Polemics

Kenosis and the doctrine of the Incarnation in Philippians 2:5-11

Leave a comment
The Son of God became flesh and dwelt among us
The Son of God became flesh and dwelt among us

It’s Christmas, so it’s time to see what the Bible says about who Jesus was and what it tells us about the character of God.

Here are the relevant verses in Phil 2:5-11 [NASB]:

5 Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus,

6 who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped,

7 but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men.

8 Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.

9 For this reason also, God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name,

10 so that at the name of Jesus every knee will bow, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth,

11 and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

Here’s respected New Testament scholar Ben Witherington to help us make sense of it:

Incarnation refers to the choices and acts of a pre-existent divine being, namely the Son of God, that the Son took in order to become a human being. He took on flesh, and became fully, truly human without ceasing to be fully, truly divine. Divinity is not something Jesus acquired later in life, or even after his death and resurrection. According to the theology of Incarnation he had always been the divine Son of God, even before he became Jesus, a human being. Strictly speaking the name Jesus only applies to a human being. It is the name the Son of God acquired once he became a human being in the womb of Mary, a name which he maintains to this day as he continues to be a human being.

[…]When I try and explain the incarnation to my students I deliberately choose to use the phrase divine condescension. What do I mean by this? Put another way, if there is going to be a corporate merger between a divine being and a human nature, then the divine side of the equation must necessarily limit itself, take on certain limitations, in order to be truly and fully human. The next question is…. what does it mean to be fully human? It means to have limitations of time and space and knowledge and power, and of course being mortal. Jesus exhibited all these traits. He was even tempted like us in every respect, but he avoided sin. What we should deduce from this is sinning is not a necessary part of being truly human. Yes, it is a trait of all fallen humans, but no, it is not how God made us in the first place. It is not necessary to sin in order to be truly or fully human.

[…]While the hymn is clear that the Son was ‘in very nature God’ at the same time he chose before he became human not to take advantage of his divine prerogatives. What were those? I call them the omnis– omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence.

[…]And here I think is what Paul is driving at when he says ‘have this mind in yourselves that was also in Christ Jesus’. It says that he ‘humbled himself’. Now contrary to what the world may think humility has nothing to do with feelings of low self-esteem. It has nothing to do with feelings of low self-worth. If Jesus is the model of true humility, it can’t have anything to do with those things, because Jesus surely was the one person who walked this earth who did not have such feelings, did not have an identity crisis, and so on. Humility is the posture of a strong person who steps down to serve others, as Jesus did.

This IVP commentary on Bible Gateway talks more about what this “divine condescension” means to us, using that passage from Philippians:

Christ’s selflessness for the sake of others expressed itself in his emptying himself by taking the “form” of a slave. Historically, far too much has been made of the verb “emptied himself,” as though in becoming incarnate he literally “emptied himself” of something. However, just asharpagmos requires no object for Christ to “seize” but rather points to what is the opposite of God’s character, so Christ did not empty himself of anything; he simply “emptied himself,” poured himself out, as it were. In keeping with Paul’s ordinary usage, this is metaphor, pure and simple. What modifies it is expressed in the phrase that follows; he “poured himself out by taking on the ‘form’ of a slave.”

Elsewhere this verb regularly means to become powerless or to be emptied of significance (hence the NIV’s made himself nothing; cf. KJV, “made himself of no reputation”). Here it stands in direct antithesis to the “empty glory” of verse 3 and functions in the same way as the metaphorical “he became poor” in 2 Corinthians 8:9. Thus, as in the “not” side of this clause (v. 6b), we are still dealing with the character of God as revealed in the mindset and resulting activity of the Son of God. The concern is with divine selflessness: God is not an acquisitive being, grasping and seizing, but self-giving for the sake of others.

I think it’s important to be clear that Jesus didn’t give up anything of his divine attributes by becoming a man. Rather, he added a human nature to his divine nature. The humility is because he came to serve  others.

You can see a nice quick video of this doctrine being defended by famous philosophical theologian William Lane Craig:

I think that it is important for us to emphasize the doctrine of the Incarnation at Christmas, in order to correct the grasping and seizing that is so widespread. The really interesting thing about Christmas is the Incarnation, and what it tells us about God and us. It tells us that we have value, because Jesus loved us. But it also says that following Jesus means being humble and being a servant to others. It means pouring yourself out to others in order to serve them. And these obligations are not metaphorical – they are rooted in the historical facts. This is the way the world is as a matter of fact, although certainly we have freedom to rebel against it.

For those looking for defenses to the doctrine of the Incarnation, you can find a chapter on it by Paul Copan in the book “Contending With Christianity’s Critics“. That’s for intermediate readers. For advanced readers you can look for a chapter in “The Cambridge Companion to Christian Philosophical Theology“, edited by Charles Taliaferro and Chad Meister, and published by Cambridge University Press. I just bought that latter book for one of the graduate students I sponsor. I know that Thomas V. Morris also has a couple of books out there on the Incarnation – one for intermediate readers and one for advanced readers. The latter book is published by Cornell University Press.

Polemics

How to respond to an atheist who complains about slavery in the Bible

1 Comment
Lets take a closer look at a puzzle
Lets take a closer look at a puzzle

I often hear atheists going on and on about how the Bible has this evil and that evil. Their favorite one seems to be slavery. Here are three things I say to atheists when they push this objection.

The Bible and slavery

First, you should explain to them what the Bible actually says about slavery. And then tell them about the person responsible for stopping slavery in the UK: a devout evangelical named William Wilberforce.

Here’s an article that works.

Excerpt:

We should compare Hebrew debt-servanthood (many translations render this “slavery”) more fairly to apprentice-like positions to pay off debts — much like the indentured servitude during America’s founding when people worked for approximately 7 years to pay off the debt for their passage to the New World. Then they became free.

In most cases, servanthood was more like a live-inemployee, temporarily embedded within the employer’s household. Even today, teams trade sports players to another team that has an owner, and these players belong to a franchise. This language hardly suggests slavery, but rather a formal contractual agreement to be fulfilled — like in the Old Testament.3

Second, inform them that moral values are not rationally grounded on atheism. In an accidental universe, there is no way we ought to be. There is no design for humans that we have to comply with. There are no objective human rights, like the right to liberty (that would block slavery) or the right to life (that would block  abortion). Although you may find that most atheists act nicely, the ones who really understand what atheism means and live it out consistently are not so nice.

Atheism and moral judgments

Second, inform them that moral values are not rationally grounded on atheism. In an accidental universe, there is no way we ought to be. There is no design for humans that we have to comply with. There are no objective human rights, like the right to liberty (that would block slavery) or the right to life (that would block  abortion). Although you may find that most atheists act nicely, the ones who really understand what atheism means and live it out consistently are not so nice.

Dawkins has previously written this:

The total amount of suffering per year in the natural world is beyond all decent contemplation. During the minute that it takes me to compose this sentence, thousands of animals are being eaten alive, many others are running for their lives, whimpering with fear, others are slowly being devoured from within by rasping parasites, thousands of all kinds are dying of starvation, thirst, and disease. It must be so. If there ever is a time of plenty, this very fact will automatically lead to an increase in the population until the natural state of starvation and misery is restored. In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.

(“God’s Utility Function,” Scientific American, November, 1995, p. 85)

When people like Dawkins talk about morality, you have to understand that they are pretending. To them, morality is just about personal preferences and cultural conventions. They just think that questions of right and wrong are arbitrary. Things that are wrong in one time and place are right in another. Every view is as right as any other, depending on the time and place. That’s atheist morality.

What’s worse than slavery? Abortion!

Third, you should ask the atheist what he has done to oppose abortion. Abortion is worse than slavery, so if they are sincere in thinking that slavery is wrong, then they ought to think that abortion is wrong even more. So ask them what they’ve done to oppose the practice of abortion. That will tell you how sincere they are about slavery.

Here’s Richard Dawkins explaining what he’s done to stop abortion:

That’s right. The head atheist supports killing born children.

News

Carmel High School censors and destroys poster from pro-life student club

3 Comments
Carmel Teens for Life poster destroyed by left-wing Carmel High School fascists
Carmel Teens for Life poster destroyed by left-wing Carmel High School fascists

Another post in our continuing series analyzing why you should never send your children to public schools.

The story comes from Fox local news in Indianapolis:

Excerpt:

Administrators at Carmel High School are facing the threat of a lawsuit after removing a pro-life poster from the building.

Liberty Counsel, a nonprofit organization “dedicated to advancing religious freedom,” says administrators removed the poster display created by Carmel Teens for Life after another student complained that it was “offensive.”

The club reportedly spent over 25 hours painting the display which included 300 hearts, each representing 10 lives, to symbolize the written statement “3,000 Lives Are Ended Each Day.”

When they were caught red-handed, the fascist administrators tried to threaten the students to stop them from seeking legal advice about their first amendment rights:

In addition, administrators reportedly asked members of the club sign an agreement, which prohibits the club from using the word “abortion” in future displays or other forms of communication. The agreement reads “I will not have communications with outside agencies as a representative of the Teens for Life Club without prior approval from the Sponsors…” and “Prior approval for all communications regarding the Teens for Life Club will be requested from the Teens for Life Club Sponsors…”

The organization says members were threatened that if they did not sign the agreement immediately, the club sponsors would be forced to resign.

Liberty Counsel has more on the strong-arm bully tactics of the radical feminists:

The School District summoned the club’s leaders, demanding that they sign an agreement that they would not seek outside legal counsel or parental input, that they would have to receive prior approval for “all communications,” and that they not use the word “abortion” in any communications, including Facebook. There was also a threat to withdraw teacher sponsorship if the teens did not sign the “Agreement.”

[…]It is highly improper for school officials to demand students forgo their rights and promise to not seek legal counsel or parental input.

That was their response to destroying the poster – cover it up, threaten the teens, don’t tell your parents, don’t tell the lawyers, don’t tell the media. These are the kinds of people who run public schools – little left-wing dictators who hate the values of the parents who pay their salaries. They are more interested in lobbying for pay increases than providing children with an education that allows all points of view to be heard. Zero critical thinking from these secular left education school graduates. They can’t get jobs in the real world, but they are good at bullying children in a government-run monopoly.

Leftist Indiana news station RTV6 reported on the story:

Carmel Clay Schools

Carmel Clay Schools denies the rights of students to express their opinions, except if they agree with the secular leftist fascist school administrators. They are trying to cover up the way that they censored the free speech rights of the students. Their response was to threaten the students, to make the problem go away without having to admit fault. The school district allows posters from young Democrats and LGBT activists, just not from pro-lifers.

It’s important to understand that school adminstrators and their government allies are generally not moral people.

Consider the architect of Ontario’s sex education curriculum:

Ben Levin, the man who “appeared to have it all,” was today sentenced to three years in prison for three child pornography offences.

[…]The once-tenured professor at Ontario’s Institute for Studies in Education had a “hidden, dark side” in a “depraved on-line world” as a “deviant mentor” who made “insidious attempts to normalize the sexual exploitation of children,” McArthur noted in her 23-page reasons for sentence.

[…]A member of Liberal Premier Kathleen Wynne’s transition team, Levin was deputy minister of education in 2009 when he and then-minister of education Wynne developed the “equity and inclusive education strategy,” part of which was the 2010 radical sex-ed curriculum shelved by then-Premier Dalton McGuinty after parental backlash. The 2015 sex-ed curriculum is virtually the same as the 2010 version.

[…]Levin himself claimed in a 2010 interview: “I was the deputy minister of education. In that role, I was the chief civil servant. I was responsible for the operation of the Ministry of Education and everything that they do; I was brought in to implement the new education policy.”

[…]Levin pled guilty on March 3, 2015, to three of an original seven child pornography related charges.

Many people go into the education system to normalize immoral behavior, and naturally they teach students to feel offended at any sort of judging of their immorality. When one student is offended by a pro-life viewpoint, the teachers and administrators naturally side with the pro-abortion student. They don’t side with the moral person, they side with the immoral person. Often, they are acting to protect their own immorality because they are sensitive about being judged by those who are moral.

How are we going to solve this problem of administrator discrimination against moral people? We can’t fire the administrators, it’s almost impossible to get education officials removed from a government-supported monopoly. But there is a way to solve it.

School choice

The first thing to understand is that parents really need to be promoting school choice as a public policy. When parents pay money to the government, it is handed out to schools willy-nilly, and not tied to school performance. There is no accountability to parents, and that favors the misconduct of the administrators. The simple fact of the matter is that increased spending on education does not result in improved student performance. The money is often eaten up by hiring far left school administrators whose job is to indoctrinate the students with secular leftist propaganda, not to teach them marketable skills. Parents want their kids to get jobs that will pay well.

The right way to achieve this goal of student-centered education is to stop the mandatory collection of taxes for education by the government, abolish the federal Department of Education, and put the money earned by parents back in the hands of the parents, so that they can purchase the education from the school that is focused on teaching children to invent products and services for customers. Indoctrination in global warming, Marxism and LGBT activism is not what parents want for their kids. It doesn’t make the child independent and self-sufficient.