This scripture is actually a powerful argument against the Trinity and is describing Christ’s Godly behavior and appearance, not Christ being God. The word “form” in the term “form of God” derived from the Greek word “morphe” is simply describing Christ’s outward appearance of God. Otherwise the scripture would simply say “Christ Jesus, who, though he was God”. Christ obeyed God, did God’s will and behaved in a Godly manner. The scripture clearly shows here that Christ has no intention of trying to grasp being equal to God, but instead humbled himself as God’s Son and faithful servant.
That is not correct.
The Kenosis of Jesus Christ: Does Philippians 2:5-8 State Christ Emptied Himself of His Deity?
“Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.”Phil 2:5-8 NASB1995
What happened in the Incarnation of Christ? Did He empty Himself of deity and become a mere man who was previously God, man minus God, a man-God? Did He continue as both fully God and fully man, a God-man?
There are two basic views Bible scholars have of the Philippians passage. The first is the Kenotic Theory, and states that Christ emptied Himself of the relative attributes of Omnipotence[1], Omniscience[2], and Omnipresence[3], which only deity possesses. This view clearly denies the Biblical doctrine of the Immutability[4] of Christ as found in Hebrews 13:8.[5]
The Kenotic Theory was first scientifically formulated by Thomasius in Germany, [6](1860 to 1880) and later by theologians in England (1890 to 1910). Prior to that no recognized teacher in the first 1,800 years of church history, including those who were native speakers of Greek, thought that "emptied himself" in Philippians 2:7 meant the Son of God gave up some of his divine attributes.
The Philippians passage does not say that Christ "emptied himself of some powers" or "emptied himself of divine attributes" or anything like that. The words “of His deity” simply are not in the passage. The Kenotic Theory is based on an assumption regarding what “emptied” means and references, not upon what the Bible actually says.
Regarding verse 7, the UBS Handbook Series states, “The verb "to empty" has given rise to the so-called "kenotic" theory of incarnation. Undue theological exploitations have cast a heavy shadow on its meaning. It should be said at the outset that the verb must be understood metaphorically, not metaphysically. It says nothing about Christ stripping himself of his divine attributes as has sometimes been suggested.”
AND
”The verb ‘to empty’ is used elsewhere in the Pauline Epistles four times (Rom 4:14; 1 Cor. l:17; 9:15; 9:3), and in each instance it is used metaphorically in the sense of ‘to bring to nothing,’ ‘to make worthless,’ or ‘to empty of significance.’ (from the UBS Handbook Series. Copyright (c) 1961-1997, by United Bible Societies)
The second view is known as the Hypostatic Union, and states Christ continued in the Incarnation as fully God and became fully man.
The Hypostatic Union is and has been the orthodox view received by Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestant New Testament scholars throughout the ages, and later by those in the Restoration Movement. This is confirmed in the creeds and writings of the early church fathers. While the churches of Christ and Christian Churches do not accept human creeds as having the authority of Scripture, the majority of Restoration scholars do accept the creedal statements as faithfully reflecting the Bible. See Creeds
In contrast to the Kenotic view, the Bible clearly teaches that Jesus most certainly claimed to be God while on earth. (cf. John 3:13; 5:18; 10:33; 17:5). “I tell you the truth,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!” John 8:58 Here Jesus declared Himself to be Yahweh, i.e., the God of the Old Testament. I AM, is one of the names of God, and also states Christ is present in eternity outside of time. It was recognized by the Jews as a title of deity (see Ex. 3:14; cf. Isa. 44:6; 47:8). The high priest's reaction to Jesus' use of the title, in Mark 14:61-63, suggests that he considered Jesus' utterance of it as being a blasphemous claim to deity.
Explicit statements of the NT indicate that Jesus retained his divine nature and attributes (Matt.1:23; 11:27; Mark 1:1; John 3:13 AV; 14:9; Rom. 1:4). Examples of Jesus manifesting divine attributes include: omniscience (John 4:16-19; 2:24,25; 6:64; Luke 5:4-6), omnipresence (Matt. 18:20; 28:20; John 3:13), and omnipotence (Luke 4:39; 8:54-55; Matt. 8:26,27).
"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. Of course, references to His deity abound in Scripture (John 1:1; 20:28; Rom. 9:5; Col. 2:9; Tit. 2:13; Heb. 1:8). And by the way, this is not only affirmed by the Bible, it's clearly affirmed by the creeds." Hank Hannagraf, CRI Perspective CP1207
Critical to a correct understanding of the kenosis passage is a proper exegesis of verse 6. “Who, although being essentially one with God and in the form of God [possessing the fullness of the attributes which make God God], did not think this equality with God was a thing to be eagerly grasped or retained,” The Amplified Bible
The Greek has two words for form, morphē and schēma. Paul connects the stronger morphē with theou (God) in verse 6. Morphē is the essential form, which never alters; schēma is the outward form which changes. Some versions translate schēma as fashion. The essential morphē of a human being is humanity and this never changes; but his schēma is continually changing. A baby, a child, a boy, a youth, a man of middle age, an old man always have the morphē of humanity, but the outward schēma changes all the time.[7] The essential morphē of Christ’s deity never changed. Likewise, Hebrews 13:8 (NIV) states, “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.” These confirm the doctrine of the immutability of God, and makes a literal emptying inconceivable.
The schēma of Jesus’ humanity did change starting at the Incarnation, at His birth, later as He grew physically, at the crucifixion, and finally when he received His glorified body at the resurrection.
One cannot be 25%, 50%, or even 99.9% God. To be anything less than all that God has declared Himself to be, is to not be God. In John 5:18, “Jesus said to them, ‘My Father is always at his work to this very day, and I, too, am working.” For this reason the Jews tried all the harder to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.” NIV The Greek word for “equal” defines things that are exactly the same in size, quantity, quality, character, and number. (Bauer’s lexicon) In every sense, Jesus is equal to God and constantly claimed to be so during His earthly ministry (cf. John 5:18; 10:33, 38; 14:9; 20:28; Heb. 1:1–3).
The text does describe what Jesus did in this "emptying": he did not do it by divesting himself of any of his attributes but rather by " taking the very form (morphē) of a servant," that is, coming to live as a man, and "being found in human form (schēma), he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross (Phil. 2:8). Thus, the context itself interprets this "emptying" as equivalent to "humbling himself" and taking on a lowly status and position. Thus, the NIV, instead of translating the phrase, “He emptied himself," translates it, "but made himself nothing" (Phil. 2:7 NIV). The emptying includes change of role and status, not essential attributes or nature.
Rather than asserting the right to enjoy a glorious visage (i.e., as in the transfiguration), Jesus rather knew that the objective of the Father called for his humbling. And that, indeed, for us to be able to interact with him, the humbling would be needed. It was for US that Jesus took on this schēma.
Obviously, a man who was God (man-God), and one who is both fully God and fully man (God-man) at the same time are two different beings. Furthermore, the Kenotic Jesus does not speak with the same authority to his followers as the Christ of the Bible. One is fallible and voices his ideas and opinion, whereas the Christ of the Bible speaks to His followers with absolute certainty.
Considering the evidence, should we base our eternal destiny on clear explicit statements in the Bible or our assumptions?
The Holy Bible: New International Version. (1984). (Mic 5:2). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.
” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!”
Of course, since God had foreknowledge of his Son’s creation.
“Explicit statements of the NT indicate that Jesus retained his divine nature and attributes”
Also available to the Saints in the body of Christ, which doesn’t make them God: Quoting John 14:12:
“Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me, the works that I do he will do also; and greater works than these he will do, because I go to My Father.”
Regarding Christ’s return:
Mark 13:32
“No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.”
And then:
1 Corinthians 15:28:
“And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.”
Hardly a Co-Equal, Triune Godhead as Trintarian dogma states.
Trinity - False doctrine nonsense started by Constantine.
I’ll point this out again as I did a long time ago on the Mormon threads.
They also like to claim that Jesus is not God Himself but rather a separate entity from God the Father.
However, following that line of reasoning, that Jesus is not God Himself, forces the one believing into the position of breaking the first commandment found in Exodus 20.... I am the Lord your God. You shall have no other gods before me.
If Jesus is not God Incarnate, but rather a separate entity, them to claim that to get to the Father through Jesus Christ puts another god between, or before, the Father.
If Jesus IS God Incarnate, God with us, then the first commandment remains unbroken.
So those who deny the deity of Christ are in effect demanding and teaching others to break the first commandment.
I don’t think that’s going to work out so well for them.