Was it the Son or the Father or both?

Theology
21

Thanks for your answers. Let me explain what I mean a little further. When Jesus put aside His deity, I don’t mean to say that He was no longer God or that He didn’t have a choice in doing miracles and healings. I mean He made the choice as part of His identification with man, not to and it was the Father who was the author. This was the nature of Satan’s temptation. Jesus limited Himself to powers only available to man. Satan tried to temp Him otherwise. God can’t be tempted by evil. The Bible says that Jesus was tempted in all way as we are, yet without sin.

In John 14 Jesus said, “My Father is greater than I”. This is explained in Philippians 2:5-11. “ Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus: Who, being in very nature God ,did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness.”

Jesus was fully God and fully man. He put aside His Godly attributes and came to us as a man dependent upon His Father and the Holy Spirit and He did this in part as a model of how it was supposed to be and will one day be again. He came not only to offer salvation, but to restore what Adam had lost.

22

@Bestill, why do you interpret Philippians 2:5-11 as Jesus putting aside his “Godly attributes”? He had the full status of being God but chose a humble and humiliating role of suffering and dying as fully human. He emptied himself of the high function of the second Person of God to come down to the depths of the cross, while remaining God. Nowhere in Paul’s description does he say that Jesus gave up his status of being God, only that he relinquished his role of being at the right hand of the Father and the glory that that function accorded him.

23

You just gave a great definition of ‘aside’.

To put something aside, doesn’t mean it’s no longer yours. I put funds aside for retirement. They’re my funds. I can access them anytime, but for my purpose I’ve put them aside. You say emptied Himself. I said aside. Different word but the same meaning.

24

Php 2:7 But stripped Himself [of all privileges and rightful dignity], so as to assume the guise of a servant (slave), in that He became like men and was born a human being.

Verse six
The first word which we must carefully study is “form.” The Greek word has no
reference to the shape of any physical object. It was a Greek philosophical term. Vincent
has an excellent note on the word. In discussing it, he has among other things, the
following to say: “We must here dismiss from our minds the idea of shape. The word is
used in its philosophical sense to denote that expression of being which carries in itself the
distinctive nature and character of the being to whom it pertains, and is thus permanently
identified with that nature and character … As applied to God, the word is intended to
describe that mode in which the essential being of God expresses itself. We have no word
which can convey this meaning, nor is it possible for us to formulate the reality. Form
inevitably carries with it to us the idea of shape. It is conceivable that the essential
personality of God may express itself in a mode apprehensible by the perception of pure
spiritual intelligences; but the mode itself is neither apprehensible nor conceivable by
human minds.
“This mode of expression, this setting of the divine essence, is not identical with the
essence itself, but is identified with it as its natural and appropriate expression, answering
to it in every particular. It is the perfect expression of a perfect essence. It is not
something imposed from without, but something which proceeds from the very depth of
the perfect being, and into which that being unfolds, as light from fire.”
Thus the Greek word for “form” refers to that outward expression which a person
gives of his inmost nature. This expression is not assumed from the outside, but proceeds
directly from within. Thus, our Lord’s outward
expression of His inmost being was as to its nature the expression of the divine essence of
Deity. Since that outward expression which this word “form” speaks of, comes from and
is truly representative of the inward being, it follows that our Lord as to His nature is the
possessor of the divine essence of Deity, and being that, it also necessarily follows that He
is absolute Deity Himself, a co-participant with God the Father and God the Holy Spirit in
that divine essence which constitutes God, God.
The time at which the apostle says our Lord gave expression to His essential nature,
that of Deity, was previous to His coming to earth to become incarnate as the Man Christ
Jesus. But Paul, by the use of the Greek word translated “being,” informs his Greek
readers that our Lord’s possession of the divine essence did not cease to be a fact when
He came to earth to assume human form. The Greek word is not the simple verb of being,
but a word that speaks of an antecedent condition protracted into the present. That is, our
Lord gave expression to the essence of Deity which He possesses, not only before He
became Man, but also after becoming Man, for He was doing so at the time this Philippian
epistle was being written. To give expression to the essence of Deity implies the
possession of Deity, for this expression, according to the definition of our word “form,”
comes from one’s inmost nature. This word alone is enough to refute the claim of
Modernism that our Lord emptied Himself of His Deity when He became Man.
This expression of the essence of His Deity which our Lord gave in His pre-incarnate
state, was given through a spiritual medium to spiritual intelligences, the angels. Human
beings in their present state of being cannot receive such impressions, since they are not
equipped with the spiritual sense of perception which the angels have. What Peter, James,
and John saw on the Mount of Transfiguration was an outward expression of the essence
of Deity, but given through a medium by which the physical senses of the disciples could
receive the expression given. But when believers receive their bodies of glory, they will be
equipped to receive the expression of Deity which the angels received, and through a like
spiritual medium.
Now, at this time, in the eternity before the universe was created, Paul says that our
Lord “thought it not robbery to be equal with God.” The word translated “thought” refers
to a judgment based upon facts. The word “God” is used again without the article. Had
the article preceded it, the meaning would be “equal with God the Father.” The word
“God” here refers to Deity, not seen in the three Persons of the Godhead, but to Deity
seen in its essence. Equality with God does not refer here to the equality of the Lord Jesus
with the other Persons of the Trinity. Nor does it refer to His equality with them in the
possession of the divine essence. Possession of the divine essence is not spoken of here,
but the expression of the divine essence is referred to, although possession is implied by
the expression. Equality with God here refers to our Lord’s co-participation with the other
members of the Trinity in the expression of the divine essence. This is a very important
point, for when we come to consider the fact that our Lord laid aside something, we will
see that it was not the possession but the expression of the divine essence.
-Wuest.

Shalom.

J.

25

Vincent.

Philippians 2:6

Php 2:7 But stripped Himself [of all privileges and rightful dignity], so as to assume the guise of a servant (slave), in that He became like men and was born a human being.

Being in the form of God (ἐν μορφῇ Θεοῦ ὑπάρχων)
Being. Not the simple είναι to be, but stronger, denoting being which is from the beginning. See on Jas_2:15. It has a backward look into an antecedent condition, which has been protracted into the present. Here appropriate to the preincarnate being of Christ, to which the sentence refers. In itself it does not imply eternal, but only prior existence. Form (μορφή). We must here dismiss from our minds the idea of shape. The word is used in its philosophic sense, to denote that expression of being which carries in itself the distinctive nature and character of the being to whom it pertains, and is thus permanently identified with that nature and character. Thus it is distinguished from σχῆμα fashion, comprising that which appeals to the senses and which is changeable. Μορφή form is identified with the essence of a person or thing: σχῆμα fashion is an accident which may change without affecting the form. For the manner in which this difference is developed in the kindred verbs, see on Mat_17:2.
As applied here to God, the word is intended to describe that mode in which the essential being of God expresses itself. We have no word which can convey this meaning, nor is it possible for us to formulate the reality. Form inevitably carries with it to us the idea of shape. It is conceivable that the essential personality of God may express itself in a mode apprehensible by the perception of pure spiritual intelligences; but the mode itself is neither apprehensible nor conceivable by human minds.
This mode of expression, this setting of the divine essence, is not identical with the essence itself, but is identified with it, as its natural and appropriate expression, answering to it in every particular. It is the perfect expression of a perfect essence. It is not something imposed from without, but something which proceeds from the very depth of the perfect being, and into which that being perfectly unfolds, as light from fire. To say, then, that Christ was in the form of God, is to say that He existed as essentially one with God. The expression of deity through human nature (Php_2:7) thus has its background in the expression of deity as deity in the eternal ages of God’s being. Whatever the mode of this expression, it marked the being of Christ in the eternity before creation. As the form of God was identified with the being of God, so Christ, being in the form of God, was identified with the being, nature, and personality of God.

This form, not being identical with the divine essence, but dependent upon it, and necessarily implying it, can be parted with or laid aside. Since Christ is one with God, and therefore pure being, absolute existence, He can exist without the form. This form of God Christ laid aside in His incarnation.
-Vincent.

Php 2:7 but ἀλλὰ emptied ἐκένωσεν Himself, ἑαυτὸν having taken λαβών, [the] form μορφὴν of a servant, δούλου having been made γενόμενος· in ἐν [the] likeness ὁμοιώματι of men. ἀνθρώπων
Php 2:8 And καὶ having been found εὑρεθεὶς in appearance σχήματι as ὡς a man ἄνθρωπος He humbled ἐταπείνωσεν Himself, ἑαυτὸν having become γενόμενος obedient ὑπήκοος unto μέχρι death, θανάτου, even δὲ [the] death θανάτου of [the] cross. σταυροῦ.

J.

26

Jesus was telling them there that he and the Father are one, both equally were God

27

And who is the Ruach Ha-Kodesh/Holy Spirit @JesusFan ?

J.

28

Third Person of the Trinity