Consider This...
Theological Thoughts to Encourage the Heart & Stir the Mind ________________________________________________ Volume I January 2011 Issue 3
At times, when studying Theology there are words that are unfamiliar to the student, but their content is what the student holds and believes. These are words that are used rarely in the preaching ministry of the Church, but their subjects can be vital and key to understanding the Christian faith.
There are also words in the study of Theology that are unfamiliar in their content and rarely contemplated or taught. These words are ones that can seem unimportant to the overall life of the believer, however Theology is unique. Theology begins with the intellect but is worked out practically. The study of Theology is not just for the purpose of knowledge, but is for the outworking in ones life to better glorify God and enjoy Him.
In this article the discussion will revolve around defining four words that are not used often, but are important to the believer both for faith and practice. These terms are Kenosis, Impeccability, and Dichotomy & Trichotomy
The first two words come from the doctrine of Christology, that pertaining to Christ; His person and Work. This doctrine historically has been the center of debate since before the death of Christ on the cross. With a misunderstanding of this doctrine there is a trickle down effect into the other doctrines. This writer believes that this is the most necessary doctrine to defend and to understand. For without proper understanding there is no hope for humanity.
The first word to consider is Kenosis. It’s most basic definition is, “the self-emptying of Christ’s attributes”. This word is found in Philippians 2:7, which says, “made Himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of man”. It has been taught as the simple suspension of Christ’s divine attributes in His incarnation.[1]
The teaching of this doctrine affects the doctrine of the hypo-static union, Jesus fully God & fully man, as well as other areas concerning Christ’s person and work here on earth. The most consequential affect is that of stripping Christ of His deity. If Christ suspends even one attribute, He is no longer immutable.[2] This results in the lessening of two attributes. Christ also has the potentiality of sin if He is not fully God, making Him not completely holy. God is wholly holy.
A more correct definition of Kenosis would be, “Christ voluntarily submitting Himself to the will of the Father”.[3] This submission is of His heavenly glory, divine attributes, independent authority, eternal riches, and favorable relationship with the Father.[4] When viewed in this way Christ’s morphe of God does not change, but is veiled by the will of the Father, and the taking on of the morphe of humanity.[5]
When viewed this way, Christ’s Kenosis makes it possible that He could completely humble Himself as a servant (Pil. 2:7), and live a perfect life without the potential to sin. Surety is given to the hope of salvation when viewed in this way.
The second word to consider is Impeccability. A simple definition for this would be, “The inability of Jesus Christ to sin”.[6] The key word in this definition is inability. Most conservative Theologians and Denominations agree that Christ did not sin here on earth. (II Cor. 5:21, I Peter 2:22, I John 3:5, Heb 4:15, 7:26 & 27) However, the question is often debated whether or not Christ could have sinned while on earth? There is also the question of how Christ can sympathize with our weaknesses (Heb 4:15), if He did not experience the ability to sin? For this reason it is important to understand Christ’s sinlessness as being not only actual, but also not potential. There are a number of reasons as to why Christ could not have sinned.
The first reason is that Jesus was fully God (John 1:1, 10:30, Col 2:9). God is holy. God can also not do anything that is against His character. Therefore, Jesus Christ (God) could not sin. This however, does not actually answer the question of Christ’s ability to sympathize, but begins to lay down a foundation to build upon.
The second reason for Christ’s inability to sin is connected to His humanity. Sin is not a requirement for humanity. Yes all men from Adam are conceived as sinners and will be until the end of this world. However, prior to the fall, Adam was fully man and was without sin (Gen 1:31). Now, he did have the potential to sin, but not having sin did not make him any less human. In Revelation 21-22, John speaks of eternity in the New Heaven and New Earth where there will be no sin. Man will be fully human at this time. There is no spark of divinity in him, for he is still a created being. At this time however, there will be no potential for sin in man. This reason is not sufficient to answer the question of Christ’s ability to sympathize either. However, it does help one to see why Christ can be without the ability to sin, both in His divinity as well as in His humanity.
The final reason as to Christ’s inability to sin is rooted in the hypo-static union. Christ was both fully God as well as fully Man (John 4:29, 8:58, 11:28-44, 17:5, Matt. 18:20,16:21, 28:20, Mark 5:11-15, Heb:13:8). Christ did have a human nature (Luke 2:52, 19:10 Matt 26:38, John 11:35) and therefore could be fully tempted and experience the result of sin. However, He is also fully God, and must be seen in His totality.[7] Because He was fully God, His person was completely impeccable.
So what is the application for man? First, Christ is the believers’ High Priest and He can sympathize with them. He knows and understands the struggles that humanity faces. Secondly there is hope that Christ’s work was for certain and actual. Christ conquered sin and death because He knew no sin, and could not have done so.
Shifting away from the person of Christ to the person of man brings the consideration of the last two terms, Dichotomy and Trichotomy. These words are quite unfamiliar to many students of both Theology and Philosophy.
The main question that joins these two words is, “how is man divided as a being?” Is man a dichotomous being, made up of the material (body) and immaterial? Or is he a trichotomous being, made up of the material and the immaterial, which is soul and spirit?
The dichotomous view is supported by the creation account of man. God combined the material (blood, organs, muscles, etc) with the immaterial (soul, spirit, heart, will, conscience, etc) to create the one being, Man. The immaterial part of man is then broken up into facets that are not separated from each other, or more superior from on to another. They are used as overlapping aspects that enhance one another within the immaterial part of man.[8]
The trichotomous view is supported by the language of scripture and the use of the words, soul and sprit (Soul; Gen 12:5, 17:14, Ez. 18:4. Spirit; Job 27:3, Ps. 104:29) Spirit is seen as being superior to the soul. It is related to God. The spirit is not ever connected to the body. The spirit is what gives life to the total being.
Soul is then superior to the body, relating to the world. The soul is the life, or the person of the body. The soul is connected to the corporeal body, as it is seen to leave at the moment of death.[9] As Lewis Sperry Chafer writes, “Man is spirit, because he is dependant upon God. Man is soul, because, unlike the angels, he has a body, which links him to earth”[10].
What application can be made by understanding these terms? Throughout the world’s religions and worldviews there are many that view man as being made of only one part. The material is all there is. While others view the material as evil and believe that salvation comes from escaping it. From these beliefs many originate their false teaching of Christ being only God, or only man. However, it is important to note that the material longs for perfection and will one day attain it.
Salvation affects the whole being of man, however its main focus focused and evidence is on the immaterial part of man. The body wastes away, but the spirit is sanctified here on earth.
Soli Deo Gloria
John A. Frey
[5] John Calvin. Calvin’s Commentaries; Vol. XXI, Commentaries on the Epistles to the Philippians, Colossians, and the Thessalonians. (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 2009), 57-58
[9] Chafer, Lewis Sperry. Systematic Theology: Vol. II, Angelology, Anthropology, & Hamartiology. (Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1976), 182
No comments:
Post a Comment