name, and what [is] his son's name, if thou canst tell?"
We can know that Christ was the Angel of the Lord in the Old Testament by
looking back in 20/20 hindsight, but the Old Testament saint had no such
hindsight with which to gain this truth. However, after the incarnation the Son
became known as Jesus the Christ and certainly this truth became reality.
10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of [things] in heaven, and
[things] in earth, and [things] under the earth;
Again the question of when arises with this verse. The bowing is what is called
an aorist tense which means it occurs at a particular point in time - one time
is the emphasis of the tense. This has never happened - "every knee" nor will it
happen until Christ is revealed for what He truly is before all mankind - I
would assume this will be at the time of the judgment of all of lost mankind.
Saved man has already bowed their knee to their Savior in the past, but no lost
person has nor will until they are made to bow - made to bow by the knowledge
that He indeed is King of Kings and Lord of Lords.
I personally feel that they will not be made to bow by God, but that they will
automatically bow at the knowledge of Who He is - the Son of God.
11 And [that] every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ [is] Lord, to the
glory of God the Father.
Again, this will be the result of knowledge of who Christ is - God. The result -
glory to God!
"Confess" can be translated confess openly. What a day that will be to see all
of lost mankind confessing to the Son-ship of Christ in glorification to the
Father.
At the same time this, to me, will be the saddest day of all time - all these
lost souls of all time confessing that they have rejected the one true God and
confessing that they deserve eternity in hell - and knowing that is their next
destination - no choice - no second chance - no hope of anything but hell.
APPLICATION:
1. It was mentioned that vain glory activities have no place in the church. We
probably would all agree that this is true, not to say that it is fact in our
churches today. Have you wondered why we have so much trouble with these things
in the church today? Why do we have pride and the like in our churches? Why do
we have people pushing themselves into office by building themselves up?
It is hard not to succumb to such tactics when you are required to do so in the
work a day world. To get gain in the world you have to be self serving, you have
to push yourself above others and you have to make it a point to present
yourself as better than all others. To gain a job in many places you have to be
a super salesman selling yourself as the best of the best so that the possible
employer thinks that they are getting the best possible person for the job.
Some would suggest that we should be that way in the world, just not bring it
back into the church world with us. This is a noble purpose but is it really the
Biblical position one should take? Is it really what we should do while in the
world?
I would suggest a review of passages that relate to humility and see if they are
for the church life or life in general. It should be suggested that Christ led a
life of humility in and out of the temple. It is our purpose in life to live as
Christ lived. If he was humble 24/7 then we should attempt to be humble 24/7.
This might cut against the grain of those working in the world and wanting to
advance, but it is God's desire that we should seek, not our own.
No, you might not get that raise, you might not get that promotion, and as a
result you might not get that new car, but you will have the satisfaction of
knowing that you have God's favor in life.
It might be observed that a person living a humble life will have gain in the
area of employment. Employers are not totally lacking in intelligence. Some of
them actually watch and observe their employees and mark those that work hard
for advancement and raises.
Do not feel you have to be like the world to operate in the world. You can be a
true citizen of heaven and still function in the world. You may not get all the
raises and advancements that others gain, but you will certainly gain those
great advancements in the heavenly life to come.
2. The point of Paul bringing his discussion to the coming of God as man was to
illustrate the humility principle. If Almighty God could take a step from the
heavenlies and become lowly man, then why in the world can't you as a human
stand to accept the humble position before some arrogant person that has lifted
themselves above you - in their own minds?
In a Christian world where everyone is seeking degrees and the attention that
degrees seem to bring, I have never made mention of my degrees, other than
online in reference to the books. In my public/private life I never mention them
and often people have no knowledge of them. In fact I had worked with one man
for two years before he found out I had advanced degrees.
The other men that I worked with on a daily basis knew I had them but never made
mention of them, nor took notice of them. They never gave indication that they
knew they existed. One day a man holding a Doctorate came to the place of
ministry and spoke. The entire group of men were calling him Dr. ________ and
making over him as if he were something special direct from God. It amused me
greatly to see them abandon their usual reserved demeanor to join in the usual
flutter and pitter patter of the educated.
There are two sides to humility. On the one hand a person that is famous or well
educated is called to be humble, which many are, while those around them tend to
leverage them out of their humility with their adoration and comments.
Folks, we all need to be humble and we all need to realize that those "famous"
folks we happen to meet are called to the same humility - don't encourage them
to step out of their humility to react to your over zealous fumblings of action
and word. They are human and they are just like you.
I might mention that I have had the privilege of meeting a couple of high
profile men of God and they seemed to be very humble men, just doing what God
has called them to do. That is what we are all called to do - follow the
direction of God in a humble and quiet manner.
In recent years there has been a rush to gain degrees by men that really have no
need of them. Part of it is fueled by the churches that are requiring more and
more education to tickle their ears, but part of it is men that have not come to
realize humility isn't a four letter word. Many look to higher education for the
purpose of increasing their visibility, status and pay package. This is not a
good motivation for the man of God.
I might make note that I am a little mid-western town kid that God decided to
use as He might. In all of my training and education I attempted to remain that
little town type person. I am not what I have been trained to be, nor do I wish
to become that; I desire to be what God made me and remain as I really am,
rather than to take on a persona that will lead me to high position. That is not
me, nor do I think God would have me lower myself to be such.
If we all – every preacher, every teacher, and every person in the congregation
would simply be ourselves and put away all the airs, the church would function
much more smoothly and be a much friendlier place for people to join.
3. There is much said about verse seven and just what it means. A good theology
work or Barnes notes on this passage will give you more information if you are
interested, or indeed my theology might confuse you adequately.
Basically I feel that Christ gave up the free use of some of his attributes when
He became man. This is often said to be heresy, because He would cease to be God
- not so, God can give up certain attributes for a time to accomplish certain
things. After all, he being an eternal being gave up his operation in the
eternal plain to limit Himself for a few millennia to work with man in time.
To give up use of His attributes did not make Him less than God, nor could he do
anything that would make Him less than God yet he came to earth as man to
minister to man.
4. We have seen that every person of all ages that has rejected God will one day
confess that Christ is Lord. Have you ever thought of the fallacy of these
folks. They have said, no He isn't God and now they are saying yes He is. Will
they not have a fearful realization of what they have lost for eternity when
they see Christ? They could have done what they now will do, and been saved from
what they will soon become. What a sad commentary on lost mankind. Now they
won't but then they shall.
5. Gill goes to great length to state that this lowliness and esteeming others
above yourself does not relate to money, education etc, but that it only relates
to the fact that all are equal in grace, that Paul was relating to the fact that
he was the chief of sinners. I assume because he stated such he was esteeming
all above himself in Gill's mind, but I see nothing in the text to suggest Gill
is correct. The text actually relates "things" as part of the line of thought.
"but in lowliness of mind, let each esteem other better than themselves; not as
to the things of the world, in respect of which one man may be a better man than
another, and he must know and think himself so; nor with respect to the
endowments of the mind, and acquired abilities, which one man may have above
another; and the difference being so great in some, it must be easily discerned,
that one is more learned and knowing, in this or the other language, art, or
science; but with regard to, grace, and to spiritual light, knowledge, and
judgment: and where there is lowliness of mind, or true humility, a person will
esteem himself in a state of grace, as the great apostle did, the chief of
sinners, and less than the least of all saints; one in whom this grace reigns
will pay a deference to the judgment of other saints, and will prefer their
experience, light, and knowledge, to his own; and will readily give way, when he
sees such that are of longer standing, of greater experience, and more solid
judgment, as he has reason to think, than himself, are on the other side of the
question; and so peace, love, and unity, are preserved. This grace of humility
is an excellent ornament to a Christian, and wonderfully useful in Christian
societies."
He is not incorrect in his thought that we are all the same in grace, nor is he
incorrect in his application, but I find it difficult to accept that this is the
only application, when the context does not limit it to such.
6. An obvious question should be in the readers mind when they think of all this
unity, getting along and putting one another above themselves stuff. In a church
meeting when there is difference of opinion and you are convinced that the
opposition is unbiblical and that your position is Biblical, how do you relate
these principles to life?
Do you put others before yourself and allow the unbiblical to go forward and
watch the Biblical fall by the way? Do you become more and more vocal being sure
that your principle carries the day? What might be some principles to live by in
these cases?
a. Assure yourself from Scripture that your position is Biblical and not your
opinion of what the Bible teaches.
b. Call the congregations attention to your texts and present your principles.
c. Ask for Biblical references for the opposing position.
d. Call the congregation to judge the situation from a Biblical standpoint.
e. Trust that the congregation will follow the leading of the Spirit.
7. Constable relates some contrasts between the helper and servant. It relates
well to our discussion of attitude and lifestyle of the true bond servant.
"CONTRASTS BETWEEN A HELPER AND A SERVANT
"A Helper A Servant
"A helper helps others when it is convenient. A servant serves others even when
it is inconvenient.
"A helper helps people that he or she likes. A servant serves even people that
he or she dislikes.
"A helper helps when he or she enjoys the work. A servant serves even when he or
she dislikes the work.
"A helper helps when the circumstances are convenient. A servant serves even
when the circumstances are inconvenient.
"A helper helps with a view to obtaining personal satisfaction. A servant serves
even when he or she receives no personal satisfaction.
"A helper helps with an attitude of assisting another. A servant serves with an
attitude of enabling another."
Find which side you are on and either schedule some changes or rejoice in your
commitment to the Lord.
8. So, how does it strike you that one of the most discussed theological
passages of Scripture turns out to be simply an illustration given by the
apostle to show how the Philippian believers should live? Oh that my
illustrations were so grand.
Paul stirred the theologians of all time with a simple illustration of humility.
9. Humility is not putting yourself down. It is not building others up. It is
being who you really are before God. There is no need to build up or put down,
there is a need to be who we are, to be the children of God that He desires us
to be.
Webster's 1828 dictionary mentions two definitions. "In ethics, freedom from
pride and arrogance; humbleness of mind; a modest estimate of one's own worth.
In theology, humility consists in lowliness of mind; a deep sense of one's own
unworthiness in the sight of God, self-abasement, penitence for sin, and
submission to the divine will."
I would suggest a combination of the two definitions. Might I suggest a modest
estimate of one's own worth" and "a deep sense of one's own unworthiness in the
sight of God. It is knowing who and what we are before God and having God's view
of ourselves, not our own self inflated view.
We can't do anything without Him, but we can do anything with Him. Seems a great
combination, and if we view ourselves in this light we will probably be in good
shape both ethically and theologically.
10. Verse five is quite a mouthful. "Let this mind be in you, which was also in
Christ Jesus"
What was Christ's mind in relation to humility?
a. He suffered the insults, tricks and insinuations of the Jews on a regular
basis.
b. He suffered the ineptitude of His disciples on a regular basis. He could have
demanded their attention and commitment but He did no such thing. He waited for
that to come from them.
c. He suffered the trials of living on the road, sleeping where there was room
to lay His head. Being God He could have gone back to heaven at night and gotten
a good night's sleep, but lived as a man in all the ways man lives.
d. He suffered the doubt of His followers, the lack of faith and all those
hurtful items.
Yet in all of these and many more, He remained a humble servant of the Father
even unto the humiliation of the trials and the cross.
And we get upset when someone says something hurtful or does something they
ought not. We are to have the mind of Christ in all things in this life when it
comes to others and their words/actions toward us.
OH HOW HARD it is to be humble! Yet this is the criteria by which God will view
us. As we humble ourselves, God will lift us up.
12. It would seem that the context goes past being humble and goes on to God's
rewarding Christ for His work. So, it would seem, as we humble ourselves, one
day God will lift us up to our due place before Him.
That is the day we should set our sights on, the day we should set our bank on -
God's view of things not that deluded view of Mr. or Mrs. Snidely at the church.
God will lift us up; we have no need to do so.
Someone is bound to ask how we can humble ourselves when all around are trying
to shove us down by their remarks and actions.
Well, in simple terms, let them. When they get done pushing and shoving, you
will be where they want you and they will be far above you. Humility is
automatic. Well, maybe it isn't that easy, but that may relate to some of what
you have to do.
Get alone with God and find out who you are before Him and the rest should take
care of itself. As we have His view of us, then we will know who and what we are
and humility should be just around the corner.
------------------------------
From MR. D'S NOTES ON THEOLOGY
Copyright Rev. Stanley L. Derickson Ph.D. 1992
THE KENOSIS
KENOSIS, or as some call it, THE KENOTIC THEORY OF THE INCARNATION
Dr. Miller in his theology class notes calls the act of Christ in Philippians
2:7 as His self veiling. When Christ took upon Himself the form of man, He
veiled or emptied Himself of His glory so that His true being could not be seen.
1
Let us take time to read the Philippians text (5-8): "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 made himself of no reputation, and took upon
him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found
in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even
the death of the cross."
The idea of the Philippians text leaves five basic interpretations: (The titles
of these theories come from A.B. Bruce. 2)
1. The "absolute metamorphic" view that Christ gave up attributes and that His
divine consciousness was gone until in the temple at twelve when it began to
come forth. Gess holds to this thought.
2. The "absolute dualistic" theory - That Christ surrendered some of His
attributes when He became man. Thiessen describes this position as follows:
"They tell us that Christ emptied Himself of His relative attributes, - his
omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence, - while retaining His immanent
attributes ----His holiness, love, and truth." 3 He lists the following
theologians in this tradition. Thomasius; Delitzsch; Forest; Crosby.
This, to most, would indicate that he was less than God if there were some
attributes that were not there. Indeed, it seems unlikely that He would make
Himself less than God and then assume His whole Godness at the ascension. To
most it is inconceivable that He could become less than God for if He is less
than God, then He is not God.
3. The "absolute semi-metamorphic" view - That Christ veiled His attributes.
This would indicate that He hid them from other human beings. He used them but
those around Him did not know He was using them. Walvoord mentions Ebrard's
comment that states "that the divine properties were disguised and appeared as a
mode of human existence. The mode of existence of Christ was changed from that
of the form of God to the form of a Man, from the eternal manner of being to a
temporal manner of being." 4
This seems to be a bit on the dishonest side, yet aside from this, it seems that
He would not be a real example to us as a man that had a God side that was doing
all those great things in secret.
4. That Christ laid aside some of His attributes. This seems to be very similar
to number two above. If He indeed laid aside anything of His divine nature, He
would seem to be less than divine. You cannot separate the divine attributes
from the divine and have full divinity remaining.
5. That Christ voluntarily limited His use of His attributes. This position
would submit to us that Christ remained completely divine and yet completely
human. He, on His own, decided to limit the use of some of His divine attributes
while here on earth so that He could become our example.
Theissen mentions that Strong held to this thought. "The humiliation consisted
in the surrender of the independent exercise of the divine attributes...In the
continuous surrender on the part of the God-man, so far as his human nature was
concerned, of the exercise of those divine powers with which it was endowed by
virtue of its union with the divine, etc." 5
One major thought to prove this position is that the Lord would have had to call
down the angels to save Him. If he had all attributes available to him this
would not have been necessary. See Mt 4:6 cf. Ps 91:11-12.
Theissen holds to the idea of the surrender of the independent exercise of the
attributes. "...the Scriptures teach, when taken as a whole, that Christ merely
surrendered the independent exercise of some of His relative or transitive
attributes." 6 Theissen has a good discussion on this topic.
Bancroft states, "The self-emptying (kenosis) of Christ, which was a voluntary
act, consisted in the surrender of the independent exercise of the divine
attributes." 7
Bancroft quotes E.Y. Mullins as he gives illustration of this self emptying. Mr.
Mullins relates it to a teacher that knows all there is to know about
mathematics yet to teach a pupil the teacher puts all his knowledge aside for a
time to concentrate on the basics with the pupil. He also likens it to an owner
of a chain of department stores that is beside the bed of his near dead son. The
father has placed all things aside to concentrate on the son. In like manner
Christ set all things aside except what He needed to finish the work of
redemption.
Bancroft finishes by stating, "So it was with Christ, who freely and willingly
surrendered the independent exercise of His attributes for the sake of and in
the interest of His beloved." 8
I like his concluding statement but feel that the illustrations are poor. They
speak of functions of the mind and have nothing to do with attributes.
This position of the voluntary setting aside of attributes, has some very nice
characteristics.
a. You have a divine person in the fullest sense of the word and He remains
fully divine throughout eternity past, the incarnation, and eternity future.
This fits best with the phrase that He is the "same yesterday, today and
forever."
b. You have a perfect example for man to follow in their spiritual life. He was
a man of like nature that was tested and tempted in like manner as we. He was
fully relying upon the Holy Spirit for His strength.
c. You have the perfect union of both divine and human. He was just as much God
as if He had never been man and He was just as much man as if He had never been
God.
In Ryrie's A SURVEY OF BIBLE DOCTRINE he seems to tie the veiling and nonuse
positions together. They are to me somewhat similar, yet different.
"The concept involves the VEILING [caps are my addition] of Christ's
preincarnate glory (Jn. 17:5, the condescension of taking on Himself the
likeness of sinful flesh (Ro. 8:3), and the voluntary nonuse of some of His
attributes of deity during the time of His earthly life (Mt 24:36). His humanity
was not a glorified humanity and was thus subject to temptation, weakness, pain
and sorrow. Choosing not to use His divine attributes is quite different from
saying that He gave them up. Nonuse does not mean subtraction." 9
There are other views that we might mention that might be slightly different
from those given.
Anselm held that Christ acted as if he did not possess divine attributes. This
would be similar to the veiled view I would think.
Walvoord seems to set forth a view that would be similar to the limiting of the
attributes view however he maintains that Christ limited the use while still
using them. The limitation would be in the idea that He used them at times and
at times He limited them. Thiessen seems to follow this line of thinking as
well. His view stated is, "...Christ surrendered no attribute of Deity, but that
He did voluntarily restrict their independent use in keeping with His purpose of
living among men and their limitations." 10 He maintains that Christ used the
attributes at will; however never used those attributes in such a way as to make
His life as man easier.
This would seem to say that Christ did some of the miracles in His own power and
some of them in someone else's power. This is not the great example that the
apostles were given, if He is doing the miracles on His own and not relying on
the Holy Spirit.
The Synod of Antioch in 341 felt that this text meant that Christ emptied
himself of "the being equal with God" yet held to the full deity of the Lord.
In the Philippians passage we read, "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 made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a
servant, and was made in the likeness of men; And, being found in fashion as a
man, he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even the death of the
cross." Phil. 2:5-8
The form of God idea and the form of a servant idea must both carry the idea of
complete God and complete servant. If there is "less than" in one then there
would be "less than" in the other. Since He was fully a servant to become our
example then He had to have been fully God.
The term translated "form" is the Greek word "morphe" which according to
Lightfoot after a detailed study of the word in Philo and the New Testament is
"that which is intrinsic and essential to the thing." Thus it shows that He was
true and complete God while being true and complete servant. 11
The term emptied is something that is self imposed be it laying aside, veiling,
or nonuse.
The same term is used in four other texts:
a. Rom. 4:14, "For if they who are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and
the promise made of no effect"
The faith is made void or "no good" and of "no value".
b. I Cor. 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 no effect."
Again the similar idea of "no good" is seen.
c. I Cor. 9:15 also seems to show "no good" is the idea.
d. II Cor. 9:3 seems also to show the idea of "no good."
Let us apply that thought to Phil. 2:7. "But made himself of no reputation, and
took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men;" It
seems that this text may not give credence to any setting aside, veiling, or
nonuse of anything.
This idea of "no good" or void would give idea that He was setting aside all
that it meant to be God in the idea of status and position to take on the place,
or position, or the status of a servant.
Berkof in his systematic theology mentions of this term and these texts: "The
term kenosis is derived from the main verb in Philippians 2:7, ekenosen. This is
rendered in the American Revised Version 'emptied Himself'. Dr. Warfield calls
this a mistranslation. The verb is found in only four other New Testament
passages. . . .In all these it is used figuratively and means 'to make void',
'of no effect', 'of no account', 'of no reputation'. If we so understand the
word here, it simply means that Christ made Himself of no account, of no
reputation, did not assert His divine prerogative, but took the form of a
servant." 12
This might imply that the passage has nothing to do with giving up, veiling, or
nonuse. It would only mean that the text meant that He did not hold his deity as
something to be held onto and took on the form of a servant.
I don't know if this is the message that Dr. Berkof was trying to relay. It
would imply that He did not set forth his divine nature but that the emphasis
was on the servant.
Ryrie takes this line of thinking in his Theology. In speaking of this passage
he mentions, "And that passage does not discuss at all the question of how or
how much Christ's glory was veiled. Nor does it say anything about the use or
restriction of divine attributes. It does say that the emptying concerned
becoming a man to be able to die. Thus the kenosis means leaving His
preincarnate position and taking on a servant-humanity. . . .In the kenosis
Christ emptied Himself of retaining and exploiting His status in the godhead and
took on humanity in order to die." 13 (This by the way, seems to contradict what
he held in SURVEY OF BIBLE DOCTRINES pp 57-59)
The idea of the Philippians text certainly to me, is as we have just seen. This
does not negate our entire discussion. It just gives us a different light and
slant to the thoughts.
The Philippians text is the idea that Christ was not holding to his status, or
position, and was willing to change that status and position. In the process of
this change there seems to have been some change in the use of His attributes.
That change seems best to be defined as a self-imposed limitation of His
attributes. The attributes in question would be omnipresence, omniscience, and
omnipotence.
Those that say that Christ did miracles under His own power list many references
to prove their point. There is nothing in any of these references that I have
considered that show definitely that His own Omnipotence, or other attributes
were suddenly in use as Walvoord suggests.
Indeed, for Him to use the powers of God would detract from the promises of the
disciples to be able to do miraculous things via the power of the Holy Spirit.
They are given Christ as an example yet He can do miracles without the Holy
Spirit. This is not a good example of what the disciples could do.
Also, it seems to be a detraction from the ministry of the Holy Spirit if one is
to attribute some of the miracles of the Lord to His own divine nature. The
Spirit ministered in and through Him as He does in and through us.
There might be another position that would give some food for thought. The idea
that God was limited by the fact of His humanity. He could only see as far as
normal man could see so there was nothing he could do other than get close
enough to see what He wanted to see. He was limited in brain power and storage
capacity so was not omniscient as such. He was in a body that knew fatigue so
could do only so much. He was in a human form that was limited in physical
strength so could not do superhuman things. Etc.
It seems to me that He voluntarily set aside some of these attributes so that He
could be wholly an example to the apostles and us that follow. This principle is
derived from logic and thought, rather than the Philippians text.
CONCLUSIONS:
1. If you hold to the position of Walvoord, or to the self-imposed nonuse of
attributes you are on very good ground scripturally. Any other position will
find problems. The idea of nonuse seems to have many things going for it.
Walvoord concludes his discussion with the following from Strong: "Our doctrine
of Christ's humiliation will be better understood if we put it midway between
two pairs of erroneous views, making it the third of five. The list would be as
follows: (1) Gess: The Logos gave up all divine attributes; (2) Thomasius: The
Logos gave up relative attributes only; (3) True View: The Logos gave up the
independent exercise of divine attributes; (4) Old Orthodoxy: Christ gave up the
use of divine attributes; (5) Anselm: Christ acted as if he did not possess
divine attributes." 14
Strong uses the terms "gave up the independent exercise of" which indicates that
He did not use them while Walvoord mentions the idea of use them but "restrict"
the use of them. I'm not sure he isn't miss-using Strong in this quote.
Indeed, Strong makes the statement, "In the continuous surrender, on the part of
the God-man, so far as his human nature was concerned, of the exercise of those
divine powers with which it was endowed by virtue of its union with the divine,
and in the voluntary acceptance, which followed upon this, of temptation,
suffering, and death." He also mentions, "In the submission of the Logos to the
control of the Holy Spirit...." 15
Strong is not clear to me just what he means, but it seems that he saw Christ as
limiting use, as in, nonuse of the attributes.
2. The Philippians text really does not discuss the nonuse, veiling etc. of
Christ's attributes. It deals with status or position.
3. View Christ as perfectly divine and perfectly man and you have the thought
that you need. We have shown this in our studies on His deity and His humanity.
4. Because the Lord was relying on the Holy Spirit for all of His knowledge and
miracles, then we truly have an example to follow.
If you do not feel that His relying on His own divine attributes at times
detracts from His being an example to you then that position is quite good. The
question is this, When did He rely on His own powers and when did He rely on the
Spirit? Did He rely on His own divinity during the wilderness testing? And, we
might add who is to determine when He was functioning in the divine and when He
was functioning in the servant?
5. The Kenotic theology is barely based on scripture any way you view it. It is
not good to build theology on one verse that is highly disputed. The idea is to
try to explain how God and man can be one so very completely without a conflict
of interest lawsuit.
6. We have noted that some authors contradict themselves at times in their
different writings.
Let us think of this for a few moments. I do not say that I know what is going
on in their lives. I think that we may draw some possible answers to these
contradictions, and see that they are not necessarily sloppy writers or
theologians.
a. They were trained by some very strong personalities. They may have soaked up
their teacher's theology and bought everything that was handed them. They may in
later life have taken time to study some of the recent church fathers and the
Bible and realized that their teachers were not infallible. It is normal to do
this, and I trust that you will realize that you may have done the same thing
yourself in reading this material, or maybe at your home church.
We need to check all we hear with the Scripture and see if it really fits. I had
a Dallas man in one of the colleges that I attended, for a president. His
messages were fantastic. I took notes plus more notes and loved his messages. I
went back through his message notes one time and tried to relate what he said to
the scripture passage and it just was not there. I finally over time threw most
of his notes away because they were not really scriptural. Nothing erroneous but
not based on the texts he used.
b. Some writers have had serious struggles through their years of preparation,
and may not have had time to seriously check out their own thinking on all that
they believe.
c. It is normal to change and redefine your thinking as you age and mature in
the Lord. I would encourage you to be very patient with people that are teaching
what you would term "false doctrine" until you have fully understood their
thinking, and you have completely studied the text, or teaching on your own.
Many times I have felt that a persons teaching was incorrect until I took time
to understand what they were saying, and took time to study the topic on my own.
In conclusion to our study of the Kenosis, Ryrie agrees with me in his "SURVEY
OF BIBLE DOCTRINES" when he states, "What is included in a proper statement of
the true doctrine of the kenosis? The concept involves the veiling of Christ's
preincarnate glory (Jn 17:5), the condescension of taking on Himself the
likeness of sinful flesh (Ro. 8:3), and the voluntary nonuse of some of His
attributes of deity during the time of His earthly life (Mt 24:36). His humanity
was not a glorified humanity and was thus subject to temptation, weakness, pain
and sorrow. Choosing not to use His divine attributes is quite different from
saying that He gave them up. Nonuse does not mean subtraction." 16
END NOTES:
1. Dr. Miller, Theology class notes, Western Baptist College
2. Walvoord, John F.; "JESUS CHRIST OUR LORD"; Copyright 1969; Moody Press; p
140 (Quoting A.B. Bruce in his "THE HUMILIATION OF CHRIST")
3. Henry C. Thiessen, "LECTURES IN SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY," Grand Rapids: Wm. B.
Eerdmans, 1949, p 295
4. Taken from: "JESUS CHRIST OUR LORD"; Walvoord, John F.; Copyright 1969, Moody
Bible Institute of Chicago; Moody Press. Used by permission. p 141
5. Thiessen, p 298
6. Thiessen, p 296
7. Taken from the book, ELEMENTAL THEOLOGY by Emery H. Bancroft. Copyright 1977
by Baptist Bible College. Used by permission of Zondervan Publishing House. p
147
8. Taken from the book, ELEMENTAL THEOLOGY by Emery H. Bancroft. Copyright 1977
by Baptist Bible College. Used by permission of Zondervan Publishing House. p
148
9. Taken from: "A SURVEY OF BIBLE DOCTRINE"; Ryrie, Charles C.; Copyright 1972,
Moody Bible Institute of Chicago; Moody Press. Used by permission. p 59
10. Taken from: "JESUS CHRIST OUR LORD"; Walvoord, John F.; Copyright 1969,
Moody Bible Institute of Chicago; Moody Press. Used by permission. p 144
11. Reprinted by permission: Ryrie, Charles C.; "BASIC THEOLOGY"; Wheaton:
Victor Books, 1986, 1986, p 261
12. Berkhof finish and add him to book list.
13. Reprinted by permission: Ryrie, Charles C.; "BASIC THEOLOGY"; Wheaton:
Victor Books, 1986, p 262
14. Taken from: "JESUS CHRIST OUR LORD"; Walvoord, John F.; Copyright 1969,
Moody Bible Institute of Chicago; Moody Press. Used by permission. p 145
15. Augustus H. Strong, SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY, Valley Forge, PA: The Judson Press,
1907, p 703
16. Taken from: "A SURVEY OF BIBLE DOCTRINE"; Ryrie, Charles C.; Copyright 1972,
Moody Bible Institute of Chicago; Moody Press. Used by permission. p 59