Across the Spectrum

6

The Christology Debate

The Unavoidable Paradox of the God-man (The Classical View)
Christ Relinquished His Divine Prerogatives (The Kenotic View)

Posing the Question

“How can I follow the example of a guy who was God?” DeSean asked with an exasperated tone. Soel had been trying to help him through a spiritual crisis by posing the question, “What would Jesus do?” His encouragement was hitting a roadblock. “Come on, DeSean,” Soel replied, “Jesus was a human being, just like we are. The Bible says we are to follow his example in all areas of our life.” DeSean was not ready to accept something just because a Bible verse said he should. “I don’t doubt he was a human being,” he said, “but you Christians believe he was God. I don’t get how a man can be God in the first place, and even if he were, I don’t see how he can serve as an example of how we are to live. Being God kind of gives him an advantage over us, doesn’t it?”

For a moment Soel was dumbfounded. Finally, several passages of Scripture came to mind, so he attempted a response. “No, it doesn’t give him an advantage. The Bible says Jesus was tempted in every way that we are tempted.” The response only intensified DeSean’s questioning. “No advantage? Well, do you think Jesus could have sinned? And if so, since you say he was God, does that mean that God could have sinned?” Soel felt checkmated. On the one hand, he knew it wouldn’t be correct to say that God can sin. On the other hand, he didn’t see how Jesus’ temptations could be real if he couldn’t sin. Soel worried that the months he had spent trying to bring DeSean to the Christian faith were going down the tube.

The Center and Its Contrasts

The theological issue at the root of Soel and DeSean’s debate is this: How do we reconcile the fact that Jesus was fully God with the fact that Jesus was fully human? It is an issue that has been discussed in Christian circles throughout the church’s history. All Christians believe that Jesus was both fully God and fully man. This doctrinal belief was formalized with the Council of Chalcedon in AD 451 and became one of the central beliefs of Christianity. It contrasts with the belief of a variety of heretical groups who hold that Jesus was the first and greatest creation of God. This view is called Arianism and is espoused today by the Jehovah’s Witnesses as well as other unorthodox groups. The Christian view also contrasts strongly with that of Muslims and other groups who believe that Jesus was simply a prophet of God. It contrasts as well with various New Age views that see Jesus merely as a man who fully actualized his inner divinity. And it sharply contrasts with views of liberal scholars today (e.g., the Jesus Seminar) who try to argue that the historical Jesus—the Jesus “behind” the mythologized New Testament documents—was merely a Cynic philosopher or a religious and social revolutionary. The Bible, however, clearly teaches that Jesus was fully God as well as fully human (John 1:1; 20:28; Rom. 9:5; Col. 2:9; Titus 2:11–13).

But the question of how Jesus could be fully God and fully human has not been resolved to everyone’s satisfaction. Within evangelical circles, the debate can be broken down into two broad camps. Many defend the more traditional view that Jesus exercised both his divine and human attributes at the same time. For example, this view maintains that Jesus could be omniscient as God and non-omniscient as human at the same time. Others, however, hold to what is called kenotic Christology. This group maintains that God had to “empty himself” (kenosis in Greek) to become a full human being. They argue that the Second Person of the Trinity laid aside his omniscience in order to become fully human, for a person cannot be fully human and omniscient at the same time. Clearly, how one answers this christological question would influence how that person would answer the questions DeSean posed to Soel.

The two essays that comprise this section offer a defense of the classical christological position and a defense of the kenotic christological position.

The Unavoidable Paradox of the God-man (The Classical View)

Though it took nearly four centuries to iron out the details (at Chalcedon), the orthodox church has always interpreted Scripture as teaching that Jesus Christ was and is fully God as well as fully human. For most theologians and laypeople throughout history, this meant that Jesus exercised the full range of divine and human attributes. Though theologians have worked this out in many different ways, most have affirmed that Jesus was at one and the same time omnipresent (as God) yet spatially located (as human), omnipotent (as God) yet limited in power (as human), and omniscient (as God) yet limited in knowledge (as human). Jesus is one person, not two, but he has two natures, not one. The church has always admitted that this teaching constitutes a profound mystery, but it has always denied that it constitutes a contradiction.

Some evangelicals today are joining the ranks of those who insist that this teaching is not a paradox but a contradiction. While these evangelicals agree that Jesus was fully God and fully human, they insist that Jesus laid aside the use of his divine attributes in order to become a human. Though he retained his divine holiness and love, he temporarily relinquished his omnipresence, omniscience, and omnipotence. According to those who hold the classical view, these evangelicals are mistaken philosophically in thinking that the classical view constitutes a contradiction, and they are mistaken biblically in thinking that Jesus surrendered the use of certain divine attributes.

The Biblical Argument

If all that Scripture teaches about Christ is taken seriously, one cannot avoid the paradoxical conclusion that not only was Christ God and human, but he also exercised divine and human attributes.

To begin, while some in the early church denied that Jesus was a full human being (e.g., those who believed in docetism), few today question this truth. His humanity is revealed throughout the Gospels. For example, Jesus had to grow intellectually as well as physically (Luke 2:52). As a human, there were certain things Jesus did not know (Mark 13:32). As a human, his character had to mature through suffering (Heb. 2:10; 5:8–9). As a human, Jesus had to submit to the Father (Matt. 26:39; John 6:38), pray to the Father (Luke 6:12), and remain utterly dependent on the Father at all times. Though he was morally perfect, as a genuine human, Jesus experienced temptation (Luke 4:1–13; Heb. 4:15). And as a human, Jesus experienced all the emotions that other humans experience: anger, sorrow, loneliness, and even fear (e.g., John 2:13–17; 11:35; Mark 15:34; Luke 22:41–44).

At the same time, Jesus’ full divinity is revealed throughout the Gospels. While the authors clearly depict Jesus as at times limited in knowledge, they also depict him as exercising an omniscient mind. Upon meeting Nathanael for the first time, for example, Jesus declared, “Here is truly an Israelite in whom there is no deceit!” Nathanael saw this demonstration of supernatural knowledge as evidence of Jesus’ divinity, for he exclaimed, “Rabbi, you are the Son of God! You are the King of Israel!” (John 1:47–50). John later makes it clear that this supernatural insight was not an occasional revelation: Jesus “knew all people and needed no one to testify about anyone; for he himself knew what was in everyone” (John 2:24–25).

In this light, we ought not be surprised when we find Jesus demonstrating an omniscient awareness of people’s innermost thoughts and motives (Matt. 9:4; John 2:24–25). Nor should we be surprised when we find him expressing divine knowledge of Judas’ deceitful heart and future betrayal (John 13:18–19, 21–27), of Peter’s future denial (Luke 22:31–34) and exact mode of death (John 21:18–19), of a stranger who would open up his house to him and his disciples (Mark 14:12–16), or of a coin that would be found in a fish’s mouth (Matt. 17:24–27). As a man, Jesus was indeed limited in what he knew. But it is also abundantly clear that as God, he was not limited. Somehow, Jesus was both simultaneously.

Scripture depicts Jesus as possessing other divine attributes as well. For example, the Gospels portray Jesus as the omnipotent Creator, even while also admitting that as a man he was limited in power. As God, Jesus was able to control the behavior of wind as well as the biting of fish (Luke 8:23–25; John 21:5–6). As a man, he could do nothing on his own (John 5:19). As God, his essence was and is unchangeable (Heb. 13:8; cf. Ps. 102:26–27; Mal. 3:6; James 1:17). As a man, he had to grow and be made perfect (Heb. 2:10). As God, he could not be tempted (James 1:13). As a real human being, however, he was tempted “in every respect” just as we are (Heb. 4:15). As God, he evoked and accepted worship (John 20:28). As a man, he prayed to and worshiped his heavenly Father (Luke 10:21). As God, he could confess that he was the great “I am” who spoke to Moses (John 8:58). The Jews understood that he was applying a divine title to himself, for they picked up stones to stone him (John 8:59). As a man, however, he acknowledged that the Father was greater than he was (John 14:28).

Scripture does not shy away from attributing both divine and human attributes, activities, and titles to Jesus Christ. The result may be paradoxical, but it is one we must accept, together with Christians throughout history, out of fidelity to Scripture. Not only was Jesus fully God and fully human, but he also acted out of capacities latent within each of these natures.

Supporting Arguments

1. Rendering the two natures of Christ coherent. The all-important question is this: Does this view constitute a contradiction? If it does, it must be abandoned. Professing contradictions is equivalent to professing nonsense. Though many argue otherwise, however, this view is not contradictory. A number of arguments and analogies have been offered that demonstrate this point. A recent one put forth by the Christian philosopher Thomas Morris of Notre Dame has two parts.1

First, there is a major difference between being “fully human” and “merely human,” Morris argues. To be “fully human,” one must possess all the attributes that constitute the essence of a human being. To be “merely human,” however, one must possess these attributes alone. One cannot also possess other attributes that go beyond the human attributes. The Chalcedonian creed affirms that Jesus was “fully human” but not that he was “merely human.” The latter contradicts certain divine attributes, but the former does not. Christ possessed all the attributes that constitute the essence of a human being, but in contrast to all “mere human beings,” he also possessed all the attributes that constitute the essence of God.

Second, Morris argues, we may conceive of how Jesus was “fully human” as well as “fully God” by looking at his two distinct ranges of consciousness. (There is a long tradition among classical theorists of focusing on the two minds of Christ, to the point at which classical Christology is sometimes called two minds Christology.) If Jesus was “merely human,” of course, he could have only a limited human consciousness. Since Jesus was not merely human, however, his limited human consciousness did not restrict (and thus rule out) his ability to possess an unlimited divine consciousness.

Hence, Morris argues, the divine consciousness encompassed the human consciousness without thereby destroying it. We may further conceive that the divine mind always had access to the contents of the human mind, but not vice versa, for the divine mind is unlimited while the human mind is not. Thus, we may affirm that the human mind of Jesus genuinely had to grow, learn, confess ignorance at times, and so on, and that Jesus as a human had to go about acquiring information as all other humans do. At the same time, we may affirm, without contradiction, that Jesus was in a different sense omniscient.

2. The glory of Jesus. By explaining the biblical data in a noncontradictory way, classical Christology alone does full justice to the divinity of Jesus Christ. Conversely, by denying that Jesus could use certain divine attributes (e.g., his omniscience or omnipotence) while on earth, kenotic theorists subtly undermine Jesus’ divinity and glory. After all, what is glorious about a divine nature that cannot be displayed? Kenotic theorists affirm that Jesus was fully divine, but they divest this affirmation of any meaningful content by claiming Christ could not exercise his divine nature.

3. The inconsistency of the kenotic view. Classical Christology is consistent whereas kenotic Christology is not. The Bible suggests that Christ retained his human nature even after his ascension (e.g., Acts 17:3). The kenotic view seems to leave no possibility for a post-ascension humanity of Christ, however. If Jesus could become human only by emptying himself of certain divine attributes, then it follows that if Jesus ever reacquired the use of these divine attributes, he would no longer be human. To argue the point from the opposite direction, if the exercise of his divine attributes did not destroy Jesus’ humanity after his earthly stay, on what basis can one insist that they would have destroyed his humanity during his earthly stay?

Responding to Objections

Beyond the objection that classical Christology is contradictory, which has already been addressed, several other objections have been brought against this view.

1. How are two minds not two persons? Some argue that two minds Christology cannot avoid the charge of Nestorianism, the ancient heresy that Christ was two persons in one body. (See heretic.) How can we conceive of a single person with two minds? Since a person’s mind is the center of his personhood, to conceive of two minds is to conceive of two persons.

The objection does not work, however. Ordinarily, of course, there is a one-to-one correspondence between a person and a mind, but this is not a necessary truth. Thomas Morris provides an analogy of a person becoming aware that he is dreaming. There is in a real sense two “minds” involved in this awareness, yet no one would deny because of this that the person is one person. Morris offers another analogy of people with multiple personality disorder. Such people are psychologically ill because they lack a “mind” that encompasses and controls their other “minds”—something Jesus obviously possessed. But multiple personality disorder victims nevertheless illustrate the truth that one person can have distinct minds.2

2. This view is not biblical. Even if the classical view is philosophically possible, some argue that it is not biblical. The New Testament does not credit Jesus’ miraculous powers to himself but to the Holy Spirit or the Father working through him (Luke 4:14, 17–21; John 5:19, 30). This, kenotic theorists argue, shows that Jesus had divested himself of his own authority.

It is true that some texts in the New Testament attribute Jesus’ power to the Father and Spirit, but two points will suffice to show that this does not warrant the conclusion that Jesus did not possess his own power. First, certain Scripture passages attribute Jesus’ miraculous powers to himself. For example, at one point Jesus told the Jews, “Destroy this temple [namely, his body] and in three days I will raise it up” (John 2:19, emphasis added). If Christ had relinquished all of his divine power, he certainly could not have raised himself up. Conversely, if he possessed the power to raise himself up, there obviously is no reason to deny him the power to do any of the other miracles he performed throughout his ministry.

Second, we must not draw too great a divide between the three Persons of the Trinity. In traditional teaching, the three Persons are so interwoven that what one does, they all do. (This is traditionally called the perichoresis of the three Persons.) For example, though Jesus says he will raise himself up, other passages say it is the Father and/or Spirit who raises Jesus up (John 2:18–21; 10:17–18; cf. Rom. 8:11; Gal. 1:1). One cannot legitimately use the fact that Scripture sometimes attributes Jesus’ supernatural power to the Spirit or the Father to support the view that Jesus did not possess and exercise his own supernatural power.

3. Jesus could not have been genuinely tempted. A final objection is this: Some have argued that Jesus could not have been genuinely tempted, as Scripture says he was (Matt. 4:1), if his divine nature ensured that his human nature would never fall. Two things may be said in response.

First, though this problem is usually associated with two minds Christology, it actually is as much a problem for defenders of the kenotic view as it is for defenders of the classical view. Suppose Christ could have fallen by virtue of the fact that he had relinquished his divine prerogatives. What would have become of him had he done so? He obviously could not have continued to be fully God and fully human united in one person. Indeed, he would have become another sinner in need of salvation.

What would have happened had the all-holy, divine Son of God left the human Jesus? Humanity would have remained condemned in sin. God’s plan for world history would have been thwarted. This suggestion also presupposes that Jesus was two persons rather than one person—for the divine person would have left the human person. Someone might suggest instead that the all-holy, divine Son of God would have ceased to exist. This is hardly an improvement, however. Such an event not only would have thwarted God’s plan for world history but also would have destroyed God altogether! The Son of God, and therefore the Trinity, would have been annihilated! But God cannot be destroyed, any more than God can sin.

Second, anyone who suggests that Jesus could have fallen is thus walking on precarious ground. For good reason, most Christians throughout history have denied this possibility. But does this mean that Jesus could not have been tempted? Temptation is an experience someone undergoes when something evil pulls at him or her. The experience does not presuppose that the evil might actually win. It simply presupposes that the victory is not a forgone conclusion in the mind of the person being tempted. For example, a man who has developed a faithful character that will not allow him to enter into an adulterous relationship may nevertheless be tempted to cheat on his wife. Though it is (let us suppose) impossible for this man to fall, given his character, the temptation is real so long as the man does not know that it is impossible for him to fall. In the same way, we may suppose that Jesus’ divine character made it impossible for him to fall. As God, he would of course have known that he could not fall, but as a man, he would not have known this. The experience of temptation would thus have been as real to Jesus as it is to any of us (Heb. 4:15).

Christ Relinquished His Divine Prerogatives
(The Kenotic View)

A central tenet of the Christian faith is that God became a human being. This teaching is as beautiful as it is mysterious, but it does not create a contradiction. Believing that Jesus Christ was fully God and fully human does not require the belief that Jesus Christ was both omniscient and non-omniscient or omnipresent and non-omnipresent at the same time. According to the kenotic view, this belief is contradictory. Kenotic Christology holds that God the Son laid aside (kenosis) the use of certain divine attributes, such as his omniscience and omnipresence, precisely because these divine attributes would have precluded his ability to become a full human being. Everything inconsistent with being a true human was set aside in the incarnation. Jesus did not cease to be God, of course, and his divine attributes did not cease to exist. But the Second Person of the Trinity temporarily relinquished his ability to use these attributes.

The Biblical Argument

This is not simply an inference kenotic theorists make to avoid embracing a logical contradiction. Rather, it is the clear teaching of Scripture. For example, in Philippians the apostle Paul writes:

Let the same mind be in you that was in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God as something to be exploited, but emptied [kenosis] himself, taking the form of a slave, being born in human likeness. And being found in human form, he humbled himself and became obedient to the point of death—even death on a cross. (2:5–8)

This passage teaches that Jesus Christ became a real human because he did not cling to his divinity. He was willing to “empty himself” in order to take upon himself “the form of a slave” and be “born in human likeness.” If Jesus Christ continued to use his divine attributes, as classical Christology holds, what did Jesus empty himself of?

The teaching that Christ relinquished the use of certain divine attributes is alluded to throughout the New Testament. Paul taught the Corinthians that though Christ was originally “rich,” he became “poor” in order to make us “rich” (2 Cor. 8:9). He laid aside his treasure in order to open up a way for us to share in his treasure. Jesus refers to this treasure that he laid aside as his “glory” when he prays, “Father, glorify me . . . with the glory that I had in your presence before the world existed” (John 17:5). Jesus shared in the Father’s glory prior to his becoming human. He was “rich,” being in every way “equal with God.” But he relinquished this glory to become genuinely human. This is part of what is meant when John says that Jesus descended into the world (e.g., John 3:13). Christ lowered himself to become one of us. His prayer in John 17 is that he would soon regain his glory through his death and resurrection (cf. Phil. 2:9–11). Without ceasing to be God, Jesus divested himself of some of the riches, glory, rights, and attributes of his divinity in order to invest himself fully in humanity.

Further evidence of Jesus’ kenosis is found in the Gospels. While Scripture is clear that God knows all things (Ps. 139; 1 John 3:20), it is also clear that Jesus did not know all things—even though he was fully God. Jesus admitted that he did not know the “day or hour” of his return. Only the Father knew this (Mark 13:32). He did not know who touched him to receive a healing (Mark 5:30) or how long a young boy had been demonized (Mark 9:20–21). In the Garden of Gethsemane, he prayed that his Father would find a way for him to avoid his crucifixion “if it [was] possible” (Matt. 26:39). Jesus could not have sincerely prayed this prayer if he as God knew all along that it was not possible to avoid his crucifixion.

It seems clear, therefore, that as a full human being, Jesus was not omniscient. He had a finite mind, for this is an essential part of what it means to be human. Jesus had to learn and grow in wisdom just as all other humans do (Luke 2:52). Indeed, Scripture says that God made Jesus “perfect through sufferings” (Heb. 2:10). “He learned obedience through what he suffered,” and it was only after he had “been made perfect” that he could become “the source of eternal salvation for all who obey him” (Heb. 5:8–9). This does not imply that Jesus was morally imperfect, for the Bible tells us he was sinless (Heb. 4:15). But it does imply that as with all humans, Jesus had to grow spiritually as well as mentally and emotionally. To do so, Jesus had to surrender temporarily the use of his infinite wisdom and power.

Only this kenosis explains how Jesus could have been tempted just as we are “in every respect,” even though Scripture also states that God cannot be tempted (Heb. 4:15; James 1:13). Either we must accept the contradictory view that Jesus both could and could not be tempted, or we must conclude that Jesus relinquished the use of those aspects of his divinity (such as his omniscience) that prevented him as God from being susceptible to temptation.

Supporting Arguments

1. The coherence of the kenotic view. One of the strongest arguments in favor of kenotic Christology is that it avoids the logical contradiction created by traditional Christology. It allows believers to affirm that the infinite God became a finite human without contradicting themselves. Defenders of the classical view have made valiant but unsuccessful attempts to argue that their view is paradoxical, not contradictory. When all is said and done, the unity of Jesus’ person hinges on the unity of his mind, will, and attributes. This is what personhood means. If Jesus had two minds, two wills, and two different sets of attributes (namely, omnipotent and not omnipotent), he simply was not one person.

2. The humanity of Jesus. Kenotic Christology empowers believers to take Jesus’ humanity seriously. There simply is no way to affirm coherently that Jesus was a human in every respect while also affirming that he was omnipresent, omniscient, and omnipotent while here on earth. Classical Christology makes people conceive of Jesus either as two persons packed into one body (Nestorianism) or as God in a human body (apollinarianism).

3. The example of Jesus. Scripture encourages us to look to Jesus as the example of how we should live (1 Cor. 11:1; Phil. 2:5). But how can we follow the example of one who was omnipresent, omniscient, and omnipotent? Because it consistently affirms the full humanity of Jesus, kenotic Christology renders the mandate to make Jesus our example coherent.

Responding to Objections

1. This view undermines the divinity of Jesus. The most frequent objection raised against kenotic Christology is that it undermines Jesus’ divine nature. While this objection applies to the views of certain liberal kenotic theologians who argued that Jesus actually extinguished his divine attributes, it does not apply to the evangelical kenotic theory, which simply asserts that Jesus willingly gave up the use of those attributes that would have conflicted with his human nature.

2. How did Jesus do miraculous deeds? Many who hold to traditional two minds Christology argue that Jesus’ miracles prove he did not relinquish his divine power, and his supernatural knowledge proves he did not relinquish his divine knowledge (e.g., Matt. 9:4; Mark 4:39). This conclusion is unwarranted, however. The New Testament almost always attributes Jesus’ supernatural abilities to the Holy Spirit or to the Father, who was working through him (Matt. 12:28; Luke 4:1, 14, 17–21; John 5:19, 30).

This is why Jesus could tell his disciples that they would do “greater works” than the ones he performed (John 14:12). He could not have taught this if his miracles were a sign of his own divinity. The miracles Jesus performed evidenced his human submission to God and can thus, in principle, be performed by all humans. This also explains why Jesus’ healing miracles were not always instantaneous and why his miracle-working power was contingent on other people’s faith (Mark 6:5; 8:22–26). This would not have been the case if Jesus could have simply worked his power as Creator whenever he pleased.

3. Paul’s interest was not metaphysical. Some have argued that kenotic theorists read too much into Philippians 2. In this passage, Paul celebrates Christ’s humble attitude in becoming a human—an attitude all are to emulate (Phil. 2:5). True, he is not spelling out a theory of the incarnation, but two considerations dissipate the force of the objection.

First, kenotic christologists do not rely only on Philippians 2 for their view. It is based on a broad reading of Scripture. Second, the fact that Paul was not explicitly interested in metaphysics in this or any other “emptying” passage does not preclude the development of a theory of the incarnation partly on the basis of this passage. Paul’s practical words often have metaphysical implications. As we wrestle with the question of how God could become a man, therefore, it is appropriate to ask, What is implied in Christ’s emptying? The most plausible answer to this question is that he emptied himself of the use of attributes that would have been inconsistent with his ability to be fully human.

4. Who ran the universe during the incarnation? The Bible tells us that Christ holds all things together (Col. 1:17; Heb. 1:3). However, if Christ relinquished the exercise of his omnipresence and omniscience while on earth, there is no way he could have continued to perform this role.

In reply, the passages that celebrate Christ’s role as Creator and Sustainer of the universe describe Christ’s customary role. They do not rule out the possibility that Christ, for a season, set aside this function. The doctrine of the Trinity allows us to assert that God exists in three distinct ways at the same time. According to kenotic theorists, the second way God is God—the Second Person of the Trinity—emptied himself and became a full human. But (thankfully) the universe was not thereby vacated. The Father and Spirit continued to exercise their omnipotent and omniscient capacities.

If it were exegetically necessary, we could argue that Christ still held all things together even while he was incarnate. Consider this example: The owner of a company who goes on vacation may nevertheless be credited with “holding the company together” if he has responsibly arranged for things to carry on a certain way while he is gone. So long as Christ’s wisdom and power lie behind the sustaining of the universe, it can be said that he held all things together even after he temporarily surrendered the use of his infinite wisdom and power to become a man.

5. What of Christ’s post-ascension humanity? Finally, some have objected to kenotic Christology on the grounds that it cannot explain how Jesus is both God and man now. Most scholars agree that the New Testament assumes that Jesus retained his humanity after his ascension (Acts 17:3). Yet everyone agrees that since his ascension, Jesus has exercised all of his divine attributes. That is, even evangelical kenotic theorists affirm that Christ is now omnipresent, omnipotent, and omniscient. But if the full exercise of divine attributes is consistent with Christ’s humanity after his ascension, on what basis can kenotic theorists argue that they are inconsistent with his full humanity before his ascension?

Kenotic theorists respond to this objection in one of two ways. First, some concede that the kenosis of Christ was not necessary for him to become a human per se. It was necessary, however, for him to become the human who could save us from damnation, sin, and the devil. Some would argue that Christ had to experience and overcome temptation, for example, which means he had to empty himself of his omniscience. Others would argue that Jesus had to be vulnerable in order to lure Satan into orchestrating his crucifixion. This required that he surrender the use of his omnipotence. Some would further argue that as the sacrificial lamb of God, he had to experience genuine separation from the Father. Hence, he laid aside the use of his omnipresence. Most kenotic theorists would agree, however, that once his task of saving the world was complete, Christ reassumed the full exercise of divine attributes.

Second, some kenotic theorists would answer this objection by maintaining that it was indeed necessary for Christ to empty himself to become a human per se, but they would distinguish between humans in their present probationary state and humans in their glorified state in heaven. Finitude is intrinsic to humans in this probationary state, and its purpose is to allow humans to choose freely for or against God and thus determine their eternal destinies. All who choose for God will ultimately be transformed into a glorified state, through which they will enjoy perfect unbroken fellowship with God throughout eternity.

These kenotic theorists then argue that Christ had to become a sinless human as humans are defined now in this probationary period. It would have been logically impossible for Christ to do so without setting aside certain divine attributes. Once this stage of human existence is complete and the kingdom has been established, however, human nature will be transformed. No one except Christ will exercise omniscience, omnipresence, and omnipotence. But no one’s nature will be such that these attributes are ruled out by definition, as they are now in this probationary period. Since Christ is in this glorified state now, he is able to exercise all of his divine attributes even though he is still, and shall always be, a full human being.