Philippians 2:7 and the Christology Debate Introduction In AD451, the Council of Chalcedon determined that Jesus Christ was both fully God and fully man, possessing both divine and human natures while remaining one person and substance. However, Chalcedon did not clarify how the two natures related within the one person of Christ. As such, Christ’s metaphysical constitution and, in relation to that, the question of what Paul meant in saying that Christ 'emptied himself' (Phil 2:7), has been debated throughout history. This essay seeks to trace the Christian understanding of Philippians 2:7, by examining the key contributions of scholars over the centuries; and to discuss how the claim that Christ emptied himself ought to inform our Christology. Patristic perspectives In opposition to the Arian heresy that Christ was a created being, and in …show more content…
While the unity of Christ’s person required a communication of natures, the Reformed maintained that they did not permeate each other. Rather, the attributes, which were proper only to themselves, were ascribed to the one person of Christ. To the Lutherans, this seemed to indicate division in Christ’s person. A controversy arose among Lutheran scholars, in their attempt to respond to the claims of the Reformed. Brenz suggested that Christ possessed and used his divine attributes fully, but in secret. However this did not allow for the historical reality of Jesus’ person. Chemnitz argued that, while Christ possessed all the divine attributes, he used only those pertinent to his relations with others during his earthly ministry. Those pertaining to the eternal or infinite were not exercised. This, however, did not allow for the reality of Jesus’ intellectual and spiritual