(1) Assuming a slave's form is a fitting expression of Christ's humility. Nevertheless, a fatal objection to Robert Bowman's view of the participial phrase in Phil. 2:7 is that his explanation makes KENOW refer to an act of addition--not to an act of subtraction. Yet lexical evidence for this use of KENOW is sadly lacking. One may consult BDAG, Louw-Nida, LSJ or Moulton-Milligan's and he or she will likely not find one instance where KENOW describes an act of addition. Neither in Holy Writ nor in extra-biblical literature does one find an instance of this Greek verb employed in the manner that Bowman suggests.
(2) The aorist participle LABWN, if translated woodenly, would be rendered "having taken" or "received" the form of a servant. It would thus have reference to an action that is antecedent to the main verb. But there are also times when the aorist participle has ingressive force.
At one time, I favored the antecedent view for the participle LABWN in Phil. 2:7. After talking with a friend and studying Stanley Porter's Idioms, however, I must concede that LABWN may be referring to consequent action or another possibility is subsequent action. At any rate, it is by no means certain that LABWN is a participle of means. While categorizing Phil. 2:7 as an example of the instrumental participle (i.e., participle of means), Brooks and Winbery admit that LABWN and GENOMENOS "may indicate manner rather than means" (Syntax of NT Greek, 150). To be fair, they also say that there's little difference between a participle of manner and one of means. However, the disparity between the two is significant enough to demonstrate that Bowman may only be appealing to a grammatical principle that suits his theology. For a brief (but lucid) explanation of the difference between means and manner, see Richard A. Young's Intermediate NT Greek, p. 154.
Bowman also writes:
"but there need not be an argument here at all. In Trinitarian theology it is true to say that Christ actively took this action [i.e., the kenosis], and it is also true to say that the Father sent Christ and gave him his human nature (including his body). It is not either/or; it is both/and."
My Response:
Maybe acording to Trinitarian theology, Christ actively "incarnated himself." But my concern is whether the Bible makes this claim. So far, you've offered one controversial text to support your theological view and not much else. And the lexicons I've checked so far all agree that KENOW does not refer to an act of addition. Furthermore, grammarians who are interested in scholarship (rather than propping up Trinitarian notions), also concede that the context of Phil. 2:7 possibly does not really favor LABWN being a participle of means. Construing it thus is only a convenient way to seemingly buttress your view of the Incarnation and God's putative triunity.
Yeah, Bowman takes traditional doctrine and tries to make the scriptures fit to it. Instead he should take scripture and try to make tradition fit it. The Trinity doctrine does not fit to scripture.
ReplyDeleteHola...
ReplyDeleteSaludos
¿Que significa para ti "un participio de medios"?
Hola,
ReplyDeleteIf I understand your question correctly, this might help:
https://daedalus.umkc.edu/FirstGreekBook/JWW_FGB53.html
The word "middle" in this case refers to the voice of the participle. In other words,, who is doing the action expressed by the participle?
You argue that “kenoō “(to empty) cannot refer to an act of addition, as Bowman suggests, and that no lexical evidence supports this interpretation. However, Bowman’s argument does not hinge on “kenoō “implying an addition in the sense of accumulating something new. Instead, he focuses on the self-emptying as the means by which Christ took on human nature. This kenosis involves the addition of humanity in a relational and functional sense, while subtraction from Christ’s divine attributes does not occur. Bowman’s point, which aligns with orthodox Christian theology, is that Christ, while remaining fully divine, added to Himself the full reality of humanity. In this sense, the kenosis is an act of humility and voluntary limitation, not the loss of divinity.
ReplyDeleteMoreover, theologians who affirm the traditional doctrine of the Incarnation argue that Christ’s self-emptying does not necessitate the loss of divine attributes but rather the voluntary setting aside of the independent use of those attributes. Therefore, Bowman’s argument is not about “kenoō” directly meaning "addition," but rather about understanding “kenoō” within the context of Philippians 2:7 as the mode through which Christ humbly took on the form of a servant.
You rightly note that the aorist participle “labōn” can sometimes indicate antecedent action. However, you also concede that “labōn” can refer to consequent or subsequent action. Bowman’s interpretation of “labōn” as instrumental or means is one of several possible readings, and it aligns with the broader theological narrative of the passage, which emphasizes Christ’s active role in taking on humanity.
The ambiguity of participles in Greek allows for a range of interpretations, and it is not uncommon for scholars to interpret “labōn” as a participle of means in this context. The participle indicates the means by which Christ's kenosis occurred—by taking the form of a servant. In this sense, “labōn” explains how Christ’s emptying of Himself was accomplished, rather than simply describing a temporal sequence of actions.
While some grammarians might lean toward construing “labōn” as manner or another possibility, the distinction between means and manner is not as clear-cut as your argument suggests. Bowman’s reading of “labōn” as a participle of means fits well with the flow of the passage: Christ emptied Himself by taking on the form of a servant. This interpretation is consistent with both the grammatical possibilities and the theological intent of the text.
ReplyDeleteYou question whether the Bible supports the idea that Christ actively participated in His own incarnation. However, Philippians 2:6-7 clearly portrays Christ as taking an active role in His self-emptying. The text presents Christ as the subject who emptied himself and took the form of a servant. This language implies an active decision on Christ’s part. While it is true that the Father is often portrayed as sending the Son (e.g., John 3:16, Galatians 4:4), this does not negate the Son’s active participation in the Incarnation. Both divine persons act in concert, with the Son willingly accepting His mission.
Bowman’s assertion that the Son's self-emptying is an act of His own volition is in line with Philippians 2:7, which emphasizes Christ’s humility and willingness to become human. This does not contradict the notion that the Father sent the Son, but rather shows that both Father and Son are active participants in the plan of salvation.
While you argue that no lexicon supports Bowman’s interpretation of “kenoō” as involving addition, it’s important to remember that the act of kenosis is about self-limitation, not self-deprivation. Christ’s "emptying" did not mean that He ceased to be divine, but that He voluntarily set aside His divine prerogatives in order to fully experience humanity. This is not an addition in the technical sense, but rather the addition of humanity while retaining His divine nature.
Furthermore, as you mentioned, “kenoō” is about emptying in the sense of humility and self-sacrifice. This aligns with the context of Philippians 2, where Paul emphasizes Christ’s humility and servanthood. Bowman’s interpretation is consistent with this broader theme of humility, where Christ, though fully divine, did not exploit His equality with God but instead took on the form of a servant.