The Truth About The Christ (continued  from www.truthaboutthechrist.com/thetruthaboutthechrist/twonatures.html)

Chapter 6 Christ's Human Limitation and Kenosis ... Rev 1 addition
Christ incarnate was as much human as if he were not God, and as much God, as if he were not human. That common statement about the two natures of Christ solicits considerable discussion. It is often considered that one or the other nature can be somehow, and somewhat, veiled by the other. This consideration is explored in depth by Steven J. Wellum1, author of “God the Son Incarnate: The Doctrine of Christ,” however as previously mentioned Dr. Wellum does not consider the infallible, inerrant, inspired Holy Bible, his sole authority. We, thus, only use his work as a sounding board to ask some questions and gain some understanding about the inner workings Christ's dual nature. Why? That we may better know Christ, and better know man. And to explore how much “finiteness” Christ may have attained for thirty-three years and may have retained in his resurrected body.

Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
Philippians 2:5b-11
It is incomprehensible that a member of the Godhead, our Lord Jesus Christ, “made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men” (Phil 2:7). The infinite God took on some measure of finiteness in order to do this. Does Christ then retain some of that finiteness he had when he became flesh? The Greek word kenow – kenoo, Strongs# <2758>, means “to empty, or make empty, or to make void” and is used four times in the Bible, Rom 4:14, 1Cor 1:17, 9:15, 2Cor 9:3 and, significantly, for us here, Phil 2:7.2 “But made <2758> himself of no reputation <2758>, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:...” (Phil 2:7) Consequently the word kenoo, kenosis, and kenotic often comes up in the discussion of what-all Christ did set aside to become finite, and now we consider what finiteness he carried back to glory in his glorified body. There are two predominate views of the two natures in Christ.
The classic view (classic Catholic if you will, generally orthodox) is that both natures occupied Jesus and he could selectively choose which nature he would occupy. This is wrought with split-personality problems, and conflicting natures driving conflict and consternation in the person of Christ. The more Biblical view is the kenotic view that Christ set aside some of his divine attributes in order to be made in the likeness of men, and that the Father would one day “glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was” (John 17:5).
The kenotic view is considered an error in Christology by Methodist John Miley. The 19th century Methodist scholar and theologian dismisses the kenosis view of Christ's incarnation, a view that fits the Scriptures better than any classic or orthodox view, for three reasons 1) it is not the orthodox view, 2) it does not fit with the orthodox view, and 3) it is destructive to the orthodox view. A more complete analysis of his opposition is included in chapter 10 of this work. The serious student of theology might study his opposition to this idea, it predominately deals with the orthodox confusion about the formation of the soul and an artificial (but orthodox) insistence that two separate natures dwelt separately and yet in complete union in Jesus Christ.
Consider first three attributes of God that were logically set aside when he took on the form of a servant and was made in the likeness of men. Omnipresence is not possible in a finite body. As much as Christ Jesus got hungry, got thirsty, and got tired in his finite body, he also lost the ability to be in more than one place at one time. Even this truth needs to be carefully considered. I have heard preachers of the gospel of Jesus Christ use a clause of John 3:13, “the Son of man which is in heaven,” to try and justify that he retained his omnipresence. It helps our finite understanding to consider that Christ retained “membership” in the Triune Godhead, and was thus one with the Father and one with the Spirit and could freely “tap into” these attributes of the Father and Spirit. But just the same, in the body that he occupied he had to set aside the attribute of omnipresence. This is more than semantics and not a trivial pursuit; it guards against error, and gives a deeper consideration of the miracle of the incarnation wherein the two natures were enfolded into one body, one mind, and one personality. The exercise of exploring how this union works is thus part of the sore travail given to the sons of men who would give their heart to seek and search out by wisdom concerning all things that are done under heaven (Eccl 1:13). For a member of the triune Godhead to be God in the flesh, his attribute of omnipresence had to be set aside.
Second, consider God's attribute of omnipotence. That Jesus did not retain omnipotence is best understood by looking at an infant in a crib. They are wholly dependent on parents. That seed of woman robed in flesh did not flee to Egypt on its own accord, he depended on Joseph to get him there because he, in his young present state, was not omnipotent. He was instead presently dependent. It was part of making himself of no reputation.
Thirdly, consider God's attribute of omniscience. That Jesus was not omniscient will likely raise some eyebrows and possibly foil some longtime understandings, but consider it just the same. It is best understood by again examining the infant in a crib. Then consider, did Jesus then grow into or mature into his omniscience? Did he grow into or mature into his omnipotence? Did he grow into or mature into his omnipresence? The thesis here is that he did not grow back into these attributes of God, he laid them aside to be made in the likeness of man, and he was then reinstated with these attributes when he was glorified, i.e. when the Father would “glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was” (John 17:5). We might also herein consider the question, did he retained some measure of his finiteness even in his resurrected and glorified body? But first, let us give full consideration that these attributes were set aside so that God, in our Lord Jesus Christ, could be made flesh and dwell among us.
What Jesus knew, learned, and understood was already touched upon by Dr. Cambron. He was not taught by man but instead he, having no sin nature to interfere with his development, was taught by the Holy Spirit and God had a free rein to teach him all things. Remember Dr. Cambron's emphasis on the fact that Christ did not have our sin nature when he came from the seed of woman, i.e. he did not have a propensity to do evil that is present in the seed of man. An overriding principle to apply here is that Jesus in the flesh, did nothing that is impossible for mere man to do. Nothing. Man cannot be omnipotent and/or omniscient of his own accord, but he can be so “tapped in” to God that these attributes are available to him. Stephen Wellum says, “sometimes Jesus denied himself the exercise of his divine might and energies for the sake of the mission. At other times,... he exercised those energies.”3 But I contend that Jesus while in the flesh set these attributes completely aside and operated completely in the confines of finite man. It is more than semantics, such an understanding solidifies the tremendous miracle done in the incarnation, helping us to better understand what he did and what we can do. Wellum's classic approach is fraught with split-personality problems, the kenotic approach has but one problem, that Christ, for a season, when the fullness of time was come, temporarily, set aside these attributes of God and was made flesh. The latter constitutes a problem only in our finite understanding but seems to align completely with Holy Scripture. It also disrupts the theologian's little cliche that “Jesus (in the flesh) was as much God as if he were not man” but we don't mind overthrowing man's cliches for the sake of Bible truths.
Consider how the classic approach has leaked into our thinking because many have not made this differentiation. Some, as mentioned, go out on a limb with a clause of John 3:13, “the Son of man which is in heaven,” to try and justify that he retained his omnipresence. Some consider that the things Jesus did were only possible because he was God and thus omnipotent, they thus give little regard that the things he did were done in the power of the Spirit, and that we might, with faith as a grain of mustard seed, fulfill John 14:12, “Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.” And even more have heard it said, Of course Jesus new what they were thinking, he was God, he was omniscient. We contend here that the things Jesus did in the flesh he did in the flesh, and that we, who believe on him, have ability to do the works of God in the same way (John 14:12).
The greatest struggle to let go of the Roman Catholic model about the two natures of Christ comes in this latter argument; they suppose that Jesus was omniscient and could thus perceive and do things that you or I do not have power to do. Again our thesis here is that Jesus operated in his earthly ministry in the flesh after setting aside the attributes of omnipresence, omnipotence, and omniscience. Such an understanding magnifies what Jesus did in his earthly ministry, allows greater consideration of the works believers can presently do, and fully aligns with Holy Scripture. Look anew at the verses wrongly used to support a omniscient-Jesus viewpoint.
In Matthew 9:4 “And Jesus knowing their thoughts said, Wherefore think ye evil in your hearts?” and 12:25, “And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation...” and Mark 2:8, “And immediately when Jesus perceived in his spirit that they so reasoned within themselves, he said unto them, Why reason ye these things in your hearts?” and again Luke 6:8 “But he knew their thoughts, and said to the man which had the withered hand, Rise up, and stand forth in the midst....” and again 9:47 “And Jesus, perceiving the thought of their heart, took a child, and set him by him,...”
In each of these verses “knowing thoughts”, and “perceiving thoughts” did not need to be accomplished with omniscience. I know what your thinking, each of these instances might have been accomplished with the power of the Spirit of the living God fully dwelling in Jesus. We might also have that type of perception if we would abide in Christ and have a complete filling of the Holy Spirit of God.
In Luke 10:22, “All things are delivered to me of my Father: and no man knoweth who the Son is, but the Father; and who the Father is, but the Son, and he to whom the Son will reveal him...” we see an admission that Jesus only new things that were delivered to him of his Father. And in John 1:48 and 49, “Nathanael saith unto him, Whence knowest thou me? Jesus answered and said unto him, Before that Philip called thee, when thou wast under the fig tree, I saw thee. Nathanael answered and saith unto him, Rabbi, thou art the Son of God; thou art the King of Israel...” it is likely that Nathanael was praying under that fig tree, (even more likely that he was praying for the arrival of the Messiah) and if Jesus did not see him in person, then the Holy Spirit of God showed the Son of God what Nathanael was doing under that fig tree.
Also consider John 4:16-19 and the woman at the well who perceived that Jesus was a prophet because he told her of her past, these things could have been revealed to Jesus by the Father without Jesus being omniscient. Samuel knew that three men would give Saul two loaves of bread (1Samuel 10:3-4) and he was not omniscient. Ahijah knew that the wife of King Jeroboam was at his door (1King 14:6) and he was not omniscient. So to Elijah the Tishbite new to meet Ahaziah's messengers before they got to the god of Ekron (2Kings 1:2-3), and Elisha knew what Gehazi had taken from Naaman (2Kings 55:25). If God did it for his prophets he can surely reveal things to his only begotten Son, while he was in flesh and blood, without him being omniscient.
Also consider that when a grieved Peter said of the resurrected Christ “Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee” (John 21:17), that he was speaking to the resurrected Christ. But just the same “Lord, thou knowest all things” might be said of Jesus because he was one with the Father, and not indicate a full-on presence of omniscience.
Dr. Camron examined John 7:15 “And the Jews marvelled, saying, How knoweth this man letters, having never learned?” to explore how Jesus learned from the Holy Spirit not from man. And in John 16:30, “Now are we sure that thou knowest all things, and needest not that any man should ask thee: by this we believe that thou camest forth from God...” it is easily conceived that he knew all things by the power of the Holy Spirit that so filled him. And it may be true that Jesus never said, “I don’t remember, I will have to look it up?” but all this could have been the case without Jesus holding omniscience. Before being glorified in his resurrected body it is most likely that Jesus Christ did not have omnipresence, omnipotence, or omniscience, he had set them aside to be made a little lower than the angles (Psalm 8:5, Hebrews 2:7, 9).
That Christ Jesus set aside some of the attributes of God in order to be made in the likeness of men does not make him less God, nor does it detract from his divinity. It does help us understand some underlying Scriptures about his incarnation and the union of two natures into one personality. It is more Biblical than supposing the classical Catholic approach with its dual personality problems. Now all that remains is an examination of when these attributes where reaffirmed in Christ.
Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them. And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted. And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.. Matthew 28:16-20

In these verses “All power” and “with you always”seem to speak of the omnipotence and omnipresence of the Christ in his resurrected and glorified body. Colossians 1:17-20 indicate that Christ was indeed placed back into a position of full glory.
And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence. For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell; And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven. Colossians 1:17-20

This restoration fits exactly with what Jesus prayed for in John 17:5, “And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.
Catholic theologians and their Protestant descendants debate when a soul is formed, where it comes from, and how it gets original sin. They follow the philosopher's model that man is both material and immaterial but reject the Bible teaching that man is a trichotomy of body, soul, and spirit, made in his image of Father, Son, and Spirit. Does one really want to rely on their ideas about how Jesus contained both divine and human traits? I trow not. They reject the knosis idea because they debate when and how Jesus could have picked up attributes that were previously laid aside. Let them debate, a believer need only take up a Holy Bible and believe what is laid out in its pages.
Therein is seems clear that Jesus, born in that barn, heralded by angles, and worshiped by wise men, was made a little lower than the angles, took upon the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men. Three days after his body went to the tomb, his soul went to hell, and his spirit was commended to his Father, he was resurrected from the dead and restored to the glory which he had with the Father before the world was. Our task is not to debate or rationalize all this, it is to believe, only believe.
In believing all that the Scriptures say about the incarnation of Christ I like to leave two things on the table. It seems very likely with this knosis model that Jesus operated in the flesh with no reliance on his own omnipresence, omnipotence, and omniscience. He operated only in the form of a servant, made in the likeness of men. With the absence of a sin nature he was able to fully tap into these attributes through the power and presence of the Holy Spirit. He was tempted, tried, and crucified and yet he was without sin. He told us with two Amens and without apology Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father. As miraculous and impossible as all this seems I believe my inerrant, infallible, inspired Bible.
Secondly, it seems logical to me, an engineer who thrives on logic, and it is very possible in the Scriptures that were just presented, that the Christ, in his resurrected glorified body may have retained some of the finiteness that he took on. It is possible that in his glorified body, a body like the glorified body that he promised to us, that he does not presently have omnipresence. He is presently, in some measure of finiteness, seated on the right hand of the Majesty on high (Heb 1:3, 10:12). It is possible that in his resurrected glorified body, which is the first fruit of a resurrection that we will share, that he does not have his own omnipotence. He has the power that is bestowed upon him by the Father, which is without question, “All Power.”
It is possible that in the body he presently has, a body similar to what resurrected saints will have, that he does not have his own omniscience. In the flesh Jesus told his disciples, “Henceforth I call you not servants; for the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth: but I have called you friends; for all things that I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you” (John 15:15). In his resurrected body his disciples asked him “Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?” and he replied “It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power” (Acts 1:6-7). Notice that Jesus said previously, “But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.” It is thus possible, with these verses in tandem, that Christ, in his resurrected glorified body, does not presently know when the Father will send him for his own, and thus he does not presently have his own omniscience.
All this consideration of the amount of finiteness that Christ incarnate assumed and/or retained cannot for a moment detract from his deity and full membership in the trinity. God the Son was always co-equal, co-eternal, co-existent with the Father and could be so while setting aside these attributes. God became flesh and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth, and the Apostle John wrote, “and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father” (John 1:14). One needs to carefully consider the miracle of the incarnation of Christ, never allowing our finite understanding to compromise his deity or his humanity. Further it is important to know that the works he did in the flesh are not beyond us, they are not outside the reach of the Spirit filled believer (John 14:12).
1 Stephen J. Wellum (PhD, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School) is professor of Christian theology at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky, and editor of the Southern Baptist Journal of Theology. Stephen lives in Louisville, Kentucky, with his wife, Karen, and their five children. He is aptly criticized in this work for not using the Holy Bible as his sole source for his theology.
2 Romans 4:14 For if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void <2758>, and the promise made of none effect:...1 Corinthians 1:17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect <2758>.... 9:15 But I have used none of these things: neither have I written these things, that it should be so done unto me: for it were better for me to die, than that any man should make <2758> my glorying void <2758>.... 2 Corinthians 9:3 Yet have I sent the brethren, lest our boasting of you should be in vain <2758> in this behalf; that, as I said, ye may be ready:... Philippians 2:7 But made <2758> himself of no reputation <2758>, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
3 Stephen J. Wellum, “God the Son Incarnate: The Doctrine of Christ,” a Crossway blog post of an except from his book, https://www.crossway.org/blog/2016/11/are-christs-human-limitations-permanent/ (accessed 11/12/2016)

To Continue in thie series click the link below:
The Death of Christ
www.truthaboutthechrist.com/thetruthaboutthechrist/death.html


This Series' Table of Contents