Kenosis and the Omnipresence of Christ

by Phil Johnson



hilippians 2:7 says Jesus "emptied Himself" (NASB)—or if you're using the ESV, He "made himself nothing." Those are both legitimate translations of the Greek verb κενόω, (kenóō) but they must be interpreted carefully in a way that does not contradict the rest of Scripture.

Specifically, because we know that "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever," (Hebrews 13:8), Philippians 2:7 cannot mean that Jesus emptied himself of His deity or laid aside any of His divine attributes when He took on humanity. That is the view of "Kenotic" theology, which is seriously heterodox.

So what about Jesus' omnipresence? Did He not have to divest Himself of that attribute in order to be incarnated in a real human body? Didn't he need to cease being everywhere present so that He could enter this world as a Man? Wasn't His omnipresence necessarily suspended when He was placed in a manger?

Strictly speaking, no.

The Spirit of Christ was no more physically confined to His human body during the incarnation than He is now. Remember that at His ascension He rose bodily and is seated at the right hand of God the Father. From thence He shall come—bodily—to judge the quick and the dead. In other words, He has not abandoned His humanity, even now that He is glorified. And yet He is present wherever two or three are gathered together in His Name (Matthew 18:20). He is "with [us] always, to the end of the age" (Matthew 28:20). And He has promised never to leave us or forsake us (Hebrews 13:5).

So Scripture expressly affirms that Christ is omnipresent. When He assumed a human nature He did not have to give up that (or any other) aspect of His divine nature. The incarnation was a miracle of addition, not subtraction. Jesus took on humanity; He did not divest himself of deity.

In the words of Peter Lewis:

We must be very careful here not to imagine, as some have done, that at the incarnation our Lord "left behind" something of his Godhead or its attributes. God exists in the perfection of his attributes. Take away any of his perfections and you no longer have God. You cannot have reduced Godhead. There is God and there is not-God: but there is nothing in-between! . . . In respect of his divine nature our Lord continued even during his incarnate life to fill the heavens and the earth with his power and presence. [The Glory of Christ, 233.]

John Calvin said something similar. He wrote this:

[Although] the Word in his immeasurable essence united with the nature of man into one person, we do not imagine that he was confined therein. Here is something marvelous: the Son of God descended from heaven in such a way that, without leaving heaven, he willed to be home in the virgin's womb, to go about the earth, and to hang upon the cross; yet he continuously filled the world even as he had done from the beginning! [Institutes, 2:13:4.]

Hope that helps.

---

6-Part Harmony

by Frank Turk

This ia a "best of" which I composed about 4 years ago for the Christmas day service at our church -- a harmony of the texts which directly speak to the birth of Christ. I think it's useful to get a more-robust picture of what we're talking about at Christmas, which is not just a historical event but the purpose of all of history: God's working out His plan to save sinners.

It still needs some work; there's more that could be said from Scripture. But this is what we are going to celebrate -- those of us who are Christians.

I have a post for Christmas day, too, but I didn't even edit that. And it was written by a Methodist. You're welcome, and good tidings of great joy to you as you prepare to make straight the way of the Lord.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life, and the life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.

The true light, which enlightens everyone, was coming into the world. He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world did not know him. He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him. But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

For to which of the angels did God ever say,

"You are my Son, today I have begotten you"? Or again, "I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son"?

And again, when he brings the firstborn into the world, he says,

"Let all God's angels worship him."

Of the angels he says,

"He makes his angels winds, and his ministers a flame of fire."

But of the Son he says,

"Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom. You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness beyond your companions."

Now the birth of Jesus Christ took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child from the Holy Spirit.

In the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a city of Galilee named Nazareth, to her. And he came to her and said, "Greetings, O favored one, the Lord is with you!" But Mary was greatly troubled at the saying, and tried to discern what sort of greeting this might be. And the angel said to her, "Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus. He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. And the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end."

And Mary said to the angel, "How will this be, since I am a virgin?"

And the angel answered her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy--the Son of God. … For nothing will be impossible with God." And Mary said, "Behold, I am the servant of the Lord; let it be to me according to your word."

And her husband Joseph, being a just man and unwilling to put her to shame, resolved to divorce her quietly. But as he considered these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, "Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary as your wife, for that which is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins." All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet:

"Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel" (which means, God with us).

When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him: he took his wife, but knew her not until she had given birth to a son.

A decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be registered. This was the first registration when Quirinius was governor of Syria. And all went to be registered, each to his own town. And Joseph also went up from Galilee, from the town of Nazareth, to Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and lineage of David, to be registered with Mary, his betrothed, who was with child. And while they were there, the time came for her to give birth. And she gave birth to her firstborn son and wrapped him in swaddling cloths and laid him in a manger, because there was no place for them in the inn.

And in the same region there were shepherds out in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night. And an angel of the Lord appeared to them, and the glory of the Lord shone around them, and they were filled with fear. And the angel said to them, "Fear not, for behold, I bring you good news of a great joy that will be for all the people. For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Savior, who is Christ the Lord. And this will be a sign for you: you will find a baby wrapped in swaddling cloths and lying in a manger." And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God and saying,

"Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace among those with whom he is pleased!"

When the angels went away from them into heaven, the shepherds said to one another, "Let us go over to Bethlehem and see this thing that has happened, which the Lord has made known to us." And they went with haste and found Mary and Joseph, and the baby lying in a manger. And when they saw it, they made known the saying that had been told them concerning this child. And all who heard it wondered at what the shepherds told them. But Mary treasured up all these things, pondering them in her heart. And the shepherds returned, glorifying and praising God for all they had heard and seen, as it had been told them.

And at the end of eight days, when [the child] was circumcised, he was called Jesus, the name given by the angel before he was conceived in the womb.

Now after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, behold, wise men from the east came to Jerusalem, saying, "Where is he who has been born king of the Jews? For we saw his star when it rose and have come to worship him."

(they said this because the prophet Balaam saw that it pleased the LORD to bless Israel, and he did not go, as at other times, to look for omens, but set his face toward the wilderness. And Balaam lifted up his eyes and saw Israel camping tribe by tribe. And the Spirit of God came upon him, and he took up his discourse and said,

I see him, but not now; I behold him, but not near: a star shall come out of Jacob, and a scepter shall rise out of Israel;")

After listening to the king, they went on their way. And behold, the star that they had seen when it rose went before them until it came to rest over the place where the child was. When they saw the star, they rejoiced exceedingly with great joy. And going into the house they saw the child with Mary his mother, and they fell down and worshiped him. Then, opening their treasures, they offered him gifts, gold and frankincense and myrrh.

---

DIY Christology

by Phil Johnson

This is kind of a follow-up to Monday's post.

ack in the 1990s, I was an active participant in several e-mail forums devoted to theological discussion. I especially loved a couple of open forums where lay people, pastors, and seminary professors mingled—much like the combox of our blog. It was a helpful exercise in learning how to frame difficult concepts in simple terms. I loved the rookie participants, because they were full of good questions, eager to learn, and not afraid to challenge anything that seemed unclear or unbiblical.

But there were always a few lay participants who seemed to come to every discussion with the attitude that theology is (or ought to be) a dialectical exercise done mostly for recreation. They evidently thought the tools of the sport are nothing more than one's personal feelings, speculations, and inventiveness. Discussing doctrine was purely a diversion for them; nothing serious. But it seemed the more serious the topic under discussion, the more eagerly they jumped into the fray with their frivolous and half-baked ideas.

This was especially irritating when some difficult question about Christology, the Incarnation, or the two natures of Christ would come up. You could always count on several of the forum's theological tyros to crawl out of the woodwork and start shooting from the hip. "The hypostitic union? Get real. That doesn't mean anything. I think Jesus simply set aside His deity. How could he be human just like you and me if he retained the attributes of deity?" Or, "Well, I think He kept His deity and took on a human body. 'Two natures' is nonsense. He had a divine nature in a human body. And so on.

The Incarnation, of course, is one area of Christian theology where orthodoxy is meticulously defined and has been accepted by all major traditions without serious challenge since the fourth century. Why anyone (much less a total novice) would want to enter the fray now with a "Well, I think this: [your novel idea here]" kind of argument is mystifying.

The reason these issues were hashed out so carefully in the early church is that they are absolutely foundational. And on such matters it behooves us all to study not only Scripture, but also historical theology and the major creeds before launching into homebrew hypotheses or stupid speculations.

Here's a simplified synopsis of how the church grappled with and finally settled the major questions about Christ's two natures:

Several early heresies arose in the early centuries of the church. Among them all, they pretty much covered every possible heresy regarding the Person of Christ. You think you have a new way to explain the incarnation? It's no doubt already been done.

For example, the Ebionites insisted that Jesus was a mere man—the holiest of all men, but no more than that. The Apollinarians acknowledged His deity but denied that He had a human soul. The Nestorians made Him both God and man, but in doing so made Him two persons in one body—a man in whom the divine Logos dwelt rather than a single person who was both human and divine. The Eutichians, the monophysites, and the monothelites went to the opposite extreme, fusing the divine and human natures of Christ into one new nature. The Arians claimed He was not God, but the highest of all created beings. (That, of course is precisely what modern Jehovah's Witnesses believe.) And the Docetists denied that Christ was really human. Most docetists taught that Jesus' human body was only an illusion.

Several Church councils convened to examine Scripture and decide between these differing views. As soon as one issue was settled, however, another would surface and need to be dealt with. In 325, the council of Nicea condemned Arianism and proclaimed that Jesus is fully divine. But within 60 years, the Council of Constantinople had to deal with Apollinarianism, which went overboard on the side of Christ's deity and was not doing full justice to His humanity. In 381 the council of Constantinople condemned Apollinarianism as heresy.

This war against Christological heresies continued until the council of Chalcedon in 451 issued a statement about the Person of Christ that has stood as the definitive test of orthodoxy from that time until now. The statement is brief. It is all one very long sentence:

We, then, following the holy Fathers, all with one consent, teach men to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood; very God and very man, of a rational soul and body; coessential [homousios, identical in nature] with the Father according to the Godhead, and consubstantial [homousios, identical in nature] with us according to the Manhood; in all things like unto us, without sin; begotten before all ages of the Father according to the Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary, the God-bearer [Theotokos], according to the Manhood; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures without confusion, without change, without division, and without separation; the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person and one Subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten, God the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ, as the prophets from the beginning have spoken of him, and the Lord Jesus Christ himself has taught us, and the Creed of the holy Fathers has handed down to us.

The genius of that statement—the element that put an end to incessant heresies on the nature of Christ—is found in the phrase "two natures without confusion, without change, without division, and without separation." Those four negative statements forever defined and delimited how the person of Christ is to be understood. G. C. Berkhouwer called those four negatives "a double row of light-beacons which mark off the navigable water in between and warn against the dangers which threaten to the left and to the right."

Virtually every heresy that has ever surfaced with regard to the person of Christ either fuses or separates the deity and the humanity of Christ. Chalcedon declared that the two natures can be neither merged nor disconnected. Christ is both God and man. Truly God and truly man.

There is no terminology outside the Council of Chalcedon's statement that has ever been accepted as orthodox by any major branch of Christianity. So anyone who denies any element of that formula—whether it's the two natures, the union of the two natures, or whatever—is unorthodox on the doctrine of the incarnation. It's as simple as that. And this is not something to treat lightly. The doctrine of Christ is not a theological sandbox for children to play in.

Incidentally, the technical term for the distinctive relationship between Christ's two natures is the hypostatic union. It's a doctine anyone who wants to discuss theology intelligently ought to be familiar with.

---

Christ the Son of Man (sermon)

by Dan Phillips

Some readers said they'd like to hear the sermon I had the joy to preach recently at Sun Oak Baptist Church. That church's pastor John Kane worked with techno-mage Richard Flink to convert it from tape to mp3, and now you can access it here, if you like. Thanks, brothers.

(BTW, the conversion left an "undocumented feature" or two... like some unexplainable piano music towards the end that was not present during the sermon. Think of it as... ambiance.)

In one of the question-and-answer sessions, Richard Phillips remarked that "Son of Man" did not refer to Christ's humanity, but to his deity. He said that the expression comes from the vision in Daniel 7.

I would "agree-but." That is, I agree that our Lord draws the phrase primarily from Daniel 7. I think Mark 14:62, with its clear allusion to Daniel 7:13, renders that fairly certain. I'd also agree that the expression in that chapter does not denote mere humanity. It is striking that every kingdom envisioned comes up from the roiling sea — every kingdom except the kingdom of the Son of Man, who comes with the clouds of heaven. That certainly is numinous, indicating the presence of God.

But there is a reason Son of Man is used. I take it to be yet another of many OT indications and signposts that Messiah will be both truly God and truly man — the very theme I try to develop in this sermon.

Folks often ask for the outlines I pass out. This time only, at no extra charge, here it is:

---

The Christmas Story

by Dan Phillips

The Christmas story doesn't really start with wise men nor shepherds. It does not begin with Gabriel's announcement to the young virgin, nor his earlier word to old Zechariah.

Its real origins lie far back in the days of eternity. Infinitely intelligent, wise and powerful beyond all imagining, the triune God conceived the entire plan that hinges on Christmas before He had lit a single star or spun a single planet. Never caught by surprise, God's masterful and intricate plan repeatedly surfaces throughout the pages documenting the thousands of years of Old Testament history and prophecy.

The first specific glimmer twinkles at the first fall of gloomy darkness. Eve and her idiot husband had just done the most foolish thing a couple can ever do: they had opposed their judgment to God's judgment. She had been a fool, and he'd trotted along like a moronic puppy. Of course, they had lost, in their fools' gambit; worse, they were lost, and God read them the riot act.

But amid God's announcement of the woes they'd brought on themselves and their children comes this word, spoken to the Serpent who had fooled Eve into rebelling:

I will put hostility between you and the woman,
and between your seed and her seed.
He will strike your head,
and you will strike his heel (Genesis 3:15 CSB)

Odd phrase, that: "her seed." The seed properly is what the man contributes to the birth of a child, and then it is used of the child so conceived, singularly and collectively. But in the hundreds of chapters and tens of thousands of words in the Old Testament, "her seed" never occurs again. It means... something, surely. But, at this first read, we're not sure what.

However, we do know that this theme of the seed keeps popping up throughout the Old Testament. God clearly is up to something. This is the outworking of some plan.

When all of the race has gone bad in Genesis 6, God wipes them all out — all except one family of one man, righteous Noah. Three sons are born to Noah, but Shem is the one singled out as chosen by God for a relationship (Genesis 9:26). Shem has many sons, but only one named Abram is isolated as the one in whom all the families of the earth will be blessed (Genesis 12:3). In Abram, and in his seed (Genesis 22:18).

The years roll by, and the narrowing continues. Abram has two sons, but Isaac is the one dubbed his "seed" (Genesis 21:12). Two sons are also born to Isaac, and it is the younger one, Jacob, who continues the line of the blessed Seed (Genesis 28:13-14). Jacob then has twelve sons. Which of them will continue this line? So much space is given to Joseph of the technicolored dreamcoat that we might think it is he - except that God identifies Judah as the one son who will produce the line of kingship (Genesis 49:10).

And here's one more clue for us: each of these moves involves a miraculous birth, a birth involving an act of God. How so? Every one of these matriarchs is infertile. Abraham's wife Sarah is infertile (Genesis 11:30), and so are Isaac's wife Rebekah (Genesis 25:21), and Jacob's wives Rachel and Leah (Genesis 29:31; 30:22). So we keep hearing that faint ringing of the bell, associating something remarkable with births in the line of the woman's Seed.

Are we given any help as to which of the thousands of children descended from Judah will be the line of the delivering, ruling, blessing, conquering Seed? Indeed we are, and we'll single out two.

First, around 1000 BC, Judah's grandson King David gets the news that he will never lack a son to sit on his throne, which is thereby guaranteed to his seed (2 Samuel 7:14). Of the thousands of Judah, that family is the one through whom the kingly Seed will come.

Then some three centuries later the house of David is told that a virgin would conceive and bear a Son, whose name would be God-with-us (Isaiah 7:14). Ah, now — the mystery is both solved and deepend! What would be remarkable about the Seed's birth? He really would be "her Seed," the seed of a woman without the normal participation of a husband. His origins would be from God.

That was why He would be named God-with-us; because He would actually be God in human flesh, as we further learn in Isaiah 9:6 —

For to us a child is born, to us a son is given;
and the government shall be upon his shoulder,
and his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

So there, you see, is just a bit of what is behind the lovely story of the girl and the star and the shepherds and the angels. More importantly, this is why Heaven itself was so excited at the Child's birth, that no less than the Chief Angel was sent to announce it; and that is why Heaven emptied out to pour out its joy and praise, lighting up the darksome Mediterranean sky that night (Luke 2:13-14).

It wasn't just a story or an isolated event, like some bright fleck of confetti. It was part of an eternal plan, devised in the heart and mind of the infinite-personal God of Scripture. It was God's plan for the rescue of our fallen, lost, helpless race.

We were so far from God, so alienated and hostile, that no less of a measure could redeem us. We had had laws, examples, warnings and promises. None had worked!

The problem wasn't the laws; the problem was us. We were estranged rebels under God's judgment from the start and in the middle, and we still were. Nothing coming from us could save us, because we were the source and focus of the problem. We needed an extraordinary intervention from outside of us, from God Himself.

We didn't need to be merely instructed or improved. We needed to be saved.

That is exactly what Christmas was all about.

On Christmas, God the Son was born a man, and given the name Jesus — which means salvation. Jesus lived as a man, obeying God perfectly from the heart as none of Adam's natural sons had done. Jesus spoke God's words, and did God's deeds of power over the natural world and the spiritual world.

How did we respond? Our highest representatives in the sacred and secular realms hated Him, rejected Him, misjudged Him, condemned Him, and crucified Him. He died the death of a guilty man under God's judgment — though He had never done anything but the good and the righteous.

In that bloody death, Jesus fully satisfied the justice of God, by taking the place of lost sinners. Then Jesus rose from the dead, and ascended to the Father's right hand. One day Jesus will come to rule from David's throne, just as promised.

This is the Child of Christmas, no longer a babe in a feeding-trough: Jesus Christ, the woman's conquering Seed, the Son of David, God with us, the Savior.

Where does this leave you, then? Maybe now you know more than you once did. If so, that is wonderful.

But Herod knew all this, and he hated the Christ, and wanted nothing to do with Him. The religious leaders couldn't be bothered with Him. The politicians couldn't be rid of Him quickly enough.

It was the simple shepherds, and the foreign magi, who came to worship Him.

In which group do you stand?

Let us take our place by their side, marveling and wondering, believing and adoring. Let us worship God come in the flesh for our salvation: Jesus Christ, the true and only celebrity of Christmas.

---

The churchless Church

by Frank Turk

Yesterday I threatened to blog Kent's comment on Phil's post, and frankly I've lost interest in the 12 mistakes thing (I'll finish it, just not today), so rather than admit it was a boring idea I'll blog Kent's comments here under the heading of "other kinds of mistakes".

Kent said this:

I agree wholeheartedly. How could I not? It's Scripture. It's also what we do. We go out and preach the message, unvarnished, every week. Whether we grow numerically, according to Jesus, is dependent on the condition of the soil (Mt. 13).

Which, you know, is right from one perspective -- that we are called to preach the word, in season and out of season.

But here's a funny thing: I think Kent is making the same mistake that the people he is criticizing are making, only on the "do nothing" side of the fence. Here's what I mean, by way of first letting Kent elaborate on his own point:

Which brings me to a few questions. Why do even conservative evangelicals put so much emphasis on an invitation methodology (inviting unbelievers to some special event, many times with music)? Young pastors are generally convinced that to be a "success" (get big), they need a slick website, a kewl brochure, snazzy greeters, comfortable, casual dress, expansive parking, an especially decent building, and some events, especially around holidays, that will attract in unbelievers. This type of strategy was taken further by the Warren types and even more so by the emergent. In other words, it has become a matter of degree. Why should they stop their extremes if conservative evangelicals are using essentially the same strategies, just toned down?

Now, here's the thing: what if someone has all those things Kent mentions not in place of preaching the word, but actually as a result of preaching the word?

This is the mistake I think Kent is making, and I am sure he will amend and expand his own remarks in the meta as he sees fit: I think Kent operates under the assumption that either [a] preaching the Gospel mostly cannot be "successful" in terms of numbers exploding, or [b] preaching the Gospel does not really produce anything but saved people who will come to church and sit to listen to more.

And this, frankly, is the error of modern evangelicalism. Here's what I mean: as Phil said so well yesterday,

In other words, it is not just the strategy of preaching that seems foolish to human wisdom. It is the message itself. The gospel is an announcement that seems foolish and naive to the fallen human mind.

But what's at stake is not just eternal salvation: what is also at stake is the church itself -- which even Kent would admit has something which happens locally and communally.

The evangelical mistake is this: if we make a community with attractive values, maybe we can then slip the Gospel in sideways and draw people to Christ. It makes the community consequences of the Gospel the objective rather than something which is caused by the objective.

Kent's mistake is that he thinks that somehow the right effects of the Gospel somehow condemn a preacher if they are manifest. And let's face it: the right effects of preaching the Gospel in the New Testament include a growing church where there are some who are "in the church" but not "in the Gospel" -- as well as an "invitation methodolgy", welcoming greeters for outsiders, some obvious place of worship, and psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs (notice Paul's range there, btw: from "inspired praise and worship" to "didactic teaching in music" to "songs which merely edify or encourage" -- a distinction Kent will surely reject). I mean, what do you do with a Roy Hargrave or a John MacArthur or a John Piper if Kent is actually right?

The evangelical error is to put the cart before the horse; the Kent error is to have no cart at all. So when he says this:

Should anyone be given the impression the music will "help" the gospel? Where in Scripture is that concept? We might say we don't believe that it does, but if it is what we do, are we not betraying our belief with our practice?

we have to wonder something: what kind of church does the Gospel produce, in Kent's view of things? Does it have any cultural effect at all? Are there saved people doing things in it, or does doing things automatically make you emergent and therefore a pariah?

It is unfortunate that I am going to have a day away from internet access today. I hate that. But I am sure there will be enough for the rest of you to kick around here that I can clean up the mess when I get back tonight.

---

Chief display of God's love for the world

by Dan Phillips

A chief way in which God loves the world is that He sent His Son into it:

“The true light, which enlightens everyone, was coming into the world. 10 He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world did not know him” (John 1:9-10)

---