Below is an academic paper I wrote several years ago in college on how it is that Jesus Christ was both fully God and fully man. My original paper has footnotes and exact pages/sources cited, but my bibliography is at the bottom. Enjoy and if you have questions, please let me know! I will be publishing more on here.
THE INCARNATION OF CHRIST:
A BIBLICAL ANALYSIS OF THE HUMANITY AND DEITY OF CHRIST
JONATHAN SMITH
THEO 350
JULY 29, 2013
Introduction
The nature and person of Jesus Christ has been debated by theologians for centuries. The specific issue in these debates has been how it is theologically possible that Jesus Christ is both “fully God” and “fully man.” Today’s secular society believes that for Jesus to be both “fully God” and “fully man” is a contradiction while most Christians believe that it is not contradictory, but is true. In order to reconcile the contradiction of the deity and humanity of Christ, an accurate, biblically-based interpretation of Paul’s writing in Philippians 2:7 will be explored along, as well as three different views of reconciliation of Christ’s deity and humanity, including the Classical View of Christ, the Kenotic View of Christ, and the author’s reformed view of the Classical View of Christ, called the Reformed Classical View of Christ.
Explanation of Different Viewpoints on the Incarnation of Christ
In Philippians 2:7, Paul wrote, “Instead He emptied Himself by assuming the form of a slave, taking on the likeness of men.” The word “emptied” in the original Greek means kenosis. Supporters of the Kenotic View believe that what Paul was saying was that Jesus had given up certain divine attributes because maintaining these attributes “would have precluded his ability to become fully human.” With this interpretation of Philippians 2:7, the Kenotic View appears to begin damaging the true deity of Jesus Christ. Additionally, the Kenotic View maintains that Christ did not know certain things, such as when he would return, as well as who had touched him in order to be healed nor how long a boy had been demonized (Mark 13:32; Mark 5:30; Mark 9:20-21). The strongest arguments on the side of the Kenotic View include a solution to the contradiction that the Classical View contains concerning the deity and humanity of Jesus, a stronger affirmation of his humanity, and the mere fact that we are to live our lives as Christ had lived his (1 Cor. 11:1; Phil. 2:5).
The Classical View of Christ affirms that Jesus Christ is both “fully human” and “fully God.” In some mysterious way, Christ was both “omnipresent yet spatially located, omnipotent yet limited in power, and omniscient yet limited in knowledge.” The Gospels reveal Jesus’ omnipotence in his power over the wind and the fish (Luke 8:23-25; John 21:5-6). Furthermore, Jesus’ omniscience is seen, for example, in his foretelling of Judas’ betrayal (John 13:21-16). The strongest supporting arguments for the Classical View of Christ include a depiction of Christ’s two natures as God and man, the glory of Jesus, and the inconsistent argument presented by the Kenotic View.
Discussion of Personal Viewpoint on the Incarnation of Christ
The author’s personal viewpoint on the Incarnation of Christ takes a Reformed Classical View of Christ, which seeks to better explain the nature, deity, and humanity of Christ in response to objections from the Kenotic View of Christ. The Reformed Classical View of Christ has two primary views that will be addressed. First, an accurate, biblically-based argument of Philippians 2:7 is given. Second, the author’s Reformed Classical View of Christ is explained and an argument on certain objections presented on the Kenotic View of Christ side is argued as well.
If Jesus Christ, as the Kenotic View of Christ imposes, had truly “emptied himself” of his deity, “he would no longer be God.” An interpretation of Christ not maintaining his deity or being “fully God,” regardless of his exercising of it, is heresy, especially when viewed in the context of what the apostle Paul was writing. In Philippians 2:6, Paul wrote, “…who, existing in the form of God, did not consider equality with God as something to be used for His own advantage.” Here, Paul acknowledges that Jesus did have “the form of God,” yet maintains that Jesus did not exploit his equality with God for his own advantage. Philippians 2:7, as stated earlier, says that Christ emptied himself. The question, then, is this: Of what did Jesus Christ empty himself?
Well, as seen in Philippians 2:6, Christ “continued to subsist in the form of God (the participle huparchon having this meaning).” When used in this context, “form” refers to the “essential attributes of deity” that Christ had because he was God. This means that when Paul wrote Philippians 2:7, he could not have been referring to Jesus Christ giving up his deity. Instead of “a subtraction of deity” that the Kenotic View of Christ poses, there is actually an “addition of humanity with its consequent limitations.” This conclusion is supported by Philippians 2:8, where Paul wrote, “He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death—even to death on a cross.” The keyword in verse 8 is “humbled.” God was humbled because He sent Himself to earth as a human through Jesus Christ, His Son, through the Virgin Mary, in order to face the world as we do so that He may show us that through Him all things are possible. However, Christ’s humbling was not just because he became a human; it also involved what this meant. There are three points that can be used to address this humbling.
The first point that must be made is that Christ was humbled by “taking the form of a servant.” Jesus said, “For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many (Mark 10:45; Matt. 20:28).” Second, Christ was humbled by “taking the likeness of men.” God became flesh through Jesus Christ (John 1:14). In Matthew 4, Jesus was tempted just as man is, but did not succumb to temptation because he is God. Finally, Christ was humbled by “being found in fashion as a man.” Jesus, just like other men, had human needs and emotions, such as hunger and sorrow (Matt. 4:2; Matt. 26:38). Jesus does not “cease to be God” through his emptying, but instead takes a “degradation” to his nature by choosing to “live like a servant” in order to be a sacrifice for the world’s sins.
While the Classical View of Christ and the Kenotic View of Christ each have merits to their viewpoints, a solution to the Classical View of Christ is in order to determine how exactly Jesus Christ is “fully God” and “fully man” without facing a contradiction in this belief. The first challenge that is faced is how it is that Jesus Christ, being God, can be tempted as humans are when the Scripture explicitly teaches that this is heresy (James 1:13). Matthew 4:2 says that Jesus was tempted by the devil. The word “tempted” in Greek is peirazσ, which means “to test, scrutinize, entice, examine, or prove.” In this case, it could mean that Jesus was tested, enticed, or even examined by the devil for the purpose of seeing whether or not he would sin. However, since God cannot sin, this test did not necessarily occur to see if Jesus would sin, “but to prove that He could not.” Therefore, Jesus Christ could not sin, even if he were to want to, because he is both God and man.
The second challenge that is faced is how it is possible that Jesus Christ could have maintained omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence even though he was a human. First, Christ’s omnipotence is cited thirteen times in the New Testament, including his omnipotence over “sin, tradition, death, disease, and even demons (Matt. 9:1-8; 9:10-17; Luke 7:14-15; 4:39; Matt. 8:28-32).” Second, Christ’s omniscience is cited ten times in the New Testament, including his omniscience in matters such as “the whereabouts of Nathaniel, the plot of Judas, the hearts of the Pharisees, the thoughts of the scribes, the history of the Samaritan woman, and the problems of his disciples (John 1:48; 6:70; Luke 5:22; Matt. 9:3-4; John 4:24; Luke 9:46-47).” Finally, Christ’s omnipresence is cited four times in the New Testament (Matt. 18:20; 28:20; John 3:13; 14:20).
Despite the fact that He does maintain these attributes of deity, it does not mean that Jesus knew everything. For example, Jesus does not know when the Second Coming will be (Matt. 24:36). However, an objection such as this may be explained by an understanding of what this may mean. The author believes that perhaps Jesus does not know when the day or hour of his return for two possible reasons. First, in submission and obedience to the Father, Jesus may have not been revealed this information because of the devastating outcome it may have had if the world were to have an exact time to expect the Second Coming as well as the possible intrusion upon free will that this may have. However, information about the Second Coming as well as the end times is mentioned (Matt. 24:1-51; Luke 21:11). Second, Jesus may have not known when the Second Coming was because it is not necessarily in God’s will that people know the exact day and time (John 6:38).
Another objection that may be brought up on behalf of the Kenotic View supporters is that Jesus Christ attributes some of his actions to the Father or Spirit (Matt. 12:28; Luke 4:1, 14, 17-21; John 5:19, 30). However, to say that this denies some attributes of deity to Christ would be heresy. While it is true that Jesus says that he can only do what the Father does (John 5:19), it actually appears to the author that this is because Jesus is God (John 10:30). Furthermore, for Jesus, as both fully God and fully man, to give glory and praise to God would make sense because as God, Jesus would want to do his Father’s will and not his own “fleshy” will, which is evident in the Garden of Gethsemane (Matt. 26:39, 42).
It would also be understandable that Jesus, from the human perspective, does not want to be crucified because of the impending pain that he will face, which is evident in Luke 22:44 where Luke writes that Jesus’ sweat was like drops of blood. According to Dr. Alexander Metherell, this is a medical condition known as hematidrosis, which is the result of “a high degree of psychological stress.” For Jesus to not want to suffer through the crucifixion is a result of his human emotions, not sin as one may argue, while his obedience to God and desire to carry out God’s will for him results in the crucifixion.
The third and final challenge to the Reformed Classical View of Christ is how Christ can have two natures in one person. On this issue, it appears that the Classical View of Christ has a solution that is not only correct, but also non-contradictory. According to the Chalcedonian creed, “Jesus was “fully human.” This means that he possesses “all the attributes that constitute the essence of a human being.” Furthermore, since he is also “fully God,” Jesus possesses “all the attributes that constitute the essence of God.” Since both of these statements are proven to be true by Scripture, the ability of how it is that Jesus is both “fully God” and “fully man” comes in to question.
Since Jesus is “fully man,” “his limited consciousness did not restrict (and thus rule out) his ability to possess an unlimited divine consciousness.” This means that Jesus’ “divine consciousness encompassed the human consciousness without thereby destroying it.” In other words, Jesus’s “divine mind always had access to the contents of the human mind, but not vice versa,” which means he could learn, grow, and live as a human being would without his human consciousness tapping into his divine consciousness.
Supporters of the Kenotic View of Christ may argue that these two natures of Christ in one person do not make sense and is contradictory. However, it does make sense to see Christ in this light because the Scripture does say that Jesus Christ is both God and man and to deny this crucial doctrine of Christology would be denying who Jesus Christ really was, is, and will always be (Col. 2:9; Heb. 4:15; John 9:35-37; 20:28; 8:58; Matt. 14:33).
Conclusion
In conclusion, Jesus Christ is, biblically and theologically speaking, is both “fully God” and “fully human.” When Jesus chose to empty himself out, he chose to become a servant to humans, sacrificing his own life for the good of humanity and the glory of God. He was tempted as humans, but did not succumb to it because he was and is God incarnate, perfect and blameless. If Jesus Christ is truly “fully God” and “fully man” as both himself and the Bible claims he is, then Christians need to bring this message and truth to non-believers here in the United States, as well as all around the world in order to share the beauty that is Christ and his salvation.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Boyd, Gregory A. and Paul R. Eddy. Across the Spectrum: Understanding Issues in Evangelical Theology, 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2009.
Karleen, Paul S. The Handbook to Bible Study: With a Guide to the Scofield Study System. New York: Oxford University Press, 1987.
Ryrie, Charles Caldwell. A Survey of Bible Doctrine. Chicago: Moody Press, 1972.
Strobel, Lee. The Case for Christ: a Journalist’s Personal Investigation of the Evidence for Jesus. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1998.
Strong, James. Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible (facets). Updated ed. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 2009.
Willmington, H.L. Willmington’s Book of Bible Lists. Wheaton, IL: Tyndale, 1987.
Answering the Call 