In Philippians 2:6–7 (ESV), Paul writes of Christ: >*“Though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.”* Some interpret this "emptying" (Greek: kenóō) to mean that Christ temporarily gave up or set aside His divine attributes, and became fully human in appearance and function. Others argue that He remained fully divine while also taking on full humanity — the doctrine of the hypostatic union. Does this passage support the idea that Jesus ceased to operate in divine nature during His earthly life, or is it describing something else (e.g., a voluntary humility or servant posture)? How do major theological traditions (e.g., Chalcedonian Christianity, kenotic theology) interpret this “emptying”?

> 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: - Philippians 2:5-6 Various translations render "*hegeomai*" as thought, consider, regard, count, esteem, deem, reckon, and even a strange "take advantage" (which I think is outside the box). All of these rightly represent a function of mind, as the object in question (equality with God) is perceived and rationally, accurately considered. For comparison, the exact same word in the exact same form appears in 1 Timothy 1:12 (he counted) and Hebrews 11:11 (she judged). Indeed, we are exhorted to have the same mind in us as was in Christ Jesus when He, Christ Jesus, thought (*hegeomai*) it not robbery to be equal with God **when** He was in the form of God. Following that consideration he "took upon him the form of a servant". The condescension follows after and flows from the consideration in the text of v. 6-8 just as the exaltation of v. 9 follows after and flows from the condescension. There are those who declare that, prior to his birth, Jesus did not exist with person-hood and that, if he existed in some form, he existed as "an idea in the mind of God". Biblical Unitarians are one such group. However this verse declares that, prior to his birth in Nazareth, Christ Jesus displayed function of mind. He considered, thought, reckoned, esteemed, or counted. Additionally, having considered he then acted by "making himself of no reputation" and "took the form of a servant" in accordance with his reckoning. It is crystal clear from the verse in question that it is the "who" which "thought" and equally clear that the "who" is Christ Jesus prior to his birth in Nazareth. The who, "being in the form of God", is prior to "in the form of a servant" and "made in the likeness of men" as evidenced by the conjunctive "but" separating the *hegeomai* of equality with God, which took place when in the form of God, and the actions of making himself of no reputation, etc. which result from the *hegeomai*. If the latter activity can be understood as Jesus' birth in Nazareth (and indeed it must if he did not pre-exist his birth), then it is prior to his birth in Nazareth when he considered. From those who deny a pre-incarnate "person" of Christ; Who or what performed "*hegeomai*", that function of personal, rational mind?

The name of the LORD is sacred and to be given to God alone. This is seen in Isaiah 42:8: > “I am the LORD; that is my name; my glory I give to no other, nor my praise to carved idols.” ‭‭‬(‭ESV‬‬) Along with Psalm 148:13: > Let them praise the name of the Lord, for his name alone is exalted; his majesty is above earth and heaven. (ESV) However, in Philippians 2:9 we read that: > Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, (ESV) How can Jesus receive the name above every other name unless he already is God?

What is the Orthodox exegesis of Philippians 2:6-11, in particular, the phrase "He emptied Himself?"

Paul Says He Is Of "The Stock Of Israel, Of The Tribe Of Benjamin, An Hebrew Of The Hebrews", Why Does He Also Call Himself A "Jew"/G2453? Philippians 3:5 Circumcised the eighth day, of “”the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews””; as touching the law, a Pharisee; Rom 11:1“I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of ""Benjamin"" Acts 21:39 But Paul said, I am a man which am a Jew/G2453 of Tarsus, a city in Cilicia, a citizen of no mean city: and, I beseech thee, suffer me to speak unto the people. 40And when he had given him licence, Paul stood on the stairs, and beckoned with the hand unto the people. And when there was made a great silence, **he spake unto them in the Hebrew tongue**, saying I am looking for a specific verse, you should know this..

I understand that there are verses that say becoming sinless is impossible: > For there is not a just man upon earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not. (Ecclesiastes 7:20) > As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: (Romans 3:10) > If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. (1 John 1:8) > Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned— (For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law (Romans 5:12-19, NKJV) But how can it be impossible if we can do all things with God? > But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible. (Matthew 19:29) > I can do all things through him who strengthens me. (Philippians 4:13) How can the highest courts of heaven be filled with “an innumerable number” of those who stopped sinning in life? > 22 But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels,
> 23 To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect (Hebrews 12) How was Noah “a just man and perfect in his generations, and [he] walked with God”(Genesis 6:9)?
How was the Israelite king Asa's heart “perfect with the Lord all his days.” (1 Kings 15:14)?
How was Job “perfect and upright, and one that feared God” (Job 1:1) God makes people's hearts all the same, so therefore we all have the same capacity to stop sinning: > He fashioneth [all mens’] hearts alike; he considereth all their works. (Psalm 33:15) So how can it be impossible to be sinless?

Philippians 2:6 is "Ὃς ἐν μορφῇ Θεοῦ ὑπάρχων οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγήσατο τὸ εἶναι ἴσα Θεῷ" "Hos en morphe theou hyparchon ouch harpagmon hegesato to einai isa theo" In his talk Philippians 2: Jesus is not God , Dr. Tom Gaston says (~3 min. mark) > "Had Paul meant to say that Jesus was God, or was a god, he would have > had a very simple way of doing so. That's not a difficult thing to say > in Greek. So the fact that he doesn't use those words makes it very > unlikely that that's what he means." If St. Paul had wanted to say Jesus was God at Philippians 2:6 straightforwardly, he could have said so. Instead, he adds the word 'form', as in 'form of God'. Similarly, as Gaston continues > "Also, had Paul meant to be talking about Jesus' *nature* - saying > that Jesus had the nature of God - again, he would have used other > words. Look at this passage from Galatians 4:8, where Paul talks about > the nature of gods. [...] He uses the Greek word 'phusis' for > 'nature', and again, when you look at that verse for 2 Peter 1:4, it > talks about participating in the divine nature, and again the Greek > word used is 'phusis'. **So had Paul wanted to say Jesus had divine > nature, there are other words he could have used to say that. Instead, > what Paul says is that Jesus was in the form of God. The word he uses > is 'morphe', which is most commonly used in reference to *outward* > appearance, rather than essence or being** [as is done at Mark 16:12]." Why, according to Trinitarians who believe Philippians 2:6 is saying Jesus was God, did Paul add the word 'form' ('morphe')?

### The background I grew up in a Reformed church since I was a kid. In my adulthood as I become more concerned with my spiritual health, I increasingly expect theology to provide *at least* a rich enough vocabulary of the spiritual life of a believer that I can latch into and correlate them with aspects of experience in my spiritual life (which is given to me by Christ through faith). After a decade or so studying and reading, I found that compared to Catholicism (which has a rich store of concepts in its spiritual and mystical theologies) when pushed for clarity, Reformed pastors and teachers keep going back to concepts such as "godliness", "Christlike-ness", "ongoing sanctification" which (despite having REAL referents because Jesus and God are real) is linguistically CIRCULAR since those concepts go back to the theology of God and to Christology, thus **creating a wall that separate theology from philosophy/psychology** in the area of spirituality. In contrast, Catholicism since time immemorial (especially since St. Augustine) has been self-consciously **breaking the wall** by integrating theological discussion with philosophy & psychology so that referents of spiritual life concepts such as "godliness", "Christlikeness", and "ongoing sanctification" don't remain *ontologically* in the realm of the intellect, i.e. remain concepts (albeit having REAL referents to God). If theology is to have any relevance beyond remaining in the ivory tower, there needs to be a **spiritual theology** that provides clarity to abstract concepts so it can be "incarnate" (practically real) in a believer's daily life. Thus, if "maturity" can stand in for "godliness" then it is a better term (from spiritual theology perspective) since it's more concrete descriptively, something that humans can have a handle of, in philosophy & psychology. But I found out from experience discussing with Calvinists that most seem to have an aversion to breaking this WALL that separates theology of God/Christ from *something* that can be experienced and described by the servants of theology, namely philosophy and psychology. They would typically say that Christians are *not* supposed to pollute theology with humanism. But how can spiritual theology *NOT* having a philosophical/psychological conceptual tool to describe progress in a believer's spiritual life? For an evangelical introduction to spiritual theology that specifically connects the theology of sanctification with psychology, please watch/read a 2014 video (transcript included) of a talk at Biola by John Coe, Professor of Philosophy and Spiritual Theology / Director of the Institute for Spiritual Formation at Biola University: [Spiritual Theology for the Church](https://cct.biola.edu/spiritual-theology-for-the-church/) . ### The puzzle I am sometimes puzzled with *some* Calvinists / Reformed believers who insist that no one is righteous but God, EVEN after conversion, sanctification, and resurrection of the believer! This is often characterized by the theological concept of [imputed righteousness](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imputed_righteousness) and [alien righteousness](https://www.ligonier.org/posts/alien-righteousness) which emphasize that righteousness remains solely God's possession forever (but never ours), and they would cite verses like [Rom 3:10-12](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+3%3A10-12&version=CSB) and interpret them to hold true even when we are in heaven! My puzzle comes when I come across Bible verses that imply God working in us (during sanctification stage) to increase *something* within the believer. Example: [Phil 1:6,9-11](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=phil+1%3A3-11&version=CSB) (CSB): > 6 ... he who started a good work in you **will carry it on to completion** until the day of Christ Jesus. ... 9 And I pray this: that **your love will keep on growing** in knowledge and every kind of discernment, 10 so that you may approve the things that are superior and may be pure and blameless in the day of Christ, 11 **filled with the fruit of righteousness** that comes through Jesus Christ to the glory and praise of God. Later in the letter ([Phil 2:13](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Philippians+2%3A12-17&version=CSB) , CSB), Paul reiterates about God's work: > For it is God who is working in you both to will and to work according to his good purpose. This "growing" and "filling" language implies ***something* that is ontologically REAL within the psychological space** that increases within a believer, which is the result of God's work (with our passive cooperation since according to Calvinists all we can do is *not* rebel). This language also implies "progress" (see a [related question](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/92209/50422)) . Sensitive / philosophically minded readers will ask: what is this ***something*** within us that God *produces within us progressively* to enable us "to will and to work according to his good purpose" more and more easily? ### The question So my question to Calvinists / Reformed is this: **what is the proper term in spiritual theology (a term that is MEANINGFUL, RELATABLE, and DESCRIBABLE to a human) for the aspect that God increases within us during our sanctification?** If not *righteousness*, can it be called *holiness* (*cf* [Rom 6:19](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=rom+6%3A19&version=NIV) , NIV)? Or is there no unifying theological term but leaving it to individual fruits (love, joy, etc.) as in [Gal 5:22-23](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=gal+5%3A22-23&version=NIV) ? Or do Reformed theologians use a term that is not in the Bible such as *virtues* for this something? Some comments have suggested "godliness", "Christlike-ness", and "ongoing sanctification" which are of course perfectly fine as a theological term, but those concepts leave the correlational hard work to poor believers who are untrained theologically to correlate those theological concepts to the realm of philosophy and psychology that they can latch on in daily spiritual life. So while I can accept those as correct answers, I have updated the question to "spiritual theology term" in order to induce answers that can provide synonymous terms which are more pertinent to human experience on the human side of the WALL (see "The background" section). Secondary questions (which is nice to be addressed in an answer, but not strictly asked for, to keep this Q from being too broad): 1. How do we discern the result of God's working in us, even if indirectly (through its effects)? 1. If this process does not finish when we die, what happens to God's promise in Phil 1:6? How does God bridge the gap between a faithful with lots of sinful habits to the finished version of that faithful that fits for heaven? Does God simply snap his finger like magic and finish the work without our involvement at all?

Philippians 2:7: > but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. In this passage, we see that Jesus “emptied himself” and became a servant. But this seems impossible if Jesus did not exist prior to his human conception. How do people who say Jesus didn’t exist prior to his conception account for this?

John 1:14 (YLT): > 14 And the **Word became flesh, and did tabernacle among us**, and we beheld his glory, glory as of an **only begotten of a father**, full of grace and truth. Philippians 2:5-8 (YLT): > 5 For, let this mind be in you that [is] also in **Christ Jesus**, > > 6 who, **being in the form of God**, thought [it] not robbery to be **equal to God**, > > 7 but did empty himself, **the form of a servant having taken**, in the > **likeness of men having been made**, > > 8 and in fashion having been **found as a man**, he humbled himself, > having become obedient unto death -- death even of a cross, I find some notable parallels between these two accounts: - Both appear to be talking about Jesus (*"only begotten of a father"*, *"Christ Jesus"*) - Both appear to be describing a transition from a prior state to a next state (*"the Word became flesh"*, from *"form of God"*/*"equal to God"* to *"form of a servant"*/*"found as a man"*) - Both mention the fact that this person lived among humans (*"did tabernacle among us"*, *"found as a man"*) Do Biblical Unitarians agree that John 1:14 and Philippians 2:5-8 are describing the same event? ____ Related BH.SE question: [Are John 1:14 and Philippians 2:5-8 describing the same event?](https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/q/57139/38524)

Philippians 2:12 Says: >12 Therefore, my dear friends, as you have always obeyed—not only in my presence, but now much more in my absence—continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling, 1st Corinthians 15:2 Says: >2 and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you—unless you believed in vain. There are a large sect of Christians (mainly fundamentalist evangelicals) in America who hold salvation to be a once a done, one time event. How do they respond to these passages? ----------------------------------------- Related: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/57396/how-can-1-corinthians-153-be-reconciled-with-calvinism-and-limited-atonement

Philippians 2:6-9 ASV >**6** who, existing in the form of God, counted not the being on an equality with God a thing to be grasped **7** but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men **8** and being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, becoming obedient even unto death, yea, the death of the cross **9** Wherefore also God highly exalted him, and gave unto him the name which is above every name If Jesus is God/equal to God, under what conditions would using the words "robbery/seizure" be needed pertaining to the question of equality?

Philippians 2:5-8 (NRSV): > 5 Let the same mind be in you that was in **Christ Jesus**, > > 6 **who, though he was in the form of God**, > **did not regard equality with God** > as something to be exploited, 7 but emptied himself, > taking the form of a slave, > being born in human likeness. And being found in human form, 8 he humbled himself > and became obedient to the point of death— > even death on a cross. How do non-trinitarians (and those who deny the divinity of Jesus in general) interpret this passage?

Philippians 2:5-9 describes the attitude of humility, love, and service which Christ Jesus possessed while on earth: > Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but **emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant**, being born in the likeness of men. And **being found in human form, he humbled himself** by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name... There is much already said about what it means to "be in the form of God" and "equality with God" in the literature of both trinitarians and non-trinitarians. See here for a start. This question is not about those particular aspects of what some theologians, in expounding this passage, have termed "the Kenosis ". The question is regarding the notions of "emptying" and "taking the form of". The passage seems to present that in order for Jesus to be found in the form of a servant he needed to empty himself. More specifically, it states that he emptied himself **by** taking the form of a servant **and** being born in the likeness of a man. If Jesus did not pre-exist his birth then: 1) By taking the form of a servant and being born in the likeness of a man he emptied himself of what, exactly? 2) How can one empty oneself **by** birth as a man if one does not pre-exist that birth?

At his birth he was called JESUS! After his exaltation he was given a NAME! Phillipians 2:9 > Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name What is that name?

I was trying to represent the word "Kenosis" (Philippians 2:5-8) in a graphic way in order to understand it better. I know it sounds strange, but I imagine this concept as an almost empty hand which pours wine in another hand which is filled by the first one. What analogies have been suggested for kenosis?

> **Philippians 2:9** > Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name > **Matthew 28:18** > Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me." In the first of the verses mentioned above, Scripture talks about God exalted Jesus, and the second verse talks about Jesus gaining all authority on heaven and on Earth. If Jesus is God, why would he need to be exalted and given authority, especially considering that exaltation and authority are qualities already possessed by God?

So, please clarify something for me. I'm trying to get a better understanding of presenting my requests to God, but also recognizing that it is not my will, but His will be done. Here are three verses that I am trying to connect (I have italicized the most key parts): > Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; *yet not my will, > but yours be done*. (Luke 22:42 NIV) > > Do not be anxious about anything, but *in every situation, by prayer > and petition, with thanksgiving, present your requests to God*. (Philippians 4:6) > > *Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the > door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives; the one > who seeks finds; and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened*. > (Matthew 7:7-8 NIV) So, whenever I pray, I will present my requests to God, and then I will finish it off with: "yet not my will, but Your will be done always and only." But the Scripture says to "ask and it will be given to you." But, are there times when it won't be given to me, because if God doesen't want something to work out, it won't be given to me. It all around just confuses me, and I have ignored it for a long time. But, I was thinking about all of this earlier today and decided to finally get some clarification. Please don't criticize my faith. That is definitely *not* why I came to this forum. I am a devout Christian and care about what God wants above anything else. I just need some clarification so I can advance with my prayers. =)

In Philippians 2:8-9 we read: >He [Jesus] humbled himself in obedience to God and died a criminal’s death on a cross. Therefore, God elevated him to the place of highest honor and gave him the name above all other names For many years I studied with the Jehovah's Witness, and now years later I still have trouble with the doctrine of the Trinity. Can you please clarify this passage for me: - If Jesus is God, how could he humble himself in obedience to God? (As God he could do no wrong and therefore could not be disobedient by definition?) - If Jesus is God, how could God elevate him [Jesus] to the place of highest honour? (Surely Jesus was already at the highest place because He is equal to God?)

Protestantism generally teaches that salvation is by faith alone, through grace. Paul seem to make a case for this in Philippians 3:9: > and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith (ESV) but later on verse 12, he says: > Not that I have already obtained, or am already made perfect: but I press on, if so be that I may lay hold on that for which also I was laid hold on by Christ Jesus. Does that not seem to indicate that we cannot be sure of our salvation, and that works are also implied?