Kenosis- Split from Pop preachers

[NorrinRadd]

Yeah, Jesse's a wackadoodle, but I'm afraid I can't take seriously every belch of "heresy!" from a guy who is himself heterodox and who AFAICT thinks every version of kenosis theology is automatically heretical.

[tabibito]

Yeah, Jesse's a wackadoodle, but I'm afraid I can't take seriously every belch of "heresy!" from a guy who is himself heterodox and who AFAICT thinks every version of kenosis theology is automatically heretical.

From your links - OK, 1 Cor c14 does require a bit of thought to unravel, but it is clear enough. Tongues are for a sign to believers, not unbelievers. To unbelievers, tongues are mere gibberish at best and do nothing to satisfy the unbeliever that God might be present. Prophecy achieves for the unbeliever something that the believer does not need - a clear indication that God is present. The focus is on one particular facet among a number of facets. 1 Cor 14:1 is not conclusive in argument against cessationism, but it is critical to the argument.

The write up on kenosis is not quite correct. What the author states is one of a number of "soft" views of kenosis. Hard kenosis states that Logos abdicated from godhood to become human (the only viewpoint that doesn't require rationalisation of any of the verses of scripture to support.)

[mossrose]

Yeah, Jesse's a wackadoodle, but I'm afraid I can't take seriously every belch of "heresy!" from a guy who is himself heterodox and who AFAICT thinks every version of kenosis theology is automatically heretical.

If you can’t figure it out just by hearing Jesse speak without Justin's comments, then you have more of a problem with Peters than you do with any "wackadoodle".

And that’s a problem.

[One Bad Pig]

From your links - OK, 1 Cor c14 does require a bit of thought to unravel, but it is clear enough. Tongues are for a sign to believers, not unbelievers. To unbelievers, tongues are mere gibberish at best and do nothing to satisfy the unbeliever that God might be present. Prophecy achieves for the unbeliever something that the believer does not need - a clear indication that God is present. The focus is on one particular facet among a number of facets. 1 Cor 14:1 is not conclusive in argument against cessationism, but it is critical to the argument.

The write up on kenosis is not quite correct. What the author states is one of a number of "soft" views of kenosis. Hard kenosis states that Logos abdicated from godhood to become human (the only viewpoint that doesn't require rationalisation of any of the verses of scripture to support.)

Hard kenosis requires flat out ignoring verses like John 10:17-18 and John 8:58, and rationalisation of John 14:8-10. It also requires ignoring every single instance of people worshiping Jesus; he never rejected it, though only God may be worshiped. In contrast, note that worship is uniformly rejected by angels and the apostles when it is offered to them.

[tabibito]

Hard kenosis requires flat out ignoring verses like John 10:17-18 and John 8:58, and rationalisation of John 14:8-10. It also requires ignoring every single instance of people worshiping Jesus; he never rejected it, though only God may be worshiped. In contrast, note that worship is uniformly rejected by angels and the apostles when it is offered to them.

John 10:17-18 states that Jesus has the authority to lay down his life and take it up again. From the perspective of "Jesus is God" it can be interpreted as saying he is God. Other perspectives will give rise to other interpretations. Nothing there indicates whence the authority is sourced: it might be conferred. It is also written that the Father raised Jesus from the dead, (contra ECFs) not that Jesus raised himself.
John 8:58 states that Jesus existed before Abraham. It doesn't even say that Jesus is eternal. One of the Jewish expectations of the messiah was that he would be the transformed preexistent Metatron, also known as Bar Nash (the Son of Man), among the highest ranking of the angels or perhaps the highest ranking angel. The verse can't be used to support the idea that Jesus was God.
John 14:8-10 cited in SUPPORT of the idea that Jesus was God?!? verse 10 is an exposition of verses 8 and 9. The Father is in me; I am in the Father; I do not speak on my own initiative, it is the Father who does the work. It is a flat denial that Jesus performed the works on his own authority. Any of the apostles, if no others, could have said the same (Holy Spirit rather than Father though) - and if I remember rightly there is a verse or two where a person "is in Christ and Christ in him" - it is certainly no claim to be Christ himself. If an outsider can look at a Christian and not see Christ, perhaps the Christian has some work to do.
(Would that I had known where to find the content of 14:8-10 when I wrote my final essay at university.)


The word rendered as worship is proskuneo - it can mean either worship or venerate (among other meanings). Jesus accepted proskuneo in his role as Christ (messiah), Son of Man, Son of God, Son of David - no record I can think of shows him accepting proskuneo as God. He was an acknowledged "lord" and "master" (of a discipline and authorised to teach); as such, entitled to veneration. Orthodox and Roman school Christians proskuneo the saints. The rejection of proskuneo by the apostles might have had something to do with them being mistaken for gods.

Repeating: (from the perspective of the belief that Jesus was God) there is a wealth of ambiguous scripture that can be interpreted to mean Jesus remained God during the incarnation. There is also a wealth of explicit scripture that shows he didn't.

[NorrinRadd]

If you can’t figure it out just by hearing Jesse speak without Justin's comments, then you have more of a problem with Peters than you do with any "wackadoodle".

And that’s a problem.

I indeed have *almost* as much of a problem with JP, Phil Johnson, and Johnny-Mac as I do with the various Charismaniacs. I disagree with them on soteriology, pneumatology, Christology, ecclesiology, and maybe eschatology. And I especially reject the attitude they convey.

[One Bad Pig]

John 10:17-18 states that Jesus has the authority to lay down his life and take it up again. From the perspective of "Jesus is God" it can be interpreted as saying he is God. Other perspectives will give rise to other interpretations. Nothing there indicates whence the authority is sourced: it might be conferred. It is also written that the Father raised Jesus from the dead, (contra ECFs) not that Jesus raised himself.

No mere human has the ability to take up life again; it is flatly impossible. Authority is meaningless without ability; you're making out Jesus to be a liar.

John 8:58 states that Jesus existed before Abraham. It doesn't even say that Jesus is eternal. One of the Jewish expectations of the messiah was that he would be the transformed preexistent Metatron, also known as Bar Nash (the Son of Man), among the highest ranking of the angels or perhaps the highest ranking angel. The verse can't be used to support the idea that Jesus was God.

The reaction of the Jews to his statement clearly shows otherwise. You're also mischaracterising what Jesus said; Jesus' words were present tense, not your alleged past tense. Jesus' statement indicates eternity.

John 14:8-10 cited in SUPPORT of the idea that Jesus was God?!? verse 10 is an exposition of verses 8 and 9. The Father is in me; I am in the Father; I do not speak on my own initiative, it is the Father who does the work. It is a flat denial that Jesus performed the works on his own authority. Any of the apostles, if no others, could have said the same (Holy Spirit rather than Father though) - and if I remember rightly there is a verse or two where a person "is in Christ and Christ in him" - it is certainly no claim to be Christ himself. If an outsider can look at a Christian and not see Christ, perhaps the Christian has some work to do.
(Would that I had known where to find the content of 14:8-10 when I wrote my final essay at university.)

It is a flat equation of seeing Jesus with seeing the Father. It is of course not a claim that Jesus IS the Father.

The word rendered as worship is proskuneo - it can mean either worship or venerate (among other meanings). Jesus accepted proskuneo in his role as Christ (messiah), Son of Man, Son of God, Son of David - no record I can think of shows him accepting proskuneo as God.

You are reading your conclusion into this.

He was an acknowledged "lord" and "master" (of a discipline and authorised to teach); as such, entitled to veneration. Orthodox and Roman school Christians proskuneo the saints. The rejection of proskuneo by the apostles might have had something to do with them being mistaken for gods.

No saint, while living, would ever accept proskuneo, just like the apostles never did and angels never did (you neglected to reference them in your response). Jesus alone never rejected it - because, as you say, he wasn't worried about being mistaken for God. If he'd consciously given up his divinity, you'd think he'd be meticulous about rejecting it as well.

Repeating: (from the perspective of the belief that Jesus was God) there is a wealth of ambiguous scripture that can be interpreted to mean Jesus remained God during the incarnation. There is also a wealth of explicit scripture that shows he didn't.

You know better than that. If it was so obvious that your POV is correct, it would've been well-established long ago.

[NorrinRadd]

No mere human has the ability to take up life again; it is flatly impossible. Authority is meaningless without ability; you're making out Jesus to be a liar.

One could also add John 2:19.

But that does not address the myriad other Scriptures that refer to someone clearly (in context) distinct from Jesus -- God, the Father, perhaps the Spirit, an unspecified "He" or "Him" -- performing the raising.

The reaction of the Jews to his statement clearly shows otherwise. You're also mischaracterising what Jesus said; Jesus' words were present tense, not your alleged past tense. Jesus' statement indicates eternity.

I do tend to take this passage as Jesus self-identifying as "I Am," and to accept the ISV/CEB/NASB/NKJV/NAB rendering of v. 24. To me this is the closest thing to a direct assertion of deity by Jesus while on earth and pre-Resurrection.

It is a flat equation of seeing Jesus with seeing the Father. It is of course not a claim that Jesus IS the Father.

I really don't see the context supporting that, any more than I see the "vine" statements in John 15, or the "in them" sayings in the prayer in John 17 as teaching that seeing us would be equivalent to seeing Christ, in the way that you mean.

You are reading your conclusion into this.

No saint, while living, would ever accept proskuneo, just like the apostles never did and angels never did (you neglected to reference them in your response). Jesus alone never rejected it - because, as you say, he wasn't worried about being mistaken for God. If he'd consciously given up his divinity, you'd think he'd be meticulous about rejecting it as well.

This does appear to be a solid point. The closest thing to an exception I've found is Rev. 3:9, where Jesus tells the Philadelphian church that he will cause those from the "synagogue of satan" to "proskuneo" them.

You know better than that. If it was so obvious that your POV is correct, it would've been well-established long ago.

A lot of the proof-texts depend on tradition and a priori inclinations.

[One Bad Pig]

One could also add John 2:19.

But that does not address the myriad other Scriptures that refer to someone clearly (in context) distinct from Jesus -- God, the Father, perhaps the Spirit, an unspecified "He" or "Him" -- performing the raising.

Not sure how you would disambiguate the hard kenosis interpretation from the Arian interpretation of these, TBH.

I do tend to take this passage as Jesus self-identifying as "I Am," and to accept the ISV/CEB/NASB/NKJV/NAB rendering of v. 24. To me this is the closest thing to a direct assertion of deity by Jesus while on earth and pre-Resurrection.

The Greek is pretty clear.

I really don't see the context supporting that, any more than I see the "vine" statements in John 15, or the "in them" sayings in the prayer in John 17 as teaching that seeing us would be equivalent to seeing Christ, in the way that you mean.

I think you're replying more to tabibito's assertion here.

A lot of the proof-texts depend on tradition and a priori inclinations.

Well, de novo interpretations typically tend to be heresies. I'm really not sure how God the Son remains the same person while switching from wholly God to wholly human.

[tabibito]

No mere human has the ability to take up life again; it is flatly impossible. Authority is meaningless without ability; you're making out Jesus to be a liar.

Norrin Radd's answer is entirely adequate.

The reaction of the Jews to his statement clearly shows otherwise. You're also mischaracterising what Jesus said; Jesus' words were present tense, not your alleged past tense. Jesus' statement indicates eternity.

Given that there is no distinction in Koine Greek between the simple present and present continuous tenses, and that Jesus continued to exist at the time he was speaking, the statement that Jesus (already) existed or has existed since before Abraham was born in not inconsistent with the text. Logos had continuing existence - he did not have continuing existence as God - nor does death extinguish existence.

It is a flat equation of seeing Jesus with seeing the Father. It is of course not a claim that Jesus IS the Father.

Correct - seeing Jesus is equated with seeing the Father despite the fact that Jesus is not the Father, thus the Father is revealed in Christ - and Christ is revealed in the saint.

You are reading your conclusion into this.

Jesus was in every way the same as his brothers. He accepted proskuneo. The claim that he accepted worship cannot be sustained.
Matt 20:20. The mother of the sons of Zebedee - "bowed down" or similar in most (if not all) translations (proskuneo does not necessarily mean worship). No record of Jesus accepting proskuneo shows that the person was bowing down or worshipping as to a god. The magi? worshipped the king of the Jews. Luke 24:52 - post ascension, so Jesus was at that time God. Thomas' "my lord and my god" ... post resurrection. Matt 14:33 - they in the boat worshipped him as God's son, not as God. It isn't as though those who are committed to God are never termed sons of God.

No saint, while living, would ever accept proskuneo, just like the apostles never did and angels never did (you neglected to reference them in your response). Jesus alone never rejected it - because, as you say, he wasn't worried about being mistaken for God. If he'd consciously given up his divinity, you'd think he'd be meticulous about rejecting it as well.

Unlikely in the extreme that any living saint would accept proskuneo; but "never" might be an overstatement. Proskuneo involves a marked difference in status. In the scant few references that exist, the apostles did not accept proskuneo: it may have been a simple matter of establishing that there was not a significant difference in status.

You know better than that. If it was so obvious that your POV is correct, it would've been well-established long ago.

Did Logos become flesh? Not according to these long established traditions - he simply fashioned for himself a body from the flesh of the virgin and occupied it. Did Logos humble himself, empty himself? Not according to these long standing traditions - he remained God. Did he become for a time lesser than the angels? Not according to these long standing traditions - he remained God. Did these long standing traditions derive from scripture? According to the records of the ECFs - no.

Not sure how you would disambiguate the hard kenosis interpretation from the Arian interpretation of these, TBH.

Hard kenosis states that Logos was and is god. During the incarnation, Logos had abdicated from godhood (made lesser than the angels, a man in every way the same as his brothers), and was restored to godhood (Philippians 2:9-11 among others) post resurrection. The Arian concept is that he was never, and is not, God.

[tabibito]

[QUOTE=NorrinRadd;n1445215]

One could also add John 2:19.

But that does not address the myriad other Scriptures that refer to someone clearly (in context) distinct from Jesus -- God, the Father, perhaps the Spirit, an unspecified "He" or "Him" -- performing the raising.

I do tend to take this passage as Jesus self-identifying as "I Am," and to accept the ISV/CEB/NASB/NKJV/NAB rendering of v. 24. To me this is the closest thing to a direct assertion of deity by Jesus while on earth and pre-Resurrection.

The Koine Greek name for God is "ho o^en," not "ego eimi." God said to Moses, "I am (ego eimi) the living one [(ho o^en: the being)], tell them (pharaoh and the Israelites) that ho o^en has sent you."

I really don't see the context supporting that, any more than I see the "vine" statements in John 15, or the "in them" sayings in the prayer in John 17 as teaching that seeing us would be equivalent to seeing Christ, in the way that you mean.

"I and the Father are one" might mean that Jesus was ontologically one with the Father. Then again, when the comment is expanded in his prayer at Gethsemane, it becomes apparent that the statement is not about ontology: John 17:11, Holy Father, keep them in Your name, the name which You have given Me, that they may be one even as We. Jesus is certainly not asking that the disciples merge to become literally a single entity. IN THIS VERSE: How is Jesus being one with the Father different from me being one with another Christian?

John 17:22 “The glory which You have given Me I have given to them, that they may be one, just as We are one; 23 I in them and You in Me, that they may be perfected in unity,

Jesus and the Father are one, and Jesus prays that Christians might be one with each other in just the same way.

This does appear to be a solid point. The closest thing to an exception I've found is Rev. 3:9, where Jesus tells the Philadelphian church that he will cause those from the "synagogue of satan" to "proskuneo" them.

In 1 Chronicles 21:21 Ornan proskuneod David. In Ruth 2:10, Ruth proskuneod (prosekunesen, aorist tense of proskuneo) Boaz. In the parable (Matthew 18:26) one slave proskuneod his master, . Prosekuneo, in all its conjugations and in whatever context, can uniformly be translated as "paid homage" without any change whatever to the meaning of the Koine Greek.

A lot of the proof-texts depend on tradition and a priori inclinations.

Proof texts are very useful when they are explicit and adequately summarise a point.

John 17:5 “Now, Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was" cannot be used as a proof text.
It can be interpreted to mean, but does not explicitly state, that Jesus no longer had the glory that was his prior to the incarnation.

"Logos became flesh" is a proof text: unambiguous, summarising the point that Logos became something. The moment a text has to be modified to make the point, it is no longer a proof text - "Logos became, so to speak, flesh." "So to speak," is not in the text, so other texts will be needed to substantiate whether the addition is valid. With no texts supporting the alteration, the alteration is no more than an unsubstantiated opinion - no longer how thoroughly traditional it might be.

[tabibito]

no longer how thoroughly traditional it might be.

errm - no matter for how long and how thoroughly traditional it might be.

[NorrinRadd]

Here are a variety of items I find interesting.

First...

Walter Martin:

The New Testament irrefutably teaches that Christ did not exercise at least three prime attributes of deity while on the earth prior to His resurrection. These were omniscience, omnipresence, and omnipotence. Had He done so while a man, He could not have been perfect humanity. ...

The miracles of our Lord offer further proof of His limitations as a man, for He did not hesitate to teach that He personally worked none of them, and that it was the Father who performed the works (John 5:19, 30; John 8:28; 10:37, 38; 10:32; 14:10). ...

It can be said on good biblical ground that all of Christ's miracles, powers, and supernatural information were the result of the Father's action through Him, thus safeguarding our Lord's identity as a true man (John 14:10; John 5:30).

(Walter Martin, Essential Christianity, a Handbook of Basic Christian Doctrines, quoted by Rob Bowman in The Word-Faith Controversy.)

AFAICT, Bowman does not use the word "kenosis" (it does not appear in the Index, at least), but that concept is clearly in view. This is part of one of my favorite sections of Bowman's book. Bowman showed how Martin had warned about the WF movement approaching cult status, and then declaring, based on a quote in which Copeland prophesied, "I (Jesus) didn't claim I was God," declared they had fully arrived at cult status. But Martin's concern was about the "claim," or absence thereof. Copeland later clarified that he never said Jesus wasn't God, just that He did not make the claim. Martin continued to be upset about that, but never said a peep about Copeland's own related teaching that "Jesus did not minister on earth as the Son of God. He could have. He was God manifest in the flesh. The important thing to us is He didn't. Jesus ministered as a prophet under the Abrahamic Covenant."

Those views are barely distinguishable from Martin's own views.

Bowman recounts reading Martin's views, without attribution, to another researcher at CRI, and asking for an opinion. The immediate response was "That's heresy!" -- which was quickly sucked back in when the opiner was informed of the source.


Second, there is this by the late Gerald Hawthorne, NT scholar:

[I]t will become clear also that the Spirit so fully motivated Jesus' speech and actions that the miracles he performed and the words he spoke he spoke and performed not by virtue of his own power, the power of his own divine personality, but by virtue of the power of the Holy Spirit at work within him and through him.

That Jesus did his mighty works and preached his message with authority because he was enabled to do so by the Holy Spirit is the conclusion to which the Gospel writers came after reflecting on the extraordinary nature of his words and deeds. They expressed this conclusion both explicitly and implicitly.
(The Presence and the Power, pp. 145-146)

Clearly that is similar to Martin.

And later, on p. 210, Hawthorne says this:

It is not that the Eternal Son added humanity to his divinity, for such a claim smacks of that teaching which viewed the humanity of Christ as impersonal. Rather, "the Word became flesh" (John 1:14, italics mine); hence, "it is as a man, and within the limitations of manhood, that the Son of God is incarnate." This is to say that the Logos, the Son, God the Son, "set the divine life in human neighborhood" and for our sake put himself at our level, so that he actually thought and acted, viewed the world, and experienced time and space events strictly within the confines of a normally developing human person. Under these conditions of humanness, it is possible to dare to say that God -- God the Son -- learned as we learn, felt as we feel, laughed as we laugh, was surprised as we are surprised..."

Note that he explicitly denies the common explanation that John 1:14 just means that an additional nature was pasted on to deity.


Third, online I came across an article -- and I'm not going to try to track it down again -- where the author in all his Chalcedonian ardor approved of Gordon Fee pushing back against definitions of "kenosis" that involved Jesus "emptying" Himself of anything (Fee sees the language as Jesus "pouring out Himself"); but then he expresses some concern and confusion when Fee talks about the ministry of Jesus in terms suggesting he actually *did* believe Jesus laid aside His divine powers.

Interestingly, in the introductory pages of his "magnum opus" God's Empowering Presence, essentially a Pauline pneumatology, Fee admits a shortcoming of the book is that exclusively (but exhaustively) examines the Pauline corpus. He expresses the hope that it would stand alongside similar works by James Shelton (for Luke-Acts), Gary Burge (for the Johannine corpus), and Gerald Hawthorne "for Jesus." Interestingly, he does not name any of the actual books, but I infer he meant The Presence and the Power in Hawthorne's case, and while he probably did not agree with every jot and tittle, he probably would not have recommended it if he believed the pivotal penultimate chapter was deeply flawed.


Speaking of Fee, here is an interview with his daughter Cherith, dealing with related material.

[NorrinRadd]

If I have a point, I guess that it's that, at least in regard to kenotic Christology, WF preachers like Hagin and Copeland, at least as of 20 years or so ago, were no more radical than several well-regarded scholars.

[tabibito]

[QUOTE=NorrinRadd;n1445273]Here are a variety of items I find interesting.

First...

Walter Martin:
That Jesus did his mighty works and preached his message with authority because he was enabled to do so by the Holy Spirit is the conclusion to which the Gospel writers came after reflecting on the extraordinary nature of his words and deeds.

Yup - Acts records Peter making that same claim.

The miracles of our Lord offer further proof of His limitations as a man, for He did not hesitate to teach that He personally worked none of them, and that it was the Father who performed the works (John 5:19, 30; John 8:28; 10:37, 38; 10:32; 14:10). ...

Not to mention that (contra the ECFs) there are more than enough of miracles duplicated by men to show that a person did not need to be God to perform miracles of any sort - right up to resurrecting the dead.
ECFs - Jesus showed that he was God by resurrecting Lazarus. Others - errm. It wasn't Jesus that resurrected Tabitha, or that woman's son in the Old Testament. ECFs - Jesus walked on water, that shows he was God. Others: errm, Peter did the same. Miracles attest that God (or even some god or other) is with a person, not that the person is God.

Copeland's own related teaching that "Jesus did not minister on earth as the Son of God. He could have. He was God manifest in the flesh. The important thing to us is He didn't. Jesus ministered as a prophet under the Abrahamic Covenant."

Jesus did minister on earth as the Son of God - it wasn't a title reserved for or even applicable to deity.

Bowman recounts reading Martin's views, without attribution, to another researcher at CRI, and asking for an opinion. The immediate response was "That's heresy!" -- which was quickly sucked back in when the opiner was informed of the source.

Sad innit - no examination of the claims, just deciding that they are either correct or incorrect based on the identity of the speaker/author. Scant few do otherwise.