Page 37 - Christology - Student Textbook

98
can function as a noun (“substantival participle” ). That is, in a clause, it can function as a “subject,”
99
an “object,” a “complement,” or an “appositive.” ]). Second, it can function as an “adjectival
100
participle.” That is, in a clause, it can be modifying a noun in which they should agree in gender
(i.e., Masculine, Neuter, or a Feminine], case (nominative, genitive, dative , or accusative, and
number (how many subjects are involved). Finally, it can function as a “verbal participle.” What
101
that means is it can be functioning as a main verb in a sentence, finishing the action for another
verb, and it can be emphasizing on the duration in conjunction with the verb εἰμι.

In Phil. 2:5 it appears that those two participles are functioning as adverbial participles; modifying
the action of the verb, emptying. Now, depending on the context, an adverbial participle may modify
the verb in any one of the eight ways, namely; manner (or modal), means (or instrumental), time,
cause, condition, concession, purpose, and attendant circumstances. Contextually, the two
102
participles are functioning as “the manner”-- that is, they are modifying that verb emptying by
showing us the manner of Jesus’ emptying. This is support by O’ Brien who argues that the “taking of
the very nature of a servant” “describes the manner in which Christ emptied Himself.” He
103
emptied Himself by “being made in human likeness.” Attention and care should be exercised on
104
the interpretation of “taking the form of a servant.” We know that servants or
slaves had no personal rights.

Notice that Jesus never ceased to be God. Therefore, He did not abrogate any
of His rights or attributes when he took the very nature of a servant. Francis
Sperry Chafer notes that “A change of position or relationship is implied, but
105
no surrender of essential Being is indicated, nor is such a surrender possible”
(cf. Rom. 1:3, 4; 8:3; 2 Cor. 5:21; Gal. 4:4). Scripture says that in becoming
flesh, “All fullness dwells in Him (Col. 1:19), and even more emphatically, “In
him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily” (Col. 2:9). It was none other than God Himself
106
who was “manifest in the flesh” (1 Tim. 3:16). Millard J. Erickson adds that in their interpretation
of Philippians 2:6-7, “what Jesus emptied himself of was not the divine the nature of God. The best
way to understand Philippians 2:6–7 is to think of the phrase “taking the very nature of a servant” as
107
a explanation of the kenosis (emptying).”

Erickson indicates that Jesus emptied His equality with God. Basically he is saying that when
108
Jesus become flesh, He was no longer equal with God the Father. We read from some gospels that
Jesus Himself stated that He was doing what the Father has sent Him to do (John 8:16, 28, 38). O’

98 Harvey, Greek Is Good Grief: Laying the Foundation for Exegesis and Exposition, 144.

99 Ibid., 41-42.
100 Ibid., 144.

101 Ibid.
102 Ibid., 178.

103 O’ Brien, The Epistle to the Philippians, 218.

104 Ibid., 224.
105 Chafer, Systematic Theology, 376.

106 Ibid.
107 Erickson, Christian Theology, 751.

108 Ibid.

36