capacity does not change. So divinity does not change its nature when it drops the curtain of humanity before the eyes of the God-man.?
The divine in Christ, during most of his earthly life, is latent, or only now and then present to his consciousness or manifested to others. Illustrate from second childhood, where the mind itself exists but is not capable of use or from first childhood, where even a Newton or a Humboldt, if brought back to earth and made to occupy an infant body and brain, would develop as an infant with infantile powers. There is more in memory than we can at this moment recall; memory is greater than recollection. There is more of us at all times than we know, only the sudden emergency reveals the largeness of our resources of mind and heart and will. The new nature, in the regenerate, is greater than it appears. ?Beloved, now are we children of God, and it is not yet made manifest what we shall be. We know that if he shall be manifested. We shall be like him? ( <620302>1 John 3:2). So in Christ there was an ocean like fullness of resource, of which only now and then the Spirit permitted the consciousness and the exercise.
Without denying (with Dorner) the completeness, even from the moment of the conception, of the union between the deity and the humanity, we may still say with Kahnis: ?The human nature of Christ, according to the measure of its development, appropriates more and more to its conscious ease the latent fullness of the divine nature! So we take the middle ground between two opposite extremes. On the one hand, the Kenosis was not the extinction of the Logos nor, on the other hand, did Christ hunger and sleep by miracle. This is Docetism. We must not minimize Christ?s humiliation for this was his glory. There was no limit to his descent, except that arising from his sinless perfection. His humiliation was not merely the giving up of the appearance of Godhead. Baird, Elohim Revealed, 585 ? ?Should any one aim to celebrate the condescension of the emperor Charles the Fifth by dwelling on the fact that he laid aside the robes of royalty and assumed the style of a subject and altogether ignore the more important matter that he actually became a private person, it would be very weak and absurd.? Cf. <470809>2 Corinthians 8:9 ? ?though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor? = he beggared himself. <402746>Matthew 27:46 ? ?My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?? = non-exercise of divine omniscience.
Inasmuch, however, as the passage <501706>Philippians 2:6-8 is the chief basis and support of the doctrine of Christ?s humiliation, we here subjoin a more detailed examination of it.
<- Previous Table of Contents Next ->
Was this article helpful?