"firstborn from the dead" = the first who died?

[Giuseppe]

Per Hymn to Phil., Christ was already "in the image of God" before the descending/emptying, so I interpret it in the maximum degree possible, to mean that, before he "emptied himself", Christ was already fulfilling the universe. What can be emptied is only a full recipient (one that is already 100% full). Simple logic. Why should we suppose half-full recipients? The only missing thing for Jesus was the Name.

In addition:

"In order that he might fill all things" surely responds to "above all the heavens," making the ascent itself the reason for the filling.

By the same logic, also when Christ descended, he descended under all the heavens. The kenosis was complete just as the previous and the later filling.

[Ben C. Smith]

Here is an alternative interpretation of the Jesus hymn in Philippians 2: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=4795.

[Giuseppe]

Why should I disturb to read different far-stretched views of the hymn when the use of the verb ἐκένωσεν is a so explicit pointer to a previous status of the Son that is the exact contrary of a κένωσις , i.e. a filling?

In second point, I doubt a priori when scholars want to read the so-called typology "Adam/Christ", under the implicit free assumption that Jesus has to be always and in any case opposed to Adam (as sinner). They ignore that a concrete option is that Adam didn't fall in no way, that Christ was the Primal Man himself and that the hymn points out just this: that the First Man emptied himself as act of obedience and not of rebellion.

[Ben C. Smith]

Why should I disturb to read different far-stretched views of the hymn when the use of the verb ἐκένωσεν is a so explicit pointer to a previous status of the Son that is the exact contrary of a κένωσις , i.e. a filling?

And there it is. Why indeed? You have learned all there is to learn, and there is no reason to learn any more. From here on out, you can just make it up as you go along, like a god playing with a new universe. Enjoy!

[Giuseppe]

Why should I disturb to read different far-stretched views of the hymn when the use of the verb ἐκένωσεν is a so explicit pointer to a previous status of the Son that is the exact contrary of a κένωσις , i.e. a filling?

And there it is. Why indeed? You have learned all there is to learn, and there is no reason to learn any more. From here on out, you can just make it up as you go along, like a god playing with a new universe. Enjoy!

My point is slightly more complex: the simple presence of ἐκένωσεν is a rock that is too big to overcome for different views that would deny the pre-existence and the ''filling'' of who is going to be emptied.

Of grace, can you say me how can a man on earth to empty himself?

Can I (or you for that matter) empty myself? And how, of grace? That verb can be used only for a pre-existing deity.

In addition, if the reward for the our emptied champion is only a Name, then this is another evidence of what he really was missing before the death: not of the status of a deity (=of a filling-space giant), but simply of a title, of a Name.

And that Name was: Jesus.

[perseusomega9]

Why should I disturb to read different far-stretched views of the hymn when the use of the verb ἐκένωσεν is a so explicit pointer to a previous status of the Son that is the exact contrary of a κένωσις , i.e. a filling?

Jesus fucking christ. Go away

[robert j]

In what sense did the author of Ephesians intend with πληρώσῃ? (4:10)

That He might fill? Or that He might fulfill?

Both uses are widely represented in the NT.

Based on the available evidence, I don’t think one can claim a “right” answer to this. One can only offer an opinion. And in my opinion, I think “fulfill” is the best interpretation here.

The author of Ephesians starts with a direct citation of an “event” from a Psalm, and says that Jesus Christ had accomplished that action with an ascent. And the descent by Jesus to the lower regions of the earth (the underworld) is reflected in the same Psalm just a few lines beyond the direct citation given in Ephesians.

I think a fulfillment of the scripture by the “events” of Jesus Christ is in view here.

Ephesians	Psalms (LXX)
Therefore it says: "Having ascended on high, He captured captivity, and gave gifts to men." Now what is "He ascended," except that He also descended into the lower regions of the earth? The One having descended is also the same one having ascended above all the heavens, so that He might fulfill (πληρώσῃ) all things. (Ephesians 4:8-10)	You ascended the height; you captured captivity; you received gifts by men … Blessed be the Lord day by day, for you greatly prospered us, O God of our deliverances … even the Lord delivering the ones at the outer reaches of death. (Psalm 68:18-20, note 67:19-21 in some versions)

[Ben C. Smith]

Why should I disturb to read different far-stretched views of the hymn when the use of the verb ἐκένωσεν is a so explicit pointer to a previous status of the Son that is the exact contrary of a κένωσις , i.e. a filling?

And there it is. Why indeed? You have learned all there is to learn, and there is no reason to learn any more. From here on out, you can just make it up as you go along, like a god playing with a new universe. Enjoy!

My point is slightly more complex: the simple presence of ἐκένωσεν is a rock that is too big to overcome for different views that would deny the pre-existence and the ''filling'' of who is going to be emptied.

Of grace, can you say me how can a man on earth to empty himself?

The chapter in Talbert's book explains this. But no worries! Carry on. No need to bother yourself with such details.

[Giuseppe]

The end of the second line of the first strophe reads: ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσεν. This phrase, attested nowhere else in Greek, is grammatically harsh. It is explicable, however, if understood as an exact rendering of the Hebrew “poured out his nephesh” (הערה . . . נפשו) in Isa 53:12. If so, then the phrase refers to the servant’s surrender of life. It is significant that this phrase (ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσεν) is explained by the short third line μορφὴν δούλου λαβών. Since δοῦλος and παῖς are both used in the LXX to render the עבד of Deutero-Isaiah, since δουλεύειν is found in the LXX at Isa 53:11, and since Aquila reads ὁ δοῦλος instead of ὁ παῖς at Isa 52:13, δοῦλος is fitting in this explanatory phrase. That the early church elsewhere in the sources available to us used παῖς and υἱός is not, therefore, decisive. The phrase “he emptied himself” is, thus, most probably a reference to Jesus as the servant who surrendered his life to God.

how can the verb be "grammatically harsh" if I take it to mean precisely what it means, given a previous status of "filling"?

[Giuseppe]

In addition, only the pre-existence can explain why the emphasis is on the reward given to Jesus in the form of a Name, and in the his public adoration under that Name.

If the author of the Hymn denies the pre-existence, why should he give so much emphasis on the Name as only qualitative difference after the resurrection in comparison to the previous state of Jesus?

Evidently that being was pre-existing but he was unknown and anonymous, before the resurrection. Paul confirms in 1 Cor 2:6-8 that the knowledge and the cult of this being was reserved only for the Christians.