Calvary Baptist Church

Calvary Baptist Church, Grenada, MS

Holding to the truths embraced by Baptist for centuries.

For the sake of clarity, this self-emptying of Christ Jesus may be related to three major attributes of His deity. An attribute is here understood to mean an essential trait of His being or very existence. Without these, He would not be God. Without the full exercise of these, He could be the God-Man, our Redeemer.

There is no place where God is not. His being fills all conceivable space. The human mind can no more conceive of how this attribute became limited in His becoming man than it can fathom the depths of the mystery of God himself or the mystery of the event of incarnation itself. The grace in the transaction, however, is couched for us in that Glorious name Immanuel, “God with us.” When He became a man, He could be in only one place at a time and had to move to other places as an ordinary man.

He does, after His glorification and until His second coming, dwell personally in heaven. His omnipresence in indwelling believers is now made realistic within us through the Paraclete, His other self, the indwelling Holy Spirit. It was profitable for Jesus to go away so that the Comforter could come to take up the work Jesus in dying and ascending to the Father left.

His movements in His resurrection body do not negative this limitation set by Himself in His incarnation or self-emptying. There was, however, something beyond the power of the human mind to perceive which enabled Him to be present with the disciples behind closed doors and to vanish immediately upon the recognition of His identity when He broke the bread and gave thanks in the Emmaus home. Our limited perceptive powers must bow humbly before the magnitude of what He was and became and will ever remain for our redemption and transformation.

From eternity, He was the all-powerful One. He could choose to create or not to create. He could choose to use His power or to desist from using it. Intrinsically and objectively, no limitation can be set upon omnipotence. When omnipotence defines a course within which it will operate, then omnipotence per se is not limited. Only the range and degree of the operation of omnipotence is limited.

Within the perfection of deity, one limitation inheres. His power cannot be exercised except consistently with His holiness. The attributes of deity are not separate entities. We must not atomistically view them; we must correlate them and allow them to operate as various sides of the one perfect Being that God is. The power of the God-Man could not operate immorally in the slightest degree, but the failure to use power for His personal advantage could bring many privations and sufferings.

The fact that this omnipotence was latent there in His glorious person for use whenever and to whatever degree He might wish to employ it argues so much the more for the boundlessness of His love that denied Himself the use of such power with the solitary purpose of redeeming sinful man. His self-emptying of the constant use of His omnipotence constitutes the most resplendent feature of His humiliation and signalizes the depths of His matchless love.

The All-Powerful One became weak. The Creator of the universe lived with the weakness of the creature. He even allowed His crucifiers to taunt Him that He had not the power to save Himself out of their cruel hands.

As deity, He knew all things. As man, He learned all that He knew. There is no moral quality in His having to learn. It was a limitation which His love imposed on Himself. It cannot be counted against the perfection of His character.

On the other hand, however, we must not segregate His learning from His moral perfection. He learned as other men, only that His learning, like all other acts of the God-Man, was perfect. He did not have to unlearn because He had learned wrongly. He never taught an untruth. He never perceived truth erroneously. If He had stooped that far, He would not have been “the Truth” (John 14:6).

In this final section of our study, I propose to consider His self-emptying as it operated in various life-situations during His life on earth and in His present attitude toward His redeeming work.

The grand end of the self-emptying of Christ Jesus was that He was to become man. This was a necessary step in the scheme of redemption. It was the most momentous step in His emptying Himself and led naturally to all the other phases of His gracious humiliation.

In the words “He emptied Himself,” Paul gives no hint as to the avenue through which this was actualized, but the wondrous avenue of a virgin birth alone comported with this process. It is idle for us to speculate that He might have chosen other ways. These He did not choose. His ways are above ours and past our comprehension, but little does it become our feeble understanding to suggest that other ways would have been as good. Did not His wisdom choose the best? If He wisely chose it, how can it be wise for us to speculate otherwise and not gladly believe it?

As suggested already, His emptying Himself “in that He took the form of a slave so as to become in the likeness of men” poses the problem of wherein He resembled other men and to what degree He was unlike other men. Paul made this much more explicit in Romans 8:3. God sent forth His Son “in the likeness of sinful flesh.” In these two contexts, the word “likeness” is the same, but that to which the “likeness” is compared is significantly different. Note the difference — “likeness of men” and “likeness of sinful flesh.”

Two passages of somewhat similar import to these may help us to grasp the meaning of His emptying Himself to the point of being “in the likeness of sinful flesh.” This is admittedly the crux of all New Testament passages on this mystery of the incarnation. The limits of His humiliation are here reached, and one needs all the clues from other utterances which may be gathered. If at any point in our study, a reverent and cautious spirit is imperative, such is needed here.

“And the Word became flesh” (John 1:14). Ponder the word “became.” He did more than assume human nature; He became an actual man. The humanity of Jesus was not a mere seeming but a reality. He remained what He had been from all eternity — God. He became what He had never been before — man. He will ever remain both God and man — the God-Man.

Upon conversion, we do not become “Godmen,” to borrow the term of Nels Ferre. We remain human and do not become divine. To become God’s man (that is, possessed and controlled by God’s power) is not to become a “Godman.” No incarnation takes place with us. We are naturally “in-fleshed.” We cannot become what we already are. To be indwelt by Christ through the Holy Spirit is not an incarnation. To use such language may arouse interest on the part of some by the novelty of its expression, but such analogies express basic incongruities and adulterates Scripture terminology without clarifying truth.

“And the Word became flesh” (John 1:14), not “the flesh.” The fact that the Greek for “flesh” is anarthrous is significant.

The article would imply full correspondence with the moral qualities of humanity as it now is or “the flesh” (depraved flesh). “Out of the flesh” in 3:6 is arthrous and is equivalent to our saying the unregenerate man. “Flesh” in 3:6 is anarthrous because it is the rule of the Greek not to have the article with the predicate nominative.

Likewise, the absence of the article with “flesh” in I Timothy 3:16 affirms similarity but denies identity. Herein lies clear discrimination about the quality of Jesus’ humanity. It was truly real but lacked a telling point of sameness; namely, sin.

Now, the explicitness of “the likeness of sinful flesh” (Romans 8:3) catches up all that is said in the other passages and pushes the self-emptying of Christ Jesus a step further. It affirms more than that He became flesh or a human being. That alone is wonderful. It affirms that He was made “in the likeness of sinful flesh.” Three things are implied in this statement —

First, the statement denies sameness with fallen Adam. He could not become “sinful” flesh. His moral perfection could not become moral imperfection. This statement does, however, demonstrate that man possesses a “sinful” nature. It would be useless to discriminate sinful flesh if man is not such. The avenue of the incarnation by the Virgin Birth proves that man is sinful by nature.

(1). Adam was never a baby. He and Eve were created full-grown. This point, however, is not crucial here since it is without moral significance.

(2). Adam’s environment in Eden was perfect; there are many features of our environment that allure us to sin. Christ Jesus, like sinful flesh and not like Adam, was born into and lived within a sinful environment.

(3). Unfallen Adam had no taint of sin; we are born tainted by sin (Ephesians 2:3). If Adam as created had in him any tendency toward sin, then such is chargeable to God. If Adam fell into sin and as the natural and federal head of the human race transmitted a sinful taint to all of his descendants, then such is chargeable to him and to us as his offspring. As created, Adam was in a perfect state of moral poise. He had no inclination toward sin; on the contrary, he had no confirmation in righteousness. He stood with full liberty of choice.

Since Adam’s fall, the human race has had the power to choose right and wrong, as did Adam. Man is not fated to the point of having to choose evil. He chooses freely what He chooses. The will of fallen man or “sinful flesh” is, however, both weak and wicked. We may have difficulties in seeking to define the hairbreath margin between the two, but both are there as facts despite our limitations in perceiving the exact interrelations between them.

Since Adam’s fall, the human race has been responsible for its moral choices. I may not reach clarity in defining the exact line of interaction of weakness and wickedness in unregenerate man; my inability must not be so stated as to blur in my own mind or in the mind of another the sense of responsibility. To fall back on inherited depravity as an excuse for my sin brings against me Ezekiel’s incisive rebuke. He did not deny that the parents had eaten sour grapes; he denied that the teeth of the children were so set on edge as to destroy personal responsibility.

Second, the statement of the likeness of sinful flesh denies sameness with unfallen Adam.

Third, it affirms likeness to fallen Adam rather than to unfallen Adam. Jesus had the weaknesses incident to the fall of man — as tiredness, sorrow, pain, etc. These limitations incident to the fall, unfallen Adam did not have. These limitations show how near Jesus came to us in His loving condescension without in any wise partaking of the defiling power of sin. Only His holiness could contact sinful man so tangibly, so realistically, and so empathetically without Himself becoming maculate or stained thereby. That means that His sympathy or His being touched with the feeling of our infirmities is in no wise a sham or make believe. Though we may feel to stand apart from Him because of the distance between our defilement and His immaculacy, His very real humanity reaches across the gulf and draws us to His heart in fullest understanding. His heart beats in unison with our heart woes and throes.

If this definition of what His emptying Himself and becoming in the likeness of men is correct, then the sinlessness of Jesus in act, thought, and word follows. His sinlessness is proven by the testimony of His enemies, by His own moral consciousness, and by the power of His purity to make the impure pure. One cannot influence another to become what he is not; if Jesus had been a sinner, He could not have taken away the impurity of the impure.

At the age of twelve, Jesus was fully conscious that God was His father. Human curiosity seeks to look backward and forward from this point in His experience.

It is idle to speculate as to how much earlier He possessed this consciousness. God did not choose to tell us. One cannot affirm nor deny. One must be content to let the veil hang where Omniscience left it. We can be thankful that He knew and asserted this consciousness at this point in His development.

We can be more certain of the growth of this consciousness from that time onward. As He matured, the consciousness became stronger, and from it He never swerved throughout His entire career. Maturity as a man gave Him a broader insight into the fuller significance of His unique person. If He had allowed the full and instantaneous inflow of the divine side of His nature into the center of consciousness, this would have been the opposite of the self-emptying process.

The crucial point in His consciousness of Messiahship is not its gradualness nor the place of His realization of it. Crucial, however, are the fact of it and the quality of it, and it is this last phase which I wish to emphasize.

In the unfoldment of His consciousness of divine mission, did He make mistakes? Is there a consistency in the development of His consciousness of His deity? Did He, to mention the theory popularized by Albert Schweitzer, expect a quick realization of the outward phases of the Davidic kingdom and then turn from it in disappointment? Did He envision His death only after such a change in expectation or change in Messianic consciousness? These are the crucial problems.

The degree of His self-emptying is determined by who He was. His being on an equality with God sets moral limits to His self-emptying. He could not so empty Himself of omniscience as to misunderstand His mission as Schweitzer claimed.

Adam had no leaning toward sin and yet chose sin freely; Jesus had no leaning toward sin but had the weaknesses incident to the fall. Jesus’ temptation was, therefore, more realistic than was Adam’s. In it all, however, Jesus was able not to sin. From the viewpoint of His deity, He was not able to sin; from the viewpoint of His humanity, He was able not to sin.

Yes, there is a paradox here; but not so keen a paradox as the union of two natures — divine and human — which is the heart of His incarnation, in one person. Why let the smaller paradox drive you to hesitancy about the miracle of Jesus Christ? If you must stumble at the supernatural, take the greatest miracle of all — God-Man, the union of God and man in one person.

If one would understand the temptation of Jesus, he must think of Adam in Eden. Jesus came as the Second Adam to undo the fell work of Adam in Eden. His humanity was on trial, not His deity.

The word “be” in “if thou be the Son of God” does not indicate doubt. More modern English follows the Greek if we render it, “If you are the Son of God.”

Satan tempted Jesus to use His deity to turn stones into bread to satisfy the needs of His human nature. If He had yielded, then He would have negated in large measure the self-emptying effects of His humiliation. If He had yielded, then He would not have been the perfect man, able to become our Savior.

The issue in Eden was — Can God trust man? Man was found undependable. He desired that which was forbidden, a thing which did not constitute a real need, and took into his own hands means for obtaining that wrongly-desired object. Jesus faced, on the contrary, a real need. He had eaten nothing for forty days. His desire was for something to sustain life, not a fancied fruit to tickle the pride of the flesh; yet He resolutely trusted His case into the hands of His Father for the supply of His need.

Thus He was not tempted to prove His deity but to use His deity to supply His needs contrary to the blueprint of the Father for Him. He emptied Himself of the constant exercise of His omnipotence and would not at all be persuaded to use it on this occasion.

The second effort of Satan takes for granted the victory of Jesus on the point of His perfect humanity. Adam had lost dominion over creation through his disobedience. Christ Jesus assumed the obligation to redeem the world back to God, both natural creation and the world of men. Satan proposed that Jesus worship Satan and thus obtain what He came to redeem. The test here concerned His devotion to His Messiahship. Would He take a proposed shortcut? Would He draw from the sufferings of privation and ultimate death on Calvary? He closed His eye to the glittering offer of the kingdoms of the world and kept His eye on the worship of God alone. Jesus did precisely what Adam in Eden failed to do.

Now that His humility stood the onslaught of Satan and His devotion to His self-chosen role of Messiahship could not be corrupted in any manner, Satan proposed sensationalism as the means of obtaining the acceptance of the people. Again, Satan tempted Christ Jesus to use His deity to impress the multitudes. If He would gradually float down to the expectant multitudes from the high pinnacle of the temple, then His success would be assured.

Christ Jesus had emptied Himself of the constant use of His prerogative of unlimited power and would not take the matter out of the hands of His Father. He would win the hearts of men by the slow process of teaching them, thus wooing and winning them to heart-faith in Him as the Messiah of God. He desired more than the hand-clapping of the populace; He desired to captivate the citadel of the heart.

Here were settled the quality of His humanity, His role as Messiah, and His method of becoming acknowledged as the God-Man. The later steps in His ministry follow consistently this devotion. His consciousness of Messiahship was clear at this stage, and He never swerved therefrom. He had emptied Himself to the point of becoming in the likeness of men and appearing in fashion as a man. He remained true to this initial act.

When one considers that Jesus emptied Himself to the point of being made in the likeness of sinful flesh or partook of the weaknesses incident to fallen man, then His sinless life appears more clearly as an achievement. He was not fenced around; He felt keenly the bite and the power of sin but never yielded to it for a moment. Sin found in Him no peg on which to hang its tinsel garments. His sinlessness, considered in its ultimate outcome, was achieved through struggle with temptation.