Perrydox.com is devoted to the pursuit of truth, whether plain or paradoxical, whether simple or sublime, or simply absurd yet absolute.
Philippians 2:7 – Christological Treatise: Attributes of Deity with Application to Incarnation
A CHRISTOLOGICAL TREATISE:
THE ATTRIBUTES OF DEITY
WITH APPLICATION TO THE INCARNATION
By Perry D. Hall
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this essay is to define the “Kenosis” by defending the thesis that Jesus retained all essential, divine, attributes while incarnated. Our apologia will be buttressed by understanding the role and working of these attributes in non-incarnated Divinity before applying them to Jesus’ fleshly experience.
The point of this process is that too many people misunderstand the divine attributes in and of themselves, and therefore make misapplications of the divine attributes in reference to the incarnation. Therefore if we can better understand the paradoxical limitations of being unlimited in spirit then hopefully we should be better able to accept the paradoxical limitations of the unlimited divine Jesus being limited while both divine and human.
Incarnation means a Divine Person also becoming human, and not merely appearing as one as in a theophany. Being incarnated is an unnatural state for Deity. Even that statement is paradoxical since we do not consider a pure spiritual experience as being “natural” which can refer to nature and the flesh.
Non-incarnated Divinity refers to a Divine Person existing solely in a non-corporeal state, which is the usual or natural state.
To accomplish this focus, I will undertake these tasks:
(1) To assert incarnation as a stated fact.
(2) To define essentiality.
(3) To define person.
(4) To define a human person.
(5) To define a Divine Person.
(6) To explain three Divine attributes.
(7) To apply the Divine attributes to the Incarnation.
(6) To explain Divine attributes in their interrelation and non-contradiction to each other.
(7) To explain the interrelation within “the Godhead” via co-operation and subjection.
(8) To exegete Philippians 2:1-11 (the Kenosis)
(9) To conclude with a clear illustration of the incarnation.
INCARNATION IS A STATED FACT
Has God given us an analytical explanation of the incarnation? Or has He simply made statements concerning this miraculous event? If you think the former, then understanding is compulsory. God does not explain the unnecessary. If, however, you believe the latter, then only acceptance is obligatory.
What is the difference between an explanation and a statement? While it is true all explanations are statements, not all statements are explanations. An example that shows the distinction between explanations and statements, and our response to them, is the Christian’s resurrected body.
Concerning this new body, Paul said, “it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body” (1 Cor.15:44). Though Paul is explaining “How are the dead raised?” and “with what kind of body do they come?” (v.35), he simply states we receive a spiritual body. Paul’s explanation consists of asserting there are different kinds of bodies. Although he assigns attributes of our new bodies: imperishable, glory, power, spiritual (vv.42-44), he never explains what the spiritual body looks like. Can we explain any further than Paul? Gordon Clark commented,
“After the resurrection of all Christians, they, like Christ…will have bodies, which, though spiritual, will still be material. How something can be both material and spiritual is a puzzle, for it seems impossible to occupy space and not occupy space at the same time.“ (1)
Although I would not describe the resurrected body as material, I do understand Mr. Clark’s confusion. The apostle John said,
“Beloved, now we are children of God, and it has not appeared as yet what we shall be. We know that, when He appears, we shall be like Him, because we shall see Him just as He is.“ (1 Jn.3:2) (2)
Since God has not explained analytically what the resurrected body will be like, any explanation of more than what God has stated is an opinion. The acceptance of God’s statements is faith. The difference between faith and opinion is: faith is what God has either stated or explained that I must believe; opinion is what some person has stated or explained what they believe God means by his statements or explanations.
If God has not explained all His statements, am I then left to a religion of “leaps in the dark?” Christianity is not a conglomerate of nonsensical assertions. It is, however, a combination of both explained and unexplained statements. Although God “has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise (1 Cor.1:27),” He has not adopted irrationality.
Concerning the incarnation, Scripture states that Jesus was both Divine and human (John 1:14; 1 Tim.3:16; Phil.2:5-8; 1 Pet.1:19). The Bible never explains how the Divine and human side of Jesus works together. I am obligated to accept the facts of the incarnation (1 Jn.4:2). They are faith. Any explanation, though faith-based, must be delegated to the level of opinion.
My aim will be to explain statements of Jesus’ limitations through a better understanding of non-incarnated Deity, and by understanding His subjection. This is more acceptable than denying His full Deity while incarnated.
My role in this discussion is not so much answering questions, but questioning answers, and asking questions. I do not apologize for this approach. Considering the topic, this is preferable and proper.
As we embark upon this timorous journey, let us heed a wise warning,
“Can you discover the depths of God?
Can you discover the limits of the Almighty?” (Job 11:7)
Then He said, “Do not come near here; remove your sandals from your feet, for the place on which you are standing is holy ground.” (Ex.3:5)
WHAT IS ESSENTIALITY?
Essentiality is defined as, “the study of the attributes that are indispensable to the identification of the subject that differentiates it from anything else.” Although all essentials are characteristics (attributes), not all characteristics (attributes) are essentials. A characteristic can be essential, or accidental and secondary, depending upon what it is. Therefore,
(1) Essentials are the necessary and primary attributes.
(2) Incidentals are the secondary, accidental, or nonessential attributes.
Gordon Clark explained it this way,
“Another form of the verb `to be’ is esse or essence. The term can be useful, if defined. To illustrate: Someone sees a new gadget, or an animal he has never seen before. He asks, `What is it?’ In ordinary conversations the answer is usually incomplete, but if the friend is at all knowledgeable he gives a part of the definition. The full answer to the question `What is it?’ is the definition. Now, if the theologians had been content, or able, to use the term unambiguously, a great deal of confusion would have been avoided. The essence is the definition. The essence of a plane triangle is an area bound by three straight lines.“ (3)
DEFINING PERSON
There are three parts to understanding what a person is that are necessary in our attempt to understand both incarnated and non-incarnated Deity:
(1) A definition that can be applied to both human and Divine persons.
(2) A definition that can differentiate between human and Divine persons.
(3) A definition that can differentiate between individual persons.
(1) Since I am searching for a definition of person that can describe both humans and Deity, some would find it beneficial if I first proved the term person can properly be applied to Deity. In the Greek New Testament, the term “person” describes both humans and Deity – Deity (1 Pet.3:12; Heb.9:24; 2 Cor.2:10); humans (Mt.22:16). The word to which I refer to is prosopon. Mr. Vine said,
“pros, towards, ops, and eye, lit, the part round the eye, the face, in a secondary sense the look, the countenance, as being the index of the inward thoughts and feelings….It also signifies the presence of a person….“
Gordon Clark’s definition of a person is,
“a composite of propositions. As a man thinketh in his (figurative) heart, so is he. A man is what he thinks.“
Jack Cottrell elaborates further. He points out four elements that are characteristic of personhood:
“(a) rational consciousness, (b) self-consciousness, (c) self-determination, and (d) the capacity to have relationships with other persons.“
Essentially, a person is an empowered, rational being. This applies to both Deity and humankind. That is why the term person can be descriptive of both. Each of Mr. Cottrell’s four categories is part of both Divine and human rationality.
Both humans and Deity are equally persons, but their persons are not equal because one is human and the other Divine. They differ in kind. Therefore what makes the difference? How do we define a Divine person as different from a human?
(2) To better understand the difference between human and Divine persons, it would be helpful to show the difference between humans and animals. This will help us better understand what a human is. This understanding will force us to define a human in two opposing ways: outwardly, as a biological creature, and inwardly, as a person.
Although humans are different from animals in that we are persons, animals and humans are similar because both are biological creatures (Gen.1:21,24; 2:7). Thus our biology aligns us with animals; our mind aligns us with Deity.
If humans could be defined only biologically, we would be essentially equal with, but in some incidental way different from, animals. Examples of this type of defining would be,
(a) Humans have opposable thumbs, cows do not.
(b) Humans have warm blood, reptiles do not.
(c) Humans have one heart, worms do not.
Physical attributes simply differentiate between biological creatures, either human or animal. Therefore the physical side of humans does not define our personhood as different from Deity’s, it defines our creature-hood as different from animals. Therefore, Deity could assume a human form, and even incarnation, and still be Deity.
Even though having flesh is non-essential to being a person, it is essential to becoming a human. However, it is not necessary to my continual existence as a human person. Therefore, being clothed with a body, whether the physical or spiritual variety, is the natural state for my person to reside; it is not, however, essential. There are two ways of proving all physical attributes as incidental to continual human personhood:
(a) We must understand the spirit is superior to the body. God created us in His image (Gen.1:27). This spiritual image is the seat of my rationality, my personhood. It is what aligns me to Deity. Animals do not possess this image. I am also body, and so are animals. My body is not superior to theirs, just different. The beginning of human existence is called ensoulment. The spirit, though beginning its existence when it ensouls flesh, can exist non-corporeally. However, the body is dead without the spirit (Jms.2:26). Therefore the spirit is superior to the body. And thus “I” (my rationality) exist whether enjoined to flesh or not (Mt.17:3). Hence, flesh is not necessary for the continual existence of a human person; it is, however, essential to becoming a human.
(b) We must understand most physical attributes are not essential to biologically define the human body and its functions. Is it true that all humans walk? No, it is not. Is it true that all humans have legs? Again, the answer is no. However, is it true God created all humans in His image? Yes it is. My spiritual and rational nature is the only essential attribute for my continual existence as a person.
Since all physical attributes are incidental to personhood, I cannot use man’s corporeal nature as the essential difference between a human and Divine person. That was the purpose of the above exercise. While it is true God is spirit (Jn.4:24) and that humans have flesh and blood (Heb.2:14), I will exist after this body dies, and before I receive the resurrected body. Also, if you, by faith, accept the statements of the incarnation, you believe Deity can clothe itself with flesh. Since my personhood is not affected by the absence of flesh, even though that is its natural state, Deity’s personhood also need not be affected by the incarnation, although that state is unnatural.
So far we have learned,
(1) Our rational side is essential to our being persons.
(2) Our rational side aligns us with God.
(3) Our physical side is essential to our becoming human.
(4) Our physical side aligns us with animals.
We have already defined both humans and Deity as persons, just different kinds. We have not yet defined what makes a person essentially human, but we have shown what it is not – flesh and blood. Therefore, before we can any delineate any further between human and Divine persons, we need to know more about Deity.
When we mere humans try to define a Divine Person, we should tremble. This definition is an impossible task to complete. We do not even know all of His attributes. If we do not even know all of the attributes, we can understand dividing them into essentials and incidentals is at least equally difficult. Is it possible that God does not even have incidental attributes? If He does not, then He could not lose any attribute and remain Divine.
Definitions of Deity usually list His attributes. Two examples:
(a) “God is a Spirit, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable in His being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth.“
(b) “(1) pure actuality, (2) immutability, (3) impassibility, (4) timelessness, (5) simplicity, (6) necessity, (7) omniscience, and, (8) omnipotence.“
This type of definition is simply another way of saying, “God is His attributes.” It is important to understand,
“A divine attribute is an essential property of God. A property is essential to some being if and only if the loss of that property entails that that being ceases to exist (emp. mine). A divine attribute is a property which God could not lose and continue to be God.“
“Once the essential properties of God are identified, one can be certain that any being lacking any of those essential properties could not be God.“
We are now ready to define the difference between a human and Divine person. “Any being lacking any of those essential properties could not be God.” Therefore, you do not define Deity by looking at humans, you define humans by understanding Deity. A human person has four characteristics:
(a) It began its existence being clothed with flesh.
(b) It can continue to exist after the flesh is gone.
(c) It was made in the image of God.
(d) It does not possess the essential properties of Deity.
(3) We have analyzed essentiality in defining a person, and differentiated between human and Divine. We now need a definition that can distinguish individual persons. This refers to our personality. Personality is both behavioral and biological. Who I am is a particular person, an individualized identity. This personality essential is found in both human and Divine persons. It does not make me what I am, that is, human or Divine. It makes me who I am. Every human is a human, but not every human is me. I am unique. All three God-head persons are Divine, but only one is Jesus. Each equally shares the one Divine essence. Each Divine person is distinct from the others by who they are, not what they are.
Summing up our study of personhood, we have learned there are:
(1) Attributes that make us persons.
(2) Attributes that make us what kind of person, either Divine or human.
(3) Attributes that make us who we are.
ESSENTIALITY AND INCARNATION
Did Jesus retain His Divine attributes while He was incarnated? If God, unlike man, does not have any non-essential attributes, then Jesus could not have divested even one attribute and remain what kind of person He was, Divine. Each essential attribute is what makes Jesus a Divine Person, just as each essential attribute is what makes me a human person. If Deity is His attributes, then a Divine Person cannot exist minus those characteristics. If Deity is not His attributes, then the Divine Person could exist without ever having had them.
One of the Divine attributes is Necessity. Ronald Nash said,
“Theists have traditionally maintained that God is a necessary being. To say that God exists necessarily is to state that God must (emp. RN) exist; it is to say that it is impossible for God not to exist. Whatever else may be true about God, His existence could not have happened by chance. Not only does God exist, He must (emp. RN), He must always have existed and He must always continue to exist.“
If Deity can give up His Divine, essential attributes, then He must be able to give up His necessary existence. Think through this syllogism:
(1) Deity is a logically necessary Being.
(2) Necessity is an essential attribute of Deity.
(3) One Divine person emptied Himself of all Divine attributes to become human.
(4) All Divine Persons could empty Themselves of all Divine attributes to become human.
(5) No persons possessing any Divine attributes could exist.
(6) Deity as revealed in Scripture, could cease to exist.
(7) Deity is not a logically necessary Being.
Whenever you have a conclusion that contradicts the premise, either one is wrong, or both are. You must either deny that Deity necessarily exists, or that Jesus emptied Himself of essential, Divine attributes.
Some teach Jesus emptied Himself of His Divine attributes, but maintained His personal identity. This is how they believe Jesus can be both divine in His identity, but not divine in His attributes.
In my former analysis, Deity refers to what He is – His Divine Personhood. To claim continued Divinity while emptying Himself of what made Him Divine is a contradiction. Let’s set up three hypothetical scenarios.
(1) Could Jesus empty Himself of His Divine attributes and still be Jesus? Yes, He would still be both who He was, and a person, but no longer Divine. Result – Jesus would not be a Divine Person.
(2) Could the Divine second Person stop being who He is? Yes, but then He would not be Jesus. Who would He be? A Divine Person who was not the First, Second, or Third God-head Person. Result – the Divine Person would not be Jesus.
(3) Could Jesus cease being what He is, Divine, and who He is, Jesus? Yes, but then He would be neither Divine nor Jesus. Result – The Divine Person would not be Divine; Jesus would not be Jesus.
To assert someone can be the same person without his essential attributes that makes him both a person, and what kind of person, is nonsensical. It portends that essentiality is unnecessary, when essentiality is, by definition, what is necessary.
Is Jesus’ giving up His glory a contradiction of all the above (Jn.17:5)? Only if glory is an essential characteristic of Deity. It is not.
Could glory be the result of Deity, that is a prerogative, and not an attribute? For example, is God glorious because He is omnipotent? Yes He is. Is God omnipotent because He is glorious? No, He is not. Another way to ask would be: Is God to be served because he is Divine? Yes He is. Is God Divine because He is to be served? No, He is not.
Also, even if no one ever glorified Deity, nor saw His glory, or even if Deity veiled it by being incarnated, He could still retain His glory.
In conclusion, Jesus was a Divine Person clothed in Human flesh. Therefore, He was both Divine and human.
OMNIPOTENCE
Omnipotence denotatively means, “all power.” “The original meaning in Latin may have been `power over or in all.” The English Bible does not contain this word in its noun form. The adjective form, with the exception of one usage in 2 Corinthians (6:18), appears only in Revelation (1:8; 4:8; 11:17; 15:3; 16:7, 14; 19:6, 15: 21:22), and is translated “Almighty.“
Knowing the denotative meaning of omnipotence, however, is not explaining and understanding it.
“Anyone who has attempted to define satisfactorily the attribute of omnipotence knows how difficult this is. It is comforting to know that even Thomas Aquinas encountered problems here: While `all confess that God is omnipotent…it seems difficult to explain in what His omnipotence precisely consists.“
Maybe I should start by stating what it does not mean. Then I will further define each “non-meaning.”
(1) It does not mean ceaseless, full, energized actuality.
(2) It does not mean that God can do the intrinsically (i.e. logically) impossible.
(3) It does not mean other attributes are not interrelated.
(4) It does not mean it is not governed by free-will.
(5) It does not mean any conceivable action is a power of perfection.
(1) It will help us later in our discussion of omniscience to understand that God does not continually exercise all of His power incessantly. God’s omnipotence enables Him “from these stones to raise up children to Abraham (Mt.3:9).” God’s power is, indeed, actualized, but not always actively energized to its fullest.
(2) “Omnipotence means power to do all that is intrinsically possible, not to do the intrinsically impossible. You may attribute miracles to Him, but not nonsense.” For example, I trembling say, it is impossible for God to make a square triangle. I more boldly say, it is impossible for God to give man free will, never allow him to exercise it, and judge him as responsible in using it.
Thomas Aquinas illuminated,
“Everything that does not imply a contradiction is numbered among those possibles in respect of which God is called God; whereas whatever implies contradiction does not come within the scope of divine omnipotence, because it cannot have the aspect of possibility. Hence it is more appropriate to say that such things cannot be done, than that God cannot do them.“
Rather than say “such things can not be done,” it is more accurate to say, “There is nothing to be done.”
(3) God cannot lie (Heb.6:18). That is a simple answer. A more difficult exercise is to show that God’s omnipotence is interrelated with other attributes. This must be done in answering the “Problem of Evil.”
(4) Is omnipotence limited by the exercise of freewill? “The power of God implies the power of self-limitation. God suffers no internal or external compulsion.” Jesus said that God was able to “raise up children from Abraham” (Mt.3:9) out of stones, but God had chosen not to.
Humanly speaking, something may be within my power (the power of human beings), but because I choose not to exercise my will, I cannot exercise my power – not from a lack of power, but a lack of choice or will. For example, it might impossible for me to see the street outside. Not because I am blind, but because my exercised will has placed me inside.
Do you believe that today it is impossible for God to propagate His word through miracles? Your answer should be both yes and no. God has the power, but subjects His power to His will. Consider the following syllogism:
(a) God has the power to do miracles, if He so chooses.
(b) God said He would cease using this power (1 Cor.13).
(c) God cannot lie (Heb.6).
(d) God cannot perform miracles today to propagate His will.
Did I say God cannot do something? Yes. Another example: Can God force me to obey Him? The answer is again yes and no. God has the power to remove my free will. However, this was not God’s plan. This would also contradict being made in God’s image. His power is subjected to His will. Therefore God cannot force me to obey. Do you remember Jesus saying, “I cannot do anything… (Jn.5:19)?” His omnipotence was in subjection to His Father. His omnipotence was in cooperation with the Holy Spirit (Acts 1:1-2).
Remember, power is intrinsically connected to will. Might this not answer the “inabilities” of Jesus? His will was to subject Himself.
(5) “Medieval theologians drew attention to some fairly trivial examples of restrictions upon the power of God. How could God be called omnipotent, for example, when He could not do some things that He creatures could do, such as walk, sit, or swim? The standard scholastic answer suggested that such creaturely acts did not mean that humans possessed powers not possessed by God. Rather, human acts such as walking and swimming were possible because of a defect in human power.” God does not need to walk. He is omnipresent. Therefore, omnipotence does not mean any conceivable action is a power of perfection.
Now that we have stated what omnipotence is not, we can understand that “God is capable of doing everything that is logically possible and consistent with His perfect will.“
OMNIPOTENCE AND INCARNATION
Some are saying Jesus could not perform any miracle by His own power, only through the Holy Spirit.
“The gospels are quite plain about the source of his miraculous powers in the flesh. Jesus’ signs, wonders and miracles were not from or of himself, they were from and of the Father. The Holy Spirit descended upon and remained upon Jesus after his baptism (Mt.3:16; Jn.1:32,33). From his baptism, Jesus was `led by the Holy Spirit’ (Mt.4:1; 12:18; Mk.1:12; Lk.4:1). Jesus performed miracles by “the power of the Holy Spirit” (Mt.12:28; Lk.4:14,18). The will and words of the Father were revealed to Jesus by the Holy Spirit “For he whom God hath sent speaketh the words of God: for God giveth not the spirit by measure unto him’ (Jn.3:34).
Before the Incarnation
The Father used Jesus (Heb.1:2) in the creation of the universe. Does this reflect upon the omnipotence of the Father? No.
The Father used the Holy Spirit to begin the incarnation (Lk.1:35). One’s power is the power of all because all share the same will.
During the Incarnation
Comparing non-incarnated deity with the incarnated Jesus is helpful on this point. Jesus indeed did speak the words of God by the Holy Spirit (Jn.3:34). If this is a reflection upon His power (or knowledge) then He also was not omnipotent after the resurrection. All agree He possessed “the fullness of deity…in bodily form” (Col.2:9) after His resurrection, but Acts 1:2 shows the Holy Spirit still working through Him.
Even when the Holy Spirit worked through Jesus, did the Holy Spirit speak His own words? No (Jn.16:13). Apparently, the Holy Spirit could do nothing on His own either. Either both were in subjection, or neither was omnipotent.
After the Incarnation
If being given something, or acting upon someone else’s authority, proves non-omnipotence, then Jesus is still lacking this divine characteristic today. After He was resurrected, the Father gave Him all authority (Mt.28:18-20).
After doing a historical and Biblical study of the “diversity of function in the Godhead,” a brother correctly asserts,
“Yet, in keeping with whatever purpose they had at the moment, they could work in different roles with different functions. That does not mean they had to give up their Godhood in order to do that (emp. his)!
Have you ever wondered why God took six days to create the universe? Do you think He was unable to complete the task in one day, one hour, one second? Can you explain why He did not? No, other than He was also creating time. The point is, we do not always understand why and how God acts. We are not asked to understand everything God does; only what he asks us to do. We accept Him and His works by faith. In application to the incarnation, since I believe Jesus retained all divine powers, why did He not use them instead of relying upon the Father and Holy Spirit? I can no more answer that definitively than I can explain why the Holy Spirit received His words from the Father (Jn.16:13). The only sure answer is subjection of will. Why? Only God knows.
OMNIPRESENCE
Although scripture does not contain this word, the idea is found therein. It is an easily misunderstood concept. The word means, “all everywhere.” However, omnipresence is not contradictory to stationed locality. God is in Heaven. This, however, does not affirm the deistic doctrine of total transcendence.
Augustine, however, disagrees with this,
“`God,’ says Augustine (De diversis quaestionibus, I. 20), `is not at some particular place (alicubi). For what is at some particular place is contained in space; and what is contained in some space is body. And yet because God exists and is not in space, all things are in him. Yet not so in him, as if he himself were a place in which they are.'”“
Another also explained it based upon God’s non-corporeal nature.
“As a spiritual rather than a material being, He is able to penetrate and fill the universe in all its parts….Against all finite logic it must be held also that at every point in the universe it is God’s whole presence which is present. All of Him is everywhere because His omnipresence is of His essence. There can be no parts at work here and there. His nature cannot be multiplied at various points where it is operating, nor is His nature diffused. This is the intellectual problem and the theological support for the full deity of Christ who in Palestine was fully God while at the same time God who filled and governed the universe.“
Though our human minds have difficulty grasping this idea, maybe we have made it too difficult. Saying, “God is a circle whose center is everywhere, and circumference nowhere” does not help understanding. Possibly there is a simpler interpretation.
First, is it contradictory to speak of location of a spiritual being? No. Our bodies house our spirits. Biblically speaking, death is the separation of body and spirit (Jms.2:26). Since my human spirit is non-corporeal and angels are also spiritual, and neither is omnipresent, it is unnecessary to assume a spiritual being cannot have location because it is spiritual.
Second, omnipresence has different applications:
(1) It refers to God’s approval – Jn.14:23
(2) It refers to God’s awareness – Ps.139:7-12
Third, God’s omnipresence is explainable and operational through His omniscience and omnipotence. I disagree “the whole essence of God is here, there, and everywhere.” When Jeremiah quotes God as saying, “Do I not fill the heavens and the earth” (Jer.23:24), he was not affirming pantheism.
God’s omnipresence, therefore, does not mean that God’s Divine being spatially fills everything. Contrariwise, it means God’s awareness fills everything. God’s presence is not in everything. Everything is in God’s presence.
OMNIPRESENCE AND INCARNATION
Why is it important to understand (i.e. define and explain) the omnipresence of Divinity? Because if we deny Jesus’ omnipresence because of His incarnation, then we must believe “the whole essence of God is here, there, and everywhere.” That is, God is spatially and literally spread out and into all of creation and beyond. Not in a sense of awareness and power, but in the – excuse the terminology – physical sense. If all of this is confusing and unnecessary, then let us not be too quick to affirm Jesus was not omnipresent while incarnated. To deny His omnipresence, we first have to be able to understand omnipresence.
To show one can be located and still maintain omnipresence, I submit the Holy Spirit’s descending as a dove (Mt.3:16). When He “came upon” Jesus, did He empty Himself of His omnipresence?
OMNISCIENCE
Can God think? The answer might not be as simple as we think! I will discuss more on this later. This term, omniscience, is not found in the scriptures.
There is much about omniscience that I do not know. I do not understand how God can foresee the future. I believe and accept the fact and statements of such ability. God has never given an analytical explanation. For those who believe all this is simple and can be totally explained, please explain the process of prophecy and its non-contradiction of free will! If you do, remember it is your opinion. One such theory is that God is timeless. Everything, supposedly, for God is in the “eternal now.”
The interrelation between divine foreknowledge and free will is difficult. For example, some people believe that God does not know our eternal destination from all eternity (Gen.22:12). Some teach He must have this knowledge to be omniscient. Let us logically take the latter position and digress one step at a time:
(1) God knows the eternal destination of each person.
(2) God knows the eternal destination because He foresees our actions before they happen.
(3) If God foresees our actions before they happen, then either: (a) Our actions cause God’s knowledge; or (b) God’s knowledge causes our actions.
(4) If our actions cause God’s knowledge, then God’s knowledge grows.
(5) If God’s knowledge grows, then God knows more today, than before creation.
(6) If God’s knowledge causes our actions, then our actions are predetermined.
(7) If our actions are predetermined, then we are not acting from free will.
A.H. Leitch wisely understands,
“(W)hen in the nature and extent of omniscience are stated in every way possible, there arise two difficult problems, neither of which allows a final answer within the limitations of human thinking. First, how God by His omniscience knows the future as He knows the present and the past; and second, whether the knowledge of the future in any way predetermines the acts of His free creatures.“
Remember, my role in this discussion is not so much answering questions, but questioning answers, and asking questions. The following contains sincere questions about the omniscient knowledge of God. If you disagree with something I say, remember I do not doubt His omniscience, I just do not completely understand it.
Questions Concerning The Nature of Omniscient Knowledge
1. Does God Know Only The Intrinsically Possible?
Since omnipotence only includes the intrinsically possible, could omniscience also have such a quality? Can God know only the intrinsically knowable? This would not deny His prophetic abilities for scripture plainly teach He possesses such. An example would be, can God know the last number, if there is none?
God cannot know error as truth, and truth as error. Someone said that if God said 2+2=5, then that would be right. I appreciate their faith. However, if God said 2+2=5, He could only say that if it were already true. God cannot make a falsehood true. If He could, then truth has no value, God could lie and then change the falsehood into truth. God’s knowledge is intrinsically defined.
2. Is Some Knowledge Only Obtained Empirically?
Could some knowledge only come through by experience? Even with God? For example, I have never experienced the knowledge of adultery. I know what it is, but I have never experienced it. God knows sin is passingly pleasurable (Heb.11:25). Yet God has never experienced the temporary pleasures of sin. Therefore God does not know the pleasures of sin. Could we guilty of equivocation by using “knowledge” to refer to both facts and experiences? God knows all facts. However, does God know all experiences?
Before Jesus’ incarnation and crucifixion, did He know that sin separates from God? Yes. However, He had never experienced physical separation until He became a sin offering for us (2 Cor.5:21). Is it possible there are different shades of knowledge: facts verses experiences? Does Heb.4:15 not only teach us that Jesus can sympathize, but also imply that the Father, since He does not know temptation, cannot?
3. Does Omniscient Knowledge Include Only Knowledge of Other, Non-omniscient Minds?
According to some people’s understanding of omniscience, there is something God cannot do: think. The definition of thinking is,
“1. To use the mind for arriving at conclusions, making decisions, drawing inferences, etc.; Reflect; reason….“
Thinking entails making decisions; does God know what he decides before He decides? It is nonsensical to even ask, but it does make a point. The O.T. is replete with God changing His mind. How much of this is anthropomorphic? Can God ever decide to do anything? Did God ever decide to make man, or is that idea as eternal as God?
4. Does Omniscient Knowledge Include The Ability Not to Know?
If God is Omniscient, and He is, does He have the Freedom of Choice (Free Will) not to know what is in His power to know? Man has the power (free will) not to know what is possible to know. If we have this power, and God does not, then are we more powerful than God? Or is the ability not to know considered an imperfection of knowledge much like walking is considered an imperfection of omnipresence? I do not know!
This is how some have explained Deity’s ignorance of Abraham’s faithfulness before he sacrificed his son (Gen.22:12). They say God freely chooses not to know to preserve our free will. John Lucas said,
“The real solution to the problem of God’s omniscience is to be found by drawing a parallel with his omnipotence. Although God is able to do all things, we do not think he does do all things….We allow that some things happen against God’s will….If God is prepared to compromise his omnipotence for the sake of human freedom, surely then he would be prepared to compromise his omniscience also. If he suffers his will to be confined in order that his creatures may have room to make their own decisions, he must allow his understanding to be abridged in order to allow men privacy to form their own plans for themselves. It seems to me entirely unobjectionable that God should limit his infallible knowledge as he does his power, in order to let us be independent of him.“
5. Is Omniscient Knowledge Actualized or Fully Exercised?
For fear of sounding like a Process Theologian let me explain. Omnipotence refers to actualized ability, as opposed to processing (growing) ability. Yet, we accept God does not need to be constantly exercising all of His power. He can choose not to exercise His power and still be omnipotent. I wonder if omniscience can refer to actualized, but not exercised knowledge. How this is different from #4: Instead of asking “Does God have the ability not to know?” we ask, “Does God choose to know what He does know?”
6. Is Omniscient Knowledge Processed Sequentially?
“Kant regards time as a form of the understanding; that is, as the manner in which the finite mind thinks, by reason of its finiteness. Similarly, Berkeley (Principles of Knowledge, 98) defines time to be the succession of thoughts in the human mind. If this definition be accepted, then there is no time for God, because there is no succession of thoughts in his mind. The form and manner of God’s consciousness is totally different in respect to succession, from that of man’s consciousness. He does not think sequentially as man and angel do.“
“Whatever logical succession there be in God’s thoughts there is no chronological succession.“
Remember the question, “Can God think?” According to our human understanding of thinking, some would say “no.” This would also mean that God can never really change His mind, make a plan, etc.
This broaches the question of God’s relation to time. Is God limited by time? The obvious answer is, yes and no – depending on how you define time.
If time is an entity having both a beginning and an end, then God created it. God has no beginning and no end. Time does not bind God. However, time as an entity of sequential events simply describes activity. Does God act in sequential manner? Yes, at least in the human realm. Logic is simply sequential order. Logic involves the law of contradiction. God cannot contradict Himself. Therefore, God acts sequentially, at least in His dealing with humans. Every time He dealt with humans, especially through prophecy, He was acting sequentially. This is in reality not a limitation, but simply a fact. If God acts sequentially, does He think sequentially? Scripture shows God changing His mind (Amos 7:1-10). Is God thinking sequentially, or are the scriptures being anthropomorphic. Does God ever decide anything? Does God think?
A sound, scriptural explanation of omniscience is the ability to know all that is knowable.
OMNISCIENCE AND INCARNATION
Why was the above exercise necessary? If we cannot assuredly answer the questions concerning omniscience, then we cannot be dogmatic in denying Jesus’ incarnated knowledge (or lack thereof).
Let us again look at some of the questions concerning the nature of omniscient knowledge.
2. Is Some Knowledge Only Obtained Empirically?
Is it possible the Father “cannot sympathize with our weaknesses” (Heb.4:15)? Jesus can because he experienced humanity and was “tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin” (Heb.4:15). Apparently there is a difference in knowledge in understanding man that comes from being man rather than simply creating man. Jesus also learned obedience (Heb.5:8). Isn’t this learning by experience? And would not this verse, by implication, reach back before the incarnation to when Jesus submitted to the Father to become the Son of Man?
This is my explanation of Lk.2:52. Wisdom is the proper use of knowledge. Some knowledge is empirical, such as living as a man.
3. Does Omniscient Knowledge Include Only Knowledge of Other, Non-omniscient Minds?
The question here is whether or not God thinks and plans. If He does, could Jesus’ (and the Holy Spirits’) ignorance of “that day and hour” (Mt.24:36) be explained that only God knew because of His role verses Jesus’ role? That is, could God the Father have also been ignorant before He decided when? I am not sure any human knows enough to answer that question. It is even frightening to ask!
4. Does Omniscient Knowledge Include The Ability Not to Know?
Is this the way to explain God’s ignorance of Abraham’s free will obedience in offering his son (Gen.22:23)? If we grant this possibility to pre-incarnated Deity, then we also have to grant the same courtesy to the incarnated Son. Could this be the reason Jesus (and the Holy Spirit) did not know “that day and hour” (Mt.24:36)?
5. Is Omniscient Knowledge Actualized or Fully Exercised?
If omniscient knowledge is actualized, but not constantly exercised, then for God to exercise concerning particular events, Deity would have to choose to know. Could this be the reason Jesus (and the Holy Spirit) did not know “that day and hour” (Mt.24:36)? As already defined, omniscience denotatively means, “all knowledge.” This is true of non-incarnated Deity (Ps.139:1-4). The question is, was it true of Jesus while incarnated. Yes.
Those who say “no” to Jesus’ incarnated omniscience use the following arguments:
1. Jesus asked questions.
“Mk.5:30-33; Luke 8:45-47 Jesus asked a question – Who touched me? Some have said he did not need to ask the question because he knew all things? Why did he ask it then? Was he just talking to hear himself talk?“
It is always helpful to compare God’s mode of operation while not in the flesh to better understand His mode while incarnated. In Genesis 3:9 God asked, “Where are you?” of Adam. Was God not omniscient? The very nature of questioning precludes that all questioners do not previously know the answer. It is true some questioners asked for information unknown. It is also true questioners asked for the benefit of the person asked. Have you ever heard of the Socratic Method of teaching?
2. Jesus did not know “that day and hour.”
In defending Christ’s full incarnated Deity, someone refered to using some using this occasion (Mk.13:32) to discount the fact:
“As for Mk.13:32, if this proves that Jesus was not omniscient, then it also proves that the Holy Spirit is not omniscient; what proves too much proves nothing. Christ made it clear in Acts 1:7 that the authority of the Father sets `times and season,’ and this is all Mk.13:32 means.“
Also see the comments “The Nature of Incarnated Knowledge” under “Omniscience and Incarnation.”
3. Jesus could not commit a sin of ignorance.
“If Christ knew all things, how could he commit a sin of ignorance? If he knew everything, he knew the Scriptures like no man could, how could he commit a sin of ignorance, or a sin of presumption?“
“His knowledge on earth was not the certain knowledge of the divine Son of God, but subject to the same frailties as human knowledge. …What Jesus knew, he had learned as a result of reading and inspiration.“
This, to me, is one of the harder questions to answer. Maybe this is a valid rebuttal:
(1) Scripture teaches Jesus was “tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin (Heb.4:15).”
(2) Scripture also teaches that temptation comes in three forms: lust of the flesh, lust of the eyes, and pride of life (1 Jn.2:16).
(3) Ignorance is not a temptation.
(4) Therefore, Jesus could be omniscient, and still be “tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin.”
Some more comments concerning Jesus’ supposed lack of omniscience:
“If you thought you were the Messiah, as Jesus did, how would you prove whether you were or not to a Bible-believing people? Would you go back into the Old Testament, delve out the evidence to identify the Messiah and say, `Every bit of that fits me and therefore I am the Messiah.’ That’s what Jesus did. He didn’t need any divinity, and he didn’t need any supernatural guidance to study the Bible, any more than you and I need it. He studied it. He arrived at the conclusion.“
The implication of the above quote is that Jesus was unaware of His own Messiahship except from learning and studying. He did not know who He was. Without trying to sound sarcastic, apparently Jesus studied the O.T. prophecies, noticed the connection between them and His own life and concluded, “I must be divine!”
“How could Jesus be said to have feared (Heb.5:7 – PDH; some versions read piety – PDH). Fear is a human reaction. Some have argued that Jesus did not truly fear death as we do and that this passage must be speaking only of the physical pain of his death. Our fear of death is that question concerning the real existence of God and the life beyond. Our fear is not only of the pain of dying, but also of the unknown. The argument is that Jesus must have the certain knowledge of the divine and therefore could not truly be a compassionate example for us, because he had not really endured what we endure. Jesus was a man, he feared death with all the fullness of fear that mankind knows.“
I wonder, with innocent naivety, how Jesus could doubt the “existence of God.” He supposedly had “learned as a result of reading and inspiration” about His virgin birth (Isa.7:14) and His own pre-incarnate eternity (Micah 5:2). Follow closely,
(1) Jesus learned the Messiah was divine and lived eternally (Micah 5:2).
(2) Jesus “learned as a result from reading and inspiration” that He was the Messiah.
(3) Jesus learned He existed eternally before His incarnation (Micah 5:2).
(4) Jesus learned He was Divine (Ps.45:6-7).
(5) Jesus learned He existed eternally before His incarnation (Micah 5:2), therefore He learned there was a life beyond.
(6) Jesus learned He was Divine, therefore He knew God existed.
(7) Jesus feared death because He doubted the “real existence of God and the life beyond.”
(8) Therefore, the eternal divine Jesus doubted He was eternal and divine.
This is non-sequitur.
PHILIPPIANS 2:1-11
If there is one verse that is the focal point of the whole controversy, it could be Philippians 2:6. No one should ask, “Did Jesus empty Himself,” verse seven plainly asserts that. That is what the word “kenosis” means. Scripture again plainly teaches He emptied Himself of the “form of God” (v.6). No serious student can deny that. There is only one question: what is the “form of God” in verse six?
The Meaning of “Form”
There are two primary thoughts:
(1) The form of God is ontological.
(2) The form of God is economical.
Both could be Biblically and lexicographically sound definitions of the “form of God.” Only one, though, is the contextually correct answer. Therefore, though lexicons can enhance our understanding, the one correct meaning can only come from the context.
The study of ontology is “the branch of metaphysics dealing with the nature of being, reality, or ultimate substance.” The economic distinction is sometimes made in discussing the Godhead’s “various relationships and works of the different persons…toward that which is external to God, i.e., the world.” I will enlarge this to include the various relationships among all ontologically equal beings. This article’s pursuit is to prove the “form of God” (in v.6) is economic, not ontological.
Lexicons disagree on what form (morphe) refers to:
“Some scholars take the position that `form’ (MORPHE, Greek word), (used in the phrase `the form of God’), refers to the `essential form which never alters’ (William Barclay). Other scholars disagree that MORPHE is essential and unalterable (See e.g., Henry Thayer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament,, p.418; Kittel ed., Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, vol.IV, pp.742, 750-752).“
Luke 24:16 says that Jesus appeared to two disciples so that they did not recognize Him. Mark 16:12 says that He “was manifested in another form (morphe) to them.” Since these things are true, the form can change without any effect on our PERSON (our essential attributes). Form does not necessarily have an ontological definition.
An Interpretation
Paul contrasts the “form of God” with “form of a bond-servant.” It is not directly contrasted to “being made in the likeness of men.” Therefore, “form of God” is contextually and definitionally the direct opposite of “form of a bond-servant,” not “likeness of men.” This is not an insignificant point. Three reasons for this position are:
(1) Jesus could have emptied Himself of the “form of God” and assumed the “form of a bond-servant” without necessarily taking upon Himself the “likeness of man.” He could have become an angel.
(2) Jesus no longer is in the “form of a bond-servant” because of His exaltation (vv.9-11). However, He is still in the likeness of men – “For in Him all the fulness of Deity dwells in bodily form” (Col.2:9) (also see 1 Jn.3:2; 1 Tim.2:5).
(3) Paul’s main lesson is not that Jesus became a man, but that He became a servant. How do I know this? PAUL ASKS ME TO “HAVE THIS ATTITUDE! (v.5).”
Jesus’ emptying Himself therefore, does not have any ontological ramifications. I am to empty myself also! It simply means Jesus was not “filled up” with the attitude (and reality) that He was equal to the Father and therefore was above serving. Thus, “emptied Himself” simply means “humbled himself” (v.8). WHAT did He do? He became a servant and obedient. HOW did He do this? He became a man, and died on the cross. The HOW is the extension of the WHAT. They are not the same.
Can we do the same with each other that Jesus did with His Father? Yes. The WHAT will be the same, the HOW, different.
(1) We are equal to each other – Jesus was equal to His Father.
(2) We can grasp hold of our equality and not serve one another – Jesus could have grasped hold of His equality and not served His Father.
(3) WHAT we do is “regard (hegomai) one another as more important” than ourself (v.3) – WHAT Jesus did was “not regard (hegomai) equality with God a thing to be grasped (v.6).”
(a) Are we essentially (and ontologically) equal to each other before we serve? Yes. Are we essentially (and ontologically) equal to each other while we serve? Yes. Are we economically equal to each other in role and work while we serve? No. The word equal can mean ontologically (Gal.3:28) or economically (1 Cor.14:5) equal. Organization requires subjection – not inferiority.
(b) Was Jesus essentially (and ontologically) equal to the Father before He served? Yes. Was Jesus essentially (and ontologically) equal to the Father while He served? Yes. Was Jesus economically equal to His Father in role and work while He served? No. The word equal can mean ontologically (Jn.5:18) or economically (Jn.14:28) equal. Organization requires subjection – not inferiority.
If we choose not to grasp hold of our equality, thereby serving, we are different in role, not nature. We remain essentially and ontologically the same and equal. When Jesus did not grasp hold of His equality, He became different in role, not essence. Neither we nor Jesus empty ourselves of our innate equality and essentiality. We empty ourselves to the rights of equality. When I serve you, I am equal as a person and a Christian. I am unequal in role only. When Jesus served the Father, He was equal as a person. He was unequal in role only. This is Christianity!
When Jesus took upon Himself the “likeness of men,” that was simply the manifestation (HOW) of His “form of a bond-servant” (WHAT). If I take upon myself the “work of a deacon,” that is simply the manifestation (HOW) of the “form of a bond-servant” (WHAT). My essential nature does not change, and neither did His.
We all understand that Jesus’ incarnation was for man’s benefit. Without it, we could not have life eternal. We also believe we should serve God. However, those two points are not the import of Paul’s message in Phil.2. The discussion is not primarily aimed at Jesus serving humans, or humans serving God, but Jesus serving His Father, and Christians serving each other. Two quotes will prove this:
(1) Jesus became “obedient to the point of death.” Was He being obedient to humans, or to God? God.
(2) Paul said we are to “regard one another as more important” than ourselves. Although we should serve God, Paul’s context (vv.1-5) is that we should serve each other.
Summation
The “form of God” is simply saying Jesus was equal to God in role. Jesus “emptied Himself” has two possibilities:
(1) He either emptied Himself of His ontological equality, thereby loosing all or some attributes of divinity.
(2) He emptied Himself of asserting His economic equality, which does not imply the loss of essential attributes.
Which one does the text say? “Jesus did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant.” He did not empty Himself of His equality, Jesus emptied Himself of grasping, holding onto, asserting, His equality. He, who was ontologically equal, became economically unequal by serving. If we understand the context, we will understand that the form of God, in this setting, is nothing more than being EQUAL in role. After Jesus’ service, He would again receive the role of economic divinity (vv.9-11).
Phrase by Phrase Study
This section will consist of three parts:
(1) THE BIBLICAL PHRASE UNDER CONSIDERATION.
(2) An interpretive quote I will refute.
(3) The refutation of the quote.
“FORM OF GOD” VS. “FORM OF A SERVANT”
“By saying Christ was `in the form of God,’ Paul is saying Christ possessed the attributes or powers properly belonging to God, just as the phrase “the form of a servant,” in the next verse indicates Christ took on the attributes or powers properly belonging to a servant.“
“Christ gave up the `Form of God,’ to take `the form of a bond-servant,’ that is the attributes of a servant.“
Scripture clearly places “form of God” opposite of “form of a servant.” Question: What are the essential, ontological, PERSON, attributes of a servant? There are none! Being a servant has nothing to do with human attributes (that is, what makes us human). Therefore, the “form of God,” in this context, is not defined by divine attributes which are essential to divinity. The subject is “roles” not “attributes.”
“HE EMPTIED HIMSELF”
“The position is taken that Christ became a man while retaining all the powers and attributes of God. This position (the position I advocate in this paper – PDH) denies that Christ gave up or emptied himself of anything (Phil.2:7). Instead of `emptying himself,’ he added to himself by taking on the nature of man. Where or what was the sacrifice in the condescension of Christ? Of what did he empty himself (Phil.2:6-8)?“
Of what did He empty Himself? How about the right not to die! How about the right not to become a sin offering? How about the right not to be forsaken physically on the cross? Everyone must agree it is possible to both empty and add. Even if you take the position that Jesus emptied Himself of divine attributes, does that necessarily imply he took on flesh? No. He could have “been made in the likeness of” angels. Consequently, “emptying” and “being made in the likeness of men” are not synonymous. One is the cause (emptying), the other the effect (likeness of men). Therefore, everyone must agree He added His flesh. Also, since Jesus added flesh, and flesh is the opposite of spirit, you would have to conclude He emptied Himself of His spirit if you believe he did not add anything. If you believe He emptied Himself of His spirit, and if God is spirit (Jn.4:24), then Jesus ceased to exist in both WHAT and WHO essentials. As one brother noted,
“…Paul does not teach that our Lord was once God but had become instead man; he teaches that though He was God, He had become also man.“
“HE HUMBLED HIMSELF”
“Paul notes the next step, `he humbled himself.’ First, `He emptied himself’ in becoming flesh, then once in the flesh, he went even further and `he humbled himself’ and became obedient unto death. The phrase, `he emptied himself’ cannot be explained or equated with the phrase `he humbled himself.’ These are two different phrases, describing two different events. The `emptying’ describes the pre-existent Christ becoming a man and the `humility’ describes Christ as a man becoming obedient even to death on the cross.‘
They do not describe two different events. Dying on the cross was part of, not different from, becoming a man. “Being made in the likeness of men” is a synecdoche which included dying. Being crucified was only one act of Jesus’ servitude on this earth. Would “being made in the likeness of men” include going hungry, being tempted, etc. Yes. To say these are “two different events” would preclude anything, except being born of a woman. Being born was just one phase of Jesus’ whole servitude to the Father.
As we have said, “form of God” is the opposite of “form of a bond-servant.” There are, besides opposing statements, also many equivalent statements:
(1) “Emptied Himself” = “Humbled Himself”
(2) “Form of Servant” = “Became Obedient”
(3) “Likeness of men” = “Death on a cross.”
If this last statement does not sound equivalent, remember that the only way Deity could experience death is by becoming human. However, becoming human was not the only way Deity could experience servitude.
“GOD HIGHLY EXALTED HIM”
“The orthodox doctrine and some of my brethren maintain that Christ retained `the form of God,’ the attributes of God and equality with God. The fact of the `exaltation’ refutes this position. If Christ retained the attributes of God and equality with God, there could have been no `exaltation.’ Christ could not have been `lifted up’ `exalted’ to the right hand of the Father, unless he had been humbled below that position.“
The operative word is position. That is all Jesus emptied Himself of – the position of equality. He did not give up His ontological and essential equality. I serve others, though ontologically and essentially equal to them. My position, or role, is one of service, my person is equal.
“Form of God” is opposite of “form of servant,” and not “likeness of men.” In fact, the exaltation, instead of disproving this, asserts it. Jesus is now exalted. Jesus is again the “form of God.” YET JESUS IS STILL IN THE LIKENESS OF MEN (Col.2:9; 1 Tim.2:5). The author I am refuting even admits Jesus’ continual likeness of men in the very same article,
“In Colossians 2:9, Paul describes the glorified Christ, his state after his resurrection and exaltation. Paul is not describing the divine attributes of Christ in the flesh on earth. Throughout the book of Colossians Paul’s subject is the glorified Christ, the Christ `sitting at the right hand of God’ (Col.3:1), not the Christ in the flesh on earth. Paul is not discussing the `servant,’ Jesus Christ among men on earth (Phil.2:7-8), but the preeminent Lord after his exaltation (Phil.2:9-11) as `the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning, the first-born from the dead’ (Col.1:18).
Other scriptures teach us that Christ still has a body. Although a glorified body, it is the body all Christians (humans) will receive (1 Jn.3:2). Even though Jesus is still in this human state, He is no longer in the “form of a bond-servant.” He is in the “form of God.”
CONCLUSION
Why is this study important? It is not because some are speaking beyond their education. I AM SURE I AM EQUALLY GUILTY. Our understanding and discussion of God will always be inadequate because it will be anthropomorphic. But as one man said,
“…what other alternative do we have but to speak of God in this way?…We ourselves are human and we can think and speak only in a human way….Having said this, we must do everything we can to guard against making God in our own image.“
The problem is the ultimate conclusion that must be reached by the doctrine that Jesus did not retain any Divine attributes while incarnated. While asserting in bold print, “Jesus most certainly was divine!” one writer then affirms,
“Furthermore, His life as a man qualified Him to be our Savior (Heb.5:8-9). By living a life as a man without sin, he is acceptable to God as a sacrifice for our sins (Heb.9:13-14; 1 Pet.1:17-19). The Scriptures never teach that God had to die to purchase our redemption (emp. mine). Only human theology so teaches. The Scriptures teach that God’s justice demand the sacrifice of a sinless man to take our place (Heb.10:5-10; Rom.3:21-26). And, since He was a man, Jesus can minister before God as our High Priest (Mediator and Advocate)(Heb.2:17-18; 4:14-16; 1 Tim.2:5; 1 Jn.2:1).
Another author also says,
“As a human he became `curse for us; for it is written, cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree’ (Gal.3:13). Did deity become a curse for us? No, but a human did.“
I will refute those above conclusions by using the strongest argument for the full meshing of the human and divine – the atoning death of Jesus.
An essential characteristic of God is eternality. God never dies. Did Jesus, while embodied, give up His eternality? Yes and No. Jesus’ spirit is essentially different from a human spirit in that it was not a creation. Anything created can also be un-created, that is, destroyed. Our spirits are eternal, but not because they are spirits. Scripture teaches the angels, another spiritual creation of God, never die (Lk.20:36). That cannot be because of their innate nature, but because God sustains them and us (Col.1:16-17). Nothing in the spirit of Jesus was created. What was created was His body (Heb.10:5; 2:14). Jesus experienced death, without ever having a beginning nor an end. He never did not exist, nor ceased to exist. Physically, He had a beginning and an end (Rev.1:18). Spiritually, He never had a beginning or an end (Micah 5:2).
“Kierkegaard (conceived) of the incarnation as the absolute paradox of an eternal and infinite God becoming a temporal and finite man.“
This paradox of understanding is beautifully seen in Jesus’ shed blood. Blood is physical; Jesus’ spirit was, of course, not. Jesus’ crucified body was not eternal or it could not have died. I understand the scriptures declare it did not undergo decay (Acts 2:26-27). The point is not that death did not occur, but that it would not last. Jesus’ spirit is eternal, without beginning or end, therefore Divine. The Divine qualities of the spirit were somehow transformed to the blood (1 Pet.1:18-19; Acts 20:28). If we say we do not need a divine sacrifice, that tacitly denies that sin is an offense against God (Ps.51:4). If we did not need a divine sacrifice then why not infant sacrifices? If it is because they have not undergone temptation, then why not crucify a young person after their first temptation? God said human sacrifices “never entered into His mind” (Jer.32:35)! The Divine sacrifice was needed!
If we could explain the paradox of Jesus’ eternity while incarnated, and the flesh itself not being eternal, then possibly we have some answers. Could Jesus’ spirit be omnipotent, but His flesh, still become hungry? Yes. This does not dismiss the possibility of using the body omnipotently, it just recognizes the body is not essentially so.
And yet, some are even denying Jesus retained His eternality.
“The clincher was posed by one brother to me. He said that Christ had not given up his eternal characteristic.“
If Christ had given up His “eternal characteristic,” then He would have needed a created body and a created spirit. Then nothing would have been Divine! After His resurrection, if His spirit had ceased to exist because He gave up His “eternal characteristic,” then we have a created, resurrected God!
Personally, this has been a profitable study. I agree with Mr. Packard,
“There is something exceedingly improving to the mind in a contemplation of the Divinity. It is a subject so vast, that all our thoughts are lost in its immensity; so deep, that our pride is drowned in its infinity. Other subjects we can compass and grapple with; in them we feel a kind of self-content, and go our way with the thought, `Behold I am wise’. But when we come to this master-science, finding that our plumb-line cannot sound its depth, and that our eagle eye cannot see its height, we turn away with the thought that vain man would be wise, but he is like a wild ass’s colt; and with solemn exclamation, `I am but of yesterday, and know nothing’. No subject of contemplation will tend more to humble the mind, than thoughts of God….“
Summing everything up, I believe in an Incarnation, not a Transubstantiation.
PERRY D. HALL
1 Gordon H. Clark, The Incarnation, p.20.
2 The apostle John, 1 Jn.3:2.
3 Ibid., Clark, p.7.
W.E. Vine, A Comprehensive Dictionary of the Original Greek Words with their Precise Meanings for English Readers, p.68.
…, “God Is His Attributes,” Gospel Anchor, vol.xviii, no.6, Feb., 1992, p.4.
With humans this power of rationality is both potential and actualized, it also has the capability to be “irrational rationality” in reference the mentally ill.
Westminster Shorter Catechism, as quoted from J.I. Packer, Knowing God, p.16.
David Ray Griffin’s identification of the “Thomistic concept of God” via Ronald Nash, The Concept of God, p.20.
Ronald Nash, The Concept of God, p.16.
Ibid.
C.S. Lewis, The Problem of Pain, p.26, ftnt.1.
A.H. Leitch, The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible, v.4, p.528.
Ronald Nash, The Concept of God,p. 37; and Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, p.137, via Nash.
I admire the simple faith of those who believe God can perform the logically impossible. However, that would destroy the foundation of truth. Truth could not exist. An example: Can God exist and not exist as the same time? Another example: Does God have the power, and not have the power to perform the logical impossible? Another example: could the Godhead consist of both three and thirteen persons?
C.S. Lewis, The Problem of Pain, p.28.
Ibid., Thomas Aquinas, ibid., Nash, p.38.
This involves God’s holiness. I was hoping to write more on this subject while discussing Jms.1:13 and Heb.4:15. However, time became short.
A.H. Leitch, The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible, v.4, p.530.
…, “Diversity of Function In The Godhead,” Gospel Anchor, vol.xvii, no.5, Jan., 1991, p.16.
The discussion of locality brings up the discussion of whether Heaven is a place or a state which is not in the realm of this paper.
A.H. Leitch, The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible, vol.4, p.533.
Ibid., Quoted by Shedd, p.340.
C.S. Lewis renamed this “pan-everything-ism.”
When a Jehovah Witness argues that the term trinity is not found in the Bible, ask them if they believe in the omniscience of God? Also ask if they believe in the Bible. Neither of these terms are located in scripture. But the ideas are.
This raises the interesting question about the infinite nature of God’s knowledge. If God knows all, doesn’t the word all suggest finiteness by its very definition? Maybe the all-knowledge of God only includes the intrinsically possible?
Webster’s New World Dictionary, Second College Edition, p.1478.
John Lucas, The Freedom of the Will, p.75, via ibid., Nash, p.58.
…, “Jesus Knew! Or Did He? Really?”, Focus On Faith, vol.VI, Oct. 1992, No.9, p.6.
…, “`Faith And Facts Quarterly,’ On The Deity of Christ,” Gospel Anchor, vol.xvii, no.12, Aug., 1991, p.8.
…, “Second Beaver Dam Meeting”, Jan., 8, 1991, via …, Is It Heresy?, p.4. In fairness to this brother, he was asking questions, not making statements of his beliefs.
…, Word Became Flesh, p.12, via …, “Is There A Difference?,” Gospel Anchor, vol.xvii, no.6, Feb., 1991, p.6.
However, I do find it interesting that this unnamed brother, possibly contradicts what started this whole issue – Do we have to sin? I believe we do not. I know my friend believes the same. His answer here could imply otherwise – “he knew the Scriptures like no man could.” If Jesus was omniscient He would know the Word in a way that we could not. However, He would not know any more than what was required for us to know. Therefore, does his statement mean all humans have to commit a sin of ignorance because we cannot have all (omniscient) knowledge of the Bible?
…, electronically recorded, Evansville, IN, July 15, 1990, via …, “The Fog Has Lifted, The Issue Is Once Again Clear,” Gospel Anchor, vol.xix, no.3, Nov., 1992, p.9, footnote #27.
…, Word Became Flesh, p.10, via …, “Is There A Difference?,” Gospel Anchor, vol.xvii, no.6, Feb., 1991, p.6.
Webster’s New World Dictionary of the American Language, Second College Edition, p.994.
Ibid., Cottrell, p.159.
…, “Did He `Empty Himself’ Or Not?,” Faith and Facts, vol.18, no.4, Oct, 1990, p.84.
…, “Did He `Empty Himself’ Or Not?,” Faith and Facts, vol.18, no.4, Oct., 1990, pp.82-83.
…, “Did He `Empty Himself’ Or Not?,” Faith and Facts, vol.18, no.4, Oct., 1990, p.85.
…, “Did He `Empty Himself’ Or Not?,” Faith and Facts, vol.18, no.4, Oct.,1990, p.80.
“The Person of Christ,” International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, vol.iv, p.2339.
…, “Did He `Empty Himself’ Or Not?,” Faith and Facts, vol.18, no.4, Oct., 1990, p.86.
…, “Did He `Empty Himself’ Or Not?,” Faith and Facts, vol.18, no.4, Oct., 1990, p.86.
…, “Did He `Empty Himself’ Or Not?,” Faith and Facts, vol.18, no.4, Oct., 1990, p.93.
Shirley C. Guthrie, Jr. Christian Doctrine, Teachings of the Christians Church, p.110.
…, “The Life of Jesus,” With All Boldness, vol.2, no.1, Jan., 1992, p.3.
…, “The Great Example,” Faith and Facts, vol.18, no.4, Oct., 1990, p.27.
Thomas J. J. Altizer, “Incarnation,” A Handbook of Christian Theology, p.187.
…, The Great Example, Faith and Facts, vol.18, no.4, Oct., 1990, p.28.
C.H. Spurgeon, as quoted by J.I. Packer, Knowing God, pp.13-14.
Comments