HOW GOD BECAME MAN: CONTEMPLATING THE DOCTRINE OF THE INCARNATION

HOW GOD BECAME MAN: THE DOCTRINE OF THE INCARNATION

By: Daniel McMillin

THE MYSTERY OF THE INCARNATION

Who doesn’t love a good mystery? It is a joy to explore the mires of London with Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson in the “Hounds of Baskerville” or interrogating suspects with Hercule Poirot on the “Orient Express” to uncover the truth hidden in the shadows. Some of the greatest mysteries are located in the realm of theology. One of the more puzzling mysteries that theologians, philosophers, and Christians alike have pondered for centuries is the doctrine of the incarnation. This mystery concerns how “the infinite God somehow received a finite human nature without ceasing to be God or compromising his divine perfection.”[1] It is something that our finite minds can hardly fathom, yet it remains fascinating to contemplate the depths of this colossal paradox.

Indeed, the incarnation is one of the great ancient mysteries of the Christian faith. As John C. Clark and Marcus P. Johnson write, “The supreme mystery that the Word became flesh, that God, and the person of Jesus Christ, participates unreservedly in the same human nature that we ourselves possess, is at the very center of the Christian faith.”[2] Christians have debated the issue of the incarnation for centuries and continue to discuss the depths of this wonderful doctrine. There are a few points concerning the nature of this mystery. (1) Mysteries are beautiful. Many find the nature of mysteries to be quite frightening or overwhelming since there are things that are evidently beyond our grasp. But it is ok to say that there are things that are a mystery in theology because we are discussing things that God knows and experiences. (2) Mysteries do not imply total incomprehensibility. We can know certain truths that have been revealed to us while also not knowing them in full. In addition, there are things that we will not understand, but that does not mean it is a contradiction. In response, the mystery of the incarnation does not mean it is a contradiction, but that it is a paradox. In light of this, the incarnation should remain mysterious. We are not meant to solve the mystery but state it. This allows us to approach the incarnation appropriately with the proper attitude of humility required for contemplating the mysteries of God. R.B. Jamieson and Tyler R. Wittman write the following:

“When discussing the hypostatic union, we are not solving but stating the mystery. Therefore, we are not setting aside paradox, but vindicating it as paradox and not contradiction. By ‘paradox’ here we mean an apparent contradiction that ultimately is consistent. For Jesus to be both God and man seems contradictory but ultimately is not. paradox is thus intrinsic to the confession that ‘Jesus is Lord’ (1 Cor. 12:3), and biblical reasoning must preserve this paradox, owning that seemingly contradictory characteristics coalesce in Christ. For this reason, the incarnation is a mystery, something we cannot fully explain. Given the reality of the Word made flesh, we should not shrink from paradox but instead revel in it.”[3] 

Rather than trying to answer our various questions on the incarnation, we are meant to dwell upon what we do know and bask in the glory of what we do not know. Additionally, they write, “Orthodoxy is not about explaining mystery away but maintaining it. Orthodoxy stands upright not because it discards the weight of inconvenient evidence but because it keeps seemingly opposing truths in exact equipoise.”[4] In this way, the beauty of orthodoxy is its ability to enjoy and maintain the incomprehensible mysteries and paradoxes.

If there is one takeaway here, it is that we must humbly admit that we do not and will not understand everything about the incarnation. As finite beings, we cannot fully comprehend the infinite God. Scripture does not exhaustively describe the incarnation, and we will never experience what the Son of God did when He became like us. May this bring us to our knees so our tongues may confess the mystery of God the Son incarnate.

CONTEMPLATING THE HYPOSTATIC UNION

DEFINING THE INCARNATION: What Is the Incarnation?

The “incarnation” is the doctrine that God became man. Historically, the incarnation has been understood as the unity of being within the one person of Christ, where the Second Person of the Trinity assumed a true human nature. There is one person—Jesus—with two natures—human and divine. Through the incarnation, God became what He was not by adding a human nature without subtracting His divine nature. As Augustine said, “God’s Son, assuming humanity without destroying His divinity, established and founded this faith, that there might be a way for man to man’s God through a God-man.”[5] Etymologically, the term “incarnation” comes from the Latin (en-“in”, carne-“flesh”) and means “to enflesh” or “to become flesh.” Hilary of Poitiers said, “He did not lose what He was, but began to be what He was not. He did not cease to possess His own nature, but received what was ours.”[6] Similarly, Michael Horton writes, “Without surrendering his divinity, the eternal Son fully assumed our finite humanity.”[7] In the incarnation, the infinite God became a finite human. Yet, He did not cease being God by becoming man. R.L. Reymond says the incarnation is “the act whereby the eternal Son of God, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, without ceasing to be what he is, God the Son, took into union with himself what he before that act did not possess, a human nature.”[8]

When interpreting the Bible, the reader comes face to face with the reality of the incarnation and must be able to decipher the manner in which the inspired authors describe the nature of Jesus. To aid us in our endeavor to view the person of Christ properly, Jamieson and Wittman write, “Scripture speaks of Christ in a twofold manner: some things are said of him as divine, and other things are said of him as human. Biblical reasoning discerns that Scripture speaks of the one Christ in two registers in order to contemplate the whole Christ. Therefore, read Scripture in such a way that you discern the different registers in which Scripture speaks of Christ, yet without dividing him.”[9] This model for interpretation allows the biblical exegete to read the biblical data and decide whether a given passage is referencing the human nature of Jesus or the divine essence of the Son.

As Christians, we confess the incarnation by saying, Jesus Christ is “true God, true man.” While incarnate, everything found in humanity is found in Christ, and everything found in divinity is found in Christ because He is “fully God and fully man” (Jesus=man; Jesus=God). DeBord says, “The apostles, led by the Spirit and rooted firmly in Scripture, preached Jesus is fully God and fully human. He is not a mixture of two natures, nor a divided portion of deity and humanity, nor a human figure limited or overshadowed by his divinity. Rather, Jesus is true God and true man in one person, without confusion, change, division, or separation.”[10] 

Another title attributed to the doctrine of the incarnation is the “hypostatic union,” that is, the uniting of the two natures in one person (hypostasis). According to Brandon Crowe, “The hypostatic union speaks of the union of two natures (divine and human) in one person in the incarnation. These natures are not confused or mixed, nor do the natures act independently of the person.[11] The Son of God is always the person who acts. He never ceases to be fully divine, even as he takes to himself a fully human nature.”[12] In many ways, the term “hypostatic union” is a bit high fluent for many people’s tastes. Still, it is a more precise in describing the dual natures of Christ than the word “incarnation” because it clarifies how one person possesses two natures and emphasizes the union of those natures without confusion. This allows us to confess, as Jamieson and Wittman write, “One and the Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of the Father, exists as one person in two natures, without confusion or change, without division or separation.”[13] Similarly, Beeke and Smalley comment, “The incarnation of the divine Word is nothing less than the union of two categorically different natures in one person.”[14] As such, “the hypostatic union is a personal union, such that two natures are joined in one person without change, separation, more confusion.”[15] Thus, “to say that Christ’s human nature is united to him hypostatically is to deny that it is united to him by any lesser or weaker or extrinsic bond.”[16] 

The terminology for “hypostatic union” includes three major affirmations, according to Macleod: (1) that Christ is one person; (2) that the union between his two natures arises from the fact that they both belong to one and the same person; and (3) that this one person, the Son of God, is the Agent behind all of the Lord’s actions, the Speaker of all his utterances and the Subject of all his experiences.[17] The incarnation is, then, something that is a real unification of two distinct and separate natures. These two natures that are ontologically different are not competing against one another but are brought together in the person of Christ. As John of Damascus writes, “We do not set each nature apart by itself, but hold them to be united to each other in one composite Person. For we say that the union is substantial; that is to say, true and not imaginary.”[18]

The incarnation essentially includes the real humanity and divinity of Jesus.[19] As such, the human nature of Jesus cannot function without the divine nature. In sum, the doctrine of the incarnation teaches that Jesus embodies the fullness of divinity and assumes the entirety of humanity.

THE SOURCE OF THE INCARNATION: How Can We Learn About the Incarnation?

The most important resources in every classroom are the teachers and the textbooks. In Philosophy 101, the student needs the work of Aristotle and Plato as their textbook, along with a competent instructor, so they may learn to love wisdom. Likewise, in the realm of theology, the student needs the Bible as their textbook and a helpful theologian to guide them along the way so they may fall in love with Christ. The Scriptures are not only our grandest resource for the doctrine of the incarnation, but it is the only form of revelation available for such a doctrine. As White writes:

“The reality of the incarnation is a truth of divine revelation, and not a truth of natural human reason. By this very fact, it is the kind of truth that utterly transcends the mere capacity of human reason to ascertain by its own powers. It is, we might say, a truth that is given to human reason to explore and understand, but not one that can be procured by the human intellect operating from within the speculative horizon of its own native first principles and final conclusions.”[20] 

We could never create the incarnation; our imagination is not so daring. The incarnation is solely the product of the divine mind.  Thus, we require divine revelation to know that the divine has become man. That is why the Bible will be our primary source in this endeavor to know Christ, since God has chosen to reveal Himself through the Scriptures. The source material may be divided into three categories: (1) The Scriptures or the Old Testament which anticipates the arrival of Christ and generates the need for the Messiah, (2) The Fourfold Gospels which record the mission of Jesus Christ as they contain the life, teachings, and passion of the Messiah, and (3) The New Testament Epistles which contain the apostles’ doctrine of Christ and the early Church’s view of Jesus as the Messiah.

            To state my case quite plainly, if we want to be biblical, we will affirm the true humanity and divinity of Christ—two natures, one person. If the Bible is our final authority on all matters of doctrine, then we should allow the revelation of God in Christ to be the foundation for our belief in the dual natures of Christ. What Bavinck said in his day remains true today:

“Theology, if it truly wants to be scriptural and Christian, cannot do better for now than to maintain the two-natures doctrine. In the process it may thoroughly convince itself of the inadequate character of its language, specifically also in its doctrine of Christ. But all other attempts undertaken up until now to formulate christological dogma and to bring it home to us fail to do justice to the riches of Scripture and the honor of Christ.”[21]

As we endeavor to search the Scriptures together, our aim is to find the true identity of Jesus. There are far too many imprecise presentations of Jesus that produce counterfeit Jesuses; the only way to find the real Jesus is to look to the Bible. “Scripture alone serves as our norm for grasping Christ’s identity.”[22] The following section will offer exegesis on two major New Testament passages on the doctrine of the incarnation: John 1:14, 18, and Philippians 2:6-11.

Figure 1: The Son’s Relation to the Human and Divine Natures

AN EXEGETICAL CASE FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE INCARNATION: DEFINING THE INCARNATION WITH SCRIPTURE

HOW GOD BECAME MAN: AN EXEGESIS OF JOHN 1:14 AND 18

God became man, and ever since the incarnation, when the Word took on flesh, the world has never been the same. Thomas Aquinas was right when he said, “Nothing more marvelous can be thought of than this divine work: that the true God, the Son of God, should become true man.”[23] The incarnation—the doctrine of God enfleshed—is explicitly taught when John writes, “the Word became flesh and dwelt among us” (John 1:14).

Revelation is the norm of every world religion, but the incarnation is a unique avenue of divine revelation where God Himself leaves the glory of heaven to enter the earth and assume our likeness to suffer and die on our behalf and be raised again on the third day. There is no other world religion that so intimately displays the presence and power of God. That is who John says is the “Word” in the prologue of his Gospel, whose purpose and function is to reveal the glory of God to man by becoming a man. In like manner, the apostle Paul describes the God who came down to heaven to the earth below to reveal divinity and redeem humanity so He may return to heaven victorious as the exalted Lord for the glory of the Father. In this section, we will examine two major passages that unveil the beauty of the incarnation, beginning with an exegesis of John 1:14 and 18, followed by Philippians 2:6-11.

THE “WORD” OF GOD WHO BECAME MAN

The identification of the “Word” is a divine title that is used to describe the Second Person of the Trinity. The divine Logos (or “Word”) is a uniquely Johannine description of the Son of God. John’s usage of this title is meant to entail the Word’s self-expression of Himself and the divine nature. He is, as Carson says, “the supreme revelation.”^[24] The Word of God acts as the personal revelation of God’s “glory.” The Spirit intentionally uses the title Logos “to express the greatest thought of the Father’s heart.”[25] In light of John 1:1-3, we notice that the Word, who is identified as God, is the one who dwells in our midst. That is, “the Word incarnate is a divine person who is simultaneously one with God and, as a consequence of the incarnation, one with human being.”[26] The Word of God, who is identified as the Creator-God, is the same being who became man. In this way, John is presenting the incarnation as “an event as important as creation.”[27]

But who is the “Word of God” that John is introducing in the prologue? It is important that we correctly identify the Word as God and Jesus as the Word to properly understand the nature of the incarnation. As Carson suggests, “In John’s Prologue, once the identity of the Word is grasped, the incarnation is seen as a stupendous act of revelation, of divine self-disclosure; but if the identity of the Word is not grasped, the incarnation itself is a nonsense.”^[28] What John is saying is that, “Jesus is the same Son who existed eternally with the Father and who came to exist as man. Hence, in terms of his personal identity—who he is—he is the eternal Son, one of the Trinity according to the flesh, and his humanity—both body and soul—is that of the Son.”[29] This is the glory of the incarnation: “The personal ‘Word’ that existed with God from all eternity took on flesh and became a human being. The Logos for John is not merely a personification but a person, not merely one who existed with God for all eternity but one who has entered history as a human being.”[30]

Wellum correctly notes, “Scripture is clear; the person of the incarnation is the divine Son who assumed a human nature without a human subject— ‘the Word became flesh’ (John 1:14)—hence the affirmation that Jesus is one person in two natures.”[31] John is precise in his use of the subject “Word” rather than “God.” Already, we see that there is a distinction of persons in God since John says it is the Word who became man, is God, but not that God became man. As Beeke and Smalley say, “It was not the divine nature but one divine person that became incarnate as man.”[32] Wellum also comments on this by saying:

“The subject of the incarnation was not the divine nature itself, and it was neither God the Father nor God the Holy Spirit; it was specifically the Word, or divine Son who united himself to a human nature for the purpose of revealing the divine glory that he shares with the Father. Any change in the deity of the Son, then, would preclude him from displaying the fullness of the Father’s glory. The Son makes God known precisely because he remains fully divine in his incarnation. To accomplish the mission of incarnation, the Son must continue to possess all the attributes of God, exercise his divine prerogatives, and perform his divine works, including his cosmic functions.”[33]

The person (Word of God) assumed an essence (human nature), but the divine nature did not become human. In other words, there was a union of two natures in one person, not a transformation where the divine nature of the Word became a human nature. Macleod clarifies, “It was a person, not a nature, who became flesh, and this itself is probably sufficient to preclude understanding the incarnation as a conversion (of one nature into another). Beyond that, we have to insist that when we speak of the Son or the Logos as the subject of the incarnation, we do not mean merely that he subjected himself passively to being made flesh. The incarnation was a personal act of the Logos.”[34]

THE GOD WHO ASSUMED HUMAN “FLESH”

Cyril of Alexandria stated the Word is “God-made-man.”[35] John chooses to reveal this to us by saying, “The Word became flesh.” To say that the Word took on “flesh” is John’s way of saying that God became a “mortal man.”[36] It is a word that “signifies humanity in its weakness and frailty, its morality and dependent upon the Spirit’s work.”[37] The New Testament’s use of “flesh” is a reference to the human flesh and denotes true humanity, and John 1:14 is no exception. Here, “flesh” is a description of the human condition that “connotes more than embodiment—scandalous as that would already be—because Scripture uses the term to speak ‘contemptuously’ of humanity.”[38] When the Word became a human, this “becoming flesh is not a matter of converting into flesh; it is a matter of assuming and individuating a human nature that is proper to him but still remains distinct from his divine nature.”[39] To illustrate, the incarnation is not a mixture of humanity and divinity like mixing water and oil. The oil distorts the water; likewise, the divinity of Jesus would be distorted by the addition of His humanity. The dual natures of Christ are not “merged” as though they were put into a stirring pot and mixed around; neither are these two natures “juxtaposed” as though they were “lying side by side in the one person without contact or interaction.”[40]

The phrase “became” implies that the Word assumes something He did not have before, namely, the essence of humanity. The incarnation is then an “assumption of the flesh” (asssumptio carnis). Prior to the incarnation, the Word possessed everything found within divinity, but when He “became flesh,” He took on everything found in humanity. As Augustine writes, “Nothing was lacking that belongs to human nature.”[41] The word “became” is crucial for our understanding of the incarnation. “The act of becoming flesh was,” as Macleod writes, “deliberate, voluntary, sacrificial and dynamic.”[42] Jesus’s assumption of humanity was “deliberate” because God foreordained the incarnation; it was no mere accident. It was “voluntary” because Jesus freely chose to be sent by God the Father to take on human flesh. It was “sacrificial” rather than self-serving since the Son of God gave His life as a ransom for others. Finally, it was “dynamic” and not static because God actively produced the incarnation. Jesus assumed or, dare I say, added a human nature for “in him, God adds human being to his divine being and human experience to his divine experience. In him, God lives a truly human existence.”[43] The addition of humanity is not at the expense of His divinity. The human nature of Jesus is not a subtraction, mixture, or metamorphosis of the divine nature, but, as DeBord clarifies, it was a “reception” of the human nature. “The eternal Son received complete human nature—body, mind, soul, and all the genuine experiences of human life—into perfect union with his unchanging divine nature.”[44]

When God became man, there was a unity of the two natures in the one person of Christ. As T.F. Torrance said, “In the Word become flesh in the unity of God and man in Jesus Christ, Jesus Christ is God. Jesus Christ has no existence apart from or different from or parallel to God’s existence. He has his existence only in this divine act of condescension in which God gathers man into coexistence with himself.” In other words, “In the Word made flesh God and man are so related in Jesus Christ, that Jesus exists as man only so far as he exists as God, and yet as God he also has an existence as flesh or sarx.”[45] Torrance further explains what the evangelist meant by the Word becoming man:

“John means that the Word fully participates in human nature and existence, for he became man and becoming flesh, true man and real man. He was so truly man in the midst of mankind that it was not easy to recognize him as other than man or to distinguish him from other men. He came to his own and his own received him not. He became a particular man, Jesus, who stands among other men unsurpassed but unrecognised. That is the way he became flesh, by becoming one particular man. And yet this is the creator of all mankind, now himself become a man.”[46]

Torrance notes three main elements of the Word assuming human flesh: (1) the Creator God willed to coexist with creatures for the sake of reconciliation,[47] (2) the eternal God takes on a temporal form without giving up His eternal form while incarnate,[48] and (3) the holy God condescended to creation by becoming man to sanctify all of humanity.[49] 

To refine the meaning of God becoming man and taking on human flesh, I discuss three misconceptions of the incarnation to clarify what this does not mean: (1) the Word does not stop being God when He becomes a man, (2) the Word does not transform into something new when He assumes a human nature, and (3) the Word does not conflate His divinity with His humanity.

THE WORD DOES NOT STOP BEING GOD

Gregory of Nazianzus stated, “What He was He continued to be; what He was not He took to himself.”[50] When “the Word became flesh,” He maintained His divine nature while assuming a human nature. Alternatively, when the Word became man, He assumed something new. “He remained the same, but he entered a new realm.”[51] Treier writes, “the Word incarnate is a divine person who is simultaneously one with God and, as a consequence of the incarnation, one with human beings.”[52] God does not cease to be who He is when He assumes a human nature as the incarnate Word. As Torrance writes:

“The eternal Word, but now that Word, without ceasing to be what it eternally is, becomes a creature. He enters within the creaturely existence he created and becomes one with his creatures. However, he enters into this creation in such a way as to dwell in it as a personal presence, who comes to his own, who is not received, but who effects personal meeting and faith with those who do receive him. It is a personal Word who becomes flesh and meets us as man.”[53]

Karl Barth comments on the incarnation and suggests it “does not include any renunciation by God of His deity. In it He does not change Himself into a man.” Rather, “He is always the One He is, that He becomes and is man as God, and without ceasing to be God.”[54] Possibly a helpful illustration, that should not be stretched any further, is the union between a bride and groom. At the wedding ceremony, two people become one. This union does not mean that the bride ceases to be a person or that she stops being a woman, and likewise, the groom does not stop being an individual and does not cease being a male. The same is true with the incarnation, where the divine nature and human nature are united in the one person of Christ.[55] Torrance said, “The Word became flesh in such a way as not to cease being the eternal Word of God. This ‘become’ it's clearly a unique and miraculous event, a pure act of God's wisdom and mercy which is ultimately unfathomable by us.”[56]

THE WORD DOES NOT TRANSFORM INTO SOMETHING NEW

When the Word took on human flesh, He assumed a nature that He did not possess prior to the incarnation. This does not mean that the Word of God became something new, as though the incarnation is a sort of transition from Godhood to manhood. It is not a metamorphosis like a caterpillar transforming into a butterfly. The butterfly is no longer a caterpillar, and if that is the case, then Jesus would cease to be God if He transformed into a man. “Incarnation does not convert what is divine into what is human but instead unites what is human to one who is divine.”[57] In other words, when God becomes man, He does not cease being God by trading away His divine nature for a human nature. “Insofar as the eternal Son previously did not have a human nature united to himself, his assumption of a human nature does not involve something new. He is no longer just the divine Son but the divine Son who is now both divine and human.”[58]

THE WORD DOES NOT CONFLATE HIS DIVINITY WITH HIS HUMANITY

When discussing the incarnation, we should not conflate the humanity of Jesus with the divinity of Jesus by attributing human attributes to the divine essence and vice versa. In essence, common characteristics of humanity should not be mistaken for divinity or divinity with humanity. This has become the most obvious error when examining the nature of God, as individuals look at the incarnation and attribute things that are uniquely human by ascribing these qualities to the divine nature. The key to understanding the relationship between Jesus’ humanity and divinity is the communicatio idiomatum. The communicatio idiomatum is a term that refers to the communication of the incarnate Son’s human and divine properties or attributes.[59] This doctrine answers the question, “How does a human have the attributes of God, and how does God have the attributes of a human?” The doctrine entails, as Bavinck outlines for us, “In the incarnation the two natures along with all their attributes were communicated to the one person and the one subject who can therefore be described with divine and human natures. Accordingly, one can say that the Son of God was born, suffered, and died (Acts 20:28; 1 John 1:7) but also that the man Jesus Christ exists from eternity and descended from heaven (John 3:13).”[60] This union of natures is how Jesus can do things only humans and God can do, since He is both God and man.

The historic position of the incarnation was that “each nature…retained its own distinctive attributes, but between them there was some kind of communion.” Macleod lists three features of the historic doctrine of communication of idioms: (1) There was universal agreement that the attributes of both natures were attributes of the person; (2) There was communion between the two natures in the work of Christ as Mediator; and (3) Orthodox Christology has spoken confidently of the communion in graces (communio gratiarum) between the two natures of Christ.[61] In Biblical Reasoning, Jamieson and Wittman list the communication of idioms as their eighth rule for Christological and Trinitarian exegesis and write:

“Since Christ is a single divine person who subsists in both a divine and a human nature, Scripture sometimes names him according to one nature and predicates of him what belongs to the other nature. Scripture ascribes divine prerogatives to the man Jesus, and human acts and sufferings to the divine Son. So read Scripture in a way that recognizes and reproduces this paradoxical grammar of christological predication.”[62]

Admittedly, the communication of idioms is certainly not an easy doctrine to wrap our minds around. Still, it is undoubtedly a helpful guide for interpreting the life of Christ by respecting His two natures since it is “not merely right reasoning about Scripture” but is also the way in which “Scripture itself reasons.”[63] The communication of idioms allows us to distinguish between the humanity and divinity of Christ, so we may not confuse or conflate the two natures in this one person. Crowe helpfully suggests that “understanding the communicatio idiomatum properly helps us parse rightly the relationship between the divine and the human natures of Christ in the hypostatic union. Christ’s human nature remains human, and thus finite, created nature; his human nature does have divine characteristics. Even so, the glorious nature of the hypostatic union means that some impressively unique things can be predicated on the human nature of Christ.”[64] The human and divine attributes and actions are distinguishable, yet are rightly attributed to the God-man. When God the Son incarnate does things that only God can do, like forgiving sins, this is ascribed to His divine nature, whereas moments where He does things that only man can do, such as being tempted, then this is accredited to His human nature. “This one selfsame subject united a human nature to himself in such a way that all its characteristics, capacities, and limits became truly his. The incarnation causes new realities to be true of this one subject; it does not add another human subject alongside the original divine one.”[65] 

The communication of idioms allows us to distinguish between the two natures and recognize the union between these two natures. This is important because Jesus’ human nature does not stand beside His divine nature, nor are they detached from one another. Instead, these two natures are united in one person. “Whatever is true of Christ’s humanity is true of the person of the Son. All the actions performed by the human Jesus are rightly and necessarily attributed to the divine Son as their agent. Christ's human nature does not act independently of the divine Son, because acts belong to the persons, not natures (actiones sunt suppositorum, non naturarum). And since persons act, then the actions of assuming his human nature belong to the one and the same subject of all that Scripture says about Christ: the only begotten Son.”[66] Bavinck says:

“The union of the two natures in Christ, after all, is so intimate that they interpenetrate and inwardly impact each other. The communication with proper qualities, accordingly, does not at all mean only that the attributes of the two natures may be described as predicates to one and the same subject; it is not exclusively grammatical and logical in nature, but true and real. The concomitance of the two natures and their proper qualities is intrinsic and substantial, so that they do not run parallel to each other but as it were coinhere. As a result, God is humanized in Christ, and, conversely, the human nature in Christ is deified.”[67]

Further, “these attributes do,” as Bavinck notes, “inwardly impact human nature; flow over into human nature as a result of their excess energy; take that human nature to its apex; equip it with a plenitude of grace and truth, with all spiritual gifts and virtues; and thus make it a participant in the divine dignity, glory, and power and worthy of divine worship and veneration.”[68] From here, we will investigate two questions that are often asked concerning the two natures of Christ, which will illustrate the necessity of interpreting the Bible with a proper understanding of the incarnation.

THE WORD WHO TABERNACLED (“DWELT”) AMONG US”

The phrase “dwelt among us” may be translated as “tabernacled among us,” which alludes to the Old Testament tabernacle and temple where God’s presence was experienced by His people. God the Son incarnate, then, is to be viewed as the New Temple of God where people may be present with their God.[69] As D.A. Carson says, “The Evangelist implies, God has chosen to dwell amongst his people in a yet more personal way, in the Word-become-flesh.”^[70] G.K. Beale notes that “the special revelatory presence of God, formerly contained in the holy of holies of the tabernacle and temple, has now burst forth in the world in the form of the incarnate God, Jesus Christ.”[71] God no longer has to dwell in a place but dwells now in a person. 

Israel’s tabernacle and temple of God were designed for God’s holy presence to dwell with the people of Israel. As J. Daniel Hays writes, “The whole point of building the tabernacle is to create a proper place for the presence of God to dwell in the midst of his people and to travel with them. The climax of the tabernacle story in Exodus is the actual occupation of the tabernacle by God (Exod. 40:34-38).”[72] However, through the incarnation, “God now communicates his relational presence through Jesus, the new temple, a presence no longer restricted to a physical location but now embodied in a person. Jesus becomes the new center of worship, and the coming of the Spirit to followers of Jesus extends the imagery of the new temple beyond his death and resurrection.”[73]

Torrance states, “John is clearly thinking of the Old Testament Tabernacle, the moving tent of meeting, as it was called, the place where God and man met and God revealed himself to man. That tent was lodged in the midst of Israel, and when Israel moved, it moved with it, and when Israel camped, it was pitched in the midst of the camp—and so all through Israel’s pilgrimage.”[74] Likewise, with the Word incarnate, God dwells in our midst through the treacherous wilderness of wickedness in our pilgrimage as the New Israel. But what is so fascinating about this tent of meeting is that it was a fraction of what we experienced in the Garden of Eden. When God was present in the Tabernacle and Temple, His people would feel His presence as He dwelt in their midst. In this way, God would condescend to our world in a special way to unveil His glory. What is so different about the Word tabernacling in our presence is that He did so in our likeness. When the Word of God tabernacles among us, He not only walks in our midst, in a metaphorical or spiritual way, but He literally walks like us, by taking on human flesh, and approaches us as a fellow man.[75] “John makes it clear that God’s glorious presence is now revealed personally and powerfully to all the people, allowing them to see the face of God in Jesus.”[76]

The Tabernacle acted as a type of Christ. “What could not be accomplished through the tabernacle or the temple is fulfilled in Jesus.”[77] It directed our attention to the ultimate fulfillment of the incarnation, where God’s abiding presence is made known fully through the Son of God, who reveals the glory of the Father. As such, God and man are united through the God-man. In John 5:39, Jesus declares that the Scriptures “testify” about Him. To illustrate this point, there are five major parallels between Exodus 33-34 and John 1:14-18.

Figure 2: The Revelation of God in Exodus 33-34 and John 1:14-18[78]

THE “ONLY BEGOTTEN” SON OF GOD THE FATHER

The term monogenes has been translated as “only begotten” but has recently been translated as “one and only” or “one of a kind.”[79] Personally, I would argue for the term “only begotten” because there is more to what John is saying than “this is the Father’s one and only unique Son.” Throughout John’s Gospel, He speaks of the Son being from the Father, and this is one of the ways that John has chosen to communicate the Son’s from-ness. John is saying, as Steven Duby writes, “The person who became flesh is the eternal Word or eternal Son who has (eternally) received from the Father the divine essence.”[80]

The Father-Son relationship in verse 14 clarifies the God-Word relationship introduced in verse 1.[81] The God-Word relationship “attests to the Word’s ancient origins and to its participation already in the first act of the covenant-establishing and -keeping God and Creator” and the Father-Son relationship  “introduces the more personal aspects of love as that between a unique, cherished son and his father, one who, as the heir, would be trusted by his father and entrusted with the most intimate disclosure pertaining to his purposes and plans.”[82] The incarnate Word explains or reveals God the “glory” of God the Father to us, not because He is the Father, but because He is “the only begotten Son from the Father.”

Figure 3: The Word-Made-Flesh and the Son-Father Relationship in John’s Gospel[83]

THE MANIFESTATION OF DIVINE “GLORY”

“The primary way God makes his presence known in John’s Gospel is through his Son, Jesus Christ.”[84] The glory of God revealed in the incarnation is ultimately seen in the climactic fulfillment of the Son’s mission on the cross, where eternal life is granted to the whole world.[85] The apostolic witnesses of God’s glory through the incarnate Word are the apostolic testimony (1 John 1:1-4). It is the glory of God that the apostles were in awe of as they “gazed up” upon Him. This “represents the taking up by the Church into its confession the testimony of the eyewitnesses of the ministry of the Christ.”^[86] For the sake of clarification, we should not mistakenly perceive that those who saw Jesus completely “got it,” because they didn’t. “The visibility of the glory does not mean that the disciples fully comprehend the divine essence; nevertheless, the glory seen by finite creatures in a finite way is still that of the Word’s eternal deity.”[87] 

The fact that the incarnation displays the glory of God the Father further illustrates the nature of the incarnation, where God pitched His tent in our midst. In this way, John “identifies Christ as the true tabernacle in which God’s glory dwells with his people.”[88] God chose the incarnation as the instrument for manifesting God’s glory among us. Through the Word incarnate, we see His self-revelation is “full of grace and truth.” This phrase acts as a summary of the incarnation of the Word. As readers, we are meant to see the incarnation through the lens of divine grace and truth. The incarnation is then to be viewed as a manifestation of divine excellence and majesty. “The glory of the Word was seen in his flesh and not in spite of it.”[89] There is no compromise of God’s gracefulness or truthfulness. Rather, God uniquely displays the fullness of revelation in grace and truth in the person of Jesus Christ, God the Son incarnate. In sum, the Word of God is the divine expression of grace and truth enfleshed.

THE VISIBLE MANIFESTATION OF THE INVISIBLE GOD (JOHN 1:18)

The Word of God is able to do what no one thought was possible since “no one has ever seen God.” God’s invisibility has kept us from perceiving the glory of God. But the incarnation changes everything. The incarnate Word acts as the visible manifestation of the invisible God. Since the Word is the Son of the Father who resides “at the Father’s side,” He is able to unveil the glory of God by making him known to us through the incarnation. “He is the Word who reveals the Father because he is the ‘only God’, who sits ‘at the Father’s side’. Jesus, in other words, is the revelation of God, the Word made flesh; to see him, therefore, is to see the incarnate glory of God (cf. John 14:9).”[90] Here, John returns to the Father-Son or Word-God relationship. “The evangelist here emphasizes the closeness of relationship between Jesus and the Father as the grounds of the ‘full account’ (exēgeomai) borne by Jesus of the Father.”[91] This unique and intimate relationship between the Father and the Son explains how the Word can reveal God’s glory. “His intimate knowledge of the Father enabled the Son to disclose fully his character and plan for humanity.”[92] 

Treier summarizes these verses by saying, “The incarnation is an event with a beginning: ‘became.’ The incarnation is an event with a human body: ‘flesh.’ The incarnation is an event with a subsequent history, and enduring life: ‘made his dwelling among us.’ The incarnation is an event with revelatory significance: ‘the Word,’ whose glory the first disciples saw, overflowing with the ‘grace and truth’ glimpsed by Moses. The incarnation is, therefore, a singular event having no earthly analogies that could sustain full explanation. The incarnation is a reality with its own mysterious rationality, having its cogency in the Logos through whom all creation came to exist and comes to light.”[93]

THE HUMBLE SERVANT AND EXALTED LORD: AN EXEGESIS OF PHILIPPIANS 2:6-11[94]

Philippians 2:6-11 is one of the most Christologically enlightening and refreshing texts in the New Testament. It is a passage that has been heavily debated among scholars and contains one of the most pivotal pieces in unlocking the nature of Christ by unveiling the exaltation of Jesus prior to the incarnation, the eventual humiliation in the incarnation experienced climactically in the crucifixion, and the ultimate exaltation following the resurrection and ascension of Christ.^[95] This is very similar to the hero’s journey, poetry, or hymns.

Exaltation-Humiliation-Exaltation^[96]

1.     Humiliation

a.      His lowly birth

b.     His submission to the law

c.      The sufferings of his life

d.     Bearing the wrath of God

e.      His cursed death on the cross

f.      His burial

g.     Remaining under the power of death after his crucifixion

2.     Exaltation

a.      His resurrection from the dead on the third day

b.     His ascension into heaven

c.      His heavenly session at God’s right hand

d.     His coming again to judge the world

In Philippians 2:6-11, Jesus is presented as the exalted Lord and humble Servant. “Paul identifies Jesus as divine and ascribes to him the act of the incarnation and its logical entailments: self-abasement and servitude.”^[97] There are two prominent alternative interpretations to this passage that will be treated thoroughly elsewhere, which have gained traction among scholars: (1) Adam-Christology^[98] and (2) Kenoticsm.^[99]

THE EXALTED STATE OF CHRIST AS GOD—VERSE 6

CHRIST IS EQUAL TO GOD—HE “EXISTED” IN THE “FORM OF GOD”

Paul is exhorting the Philippians to be like Christ, who humbled Himself and served others. In order to do this, he references the incarnation. “Who,” that is, “Christ Jesus” (Phil. 2:5), “although,” that is to say, even though, “He existed in the form of God” (Phil. 2:6), “have this attitude” of humility like Christ (Phil. 2:5). The word we want to begin with, as we start our exegesis, is the word μορφῇ (“form”), which is used three times in the New Testament, two of which are found in the letter to the Philippians.^[100]

“Form” is one of the three most highly discussed words in this hymn among scholars; the others are ἁρπαγμὸν (“grasped”) and ἐκένωσεν (“emptied”). There are many diverse interpretations of μορφῇ among scholars.^[101] Silva approaches this term with humility in noting that the word’s precise meaning is elusive and difficult to determine without the immediate context.^[102] What we do know for a fact at this time is that it is revealing to us that Christ is equal to God. Since He is in the “form of God,” we understand that He is in the same state of existence or being as God. J.B. Lightfoot observes that this word “must apply to the attributes of the Godhead.”^[103] Silva argues that this is a bit of a stretch to say that this is a reference to Jesus’ essence, attributes, attitude, or appearance being equal with God. However, I believe that we can confidently say that this is speaking of those things. Jesus’ existence in the “form of God” is an essential reality. O’Brien offers the most decisive description of this term when he says “form” is that “which truly and fully expresses the being which underlies it.”^[104] Since Jesus is in the “form of God” then He truly and fully expresses the essence of God. For the sake of clarification, to be in the “form of God” here “does not mean that Jesus was outwardly in the form of God but lacked the inner qualities for deity.”^[105] Likewise, “form of servant” here “does not mean that he appeared to be a servant but in reality was not.”^[106] Thus, if Jesus was in the “form of God” and He is equal with God, then what that means is that everything found within the divine is found in Christ since He is God. If this is true, then this verse explicitly declares that Jesus was truly God!

Jesus shares in the divine nature as He exists in the “form of God.” This is a way of speaking of His eternal “Godness.” Any interpretation that would aim to rid the Godness of Jesus from this verse would be forced upon the text and/or misguided since it would ignore the overall argument being made by Paul.^[107] “The ‘form of God’ signified the divine essence directly and its outward manifestation indirectly, or vice versa.”^[108] To better understand this phrase, it is important to interpret this phrase “form” in light of the two ways Paul applies it: (1) “God” and (2) “servant.” In this way, if Jesus was found in the “form” of “God” and a “servant,” then this means that Jesus truly was God, and He truly was a servant. To clarify, “this does not mean he shared the form of God but somehow lacks some aspect of the essence of God any more than being in the form of a servant somehow means that Christ lacked true humanity.”^[109] By becoming a man and assuming the “form of a servant,” He does not cease to exist in the “form of God.” Rather, “Paul uses the conceptual and communicative power of morphē to affirm the full deity (morphē theou) and humanity (morphēn doulou) of Christ.”^[110] In other words, since Jesus is in the “form of God” and in the “form of a servant,” then He is fully God and fully man.

THE PREEXISTENCE OF CHRIST–JESUS “EXISTED” AS GOD BEFORE BECOMING MAN

As Paul unveils the curtains of eternity by describing the exalted state of Christ, He talks about Jesus’ preexistence by saying He “existed” (emphasis on the past tense) before He was human.^[111] This verse entails “our Lord’s pre-temporal existence as the second person of the trinity.”^[112] Paul is transported to eternity to see the glories of heaven where the Son of God enjoyed the comforts and splendor that are not found on the earth.

G. Walter Hansen suggests that “this word does not in itself denote preexistence. It simply points to a state or circumstance of being.”^[113] I agree that the emphasis is laid upon the fact that Jesus existed in the form or state of being as God. However, I would argue that this can also be a reference to His preexistence prior to the incarnation. Paul used the word ὑπάρχων (“existed”) in the past tense. When this word is used in this way, it is referring to the fact that Christ previously existed, this is speaking of Christ before the incarnation, but it would also be true in reference to His existence before the foundation of creation since He eternally exists (John 1:1-3). It does seem, however, that Paul has Jesus’ pre-incarnate or pre-existent state in mind since he is looking to the exalted status of Christ prior to His humiliation.^[114]

Jesus “existed” in the state of being as God before the incarnation. “The preincarnational person of Christ has always existed as the full expression of what it means to be God. And this same divine person became incarnate, so that Jesus now also exists as the full expression of what it means to be a man-servant.”^[115] To exist in the “form of God” prior to existing in the “form of servant” for Paul entails that Jesus previously existed. Jesus already possessed the character of God before assuming the nature of a servant. That is, Christ existed in His exalted state as God prior to His humiliated state as a human. Notably, Jesus as “a human being cannot take a lower status by becoming a human being because that is what he already and originally is. What Paul says here, then, must refer to Christ’s intention before the incarnation to become a human being.”^[116] Since there was a “before” with Christ, in reference to the incarnation, then this would suggest He must have preexisted His current state. As Bruno, Lee, and Schreiner write, “existing in the form of God indicates that being equal to God was something that Christ already had, not something he was striving to obtain. In short, Christ, in his essence before his incarnation, was divine, and has divinity was intrinsic to his very nature.”^[117]

THE DIVINE NATURE WAS NOT “EXPLOITED” BY JESUS— HE “DID NOT REGARD EQUALITY WITH GOD A THING TO BE GRASPED”

As Jesus existed in the form of God, He “did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped” (Phil. 2:6). Jesus, as will be noted momentarily, became like nothing (a servant) so He could provide us something (salvation).

Jesus did not use His divine nature as something to be “exploited.”^[118] As Hansen says, “He did not consider his divine form, his equality with God, an advantage to exploit.” ^[119] Rather, Christ allowed Himself to take on flesh and experience life the way that we, as humans, experience life. His divine nature was not employed for His own self-interests or to His own advantage. In fact, it was quite the opposite, as we can see in the Gospels. God, namely Jesus, took the outward appearance of a servant while incarnate. He was still God, and yet, He humbled Himself. Thielman wrote that “His equality with God led him to view his status not as a matter of privilege but as a matter of unselfish giving. This is the character of the biblical God, and this was the character of Christ Jesus as well.”^[120] While Jesus was divine, He did not allow Himself to use this to have the upper hand over anyone for His own self-interests; He did not make any selfish choices in respect to His divinity, but rather, every time we see the divinity of Christ displayed within the Gospels, it was always seen in service to humanity.^[121] In other words, in regard to His divinity, as Silva rightly said, “Jesus refused to act selfishly.”^[122]

Jesus did not abuse His divine power nor the privileges of heaven while incarnate but chose to use unveil His divine splendor by promoting the glory of God the Father (John 1:18). As Bowman and Komoszewski write, “the preexistent divine Christ did not try to seize recognition of his rightful status of equality with God but chose to put the glory of the Father ahead of his own glory.”^[123] The humility of God the Son incarnate was not an opportunity for Jesus to aim for personal gain and self-promotion as a superior but chose to take the form of a servant and sacrifice Himself for the sake of others. Schreiner says:

“Paul assumes that Jesus is equal with God. The verse does not teach that Jesus quit trying to attain equality with God. Rather, Paul emphasizes that Jesus did not take advantage of or exploit the equality with God that he already possessed. Furthermore, saying that Jesus emptied himself implies a self-conscious decision on his part to do so, and such a decision is possible, of course, only for one who has consciousness and existence. It follows, then, that this hymn teaches the preexistence of Jesus. He shared the divine nature before he took humanity upon himself.”^[124]

“Equality with God” (ἴσα θεῷ)^[125] is another way of saying that Jesus existed in “the form of God” (μορφῇ θεοῦ).^[126] This is an ontological equality and unity “with God” as God.^[127] From all eternity, Jesus was equal with God, and yet He did not trade or relinquish His equality with God for something else but took on another form and became equal with humanity. “Christ, who existed in the form of God was also equal with God.”^[128]

One might assume that Jesus already possesses equality with God since He could potentially use His divinity as something to use for His advantage or as something He could exploit. As Hurtado says, “this phrase “seems to be presented as something already held by Christ or really within Christ’s grasp, for he is pictured as refusing to exploit this status for selfish advantage.”^[129] When Paul is saying that Jesus did “not regard” His “equality with God” as something “to be grasped” or “exploited,” he is not viewing this as Jesus either gains or loses but as something He is unwilling to use for His advantage.^[130]  Instead, the point is about Jesus’ attitude concerning His divine identity and status.^[131] Rather than appealing to His “equality with God” and using His divine status to His advantage, He assumed the role of a servant to save all of humanity. In this way, “the Son did not regard equality with God as excusing him from the task of redemptive suffering and death; his equality with God uniquely qualified him for that vocation.”^[132]

THE HUMILATION OF GOD BECOMING MAN—VERSES 7-8

GOD THE SON INCARNATE EMPTIED HIMSELF? –JESUS BECAME “LIKE NOTHING” TO BECOME A SERVANT

Now we approach the most difficult phrase in this text, “but” Christ “emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men” (Phil. 2:7). This phrase is idiomatic in nature. That is to say, the word μορφὴν denotes a nature that was very familiar to native Greeks. If we were to take this word from its original context, it would have a particular meaning that is different from what the context would suggest. It is vital that we study this word within its context rather than separating it and assuming its meaning from our own context.

As we begin, we read the phrase ἀλλὰ ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσεν μορφὴν, which has been translated as “emptied Himself,” as most English translations read (CSB, ESV, KJV, NASB, NET, NRSV). However, perhaps it is best to translate this phrase as the NIV does, as “made himself nothing.” This does not mean that Jesus literally became nothing, as it does not mean that He literally emptied Himself. However, for our Western context, this translation makes it easier for us to comprehend the idiom Paul means to convey in this hymn. Jesus did not “empty” Himself of something. If He emptied Himself of His divine nature, He would cease to be God, which is an impossibility. God cannot stop being God. He did not become “nothing” because then He would cease to exist. For God not to exist would be an impossibility. Instead, this “emptying” should be understood as a “divestiture of position or prestige.” (BDAG) In light of this, Paul is not saying that Jesus gave up His nature but instead denied the use of His status. In this way, “the phrase is intended to encapsulate for the readers the whole descent of Christ from highest glory to lowest depths.”^[133]

When Jesus “emptied himself,” he is not throwing away His divinity because, as Wellum concisely states, “The incarnation is not an act of subtraction; it’s an act of addition.”^[134] Additionally, “the nature of the ‘emptying’ is clearly explained, namely, the Son’s ‘emptying’ was the addition of a human nature.”^[135] Elsewhere, Wellum notes this term is “a metaphorical expression that refers not to the subtraction or reduction of divine attributes but to the addition of a human nature.” ^[136] Notice how Jesus does not empty Himself of something but instead assumes a new state of existence, namely, as a servant. “The text says nothing about Christ’s ‘emptying’ as the giving up of divine attributes; rather, it consists in the adding to himself a complete human nature and in that human nature willingly undergoing the agony of death for our salvation.”^[137]

Here, Paul’s language is meant to convey the humility of Christ. “For Paul, when Christ took the form a servant and the likeness of humanity, he emptied himself of the privilege that was his by right, but did nothing to his ontological divine nature.”^[138] Further, “The emptying of Christ is not a displacement of his divine nature but is a specially focused act. It is an act of humility in which Christ Jesus, who existed in the form of God, willingly took on human flesh.”^[139]

The idea that Paul is conveying to the Philippians is that Jesus, when He dwelt among us like a tabernacle, He abandoned His rights as God and He chose not to have an advantage over anyone else while incarnate, and so, when He was in our likeness, He was, in essence, nothing special. He was a nobody from nowhere. He was the son of a carpenter, born in Bethlehem, lived in Nazareth, and died on a rugged tree. And so, instead of Jesus holding His heavenly position with all of its privileges, Jesus humbled and emptied Himself to be a servant.^[140] This is the scandal of the incarnation, “the eternal Son, who had all the rights of deity, become a nobody and willingly submitted to his Father’s will for us.”^[141]

THE NATURE OF THE INCARNATION— HE TOOK ON THE “FORM OF A BOND-SERVANT”

The way in which Jesus made Himself like nothing was by “taking the form of a bond-servant” (Phil. 2:7). He took on this new mode of existence that He did not have prior to the incarnation. The God-man contained this dual nature where He had equality with God, since He shared in His essence, and had equality with humanity, since He shared in their likeness. “Christ’s condescension in becoming human and taking the form of a slave was an attitude that expressed the very nature of God.”^[142]

When taking on human form and assuming the role of a servant, He would, of course, be making Himself a nobody. He would dedicate His life to servitude, placing others (those He serves) above Himself. Servants, by nature, have no rights. “By contrast, the eternal Son has always had all of the rights of deity. He was one with God. Yet precisely because of this, he did not perceive his equality with God as something to be exploited, but became a nobody.”^[143] Jesus’ purpose for being human was to be a servant. He volunteered to assume our human nature. That is, Christ becoming a servant was not a responsibility thrust upon Him instead He chose to serve rather than to be served.

With this use of the term δούλου (“slave” or “servant”), the reference may be alluding to a number of different Old Testament descriptions of the “servant.” It could be that this is referring to Isaiah’s prophecy of the Suffering Servant of the Lord (Is. 42:1-4; 49:1-6; 50:4-9; 52:13-53:12) or Christ’s role as a servant or slave while incarnate (Mark 10:44; John 13:1-20). On the one hand, the reference is to Christ fulfilling His purpose in providing salvation for all through His death. On the other hand, the reference is to Christ's life and example as a humble servant. Both of these may be in mind.

In a Greco-Roman context, the slave or servant was a common practice. In fact, Paul would write about a situation while he was imprisoned^[144] between a master (Philemon) and a servant (Onesimus). This idea of a servant would not be foreign to first-century Christians. However, in reference to Christ, it may be challenging to think of Him in those terms, as it is for us today. It should be noted that Christ becoming a servant was not a responsibility thrust upon Him. He chose to serve rather than to be served. He was not born a servant, but He assumed the role of a servant. He was obedient to the will of God and served the needs of others. “Paul is not merely making a claim about ontology, about mere essence or being. Jesus lives and acts and functions as a servant.”^[145] Jesus would say to His disciples that “the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many” (Matt. 20:28).

By becoming a slave in a Greco-Roman context, Jesus surrenders all of His rights and assumes the role of one who is viewed as the lowest form of a human being with the lowest social status.^[146] Understandably, when Jesus becomes a man, He is surrendering the glory of heaven and assuming something that is less glorious. But Jesus does not assume the role of a king, like we thought, but instead takes on the most unlikely position as a servant.

THE HUMANITY OF CHRIST—HE WAS “MADE IN THE LIKENESS OF MEN” AND WAS “FOUND IN APPEARANCE AS A MAN”

Jesus became what He was not before: human. His essence is similar to or equal to human beings. If Christ were to take the role of a servant and to be truly human, He must be “made in the likeness of men” (Phil. 2:7). At this point, Paul is making a parallel between Jesus “taking the form of a bond-servant” with Him “being made in the likeness of men.” Paul is saying, in essence, that Jesus was truly human. Jesus’ birth, while miraculous, was like ours.^[147] He had a body, mind, emotions, and soul like us.^[148] Witnesses testify that Jesus appeared to look like us. Paul is not using a simile, where he is saying Jesus is “like” a human, like “men” (Phil. 2:8). But Paul is using this to say that Jesus’ essence is similar to or equal to human beings. What Paul is saying is that everything found within a human is found in Christ. This, as Thielman clarifies, “does not indicate a difference between Christ and humanity, but an essential identity.”^[149] Paul was concerned with Jesus’ similarity with humans rather than their dissimilarities. While incarnate, Jesus was both human and divine. “Christ Jesus became human in the exact sense, in every sense that makes one truly human.”^[150]

This is not meant to convey that Jesus was like or almost like a human. In other words, Paul is not using this term as a simile. Rather, Paul is saying that He was fashioned in our likeness, He is just like us. Everything found within human beings is what was found in Jesus Christ when He was incarnate. It is also not meant to convey that He merely appeared on the outside to be human but, in reality, was not. Jesus truly was human! Everything we read in the gospels testifies to the authenticity of His human experience. As Thomas R. Schreiner notes, “the text does not mean that he appeared to be a servant but in reality was not. Jesus truly because a servant, which was manifested in the taking on of humanity.”^[151]

Jesus had both equality and substantial unity with God, and He did not express His divine nature in order to get ahead and thereby exploit His status; but rather, He humbled Himself by taking the form of a man and assuming the role of a servant.^[152] Herman Bavinck notes that the incarnation, by nature, was a humiliation of Himself. “The incarnation itself was already a self-emptying (κενωσις) that consisted in Christ–who existed in the form of God, that is, in the same way as God existed, and did not consider this as something stolen or wrongfully assumed–relinquishing this divine mode of existence and assuming the form of a servant, so that he was truly born in human likeness and found in human form.”^[153]

Since Paul has established that Jesus was truly human, it would follow that when others saw Him, He would be “found in appearance as a man” (Phil. 2:8). Jesus has always been and always will be. He has eternally existed with His divine essence, even while incarnate. He was always found to be in the appearance of the divine, though no man has ever or could ever see Him in all His glory. But now, Jesus becomes and appears to be something He was not before, human. As has already been established, this does not mean that Jesus merely appeared as a human, but rather, Paul is saying that He appeared, in every way recognizable, that He was truly human. “The initiative taken by Christ,” as Treier says, “consisted in becoming subject to a lowly status and merely human perception.”^[154]

[“Taking the form of a bond-servant” = “being made in the likeness of men”]

THE HUMILIATION OF THE INCARNATION—HE “HUMBLED HIMSELF” AND BECAME “OBEDIENT TO THE POINT OF DEATH” ON THE “CROSS”

The incarnation can be summarized by the word “humiliation.” Since Jesus took on our form, it follows that “He humbled Himself” (Phil. 2:8). The humility Christ endured is the humility the Church is called to experience (Phil. 2:3). Christians should follow Jesus’ example of humility. His humility is expressed through His self-sacrificial activities. As Udo Schnelle writes, “The obedience of the humiliated Christ appears as the foil to the self-interest and quarreling that the church must overcome.”^[155]

We now see the extent of Christ’s humility through His obedient and self-sacrificial death. “By becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross” (Phil. 2:8). From Christ’s example, the Church may understand on a most intimate level, namely, that humility involves a voluntary action. Just as Christ chose to give His life for them, they are to give themselves in a self-sacrificial way. “Jesus Christ not only renounces his equality with God and his life but dies in the most extreme shame conceivable.”^[156] There is no greater form of humility than to give one’s own life for another. But Jesus’ humility and obedience were evident prior to His death on the cross. In fact, as Herman Bavinck rightly points out, “Christ accomplished this obedience throughout the entire state of his humiliation.”^[157] Furthermore, “The incarnation itself was already a self-emptying (κενωσις) that consisted in Christ–who existed in the form of God, that is, in the same way as God existed, and did not consider this as something stolen or wrongfully assumed–relinquishing this divine mode of existence and assuming the form of a servant, so that he was truly born in human likeness and found in human form.”^[158]

The extent of Jesus’ humility is expressed when He gave His life as a servant for God’s glory. Just as Christ chose to give His life for them, they are to give themselves in a self-sacrificial way. The Bible constantly teaches that Jesus was sent to the cross to save humanity from their sins because of God’s love for the world (John 3:16). However, in this text, Paul teaches that Christ died due to His submission to God. This is similar to what Jesus said, “I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me” (John 6:38). Jesus' submission to the will of God came at a price. Jesus took on flesh and lived a life where He was hated. He died a cruel death and gave His life for all. This was not the picture many Jews had when they imagined the Messiah. To see Him as a servant that would suffer death on a cross was incredibly difficult to reconcile.

The humiliation of Christ is seen in His incarnation and is further demonstrated through His crucifixion. The ultimate display of humiliation for one who has equality with God is death on a cross, the most humiliating form of suffering and death under the Roman empire. When Christ emptied and humbled Himself by becoming a servant, He was then led to the cross, where He would endure a painful and shameful death. Hengel describes crucifixion as “the most cruel and hideous form of punishment” in the Greco-Roman world.^[159] Likewise, Theilman notes, “Crucifixion was the cruelest form of official execution in the Roman empire, and although a Roman citizen might experience it if convicted of high treason, it was commonly reserved for the lower classes, especially slaves.”^[160] In light of this, we may now see the depths of Jesus’ humiliation as “Christ laid down his divine prerogatives to become human and die in the manner of the worst of criminals.”^[161] Of course, for a Gentile audience, this would present some difficulty to the gospel message since the Savior of all humanity died in such a shameful way. As Paul would say to the Corinthians, this message was “to Jews a stumbling block and to Gentiles foolishness” (1 Cor. 1:23). In fact, Paul may have been offended by the humiliation of the cross.^[162] Yet, the cross is central to not only the incarnation but also our salvation.

It is almost unimaginable to think that our God would leave the highest position in heaven and humble Himself to the point of taking our form in the lowest way possible, “death on a cross.” “Presumably,” as Schriener notes, “Jesus could have been feted as a king and chosen not to die. Not only did he consent to become a human being, but also he was willing to undergo the agony of death for the sake of others. Not only did he consent to die, but he subjected himself to the most degrading and humiliating and excruciatingly painful death in the Greco-Roman world—death on a cross.”^[163]

THE EXALTATION OF CHRIST AS LORD—VERSES 9-11

THE BESTOWAL OF DIVINE HONOR—JESUS WAS “HIGHLY EXALTED” BY THE FATHER AT HIS GLORIFICATION

“For this reason also” is meant to reflect what was previously stated about the Son’s humility in the incarnation and His obedience to the extent of sacrificing Himself through means of crucifixion (Phil. 2:9). This is the purpose of Christ’s exaltation. When Jesus humbled Himself, God exalted His Son and gave Him a name exalted above every name because of His obedience. This does not mean that Christ was exalted with an even greater authority than He had before. There is no greater honor or character than what Christ possessed, having equality with God and possessing the very nature of the divine (Phil. 2:6).

Christ’s state in the incarnation may be considered as a humiliation since God humbled Himself by becoming human. When Christ was lifted up on the cross, like the brazen serpent, He was humiliated. But now, it is not Roman soldiers that are lifting Christ up; it is the Father who has “highly exalted Him” (Phil. 2:9). God did not do this to humiliate Him; He did it to honor Him. To exalt Him above all creation. God took the initiative to exalt Christ above and beyond to this state of glory that He enjoyed prior to His incarnation. As David Roper notes, “His humiliation came in stages, but He was exalted in one grand act.”^[164] His death on the cross was the greatest act of humiliation, as Paul has previously mentioned, but the acts of His exaltation are found in His resurrection from the dead, ascension to heaven, and His glorification to the Father’s right hand. This was to “make his superiority more fully evident to the creation over which he rules.”^[165]

THE EXALTED NAME OF CHRIST—GOD “BESTOWED ON HIM THE NAME WHICH IS ABOVE EVERY NAME”

Upon the Son’s humiliation, especially at His crucifixion, He is seen to be highly exalted by God the Father with the honor that belonged to Him prior to His incarnation. Based upon the language of “highly exalted” (ὑπερύψωσεν), Holloway argues that Christ has been elevated to a higher position than He had before the incarnation.^[166] However, it is more like that Paul is saying, as Fee writes, God the Father “exalted him to the highest possible degree.”^[167] Here, Paul is describing God the Father who honors His Son with an elevated name He has had for all eternity. Bauckham rightly notes:

“The verb does not indicate that God has exalted Jesus to a higher status than he had previously occupied (whether in pre-existence or in mortal life), but that God has exalted him to a higher status than that of anyone or anything else, i.e. to the pre-eminent position in the whole cosmos…God gives him the name that is ‘higher’ than any other, his own uniquely divine name, because he exalts him to the status that is higher than any other, his own uniquely divine status.”^[168]

When we read passages of God bestowing a name to Jesus “we should,” as Bowman and Komoszewski suggest, “read all such statements about God granting Jesus a ‘name’ at his resurrection and ascension as honor language—as expressing the honor that God showed to his Son before the whole world.”^[169] In this context, “the act of giving Jesus Christ ‘the name above every name’ was appropriate as a way of affirming that this person, who was fully and genuinely human, was indeed the Lord.”^[170] Orr comments, “It may be that Paul understands two successive events: exaltation and then bestowal of the name. However, if the kai is epexegetic (explanatory), the bestowal of the name is the exaltation. That seems to fit this context where the emphasis is not on the position of Christ (at God’s hand) but the response of worship to his new name.”^[171] He further notes:

“The exaltation of Jesus does bring a change in his identity. Not his identity considered in terms of his singularity, what he is in and of himself (he was equal with God form eternity, 2:6), but in terms of his relationships. Nevertheless, this equality with God was something that in some way he laid aside in his descent to the cross. After his death, Jesus was exalted as God himself publicly gave him the name Lord and by revealing his true identity that he had with him from eternity.”^[172]

“As Jesus is publicly given that name he is enabled to fulfill the function in a fuller way than he was able to fulfil it in his earthly life.”^[173] The exalted status of the Lord Jesus Christ would have been true prior to His resurrection. But the resurrection of Christ acts as the elevation of Jesus as Lord for all of creation to witness. “Following his public exaltation by God and the public bestowing of the name Jesus, his lordship (and the saying benefits of calling on his name) are announced to the world. His identity ‘expands’, then, not in the sense of taking on something wholly new (that it did not have before), but by being more widely and clearly known.”^[174]

It was God who “bestowed on Him the name which is above every name” (Phil. 2:9). At this point, we are not told what the name is, laying emphasis upon the status of the name rather than the name itself. “This can only mean that at Christ’s exaltation the process began by which the equality with God that Jesus always possessed would be acknowledged by all creation.”^[175] One may argue that the name being referenced is “Jesus” or “Lord,” but it is more than likely the name YHWH, in light of the allusion to Isaiah 45:23 in Philippians 2:10-11.^[176]

The ὄνομα τὸ ὑπὲρ πᾶν ὄνομα (“name which is above every name”) that Jesus has been honored or bestowed with (Phil. 2:9) is the title “Lord,” which Paul does not state until verse 10, when he speaks of every tongue confessing the Lordship of Jesus. One of the most significant elements of Paul’s Christology is his use of the title κύριος where he identifies Jesus as Lord. “The fact that ‘Lord’ is so regularly appended to ‘Jesus Christ,’ particularly in the formal language of letter openings and closings, is a reminder that the kyrious title is what denotes the Lord Jesus Christ’s special status and dignity.”^[177] It is a name that reflects His essence. It acknowledges His achievements and responsibilities. It is a name that was given vindication proceeding His death.^[178] “There will not be universal salvation; there will be universal confession as to who he is. That means that either we repent and confess him by faith as Lord now, or we will confess him in shame and terror on the last day. But confess him we will.”^[179] Alternatively, Bauckham argues that the name is YHWH and suggests that Kurios (“Lord”) is not, strictly speaking, a Greek translation of the Lord’s name but is “a conventional Greek reverential substitute for the name.”^[180]

THE GLORY OF CHRIST AS LORD—JESUS IS WORTHY OF WORSHIP AS ALL OF CREATION WILL BEND THE KNEE AND CONFESS “JESUS CHRIST IS LORD, TO THE GLORY OF GOD THE FATHER”

As a result of God exalting His Son, every creature, in heaven or on earth, will be on their knees and bowing before the Lord who rules over all realms of existence (Phil. 2:10). This worship that Paul is declaring belongs to the Son of God is only something that belongs to the Lord (Is. 45:23-24).^[181] Since He has already identified Jesus as a being that is equal to God, since He is God, then this worship is acceptable. This dignifies Jesus as deity. God, and God alone, is to be worshipped. Silva comments, “The worship of Jesus Christ does not compromise Israel’s monotheistic faith. On the contrary, Jesus Christ the righteous Savior bears the name of the one Lord, Yahweh.”^[182] Indeed, this identification of Jesus as the God of Israel maintains the uniqueness of God’s name while including Jesus within the scope of its use. As Bauckham notes:

“In Jewish monotheism, the unique name of God, YHWH, names his unique identity. It is exclusive to the one God in a way that the sometimes ambiguous word ‘god’ is not. Hence, the bearing of this divine name by the exalted Jesus signifies unequivocally his inclusion in the unique divine identity, recognition of which is precisely what worship in the Jewish monotheistic tradition expresses.”^[183]

Notice how when Christ is worshipped, the Father will be glorified; those things will be done “to the glory of God the Father” (Phil. 2:11). Dunn suggests that Jesus possesses the glory of “universal lordship,” but the “supreme glory” belongs to God the Father.  In this way, the Son has a lesser glory than the Father. This interpretation seems inappropriate since Paul does not appear to be ranking the glory of the Son and the Father, but rather demonstrates how, when the Father elevates the Son, the Son is elevating the Father’s glory.

We also notice the doctrine of the Trinity from the distinction that is made between two persons of the Godhead. Jesus, as the Second Person of the Godhead (Son), is distinguished between the Father, and the First Person of the Godhead (Phil. 2:11). Though there is a distinction that is made between the two persons, they are equal in essence. “It will be to God’s glory because God is glorified when Christ is glorified. Further, God is glorified because, by His divine example, Jesus showed that God’s true nature is one of giving rather than getting.”^[184] It should also be noted that when Jesus is worshipped, He does not replace God but is included within the worship that is exclusively attributed to the God of Israel. In fact, when Jesus is glorified, He is not robbing God of His glory since the glory that is given to Jesus is given “to the glory of God the Father.”

Though Jesus humbled Himself to the extent of assuming our nature and becoming a servant, it was God who was glorified in the end! We began this hymn with Jesus in His previous exalted state, then began to read of how He did not use His divine nature for Himself but used it for the glory of God and the service of others. He truly did take on our form; He was just like us. He was a nobody who served everybody. But then we sorrowfully noticed the extent of His obedience to God’s will, His death upon the cross. However, even in death, God was still glorified as the Father exalted Him, and all creation worshipped Him. May we love and worship the Lord who humbled Himself and has been exalted, “so that at the name of Jesus” we may willfully “bow” on our knees and “confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father” (Phil. 2:10-11).

THE NECESSITY OF THE INCARNATION

THE INDISPENSABILITY OF THE GOD-MAN

Anselm famously asked, Cur Deus Homo? (“Why did God become man?”). In response, it was necessary, according to His grace. God chose before the foundation of the world to send God the Son to earth to take on human flesh and become like us to redeem us. Wellum says, “The eternal Son of God became a man to accomplish the will and plan of God as a man.”[185] In essence, it was according to God’s plan for the Son to become man so that man may have a Savior and Mediator.

WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THE INCARNATION?

Long before Anselm wrestled with the reason for the incarnation, Athanasius surveyed the Scriptures and viewed the origin of the incarnation from God’s perspective. He declared, “The incorporeal and incorruptible and immaterial Word of God entered our world.” But why did God become man? He begins by analyzing God’s omnipresence and engagement with creation. “He was not far from it before, for no part of creation had ever been without Him Who, while ever abiding in union with the Father, yet fills all things that are.” God was always present in creation, yet there is something different when God is present in the incarnation. Indeed, “He entered the world in a new way, stooping to our level in His love and Self-revealing to us.” But what purpose did the incarnation serve? At this point, the answer is clear to Athanasius that the reason God became man is that He saw everything.

“He saw the reasonable race, the race of men that, like Himself, expressed the Father’s Mind, wasting out of existence, and death reigning over all in corruption. He saw the corruption held us all the closer, because it was the penalty for the Transgression; He saw, too, how unthinkable it would be for the law to be repealed before it was fulfilled. He saw how unseemly it was that the very things of which He Himself was the Artificer should be disappearing. He saw how the surpassing wickedness of men was mounting up against them; He saw also their universal liability to death. All this He saw, and pitying our race, moved with compassion for our limitation, unable to endure that death should have the mastery, rather than that His creatures should perish and the work of His Father for us men come to nought He took to Himself a body, a human body even as our own.”[186]

In a culture that minimizes the dangers of sin, it is difficult to understand the necessity of the incarnation. However, the implications of sin have not gone unnoticed by God. He saw sin corrupting His good and beautiful creation and was unsatisfied by the wickedness that supplanted His design for humanity. Thus, the reason why God became man was to save humanity from their sins–the incarnation was a rescue mission.

WAS THE INCARNATION NECESSARY?

Children often use the words “want” and “need” interchangeably. When a little boy is craving sugar, he may plead with his parents that he needs ice cream or a cookie when he really wants it. Of course, the child does not need these delicacies because dessert is a luxury and not a necessity. The child can live without sugar but needs vegetables since they serve nutritional value. But theologians may use the word “need” or “necessary” to describe God in a way that is childish. Rather than expressing what is true in God, they are actually exposing their desires for God to do what they want Him to do.

Anselm was aware of this abuse and was careful when he used the word “necessary” since it may leave the impression that God is forced to do specific actions because they are deemed “necessary.” He states, “There is a necessity which takes away or lessens our gratitude to a benefactor, and there is also a necessity by which the favor deserves still greater thanks. For when one does a benefit from a necessity to which he is unwillingly subjected, less thanks are due him, or none at all.” Alternatively, “When he freely places himself under the necessity of benefiting another, and sustains that necessity without reluctance, then he certainly deserves greater thanks for the favor. For this should not be called necessity but grace, inasmuch as he undertook or maintains it, not with any constraint, but freely.”[187] Here, Anselm helpfully outlines the implications of what it would mean for the incarnation to be necessary. If God were compelled to become man then this action may be done out of reluctance or obligation rather than by grace and mercy. However, the incarnation is an expression of divine freedom where God freely chose to become man according to His grace. God does not become man because He had to by necessity, but He does so by grace. God is not forced to help us, but He is doing us a favor. Indeed, God is not made to do what He does not want to do. “God does nothing by necessity, since he is not compelled or strained in anything.”[188]

For Anselm, “it is improper to affirm of God that he does anything, or that he cannot do it, of necessity.” Instead, he argues “all necessity and impossibility is under his control.” However, “his choice is subject to no necessity nor impossibility. For nothing is necessary or impossible save as He wishes it.” In other words, all things that God wills are possible. In contrast, “the very choosing or refusing anything as a necessity or an impossibility is contrary to truth. Since, then, he does what he chooses and nothing else, as no necessity or impossibility exists before his choice or refusal, so neither do they interfere with his acting or not acting, though it be true that his choice and action are immutable.” He further clarifies, “When God does a thing, since it has been done it cannot be undone, but must remain an actual fact; still, we are not correct in saying that it is impossible for God to prevent a past action from being what it is. For there is no necessity or impossibility in the case whatever but the simple will of God, which chooses that truth should be eternally the same, for he himself is truth.” When God acts in time, those past actions remain fixed in history. It is not correct to conclude from this statement that God is incapable of undoing the past, as though He is lacking in power. Rather, God controls all things throughout all time and thus history unfolds according to His omnipotent and immutable will. Likewise, truth is wrapped up in the essence and purpose of God. It is not as though God is bound by truth, and it cannot change, but the truth is located in none other than God, and the truth remains true because God wills it to be true. In addition, “If he has a fixed determination to do anything, though is design must be destined to an accomplishment before it comes to pass, yet there is no coercion as far as he is concerned either to do it or not to do it, for his will is the sole agent in the case.” Here, God maintains control and remains in the driver’s seat. No exterior agents can influence God’s decisions since He acts according to His immutable and free will.

Anselm pushes back against those who may say, “God cannot do a thing” because it inevitably reduces His power and limits God. He responds by saying, “Nothing can compel God to do the thing which is said to be impossible for him.” In other words, one cannot say “God must do X, Y, or Z” because God is not compelled to do X, Y, or Z when God never said He would do X, Y, or Z. God only does things that He wills, and He only wills things that He will do. The reason why Anselm is careful not to use the word “necessary” to describe God’s choices is that “necessity is always either compulsion or restraint.” These two alternatives have negative implications since “whatever is obliged to exist is also prevented from non-existence; and that which is compelled not to exist is prevented from existence. So that whatever exists from necessity cannot avoid existence, and it is impossible for a thing to exist which is under a necessity of nonexistence, and vice versa.” Here, Anselm explains necessary existence. If a thing exists, then it cannot not exist because its nonexistence is impossible. In other words, if a thing necessarily exists, then it cannot help but exist.

Anselm concludes, therefore, if the word “necessary” is ever applied to God, it should not be viewed as “coercive” or “prohibitive,” but rather, as “a necessity in everything else, restraining or driving them in a particular way.” Thus, to say it is necessary for God to become man means that it is in alignment with His character. Indeed, His death on the cross was according to the “unchangeableness of his purpose, by which he freely became man for this design.”[189]

WAS THE CRUCIFIXION A CHOICE?

The cross is indispensable from the incarnation. The Word became man to suffer and die. As we have recently explored, the incarnation was the will of God, but here, we will evaluate whether the death of Christ was, in fact, the will of Christ. A major contribution of Anselm’s Cur Deus Homo is his development of John 10:17-18 with the special emphasis on Jesus’ choice to die and rise again. John 10:17-18 is located within a dialogue on Jesus as the “good shepherd” (John 10:11, 14), which carries allusions from Psalm 23, Isaiah 40, Ezekiel 34, and Zechariah 13.[190] God entered the fields to tend to the “sheep” (John 10:15, 17-18) and rescue them from impending danger (John 10:12-13). The shepherd saves the sheep by laying down His life for the sheep (John 10:14). The reason why the shepherd is willing to lay down His life is because He knows the Father and He knows His sheep (John 10:14-15). Likewise, the Son of God lays down His life because He knows the Father and His disciples and volunteers to die in the place of His sheep for the glory of the Father.

The decision to die on the cross and rise from the grave was in the hands of Jesus according to the will of the Father. God became man, not of necessity, but according to His own “will,” “power,” and “free authority.”[191] It is improper to conclude that Jesus had to die, as though He could not avoid death or act otherwise. Nor is it accurate to affirm that Jesus wanted to die, as though Jesus became man because He had a death wish. Rather, it is crucial that the Son of God would surrender His life to die for God’s glory and man’s salvation because, as Anselm says, “he who wishes to make atonement for man’s sin should be one who can die if he chooses.” The Son of God does not act contrary to His character, nor is he compelled to act in any sort of way that He does not will. Instead, the incarnate Word assumed human flesh according to His purpose; in other words, it was “his fixed choice to die.”[192] In the Hunger Games, Katniss Everdeen volunteers as a tribute to stand in the place of her younger sister Prim to fight in her stead for District 12. Likewise, the Son of God volunteers as a tribute to stand in the place of all sinners and die in their stead. This is evidently seen when Christ suffers the fate that Barabbas deserved (Matt. 27:16-26, Mark 15:6-15, Luke 23:18-25, and John 18:39-40).

The Son of God was not forced by the Godhead or humanity to come to earth and die. “For,” as Anselm says, “The Father did not compel him to suffer death, or even allow him to be slain, against his will, but of his own accord he endured death for the salvation of men.”[193] Jesus did not have to die in the sense that He was constrained to die. Rather, by His own volition, Jesus willfully died on the cross.

“No man except this one ever gave to God what he was not obliged to lose, or paid a debt he did not owe. But he freely offered to the Father what there was no need of his ever losing, and paid for sinners what he owed not for himself. Therefore he set a much nobler example, that each one should not hesitate to give to God, for himself, what he must at any rate lose before long, since it was the voice of reason; for he, when not in want of anything for himself and not compelled by others, who deserved nothing of him but punishment, gave so precious a life, even the life of so illustrious a personage, with such willingness.”[194]

It is noble for one to die for another. Admittedly, one will die for those they love and may even dare to die for their neighbor. Yet, no one has had the audacity to do what Christ did on the cross when He died for His enemies (Rom. 5:6-11). In addition, Anselm adds:

“Our Lord Jesus, when he wished, as we have said, to suffer death, ought to have done precisely what he did; because he ought to be what he wished, and was not bound to do anything as a debt. As he is both God and man, in connection with his human nature, which made him a man, he must also have received from the Divine nature that control over himself which freed him from all obligation, except to do as he chose. In like manner, as one person of the Trinity, he must have had whatever he possessed of his own right, so as to be complete in himself, and could not have been under obligations to another, nor have need of giving anything in order to be repaid himself.” [195]

Some speculate that God could have saved humanity in some alternative fashion or that He could have died in some other manner. These speculations suggest that God could have redeemed without death or that the death of Christ could have been more honorable.[196] However, as the New Testament shows, there was no other way for God to save than for the Son of God to shed His own blood on the cross. God knew from all eternity that He would send the beloved Son to suffer and die, and the Son chose to suffer and die to save. Athanasius similarly concluded, “In no other way was it expedient for us, indeed the Lord offered for our sakes the one death that was supremely good.”[197]

WHY DID THE FATHER SEND THE SON?

In Galatians 4:4-5, when Paul spoke of the timing of Christ’s arrival, he was talking about “the moment in salvation history when God deemed it appropriate to initiate the work of redemption by sending his Son into the world.”[198] It is God the Father who foreordained or determined the appropriate “time.” But why was it fitting for God the Father to send the Son two thousand years ago? It is because all points of human history are lining up to this moment in time when, as Matthew Harmon says, “the conviction that God sent his Son into the world in fulfillment of his promises is at the heart of the gospel message. He directed all of human history to the fullness of time when the Son would enter the world and accomplish the redemption of his people, Jew and gentile alike.”[199] Redemptive history culminates in the Father’s sending of His Son. The fullness of time is the dawning of a new age of redemption where the coming of the Messiah becomes a reality.  The timing of the incarnation was “fitting” to God’s will. As Aquinas says, “It was not fitting that God should become incarnate at the beginning of the world, so also it was not fitting that the Incarnation should be put off till the end of the world.”[200] God sent the Son at the right time to save all of humanity throughout all of time.

Paul refers to Jesus’ mission as “God sent his Son” so He may redeem all of humanity. Fred Sander describes this “sending” as both “unprecedented and surprising.” It is “unprecedented” because “God has sent many messengers and delivers in the past, but the one sent now ‘in the fullness of time’ is a culminating figure” and it is “surprising” because “although the coming of the Redeemer was prophesied (especially under the heading of Messiah, the Son of David whom God would claim as his own Son), his arrival reveals him to be more than had been expected.”[201] The sending of the Son reveals the necessity of His mission in the incarnation. This sending involved the incarnation and requires His human nature and Jewish ethnicity since He was “born of a woman,” just like all human beings, and was “born under the law,” just like every Jew. Jesus was “born under the law, to redeem those under the law,” which entails a liberation from the enslavement of the law of Moses. Douglas Moo points out, “Christ becomes a slave to the law so that those who are enslaved under that law might be set free.”[202] This redemption allows all who were under bondage to become the children of God, “so that we might receive adoption as sons.” In other words, all who are redeemed by the Son of God are granted the status of sonship. As Moo says, “Paul is claiming not only that we believers become his adopted children, with all the rights and privileges pertaining to that status, but also that we have become his own people, inheriting the status and blessing promised to his people Israel.”[203] Likewise, Harmon writes, “The death and resurrection of Jesus to redeem his people—Jew and gentile alike—from the penalty of their sin deserved was not an end in and of itself, as glorious as that reality is. Christ’s work of redemption was for the further purpose of believers receiving adoption as sons.”[204] Thomas Schreiner suggests the redemptive work of the cross should be viewed as both “apocalyptic and salvation-historical.” He writes:

“Jesus came at the time designated by God (Gal. 4:2) as one sent by God (4:4), fulfilling the ancient promises. God’s covenant promises were fulfilled with the arrival of the long-awaited Messiah. At the same time, we have an apocalyptic act since God invaded history in a surprising and climactic way. We have a fulfillment that occurred in a dramatic manner, an invasion that shattered the rule of demonic powers and dethroned the authority of sin and death.”[205]

It is also significant that the Father sent the Son and not the Spirit, and it is significant that the Son became man and not the Father or Spirit. The incarnation is viewed as a divine mission that would entail the language of sending and being sent forth. In Scripture, these divine missions reveal the divine processions among the divine persons. The Father is the origin of the divine essence and sends forth the Son and Spirit, the Son eternally generates from the Father and is sent by the Father, and the Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father and the Son and is thereby sent from the Father through the Son.

Why must only one person assume human flesh and not all three persons? Anselm responds to this by saying, “For a plurality of persons cannot take one and the same man into a unity of person. Wherefore in one person only can this be done. But, as respects this personal unity of God and man, and in which of the Divine persons this ought to be effected.” Here, Anselm argues that the incarnation is possible if the Word is united in one person with man’s nature and not three persons. It is impossible for all three persons to assume a human nature because the human nature could not possibly contain it. Additionally, it is remarkable that human nature may contain one person of the Holy Trinity, much less three. Yet, the problem with having a plurality of divine persons within one human nature is seen in light of the eternal relations of origin. “If one of the other persons be incarnated, there will be two sons in the Trinity.”[206] This is unacceptable since it would reveal something untrue within the Godhead. It is not the Father’s place to become man and be born since He is unbegotten. Likewise, it is not the Spirit’s place to take the role of the Son since He spirates from the Father and Son. Thus, it is fitting that the Son became man and not the Father or Spirit.

THE NECESSITY OF JESUS’ DUAL NATURE

The dual natures of Christ are required to atone for the sins of humanity. Anselm argues that only the God-man can truly atone for man’s iniquities. “This cannot be effected, except the price paid to God for the sin of man be something greater than all the universe besides God.” As the Apostle Paul said in Romans 6:23, “For the wages of sin is death,” thus, the price of death must be paid for their wages. As Anselm goes on to say, “It is necessary that he who can give God anything of his own which is more valuable than all things in possession of God, must be greater than all else but God himself.” Here, Anselm explains how the only offering worthy of satisfying the wrath of God is something of a higher value than the entire created order. However, the only way for this to be possible is for the gift of grace to be given by God. “Therefore,” Anselm concludes, “not but God can make this satisfaction.”[207] But there is a problem: God cannot die.

The dilemma arises once the nature of God comes into contact with the logically impossible, since it is contrary to God to represent humanity and experience death. “None but a man ought to do this, other wise man does not make the satisfaction.” Only a human can pay the penalty for human sins since it was a human who transgressed against God by their sins. Anselm responds by looking into the inhabitants of the Church. “If it be necessary, therefore, as it appears, that the heavenly kingdom be made up of men, and this cannot be effected unless the aforesaid satisfaction be made, which none but God can make and none but man ought to make, it is necessary for the God-man to make it.”[208] From Anselm’s analysis, God must be satisfied. Human beings are the ones who ought to satisfy God, but cannot; on the other hand, God can satisfy, but ought not. Thus, only the God-man can satisfy God.[209]

Here, I will develop the necessity of the dual natures. On the one hand, Christ’s divinity explains the infinite value of His sacrifice concerning how His life can “ransom” the lives of all sinners. Brandon Crowe summarizes the reasons why God assumed human flesh:

“The problem of sin is so great that only God can appease the wrath of God against sin. Further, only God can give life (see Deut 32:29), so it is necessary for our Redeemer to restore humanity to new life through life-giving power, seen preeminently in his resurrection from the dead. Further, no mere human can ever truly merit anything before God, but all people remain ‘unworthy servants.’ Strictly speaking, only the actions of God can attain eternal life. Further, Christ’s obedience as Mediator benefits others. This also points to his divinity. The Mediator who accomplishes salvation is the Mediator who applies salvation.”[210] 

On the other hand, Jesus’ humanity explains the possibility of His sacrifice; since God cannot die, Jesus must assume human flesh to potentially die on the cross to offer His life as a “ransom.” Athanasius expounds on this subject by noting, “The Word perceived that corruption could not be got rid of otherwise than through death; yet He Himself, as the Word, being immortal and the Father’s Son, was such as could not die.” In other words, death is used to cure corruption, but one cannot be satisfied with only a divine nature, since God cannot undergo death. “For this reason, therefore, He assumed a body capable of death, in order that it, through belonging to the Word Who is above all, might become in dying a sufficient exchange for all, and, itself remaining incorruptible through His indwelling, might thereafter put an end to corruption for all others as well, by the grace of the resurrection.”[211] 

It is fitting that the Son would die since it fulfills the mission He was sent to accomplish. The death of Jesus sets the stage for His mission to provide the eschatological resurrection. As Athanasius says, “the supreme object of His coming was to bring about the resurrection of the body.” Indeed, “this was to be the monument to His victory over death, the assurance to all that HE had Himself conquered corruption and that their own bodies also would eventually be incorrupt; and it was in token of that and as a pledge of the future resurrection that He kept His body incorrupt.”[212] Thus, “death had to precede resurrection, for there could be no resurrection without it.”[213] 

Without death, there is not only no resurrection but no redemption. God must become man because, as Gregory of Nazianzus famously said, “What is not assumed is not healed.” If Jesus were not a human being, then how could He save us? If Jesus was not truly God and truly man, then His atoning death is impossible, either because He faked His death (if He were not human) or His death was invaluable (if He were not God). However, if God did assume a human nature and died on the cross, then He is fully capable of healing all of humanity of their iniquities. The entire work of Christ is anchored to His dual natures. As the “Lamb of God,” we have a sacrifice of sufficient worth or value who can truly atone for our sins. As the “New Adam,” we have a sinless human being who perfectly obeyed the law of God and died to reverse the curse that the first Adam caused. And so, “God the Son became man to fulfill God’s plan to save sinners by making satisfaction for their sin.”[214] Crowe highlights the need for God to assume a human nature arises from the failure of humanity and the need for their healing. “Since the problem of sin originated with a man, it was necessary for a man to render the obedience to God that has been necessary from the beginning thus realizing the design for humanity as the crown of creation. As a man he also raises human nature and enables a more intimate access before the throne of God, for our great high priest shares our nature.”[215] 

At this point, it is appropriate to offer some much-needed clarification. One may surmise that to be human is to die, but such is not the case. Death is not inherently a human characteristic but is a result of man’s sin. Following the fall of humanity, mankind is cursed through Adam, and death is introduced to the world (Gen. 2:16-17; 3:16-19; Rom. 5:12; 6:23). Anselm suggested, “I do not think morality inheres in the essential nature of man, but only as corrupted. Since had man never sinned, and had his immortality been unchangeably confirmed, he would have been as really man; and, when the dying rise again, incorruptible, they will no less be really men. For, if mortality was an essential attributed of human nature, then he who was immortal could not be man.” It is for that reason that “neither corruption nor incorruption belongs essentially to human nature, for neither makes nor destroys a man; but happiness accrues to him from the one, and misery from the other. But since all men die, mortality is included in the definition of man.”[216] While death was not the design of humanity, it is certain that death is present and is a major part of the human condition due to its corruption from sin. In the Garden, it is as though Adam drank the forbidden poison and infected the human condition, where all of humanity is sick from the disease of sin. There is now, more than ever, therefore, a need for a cure to the greatest illness that has afflicted creation for centuries. This cure arrives in the most unexpected manner from the Great Physical, who administers this cure through His death.

Why must the incarnate God die? Athanasius responds by saying, “It was by surrendering to death the body which He had taken, as an offering and a sacrifice free from every stain, that He forthwith abolished death for His human brethren by the offering of the equivalent. For naturally, since the Word of God was above all, when He offered His own temple and bodily instrument as a substitute for the life of all, He fulfilled in death all that was required. Naturally also, through this union of the immortal Son of God with our human nature, all men were clothed with incorruption in the promise of the resurrection. For the solidarity of mankind is such that, by virtue of the Word’s indwelling in a single human body, the corruption which goes with death has lost its power over all.”[217]

            When examining the incarnation, we cannot abandon the humanity or divinity of Christ while incarnate because Jesus’ identity is wrapped up in his two natures. Christianity rests upon the nature of Christ because the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus are not possible without the humanity and divinity of Jesus. As Wittman and Jamieson write:

“Without detriment therefore to the properties of either nature and substance which then came together in one person, majesty took on humility, strength weakness, eternity mortality: and for the paying off of the debt belonging to our condition inviolable nature was united with possible nature, so that, as suited the needs of our case, one and the same Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus, could both die with the one and not die with the other. ”[218]

The Christian faith stands or falls without the incarnation. Our salvation rests upon the incarnate Son. The incarnation is required for our redemption. If Christ were not truly God and truly man, then we could not be saved. “In sum, only a Mediator who is both fully God and fully man could free us from the tangled know of sin’s curse. Only a man can render the obedience due from humanity to God, and only God can grant eternal life.”[219] The unity of Christ’s two natures (human and divine) offers us the only explanation and possibility of the ransom paid on our behalf.

In essence, the incarnation was essential because it was the means by which God chose to accomplish His eternal plan of salvation. “Without the eternal Son’s full human birth, growth, and development, we would not have an all-sufficient Savior whose sacrificial death achieved for us the full forgiveness of our sins and whose sympathetic service helps us to welcome the power of that forgiveness. The outer life of Christ presented to us according to the Bible’s own terms demonstrates that he came into this world with a fully human nature to accomplish as a man all that God required of and planned for humanity.”[220]

Did God have to become man? In one sense, yes. In another sense, no. The first sense we have already demonstrated by noting how the divine nature is essential to bring value to the sacrifice, and the humanity of Jesus is crucial because it is the means for the sacrifice. However, in another sense, we do not need to put ourselves into a corner and say that God “had to” become man as though there were no other way or that God was limited to only one option. Rather, as Torrance helpfully suggests, “The very fact that God became man in order to save us, declares in no uncertain way that the humanity of Christ is absolutely essential to our salvation.” Rather, the incarnation is due to “sheer grace, and not necessity.”[221] In other words, God did not “have to” become man in one sense and yet at the same time, as the author of Hebrews suggests, He “had to” be human and “be made like his brethren” (Heb. 2:17). Cyril of Alexandria went so far as to suggest that “if anyone does not confess that the Word of God the Father was hypostatically united to the flesh so as to be One Christ with his own flesh, that is the same one at once God and man, let him be anathema.”[222] Not only is the incarnation necessary for our salvation, but to deny the doctrine leads to further condemnation. We are then inevitably digging a deeper hole. But once we recognize the necessity of the incarnation, we will finally understand how much we need Jesus and His gift of salvation. “The necessity of the incarnation,” as Bauckham says, “highlights the wonder of God’s grace to us in Christ. truly, this is one of our greatest causes to praise the Lord, for we need nothing as much as we need Jesus.”[223] May we ever need our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.

WORKS CITED:

[1] DeBord, We Have Seen His Glory, 46.

[2] John C. Clark and Marcus Peter Johnson, The Incarnation of God: The Mystery of the Gospel as the Foundation of Evangelical Theology (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2015), 19.

[3] R.B. Jamieson and Tyler R. Wittman, Biblical Reasoning: Christological and Trinitarian Rules for Exegesis (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2022), 138.

[4] Jamieson and Wittman, Biblical Reasoning, 138.

[5] Augustine, The City of God, 11.2. Similarly, Beeke and Smalley commented, “The incarnation was not an act of subtraction in which the Son cast off his deity, but one of addition in which he embraced humanity.” (Reformed Systematic Theology, II:785)

[6] Hilary of Poitiers, The Trinity, 3.16.

[7] Michael Horton, The Christian Faith, 470.

[8] R. L. Reymond, “Incarnation,” Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. Ed. Daniel J. Treier and Walter A. Elwell (Grand Rapids, Baker Academic, 2017), 424.

[9] R.B. Jamieson and Tyler R. Wittman, Biblical Reasoning: Christological and Trinitarian Rules for Exegesis (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2022), 154-155.

[10] DeBord, We Have Seen His Glory, 51-52.

[11] See Donnie L. DeBord, “Do Not Confuse the Natures: Some notes on the two distinct natures in the person Christ.”

[12] Crowe, Lord Jesus Christ, 220.

[13] Jamieson and Wittman, Biblical Reasoning, 128.

[14] Beeke and Smalley, Reformed Systematic Theology, II:785.

[15] Beeke and Smalley, Reformed Systematic Theology, II:795.

[16] Jamieson and Wittman, Biblical Reasoning, 140.

[17] Macleod, The Person of Christ, 189.

[18] John of Damascus, On the Orthodox Faith, 3.3.

[19] “The unity of the two natures, despite the sharp distinction between them, is unalterably anchored in the person.” (Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, III:259)

[20] White, The Incarnate Lord, 73- 74.

[21] Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, III:304.

[22] Wellum, The Person of Christ, 32.

[23] Aquinas, Summa Contra Gentiles, 4.27.1.

^[24] Carson, The Gospel according to John, 126.

[25] Joel R. Beeke, “The Incarnate Word” in The Triune God. Ed. Ronald L. Kohl (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2014), 139.

[26] Swain, “John,” 188.

[27] Andreas J. Köstenberger, Encountering John (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1999), 58.

^[28] Carson, The Gospel according to John, 130.

[29] Letham, Systematic Theology, 476.

[30] Thomas R. Schreiner, New Testament Theology: Magnifying God in Christ (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2008), 257-258.

[31] Wellum, God the Son Incarnate, 262.

[32] Beeke and Smalley, Reformed Systematic Theology, II:784.

[33] Wellum, God the Son Incarnate, 204. Similarly, Macleod says, “It was not the godhead (the divine nature itself). Neither was it God the Father, nor God the Holy Spirit. It was specifically God the Son.” (The Person of Christ, 185)

[34] Macleod, The Person of Christ, 185.

[35] Cyril of Alexandria, Contra Theodoretum 169.

[36] Calvin, Commentary of John,

[37] Duby, Jesus and the God of Classical Theism, 147.

[38] Treier, Lord Jesus Christ, 162.

[39] Duby, Jesus and the God of Classical Theism, 152.

[40] Macleod, The Person of Christ, 193.

[41] Augustine, Enchiridion X. 34, LCC VII, 360.

[42] Macleod, The Person of Christ, 185.

[43] Macleod, The Person of Christ, 190.

[44] DeBord, We Have Seen His Glory, 80.

[45] Thomas F. Torrance, The Incarnation: The Person and Life of Christ (Downers Grove, IVP Academic, 2008), 67.

[46]  Torrance, The Incarnation, 61.

[47] “God willed to coexist with the creature, that he the creator will to exist also as a creature for the reconciliation of the estranged world to himself. Thus the Lord of the covenant willed also to be its human partner, in order to fulfill the covenant from its side. But this very condescension of God, in which he humbled himself to enter into our lowly creaturely and fallen existence, means also the elevation of our creaturely existence, by the very fact of God's will to unite himself to it and to bring the creature into coexistence with himself. Thus his very active becoming man is itself an act of reconciliation.” (Torrance, The Incarnation, 65)

[48] “The eternal God, without ceasing to be eternal, has taken temporal form, as well as creaturely existence. God has assumed our time into union with himself, without abrogating it. God has assumed our time into union with himself, without abrogating it. He the eternal has become temporal for us in the form of our own temporal and historical existence, not simply by embracing our time and historical existence and ruling it, but by permitting time and our historical existence to be the form of his eternal deity. Thus he is not only accessible to us in time and history, but we and time and history are free to approach the eternal and to live with him.” (Torrance, The Incarnation, 66)

[49] “God has joined himself to us in our strange human life in order to sanctify it, to gather it into union with his own holy life and so lifted up above and beyond all the downward drag of sin and decay, and that he already does simply by being one with man and all things. Thus the act of becoming Incarnate to itself the sanctification of our human life in Jesus Christ, and elevating and fulfilling of it that far surpasses creation; It is a raising up of men and women to stand and have their being in the very life of God, but that raising up of man is achieved through his unutterable atoning self-humiliation and condescension.” (Torrance, The Incarnation, 66)

[50] Gregory of Nazianzus, Third Theological Oration: On the Son, 19. Cited by Beeke and Smalley, Reformed Systematic Theology, II:796.

[51] Letham, Systematic Theology, 476-477.

[52] Swain, “John,” 188.

[53] Torrance, The Incarnation, 60.

[54] Barth, Church Dogmatics, IV:20.40.

[55] “Only if the Son personally united a human nature to himself are his two natures neither divided nor separated.” (Jamieson and Wittman, Biblical Reasoning, 139)

[56] Torrance, The Incarnation, 65.

[57] Jamieson and Wittman, Biblical Reasoning, 133.

[58] Duby, Jesus and the God of Classical Theism, 151.

[59] These terms are used synonymously and vary depending on one’s translation of the Latin communicatio idiomatum.

[60] Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, III:308.

[61] Macleod, The Person of Christ, 194-196.

[62] Jamieson and Wittman, Biblical Reasoning, 141-142.

[63] Jamieson and Wittman, Biblical Reasoning, 145.

[64] Crowe, Lord Jesus Christ, 236.

[65] Jamieson and Wittman, Biblical Reasoning, 133.

[66] Jamieson and Wittman, Biblical Reasoning, 141.

[67] Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, III:309.

[68] Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, III:309.

[69] See Paul M. Hoskins, Jesus as the Fulfillment of the Temple in the Gospel of John (Waynesboro, GA: Paternoster, 2006).

^[70] Carson, The Gospel according to John,127.

[71] G.K. Beale, The Temple and the Church’s Mission: A Biblical Theology of the Dwelling Place of God (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2004), 195.

[72] J. Daniel Hays, The Temple and the Tabernacle: A Study of God's Dwelling Places from Genesis to Revelation (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2016), 59.

[73] J. Scott Duvall and J. Daniel Hays, God’s Relational Presence: The Cohesive Center of Biblical Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2019), 286.

[74] Torrance, The Incarnation, 59.

[75] “The tabernacle and temple localized but did not limit God’s presence. They were sites at which people encountered God via glorious manifestations and ritual practices. Likewise, Jesus’ body localized encounters with but did not limit God the Son’s earthly presence. With the cross standing at the ironic apex of this revelatory history (e.g., 12:20-36), new ritual practices became profoundly appropriative.” (Treier, Lord Jesus Christ, 163)

[76] Duvall and Hays, God’s Relational Presence, 283.

[77] Duvall and Hays, God’s Relational Presence, 283.

[78] Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary, 250.

[79] [79] Charles Lee Irons, “A Lexical Defense of the Johannine “Only Begotten” in Retrieving Eternal Generation. Ed. Fred Sanders and Scott R. Swain (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2017); Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament; Dale Moody, “God’s Only Son: The Translation of John 3:16 in the Revised Standard Version.” JBL 72/4 (Dec. 1953), 213-219.

[80] Duby, Jesus and the God of Classical Theism, 142.

[81] Köstenberger, A Theology of John’s Gospel and Letters, 186.

[82] Köstenberger, A Theology of John’s Gospel and Letters, 186.

[83]Köstenberger and Swain, Father, Son, and Spirit, 51.

[84] Duvall and Hays, God’s Relational Presence, 282.

[85] “Little does the unsuspecting reader of the introduction to John’s gospel know, however, that the ‘glory’ of the Son to be revealed by the Father will entail the ‘lifting up’ of the Son of Man through crucifixion. Only gradually, the fourth evangelist reveals through the course of his narrative, and particularly in the words of Jesus, that the glory spoken of in the introduction is a crucified glory, the glory that shines forth initially in selected messianic ‘signs’ of Jesus and subsequently finds its climactic expression in the exaltation of the Son at the cross, in keeping with Isaiah’s vision of Jesus’ glory (John 12:41). Hence the thrust of Jesus’ mission in its entirety is the revelation of God’s glory.” (Köstenberger, A Theology of John’s Gospel and Letters, 186)

^[86] George R. Beasley-Murray, John, WBC (Dallas: Word, 1999), 14.

[87] Duby, Jesus and the God of Classical Theism, 149.

[88] Beeke and Smalley, Reformed Systematic Theology, II:785.

[89] Gerald Bray, God Is Love: A Biblical and Systematic Theology (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2012), 567.

[90] Matthew Barrett, Canon, Covenant and Christology: Rethinking Jesus and the Scriptures of Israel (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2020), 253.

[91] Köstenberger and Swain, Father, Son, and Spirit, 50.

[92] Köstenberger and Swain, Father, Son, and Spirit, 63.

[93] Treier, “Incarnation,” 217-218.

[94] This is an expanded version of a paper that was presented to Donnie DeBord for the completion of “Hermeneutics” during my undergraduate studies at Freed-Hardeman University in 2022.

[95] For thorough treatments of this pericope, see especially Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the God of Israel: God Crucified and Other Studies on the New Testament’s Christology of Divine Identity (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2008), 197-210; Chris Bruno, John J.R. Lee, and Thomas R. Schreiner, The Divine Christology of the Apostle Paul: Retrospect and Prospect (Downers Grove, IVP Academic, 2024), 121-139; Gordan D. Fee, Pauline Christology: An Exegetical-Theological Study (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2013), 373-401; “Philippians 2:5-11: Hymn or Exalted Pauline Prose?” BBR 2:29-46; Gregory P. Fewster, “The Philippians ‘Christ Hymn’: Trends in Critical Scholarship.” Currents in Biblical Research 13 (2015): 191-206; Joseph H. Hellerman, Reconstructing Honor in Roman Philippi: Carmen Christi as Cursus Pudorum (SNTSMS 132. Cambridge: CUP, 2005); Ernest Kasemann, “A Critical Analysis of Philippians 2:5-11,” JTC 5 (1968): 45-88; Ralph P. Martin, Carmen Christi: Philippians ii. 5-11 in Recent Interpretation and in the Setting of Early Christian Worship (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1967); Ralph P. Martin and Brian J. Dodd, Where Christology Began: Essays on Philippians 2 (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1998); Thomas R. Schreiner, New Testament Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2008), 323-327; N.T. Wright, The Climax of the Covenant: Christ and the Law in Pauline Theology (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1992).

[96] Crowe, The Lord Jesus Christ, 253.

[97] Jamieson and Wittman, Biblical Reasoning, 134.

[98] James D.G. Dunn, “Christ, Adam, and Preexistence” in Where Christology Began: Essays on Philippians. Ed. Ralph P. Marin and Brian J. Dodd (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1998), 74-83; Christology in the Making: An Inquiry into the Origins of the Doctrine of the Incarnation (London: SCM Press, 1989), 114-121; The Theology of Paul the Apostle, 281-288; Charles A. Wanamaker, “Philippians 2:6-11: Son of God or Adam Christology?” NTS 33 (1987): 183-187. For a thorough critique of this interpretation, see Bauckham, Jesus and the God of Israel, 203-205; Bruno, Lee, and Schreiner, The Divine Christology of the Apostle Paul, 124-131; Fee, Pauline Christology, 375-393; Morna D. Hooker, “Adam Redivius: Philippians 2 Once More” in The Old Testament in the New Testament: Essays in Honour of J.L. North. Ed. Steve Moyise (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2000), 220-243; “Philippians 2.6-11” in From Adam to Christ: Essays on Paul. Ed. Morna D. Hooker (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990), 89-96; Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ, 121-123; O’Brien, Philippians, 196-198; Wright, The Climax of the Covenant, 56-98.

[99] Gottfried Thomasius, “Christ’s Person and Work, Part 2: The Person of the Mediator” in God and Incarnation in Mid-nineteenth Century German Theology: G. Thomasius, I.A.A Dorner, A.E. Biedermann. Ed. And Trans. Claude Welch (New York: Oxford University Press, 1965), 67-70); see also Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics, IV; David Brown, Divine Humanity: Kenosis and the Construction of Christian Theology (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2011); D.G. Dawe, The Form of a Servant: A Historical Analysis of the Kentoic Motif (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1963); C. Stephen Evans, Exploring Kentoic Christology: The Self-Emptying of God (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2006); B.E. Foster, “Kenoticsm” in NDT, 364; Nimmo and Keith L. Johnson, Kenosis: The Self-Emptying of Christ in Scripture & Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2022); S.M. Smith, “Kenosis, Kenotic Theology” in EDT, 4611-463; Claude Welch, God and Incarnation in Med-Nineteenth Century German Theology; Paul T. For a thorough response to each of these positions, see Bruno, Lee, and Schreiner, The Divine Christology of the Apostle Paul, 131-133; Macleod, The Person of Christ, 205-220; Wellum, God the Son Incarnate, 355-419.

[100] See Dennis W. Jowers, “The Meaning of μορφή in Philippians 2:6-7.” JETS 49:4 (2006): 739-766.

[101] For more discussion on this debate: Gerald F. Hawthorne. Philippians. WBC (Nashville, TN. Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1983), 81-84; Moisés Silva, Philippians, WEC (Chicago, IL. Moody Press, 1988), 113-116.

[102] Silva, Philippians, 115

[103] J.B. Lightfoot. St. Paul's Epistle to the Philippians (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1993), 132

[104] O’Brien, Philippians, 210.

[105] Schreiner, New Testament Theology, 324.

[106] Schreiner, New Testament Theology, 324. “Jesus truly became a servant, which was manifested in the taking of humanity. Hence, to say that Jesus ‘was in the form of God’ is another way of saying that he was divine.”

[107] “The assumption here is that the appearance of God must entail having the nature of God, for otherwise, the rest of the argument loses its force. To have the form of God in this context demands that Christ also shares the very nature of God.” (Bruno, Lee, and Schreiner, The Divine Christology of the Apostle Paul, 125)

[108] Duby, Jesus and the God of Classical Theism, 144.

[109] Bruno, Lee, and Schreiner, The Divine Christology of the Apostle Pau, 130.

[110] Wellum, God the Son Incarnate, 175.

[111] For a thorough treatment of Paul’s Christological view of preexistence, see Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ, 118-126. Paul’s efforts to articulate the preexistence of Christ are meant to convey to his readers that “Jesus had really come from God, and that the story of Jesus’ own involvement in redemption extended back beyond his earthly existence and his crucially redemptive death and resurrection.” (123)

[112] Ralph P. Martin, Philippians, TNTC (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2009), 100.

[113] G. Walter Hansen. The Letter to the Philippians, PNTC (Grand Rapids, MI. Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2009), 134.

[114] For more on the preexistence of Christ see Brendan Byrne, “Christ’s Pre-existence in Pauline Soteriology” Theological Studies 58 (1997): 127-133.

[115] Wellum, God the Son Incarnate, 175.

[116] Bowman and Komoszewski, The Incarnate Christ and His Critics, 219.

[117] Bruno, Lee, and Schreiner, The Divine Christology of the Apostle Paul, 130.

[118] See R. W. Hoover, “The HARPAGMOS Enigma: A Philosophical Solution.” Harvard Theological Review (1971): 64:95-119.

[119] Hansen. The Letter to the Philippians, 133.

[120] Frank Thielman, Philippians, NIVAC (Grand Rapids, MI. Zondervan, 1995), 116.

[121] When Jesus would perform miracles, it was meant to verify His divine-messianic identity and to bring glory and honor to God. They revealed Christ’s power over nature, affliction, supernatural, and death. After reading these testimonies of Christ’s miracles, we are meant to believe that He is Who He says He is, the Son of God, and that through Him we may have eternal life (John 20:30-31).

[122] Silva, Philippians, 103.

[123] Bowman and Komoszewski, The Incarnate Christ and His Critics, 220.

[124] Schreiner, New Testament Theology, 325.

[125] See Denny Burk, “On the Articular Infinitive in Philippians 2:6: A Grammatical Note with Christological Implications.” Tyndale Bulletin 55 (2004): 253-274; Crispin Fletcher-Louis, “The Being That Is in a Manner Equal with God’ (Phil. 2:6c): A Self-Transforming, Incarnational, Divine Ontology.” JTS 71:2 (2020).

[126] Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ, 123; O’Brien, Philippians, 216; Schriener, New Testament Theology, 325; Silva, Philippians, 101; Wright, Climax of the Covenant, 72. It is true that these terms entail an affirmation of Jesus’ true divine nature, there are some distinctions between the two terms. As Bruno, Lee, and Schreiner note, “Equality with God is distinct from existing in the form of God in that the former emphasizes the glory that Christ shared with the Father, whereas the latter refers to the ontological equality that the first and second persons of the Trinity shared. In classical terms, we would say that in this verse, Paul’s asserting that the Father and Son share the same essence. There is indeed a subtle nuance of difference between the form of God and quality with God, yet we must be cautious not to overstate the difference, for Paul is using both phrases to point us back to both the pre-existence of Christ and his ontological equality with the father, and we must be cautious before attempting to separate the two realities. Therefore, while some may dispute the meaning of these phrases, when coupled with the previous clause, Paul’s plainly asserting that Christ is equal to God the Father. He shares his form and is equal to him.” (The Divine Christology of the Apostle Paul, 127-128)

[127] “For a first-century Jewish author to claim that the preincarnate Christ had the status of being ‘equal to God’ could hardly mean anything short of just what the traditional interpretation claims: Christ was ontologically equal to God.” (Bruno, Lee, and Schreiner, The Divine Christology of the Apostle Paul, 127)

[128] Moo, A Theology of Paul and His Letters, 307.

[129] Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ, 122-123.

[130] Duby lists three possible interpretations: (1) Not something seized or gained since he always was in the form of God in the first place. (2) Not something to be seized or gained (i.e., not something he had to seize or gain) since he always was in the form of God in the first place. (3) Not something to be exploited to avoid an act of self-giving love toward others. (Jesus and the God of Classical Theism,144)

[131] Bauckham, Jesus and the God of Israel, 41, 207; Wright, Climax of the Covenant, 62-90.

[132] Wellum, Christ Alone, 93; The Person of Christ, 79.

[133] Silva, Philippians, 105.

[134] Wellum, The Person of Christ, 78. He further writes, “In the incarnation, God the Son acts, from the Father and by the Spirit, to add to himself a human nature so that now and forevermore he subsists in two natures without loss of attributes in either nature. Also, it’s due to the incarnation that the Son is now able to live a fully human life and achieve our redemption as our new covenant head.” (78) Elsewhere, he says, “we should understand it as a metaphorical expression that refers not to the subtraction or reduction of divine attributes but to the addition of a human nature.” (Christ Alone, 93)

[135] Wellum, The Person of Christ, 79.

[136] Wellum, God the Son Incarnate, 176.

[137] Wellum, Christ Alone, 94.

[138] Bruno, Lee, and Schreiner, The Divine Christology of the Apostle Paul, 132.

[139] Bruno, Lee, and Schreiner, The Divine Christology of the Apostle Paul, 132.

[140] There will be more discussion on this towards the end of the paper in the section entitled “The Kenosis Theory.”

[141] Wellum, Christ Alone, 94.

[142] Moo, A Theology of Paul and His Letters, 307-308.

[143] D.A. Carson. Basics for Believers: An Exposition of Philippians (Grand Rapids, MI. Baker Books, 1996), 45

[144] Paul would write four letters while he was imprisoned in Rome: Philippians, Ephesians, Colossians, and Philemon.

[145] D.A. Carson, Basics for Believers, 44

[146] “Slavery was a basic element in ancient society. Much of the initiative as well as the work done belonged to this class period slavery was very extensive in both the Hellenistic and Roman periods, as the large number of prisoners of war made slaves cheap in Hellenistic Greece and republican Rome. However, the stable conditions of the early empire made home-bred slaves the main source of supply, an expensive procedure. Nonetheless it is estimated that one in five of the residents in Rome was a slave.” (Everett Ferguson, Backgrounds of Early Christianity. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2003), 59.

[147] The birth of Christ is within the context of the Holy Spirit conceived Christ within in the virgin Mary (Matt. 1:18-25; Luke 1:35). His conception was supernatural; however, his birth was natural. It was promised in the Old Testament that from a woman (Gen. 3:15), more notably a virgin (Is. 7:14), that the serpent would be defeated, the remedy for sin would be provided, and God would be among us.

[148] If Jesus was truly human, then it would follow that He would possess our nature. Since we, as humans, possess bodies, minds, emotions, and souls, then Jesus, as a result, must have these characteristics since these are essential to the essence of humanity.

[149] Theilman, Philippians, 118.

[150] Theilman, Philippians, 118.

[151] Schreiner, New Testament Theology, 324

[152] Theilman, Philippians, 118.

[153] Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, III: 407.

[154] Treier, Lord Jesus Christ, 193.

[155] Udo Schnelle, Theology of New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI. Baker Academic, 2009), 223.

[156] Schnelle, Theology of New Testament, 223.

[157] Bavinck. Reformed Dogmatics, III: 406.

[158] Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, III:407.

[159] Hengel, Crucifixion (). See also Peter Ben-Smit, “Crucificion? The Reimagination of Crucifixion as Failed Imperial Ritual in Philippians 2:5-11.” Biblical Theology Bulletin 46 (2016): 12-24.

[160] Theilman, Philippians, 119.

[161] Bruno, Lee, and Schreiner, The Divine Christology of the Apostle Paul, 133.

[162] Bruce, Philippians, 70-71; Silva, Philippians, 107.

[163] Schreiner, New Testament Theology, 326.

[164] David L. Roper. Philippians (Searcy, AR: Resource Publication, 2009), 448.

[165] Thielman, Philippians, 120.

[166] Paul A. Holloway, Philippians: A Commentary, Herminia (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2017), 126.

[167] Fee, Philippians, 99.

[168] Bauckham, Jesus and the God of Israel, 208.

[169] Bowman and Komoszewski, The Incarnate Christ and His Critics, 491.

[170] Bowman and Komoszewski, The Incarnate Christ and His Critics, 492.

[171] Peter C. Orr, Exalted Above the Heavens: The risen and ascended Christ (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2018), 14-15.

[172] Orr, Exalted Above the Heavens, 16-17.

[173] Orr, Exalted Above the Heavens, 17.

[174] Orr, Exalted Above the Heavens, 17.

[175] Thielman, Philippians, 120.

[176] Bauckham, Jesus and the God of Israel, 199.

[177] James D.G. Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2006), 245.

[178] Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle, 246.

[179] Carson. Basics for Believers, 48.

[180] Bauckham, Jesus and the God of Israel, 199.

[181] “It shows the concern of the Philippians passage to be a typically Jewish monotheistic one and the worship of Jesus it depicts to be precisely a matter of the exclusive monotheistic worship of the Jewish religious tradition. The claim of Philippians 2:9-11 is that it is in the exaltation of Jesus, his identification with and as YHWH in YHWH’s universal sovereignty, that the unique deity off the God of Israel comes to be acknowledged as such by all creation YHWH’s sole sovereignty and unique deity are  recognized when the exalted Jesus exercises that sovereignty and bears the name YHWH.” (Bauckham, Jesus and the God of Israel, 201-202)

[182] Moisés Silva. “Philippians” in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament. Ed. G.K. Beale and D.A. Carson (Grand Rapids, MI. Baker Academic, 2007), 838.

[183] Bauckham, Jesus and the God of Israel, 200.

[184] Roper, Philippians, 449.

[185] Wellum, God the Son Incarnate, 210.

[186] Athanasius, On the Incarnation, 8.

[187] Anselm, Cur Deus Homo, II: 5.

[188] Anselm, Cur Deus Homo, II: 5.

[189] Anselm, Cur Deus Homo, II: 18.

[190] Jesus is the fulfillment of the messianic promise, the messianic shepherd in contrast to the failing leaders of the Jewish people.” (Köstenberger, A Theology of John’s Gospel and Letters, 501-502)

[191] Anselm, Cur Deus Homo, II: 17.

[192] Anselm, Cur Deus Homo, II: 11.

[193] Anselm, Cur Deus Homo, I:8.

[194] Anselm, Cur Deus Homo, II: 18.

[195] Anselm, Cur Deus Homo, II: 18.

[196] See Athanasius, On the Incarnation, 21-24.

[197] Athanasius, On the Incarnation, 25.

[198] Moo, Galatians, 265.

[199] Harmon, Galatians, 224.

[200] Aquinas, Summa Theologica, III.6.

[201] Fred Sanders, “Pauline Epistles” in The Trinity in the Canon: A Biblical, Theological, Historical, and Practical Proposal (Brentwood, TN: B&H Academic, 2024), 258-259.

[202] Moo, Galatians, 267.

[203] Moo, Galatians, 268.

[204] Harmon, Galatians, 225.

[205] Thomas R. Schriener, Christ Crucified: A Theology of Galatians (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2024), 54.

[206] Anselm, Cur Deus Homo, II: 9.

[207] Anselm, Cur Deus Homo, II:6.

[208] Anselm, Cur Deus Homo, II: 6.

[209] This is often described as the satisfaction or commercial theory of atonement. See also,

[210] Crowe, Lord Jesus Christ, 222-223.

[211] Athanasius, On the Incarnation, 8.

[212] Athanasius, On the Incarnation, 22.

[213] Athanasius, On the Incarnation, 23.

[214] Wellum, God the Son Incarnate, 217.

[215] Crowe, Lord Jesus Christ, 223.

[216] Anselm, Cur Deus Homo, II: 11.

[217] Athanasius, On the Incarnation, 8.

[218] Leo the Great, The Tome, 28.3.

[219] Crowe, Lord Jesus Christ, 223.

[220] Wellum, God the Son Incarnate, 212.

[221] Torrance, The Incarnation, 184.

[222] Cyril of Alexandria, Third Letter to Nestorius.

[223] Beeke and Smalley, Reformed Systematic Theology, II:803.