Illustrating Christian humility, Paul writes of Jesus’ humility in becoming man (Phil. 2:6-7, NIV). Paul uses the expression “but made himself nothing” (v. 7) which in Greek is the word kenosis meaning emptying. In fact, the NRSV translates v. 7 “but emptied himself “ According to the kenosis theory, Jesus gave up or emptied himself of either (1) all of his divine attributes or (2) some of them in order to become man.

Problems with these options abound. First, how is it that God can remain fully God and not have some or all of his attributes? One answer would be to maintain that Jesus was not fully God during his time here on earth. This answer creates far more problems than it solves and, according to biblical-historical Christianity, is heretical. All the characteristics which are essential to any existence must remain for that existence to retain its status. Water (H20) must include one part oxygen for it to retain its status as water. Likewise, Jesus must necessarily retain all the attributes that are essential to deity in order to retain the status of deity.

Paul just finished saying that Jesus is “in very nature God” (v. 6). One of the qualities of God is that his essential being does not change (Num. 23:19; Jm. 1:17). Paul explicitly says the incarnation of Jesus means he was in “very nature God” and “the very nature of a servant, made in human likeness” (vv. 6-7). The voluntary act of taking “the very nature of a servant, made in human likeness” is the time at which Jesus “made himself nothing.” At his conception God the Son willingly and humbly chose to clothe himself with humanity. The God-Man Jesus voluntarily chose not to have the continuous use of all the divine attributes. Rather, he selectively exercised the attributes of deity while here on earth in accordance with his Father’s will (Jn. 8:28-29; 10:25, 32).

Matthew and Luke record the miraculous birth of Jesus. Many have tried seeing this as everything but a miracle. However, a clear reading of the Gospel accounts testify otherwise. In the genealogy of Jesus, Matthew repeatedly refers to Jesus’ human ancestry with the phrase “the father of” but when he gets to the birth of Jesus he says “Joseph, the husband of Mary, [italics mine] of whom was born Jesus. . .” (1:2-16). This identifies Jesus’ mother as Mary but implicitly says that Joseph was not the father of Jesus. Matthew 1:18 says Jesus was conceived prior to Mary and Joseph having relations. Granted, Mary could have been raped (a recent theory) and the authors of Scripture didn’t know about it. However, this argues from the depths of silence and has absolutely no historical evidence. Also, Mary conceived Jesus “through the Holy Spirit” (Mt. 1:18, 20; Lk. 1:35) and not through human agency (also, cf.,. Mt. 1:25). Matthew and Luke record Mary believing herself to be a virgin (Mt. 1:23; Lk. 1:27, 34). Finally, one would expect Elizabeth’s joyous reception of Mary to turn sour if Mary had pre-marital relations with anyone.

That Jesus was sinless throughout his earthly life is made clear in Scripture (2 Cor. 5:21; Heb. 4:15). Unfortunately, some have taught that in order for Jesus to be born into humanity and remain sinless he must have had sinless parentage (viz., Mary). However, it is not essential to being human that one be sinless as well (e.g., the pre-Fall state of Adam and Eve). Jesus could and did remain fully human without a sin nature. Arguments for Mary’s sinlessness are beyond Scriptural support and ultimately fail at every juncture (cf., Rom. 3:9-10, 23; Eph. 2:3c).

Jesus himself knew of his divine nature early in life. At twelve years old he recognized his special relationship with the Father (Lk. 2:49). Speaking of God as one’s own father was, in the Jewish world, considered blasphemous (Jn. 5:17-18) and probably helps to explain Mary and Joseph’s perplexity (Lk. 2:50). Furthermore, Jesus knew his origin to be from heaven (Jn. 6:3 8, 5 0-5 1; 16:5) and he explicitly affirms that he was the expected Messiah (Jn. 4:25-26).

The intellectual framework within which the early Church was to understand the two natures of the Lord Jesus was a complexity of Greek thought and Jewish monotheism. Philosophical assumptions included that there is one and only one substance in the world; all distinctions are mere illusion. Yet, Greek dualism separated spirit (intrinsically good) from matter (intrinsically evil). Neither spirit nor matter can combine since good and evil are entirely distinct. Jewish monotheism, of course, taught there is one God who is distinct from, but directly involved with, creation.

Two schools of thought emerged from this intellectual background regarding the disposition of Jesus’ two natures. First, the Antiochene school fought to keep the two natures of the Lord Jesus separate. According to this view deity and humanity should not be confused. The result was an inadequate understanding of the Lord Jesus as one integrated person and a deficient understanding of Jesus’ humanity. The opposing view from Alexandria overemphasized the unity of Jesus’ two natures. It sacrificed the two natures of Jesus to the extent that both were dissolved into one nature with the divine side stressed.

There are problems with the Antiochene school in denying the essential union of the two natures. First, it is logically possible for two natures to exist, without division, in one integrated person. Simply because the constitution of each nature is substantially different does not mean there is a gulf between them. It is a mistake to maintain too much distance between the two natures as it leans toward a division of person. Hence, the God-Man is not divine + human, but divine-human. Second, the two natures are found to be united, without separation, into the one integrated person of the Lord Jesus. By way of analogy, the Church is the body of Christ consisting of Jews and Gentiles. Paul refers to this phenomenon as “one new man out of the two” (Eph. 2:15). There is distinction but not division. Likewise, in the Lord Jesus there is distinction between the two natures but no division. Third, Jesus’ personality subsists in the divine nature (enhypostasia) such that he is always one in purpose, thought and speech with God the Father (Jn. 10:30; 14:24b). Thus, those divine attributes of Jesus are, in totality, the same as the attributes that are essential to being fully divine. Likewise, those human attributes of Jesus are, in totality, the same as the attributes that are essential to being fully human. The Lord Jesus is one integrated person with two natures.

The Alexandrian school, represented in extreme by Eutyches, erred in denying any distinction between the two natures of the Lord Jesus. The human nature was absorbed into the divine nature to create a single divine nature. Difficulty with this view entails not being able to distinguish the true identity of Jesus. Was he God or man? Did the man Jesus redeem us or God? Eutyches would answer “God” in both cases . However, if the Lord Jesus were not fully God and fully man, then he could not redeem as the God-Man (Acts 20:28; Rom. 5:14, 19; Phil. 2:6-7; Rev. 1:17-18). In addition, this view creates an unnecessary bifurcation (an either-or scenario that does not offer a third alternative), which asks nonsensical questions that do not apply given the two-nature-one-integrated-person view. The Lord Jesus is essentially and morally identical with God the Father and numerically identical with the Godhead; a “tri-plex” unity consisting of one divine essence with three eternal distinctions (not divisions), viz., God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit.

Could the Lord Jesus sin? This question is hypothetical and isn’t explicitly answered in the Scriptures. However, it is meaningful for those who require a degree of psychological certitude that Jesus really understands their struggle with sin. After all, what’s the point of his temptation if he couldn’t sin? However, this line of reasoning presupposes certain things which may not be true regarding human nature, the sin nature and the nature of temptation.

As mentioned before, it is not necessary that one have sin in order to be human. Adam and Eve were wholly human prior to the Fall. The essential properties of humanity (e.g., sentience, reason, will, moral consciousness and love) were in tact prior to Genesis 3. Adam and Eve and the Lord Jesus had all of these human traits. In his temptations (Mt. 4:1ff) Jesus experienced pains of hunger, a desire to use his powers contrary to the Father’s mission (vv. 3 -4), the possibility of manipulating God (vv. 5 -7) and the desire to attain power by false means (vv. 8-10). Yet, in all of this he was faithfully submissive to the Father. Jesus can, and did, experience the full gravity of temptation without yielding to the desires. Sympathy with and complete understanding of temptation does not require falling into sin. So, it is not necessary for there to exist in Jesus the real possibility of sinning for him to be able to know temptation (Heb. 4:15).

 The Cross, Resurrection, Ascension, and Intercession of the Lord Jesus