THE NATURE OF JESUS CHRIST—PART 2THE INCARNATION — PHILIPPIANS 2:6-11 — THE KENOTIC GOSPEL

© Orest Solyma May 8, 1999The Church of God in Williamstown

Web Site: http://www.alphalink.com.au/~sanhub/index.htm

INTRODUCTIONThe nature of the Godhead (the Father, the Son of God, the Holy Spirit) is the most controversial and divisive of all biblical subjects. Amongst cults and sects it seems that personal interpretation of prophecy is most divisive. The Branch Davidians of the now murdered David Koresh are an extreme example of this. Another divisive element is self-will rather than the righteousness found only in the Will of God.

Additional background on the nature of God is available on our web site in the papers HREF="http://www.ozramp.net.au/~sanhub/Immutab.htm, HREF="http://www.ozramp.net.au/~sanhub/image3.htm, HREF="http://www.ozramp.net.au/~sanhub/GodsName.htm, HREF="http://www.ozramp.net.au/~sanhub/godsplan.htmHREF="http://www.ozramp.net.au/~sanhub/doctrine.htm, HREF="http://www.ozramp.net.au/~sanhub/govt.htm, HREF="http://www.ozramp.net.au/~sanhub/sonofgod.htm. In the paper, Was Jesus “True God and True Man”? it was established that He is consistently identified as the Son of God. A few of the key Scriptures used were:

Mt 11:27 All things have been delivered to Me by My Father, and no one knows the Son except the Father. Nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and the one to whom the Son wills to reveal Him (So spiritual revelation is crucial).

How well do we know that no one can come to the Father, can come to know Him and His Son, unless the Father calls, as Jn 6:44-45 tells us? The Father and Son are one in purpose, as these verses show: Jn 10:30; 14:10-13,22-24; 17:11,22.

In Jn 8:54-56 Jesus answered (the Pharisees), “If I honour Myself, My honour is nothing. It is My Father who honours Me (for all glory and honour is given by the Father), of whom you say that He is your God. 55 Yet you have not known Him (Can we imagine the Servant of God telling religious leaders, who organizationally control doctrine, that they do not know God?), but I know Him. And if I say, ‘I do not know Him,’ I shall be a liar like you; but I do know Him and keep His word. 56 Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad.”

Gal 3:6-8 says that Abraham had the Gospel preached to him. All the patriarchs, prophets, OT saints agree with all the NT saints, as Eph 2:20 and Heb 11 show.

Jesus’ prayer to His Father on the last night of His apostolic ministry includes: Jn 17:3 This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.

Eternal life, the gift of God, is self-evidently dependent on really knowing who God is and the One who is His Son, who is perfect in His Father’s image. Paul has much to say about God’s Son, particularly at the beginning of his epistles. An excellent example is:

Eph 1:17 that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give to you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of Him.

Many verses speak of the Son having a God and Father—see the Endnotei for a selection of NT verses about this.

Knowing the Son and the Father is essential for salvation:

1Jn 5:5 asks the question: Who is he who overcomes the world, but he who believes that Jesus is the Son of God? (So salvation is defined in terms of knowing this).

Vast numbers believe, in diverse ways, that Jesus is the Son of God. The dogma of the trinity, in its various speculations and traditions, presents notions of how Jesus is the Son of God (e.g., James Dunn doesn’t agree with Oscar Cullman, who doesn’t agree with Alfred Whitehead, who doesn’t agree with Luther, who didn’t agree with Arius, etc. Just how is Jesus Christ the Son of God? How did Mary understand what the resurrected Christ said to her outside the tomb? I have not yet ascended to My Father; but go and tell My brethren, ‘I am ascending to My Father and your Father, and to My God and your God.’ How is God your Father and how is God Christ’s Father? Surely our answers should come from verifiable biblical perspectives rather than from traditions and dogma. Mt 10:32-38 speaks of the strife Christians are promised in believing the true Son of God. (Mt 24:4-5,24; Mk 13:6,22 prophesy that there would be many false sons of God taught):

32 Everyone therefore who acknowledges Me before others, I also will acknowledge before My Father in heaven; 33 but whoever denies Me before others, I also will deny before My Father in heaven. 34 Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword (see Heb 4:12; Eph 6:17; Rev 1:16; 2:12). 35 For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; 36 and one's foes will be members of one's own household (i.e., over the nature of the acknowledgement of who Jesus is: cp. Lk 12:8; 14:26; Jn 9:22; Rom 10:9; 1Jn 4:15; Rev 3:5). 37 Whoever loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and whoever loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me; 38 and whoever does not take up his cross and follow Me is not worthy of Me.

Family, friend, church member relationships may be torn apart over the truth of who really is the Son of God who reveals the Father. Our understanding of God impacts on all our behaviour, just as does a child’s behaviour with respect to its own understanding of its parents.

In the last book of the Bible, this promise is made to those who know the Father and the Son:Rev 3:12 He who overcomes, I will make him a pillar in the temple of My God, and he shall go out no more. And I will write on him the Name of My God and the Name of the City of My God, the New Jerusalem, which comes down out of heaven from My God. And I will write on him My new Name.

How is it that in the prophetic New Jerusalem the Son of God works for and with His God? It would seem the English word, ‘God’, has a meaning different to OT usage. Just as enduringly- faithful saints are given a new name, so was Christ given a new Name (Phil 2:9; Heb 1:8-9; 2:11-13).

OVERVIEW OF THE INCARNATION IN HISTORYLet’s look at a historical perspective to the Incarnation. The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (eds. F.L. Cross, E.A. Livingstone; OUP, 1993) begins the item on The Incarnation with:

The Christian doctrine of the Incarnation affirms that the eternal Son of God took human flesh from His human mother and that the historical Christ is at once fully God and fully man. … The doctrine [on the nature of God], which took classical shape under the influence of the controversies of the 4th-5th centuries, was formally defined in the Council of Chalcedon of 451. It was largely moulded by the diversity of tradition in the schools of Antioch and Alexandria, the one stressing [by surmise and speculation] especially

2

the human aspects of the Incarnate Christ, the other, under the influence of Platonizing philosophy, especially His Divinity (p 696).

Claims are persistent that these conclusions, based on speculative philosophizing, are true even though they were not part of the apostolic church nor part of the prophets’ beliefs (Gal 3:6-9; Heb 11:8-10,13-16,39-40). Is not doctrine based on Christ’s, the prophets’, the apostles’ teaching (Eph 2:20; Is 8:20)?

The Evangelical Dictionary of Theology (ed. Walter A. Elwell; Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1992) speaks similarly:

In the context of Christian theology, 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 did not possess, a human nature, “and so [He] was and continues to be God and man in two distinct natures and one person, forever” (Westminster Shorter Catechism, Q. 21). Scripture support for this doctrine is replete, e.g., John 1:14; Rom. 1:3; 8:3; Gal. 4:4; Phil. 2:7-8; 1 Tim. 3:16; I John 4:2; II John 7 (cp. also Eph. 2:15; Col. 1:21-22; IPet. 3:18; 4:1) [p 555].

We’ll examine most of these Scriptures and others and show that this dictionary’s definition is biblically untenable.

Let’s read Phil 2:6-11 from a NT Greek interlinear approach then variant translations will also be considered with additional exposition.6 [Jesus Christ], who, though He was in the form of God [What does this mean?] o]j evn morfh/| qeou/ u`pa,rcwn ‘hos en morph‘ Theou huparchÇndid not count equality with God a thing to be grasped [What does this mean?]ouvc a`rpagmo.n h`gh,sato to. ei=nai i;sa qewouch harpagmon h‘gesato to einai isa TheÇ

7 but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant [How did He empty himself?]avlla. e`auto.n evke,nwsen morfh.n dou,lou labw,nalla heauton ekenÇsen morph‘n doulou labÇn

being born in the likeness of man. evn o`moiw,mati avnqrw,pwn geno,menoj\ en homoiomati anthropon genomenosand being found appearing as a man kai. sch,mati eu`reqei.j w`j a;nqrwpoj kai sch‘mati heuretheis hÇs anthropÇs

8 He humbled himself and becoming obedient unto death even death on a crossevtapei,nwsen e`auto.n geno,menoj u`ph,kooj me,cri qana,tou qana,tou de. staurou/ etapeinÇsen heuton genomenos hupekoos mechri thanatou thanatou de starou

9 And therefore God has highly exalted Him and bestowed on Him the Name which is above every name dio. kai. o` qeo.j auvto.n u`peru,ywsen kai. evcari,sato auvtw/| to. o;noma to. u`pe.r pa/n o;noma dio kai ho Theos auton huperuposen kai echaristo auto to onoma to huper pan onoma[What name is bestowed on Jesus?]10 that at the Name of Jesus every knee should bow, heavenly beings, earthly beings, beings under the earthi[na evn tw/| ovno,mati VIhsou/ pa/n go,nu ka,myh| evpourani,wn kai. evpigei,wn kai. katacqoni,wn

3

hina en tÇ onomati I‘sou pan gonu kamps‘ epouraniÇn kai epigeiÇn kai katachthoniÇn

11 and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.kai. pa/sa glw/ssa evxomologh,shtai o[ti ku,rioj VIhsou/j Cristo.j eivj do,xan qeou/ patro,jÅkai pasa glÇssa exomolog‘s‘tai hoti Kurios I‘sous Christos eis doxan Theou PatrosDescriptions of the development of Christology (i.e., the nature of Jesus Christ) seem to suggest that the apostles of the NT, the prophets and saints of the OT had immature concepts of God and His Son. As the history of doctrine and dogma verifies, Christology is the result of Platonic, Neo-platonic, Stoic and Gnostic (including Philo’s) speculations that had infiltrated the minds of the early patristic theologians (e.g., Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Origen, Athanasius, Augustine). “The ecclesiastical doctrine of the Trinity is not only the product of genuine Biblical thought, it is also the product of philosophical speculation, which is remote from the thought of the Bible.” So wrote Emil Brunner in his A Christian Doctrine of God, (Dogmatics, Vol 1, Westminster Press; n.d., p 239). How amazing that the wise of this world reveal their stupidities! One is supposed to have no problem in logically thinking about the Bible and simultaneously trying to marry it with philosophical thought which is remote from the thought of the Bible (1Cor 1:20-21; Rom 1:18ff). The influences of pagan philosophies (including the dualism of Zoroaster of Persia; cf. Ninian Smart’s The Religious Experience of Mankind, Fontana, 1971, p 314) in formulating traditional Christology and concepts of the Godhead are admitted by many modern theologians.

The Encyclopedia of Early Christianity (E. Ferguson ed.; NY: Garland, 1990) says that “Platonism had a long history in Christian thought, since it seemed to provide the best philosophical basis for Christian beliefs about God and the soul” (p 282). Jaroslav Pelikan in The Christian Tradition, Catherine LaCugna in GOD FOR US, and other well-known theologians admit to the philosophical and metaphysical influences in the formulation of Christology. Stavrinides (formerly a senior minister with the Worldwide Church of God, publishers of The Plain Truth), in his Understanding the Nature of God (April, 1993; “for ministers only”), says “that neither the apostolic teachers nor the apostolic age, in general, afforded the conceptual tools to solve [the problem of the nature of God]. .... The concept of one God .... did not arise until well after the apostolic times” (p 9). So here we have a man who understands more about the nature of God than the apostles, presumes that the apostles did not comprehend, as well as he does, the nature of God and His Christ, hence he denies Eph 2:19-20—for the Church and its beliefs are founded on Jesus Christ, the apostles and prophets. The answers to the nature of God are in the Scriptures and not in illogical and foggy pseudo-philosophical speculations nor in the vanity of man’s imagination.

Though trinitarian, binitarian, and other views of Phil 2:6 are ideologically driven and offer supposedly plausible explanations to uphold their positions, it is interesting to see what some scholars have to say about the verses in question. Binitarianism is generally seen as two completely equal gods with the son voluntarily diminishing his powers so that the father’s will is done. So the son, in this illogical dogma, defies being perfect and fully expressing all his powers (contra Mt 5:48; 1Thess 5:19). Yet this dogma presumes to call itself “monotheistic.”

James D.G. Dunn, an avowed trinitarian, who devotes his theological skills in attempting to destroy all notions of Christ’s pre-existence as a divine being (in Christology in the Making, SCM Press, 1989), says of Phil 2:6:

“the common belief that Phil. 2.6-11 starts by speaking of Christ’s pre-existent state and status and then his incarnation is, in almost every case, a presupposition rather

4

than a conclusion, a presupposition which again and again proves decisive in determining how disputed terms within the Philippian hymn should be understood” (p 114).

Perhaps the really critical point is, how was the Son of God pre-existent? As one of three hypostasesii of the trinity? Dunn discusses the contrasts and parallels among “form of God,” “form of a slave,” “equality with God,” “in likeness of men,” and draws on allusions to Gn 1-3. The first Adam grasped at being “like God, knowing good and evil”, and so became a slave of being “in the likeness of sinful flesh” from which the second Adam came to liberate man (Rom 8:3,11). “Christ faced the same archetypal choice (i.e., the perfect prototype, the model for all to emulate) that confronted Adam, but chose not as Adam had chosen (to grasp equality with God)” (p 117). Dunn does not discuss the possible allusion to Satan’s rebellion in seeking ‘equality’ with God as typified in Is 14:13; Ezk 28:14-17). For Satan sought an equality with God that was not his to lust after (Is 14:13-14; Ezk 28:15-19). Dunn denies the existence of the angelic realm: “we probably still have to say with von Rad, ‘the angels of Judaistic angelology are always a naïve representation of the omnipresent and omniscient word and will of Yahweh’” (p 151). Eve too, symbolic of the errant Church (Gen 3:14-16), sought misperceived attributes of God not her’s to seek, nor Adam’s (who is symbolic of mankind). The Son of God, however, unwaveringly sought only the Will of God.

Oscar Cullmann (in The Christology of the New Testament, SCM, 1973) says that Phil 2:5-11 unites three concepts: ‘Son of Man’, ‘Servant of God’, and Kyrios [Lord] (p 174). He goes to some length to show that the subject (of the hymn in Paul’s epistle to the Philippians) is quite clearly the Heavenly Man and his relation to Adam (p 715).

Sydney Cave, in his The Doctrine of the Person of Christ (London: Gerald Duckworth & Co., 1925,1956), says:

Few passages in the New Testament have been more elaborately discussed than this passage of Philippians and around its meaning much of the controversy about the Kenotic interpretation of Christ’s person has raged. The two problems should be kept distinct. The Kenotic theory cannot be based upon a single text. It is a hypothesis, which, if accepted, is to be accepted because it seems best to explain the Christian facts. … Paul is not writing with technical precision, or in the interests of a recondite theory. He is not explaining the mode of the Incarnation. He is concerned to use the fact of the Incarnation as the supreme incentive to humble Christian love. … Paul does not define the extent of the self-emptying (pp 42-43).

Most scholars who attempt to define the kenosis, the emptying, give their expositions on the presumption that the Trinity is inalienable.

Apparently Paul did not call Christ God [cf. Rom 9:5 and Tit 2:13, which are generally mistranslated], but it is clear that he assigns to the exalted Lord divine functions. … [For] Christ is God’s [work], as we are Christ’s [work] (1Cor 3:23) (Cave, p 48).

The emptying is surmised to be the emptying of omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence and the taking on of fleshly existence with the divine attributes of love, truth, wisdom, discernment, mercy, and so on.

The level of intensity of argument is reflected in Incarnation and Myth, edited by M. Goulder (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979) in an essay by Don Cupitt, Mr [Brian] Hebblewaite on the Incarnation.

The theory of kenosis (or of God’s self-emptying) is not a theory designed to account for the facts about Jesus, but a theory designed to explain how one can go on believing in the incarnation in a time when the old arguments [developed over about 1600 years]

5

have broken down. It starts from the question, ‘Given that God is incarnate in Jesus, how does it come about that God is so hidden in Jesus that Jesus does not even know he is God incarnate, but in every respect human as we are?’ (pp 43-44)

The theologians whom Cupitt is taking to task say that Jesus is God the Son, whereas Jesus always claims to be the Son of God. They are confused, just as the Pharisees and doctors of the law were, as shown in the Gospels. They too claimed that He claimed He was God, but He claimed He was the Son of God. Why are simple facts rejected?The presumptuousness of some theological scholarship is illustrated in Gordon Fee’s Paul’s Letter to the Philippians (NICNT, Eerdmans, 1995):

Thus in a single sentence Paul goes from Christ’s “being equal with God” to his having taken the role of “a slave,” defined in terms of incarnation. All of this to call the Philippians to similar self-sacrifice for the sake of one another (v. 4) (p 198).

Assumptions are taken for granted, then exposition begins. That is to say, ‘We know that God the Son is equal to God the Father. We know that the Trinity is inarguable. So let us go from there.’ The consequent errors spoken in the name of Scripture proliferate. Yet we don’t have, as self-confessing Christians, any difficulty in knowing that millions of Hindus, Muslims, and numerous other religious groupings are not as well-informed as we are, for they do not have revelation, do they? And each thinks similarly of the other in a different group. Who really has revelation of who God is and who is His Son (see Prov 30:4; Rom 8:9; 1Jn 2:4)? Most Christians believe that Jesus is the Son of God (1Jn 5:4,13), but the question that needs biblical answering, not philosophical speculation and assumption, is, ‘How is Jesus the Son of God?’ Do we really understand how each true Christian is a son of God or child of God? I’ll not be able to answer that adequately this time. As soon as time and opportunity allow, I’d like to address the topics, The Son of Man and The Origin of the Son of God.

THE KENOTIC GOSPELThe following exposition of Philippians 2.5-11 challenges what most theologians say about this Kenotic Gospel (kenoo, to empty; divest; nullify; devastate; [Theological Dictionary of the New Testament]), and shows that the Father and the Son are not co-equal.

In the previous message, we briefly showed that the pre-incarnate Son of God was the Father’s Messenger (Mal 3:1b), who communicated with Adam and Eve, Cain, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, the other patriarchs, prophets, judges (e.g., Gideon, Jgs 6:11-22). It was He who divested Himself, emptied Himself to take on the form of a man. Let us look at what many scholars regard as a quotation of a hymn sung in the churches of God. It is in Paul’s epistle to the church in Philippi, which started in the home of Lydia (Acts 16:11-15).

Phil 2:5-11 Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, 6 who, though He was in the form of God (‘in the likeness of God’? cf. Gn 1:27), did not count equality (isa) with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied (from kenoo, kenosis) Himself, taking the form of a servant (i.e., in the likeness of God’s Servant [see Is 42:1-8; 49:1-9; 50:4-10; 52:13-53:12]), being born in the likeness of men (Gn 1:27). 8 And being found as a man He humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross. 9 Therefore God has highly exalted Him and bestowed on Him the Name (Eph 1:21 above every Name that is named; Heb 1:4 He has inherited a more excellent Name than the angels; Ex 23:21 “Beware of Him and obey His voice; do not provoke Him, for He will not pardon your transgressions; for My Name is in Him”—i.e., Lord, Yahweh, Elohim, etc.) which is above every name, 10 that at the Name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under

6

the earth, 11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

We should note that in Exodus 23:21 we are given words from the Father about His Son but spoken to Moses by the pre-incarnate Son, the One who led Israel out of Egypt. These verses are quite clear on this point: see Ps 78:15-16; 105:39; 1Cor 10:1-4; Acts 7:37-39,56.

“IN THE FORM OF GOD”How do we interpret, as the NKJV puts it: “who being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery (harpagmon) to be equal (isa) with God”? Louw and Nida (Greek-English Lexicon of the NT, [NY: UBS, 1989]) say:

“...‘he always had the nature of God and did not consider that remaining equal with God was something to be held on to forcibly’ Php 2.6 .... (These authors continue to explain that there are two possible understandings of the NT Greek here:) Since a`rpagmo,j [harpagmos] may mean not only ‘to grasp something forcefully which one does not have’ (Item 57.235) but also ‘to retain by force what one possesses,’ it is possible to translate Php 2.6 in two quite different ways. This second interpretation of

"(:`DB H presumes the position of Jesus prior to the incarnation and hence his willingness to experience the kenosis or ‘emptying’ of his divine prerogatives. In any translation of Php 2.6 it is important that both possible renderings be clearly indicated, one in the text and the other in the margin” (Item 57.236, p 584).

Many translations do this ambiguously. The NEB has: “yet he did not think to snatch at equality with God,”—this might suggest that there was inequality and there was the possibility to snatch at equality. The footnote adds: “yet he did not prize his equality with God”—this suggests that there was equality but was not held on to for the sake of the Will of the other hypostasis. The NIV text reads, “did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,” with a final sentence in the footnote: “On the other hand, it may be something still to be attained, like a prize, as he did not yet possess it.” Most people would probably not discern the ambiguities nor the possible variations in what the original means. But we must note that experts in NT Greek, despite their trinitarian bias, realize there are two quite different possibilities in the NT Greek text. Does dogma or truth decide interpretative translation?

Raymond E. Brown’s An Introduction to the New Testament (Doubleday, 1997), reflects some complex arguments still unresolved amongst many biblical scholars. He asks:

Is “being in the form of God” the same as being equal to God and thus being uncreated (i.e., God is uncreated but if the Son is not entirely equal to the Father then that raises the question, Is the Son a creation of His Father?)… or (Brown continues) does it mean in the image/likeness of God (as in Gen 1:27: “God created Adam in his image”) and thus lower than being equal to God? Correspondingly, was Christ Jesus already equal to God but did not cling to that, or was he offered the possibility to become equal to God and did not grasp at it (as did Adam when tempted by the serpent in Gen 3:5: “You will be like gods”)? … or is there a play on two Adam-figures (i.e., human archetypal models): the Adam of Genesis who was in the image of God but, by ambitiously trying to go higher, went lower through his sin; and Christ who was in the image of God but, by humbly choosing to go lower, ultimately was exalted by being given the divine name (2:9-11)? If the hymn was incarnational and was phrased in Aramaic in the 30s, the highest type of NT christology was articulated early indeed (pp 492-3).

7

Brown is leaving the suggestion, contrary to some scholars, that the apostolic understanding of the nature of God may have been of the highest order, and which most scholars do not agree with. To suggest otherwise, as some theologians do, is to say that post-biblical scholarly formulations are of a higher order than that of the patriarchs, prophets and apostles—which is contrary to Eph 2:20. The entire Household of God is built on the foundation of the apostles, prophets and Jesus Christ (Heb 11).

As disciples of Jesus Christ, hungry for the Truth, we must surely let Scripture speak to us rather than ideology. It is evident that scholars agree that the NT Greek in Phil 2:6 can mean:

· that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, was not equal to the Father and did not consider the use of force to gain equality; or

· that Jesus Christ, the Son of Man, was equal to the Father but did not seek to assert His equality and took on the form of God’s Servant, for this was the Will of God—to which the second hypostasis deferred.

A French theologian asks:“[Are] we to regard the divine equality as a prize already in Christ’s possession but to which he did not wish to cling or, on the contrary, as something he did not possess yet did not want to seize by force? The latter view clearly permits reference to Adam as a antetype and to Gen 3:5 (‘esesthe hÇs theoi’, ‘you shall be as gods’) or to Satan (cf. Isa 14:12f). The theological reflections to which these alternatives can lead are also obvious: was the pre-existent Christ God or was he not? (Jean-FranHois Collange, The Epistle of Saint Paul to the Philippians, trans. A.W. Heathcote, London: Epworth Press, 1979, p 99).

It is refreshing to hear scholars admit to real possibilities that go against dogmatic convention. As Plato endorsed in his Republic (Pt 6, Bk 5, 459d), the political leaders, like the theologians, don’t really want increasingly educated disciples; they’d rather have the masses being manipulated to do the benevolent wishes of their masters (Lk 22:25).

The German church historian and theologian, Adolf Harnack, who regarded the metaphysics which came into Christian theology as an alien intrusion from Greek sources (‘Hellenization’), in his nine-volume History of Dogma (1894-99; cf. The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, p 620), commented (with considered sarcasm?) about the incarnation:

No one knew whether the Logos was blended with humanity or merely joined with it, whether He had transformed Himself into it or whether he had put it on as a dress and dwelt in it as in a temple, whether in becoming man he had taken it up into the Godhead, or in deifying it had left its peculiar nature intact; or had not deified at all, but had merely associated it with the Godhead. Further, no one knew in what way the Gospel statements were to be employed in connection with the complicated nature of the God-man. Was the flesh, the man, born of the Virgin Mary, or was the Logos born of her together with the flesh? Who suffers, who hungers, who thirsts, who trembles and is afraid, who asks and is anxious, who confesses his ignorance, who describes the Father as the only Good, who dies, the man or the God-man? There was no fixed, generally accepted answer [and still isn’t among theologians today]. Further, no one was able to make any definite statement regarding the permanence of the humanity of Christ and its nature after the Resurrection, and yet the question as to the effect of the Incarnation turned entirely on this point. Finally, the question as to whether the Logos did or did not undergo a change owing to the Incarnation, was one on which complete uncertainty prevailed. The question regarding exultation, humiliation,

8

depotentiation, assumption emerged and affected the always half-concealed fundamental question, as to the relation of the Divine and human generally. The theologians, however, groped uncertainly about, and however paradoxical many of the doctrines already were of a suffering without suffering, of a humiliation without humiliation, still the most paradoxical by no means passed yet for the most certain. We can easily see that we are here at the very central point of the old Greek theology; at the time of the Nicene Creed this was, however, no rock, but a slippery bit of country shelving down on all sides (History of Dogma, trans. Neil Buchanan, NY: Dover Publications, 1961, Vol 4, pp 142-3).

It is very evident that Harnack was very displeased with the state of theology among his peers.

Definitive answers, however, and based on consistently good use of Scriptures, are not offered anywhere—as far as I’m presently aware. Of course, the dogma of the Catholic Church offers answers:

“… the first confessions of the Church’s faith affirm from the beginning that the power, honor, and glory due to God the Father are due also to Jesus, because “he was in the form of God”” (Catechism, Item 449; also see Items 461-474)

The pre-incarnate Son was not equal to God, nor will be equal to God, as 1Cor 15:24,28, Rev 5:4-7 make clear.

The question of literal equality is not problematic, as we see from the scriptural evidences given. We note Paul’s statement in 2Cor 8:9:

For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though He was rich, yet for your sakes He became poor, that you through His poverty might become rich

Paul does not define, in any systematic way, the things in which the pre-incarnate Son was rich or poor. Those descriptions are there but we have to search the Scriptures for answers.

In being made a man, Christ was limited from His heavenly status. It was an act of sacrifice that the Father had foreknown, as is illustrated in Acts 2:22-23:

(Peter speaking to the crowds) Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a Man attested by God to you by miracles, wonders, and signs which God did through Him in your midst, as you yourselves also know—23 He was delivered by the determined purpose and foreknowledge of God, whom you have taken by lawless hands, have crucified, and put to death (see also Acts 4:27-33; 3:18).

How to definitively explain what specifics the pre-incarnate Son willingly emptied Himself of is difficult and perhaps to a fair degree speculative. Some say, on the basis of Jn 17:4-5, that He gave up His glory which He was given back? Let us look at this and consider its meaning.

(In prayer to His Father Jesus said): I have glorified You on the earth. I have finished the work which You have given Me to do (i.e., the work that was to be done to that point of time and as given in the Scriptures; more is still to be done). 5 And now, O Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was. (What was that glory?)

Before the world was means before the creation of the universe. So what was happening in the period at least from Adam to the time just before Mary conceived by the power of God, the Holy Spirit? In Jesus’ prayer in John 17 He goes on to say to His God and Father:

9

Jn 17:22 And the glory which You gave Me I have given them, that they may be one just as We are one. (They are forever one in purpose and will. And this glory is not the same as that requested in v 5).Jn 17:24 Father, I desire that they also whom You gave Me may be with Me where I am, that they may behold My glory which You have given Me; for You loved Me before the foundation of the world.

We find in this prayer a level of glory that was already given and another level of glory that was yet to be given—comparing vv 5,22,24. The apostle Paul makes am amazing statement in 2Cor 3:18:

But we all, with unveiled face (for the veil of blindness is removed, cf. vv 14,16), beholding as in a mirror (i.e., still imperfect to our view) the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to [ever more] glory, just as by the Spirit of the Lord [i.e., glory upon glory by (or, because of] the Spirit of the Lord; (see Louw & Nida’s, NT Semantic Domains, 89.25)] (see also Ps 84:7; Prov 4:18; Jn 1:16).

The following verses offer additional resource to answering the question:2Cor 4:4,6 whose minds the god of this age has blinded, who do not believe, lest the light of the Gospel of the Glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine on them. 6 For it is the God who commanded light to shine out of darkness, who has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the Glory of God in the Face of Jesus Christ (cp. Gn 32:28-30—Jacob saw the Face of God; Jn 14:9).Rom 8:18 For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us.1Cor 2:7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, the hidden wisdom which God ordained before the ages for our gloryCol 1:27 To them God willed to make known what are the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles: which is Christ in you, the hope of glory.

There is one glory to have Christ in you in this present Christian life. It is a higher glory still to be resurrected at the coming of Jesus which 1Cor 15:43 speaks of: raised in glory and power. And there is surely further glory when the saints are welcomed into the New Jerusalem.

There is a glory in Christ in that He came as our Redeemer; there is a glory in Christ that He preached the Gospel, overcame and was resurrected by His Father; there is a glory when all the saints are gathered with Him; there is a glory when all is completed and He gives all to His Father so that God may be all in all (1Cor 15:28). So the glory attributed to the Son of God before the creation was the promise given Him that he would be the Lamb of God, would gather all to God, and would complete it all (Rom 8:19-21). The following Scriptures illustrate this and show that the Father is by nature forever greater than the Son:

· The Kingdom of God was prepared from before the creation of the world (see Leon Morris’ The Gospel of Matthew, and W. Hendriksen’s Matthew; Mt 25:34; 13: 35).

· God’s purpose and grace was promised before time began (2Tim 2:9).· Eternal life was promised before time began (i.e., before the creation; Tit 1:2).· The plan and works of God are finished (i.e., by the foreknowledge of the Almighty) from

the foundation of the world (Heb 4:3).· The sacrifice of the Lamb of God was planned from before the foundation of the world

(1Pet 1:19-20; Acts 3:18; 4:27-28; Heb 9:26; The Interpreter’s Bible, Vol 12, [Abingdon Press, 1957], p 103 says of 1Pet 1:20: “before the creation”).

10

· God’s love for His Son was before the foundation of this world (Jn 17:24).· The blood of the prophets, (as with the blood of the Lamb), was shed from the foundation

of the world (Lk 11:50).· The saints were foreknown by the Father before the foundation of the world (Eph 1:4;

before the creation of the world, cf. R.E. Brown, An Introduction to the NT, p 622).· The names of the saints are written in the Book of Life from the foundation of the world

(Rev 13:8).· Just as the Son of God, sent in the image of His Father, was foreknown, so the saints,

foreknown by the infinite understanding of the Almighty Father, are also firstborn (Rom 8:29).

Let’s consider the implied allusion to Christ as a type of Adam in Phil 2:6.

THE FIRST AND SECOND ADAMRom 5:12,14,17-19 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned;14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses (Did death have no impact after Moses? Of course it did! From Adam to Moses all the saints knew that the wages of sin is death. The life of Moses was a benchmark in salvation history in that Moses foreshadowed the One who would lead the Israel of God), [Death reigned from Adam to Moses] even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come. (How was Adam a type of Christ?)17 (Paul continues with the typology): For if by the one man’s offense death reigned through the one, much more those who receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ. 18 Therefore, as through one man’s offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man’s righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life. 19 For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man’s obedience many will be made righteous.

Just as the carnal man cannot but sin, so the spiritual man always turns to God and always rejoices in the advocacy of Jesus.

First Corinthians continues in the same vein and adds explanation to what we’ve just read.1Cor 15:21-22,45-49 For since by [the] man [Adam] came death, by [the] Man [Jesus Christ] also came the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive.45 And so it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being.” The last Adam became a life-giving spirit. 46 However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural, and afterward the spiritual. 47 The first man was of the earth, made of dust; the second Man is the Lord from heaven. 48 As was the man of dust, so also are those who are made of dust; and as is the heavenly Man, so also are those who are heavenly. 49 And as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly Man.

Many ancient myths (e.g., Arabic, Babylonian, Canaanite, Greek, Persian, Roman) speak of the father of the gods as having a pre-eminent son who is the son of the Man—the Man who is the father of the entire pantheon (the domain of the entire godhead). In the pagan myths the gods fight amongst one another for various positions and privileges. In the Council of God (e.g., Rev 5-6) all the gods (i.e., the elders, cherubim, archangels, angels; the theoi or elohim) worship the One Almighty GOD. Many sources verify this: e.g., Alan Richardson, An Introduction to the New Testament, SCM, 1958, pp 141-144; Walther Eichrodt, Theology of

11

the Old Testament, SCM, 1961,1987, Vol 1, p 488; Carsten Colpe, TDNT, Eerdmans, 1972, Vol VIII, pp 400-477; James D.G. Dunn, Christology in the Making, SCM, 1989, pp 64-97.

Let’s look at other verses alluding to the same subject matter:1Tim 3:16 has more to add: And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness (eusebeia: i.e., daily life reverential toward God and His Way): which [“God” is an ideological insert here by translators and should be omitted] was manifested in the flesh [in the life of the Son of God], was justified in the Spirit, seen by angels, was preached among the Gentiles, believed in the world, was taken up in glory.

Jn 1:14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.2Cor 4:4 whose minds the god of this age has blinded, who do not believe, lest the light of the Gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God [He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation (Col 1:15)], should shine on them [just as Adam was in the image of God: Let Us make man in Our image .. in the image of God He created them (Gn 1:26-27), and as all mankind is—and is, by the work of the Son of God, to become perfect in the image of God].

THE NOTION OF EQUALITYIn Lk 20:36 the sons of God in the resurrection are “equal” to the angels, but is it an equality of power and gifts—for there are and will be differing powers and gifts (Rev 3:21; 5:10). The misconception about ‘equality’ was part of the doctrinal error of the Pharisees who, because Jesus Christ claimed to be the Son of God, they falsely concluded that He claimed to be “equal” to God (Jn 5:18; & see 10:33). Their problem included the denial that in the resurrection the saints would be “gods” [theoi (Gk); elohim (Heb); Jn 10:34; Ps 82:6]. Quite obviously, being ‘elohim’ in the resurrection (Christ is an Elohim; God the Father is an Elohim), does not presume equality among the entities called elohim/theoi. In the resurrection the saints will be ‘elohim’ (or ‘theoi’) but will worship the Almighty Eloah [Ps 97.7: “Worship Him all you gods (elohim)!”]. On the other hand Satan has counterfeited, in the polytheistic systems, a multiple and competitive worship of gods in the pantheons of Sumer, Babylon, Canaan, Egypt, Greece, Rome, the Norse, Arabia, Hinduism, animistic religions, and among falsely claimed monotheistic religions which endorse the worship of various gods and saints.

i A selection of NT verses showing that the Son of God has a God and Father to whom He was and is forever subject (OT cross-references should also be seen): Jn 20:17; 5:17-18; Rom 15:6; 1:7; 8:32; Acts 2:22-23; 1Cor 1:3; 3:23; 11:3; 2Cor 1:2-3; 11:31; 15:24,28; Gal 1:1-3; Eph 1:3,17; 6:28; Phil 1:2; Col 1:2-3; 1Th 1:1-2; 3:11; 2Th 1:1-2; 2:16; 1Tim 1:2; 2Tim 1:2; Tit 1:4; Phile 3; Heb 1:1-4,8-12; 2:9-15; 1Pet 1:2-3; 2Pet 1:2; 1Jn 1:3; 5:20; 2Jn 3; Jude 1; Rev 1:6; 2:26-27; 3:5,12,14,21; 5:3-7,10. Most who disagree do so on ideological grounds based on interpretation of a very few difficult Scriptures which are then used to misrepresent the clarity of the large number of verses contrary to the adamantly-held dogma/opinion.

ii Hypostasis (‘to exist under’): “First, it can mean that which underlies or gives support to an object, in the sense of content or substance in general. Second, in its transitive sense it means the externally concrete character of a substance in relation to other objects.” (LaCugna, God for Us, HarperCollins, 1993, p 66)

These ‘intermediary beings’ [e.g., Wisdom, Prov 8:1-21, as female; in Prov 8:22-36, as created and God’s means of salvation, i.e., His Son; Logos, from Platonism and Neo-Platonism, Stoicism and applied to Jn 1:1-2; Shekinah from Judaism and Kabbalah; angels; i.e., all manifestations of God’s presence] [These ‘intermediary beings’] are better understood as ways of asserting God’s nearness, his involvement with the world, his concern for his people. These words provided expressions of God’s immanence [i.e., God is present here and everywhere] without compromising his transcendence [i.e., God is beyond here and is everywhere] (Dunn, p 130). Now readers should fully understand what hypostasis, in the trinitarian sense, means!

12

Additional examples of isos (equal, equivalent, same) in the New Testament are:The parable of the vineyard workers records the complaint: “you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden and the heat of the day” (Mt 20:12). Yet we recognize that the equivalence is in the gift of eternal life. Rewards are according to one’s works and these differ.

With regard to 2Pet 1.1 “To those who have obtained equal precious faith”—The Interpreter’s Bible (Abingdon Press, 1957) makes the comment: “readers of the epistle have obtained a faith of equal standing with that of the apostles. ... The humblest believer enjoys a relationship to Christ equal in saving effectiveness to that sustained by Jesus’ first associates” (Vol 12, p 168). We acknowledge that God is not a respecter of persons, but offers the same grace, salvation, promise of help, & c. Equal faith, taken literally, would contradict varieties of gifts and levels of strength, as in 1Cor 12:4-11: ministries, capacities, knowledge, faith, healing, power, prophecy, discerning of spirits, tongues.

In Rev 21:16 we are told that the length, breadth, and height of the Holy City are equal. Yes, they are equal in distance, but the height is up while the length is not. The breadth and length are different directions and would have differences along their equal lengths.

In mathematics we can have, for example, a series of triangles all of equal angles (say, 20, 40, 120 degrees). The triangles are, self-evidently, not necessarily equal—having equal angles but unequal sides.

We come to the conclusion then, as in English, that the uses of the Greek for “equal” do not speak of exactness in all or most respects. The concept of equivalence, equality, sameness is flexible. We cannot, therefore, assume that Phil 2:6 means there is full equality in the Godhead unless there is other firm support from the Scriptures—which there is not..We may say that the Father is begetter, provider, educator of His children. The Son of God is a begetter, provider, educator of the children of God. May we then say that the Son is the Father? The married professional cosmologist is a begetter, provider for his family, and educator of his children. The married professional carpenter is a begetter, provider for his family, and educator of his children. Can we say that the carpenter is the cosmologist?

The profundity of 1Cor 15:24,28 is upheld in that the Servant (Is 42:1), the Son of God (Prov 30:4; Zec 13:7; Jn 17:3), the Anointed One (Ps 2:2; 45:7), is forever the Servant of His Father. After He puts an end to all rule and all authority and all power He is Himself subject to His God. In Rev 1:5-6 we read that Jesus Christ has made us into a kingdom of priests to His God and Father. The NT is strong in saying that Jesus Christ has a God and Father (Rev 1:6; 3:5,12,21; 1Jn 1:3; 2 Jn 3; Jn 20:7; Rom 15:6; 2Cor 1:3; 11:31; Eph 1:3,17; Col 1:3; 1Pet 1:3).

Is this not also a statement of heavenly subordination and servanthood? In Rev 3:5 it is Christ who presents the resurrected saints to His Father and His Father’s angels. Christ acts as High Priest for the kingdom of priests who serve the God and Father of Jesus Christ (Rev 3:12). We should see in the very Plan of God that Christ was, is, will be a Servant to His Father. A servant is not greater than his master (Jn 13:16; 15:20; Mt 10:24). There seem to be no well-presented, biblically-based arguments that show that Christ and the Father are co-equal! Of course, the illogical metaphysics of trinitarianism or lack of any philosophy in binitarianism is used for biblically-untenable argument.

13

If the binitarian position of co-equality is maintained, then we have an additional problem. There are two Almighty Gods deserving of equal worship who forever argue about who shall serve and work most. The notion invites the strangest of ‘logic’ and conclusions. Furthermore, the ‘logic’ of co-equality hides within it the philosophy behind a form of government, where from two entities who are equal (in every way?), one must ‘choose’ to become subservient, which denies the full expression of divine gifts (1Cor 12:28-31; 14:26).

The heavenly Council has a hierarchy based on created gifts and responsibilities (cherubim, 24 elders, seraphim, archangels, angels [perhaps also archons, authorities, powers, dominions, thrones; Col 1:16; 2:15; Eph 1:21; 3:10; 6:12; Rom 8:38]). The hierarchies within the pagan pantheons are forever in competition for worship. In the heavenly realm, the greatest awe and worship is toward the Father (Rev 4:1-5:1,13-14). The result of a co-equality in the Godhead and the practical denial of the heavenly Council at the church institutional level seem to inevitably lead to a governmental system that functions by imposed self-willing subservience on the basis of assumed authority, rather than by authentic recognition of God-given gifts, which was the experience of the apostolic church. With the apostolic approach there is a recognition of godly gifts within the whole membership, and hence responsibilities (Acts 1:15-26; 6:1-8; 15:3-13,22; 1Cor 12). Some have experienced an incongruous mix of imposed subservience in the guise of benevolence (Lk 22:25), its attendant problems, and quite inconsistent application of the recognition of God-given gifts. We’ve seen evangelists who didn’t evangelize, managers who mismanaged, historians who still don’t know their history nor learn from history, teachers who didn’t know their subjects, and ministers who scattered rather than nourished (Ezk 34; Jer 23). By the grace of God a minority seem to have so far survived!

HOW AND OF WHAT DID THE PRE-INCARNATE SON OF GOD EMPTY HIMSELF?Let’s review the following few Scriptures as we re-consider: How and of what did the pre-incarnate Son of God empty Himself?

1Pet 3:18 says: Christ suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but was made alive by the Spirit of His God and Father. (Did God the Son die, or did the Son of God die? The One on the cross died!)1Jn 4:2-3 By this you know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God. 3 and every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God. And this is the spirit of the Antichrist, which you have heard was coming, and is now already in the world.

The Interpreter’s Bible (1957, Vol 12, p 275) makes the comment: “An important textual variant to vs. 3a, witnessed by many of the church fathers [e.g., Irenaeus, Origen, Tertullian], reads, pan pneuma ho lyei ton I‘soun. This has usually been translated, “every spirit which divides Jesus,” i.e., makes a distinction between “Jesus” and “Christ,” as the Docetists did.” Docetism claims that since Christ is God, and since God cannot suffer, so Christ’s sufferings are imaginary. 1Jn 4:2-3 is addressing the problem created by those who separate the humanity Christ very evidently lived from the fact of His miraculous incarnation as the Son of God in the flesh.

The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament gives the meanings to lyÇ as to loosen, release, free, dissolve, destroy, break up, invalidate.

I. Howard Marshall’s commentary, The Epistles of John, (NICNT, Eerdmans, 1984), says “a number of authorities have a text which may be translated, “Every spirit that annuls Jesus is not from God.” While this rendering has not found its way into English versions of the New

14

Testament (except that of R. A. Knox, which is based on the Latin Vulgate), it has found considerable favor among commentators” (p 207). That is, the humanity in God the Son is the humanity each of us experiences as a Christian. Such a position attempts to support Heb 5:8, which tells us that the Son of God learned obedience by the things that He suffered, but is nevertheless illogical.

2Jn 7 Many deceivers have gone out into the world who do not confess Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh (as Son of God; contra God the Son). This is a deceiver and an antichrist.

We should recall the complexity of arguments among theologians about the incarnation and therefore the nature of Jesus Christ’s life, sacrifice, death, resurrection.

1Jn 2:22-23 Who is a liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist who denies the Father and the Son [i.e., the denial in the nature of the relationship of the Father and the Son? cf. Ps 2; Acts 4:25-27]. 23 Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father either; he who acknowledges the Son has the Father also.1Pet 4:1 Therefore, since Christ suffered for us in the flesh, arm yourselves also with the same mind, for he who has suffered in the flesh has ceased from sin (cf. Heb 4:15).Rom 1:3-4 tells us that the Son of God, Jesus Christ our Lord, was born of the seed of David according to the flesh, 4 and was declared [horizo, to limit, appoint (TDNT); i.e., appointed and limited by the Father] to be the Son of God with power according to the Spirit of holiness, [and fully confirmed] by the resurrection from the dead.Rom 8:3 says that God sent His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh on account of sin [by Adam and Eve and all mankind]: He thus condemned sin in the flesh.

CONCLUSIONJesus Christ, sent by His God and Father, the Messenger of God (Mal 3:1b), like all the angelic host and heavenly Council (Rev 4 & 5), is a spirit. God is a Spirit (Jn 4:24). All the heavenly beings are spirits and worship the one Father. Satan and his demons are spirits. There is the spirit of God and the spirit of this world (1Cor 2:12). There is a spirit formed in each human being, as Zech 12:1, Num 16:22, 1Cor 2:11 and numerous other verses tell us.

As a human being, Jesus Christ, like all of humanity, had a spirit as a man—for He was in the likeness of man. Was it that in placing the spirit into the ovarian egg in Mary (cf. Lk 1:35) that this spirit was the impoverished spirit that was the pre-existent Son of God in heaven, for as 2Cor 8:9 says: Though he was rich [i.e., as the heavenly Son] He became poor [i.e., took on the likeness of flesh] so that all of us through his poverty might become rich [i.e., be prepared in the richness of God-given righteousness and resurrected as the children of God at the time of Christ’s coming]? The use of ptocheia, poverty, in 2Cor 8:9 is derived from the same root as: Blessed are the poor [ptochi] in spirit, for theirs is the Kingdom of heaven (Mt 5:3).

The only-begotten God (1Jn 1:18) is the only spirit being, the Son of Promise, who was sacrificed—analogous to Isaac (Heb 11:17-18)—through whom all will be saved and blessed.

The dynamics of the heavenly spirit, the pre-existent Son of God, in foregoing His divine existence into human existence is beyond our comprehension of physics and allied sciences.

Since the Son of God grew, learned, increased, as Lk 2:40,52, Is 11:1, 50:4-5 reveal, we might reasonably conclude that the heavenly store of knowledge and power was not included in the process of human conception, birth, early childhood. Just as each of us is born with genetically- given and very probably certain inherent talents of the spirit formed in us, so this

15

would have applied to Jesus. Just as God gives gifts of all kinds, e.g., tongues, as with Paul (1Cor 14:18), is it unreasonable to surmise that God would restore—at the resurrection and ascension—all of Christ’s pre-incarnate knowledge, powers, gifts to the abiding glory of the Son of God?

As 1Tim 3:16 says: Without any doubt, the mystery of our godliness is immense: which was revealed in the flesh, vindicated in Spirit, seen by angels, proclaimed among the Gentiles, believed in throughout the whole world, and taken up in Glory.

Jesus Christ, the Son of God, made in the image of His Father, revealed the glory of true religion and has been the only One taken up into Heaven to sit on the right hand of His God and Father.

16