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. Wellum,
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.
“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.”
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).
The Death of
Christ
www.truthaboutthechrist.com/thetruthaboutthechrist/death.html
This Series' Table of
Contents