What does it mean that Jesus 'emptied himself' in Philippians 2:7?


(Tim Ramey) #1

@Premendra_Parsan
I feel that your question unearths a huge issue. I will throw out my thought but it’s not one that most agree with. In fact, I think I brought it up as a question in Connect but, if I remember correctly, I stood by myself so I will not be offended if you don’t think my way. I’m only putting it out there if it helps, not to find someone to side with me.

My thoughts are drawn from Philippians 2:5-7. Please read your version, or better yet, a few versions and see what your conclusions are because I think that it’s interpretation is the springboard for what I have to say.

Please read the verses before you read on or you’ll quickly dismiss what I have to say.

I’ve concluded that Jesus is fully God and fully man. However, when He came to earth, He laid aside His divinity so He could experience life as a human like you and I do. He was not able to fall back to His godhood to get Him out of a jam. Thus, He needed to draw from the Father what His will for His life was. The miracles that He performed are not beyond our capabilities because, if the Father wants it done, He does it through us. We don’t perform the miracles and if God does, we can do whatever He wants to do through us.

Getting back to Jesus emptying Himself of His divinity, let me further explain. When Jesus was on earth, He was God. However, my best analogy, as weak as analogies are, is that He could be compared to the story of the Prince and the Pauper. The prince traded places with the pauper and was perceived by everyone to be a pauper though he was actually the prince. However, although he was the prince, he could not use the advantages of the prince. So Jesus had “no advantages” on earth over what we face. He sought that Father at Gethsemane to “change His mind”, He needed the company of the disciples and on the cross, He felt like the Father left Him. He was truly alone though He lived eternally with the Father and had faith in His Father’s leading on earth.

Again, my intent is not to throw you off and if it is contrary to your thoughts, let it go. For me, it is what I believe until I see a scriptural reason not to and it explains your valid question. If it help - great. But I certainly don’t want to throw a wrench into your thinking. I don’t believe what I do so that it answers my questions. Rather, I interpret the scriptures to be saying that so they do answer my questions, such as your question. Please do not conclude that I’m saying that Jesus was not always God and man. He cannot “escape” the fact that He is God, but He can leave it behind so He is tempted as we are because God cannot be tempted.


Why did Jesus have to pray if He is God?
(Carson Weitnauer) #2

Hi Tim,

A few thoughts on Philippians 2:5-7 for you…

First, here’s an interesting read by John Piper:

In particular, I find these verses important to wrestle with:

Colossians 2:9
For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily,

John 1:14
The Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.

In the Expositor’s Bible Commentary on Philippians 2:7 we read:

Jesus “emptied himself” ( heauton ekenōsen ; NIV, “made himself nothing”) clarifies what being in the form of God and equal to God entail, but it raises the question, “Of what did Jesus empty himself?”

Paul does not imagine that Christ divested himself of his divine nature. How does one lay aside one’s nature? The verb kenoō (GK 3033) is used by Paul elsewhere to mean “to become powerless,” or “to be emptied of significance” (Fee, 211; cf. Ro 4:14; 1Co 1:17; 9:15; 2Co 9:3). It is in synonymous parallelism with 2:8, “he humbled himself.”

Paul does not think that Christ temporarily laid aside his divine attributes with a view to winning them back again. Emptying himself means that he made himself null and void and renounced his privileges and rights. He exhibited the opposite of “vainglory” ( kenodoxia , GK 3029; NIV, “vain conceit”; v. 3), which ascribes false honor to oneself and asserts one’s pride of place over others. The KJV translation, “made himself of no reputation,” captures Paul’s intent here in v. 7.

I think this offers a helpful set of parameters around what it means, in context, that Jesus emptied himself.


(Steven Kalinowski) #3

Hi Tim

I’m curious why most did not agree with you even in Connect. I read through your post about three times and am still trying to figure why that would be.
As you put it in different words, Jesus was fully man. This means that he assumed all the qualities of being a human being, the temptations, the pressure, the weaknesses, and yet did not sin. It would seem that the position Jesus put Himself in was precarious, yet He did come out truly victorious.
I have been reading an amazing book called, “ Incarnation – The Person and Life of Christ by Thomas F. Torrance” . He was a student under Barth. He was called “the greatest Reformed theologians of the twentieth century” by prominent voices. He goes into so much detail in explaining how Jesus life was was an atoning life for us – his whole life.
If Jesus did not assume all our human qualities without sin, then He could not be our atonement for sin.
The councils fought for these truths – that Jesus was truly God, truly man. That Jesus has two natures, two wills, and yet was one person.
If Jesus was not God – he couldn’t save us from ‘His side”. If Jesus was not fully man, He couldn’t save us “from our side”.
Also, I really appreciated your tone in your post. It is very much appreciated. Was at a “Christian site” lately – not a great experience to put it mildly. :slight_smile:


(Tim Ramey) #4

@CarsonWeitnauer
Thanks for taking the time to send me the response that you did. I do want to be truly challenged. I, by no means, wish to be disrespectful because I so appreciate John Piper. I met and talked with him on several occasions and he is a very humble man. Yet, that does not mean that I always agree with him and I listened to the “Ask John Piper” recording and I felt that the scripture he uses confirms what I was saying though he would not agree.

Please hear me when I tell you that Jesus is ALWAYS GOD. However, the scripture says that He laid it aside - He did not use it when on earth as He was fully tempted as we are. Jesus in the divine state, could not be tempted for scripture says that God cannot be tempted. All of the verses, such as in Luke where it states that Jesus increased and wisdom and stature and in favor with God and man, seem to clearly indicate that Jesus, on earth, though He was God, emptied Himself of His Godhood. If He is God, He’s God but He did not resort to that nature so He could be like us.

The disagreement that I get seems to center on the fact that Jesus was fully God and man. John Piper takes much of the time explaining that. I agree. I say it again, I believe that Jesus was and is, fully God and fully man. But Jesus laid aside His godhood. When He did so, He was still God but refused to be equal with God on earth so He could understand life as we do. Because He was born of the Spirit, He did not have original sin as we have but He could have sinned but chose not to. He was faithful in everything. I don’t know why I am perceived as saying that Jesus wasn’t God on earth. He was but He laid it aside. I didn’t make that up or “I think…” but I am quoting scripture. The uses of the emptying in the Greek is used in Romans 4:4, ICor1:17, ICor 9:15 and 2Cor 9:3, all seem to back that concept.

I feel that I am perceived as a heretic but I wish that people would not tell me what they think, but what the scripture is saying. When scripture, such as Colossians 2:9, talks about the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily, it’s referring to the resurrected body of Jesus that He retained. Thomas sees the risen Savior and He sees that He is man, as he touches the wounds but kneels before Him calling Him his Lord and his God. He didn’t notice it before because, although Jesus was God, He did not wear His deity on His sleeve but was perceived as a man.


(Tim Ramey) #5

@Steven_Kalinowski
Thanks so much Steven. The issue isn’t that you agree, which I admit is comforting because I begin to wonder if I’m off when no one agrees, but it is that you understand what is said. I’m just saying what the scripture is saying.

Your remarks are excellent observations and I wholly agree with them.

I also appreciated your comment on the tone of the post as I don’t want to come off as belligerent. I’m very curious what others have to say and why or what scriptures that they use to make their points. I’m not interested in pounding my point home. I only am posting what I see the verses are saying.

Thanks again Steven.


(SeanO) #6

@Steven_Kalinowski I am so glad your experience here on Connect has been a blessing. We always strive to honor one another and speak with humility. @Tim_Ramey appreciate your thoughts brother.

I just wanted to post a video that I felt did a good job of explaining what it calls the theological ‘fences’ the historic Church has built to help us understand the incarnation. I am not trying to enter into what seems like a good discourse you guys have been having, but simply for anyone reading this thread to offer what I feel is a fairly clear presentation of what historic Christianity does not mean by the incarnation and where those healthy theological fences are at.

May the Lord bless you both! Look forward to more good discussions.


(Tim Ramey) #7

@SeanO @Steven_Kalinowski
The quick historical commentary was well done. Thanks for digging into your pool of information and sharing it with me Sean.

Now if you can hearken back to the YouTube video, I’d like to know where you think I’m outside of the fence? What positions that they listed do you think that I’m associated with as I didn’t see where my position was in agreement with any of theirs? I’m really interested for your candid response.

Steve saw what I meant but it seems no one else can see my point. As I told him, agreement is not what I’m looking for but a response to what they think is scriptural. I really didn’t intend to write any more posts unless someone had a question. I did feel that you were due a response as to what I felt about the video. I just don’t want to get in the position that I appear to be driving my point and won’t quit until folks line up with me.


(SeanO) #8

@Tim_Ramey I am not sure whether you are outside the fence or not :slight_smile: I think that all analogies ultimately fall short when trying to describe the Trinity and the incarnation. So the analogy of the “Prince and the Pauper” is certainly helpful in understanding the fact that “He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him” (John 1:10). And yet it falls short in that the prince was not truly a pauper and was a man just like everyone else.

All of that to say I appreciate your thoughts and, like the video said, find it easier to say what is not the case than what is the case with the incarnation. That Jesus is “fully God and fully man” we all agree on and I do not have a good analogy to explain that phenomena because it is utterly unique. In addition, to explain it would require that I fully understood both what it means for God to be God and what it means for man to be man. I fully understand neither. So I think our danger as we explore this topic is to claim too much understanding or to push our analogies too far rather than admitting mystery. Would you agree?

I do not think this is a weakness in our theology to admit mystery. Every worldview has mysteries it cannot explain. We can know God, love Him and trust Him all without understanding such questions and if I understand Scripture and history aright God seeks those who will worship in spirit an truth with what revelation they possess because knowledge cannot increase faith in someone who has rejected the Spirit of God’s testimony to the simple truths of God’s nature and Christ’s work on the cross.

Many blessings brother! I respect your desire to understand the deep things of God and in this matter am not offering a critique. I was simply trying to provide clarity for anyone reading along with the thread on what the historic Church has taught since that was referenced but never defined.


(Steven Kalinowski) #9

Good video. Very nicely done. Thanks.


(Tim Ramey) #10

@SeanO @CarsonWeitnauer @Steven_Kalinowski
Sean, you are a gentle, non-judgmental man. I thank you for your tender heart that is ultimately concerned that I do not stray off the path. For that, I am eternally grateful.

Having said that, I feel that I am not outside the boundary because, as I asked you where I was in the examples that the video gave of being outside of the Christian boundary, I didn’t agree with any of those ideas outside of the fence. You did not tell me where I was wrong but I perceive that you would put me in the category of saying that Jesus was God and man but while on earth, He was not God. I would never say that and am emphatic that I don’t convey that.

If you were to be kidnapped drugged and placed in a foreign country, although you were treated as nothing and made to do menial work, you’d always be the scholarly Sean. No one could take that away from you. Analogies always have holes in them so this one is terrible. But I am trying to convey that you are always Sean who loves Jesus and no one can take that from you. So when Jesus is God, He can never not be God. He is always God. However, He chose to set aside His advantage in being human so that He could not escape lifes’ problems because He can turn to His deity. Rather, He was God, He is God and always will be God but He, on His own volition, chose not to live as God but as man. Now here is the crucial point - though He emptied Himself of His deity in order to live like we do, it does not mean that He was not God. He still was. HE CHOSE not to live in His divine form. I heard of some guys who chose to live as homeless people for a year - no going home, no going to their bank account bu wanted to experience what a homeless person goes through. At any time, they could have given it up and returned to their real lives but they chose to forsake it. They were truly homeless but in reality, they weren’t - they only put on the form of being homeless and forsook what they actually had to experience what a homeless person does. The truth was, they were homeless individuals but they weren’t really because after the year, they went back to what they truly were. Again, analogies stink but I’m trying to convey that I believe with all of my heart that Jesus was always God and I don’t have anything better to convey my ideas but by analogies that will always fall short. So where’s the rub?

I don’t understand your quote:

I don’t feel that I am saying what is not the case. I feel that others are not saying what is the case because they fit it into what they believe but ignore the passage in Philippians. No one seems to attempt saying what it says because it does not seem to fit into their box. Rather, I am attempting to explain that passage while staying in the confines that Jesus was and is fully God and fully man. No one tells me where I’m wrong. They just send me on to another preacher or video that says what they think and I feel that whether I agree with every word they say or not, I do not step outside of the Christian boundaries. The 3 minute video had me in complete agreement. So you and Carson and others have hinted that I’m off but I’m never told where I’m wrong so I can speak to it.

Again Sean, I will not continue to defend myself but when I am left with the indictment that I am wrong but not told where, it leaves me scratching my head. @Steven_Kalinowski was the only one who seemed to understand and didn’t have a problem with it. Are we both off? If so, where and how? Please don’t send me to someone else but tell me scriptually where I’m wrong while explaining what Philippians and other verses that support my interpretation of those verses are really saying.

Again, I respect you and know that you are much more learned than I am. I wouldn’t lay all this before you if I rejected you and your thoughts. Also, agreement is not the issue, it’s where I’m off so I understand if I am not communicating properly.


(SeanO) #11

@Tim_Ramey I am sorry you feel we are not addressing the issue. Could you please clarify what you mean by ‘divine form’? John 4:24 says - “God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in the Spirit and in truth.” God does not have a ‘form’, or at least not a physical form.

Are you saying that Jesus was incapable of using His power? We seem to see in Matthew that Jesus still has the authority to call down angels and we are assuming the Trinity Father/Son relationship has existed for all eternity. Matthew 26:53 - “Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels?”


(Steven Kalinowski) #12

@Tim_Ramey @SeanO

Well here are a few more cents to this discussion.
The disagreement that I get seems to center on the fact that Jesus was fully God and man. John Piper takes much of the time explaining that. I agree. I say it again, I believe that Jesus was and is, fully God and fully man. But Jesus laid aside His godhood. When He did so, He was still God but refused to be equal with God on earth so He could understand life as we do. Because He was born of the Spirit, He did not have original sin as we have but He could have sinned but chose not to. He was faithful in everything . I don’t know why I am perceived as saying that Jesus wasn’t God on earth. He was but He laid it aside. I didn’t make that up or “I think…” but I am quoting scripture. The uses of the emptying in the Greek is used in Romans 4:4, ICor1:17, ICor 9:15 and 2Cor 9:3, all seem to back that concept.

I feel that I am perceived as a heretic but I wish that people would not tell me what they think, but what the scripture is saying. When scripture, such as Colossians 2:9, talks about the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily, it’s referring to the resurrected body of Jesus that He retained. Thomas sees the risen Savior and He sees that He is man, as he touches the wounds but kneels before Him calling Him his Lord and his God. He didn’t notice it before because, although Jesus was God, He did not wear His deity on His sleeve but was perceived as a man.

. But Jesus laid aside His godhood . When He did so, He was still God but refused to be equal with God on earth so He could understand life as we do”

I am not so sure of this. I take “Godhood” as being something along the lines of God’s nature. If Jesus laid aside this nature – he would no longer be God. Can we clarify this? It seems to me that he laid aside the use of his attributes as God or the powers of his being God – but were always there at his disposal. Again, I am just trying to clarify this if possible.

On Ephesians 2 — I also think it pertains more to Jesus’ attitude than an ontological status. Jesus had a humble attitude and calls us to be the same. The emptying out part – This is not that simple to me in understanding exactly what this means. Often it is taken as if Christ empties himself of SOMETHING as in needing a qualifier for the genitive. But according to NICNT Phillipians Gordon D. Fee p.210 is precisely NOT in keeping with Pauline usage. The idea would be that Christ emptied HIMSELF and did this precisely by becoming a servant. This truly shows God’s character and is in line with the idea of being humble as Paul calls us to be as well. ( the caps are for emphasis – not screaming at anyone). Fee notes that this verb ekonosen regularly means to become powerless, or emptied of significance. Therefore the word empty in 1 Cor9 , 2 Cor 9 is about Paul making his boast of no effect or not.

So it may very well be emptying himself out – showing himself to us as a servant. He was like making himself so low, of in a sense of no effect, depriving himself, laying aside the form of God in the sense of laying aside his attributes at his disposal. It doesn’t need to be metaphysical or ontological in meaning. I think it is the opposite when taking the context of being humble into account.

. But Jesus laid aside His godhood . When He did so, He was still God but refused to be equal with God on earth so He could understand life as we do”

I am not sure where the idea is that this is the reason that he became man. It sounds like you are saying that he needed to do this to gain experience or understanding and this seems like a limit on God’s omniscience. I am much more convinced it is to fully identify with man in order to save him or to show what God is really like without us being totally overwhelmed by Him – somewhat like Isaiah experienced. It would negate the need for faith in Him. We could not but help believe in Him but would still lack a kind of trusting relationship with Him.

Colossians 2:9, talks about the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily, it’s referring to the resurrected body of Jesus that He retained.

I am not sure of this one either. It seems to me that Jesus still had the whole fullness of deity in him before the resurrection. It was hidden to those without faith of course. Jesus still went around forgiving sins and accepting worship. As he said, those who saw him ( perceived him) , saw the Father as well.

Thomas didn’t perceive until seeing directly and touching Jesus’s wounds. But as you probably are aware – this was not the case for all. Even the centurion understood Jesus to be the Son of God before his resurrection.

These are a few thoughts of what I think, believing they are based on scripture. ( what else could I do).

I find it interesting though, many of the concepts of Jesus and his deity, personhood, being a man, divine nature and being man – together but not mixed and so – all these concepts are necessarily philosophical in nature. It is what we think about the ‘raw data’ that we have in the bible.

Of course I write this with all respect and am not, like yourself, trying to drive my points as beating someone over the head with them. To be honest, just discussing these things is a privilege because I don’t know of anyone else to discuss these things with. Pastors are too busy, and your typical church goer doesn’t have the interest as far as I have seen so far.

I learn plenty from others simply in trying to understand them. I also find myself questioning what I think myself and learning in the process as well. :slight_smile:


(Premendra Parsan) #15

Indeed @Steven_Kalinowski this discourse has been a tremendous learning experience. @Tim_Ramey I respect your opinion and truly valued your input. I think we can all agree that Jesus was God and man.

I am reminded of a quote from Richard Faynman, “I would rather have questions that cannot be answered than answers that cannot be questioned”.


(Steven Kalinowski) #16

Well said Premendra!


(Jimmy Sellers) #17

Sorry, this is a late post but I think you will find it relevant to the topic. It is a document that Paul Copan shared with the connect during or shortly after an “Ask Paul Copan” session. I would love to summarize what he has written but I would only muddy the water and ruin a good thread. Ya’ll read it and comment.

COPAN INCARNATION FINAL (CH 15).pdf (122.1 KB)


(Carson Weitnauer) #18

Hi @Tim_Ramey,

I’m grateful for you and your contributions to Connect. I admire your commitment to Scripture memory, to faithful prayer, to your family, and to missions. Your investment in the spiritual disciplines of our community is a tremendous blessing.

I think the main point of discussion we are having is whether or not we are ‘over-reading’ or ‘under-reading’ Philippians 2:5-7:

Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.

We are definitely on the same page in terms of affirming that Jesus is God. I haven’t doubted that for a moment.

However, I would gently disagree (or at least attempt to gently disagree) with your interpretation of these verses; e.g.,

However, when He came to earth, He laid aside His divinity so He could experience life as a human like you and I do. He was not able to fall back to His godhood to get Him out of a jam.

Getting back to Jesus emptying Himself of His divinity, let me further explain.

Jesus laid aside His godhood. When He did so, He was still God but refused to be equal with God on earth so He could understand life as we do.

Now here is the crucial point - though He emptied Himself of His deity in order to live like we do, it does not mean that He was not God. He still was. HE CHOSE not to live in His divine form.

By contrast, I believe that the best reading of Philippians, and integrating the rest of the Scriptures, is to clearly state that Jesus did live in his divine form. As Philippians 2:6 says, “though he was in the form of God.”

The ESV Study Bible comments on these verses like this:

Paul is not saying that Christ became less than God or “gave up” some divine attributes; he is not even commenting directly on the question of whether Jesus was fully omnipotent or omniscient during his time on earth. Nor is he saying that Christ ever gave up being “in the form of God.” Rather, Paul is stressing that Christ, who had all the privileges that were rightly his as king of the universe, gave them up to become an ordinary Jewish baby bound for the cross. Christ “made himself nothing” by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men (roughly equivalent phrases).

For instance, as brought up, we have to integrate our interpretation of Philippians 2 with Colossians 1:19, “For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell.” As Steve has shared, I think the Scriptures teach that Jesus had the whole fulness of deity throughout his incarnation - not just in his resurrected body.

To offer another example, here is how the Chalcedonian Creed explains the nature of Jesus:

We, then, following the holy Fathers, all with one consent, teach men to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood; truly God and truly man, of a reasonable soul and body; consubstantial with the Father according to the Godhead, and consubstantial with us according to the Manhood; in all things like unto us, without sin; begotten before all ages of the Father according to the Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, according to the Manhood; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person and one Subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten, God the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ, as the prophets from the beginning have declared concerning him, and the Lord Jesus Christ himself has taught us, and the Creed of the holy Fathers has handed down to us.

However we put it, we want to affirm with this creed that Jesus remained completely God at all times. E.g., He was always consubstantial with the Father - the same essence. The two natures are to be acknowledged without confusing them or changing them. The property of each nature is preserved in the union.

Another reflection on this passage is here:

A wide variety of commentaries on Philippians 2 are available online. They seem to generally agree on this narrow, more specific understanding of the passage: Paul is teaching that Jesus was a humble servant, a role that was profoundly demonstrated in his incarnation and his death on the cross.

I hope this is helpful and constructive. From a wide variety of sources, I am trying to share thinking and reasons for why a better interpretation of Philippians to is avoid saying that Jesus laid aside his godhead; rather, we should emphasize that Jesus was a humble, obedient, fully human servant.


(Tim Ramey) #19

@CarsonWeitnauer @SeanO @Jimmy_Sellers @Steven_Kalinowski
“Oh no! We thought we got rid of him!” I can read your minds. No, unless there is something that someone needs explaining, I will drop this issue after this post. I sincerely am not trying to drive my point to “convert” all of you to my thought. I appreciate your latest response Carson and wanted to respond right away but just ruminated on the subject for awhile.

After long consideration, I still hold to what I’ve expressed. However, I think I realize wherein the problem lies. In saying that Jesus was fully God and fully man but He emptied Himself of His being God, I think the honest thought is that I’m talking out of the both sides of my mouth. Which is it - was He fully God and fully man or just fully man? I want to make sure that I communicate that He was truly fully God and fully man.

How can I say that He then “emptied” Himself of being God? Again, the analogy of the Prince and the Pauper is as good as analogy as I can get because the prince was truly the prince, even though he lived like a pauper. Jesus is truly divine but somehow lives out life as a man. We are told to walk as Jesus walked if we truly abide in Him. But wait - how can I do that when He had the advantage of being God? When I said that He experienced all that we do, my intention was not to communicate that He was into it to see what it was like. Rather, His experience encourages us that we can live as He did. We are sinners but we don’t HAVE to sin as sin has no dominion over us in Jesus.

I am not trying to convey my idea with the intention of making what I want to work - to work. Rather, I think, in the context of the passage, it is obvious that He emptied something. What was it? I think the article sent to me by Gordon Fee was good but it was not applicable because he was saying that Jesus was God-man. I agree. I totally agree. His position was speaking to those who held out for the fact that Jesus became man and was no longer God. God will always be God.

It is the aspect of being God but setting it aside as Jesus made choices and was tempted just like you and me. He had no advantage over us or I would not aspire to live like Him as I am not God as well. The passage is an inspiration that we can live victorious lives.

The point about talking out of both sides of my mouth is a mystery because we would have to be God to understand Him. I feel that, because He is God, He can do anything. If it is making free-will and predestination both work out - He is able to do it. I realize that in the arena of apologists, that is a poor argument but we will never understand it all until we see Him face-to-face. Posts commended Premendra for this quote:

I attest that Jesus was God and was for all eternity. The quote above rings true here - we have a situation that just can’t be answered. Please, Connect is a most respectable group - always being so gracious but I wonder if there isn’t a bit of giving an answer that cannot be questioned here. I don’t care about numbers but I find it really odd that no one can see what I am saying, even if they don’t agree with my premise that Jesus remained God throughout His manhood but, somehow, lived without having the advantage of never sinning because He was also God. How could He or did He do it, I don’t know. All I feel certain is that He became sin who knew no sin so that I could live as He did without having to be God first.