The Christmas Conspiracy

"He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him." (John 1:10 NIV).

Most Christians, even theologians, interpret this verse in such a way that the "world" represents only the Jews of Christ's day. Although fairly precise in their hermeneutics of the verse, they tend to overlook at least a couple of key principles in its application:

1. The verse was written by the apostle John long after Jesus Christ had ascended into heaven. Note that John, who was Jewish, used the word, kosmos (world), instead of the word, Ioudaios (Jews).
2. John intended this to apply to his current world, while the Spirit of God intends to apply it to even the 21st century.

To start appreciating what this verse is telling us, let us first assume that the "world" represents the Jews. The Jews were quite literate in their knowledge of prophecy. They knew the the Messiah was coming and that He would be their King and Savior. However, they had pre-conceived notions of how a king enters into his kingdom. They envisioned a king who would come in all his glory with heralds announcing his arrival and every step. They knew that the Messiah is the Son of God but they could only imagine that He would enter into space and time as a mature adult, handsome and dashing, regal and rich, etc, etc.

Christian scripture has shown at least a couple of errors in the Jewish expectations. First, they did not realize that the messiah would visit the earth twice and hence, missed the first advent. Second, they had a worldly concept of sovereignty and hence, missed the coming of the suffering servant. Hence, it is plausible to interpret John's writing of "the world did not recognize Him" as " the Jews did not recognize Him".

But lest we Christians start becoming content with our views or even arrogantly so, let us be reminded that mainstream Christianity today is vastly influenced by a neoplatonic form of classical theology which views the concept of God's sovereignty as no different than the expectation of the Jews before that first Christmas night. Isn't our concept of sovereignty such that God is in total control of everything, nothing happens that He does not know, He even knows, controls and has predetermined our futures up to a microscopic sense? Although it is true that God may opt to exercise His sovereignty as such, many of us, especially hyper-Calvinists, believe that that is what God has actually done, that He CANNOT (does not have the capacity or ability) to do less than exercise total control over His creation! Isn't it also true that many elitist theologians actually preach the absolute impassability of God...that God actually WILL not and CANNOT change His mind regardless of the prayers of His people or creatures?

It seems obvious that had Christ decided to be incarnate during our time, we (who may not be Jewish) would NOT have recognized Him at all! We would have expected, based on our theologies, a King whom we cannot hide even our thoughts from, who has an absolute will, and that we would be just a little more dignified than mere robots in His predetermined world? Such a far far cry from the Baby Jesus! This God-man who emptied Himself before the incarnation of all attributes that would make Him obvious as God and King. No omnipotence, he had to be carried in Mary's womb, Joseph had to flee to Egypt to protect Him, Herod could have killed Him had he caught up with His flight. He could not even talk in mature human language! No omniscience, the angel had to warn Joseph instead of the Baby Jesus all of a sudden sitting up and declaring to Joseph that Herod was coming with murder in mind.

Again, no omnipotence. Otherwise, he would have told Joseph that there was absolutely no need to flee to Egypt, since the Baby Jesus Himself could crush Herod with His bare hands, nay, with just a word or breath from His mouth!

No omnipresence! He could not be in Egypt and Bethlehem at the same time! Better, yet He was not in China during His birth in Bethlehem. Christ literally EMPTIED Himself as Paul declared in Philippians 2.

It must be noted that while the Bible seems to agree that the God it declares, indeed, has such powers, it is just as obvious to the open-minded reader that God has sovereignly chosen not to exercise His powers absolutely. This God is sovereign, yes! But John himself in his Gospel and his epistles has declared many times that "God is LOVE". Nowhere has he or it been declared as manifestly obvious or in the most explicit terms that God is Sovereign. Nay, there is not in scripture even a word that is closely synonymous to that declaration (except, perhaps "Almighty" which means something else apart from the classical concept of Sovereignty).

So what makes God, God? What makes Jesus God? It cannot be omniscience, omnipotence nor omnipresence! Otherwise, Christ CEASED to be God during the Incarnation. No, but Christ is Love since God is Love. Love is an attribute that Christ could not empty Himself of. Otherwise, Christ ceased or ceases to be God. Christ cannot empty Himself of grace, truth and faithfulness as well. These are necessary divine attributes. God ceases to be God if he lost these. Christ ceases to be God if He attempted to empty Himself of these attributes.

Yes, if Christ incarnated in our age instead of 2,000 years ago, we would not have recognized Him either, and mainly because of your misleading theologies and theologians. We have adopted the world's concept of deity which is mostly absolute power and sovereignty instead of the Biblical concept of divine love, faithfulness, grace and truth. We have long subscribed so willingly and completely to a God who crushes His enemies without compunction instead of a God who can turn the other cheek and actually LOVE His enemies as demonstrated by Christ during His suffering on the cross.

Let me interject that God had literally thousands of years (which an All-Wise God does not even need!) to plan the Incarnation and He chose not to book a suite at the Waldorf Astoria! Instead He picked a smelly barn with a worse-smelling manger seething with the odor of fermenting organic animal food. He did not opt to have a reception with all royal honors and high-ranking dignitaries and famous people in attendance. He chose to the poorest shepherds to be his reception party! What a slap in the face to classical values of Sovereignty. In fact, God's use of sovereignty was to chose the lowliest to highlight the highest divine value system! This value system, Christ faithfully demonstrated during His entire Incarnated existence, so there is NO MISTAKING what the value system of God REALLY is!!!

So if, as Kingdom children, we give the world the impression that we are impressed or highly value pomp and circumstance, we should begin to question whether or not we really belong to the Kingdom of God.

Webster's defines conspiracy as a "combination of people, working in secret, for an evil or unlawful purpose."

One would think that Christmas was a divine conspiracy where man expected one thing from God after all His series of divine revelations, and yet the triune God delivered something that would make the wisest of man completely miss out. In this sense, was it evil for God to concoct such a plan? Nothing can be farther from the truth!

It does seem like a conspiracy only because of the subtle way God seems to have covered up the truth about who God really is. However, Hebrews 1 is quite clear on the way God chose to reveal Himself to man. It is the way man has attempted to recreate His God through his theological concepts apart from the clear and simple revelation of Scripture that has actually misled himself.

The conspiracy was one from Satan and fallen man. Fallen man includes even theologians. God seems to have hidden from the wise and revealed to babes. But alas, really, it is man who has blinded himself to the real God because of his dignum deo concepts which redound to the creation of an idol instead of the unfolding of the attributes of the real God, finally revealed through His Only begotten Son, Jesus Christ.

The role of Christmas was to expose this man-devil conspiracy and demonstrate conclusively what it has been declaring for ages through the pages of Jewish Scripture on who God is and what are His attributes.

The Kenosis: Was the Incarnate Christ Fully God and Fully Man?

This is one mystery that should not be a mystery ("...having made known to us the mystery of His will, according to His good pleasure which He purposed in Himself",Ephesians 1:9) but only if we open our God-given minds to understand how Paul explained the Incarnation in Philippians 2:5-11.

In a nutshell, the answer to the above question, "Was the Incarnate Christ Fully God and Fully Man?" depends on whether or not we are talking theologically or technically. These two differ, as we shall point out, only because of the differing angles by which they observe the same phenomenon.

First, let us talk about our theological beliefs and uphold the cardinal doctrine of faith that Christ, even in His incarnation, was fully God and fully man. HOWEVER, looking at the baby Jesus, which was the start and essence of His incarnation, Christ was helpless (He Himself needed mother's milk to survive!), not omnipotent (otherwise, He could have flown to Egypt without the help of Mary, Joseph and a donkey), not omniscient (otherwise, there was no need for the angel to come to Joseph in a dream to warn him of Herod. When Christ was a human adult, in Matthew 8:10/Luke 7:9, he exclaimed,"Assuredly, I say to you, I have not found such great faith, not even in Israel", was Christ just play-acting? or was He genuinely surprised at that point?), not omni-present (there is absolutely no account of sightings of the baby Jesus in India or China during the time of His birth, and only the aberrant Mormons claim uncorroborated sightings of Jesus in the Americas). In John 4:24, Christ Himself declared that "God is Spirit", and Jesus Christ when He spoke that was obviously NOT spirit although He had a spirit like the rest of humankind.

It is quite obvious at this point that our theological statement that Jesus Christ was fully God during His Incarnation has to be carefully qualified and explained. Otherwise, the Jehovah's Witness arguments seem to have more credibility than orthodox Christianity at this point! They are the ones who are less guilty of isogesis or skirting around the issue when it comes to describing the Incarnate Christ. That is because most Christians, even theologians, do not really understand what they are talking about when it comes to the nature of Christ.

Obviously, the Classicists and Calvinists and other Sovereignty-fixated theologians are faced with a logical dilemma (in fact, I would not be surprised to see some of them with sweat in their brows as they wrestle with the facts and still stay logical or rational, at least in their minds!).

Of course, Covenant-Relationship Theology, which we espouse, has a very Biblical and logical answer, and the key to the correct answer is embedded in the language of Philippians 2. We quote this from the NKJV which is still the best for the Greek tenses (present active),

"5 Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, 7 but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross. 9 Therefore God also has highly exalted Him and given Him the name which is above every name,10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth, 11 and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father."

Nevertheless, we also quote from the NASB because the word for kenosis used seems to be the best.

"5 Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus,

6 who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped,

7 but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men.

8 Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.

9 For this reason also, God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name,

10 so that at the name of Jesus EVERY KNEE WILL BOW, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth,

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

In verse 6, among the major translations, only the NKJV has the tense right as the Greek verb for the translation, "existed" or "was", is really in the present tense! The NKJV reads, "..being in the form of God". However, for the Greek word, "kenosis", the word empty of the NASB is most descriptive and accurate.

We cite Strong's Enhanced Lexicon:
[

2758 κενόω [kenoo /ken·o·o/] v. From 2756; TDNT 3:661; TDNTA 426; GK 3033; Five occurrences; AV translates as “make void” twice, “make of none effect” once, “make of no reputation” once, and “be in vain” once. 1 to empty, make empty. 1a of Christ, he laid aside equality with or the form of God. 2 to make void. 2a deprive of force, render vain, useless, of no effect. 3 to make void. 3b cause a thing to be seen to be empty, hollow, false.

Strong, J. (1996). The exhaustive concordance of the Bible : Showing every word of the text of the common English version of the canonical books, and every occurrence of each word in regular order. (electronic ed.) (G2758). Ontario: Woodside Bible Fellowship.

]
Note the phrases above that I highlighted in red and answer the question, "In the incarnation, what was made void? What was made of none effect? What was deprived of force, rendered vain, useless, of no effect? Note that the very essence of the word has to imply genuineness of state, not just pretend or a pseudo-state!

We also cite the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament dissection of keno-o.
[

† κενόω.

“To make empty,” a. “to deprive of content or possession,” mostly with a gen. of obj., more rarely of person, or absolute: ἀνδρῶν τάνδε πόλιν κενῶσαι, Aesch. Suppl., 660; cf. Athen., IV, 17 (p. 139 f.); Jos. Bell., 1, 355; 2, 457; τᾶς συοπλουτοσύνας: God can quickly deprive the wealthy man of his sordid possessions, Kerkidas P. Oxy., VIII, 1082, Fr. 1, col. II, 9; Philo Leg. All., III, 226, medically “to empty,” κενώσω τὸν κάμνοντα. Fig. Somn., I, 198: κενοῖ ψυχὴμ ἁμαρτημάτων. Pass. “to be desolate,” Jer. 14:2 (Ez. 12:20 and 26:2 Σ); Jer. 15:9: ἐκενώθη (אֻמְלְלָה) ἡ τίκτουσα ἑπτά, “the mother of seven sons languished, i.e., became desolate”; cf. Soph. Ai., 986: κενός of a lioness robbed of her young, Bion., 1, 59 (ed. U. v. Wilamowitz-Moellendorff [1900]) of the Erotes robbed of Adonis. b. “To nullify, destroy” (→ κενός 2. b.), ὑπάρξεις (goods), Vett. Val., II, 22, p. 90, 7; pass. “to come to nothing.”

In the NT sense a. is used only in Phil. 2:6 f. of Christ: ὃς ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ ὑπάρχων οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγήσατο τὸ εἶναι ἴσα θεῷ, ἀλλὰ ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσεν μορφὴν δούλου λαβών, ἐν ὁμοιώματι ἀνθρώπων γενόμενος κτλ. Here sense b. “he negated himself, deprived himself of his worth, denied himself” (→ I, 474), is ruled out by the resultant weak tautology of ἐταπείνωσεν ἑαυτόν. We are rather to supply τοῦ εἶναι ἴσα θεῷ as an omitted object, and we thus have the equivalent of ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ ὑπάρχων. There is no suggestion of a temptation of the Pre-existent to aspire beyond His existing state. What is meant is that the heavenly Christ did not selfishly exploit His divine form and mode of being (→ I, 474), but by His own decision emptied Himself of it or laid it by, taking the form of a servant by becoming man. The subject of ἐκένωσεν is not the incarnate but the pre-existent Lord. There is a strong sense of the unity of His person. The essence remains, the mode of being changes—a genuine sacrifice. Docetism is excluded. The best commentary is to be found in the par. 2 C. 8:9: ἐπτώχευσεν πλούσιος ὤν, “he became a beggar even though (of himself, and up to this point) he was rich.”

Sense b. is found with καύχημα, act. at 1 C. 9:15 and pass. at 2 C. 9:3. If anyone induced the apostle to ask for support, this would invalidate his materies gloriandi (and therewith his gloria). If the collection in Corinth did not come up to his hopes, then the boasted expectations of Paul would be brought to nothing. Neither of these things must happen. At R. 4:14 the words κεκένωται ἡ πίστις are elucidated in the par. κατήργηται ἡ ἐπαγγελία: if the people of the Law are heirs, this logically implies the invalidation of faith as a principle of salvation; it is made of none effect and the promise loses its force. In this light we can understand 1 C. 1:17: οὐκ ἐν σοφίᾳ λόγου, ἵνα μὴ κενωθῇ ὁ σταυρὸς τοῦ χριστοῦ. Paul must avoid preaching which involves false synthesis in content and empty technique in form, lest the cross of Christ should lose its searching and saving content, lest it should be robbed of its offence and therewith of its divine force and efficacy to save, lest it should become impotent and meaningless (cf. 1:18ff.).

Theological dictionary of the New Testament. 1964-c1976. Vols. 5-9 edited by Gerhard Friedrich. Vol. 10 compiled by Ronald Pitkin. (G. Kittel, G. W. Bromiley & G. Friedrich, Ed.) (electronic ed.) (3:661-662). Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.

]
In the discussion above, again, note the phrases I highlighted in red. What content in the Deity of Christ was deprived? or self-deprived? In the illustration of 2 Cor 8:9 “he became a beggar even though (of himself, and up to this point) he was rich.”

If a rich man truly became a beggar, would he be rich at the same time? If he is rich at the same time, then his beggar-hood was false, and he has never really been a beggar. But when he sets aside all his riches making them void and useless during the time of his mendicancy, then one can say that the rich man has TRULY become poor! And that is exactly what the kenosis means!

Does a version of the classical view have enough integrity if we agree that the rich man simply pretended to be a beggar? God forbid that such be the language and intent of Scripture. How would you like Philippians 2 to read, "...that though He was God, He pretended to be man by taking the form of man.....". There is no humility here if these are all pretense! Humility is the main topic of discourse in Philippians 2.

From the Dictionary of Biblical Languages with Semantic Domains, we read,
[

3033 κενόω (kenoō): vb.; ≡ Str 2758; TDNT 3.661—1. LN 76.27 cause to lose power, be emptied, formally, be vain, come to nothing (Ro 4:14; 1Co 1:17; 9:15; 2Co 9:3+); 2. LN 87.70 empty oneself, divest oneself of position (Php 2:7+)

Swanson, J. (1997). Dictionary of Biblical Languages with Semantic Domains : Greek (New Testament) (electronic ed.) (GGK3033). Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems, Inc.

]
There may be other references we can consider. However, we have already explored and cited enough to cap this discussion. Most Bible versions are clueless as to the best possible translation but this time the Living Bible got this one right on the head - - - Christ " did not cling to his rights as God."

Yes, whereas Classical theology has always declared Omnipotence, omnipresence and omniscience as divine attributes, they are NOT. Instead, they are simply divine rights! Rights can be relinquished and set aside but not attributes. Hence, if these were indeed attributes of God, then it is logical (but false) to conclude that the Incarnate Christ was NOT God. I would venture to state that if ever there was an "Omni" which could be a divine attribute, I agree with John Sanders, it would be Omni-competence. (More on this in other blogs).

However, although Christ emptied Himself of His divine rights and powers, i.e., Omniscience, Omnipotence, Omnipresence; He NEVER emptied Himself of His divine attributes, i.e., Love, Truth, Grace, Faithfulness, Light, Wisdom, etc. All of these attributes are and were inherent in the nature of Jesus Christ, pre-Incarnate, post-Incarnate AND in the Incarnation itself. The God of the Bible is TRULY giving us a hint of what He is all about and why Jesus Christ is His final and complete attempt at progressive revelation!

If anyone cannot get that, he is truly blind, brainwashed, or biased towards an un-Biblical direction!

The theological answer to the question, therefore, is an affirmation of the orthodox doctrine that Christ is fully God and fully man. However, His being fully God has to be qualified as "NOT in the classical theology sense". It is unfortunate that we have to qualify this precisely because of the damage classical theology has wrought upon this doctrine and their faulty understanding of the Kenosis because they have been too Sovereignty-fixated. One who fully comprehends Covenant-Relationship Theology and its implications, however, can declare the same doctrine without qualification had the relational definition been the traditional one.

Now, let us discuss the technical answer to the question. How can anyone kill God? How can anyone or anything for that matter, torture and crucify God? Anyone with God-given common sense and a God-created rational mind will immediately sense where this discussion is leading towards...it is quite an inevitable conclusion to say that during the Incarnation, Jesus Christ was "more man" than God.

This technical answer is based on the classical concept of God. Since theologically, Jesus Christ emptied Himself of His divine rights to become man, He has become fully man. Although He retains His inherent attributes of Love, Wisdom, Truth, etc, Christ Incarnate was no longer immortal, invincible, invulnerable.

This is the essence of why Paul declares that it was God (the Father) that raised Jesus Christ from the dead (see Colossians 2:12). It is true that Jesus Christ did say in John 10:18, "No one takes it from Me, but I lay it down of Myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again." But Christ had to end that statement with, "This command I have received from My Father." which could mean that such statement He would not have uttered except by the Father's dictation.

What does all these imply? That Christ genuinely suffered and died for us. "God demonstrates his LOVE toward us in that while we were yet sinner Christ died for us" and He was not play-acting. Many people had the chance to view Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ". I would surmise that depending on your understanding of the Kenosis, you were either indifferent or you would have wept.

I wept because of the sense of His Love demonstrated by intense torture and suffering for such an undeserving sinner as I. Had Christ been more God than man at His Incarnation, I could not have cared less about His suffering. Why? Because if He was more God than man, He could have subdued the pain of His torture, shown the world that He was suffering but divinely easing the pain by infusing some divine dose of morphine or something even stronger during His passion. Yes, He could have done it by a word from His mouth or even a thought from His mind!

A true concept of Kenosis declares that Christ genuinely, truly suffered. A faulty concept will redound to Jesus simply acting hurt but all the time just subduing all the pain and blows of His torturers.

Furthermore, Christ's utterance on the cross, "Eli, Eli lama sabachthani!" is not just a quotation from the Psalmist nor simply a fulfillment of some prophetic statement, but a genuine scream of abandonment and despair as the Father turned His head away from His Son for the first and only time in their Triune relationship because at that point, the Son was made sin in our behalf. He carried the sins of the world on His shoulders, something that the Holy God will not behold, though finally accepting the offer of the perfect sacrifice, once and for all, for mankind.

God prescribed the solution to man's sin. In the process, the Son had to suffer and die. The Father had to experience a hurt that must have been unequalled in both the divine and human levels. But in the end, the law was fulfilled and God the Righteous Judge finally accepts the correct atonement for man's sin.

"Amazing Grace, how sweet the sound.
That saved a wretch like me!"

"Amazing Love, how can it be.
That Thou my God, should'st die for me!"

The Kenosis: And how it flies in the face of Classicism

One's concept of the Kenosis determines the rest of one's theology. The Kenosis seems to be the chief cornerstone where the wisest of classical theology stumble over.

To review, "kenosis" is the Greek word used in Philippians 2:5-11 for Christ "emptying" Himself to become incarnate, i.e., mortal and hence capable of dying or being killed or murdered.

It is important to determine what Christ, who exists as God, would empty Himself of. It will be apparent that although we doctrinally agree that Christ is fully God and fully man even when He was on earth, all the biblical evidence coupled with natural law has to surrender to the fact that in a very real sense, Christ incarnate 2000 years ago was "more man" than He was God.

I was brought up as a new Christian memorizing the attributes of God which are, among others, Omnipotence, Omniscience and Omnipresence. As I looked closely at the incarnation of Christ, however, it was quite obvious that when Christ was a baby in Bethlehem, he was not in China at the same time (so, Christ was not Omnipresent). It was also quite obvious that when Herod wanted to murder the Bethlehem infants from newborn to two years old, that the baby Jesus did not all of a sudden rise up from the manger and declare to His earthly mother, Mary, "Behold, Herod is coming with the intent to murder me, but don't you worry, I can stop him just simply by a word of my mouth similar to how I created the world."

Obviously, as the baby Jesus, there was no demonstration of Omnipotence by the baby Jesus!!! Furthermore, there was no indication in Scripture that the baby Jesus knew ahead of time of the murderous intent of King Herod, demonstrating conclusively that neither had the baby Jesus the attribute of Omniscience!!!

One has to note that the circumstances of the birth of Christ demonstrates almost beyond any doubt what the kenosis really means.

1. The baby Jesus was obviously, not Omnipresent. He wasn't in China or Africa at the same time He was in the manger in the Bethlehem stable.
2. The baby Jesus was not Omniscient. He did not seem to be aware of the developments in Jerusalem with Herod's ambitions and intentions. Everything else was being "orchestrated" by God the Father.
3. The baby Jesus was totally helpless, that is the opposite of Omnipotence. He could not help hasten the trip from Nazareth to Bethlehem just to make it a little easier, perhaps, for Mary and Joseph to cope up with this trial. Let's face it, the Bethlehem birth was pre-ordained. One would think that before the Incarnation, Christ would already have planned the easiest way to get there since before the Incarnation, Christ was truly, among other attributes, Sovereign, Omnipresent, Omniscient, Omnipotent! In fact, even Isaiah 9:6 confirms this. However, as The baby Jesus, He could not and did not help in the trip to Bethlehem, during Mary's labor and delivery, in the flight to Egypt, etc. He was dependent like any other baby on mother's milk for sustenance, etc. In fact, Paul himself wrote about Christ's absolute dependence on the Father, during the resurrection.

• Romans 10:9

"that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved."

• Galatians 1:1

"[ Greeting ] Paul, an apostle (not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father who raised Him from the dead),"

• Colossians 2:12

"buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead."

• Ephesians 1: 19,20

"19 and what is the exceeding greatness of His power toward us who believe, according to the working of His mighty power 20 which He worked in Christ when He raised Him from the dead and seated Him at His right hand in the heavenly places"

Traditional concepts of the Kenosis are at best confused. We have issues like how could God co-exist as both man and God in a body? Which part of Christ was acting as God and which part was acting as man (almost like a split-personality question, with apology to the Lord.) Was Christ actually pretending to be man when He is in fact God, or vice versa? During the passion, did Christ really suffer pain? Couldn't He suspend pain, since He was God Himself?

My response to this questions which are entirely legitimate and honest due to confused theological perspectives, is.....look at the baby Jesus! Then derive the meaning of Kenosis. After that, develop your theology.

The theology MUST include the ability of God to limit His sovereignty or the use or even "possession" thereof as demonstrated by the baby Jesus. It MUST include the divine ability to seal off parts of the future from Himself, at least temporarily. It must show that predestination and foreknowledge are limited by God Himself ONLY to those events that have been explicitly declared are foreordained in Scripture and should not be extended to everything else.

It must include a Loving and Relational God who takes risks despite His sovereignty and is REALLY at RISK despite His sovereignty. It should primarily portray a God who LOVES and who is willing to limit that sovereignty in order to show genuine love, and not a God who is totally sovereign and who has to somehow "force" love or limit the demonstration of His love (like only to the elect?) in order to get His glory.

It should show a God who shows no control over His love to the point of being Jealous ("I AM a Jealous God visiting the iniquity of the fathers to their children and their children's children") but can control His sovereignty. It should not show a God who shows no control or limits to His sovereignty but controls or limits how He loves.

Finally, it should show that only God's character is immutable, but His behavior changes, His motives change, His non-absolute plans change, His attitude changes, the exercise of His power changes to prove that it is entirely under His control. The Bible demonstrates that even His thought or thinking changes. But all these by His own choice or made possible by some choices or decisions He is standing by like the creation of man in His image, etc.

Jeremiah 9:23,24 should be the goal of theology, nothing less, nothing more.

²³ Thus says the LORD:

“ Let not the wise man glory in his wisdom,

Let not the mighty man glory in his might,

Nor let the rich man glory in his riches;

²⁴ But let him who glories glory in this,

That he understands and knows Me,

That I am the LORD, exercising lovingkindness, judgment, and righteousness in the earth.

For in these I delight,” says the LORD.

Note that in the verses above, I do not think it a coincidence that the first thing God wants us to know about Him is His lovingkindness and the other two important things. Sovereignty was not in the list!