Part 10

My wife and I went to Pennsylvania for six weeks one time, and found there was a whole state full of people just like my friend. NOW, before I alienate all Pennsylvanians let me be quick to comment. I have talked with others from that state and find that they are very standoffish until they get to know you and then they will do anything for you. I have come to enjoy many different kinds of peoples due to the groundwork laid in my life by a Pennsylvanian. THANKS.

We tend to think at times that we can't face missions due to the culture shock, deputation, new organization and all that. We feel that facing a new culture will be just too much for us. Let's consider the most extreme culture shock of all time. Christ faced not only a new set of living conditions, but a new set of beings.

It is also of note that John mentions it was a step down for the Lord. At times we feel that we are rather special, yet Christ had to come down to our level, and I might add that was not just a little trip down either. John 6:51, "I am the living bread that came down from heaven...."

B. CHRIST LEFT THE RICHES OF HEAVEN FOR THE POVERTY

OF THE EARTH. 2 CORINTHIANS 89, LUKE 958.

C. CHRIST LEFT THE GLORY OF HEAVEN FOR THE

PLAINNESS OF EARTH.

When our family moved from Oregon to begin teaching at Frontier School of the Bible, we left two good salaries for a "life of faith" in Wyoming. Not only did we leave the good income, but we left one of the lushest, nicest areas for the low income ministry. We also left the green, gorgeous area of the northwest for one of the dryer, more desolate states of our union.

Christ left all to place himself in this world. Some Step Down. John 17:5,

"And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the

glory which I had with thee before the world was."

D. CHRIST LEFT THE EQUALITY WITH GOD FOR THE SERVANT HOOD OF EARTH, FROM THE TOP OF THE CHAIN

OF COMMAND TO THE LOWEST OF LOW.

In our war with Iraq in 1991 we were pleased to be introduced to a man by the name of Norman Swartskopf, the general that lead our forces in the mid-east, or Stormin Norman as he was called. Had he been reduced to the level of raw recruit, he would not have suffered a part of the demotion to which Christ submitted Himself. Indeed, the Lord went from as high up to the lowest, in that moment of conception. Philippians 2:6-7

And we groan and moan when one of our children tells us that they feel called to be a minister, or missionary. Shame on us Church.

E. CHRIST LEFT THE FORM OF GOD (OR SPIRIT) FOR THE FORM OF MAN.

In the series Star Trek, and Star Trek the Next Generation, the transporter always fascinated my science fiction mind. Just what would it be like to be changed from matter into energy to be transported somewhere. At times the imagination even wondered, what would it be like if The Enterprise lost you and you went out into space as pure energy? What would it be like to become something completely and totally different?

Christ a Spirit being became man, a material being. (Philippians 2:6-7) Some adaption for Him to go through.

These changes were for the most part temporary while Christ was on earth, however his manly form seems to continue on now, and the indications are that it will continue on for eternity.

III. THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE INCARNATION

THE VIRGIN BIRTH WAS NECESSARY

A. It fulfilled prophecy: Isaiah mentioned that there would be a virgin birth, so the birth of Christ was a fulfillment of this prophecy. This is seen in Isaiah 7:14,

"Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin

shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel."

B. It maintained Christ perfect through the conception process: To maintain Christ's perfectness without a sin nature, there had to have been some means by which man's sin nature was not transferred from the father to the child. This was accomplished by eliminating the earthly father.

Ryrie leaves the door open to there not being a need for the virgin birth. "What was the purpose of the Virgin Birth? It need not be the necessary means of preserving Christ sinless, since God could have overshadowed two parents so as to protect the baby's sinlessness had He so desired. It served as a sign of the uniqueness of the Person who was born."2

The virgin birth most definitely was needed to produce Christ without a sin nature. Yes, God could have overshadowed, or declared no sin nature, yet this is not the way God normally operates.

The virgin birth is much to broad a subject for this work so the reader is referred to existing theologies and commentaries for further discussions on the subject.

IV. THE INCARNATION HAS ETERNAL CONSEQUENCES

Christ will always be in the glorified body state, it would seem.

A. He will sit on the throne of David. Luke 1:31-33

B. He will give us glorified bodies like His own. Our bodies will last for eternity thus; we might assume that His will do the same.

V. PRACTICAL VALUES OF THE INCARNATION

A. It makes clear, the perfect life Christ lived, and that sin was not an integrated part of that life, nor was sin essential to life.

B. It gives us a God that does know all there is to know about us. He is not afar off nor is he an uncaring God. He is a God that knows and cares for us on our own level.

C. We have mentioned that if we know Christ, we know God. We often give lip service to such teaching, but do we as believers in this century really understand the ramifications of such teaching? If we really wanted to know God the Father, then we would walk with Christ and follow His teachings. So many today concentrate only on Christ which is wrong, but others dwell only on the epistles, while others bury themselves in the Old Testament. All such concentrations are incorrect. We should have a balance between all the sections of Scripture. Even in our daily Bible reading, we should read from a variety of sources in the Word.

"This Lord Jesus is the indispensable Revealer of God. He is the Forgiver of sins, and He is the final judge. The alternative to these claims is undeniable and clear. There is no logical alternative to the truth as the Lord spoke it, other than that He was demented or an impostor. Both these alternatives are unthinkable. But the bit is here. You cannot accept some of His teachings and dismiss others, and still call Him a good Man, an honest Teacher and a worthy Example.

"Can you know God apart from Him? If you answer yes, you are on the opposite side from the Lord Jesus Christ -- He said you cannot....To know Him is to know the Father, for He and the Father are one."

William Culbertson; The Faith Once Delivered3

For your further study: Matthew 20:28; John 1:14; John 3:13; John 3:17; John 6:51; Romans 1:3; Romans 8:3; 1 Corinthians 15:47; 2 Corinthians

8:9; Galatians 4:4; Philippians 2:7,8; 1 Timothy 1:15; 1 Timothy 3:16; Hebrews 2:9; Hebrews 2:14; Hebrews 2:17; Hebrews 10:5; 1 John 3:5.

ENDNOTES

2. Reprinted by permission: Ryrie, Charles C.; "Basic Theology"; Wheaton: Victor Books, 1986, p 243

3. William Culbertson; The Faith Once Delivered, source unknown

THE INCARNATION

HANDOUT

Incarnation comes from a Latin term meaning:

In Theology, the Incarnation speaks to that act of servant hood by which the Second Person of the Trinity stepped into the flow of mankind as man, taking upon Himself all that man is and limiting Himself to function within mankind's parameters. John 1:14

Both Matthew and Luke mention the virgin birth: Matthew 1:18; Luke 1:26,27,34

Both are quite clear of the fact that Joseph was not the father of Jesus: Matthew 1:20; Luke 1:35

I. THE PURPOSE OF THE INCARNATION

Ryrie details the purpose of the incarnation in one of his books. I would like to quote his outline and then adapt it for our discussion.

"...to reveal God to men...to provide an example for living...to provide a sacrifice for sin...to destroy the works of the devil...to enable Him to be a merciful and faithful High Priest...to fulfill the promise of a son to sit on the throne of David forever...."1

A. GOD WAS IN THE PROCESS OF

DECLARING HIMSELF TO MAN

B. GOD WAS IN THE PROCESS OF GIVING US AN EXAMPLE TO LIVE BY

1 Peter 2:21; 1 John 2:6

C. GOD WAS IN THE PROCESS OF

PROVIDING SALVATION TO MAN

Hebrews 10:1-10; John 6:51; John 10:10

D. GOD WAS IN THE PROCESS OF SETTING HIS VICTORY OVER SATAN

1 John 3:8

E. GOD WAS IN THE PROCESS OF PROVIDING A HIGH PRIEST FOR MAN

F. GOD WAS IN THE PROCESS OF PROVIDING

AN EVERLASTING KING FOR ISRAEL

Luke 1:31-33

G. GOD WAS IN THE PROCESS OF

PROVIDING A PROPER JUDGE

John 5:22,27

H. GOD WAS IN THE PROCESS OF PROVIDING A HEAD FOR THE CHURCH

Ephesians 1:19-23

II. CHANGES WROUGHT BY THE INCARNATION

A. CHRIST CAME FROM HEAVEN TO EARTH TO DWELL.

John 6:51

B. CHRIST LEFT THE RICHES OF HEAVEN FOR THE POVERTY

OF THE EARTH.

2 Corinthians 8:9; Luke 9:58

C. CHRIST LEFT THE GLORY OF HEAVEN FOR THE

PLAINNESS OF EARTH.

John 17:5

D. CHRIST LEFT THE EQUALITY WITH GOD FOR THE

SERVANT HOOD OF EARTH.

Philippians 2:6-7

E. CHRIST LEFT THE FORM OF GOD (OR SPIRIT) FOR THE FORM OF MAN.

III. THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE INCARNATION

THE VIRGIN BIRTH WAS NECESSARY

A. It Fulfilled Prophecy: Isaiah 7:14

B. It Maintained Christ Perfect Through The Conception Process:

Ryrie leaves the door open to there not being a need for the virgin birth.

"What was the purpose of the Virgin Birth? It need not be the necessary means of preserving Christ sinless, since God could have overshadowed two parents so as to protect the baby's sinlessness had He so desired. It served as a sign of the uniqueness of the Person who was born."2

IV. THE INCARNATION HAS ETERNAL CONSEQUENCES

V. PRACTICAL VALUES OF THE INCARNATION

"This Lord Jesus is the indispensable Revealer of God. He is the Forgiver of sins, and He is the final judge. The alternative to these claims is undeniable and clear. there is no logical alternative to the truth as the Lord spoke it, other than that He was demented or an

impostor. both these alternatives are unthinkable. But the bit is here. You cannot accept some of His teachings and dismiss others, and still call Him a good Man, an honest Teacher and a worthy Example.

William Culbertson; THE FAITH ONCE DELIVERED3

For further study: Matthew 20:28; John 1:14; John 3:13; John 3:17; John 6:51; Romans 1:3; Romans 8:3; 1 Corinthians 15:47; 2 Corinthians 8:9; Galatians 4:4; Philippians 2:7,8; 1 Timothy 1:15; 1 Timothy 3:16; Hebrews 2:9; Hebrews 2:14; Hebrews 2:17; Hebrews 10:5; 1 John 3:5.

ENDNOTES

2. Reprinted by permission: Ryrie, Charles C.; "Basic Theology"; Wheaton: Victor Books, 1986, p 243

3. William Culbertson; The Faith Once Delivered, source unknown

THE NATURES OF CHRIST

Characters Of The Debate: The main characters of the debate over the Natures of Christ were Athanasius and Arius. We want to take a short look at these two men.

Athanasius was born 296 A.D. in Alexandria Egypt, and died in 373 A.D. at Alexandria. He was described as a small energetic monk according to one encyclopedia. He held to the deity of Christ. He could not conceive of non-God being a part of God. He felt that Christ did things that only God could do. (Creation: Colossians 1:15ff; Redemption.) He wrote several books concerning the topic of the incarnation of Christ. He also suffered periods of exile because of his beliefs. (Cairns mentions five.)

Arius was a man that loved controversy. Some suggest that this may have been the reason for some of his thinking. He wanted to dispute with the authorities or stated standards.

You will run into people in this world that function in this fashion. There was a Christian in Denver years ago that loved to talk about spiritual things and when the conversation was low, he oft times would begin a good discussion by taking a position theologically that was totally in error, just to see what he could stir up. Rather than drop the false doctrine, he would argue as hard as he could from the heretical position. It was good for both parties, because it challenged both to really understand what they believed and quite often they wound up knowing more about the heresy than the heretic would have known. Arius, however was firm in his beliefs and stuck by them through much trouble.

Arius was born in Libya or Alexandria in 256 A.D. and died in Constantinople in 336 A.D. He was a deacon and then a presbyter and his teaching grew out of a reaction to a sermon entitled "The Unity of the Trinity." This sermon was delivered in Alexandria by the bishop Alexander.

He wanted to avoid a polytheistic concept of God. In other words he saw God as one God and wanted to reject any idea that there was more than one God.

He was educated under the teaching of Lucian. Cairns mentions of Lucian, "Another rather satirical and, for that reason, valuable witness is Lucian, who wrote a satire upon Christians and their faith about 170. Lucian described Christ as the one 'who was crucified in Palestine' because he began 'this new cult.'"1

Arius began his trouble in 318 A.D. and was banished in 321 A.D. His banishment was in Illyria. He was condemned at the Synod of Antioch in 325. He was later to be restored to fellowship with the church, but died on the eve of the ceremony.

Though Arius and other of the church fathers held to doctrines that we would detest today, we need to understand that these men were in the first decades of systematizing doctrine. They did not have the great works on theology that we have today, and they had few commentaries that they could dig into. Their knowledge of the word was growing, and far from complete.

Even today we are defining doctrines that have not been properly studied, over the centuries, and we will continue to define doctrines for centuries to come. The Bible is much deeper than man's mind can ever dig.

The Characteristics Of The Debate: Alexander of Alexandria saw to the condemnation of Arius at the Synod of Antioch. Arius fled to the palace of Eusebius the bishop of Nicomedia, who was a schoolmate.

Constantine, the emperor, saw a possible split in the empire coming due to the controversy, so tried to stop this split from growing. He wrote both parties however to no avail. This shows how closely the church and state were tied together. A religious debate was threatening the empire. He called the Council of Nicaea in the summer of 325 AD. He invited 300 bishops but less than 10 were from the west. Constantine presided over the council and also paid the expenses.

There were three positions presented to the council:

him to be divine but "...created out of nothing, subordinate to the Father and of a different essence from the Father. He was not coequal, coeternal of consubstantial [of same substance or essence I think] with the Father." (Taken from the book, Christianity Through The Centuries by Earle E. Cairns. Copyright 1954, 1981 by The Zondervan Corporation. Used by permission. p 143) He was divine but not deity.

b. Athanasius "insisted that Christ had existed from all eternity with the Father and was of the same essence (homoousios) as the Father, although He was a distinct personality." "...if Christ were less than he [Athanasius] had stated Him to be, He could not be the Savior of men." "...Christ was coequal, coeternal and consubstantial with the Father...." (Taken from the book, Christianity Through The Centuries by Earle E. Cairns. Copyright 1954, 1981 by The Zondervan Corporation. Used by permission. p 144)

c. Eusebius of Caesarea "...proposed a moderate view which would combine the best ideas of Arius and Athanasius. Over two hundred of those present followed his views at first. He taught that Christ was not created out of nothing as Arius had insisted, but that He was begotten of the Father before time in eternity. Christ was of a like (homoi) or similar essence to the Father. His creed became the basis of the creed that was finally drawn at Nicaea, but that one differed from his in its insistence upon the unity of essence or substance of the Father and the Son." (Taken from the book, Christianity Through The Centuries by Earle E. Cairns. Copyright 1954, 1981 by The Zondervan Corporation. Used by permission. p 144) 2

The creed set forth at this council had undergone changes before coming to us as the Nicaea creed which is held to, and quoted by many churches and theologians today.

Arius wanted to preserve Christ as an Independent being. He also wanted to hold to a Monotheistic God. His error was in saying that Christ was a separate being from God.

Athanasius held to a monotheistic God with three personalities. This allowed for the personality of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit yet also allowed for the unity of one God.

Arius saw Christ as a creature and not as God. He was given divine glory but was not God. Arius felt that the traits of Christ's humanity were showing that he was not God but man. (Christ learned, Christ depended on God, Christ is separate from God.)

Athanasius felt that to be divine you must be God. There are some considerations that relate to this point of Christ being God.

Ignatius a bishop of Antioch, in 112 A.D. (about 14 years after the writing of the Revelation) stated a clear belief in the oneness of God and man in Christ. He attributed Christ to the union of Mary and God. He mentions "God in man" as a clear indication of his belief in the dual makeup of the Lord.

Even Irenaeus believed Christ to be God. He lived around 180 A.D. He mentioned his belief that Christ was with God in the beginning, as well as His part in the creation. He makes clear statement that Christ always existed with God the Father.

Dionysius Bishop of Rome (259-68) mentioned that he felt that God, Christ and the Holy Spirit were one. Tertullian also spoke of this. (160220 A.D.)

Nowhere does the Scripture tell us that Christ was created. Why would anyone assume that He was? Scripture seems clear on the subject. John 1:1-18 shows Christ to be God. cf Revelation 19:13.

Colossians 2:9, "For in Him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily." This is a quite plain statement from the Father, through the writer of Scripture.

Hebrews 9:11-14 mentions that Christ the perfect sacrifice entered into the holy of holies in the heavenlies and presented His blood. This cannot be done by an imperfect created being — be it man or some other being.

Hebrews 9:16-17 shows that God made a covenant or will with man. The will could not take effect until God died. Christ being God died and fulfilled this requirement. If Christ was not God then this requirement has not yet been met.

Revelation 22:13 tells us of Christ, "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End."

Augustus Strong in his Systematic Theology mentions of Arius' view, "This view originated in a misinterpretation of the Scriptural accounts of Christ's state of humiliation, and in mistaking temporary subordination for original and permanent inequality."3

Arius stated that Christ was created, prior to the heavens and the earth, to mediate between God and man.

He did not grapple with the thought of how anyone less than God — a perfect God — could be a perfect sacrifice? Nothing that is created is perfect. Only God is perfect. Micah 5:2 mentions of Christ, "whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting." How can anything less than God satisfy God's requirements for salvation and mediatorship?

Additions To The Debate: During the centuries other thought has come forward on the natures of Christ. We want to look briefly at a number of these teachings, as well as look at some of the modern day religions that follow similar thinking.

There will be a brief discussion of the teaching followed by modern day groups and in some cases a few references that might be of help.

A. Ebionism: Ebionism would have us believe that there was no divine nature and that Christ was only a man. The Ebionites were Jewish Christians that saw Christ as a prophet and Messiah. They were around for the first six centuries. They also rejected Paul's teachings.

Modern Versions Of The Teaching: Christian Science; Spiritualism; Jehovah Witnesses; Modern Theology; Mormonism; Hinduism; Islam; Confucianism; Unitarianism; Unity; Hare Krishna. John 1:1; 14; Philip. 2:5-7; John 8:58.

B. Docetism: Docetism is the belief that Christ's body, only seemed real, and that the crucifixion and resurrection were only illusions. These people were found in the first few centuries. Matter was sinful to them. Some say in jest, that they believed that Christ was a spook.

Modern Versions Of The Teaching: Gnostics; Some liberals. Matthew 2:1; Luke 2:52; Hebrews 2:14.

C. Arianism: Arianism is another early church heresy denounced at the First Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D. They believed Christ was created or begotten but not eternal and lower than God.

Modern Versions Of The Teaching: Moon (Unification Church); Mormon.

D. Nestorianism: Nestorianism teaches that Christ is one body had two natures and two persons but these were not united. Nestorius also taught that Mary hadn't given birth to Jesus.

Modern Versions Of The Teaching: I don't know of any at the present. By our verbiage at times I wonder if some fundamentalists don't preach a Nestorian doctrine even though we don't believe it. We hold up Christ as totally God with all His attributes yet talk about things that He did not know or could not do. This borders on two natures and two persons in one body. Philip. 2:1-7; Matthew 1:20.

E. Eutychanism: Eutychanism was started by Eutychus in the late 300's A.D. He saw Christ as having two natures to begin with but the two were so perfectly mixed that they became one nature thus denying Christ's divinity and humanity and taught a one nature Christ. This was a perfect blending — no human — no divine — just resultant Christ. You might say that this is the "Mix Master Mixer" version.

Modern Versions Of The Teaching: Unity

"The movement stresses positive thought, prayer, and faith as guides to health, happiness, and prosperity."4

"'The Bible says that God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, but the Bible does not here refer to Jesus o Nazareth, the outer man; it refers to the Christ, the spiritual identity of Jesus, whom he acknowledged in all his ways, and brought forth into his outer self, until even the flesh of his body was lifted up, purified, spiritualized, and redeemed, thus he became Jesus christ, the word mad flesh.'"

"Unity teaches that within all of us there is an 'inner Christ,' with perfection, a divine awareness...."5

Luke 22:41-44.

F. Cerinthianism: Cerinthianism teaches that Jesus was merely mortal but that Divine came upon him for a time. Cerinthus also held no special birth for Christ either. It is said that the Apostle John left when Cerinthus entered, fearing the roof would fall upon a heretic of this magnitude.

Modern Versions Of The Teaching: Theosophy

Kauffman tells us:

"Such principles in it as Reincarnation and Pantheism seem primarily Hindu and Buddhist. It encourages human brotherhood and religious study."6

McDowell gives the following information:

"...for Christ... is no man but the Divine Principle in every human being...."

He quotes Mrs. Blavatsky, "...Christ is merely his title, meaning 'anointed one' or 'messiah,' designating the office Jesus held. There is no justification for making any distinction between Jesus and 'the christ.' Furthermore, making Christ a principle rather than a true man is a denial of the whole purpose of His coming...."7

Hebrews 13:8.

G. Apollinarianism: Apollinarianism teaches that Christ was not completely human. The divine Logos replaced the human nature leaving only flesh and soul occupied by Logos. This teaching was started by Apollinarius of Laodicia. He was condemned at the First Council of Constantinople in 381 A.D.

Modern Day Versions Of The Teaching: None I know of at the present. Luke 4:1ff; Mark 2:8; Luke 23:46.

Now that we have looked at the false teachings of the past let's take a peek at what we will see in the coming pages as the true doctrine of Christ, as discovered from the Scriptures.

THE PROPER VIEW OF CHRIST

Founder: God

View Of

Both Human And Divine Separate Natures Yet One

Christ:

Christ Was As Much Man As If He Had Never Been God.

Christ Was As Much God As If He Had Never Been Man.

True Humanity Added To Undiminished Deity.

Christ: God/Man

HUMAN DIVINE

Grew In Wisdom All Knowledge

Limited Power All Power

Localized In One Place Everywhere

IV. APPLICATION OF THE DEBATE

A. We have seen that Arius was banished, condemned and exiled and then died before he was seen as restored to the church. It might be good for just a moment to think of that process that he went through.

Put yourself in this position. You have had a belief that has been condemned by the majority of the church of your time, you have been kicked out of the country and you love the brethren, right.

Would we really love the brethren at that point in our lives? We have seen that Christ is our example and He loved even those that nailed Him to the cross, so must we love the brethren even when they feel we are in error.

We also should go to our knees in prayer and our desk in study to see if we really are correct. If we are in error and seek knowledge honestly before the Lord, we will see what God wants us to see.

B. We also saw that Eusebius presented a reconcilatory view of Christ at the Council of Nicaea. This is not a bad idea, if you do no damage to the doctrine.

There are times when one person or group will come up with a radical view, and those they teach come up with a reaction view of the radical view which is usually a complete pendulum swing away from the original view. This pendulum swing is often, also a radical view. It quite often is true that the truth is somewhere in the middle.

Example: The liberal element of Christianity went into what was cuttingly termed, "the social Gospel," and the Social Gospel people were soundly rebuked for years for their radical view of the teachings of Jesus. Over the years the fundamental camp for the most part took their stance on the other end of the pendulum swing and did nothing socially except to preach the Gospel.

Now, in more recent years the fundamentalist camp has found that they have nothing to say to those in need unless they are willing to share in the physical realm as well. Fundamentalism has finally found a balance that we should live with, and that balance is in the middle. The liberal side normally represented by The National Council of Churches, recently was challenged by their head to consider that they might have specialized on the social end of the Gospel for too many years, and that they have really missed in giving the message of the Gospel over the years. (I don't know what they would consider the Gospel these days, but it is good that he realizes that their efforts in the social realm are unbalanced.)

As you are faced with what you perceive to be falsehood, don't react completely against it, but look to the Word of God and see what it says. The Word is our truth, not falsehood nor our reaction to falsehood.

C. Constantine saw the religious debate as dangerous to the empire. We may see such religious debate in our own country. We have a growing split in the early 1990's between Christianity and the world system within the United States. There is an outward attack on the Christian community by the media as well as political officials in some communities. We are seeing visitation and Bible studies in homes becoming illegal in some communities due to the fact that the unsaved are running our communities. Does that give you any insight into the Christian's responsibilities in coming days in politics?

The Roman Catholics have had priests in Congress for years yet when a preacher runs for office they cry separation of Church and State. It was of interest that Robertson was breaking the sacred separation of church and state, while in the same campaign Jackson, a Black preacher, was not held accountable to the same standard.

The Roman church has, via their parishioners, becoming involved in local school boards, seen nuns and priests hired with public funds to teach in public schools.

I believe that we need to be active within our own political system and do what we can. I do not believe a man should leave a calling to preach to become a statesman, however there may well be many "laymen" that should be statesmen.

D. We can have a confidence in the face of false doctrine. There have been new teachings that come along that boggle my mind at first. I often wonder how in the world Christianity is going to confront these new falsehoods. Usually after a little prayer and Bible study the false teaching begins to crumble.

Even if you can't refute some new teaching, look for the answers, and talk to other believers. Quite often several minds can do much better than one. Don't fear and tremble, just go looking for the answers. We Have The Truth — The Word Of God. Anything Contrary To It Must Be Understood And Met As Error. With this understanding there should be no problem.

END NOTES

3. Augustus H. Strong, Systematic Theology, Valley Forge, PA: The Judson Press, 1907 p 670

4. Donald T. Kauffman, "The Dictionary Of Religious Terms," Westwood, New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell Co., 1967 p 421

5. Josh McDowell and Don Stewart, "Handbook Of Today's RELIGIONS," San Bernardino, CA: Campus Crusade for Christ, 1983, pp 134-135

6. Kauffman, p 411

7. McDowell and Stewart, p 87

8. Misc. sources of information:

a. Encycl. of Religion and Ethics.

b. Systematic Theology; Augustus H. Strong; The Judson Press; Valley Forge, PA; 1907

9. For further information on the various views of the natures see:

a. Emery H. Bancroft/Ed. Ronald B. Mayers, "Elemental Theology," Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1977, p 96

b. Walter A. Elwell, Ed., "Evangelical Dictionary Of Theology", Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1984

c. Charles C. Ryrie, "Basic Theology," Wheaton: Victor Books, 1986, p 250

d. Henry C. Thiessen, "Lectures In Systematic Theology," Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1949, p 283ff

THE NATURES OF CHRIST

HANDOUT

I. CHARACTERS OF THE DEBATE

A. Athanasius: Born 296 A.D./Died 373 A.D.

B. Arius: Born 256 A.D./Died 336 A.D.

Arius was a student of Lucian. Cairns mentions of Lucian, "Another rather satirical and, for that reason, valuable witness is Lucian, who wrote a satire upon Christians and their faith about 170. Lucian described Christ as the one 'who was crucified in Palestine' because he began 'this new cult.'"1

II. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE DEBATE

There were three positions presented to the council of Nicaea.

a. Arius and Eusebius of Nicomedia and a minority present held that: "Christ had not existed from all eternity but had a beginning by the creative act of God prior to time." "...Christ was of a different (heteros) essence or substance than the Father." Christ's life showed him to be divine but "...created out of nothing, subordinate to the Father and of a different essence from the Father. He was not coequal, coeternal of consubstantial [of same substance or essence I think] with the Father." He was divine but not deity.

insistence upon the unity of essence or substance of the Father and the Son."2

FACTS

1. Ignatius a bishop of Antioch, in 112 A.D.:

2. John 1:1-18 shows Christ to be God. cf Revelation 19:13.

3. Dionysius Bishop of Rome (259-68)

4. Tertullian

6. Colossians 2:9

7. Hebrews 9:11-14

8. Hebrews 9:16-17

9. Revelation 22:13

10. Augustus Strong in his Systematic Theology mentions of Arius' view, "This view originated in a misinterpretation of the Scriptural accounts of Christ's state of humiliation, and in mistaking temporary subordination for original and permanent inequality."3

III. ADDITIONS TO THE DEBATE

A. Ebionism:

Modern Versions Of The Teaching:

Christian Science Spiritualism

J.W. Modern Theology

Mormonism Hinduism

Islam Confucianism

Unitarianism Unity

Hare Krishna

John 1:1; 14; Philippians 2:5-7; John 8:58.

B. Docetism:

Modern Versions Of The Teaching:

Gnostics — Some liberal

Matthew 2:1; Luke 2:52; Hebrews 2:14.

C. Arianism:

Modern Versions Of The Teaching:

Moon (Unification Church) Mormon

D. Nestorianism:

Modern Versions Of The Teaching:

None I know of at the present.

Philippians 2:1-7; Matthew 1:20.

E. Eutychanism:

Modern Versions Of The Teaching:

Unity

"The movement stresses positive thought, prayer, and faith as guides to health, happiness, and prosperity."4

"Unity teaches that within all of us there is an 'inner Christ,' with perfection, a divine awareness...."5

Luke 22:41-44.

F. Cerinthianism:

Modern Versions Of The Teaching:

Theosophy

Kauffman tells us:

"Such principles in it as Reincarnation and Pantheism seem primarily Hindu and Buddhist. It encourages human brotherhood and religious study."6

McDowell gives the following information:

"...for Christ... is no man but the Divine Principle in every human being...."

Hebrews 13:8.

G. Apollinarianism:

Modern Day Versions Of The Teaching:

None I know of at the present.

Luke 4:1ff; Mark 2:8; Luke 23:46.

IV. APPLICATION OF THE DEBATE

ENDNOTES

3. Augustus H. Strong, Systematic Theology, Valley Forge, PA: The Judson Press, 1907 p 670

4. Donald T. Kauffman, "THE Dictionary Of Religious Terms", Westwood, New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell Co., 1967 p 421

5. Josh McDowell and Don Stewart, "Handbook Of Today's Religions," San Bernardino, CA: Campus Crusade for Christ, 1983, pp 134-135

6. Kauffman, p 411

7. McDowell and Stewart, p 87

8. Misc. sources of information:

a. Encycl. of Religion and Ethics.

b. Systematic Theology; Augustus H. Strong; The Judson Press; Valley Forge, PA; 1907

9. For further information on the various views of the natures see:

a. Emery H. Bancroft/Ed. Ronald B. Mayors, "Elemental Theology," Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1977, p 96

b. Walter A. Elwell, Ed., "Evangelical Dictionary Of Theology," Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1984

c. Charles C. Ryrie, "Basic Theology," Wheaton: Victor Books, 1986, p 250

d. Henry C. Thiessen, "Lectures In Systematic Theology," Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1949, p 283ff

THE HYPOSTATIC UNION

The doctrine stated: "In the incarnation of the Son of God, a human nature was inseparably united forever with the divine nature in the one person of Jesus Christ, yet with the two natures remaining distinct, whole, and unchanged, without mixture or confusion so that the one person, Jesus Christ, is truly God and truly man."1

Ryrie states the problem that we now face thusly "This concept of the hypostatic or one-person union of the divine and human natures in one Person is probably one of the most difficult concepts to comprehend in theology. Not one of us has ever seen Deity except as the Scriptures reveal God, and not one of us has ever seen perfect humanity except as the Scriptures reveal pre-fallen Adam and our Lord. To try to relate these two concepts to the person of Christ adds complexities to ideas that are in themselves difficult to comprehend."2

Scripture states the problem:

He Was Fully God:

"For in him dwelleth all the fullness of the godhead bodily."

Colossians 2:9

He Was Fully Man:

"Then Joseph...took unto him his wife, And knew her not till she had brought forth her first-born son; and he called his name Jesus."

Matthew 1:24-25

Shedd suggests the early church fathers illustration. (Chalcedon and later) They suggest that this union is similar to iron and heat. The heat can heat the iron but the two will remain heat and iron. Neither loses any of it's own properties.

Dr. Miller suggests that Christ's two natures were united, yet they each maintained a separate identity. 3 Others suggest that the two natures were united into one. That one nature was unique in all of eternity past and eternity future.

The union of God and man was complete. There was only one personality. Jesus Christ was the God man. He was not God. He was not man. He was totally God and totally man. This was the merger of two natures into one essence and indeed, one nature.

Some suggest that He had two natures with in the one being, yet if you understand the definition of nature, you will realize that a being cannot have two natures.

In short there was no communication between natures for they were one nature.

This union is also referred to by some as the Theanthropic union. The = God and anthro = man. The note should be made however, that this term applies only to the person of Christ and not to His natures. If His natures were theanthropic there would be a mixing of the natures and this is not possible.

Some statements that might clarify what we are talking about.

1. Two natures united without any loss of essential attributes.

2. Each nature maintains essential identity.

3. No loss or transfer of any attribute or property from one nature to another.

4. Christ had both human and divine consciousness.

5. Christ had two areas of desire but one determinative will — that of his divine nature.

We might just take a moment to consider just what his human nature was like. We know that He was completely human but was he "Completely" human as you and me? The answer is in the physical realm, yes, He was as human as you and me. On the other hand we must consider him on the spiritual level. He did not have a sin nature due to the virgin birth. (The fallen nature descends through Adam and the man. With no human father, there was no sin nature.)

The question comes then, was he totally like Adam was before the fall? The indications are yes. He had no earthly father to transfer the human, fallen nature, so He must be as Adam was before the fall.

Next question. Are there any other differences either spiritually or physically between Christ's humanity and Adam before the fall. I see none.

Pardington states,

"The human nature and the divine nature — each in its completeness — are organically and indissolubly united in the one unique person of Jesus Christ."

"Neither the human nor the divine nature acts independently of the other; but in every thought, word, and act both natures are so inseparably united that the thought, word, or act is the product of one single personality."4

Strong states,

"Distinctly as the Scriptures represent Jesus Christ to have been possessed of a divine nature and of a human nature, each unaltered in essence and undivested of its normal attributes and powers, they with equal distinctness represent Jesus Christ as a single undivided personality in whom these two natures are vitally and inseparably united, so that he is properly, not God and man, but the Godman."5

If you were a disciple walking with Him you would view Christ as one person, as a total — just like any other person. You would not see one day, a man side and the next a glorious side. He is not a Jekel and Hyde — His personality was His personality — no division or difference.

SOME TERMS TO PLAY WITH

Hypostasis = "the mode of being by which any substantial existence is given an independent and distinct individuality." New Standard Dict. as quoted by Chafer6

The Hypostatic union is a term unique to Christ and the union of two complete natures.

Nature = Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary, "1 a: the inherent character or basic constitution of a person or thing: Essence....."7

Substance = Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary, "1 a: essential nature: Essence....."8

Essence = Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary, "1

a: the permanent as contrasted with the accidental element of being

b: the individual, real, or ultimate nature of a thing esp. as opposed to its existence

c: the properties or attributes by means of which something can be placed in its proper class or identified as being what it is....."9

You note that the three are seemingly used as interchangeable.

If you apply this interchangeability to Christ and His natures you will find yourself into some of the misconceptions that we looked at last time.

We need to view nature as the composite of attributes. We need to view substance as the composite of material or immaterial. Jesus was man — material. Christ was God — immaterial.

We need to view essence as the composite of the nature and substance. This would allow us to look at all info and determine that Christ was unique in all of creation and time. He was the God-man.

The Chalcedon Creed of 451 seems to state it quite plainly.

"Therefore, following the holy fathers, we all with one accord teach men to acknowledge one and the same Son, our lord Jesus Christ, at once complete in Godhead and complete in manhood, truly God and truly man, consisting also of a reasonable soul and body; of one substance with the Father as regards his Godhead, and at the same time of one substance with us as regards his manhood; like us in all respects, apart from sin; as regards his Godhead, begotten of the Father before the ages, but yet as regards his manhood begotten, for

us men and for our salvation, of Mary the Virgin, the God-bearer; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, recognized in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation; [underlining is the authors] the distinction of natures being in no way annulled by the union, but rather the characteristics of each nature being preserved and coming together to form one person and subsistence, not as parted or separated into two persons, but one and the same Son and Only-begotten God the Word, Lord Jesus Christ; even as the prophets from earliest times spoke of him, and our Lord Jesus Christ himself taught us, and the creed of the Fathers has handed down to us."10

The Westminster Confession states it a bit differently.

"The Son of God, the second person in the Trinity, being very and eternal God, of one substance and equal with the Father, did, when the fulness of time was come, take upon Him man's nature, with all the essential properties and common infirmities thereof, yet without sin; being conceived by the power of the Holy Ghost, in the womb of the Virgin Mary, of her substance. So that two whole, perfect, and distinct natures — the Godhead and the manhood — were inseparably joined together in one person, without conversion, composition, or confusion. Which person is very God and very man, yet one Christ, the only Mediator between God and man" (Chap. 8:sec. 2, cited by Cunningham, Historical Theology, 3rd ed., I, 311 as quoted in Chafer.11

Lutheranism teaches that the attributes of deity could be transferred to the humanity, thus allowing the transference of Christ's omnipresence to the humanity. Christ is thusly seen as omnipresent in His humanity and thusly present in the "Real Presence" in the Lord's Table.12

Theissen comes very close to this same thought in his Theology. "...Christ is in His people. He is there in His deity; and by the union of His humanity with His Deity, also in His humanity."13

In His humanity? I'm not sure. I'd say in His divine presence. His body is at the right hand of the Father. I'm not sure I feel comfortable saying his

humanity is omnipresent. He is a glorified person, not a person, and that is quite a difference. He is glorified at the Fathers side, not me, or you.

Bancroft also follows this line, "In other words, the attributes of the divine nature are imparted to the human without passing over into its essence — so that the human Christ even on earth had power to be, to know, and to do as God."14 "without passing over into its essence." "How is that possible?

The mixing or transference of attributes is impossible for if the infinity of God were transferable to man then would not God be the less and man the more? The thought of transference comes from the idea that Christ did some things as man and some things as God and some things as God-man.

Hodge suggests the following categories. I list them as Ryrie lists them for your information:

"(a) actions predicated on the whole person, like redemption (both natures being involved);

(b) actions predicated on the divine nature (though the whole Person is the subject, like preexistence true only of the divine nature); and

Ryrie summarizes his thought by stating,

"Whatever help such a classification may give, it seems more important to remember that the Person does whatever He does, revealing whatever attribute of whichever nature He reveals."16

The question arises as to whether Christ had one will or two wills.

TWO WILL HOLDERS

Ryrie

"...it seems to me that every single decision stemmed from either the "will" of His divine nature or the "will" of His human nature or a blending of both, making it proper to think of two "wills."17

ONE WILL HOLDERS

Ryrie mentions Walvoord's comment in his book on Christ when speaking of the decision to die on the cross, "here, as in all other cases, the ultimate sovereign will of Christ was to do the Father's will." 18 The conflict of DESIRES as Walvoord puts it was what went on in the garden and not a conflict between wills. He sees two desires and one will that chooses between those two desires. If the Human desire thirsts and the divine side doesn't thirst the will decides to drink.

Let's list the parts of the Lord in this discussion:

I might add that none of the theologians that I have checked did this, nor did they delve into the area of how many spirit's or souls were present.

1. One body.

2. Two natures. (sets of attributes.)

3. Two substances. (Material and immaterial.)

4. One essence. (Compilation of all that He was.)

5. One personality.

Theissen suggests via a comment by Hodge that there is one personality and that personality is divine. "Christ's personality resides in the divine nature, not the human. Hodge says: As in man the personality is in the soul and not in the body, so the personality of Christ is in the divine nature...It was a divine person, not merely a divine nature, that assumed humanity...."19

God's personality in man. A personality is all of ones makeup. God plus man would develop into one personality. That personality would be divine and human. Personality comes from the make up of the parent and the environment of upbringing thus we might assume that Mary and Joseph may have had some input into the personality of Christ.

6. One soul would be my choice at this point in time and that soul being the human soul of Jesus. I am open to instruction on this one.

The above comment by Hodge would suggest only one soul and that, divine. The idea of a human child being born without a soul however is untenable, especially in that He is to be completely and wholly man. We saw in our study on Christ's humanity that Christ had all three parts of man, a body, soul and spirit.

To say that He had a divine soul and human body doesn't compute. Indeed, does a spirit being such as God have a soul? Does God have a soul? Might it be proper to view it as the divine personality coming to be the personality of this human soul that has no existence apart from this union?

This seems to be what Strong suggests, "This possession of two natures does not involve a double personality in the God-man, for the reason that the Logos takes into union with himself, not an individual man with already developed personality, but human nature which has had no separate existence before its union with the divine."20

7. Two spirits? No, one only and that being the spirit of Jesus.

It may be suggested that there was one divine spirit and no human spirit.

I believe that a child born even in the manner of Jesus would have to be containing all attributes of the human being including not only body, but soul and spirit as well. If this be true then there would have to be two spirits.

No, God is spirit — He doesn't have one. The facts indicate that Christ had one spirit, with one body, and one soul, merged with God, a spirit being.

Might we suggest that rather than two spirits we have complete man, body, soul, and spirit of Jesus united with complete God, Christ?

The fact of souls or spirits is academic, if that. The two complete beings were united in some manner. That is fact of Scripture.

Chafer states that Christ was simply "As other men are threefold in their beings — body, soul and spirit — this incomparable Person is fourfold, namely, Deity, human body, human soul, and human spirit."21

This eliminates the discussion that we have just had and may well have as much substantiation.

This would be consistent with our definition of essence. That which makes up the being. All of God was merged with all of man. This to me would demand that there be two wills, and that there would be one that was determinative as some theologians suggest and that determinative will would be the divine. (Chafer has good coverage on this section of theology in the full set. Vol. I p 382ff. Strong p 683ff also has a lengthy section on this topic.)

1. God has really left us up in the air on this one with very little information other than statement of fact. We might do well to leave it alone, yet there are so many errors that come up from an improper understanding of what was revealed. We need to know what we have covered to be forewarned of some of the false teachings that are around.

2. Our Savior is quite unique in all the world and in all the saviors that have graced our planet. He alone is God-man.

3. Do you have a feel for those that went astray in the early years of the church? They were struggling with these issues and questions and they had no church fathers to refer to, nor commentaries to jog their minds.

I believe what has been covered here is true and that it can help us understand the Scriptures easier. We should know our Savior a little better for having worked through this.

END NOTES

1. Walter A. Elwell, Ed., "Evangelical Dictionary Of Theology," Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1984, p 540

2. Reprinted by permission: Ryrie, Charles C.; "Basic Theology"; Wheaton: Victor Books, 1986, p 250

3. Dr. David Miller, Theology notes, Western Baptist College, Salem, OR

4. Revelation George P. Pardington, Ph.D., "Outline Studies In Christian Doctrine," Harrisburg, PA: Christian Publications, 1926, p 237

5. Augustus H. Strong, Systematic Theology, Valley Forge, PA: The Judson Press, 1907, pp 683-84

6. Lewis Sperry Chafer, "Systematic Theology," Dallas, TX: Dallas Seminary Press, 1947, vol. 1, p 382

10. Henry Bettenson, "Documents Of The Christian Church," New York: Oxford University Press, 1947, pp 72-73; used by permission of Oxford University Press

11. Chafer, vol. I, p 387)

12. Reprinted by permission: Ryrie, Charles C.; "Basic Theology"; Wheaton: Victor Books, 1986, p 250

13. Henry C. Thiessen, "Lectures In Systematic Theology," Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1949, p 306

15. Reprinted by permission: Ryrie, Charles C.; "Basic Theology"; Wheaton: Victor Books, 1986, Theology, p 251

16. Reprinted by permission: Ryrie, Charles C.; "Basic Theology"; Wheaton: Victor Books, 1986, p 251

17. Reprinted by permission: Ryrie, Charles C.; "Basic Theology"; Wheaton: Victor Books, 1986, p 251

19. Henry C. Thiessen, "Lectures In Systematic Theology," Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1949, p 305-306

20. Augustus H. Strong, Systematic Theology, Valley Forge, PA: The Judson Press, 1907, p 694

21. Chafer, vol. V p 49

HANDOUT

THE HYPOSTATIC UNION

He Was Fully God: Colossians 2:9

He Was Fully Man: Matthew 1:24-25

1. Two natures united without any loss of essential attributes.

2. Each nature maintains essential identity.

3. No loss or transfer of any attribute or property from one nature to another.

4. Christ had both human and divine consciousness.

5. Christ had two areas of desire but one determinative will — that of his divine nature.

SOME TERMS TO PLAY WITH

Hypostasis

Nature

Substance

Essence

Two Wills:

One Will:

1. One body.

2. Two natures.

3. Two substances.

4. One essence.

5. One personality.

6. One soul

7. Two spirits?

Study questions:

1. Does it matter if Christ had two wills, or one? Why?

2. Is Christ unlike you, except in His sinlessness? How?

END NOTES

1. Walter A. Elwell, Ed., "Evangelical Dictionary Of Theology," Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1984, p 540

THE KENOSIS

Kenosis, or as some call it, The Kenotic Theory Of The Incarnation

Dr. Miller in his theology class notes calls the act of Christ in Philippians 2:7 as His self veiling. When Christ took upon Himself the form of man, He veiled or emptied Himself of His glory so that His true being could not be seen.1

Let us take time to read the Philippians text (5-8):

"Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross."

The idea of the Philippians text leaves five basic interpretations: (The titles of these theories come from A.B. Bruce.2)

1. The "absolute metamorphic" view that Christ gave up attributes and that His divine consciousness was gone until in the temple at twelve when it began to come forth. Gess holds to this thought.

2. The "absolute dualistic" theory — That Christ surrendered some of His attributes when He became man. Thiessen describes this position as follows: "They tell us that Christ emptied Himself of His relative attributes, — his omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence, — while retaining His immanent attributes ----His holiness, love, and truth."3 He lists the following theologians in this tradition. Thomasius; Delitzsch; Forest; Crosby.

This, to most, would indicate that he was less than God if there were some attributes that were not there. Indeed, it seems unlikely that He would make Himself less than God and then assume His whole Godness at the ascension. To most it is inconceivable that He could become less than God for if He is less than God, then He is not God.

3. The "absolute semi-metamorphic" view — That Christ veiled His attributes. This would indicate that He hid them from other human beings. He used them but those around Him did not know He was using them. Walvoord mentions Ebrard's comment that states "that the divine properties were disguised and appeared as a mode of human existence. The mode of existence of Christ was changed from that of the form of God to the form of a Man, from the eternal manner of being to a temporal manner of being."4

This seems to be a bit on the dishonest side, yet aside from this, it seems that He would not be a real example to us as a man that had a God side that was doing all those great things in secret.

4. That Christ laid aside some of His attributes. This seems to be very similar to number two above. If He indeed laid aside anything of His divine nature, He would seem to be less than divine. You cannot separate the divine attributes from the divine and have full divinity remaining.

5. That Christ voluntarily limited His use of His attributes. This position would submit to us that Christ remained completely divine and yet completely human. He, on His own, decided to limit the use of some of His divine attributes while here on earth so that He could become our example.

Theissen mentions that Strong held to this thought. "The humiliation consisted in the surrender of the independent exercise of the divine attributes...In the continuous surrender on the part of the God-man, so far as his human nature was concerned, of the exercise of those divine powers with which it was endowed by virtue of its union with the divine, etc."5

One major thought to prove this position is that the Lord would have had to call down the angels to save Him. If he had all attributes available to him this would not have been necessary. See Matthew 4:6 cf. Psalm 91:11-12.

Theissen holds to the idea of the surrender of the independent exercise of the attributes. "...the Scriptures teach, when taken as a whole, that Christ merely surrendered the independent exercise of some of His relative or transitive attributes."6 Theissen has a good discussion on this topic.

Bancroft states, "The self-emptying (kenosis) of Christ, which was a voluntary act, consisted in the surrender of the independent exercise of the divine attributes."7

Bancroft quotes E.Y. Mullins as he gives illustration of this self emptying. Mark Mullins relates it to a teacher that knows all there is to know about mathematics yet to teach a pupil the teacher puts all his knowledge aside for a time to concentrate on the basics with the pupil. He also likens it to an owner of a chain of department stores that is beside the bed of his near dead son. The father has placed all things aside to concentrate on the son. In like manner Christ set all things aside except what He needed to finish the work of redemption.

Bancroft finishes by stating, "So it was with Christ, who freely and willingly surrendered the independent exercise of His attributes for the sake of and in the interest of His beloved."8

I like his concluding statement but feel that the illustrations are poor. They speak of functions of the mind and have nothing to do with attributes.

This position of the voluntary setting aside of attributes, has some very nice characteristics.

a. You have a divine person in the fullest sense of the word and He remains fully divine throughout eternity past, the incarnation, and eternity future. This fits best with the phrase that He is the "same yesterday, today and forever."

b. You have a perfect example for man to follow in their spiritual life. He was a man of like nature that was tested and tempted in like manner as we. He was fully relying upon the Holy Spirit for His strength.

c. You have the perfect union of both divine and human. He was just as much God as if He had never been man and He was just as much man as if He had never been God.

In Ryrie's A Survey Of Bible Doctrine he seems to tie the veiling and nonuse positions together. They are to me somewhat similar, yet different.

"The concept involves the Veiling [caps are my addition] of Christ's preincarnate glory (John 17:5, the condescension of taking

on Himself the likeness of sinful flesh (Romans 8:3), and the voluntary nonuse of some of His attributes of deity during the time of His earthly life (Mt 24:36). His humanity was not a glorified humanity and was thus subject to temptation, weakness, pain and sorrow. Choosing not to use His divine attributes is quite different from saying that He gave them up. Nonuse does not mean subtraction."9

There are other views that we might mention that might be slightly different from those given.

Anselm held that Christ acted as if he did not possess divine attributes. This would be similar to the veiled view I would think.

Walvoord seems to set forth a view that would be similar to the limiting of the attributes view however he maintains that Christ limited the use while still using them. The limitation would be in the idea that He used them at times and at times He limited them. Thiessen seems to follow this line of thinking as well. His view stated is, "...Christ surrendered no attribute of Deity, but that He did voluntarily restrict their independent use in keeping with His purpose of living among men and their limitations."10 He maintains that Christ used the attributes at will; however never used those attributes in such a way as to make His life as man easier.

This would seem to say that Christ did some of the miracles in His own power and some of them in someone else's power. This is not the great example that the apostles were given, if He is doing the miracles on His own and not relying on the Holy Spirit.

The Synod of Antioch in 341 felt that this text meant that Christ emptied himself of "the being equal with God" yet held to the full deity of the Lord.

In the Philippians passage we read,

"Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus, Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God, But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men; And, being

found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross." Philippians 2:5-8

The form of God idea and the form of a servant idea must both carry the idea of complete God and complete servant. If there is "less than" in one then there would be "less than" in the other. Since He was fully a servant to become our example then He had to have been fully God.

The term translated "form" is the Greek word "morphe" which according to Lightfoot after a detailed study of the word in Philo and the New Testament is "that which is intrinsic and essential to the thing." Thus it shows that He was true and complete God while being true and complete servant.11

The term emptied is something that is self imposed be it laying aside, veiling, or nonuse.

The same term is used in four other texts:

a. Romans 4:14,

"For if they who are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of no effect"

The faith is made void or "no good" and of "no value".

b. 1 Corinthians 1:17,

"For Christ sent me not to baptize but to preach the gospel;

not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ

should be made of no effect."

Again the similar idea of "no good" is seen.

c. 1 Corinthians 9:15 also seems to show "no good" is the idea.

d. 2 Corinthians 9:3 seems also to show the idea of "no good."

Let us apply that thought to Philippians 2:7. "But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men;" It seems that this text may not give credence to any setting aside, veiling, or nonuse of anything.

This idea of "no good" or void would give idea that He was setting aside all that it meant to be God in the idea of status and position to take on the place, or position, or the status of a servant.

Berkof in his systematic theology mentions of this term and these texts: "The term kenosis is derived from the main verb in Philippians 2:7, ekenosen. This is rendered in the American Revised Version 'emptied Himself'. Dr. Warfield calls this a mistranslation. The verb is found in only four other New Testament passages. . . .In all these it is used figuratively and means 'to make void', 'of no effect', 'of no account', 'of no reputation'. If we so understand the word here, it simply means that Christ made Himself of no account, of no reputation, did not assert His divine prerogative, but took the form of a servant."12

This might imply that the passage has nothing to do with giving up, veiling, or nonuse. It would only mean that the text meant that He did not hold his deity as something to be held onto and took on the form of a servant.

I don't know if this is the message that Dr. Berkof was trying to relay. It would imply that He did not set forth his divine nature but that the emphasis was on the servant.

Ryrie takes this line of thinking in his Theology. In speaking of this passage he mentions, "And that passage does not discuss at all the question of how or how much Christ's glory was veiled. Nor does it say anything about the use or restriction of divine attributes. It does say that the emptying concerned becoming a man to be able to die. Thus the kenosis means leaving His preincarnate position and taking on a servanthumanity. . . .In the kenosis Christ emptied Himself of retaining and exploiting His status in the godhead and took on humanity in order to die."13 (This by the way, seems to contradict what he held in Survey Of Bible Doctrines pp 57-59)

The idea of the Philippians text certainly to me, is as we have just seen. This does not negate our entire discussion. It just gives us a different light and slant to the thoughts.

The Philippians text is the idea that Christ was not holding to his status, or position, and was willing to change that status and position. In the

process of this change there seems to have been some change in the use of His attributes.

That change seems best to be defined as a self-imposed limitation of His attributes. The attributes in question would be omnipresence, omniscience, and omnipotence.

Those that say that Christ did miracles under His own power list many references to prove their point. There is nothing in any of these references that I have considered that show definitely that His own Omnipotence, or other attributes were suddenly in use as Walvoord suggests.

↑ Back to top