The essence of the divinely revealed incarnation
of Jesus and as eternal God:
The eternal deity of the Son implied by His
eternal existence is also expressed in the prologue
of John’s gospel, where he writes, “In the
beginning was the Word, and the Word was with
God, and the Word was God. He was in the
beginning with God” (John 1:1,2). Despite
misguided interpretive attempts to supply an
indirect article in order to imply that “the Word
was a god,” the only valid exegesis of the text
recognizes that “the Word was God.” The Word,
the expressive agency of God, became flesh (John
1:14) in the Person of Jesus.
In the Christological explanation that Paul
wrote to the Philippians, he explained that
“although He existed in the form of God, He did
not regard equality with God a thing to be
grasped” (Phil. 2:6). The Son pre-existed as God.
That Paul refers to His “existing in the form
(morphe) of God” does not imply a phantasmal
illusion, an exact replica, or a secondary
configuration, as some have suggested, but
indicates that the Son existed as the very essence
of God’s Being, functioning in the enactment and
expression of that Being by independent
prerogative. As the very Being of God, He acted
as God.
Recognizing His eternal equality with God,
ontologically in His Being and operationally in
His functional action, and recognizing that such
eternal equality was immutable so that He was
incapable of being less than God, the Son did not
regard such equality a thing to be “grasped, held
on to, or possessively maintained.” The Son of
God did not have to demand an “equal rights
amendment” to assert, protect, or preserve His
equality and oneness of Being and function as
God. Rather, He was voluntarily willing to take
the form of a man, knowing that while
functioning as a man He would never be less than
God.
If Jesus came into existence only at His
physical birth in Bethlehem, then He was not a
part of the eternal triune Godhead, and could not
have been the God-man with the necessary
divinity to forgive sin (Mark 2:7; Luke 5:21) as the
“God and Savior” (Titus 2:13) of mankind.
But because He was eternally pre-existent as
the Son of God, the “Lord of glory” (I Cor. 2:8), in
becoming fully human and functioning
derivatively as a man, He could still say, “I and
the Father are one” (John 10:30) —
that, not merely a oneness of purpose or intent,
but a oneness of divine essence, “true God and
eternal life” (I John 5:20).
In accord with the divine purposes expressive
of the divine character of justice and grace, God
the Father, in mutual determination with the Son
and the Spirit, determined to send the Son on the
redemptive mission to restore mankind to God’s
functional intent.
“God so loved the world that He gave His
only begotten Son” (John 3:16). “He did not spare
His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all”
(Rom. 8:32), both in incarnation and atonement.
Jesus Christ was “sent by God” (John 17:3) to do
the will of God (John 6:38), to speak the words of
God (John 3:34), and to do the works of God (John
14:10), in order that “the world might be saved”
(John 3:17) and “the world might live through
Him” (I John 4:9).
Jesus was continually conscious that He was
sent by God the Father. “I proceeded forth and
have come from God, . . . He sent Me” (John 8:42),
Jesus told the Jewish authorities. He explained to
His disciples that He had “come forth from God,
and was going back to God” (John 13:3); “having
came forth from the Father, and come into the
world; I am leaving the world again, and going to
the Father” (John 16:28). Jesus was forever
conscious of His divine mission to man, as well as
the necessity of man’s “believing Him Whom
God sent” (John 5:38; 6:29). In His intimate prayer
wherein He foresaw the accomplishment of the
divine work (John 17:4) in His own death, Jesus
said, “I came forth from Thee, and they believed
that Thou didst send Me” (John 17:8).
These verses, which indicate that God the
Father sent God the Son on the redemptive and
restorative mission to mankind, would seem to
evidence that there is some kind of authoritative
hierarchy within the Godhead. Such does not
impinge upon the essential equality of Being
between the three persons of the Godhead, but
does reveal a differentiation of functional
operation. Paul can thus state that “God is the
head of Christ” (I Cor. 11:3), and that “the Son
Himself will be subjected to the One Who
subjected all things to Him” (I Cor. 15:28).
Jesus Himself said, “The Father is greater than I”
(John 14:28), but since that statement was uttered
during His functional condescension as God-man
on earth, it may not pertain to the functional
placement of the members of the Godhead.
Suffice it to say that God the Father was in
such a position to send God the Son to become a
man.
All of the preparatory preliminaries had been
accomplished in the Abrahamic promises and the
Mosaic Law of the old covenant.
The focal point of human history — when
God sent His Son to become a man — is indeed
divine intervention into the space/time context of
humanity.
God’s sending of the Son to become a man
was with the complete consensus of the Son to
enact the divine mission. Being of one mind with
God the Father, the Son was not a hesitant or
reticent participant in the decisive endeavor to act
on man’s behalf. He was not forced by
compulsion to assume the role and
personification of the Messiah. Rather, He
willingly and voluntarily condescended to waive
the privileges of His divine function and subordinate
Himself to God the Father in what is often referred to
as His “humiliation.” Paul explained that in an attitude
of humility Jesus “emptied Himself, taking the
form of a bond-servant, being made in the likeness
of men”(Phil. 2:5-7). The word that Paul employs for
Jesus’ self-emptying (kenosis) means “to
counteract the function of” or “to lay aside the
use of” something.
The question must then be asked: “What did
Jesus empty Himself of?”
Did Jesus divest Himself of His deity in order to
become a man?
No, for He could still say, “I and the Father
are one” (John 10:30) in essence, as God.
Did Jesus lay aside His divine glory?
No. The glory of God is in the expression of
His character, and when the Word became
flesh, John reports that “we beheld His glory,
glory as of the only begotten of the Father”
(John 1:14).
Did Jesus cast off some of the incommunicable
attributes of His deity which were incompatible
with humanity, such as the omni-attributes of
omnipotence, omniscience or omnipresence?
Some theologians have proposed such
kenotic theories of deprivation and
depotentiation, but such theories inevitably
leave Jesus as less than God.
Jesus did not divest Himself of His complete
and essential Being as God. His act of self-emptying
kenosis was at the same time an
expression of complete and full plerosis, for “the
fullness of deity was dwelling in Him in bodily
human form” (Col. 1:19; 2:9).
When considering the Christological
formation of the Person of Jesus Christ, it is
important to recognize the ontological factor of
His Being as well as the operational factor of His
function. Jesus could be God and be man at the
same time, but it would not be possible for Jesus
to behave or function as God and man at the same
time. God is autonomous, independent and
self-generating in His functional action. Man,
on the other hand, is dependent, derivative
and contingent in the receptivity of his function.
The divine Son did not divest Himself of His
Being as God in any way, but did defer the
independent exercise of His divine function in
order to function dependently and derivatively as
a man. His divine prerogative of direct and
independent enactment of divine function was
suspended in order to voluntarily subordinate
Himself in human contingency and receptivity.
This deferment does not dysfunctionalize deity,
but allows deity to function in an indirect
manner, as receptive man allows for the faithful
expression of God’s character of self-giving.
Such subordinated dependent function is
illustrated in Paul’s subsequent phrase indicating
that Jesus “took the form of a bond-servant” (Phil
2:7). Indentured servants were perceived as
functional tools to perform the master’s desires.
Jesus voluntarily assumed the dependency and
humility of servanthood in order to serve the
needs of mankind. Isaiah had prophesied that the
Messiah would be a servant (Isa. 52:13) Who
would suffer (Isa. 53:3-12) on behalf of His
people.
Willingly consenting to become the God-man,
Jesus recognized that His function as a man was
by the indirect receptivity of the works of God.
“I do nothing of Myself, unless by the direct
initiative and instigation of divine function,”
Jesus said repeatedly (John 5:19,30; 12:49; 14:10),
but “the Father abiding in Me does His works”
(John 14:10).
Even the supernatural and miraculous
manifestations evidenced during Jesus’ ministry
on earth were by the indirect functional
receptivity of God’s action. Peter declared in his
first sermon on Pentecost that Jesus was a man
“attested to you by God with miracles and
wonders and signs which God performed
through Him” (Acts 2:22).
The self-emptying of the Son in becoming a
man did not divest or deprive Him of His eternal
deity which cannot be altered. The self-emptying
of the Son must be understood as the deferment
of His direct divine function in order to allow for
indirect divine function in “the man, Christ Jesus”
(I Tim. 2:5), Who was faithfully receptive to such
divine function in His behavior for every moment
in time for thirty-three years.
The One Who “existed in the form of God”
was “made in the likeness of men, and found in
appearance as a man” (Phil. 2:7,8). He “partook of
flesh and blood” (Heb. 2:14), and “dwelt (literally,
“tabernacled” by setting up His physical tent)
among men” (John 1:14).
Paul’s statement that “God sent His Son in
the likeness of sinful flesh” (Rom. 8:3) must be
carefully explained to avoid attributing any
intrinsic or behavioral sinfulness to the Person
and work of the sinless Savior. All “flesh,” in the
sense of humanity, is comprised in a sinful
condition in spiritual solidarity with the choice
that Adam made as the representative man (cf.
Rom. 5:12-19). In such a collective condition all
humanity can be described as “sinful flesh.” The
Son of God partook fully and completely of
humanity with its tri-fold physical, psychological
and spiritual capacities, but the “likeness of sinful
flesh” is explained in that He was “unlike” fallen
humanity because He did not partake of spiritual
depravity and thus did not develop “flesh”
patterns from prior selfish and sinful behavior.
Though Jesus was fully human, humanness by
definition is not necessarily inclusive of
sinfulness, though it has been identified by its
expression of such since the Fall.
How could this be accomplished, since
attributes of divinity and humanity seem to be
incompatible? It is admittedly inexplicable, for
such a union of God and man creates paradoxical
antinomies which are beyond human
comprehension. But Christian theologians have
spent centuries attempting to explain to the best
of their finite understanding how God could be
conjoined with man, deity with humanity, eternal
with temporal, infinite with finite, spirit with
physicality, for such is the essence of the divinely
revealed incarnation of Jesus.