The God-Man and the Risen Christ

The God-Man and the Risen Christ

anthropology, christology, soteriology

Instructor: Alan Scholes Institute of Biblical Studies


Objectives: By the end of this session you should be able to:

1.Clarify what issue is at stake in the debate over Christ's sinlessness.

2.Define the term “Hypostatic Union.”

3.Explain the controversy over the concept of Kenosis.

Session Theme: He was in the likeness of human flesh.

I.He is true humanity and undiminished Deity.

A.Problem: does the fact that Christ was tempted mean that he could have sinned?

  1. Hodge argues, "Yes, He could have sinned":

This sinlessness of our Lord, however, does not amount to absolute impeccability. It was not a non potest peccare. If He was a true man He must have been capable of sinning. That He did not sin under the greatest provocation; that when He was reviled He blessed; when He suffered He threatened not; that He was dumb, as a sheep before its shearers, is held up to us as an example. Temptation implies the possibility of sin. If from the constitution of his person it was impossible for Christ to sin, then his temptation was unreal and without effect, and He cannot sympathize with his people

Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Vol. II, p. 457.

2.Walvoord argues, "No, He could not have sinned":

It is rationally inconceivable that Christ could sin. It is clear that Christ is not peccable in heaven now even though He possesses a true humanity. If Christ is impeccable in heaven because of who He is, then it is also true that Christ was impeccable on earth because of who He was. While it was possible for Christ in the flesh to suffer limitations of an unmoral sort--such as weakness, suffering, fatigue, sorrow, hunger, anger, and even death--none of these created any complication which affected His immutable holiness. God could have experienced through the human nature of Christ these things common to the race, but God could not sin even when joined to a human nature. If sin were possible in the life of Christ, the whole plan of the universe hinged on the outcome of His temptations. The doctrine of the sovereignty of God would forbid any such haphazard condition. It is therefore not sufficient to hold that Christ did not sin, but rather to attribute to His person all due adoration in that He could not sin. While the person of Christ could therefore be tempted, there was no possibility of sin entering the life of Him appointed from eternity to be the spotless Lamb of God.

John F. Walvoord, Jesus Christ Our Lord, p. 152.

  1. Scholes suggestion:

B.The Hypostatic Union. Definition: Two natures united without contradiction in one personality.

1.Fully God.

2.Fully Man.

  1. One Person.

C.Means: The Kenosis (emptying—Philippians 2:7).

1.The Problem: The passage says Christ "emptied" Himself. Theologians have not been able to agree on what this emptying means. Some Nineteenth Century German and English theologians felt that Christ voluntarily lost some or all of His divine attributes in the incarnation. Evangelicals have generally rejected this formulation as a compromise of His Deity.

2.Ryrie's view (closely akin to Buswell's): He did not lose anything; He added humanity.

ryrie on kenosis as adding humanity

The self-emptying permitted the addition of humanity and did not involve in any way the subtraction of Deity or the use of the attributes of Deity. There was a change of form but not of content of the Divine Being. He did not give up Deity or the use of those attributes; He added humanity. And this in order to be able to die. Isaiah put it this way: "He poured out Himself to death" (53:12)
It seems to me that even evangelicals blunt the point of the passage by missing its principal emphasis as suggested above and focusing on trying to delineate what limitations Christ experienced in His earthly state. To be sure, the God-Man experienced limitations; but equally sure the God-Man evidenced the prerogatives of Deity. Therefore, conservatives suggest that the Kenosis means the veiling of Christ's preincarnate glory, which is true only in a relative sense (see Matt. 17:1-8; John 1:14; 17:5). Or they suggest it means the voluntary nonuse of some of His attributes of Deity. This was true on occasion but certainly not always throughout His life (see 1:48; 2:24; 16:30). Neither did He only do His miracles always in the power of the Spirit, but sometimes in His own power (Luke 22:51; John 18:6). So if our understanding of kenosis comes from Philippians 2, we should get our definition of the concept there. 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 servant-humanity.

Charles Ryrie, Basic Theology, pp. 261-2.

3.Ted Martin’s view: Christ, the eternal Second Person possessed and used all the powers of deity during the 33 years of Jesus’ earthly life. Jesus, the man did not posses or use the supernatural powers of deity.

4.Thiessen's view (shared by John Walvoord; Scholes):During His earthly life, Jesus Christ continued to posses all the attributes of deity but voluntarily suspended the use of His infinite or supernatural attributes.

Voluntary non-use of attributes

He voluntarily chose not to use his prerogatives of deity, such as his omnipotence, omnipresence, and omniscience, to make his way easier. He wearied, traveled from one point to another, and grew in wisdom and knowledge. Thus, though he did not surrender his divine attributes, he willingly submitted to not exercising certain attributes of deity so that he could identify with man.

Henry C. Thiessen, Lectures in Systematic Theology, p. 216.

D.The Martin/Scholes Audio Debate.

II.Conclusion and Application: